Articles Tagged ‘Jonathan Cohn’

Harder edge, still vague

Wednesday, September 9th, 2009

President Barack Obama pleased supporters with more of what he’s good at, fiery campaign rhetoric and a firmer-than-usual stance on health care reform.

However, he’s sure to disappoint with little direction or clarity on the biggest stumbling block for the Democratic caucus: the public option.

How did the blogosphere react?

“Barack Obama is a terrific salesman with a bad product,” said HotAir’s Ed Morrissey in his post-speech broadcast. “I think in the end, the Kennedy thing is really going to not work for him. I think that whole sad story at the end of the speech was a downer.”

Blogger DDay reacted positively to the “Spark of Life” in his speech, “I will say that there’s a bit of a harder edge in these remarks, particularly toward out-and-out opponents of reform, the likes of which have disrupted town halls all last month. This follows the fiestiness of Obama’s Labor Day speech to the AFL-CIO.”

Jonathan Cohn, blogging for The New Republic says, “Looks like there’s some news in the speech after all.  Quite a bit.

“On the policy front, President Obama tonight endorses, clearly and unambiguously, a requirement that everybody obtain insurance–that is, an individual mandate. He has not done that before, not this explicitly.”

The newsworthiness of Obama’s noncommittal defense of the public option is questionable, but Cohn also points out, “he also comes down hard–very hard–on opponents who are merely out to defeat reform.”

The Neo Neocon, who might fall under that category, points out some serious flaws in Obama’s tough-guy stance:

(3) He offers still another reiteration of the fact that if you have private health insurance now, you won’t lose it. It will only get better. But he doesn’t answer critics who offer reasons why this is unlikely to be so.

(4) For the uninsured, there will be an insurance exchange. This particular exchange is a nebulous, poorly-explained, and poorly understood entity in terms of how it would actually work. But I am willing to bet that it won’t work … the way it works for members of Congress.

And as for the deficit neutrality? She has this to say: “Of course, it’s technically true that “our deficit will grow” if we do nothing—thanks to Obama. But even the CBO has said that, if the present health care plan is passed, it will make the deficit grow even more.”

Leftie blogger Mahablog shows the danger in blind following: “Not one dime to deficit. OK.”

Because Obama says it’s so, it must be.  many of the blogger’s comments follow a similar strain.

And the Bhuddist’s take on the Boustany rebuttal? “No insurance across state lines. It’s a scam.”

Thanks for all that backing logic.

And the usually loquacious leftie blog Hullabaloo has one quick post-speech post, by tristero - The Whole Point.

picture-41

The right, on the other hand, picked up on South Carolina Rep. Joe Wilson shouted “LIAR!” on Obama’s assertion that illegal immigrants won’t be covered.

Biden shakes his head, Pelosi stares gape-mouthed and Obama stops mid-stride.

Biden shakes his head, Pelosi stares gape-mouthed and Obama stops mid-stride.

Within minutes, the footage excerpt was up on Allahpundit and Gateway Pundit, who also pointed out the back and forth between the president and Sarah Palin on “death panels”.

Tags: , , , , , ,
Posted in Eye on the Media | Start the Discussion

Let’s have a look at that gift horse

Tuesday, July 7th, 2009

The old saying, “Never look a gift horse in the mouth,” has a lot of subtle shades of meaning - especially when you look at the $80 billion PhRMA has put on the table and $155 billion hospital groups are prepared to give up to fund health care reform.

Is the root of the saying that it’s rude to be critical of a gift, or that you won’t like what you see when you check the teeth on that horse?  Or perhaps, if you plan to be skeptical you shouldn’t even accept the gift?

While the left takes these industry commitments - along with the Wal-Mart endorsement - as signs of impending victory, it is important to look at the critical questions a few news organizations are starting to ask.

Politico’s Carrie Budoff Brown pointed out that the hospital deal is less than the $200 Billion Obama suggested cutting from hospital payments.

“There was no way we could tolerate $200 billion,” an industry executive told WaPo’s disgraced reporter Ceci Connolly, writing with Michael D. Shear over the weekend.

Politico’s report continues:

picture-2

Budoff Brown also suggests taking the deal could blunt industry opposition and lobbying against the reform bills.

The two nags together don’t come close to the $2 billion in savings industry groups pledged in May to support reform, Brown points out.

Elsewhere on Politico, David Rogers  takes on the PhRMA offering in particular.

His article Drug deal may be bad trip for Dems suggests the pharmaceutical industry is openly and callously playing the Senate and House reform leaders against each other with the elderly caught in the middle - a new, more humiliating donut hole.

“About 6 million low-income elderly, who had received some drug benefit under Medicaid, were moved into the new Medicare D program in 2006, and this shift effectively freed drug companies of the tougher rebates demanded under Medicaid. ”

Not to mention details of the gift that would require seniors to buy more name-brand drugs instead of generics.
The deal Baucus made with PhRMA in 2003 effectively put $86 billion back in the drugmakers’ pockets, Rogers writes, suggesting this gift really isn’t much of a concession in the first place.

So while the Huffington Post and Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., crow about the new Senate Democrat supermajority making reform fillibuster-proof (not to mention Republican-proof), other’s aren’t so sure about calling the race just yet.

What Carrie Budoff Brown and David Rogers hint at, RedState’s Moe Lane spells out explicitly - Senate Democrats’ 60-vote supposed majority evaporates pretty quickly when you consider industry money-influence in a number of vulnerable 2010 races (in districts John McCain carried, no less).

“That would be Senators Bayh, Bennett, Gillibrand, Lincoln, and Specter, mind you.  After all, none of you are scared of taking a firm position on an issue that’s splitting the country right down the middle, are you?” Lane taunts.

The New Republic’s health care blog, The Treatment, takes on both industry groups, looking for the bad teeth in their bites.

Still, you have to wonder: Could these industries be giving up more? The drug deal, at least, doesn’t look all that great–except, perhaps, to the drug industry. My reading of the agreement–and, to be clear, there’s still a lot of ambiguity here–is that the drug industry has agreed to kick in some of its own money to help fill in the “donut hole” in the Medicare drug benefit.

That’s very nice and will, I think, make it easier for seniors to afford their drugs. But it also seems that, as part of the deal, seniors have to buy more drugs from name-brand manufacturers rather than generics. It’s entirely possible that the name-brand drug industry – that is, the companies represented by PhRMA – could actually come out ahead.

… And in terms of the hospital groups’ offerings, Jonathan Cohn writes:

“On the other hand, it’s not clear whether, perhaps, this is an example of some hospitals effectivelly cutting a deal that hurts others. Insofar as the savings come from reduced payments for charity care–payments that now flow through Medicaid–is this a case in which suburban and speciality hospitals actually do just fine but charity hospitals take a hit?”

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Eye on the Media | Start the Discussion

Parsing the Wal-Mart whopper

Wednesday, July 1st, 2009

Wal-Mart uniting with the Center for American Progress and SEIU to back employer-mandated health care coverage at first sounds like “cats and dogs living together” – until you get into the details.

In Wal-Mart backs health benefits mandate, The Hill’s Jeffrey Young gets close to the answer, but not close enough.

The letter, signed by Wal-Mart President and CEO Mike Duke, SEIU President Andy Stern and CAP’s JohnPodesta, says any employer mandate should not be one-size-fits-all: “We are for shared responsibility. Not every business can make the same contribution, but everyone must make some contribution.”

Another part of the letter opposes requiring employers to contribute to the Medicaid benefits for their low-wage employees - the bulk of Wal-Mart’s 2-million-strong labor force.

If you follow their logic, which seems it would have prompted further questioning - Wal-Mart seems to be exempting themselves under the “not every business can make the same contribution” clause while attempting to hold smaller employers to the “everyone must make some contribution” part.

Meanwhile, the Wonk Room’s Igor Volsky did ask.

“By embracing an employer mandate now, Wal-Mart raises its profile on the issue — not to mention cleanses its tarnished reputation — and helps mold a likely component of health care reform: a requirement that every large employer provide adequate coverage or pay a certain percentage of its payroll towards financing health care for its workers. ”

Volsky goes on to claim that the ‘free rider’ tax “discourages the hiring of lower income workers or workers with disabilities,” yet doesn’t explain that position.

Leave it to more conservative or libertarian blogs to break down Wal-Mart’s break with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and most other business groups.

In Wal-Mart (!) Backs Key Reform Principle, The New Republic’s Jonathan Cohn writes that “many conservatives, not to mention many trade groups, detest the idea–calling it an unconscionable burden on business and overreach of government authority.

“Starting today, those critics are going to have a harder time making their argument stick. And it’s all thanks to Wal-Mart.
…
“Remember, there’s a huge difference between voting for something all businesses oppose and voting for one that includes among its supporters a huge, iconic corporation.

TNR puts a strong emphasis on the letter’s suggestions on reigning in costs– strengthening the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission’s role and a ‘trigger’ mechanism that would forcibly reduce costs or payments at a set if reform fails to control them.

In the conservative blog Reason Hit and Run, Peter Suderman nearly dismisses the letter as a corporate PR move by Wal-Mart, which “has long been the target of complaints that it treats its labor force shabbily.”

“Wal-Mart, the nation’s largest employer, can afford the costs imposed by an employer mandate. Smaller competitors are likely to find it harder.”

Meanwhile, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has taken a hard line on the errant corporation:

“Some businesses make the decision to use the government as a weapon against their competition,” James Gelfand, the Chamber’s senior manager for health policy, said in a statement. “We do not agree with this method — the government is a blunt instrument and taxes have extreme unintended consequences, negatively affecting the economy as a whole. We also recognize that momentum is moving against an employer mandate. The business community will be stepping up our advocacy as necessary, too.”

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Eye on the Media | Start the Discussion

Pundit Jonathan Cohn takes on Patients United Now Campaign

Wednesday, June 3rd, 2009

As we here at HealthcareHorserace.com continue the countdown to the starting gun, we want to take some time to introduce you to the players who will help shape the debate as America and our government consider their options for healthcare reform. Today, we introduce you to Jonathan Cohn of The New Republic. Cohn is no stranger to the Healthcare Horserace and has been quite literally chomping at the bit for this debate to take center stage.

Cohn is both an author and media darling. A former editor-in-chief of the liberal monthly The American Prospect, Cohn has been a senior editor at The New Republic since 1997 where he is the writer of record for TNR’s daily healthcare blog The Treatment. In 2007, Cohn authored Sick: The Untold Story of America’s Health Care Crisis - and the People Who Pay the Price. Sick was nominated for several book awards - winning one from the non-profit World Hunger Year. Cohn is regularly sought after by The Washington Post and The New York Times for comment on health care stories.

Just last week, Cohn fired a warning shot, through The Treatment, at conservative think tank Americans for Prosperity (AFP) over a television ad they produced as part of Patients United Now - a campaign set up to challenge the Democrats on health care reform. At the center of this debate is an advertisement featuring Canadian cancer survivor Shona Holmes (and, it is “Shona” Mr. Cohn, not “Shana” as you refer to her in your blog) decrying the Canadian healthcare system which she believes sentenced her to death when they told her she’d have to wait six months to see a specialist for a cancerous brain tumor she believes would have killed her in that timeframe. Ms. Holmes tells us she is alive today because she was able to travel to the United States to receive “world class treatment” that she would have been denied if America adopted a “Canadian-style healthcare” system.

Mr. Cohn takes offense to AFP’s advertisement on several grounds. First, and foremost, Mr. Cohn is a fierce advocate of what conservatives refer to a “socialized medicine” as evidenced by Sick where he makes the case for the French healthcare system and suggests America adopt a similar universal healthcare policy. Second, Cohn uses his blog to explain to us why the American healthcare system is faulty. Duly noted Mr. Cohn, that is why we’re going to have the Healthcare Horserace in the first place. And, for the record, the AFP advertisement does not defend the American system, it defends patient-doctor relationships and rallies against an uberprescriber decreeing treatment through legislation. Finally, Mr. Cohn narrows his argument to the issue of the “single-payer” healthcare system in which one entity - specifically the federal government - insures everyone directly without the benefit of private insurance companies and consumer choice in what type of plan or coverage they desire. He suggests that no one in Washington has called for a single-payer system like that of Canada and, again, he points to France as a model for American healthcare reform and goes so far as to make a beer analogy comparing Canadian, European and American beers to their respective healthcare policies. Really, Mr. Cohn?

Poorly chosen beer analogy aside, we grant Mr. Cohn his argument - for the moment. The fact of the matter is we don’t know what kind of system the Democrats are going to propose as all of the meetings on this issue have been held behind closed doors. All we have are official statements, a recent Ted Kennedy opinion piece in The Boston Globe, and the words of the affable - yet on more than one occasion woefully uninformed - White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs to go on. California Democrat Henry Waxman (chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce which is one of three committees overseeing this debate) told The Washington Post that many Democrats consider the so-called “public option” - where the federal government would start its own health insurance company to compete with private insurers - is “a compromise by many Democrats who would like to have a single-payer system.”

Get used to hearing the name Jonathon Cohn folks. He’s just one of the many players we’ll be following this summer as the Healthcare Horserace kicks off.

Tags: , , , , , ,
Posted in Eye on the Media | Start the Discussion