Articles Tagged ‘Mike Allen’

Note to Obama: ‘Read the bill’

Monday, September 21st, 2009

If you haven’t read Warner Todd Huston’s quick take on Obama denying the dictionary definition of “tax” it’s worth a visit.

That the president would imply something is a stretch because it has to be looked up in Merriam Webster defies any sense of logic (what because Merriam Webster is some obscure, partisan, slanted source?).

See for yourself:

Perhaps President Obama should have read the bill, which plainly calls the fees an “excise tax,” as Politico reported in Health bill says ‘tax’ when President Obama said ‘not’ by Chris Frates and Mike Allen.

“He could look it up — in the bill,” they write.

Page 29, sentence one of the bill introduced by Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont) says: “The consequence for not maintaining insurance would be an excise tax.”

Villainous Company’s Cassandra writes: “if your name is Barack Obama, you can not only make up your own definitions, but you’re entitled to make up the facts, too!”

And over at No Quarter, Larry Johnson glibly pointed out, “It Depends On What Your Definiton Of “Tax” Is.”

Johnson provides the link as well as a full transcript.

Um, aren’t these EXACTLY the same things OBAMA is planning on doing? Let’s see - he attacked Hillary Clinton during the Primaries by claiming she would fine people who didn’t have insurance. She never said that, but now Obama is. Obama claimed in the campaign that McCain was going to cut money from Medicare and tax people on their insurance, and now Obama is planning on doing both! WTF???

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

Backtracking Barack: Obama to Endorse a Public Option in Prime-time Address

Wednesday, September 9th, 2009

Just days after senior Obama Administration aides signaled to media and Congress that the President did not intend to actively promote a public option, a Politico breaking news report revealed that in a prime-time broadcast address to Congress, he will, indeed, push the public option.

President Barack Obama plans to give a strong endorsement of a public option – or government health-insurance plan – in his remarks to Congress on Wednesday night but will stop short of an ultimatum, leaving wiggle room for negotiation as the bill moves through Congress, according to sources familiar with his remarks.

Politico’s Mike Allen believes that the President Obama’s speech will be similar to the one he presented in Cincinnati on Labor Day, touting the public option as a necessary choice “within that basket of insurance choices” that “will help improve quality and bring down costs.”

Sources confirmed that President Obama will also mention the burden imposed by exploitative malpractice litigation, a move meant to draw support from the Republicans who have long endorsed tort reform as a method of reducing medical costs. The mere mention of tort reform is a risky political move for the White House, especially since trial lawyers have given 79 percent of their campaign donations to Democrats since 1999.

According to a leaked talking points memo from the White House, the President will likely not issue any concrete demands for a reform package, but speak generally about the need for an overhaul of the health care system. He will cite one of his favorite platitudes: millions of people die due to a lack of health care. This notion has been rejected by many in the medical community who argue that people are treated with or without insurance in American hospitals each day.

The President will also use a more partisan tone than his previous attempt at encouraging a harmonious, cooperative Congress. The talking points memo indicates that President Obama will, yet again, denounce the “disinformation” coming from his policy adversaries and radicals at town halls who do not, in his view, represent actual Americans. He will also claim that the Republicans should refrain from criticizing his plan when they have one developed of their own. Note: there have been several GOP bills stemming from both chambers of Congress from conservative lawmakers, including Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC), Congressman Paul Ryan (R-WI), Congressman Tom Price (R-GA… and 31 co-sponsors), etc.

This sudden shift back to the public option might be a result of a small August Recess bounce in approval ratings for the President’s health care reform agenda. According to political strategist Charles Krauthammer on Tuesday night’s Special Report with Bret Baier, this is only thanks to President Obama’s absence from the political scene during these weeks while he was on vacation.

Still, the President will finally showcase their own vision for health care reform after months of waiting in the wings, a move criticized behind closed doors by Congressional lawmakers who sought his participation and assistance in deflecting public disapproval.

Acknowledging a flawed opening strategy, Obama told ABC’s Robin Roberts in an interview aired on “Good Morning America”: “I, out of an effort to give Congress the ability to do their thing and not step on their toes, probably left too much ambiguity out there, which allowed then opponents of reform to come in and to fill up the airwaves with a lot of nonsense ….

“So, the intent of the speech .. is to … make sure that the American people are clear exactly what it is that we are proposing … to make sure that Democrats and Republicans understand that I’m open to new ideas, that we’re not being rigid and ideological about this thing, but we do intend to get something done this year. And … to dispel some of the myths and, frankly, silliness that’s been floating out there for quite some time.”

The White House surely hopes that this prime-time speech, the fifth in less than eight months (President Bush had four during his entire presidency), doesn’t spur “silliness” and free market, patient-centered activism.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Horserace | 1 Comment »

Paying for Reform: Taxing benefits is back on the table

Monday, July 27th, 2009

As reported by Politico’s Mike Allen over the weekend, taxing health benefits to pay for healthcare reform is back on the table and gaining momentum as Democrat lawmakers make a final push to get reform legislation voted on before the August recess. 

According to Allen, “White House officials are embracing a plan to tax “gold-plated, Cadillac” insurance policies, giving momentum to an idea that is receiving bipartisan consideration on Capitol Hill.” (Tax on ‘gold-plated’ health care plans gains ground, Politico)

The plan, which is currently being considered by the Senate Finance Committee appears to be a merging of two less popular revenue schemes previously floated by the House and the Senate HELP (Health Education Labor and Pensions) Committee that called for taxing individuals on their employer-provided health benefits and a surtax on wealthy Americans and small businesses. Instead, the proposal being championed by Senator John Kerry would tax insurance companies or employers who offer high-end insurance plans.

Specifics on the plan itself and which insurance policies might qualify as “gold-plated” are hard to come by, but the concept is gaining support from the White House and “Blue Dog” Democrats who have proven an obstacle to getting legislation out of committee in the House and Senate. Even Senator Chuck Grassley, the senior Republican on the Finance Committee, is said to be “taking an intense look at it,” according to Bloomberg News.

What (President Obama) said was that this was, you know, that this was an intriguing idea to put an excise tax on high end health care policies like the ones that the executives at Goldman Sachs have the $40,000 policies. His big interest is in keeping the yoke of this, the burden of this off of the middle class who are struggling in this the economy. If it meets that test, then he will certainly give it consideration. So I think that is certainly a possibility. There are other possibilities out there as well. (White House advisor David Axelrod on CBS’s Face the Nation. Transcript from CQ Politics)

 

That is a very interesting and promising new development in the discussions. I think the better way to describe it is like this. First of all, this is a free country, you should be able to buy whatever health insurance you want to with your own money. But you should not be able to force your fellow taxpayers to subsidize your choice of these super luxury plans. Reading about one today for Goldman Sachs that is $40,000 per family. That is fine if you want to buy that with your own money but you shouldn’t be able to force middle-income taxpayers to subsidize your decision to buy that policy.

A lot of folks don’t understand today’s very complex tax system which does, in fact, subsidize the policies of the highest income people in America, and really doesn’t give much of a tax break at all to regular working Americans. So I think there is a way to make that tax system a lot fairer than it has been in the past. (”Blue Dog” Democrat Congressman Jim Cooper on CBS’s Face the Nation.  Transcript from CQ Politics)

But conservatives believe going after these high-end insurance policies is nothing more than an indirect tax on consumers with costs ultimately trickling down to the healthcare policies of everyday Americans.

Well, I can tell a lot of these folks (who support the idea) have not been in business. So, if you tax the insurance companies, it’s going to affect the cost of every policy. (Republican Senator Jim DeMint on ABC’s This Week. Transcript from CQ Politics)

Whether the idea is one conservative Republicans can live with may be moot if Democrats can get their “Blue Dog” colleagues in the House on board and win the support of Senator Grassley and liberal Republican Olympia Snowe to vote the bill out of the Finance Committee.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Policy Alternative | Start the Discussion

American Conservative Union AWOL on Healthcare Debate

Wednesday, July 22nd, 2009

Yesterday afternoon David Keene, Chairman of the American Conservative Union, joined conservative bloggers in a conference call to, first, address specifically the issue of an article written by Mike Allen of Politico that accused Keene of being embroiled in a ‘pay-to-play’ scandal with Federal Express, and, secondly, to answer questions on a variety of issues, among them the role, or lack thereof, the ACU will have in the ongoing healthcare debate.

Rather then bore readers with details that are rather complex, not to mention have been talked to death at this point, and, more importantly, have no direct relevancy to the issue or news on healthcare reform, here is the press release, first issued to bloggers taking part in the conference call and later sent to Politico as well, presenting Keene’s side of the story: ACU Press Release: POLITICO GOT IT WRONG,” SAYS ACU CHAIR DAVID A KEENE

Now, let’s get back to healthcare reform.  Healthcarehorserace.com was on the call and was given the opportunity to make the following inquiries during the Q&A segment of the conference call.  The questions are followed by Mr. Keene’s responses to them.  Other questions, including follow-ups to the Politico story, were brought up by other bloggers, all of which can be viewed at Red State News.

Please note that the following responses by Chairman David Keene are merely scribbled down notes and not direct quotes, nor are they to be accepted as such:

Healthcarehorserace.com:  Is the ACU planning anything on the recent health care battle?

David Keene: Yes, and we have to be careful because health care and energy policy are two of the very important parts of the American economy.

Healthcarehorserace.com: Do you think you’ll get any resistance from conservatives over this issue?

David Keene: Well, politics ain’t a beanbag. These things stand and fall on their merits. We try to get the whole movement together.

Healthcarehorserace.com: Can you tell us more about what the ACU is doing on health care?David Keene: We went through this in 1993. Everybody thought Hillarycare was going to pass in 1993. People thought we were going to tinker with it and fix it, then the people turned on it, and the politicians did. The people on the Hill have a two week long time line. You can’t think short term considerations.

There were no clear responses by Chairman Keene addressing the inquiries made in relation to the possibility of the ACU’s involvement in the healthcare debate.  The gave off the impression that he was sidestepping the matter altogether, purposely avoiding having to give a direct answer. It was, however, his reaction to the last healthcare-based question, the one in which he brought up the subject of the 1993 Congressional battle over HillaryCare, that was the most startling and perhaps most damaging to the organization’s role in regards to this issue. Mr. Keene specifically mentioned that the “ACU was the first political organization to actively lead opposition to HillaryCare.”  However, in light of the ACU’s notable absence in the weeks since the highly embroiled battle over ObamaCare began, Keen’es comment seems to be quite counter intuitive in propping up his earlier claim that even after sixteen years, the organization remained quite relevant in the healthcare debate in America, there is no conclusive evidence that the organization will begin to play a role as a grassroots organziation in health care reform.

Many of the prominent bloggers on the call account that it is in the best interest of the conservative movement that the ACU remains absent in the battle against ObamaCare.  John Hawkins, who covered the conference call for Red State News, wrote that even though Chairman Keene, during the conference call, “was warm, personal, completely un-flustered and acted like this was all a silly misunderstanding that he wanted to clear up,” the press release issued after the call contradicted earlier statements made by the organization and stood to only further incriminate individuals such as Mr. Keene and, by association, the ACU and the conservative movement.

Conducting due diligence, Healthcarehorserace.com also checked on Conservative.org to see if there was any 501 c3 or 501 c4 activities on healthcare reform.  None to be found meaning American Conservative Union, “the oldest and largest grassroots, conservative organization” is certainly AWOL on Healthcare debate.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in The Players | Start the Discussion

Online media - stacked or not?

Saturday, June 20th, 2009

June 20, 2009 -

While the Huffington Post has a clear leftist agenda - linking to liberal blogs and slamming Daschle for bipartisanship and transmitting Dems’ claims without even a residue of salt, Politico seems to take a more even tone.

No outlet yet has asked the administration to back up claims that a public option won’t lead to a single payer system or that you will be able to keep your doctor or current plan if you like it. No one has even asked them to back up claims that individuals might be happy with their health plan.

Huffington Post’s Ryan Grim – ryan@huffingtonpost.com -  just about fell over himelf in efforts to praise House Democrats’ health care plan:

The Democratic Party showed on Friday what it’s capable of when led by the majority of its members rather than its conservative wing. …
Henry Waxman, Charlie Rangel and George Miller, chairs of the Energy & Commerce, Ways & Means and Education & Labor Committees, announced the result of six months of negotiations. The sight of three united committee chairmen in the turf-conscious House is a historically rare one.

Grim goes on to describe the public health care proposal by these Dems as a “robust” plan that can “compete with private insurers on a level playing field to keep them honest.”

He then accepts whole cloth Rangel’s statement that the plan would protect 95 percent of Americans without costing more than an unspecified upfront infusion – and somehow pays for itself.

As far as the “level Playing Field” argument goes, radical left columnist Dan Lipsher inadvertently put it best when he said in the same breath that the government option would pay 100 percent of what the government said your healthcare should cost.  Sounds fair to us.

Perhaps the reason Dems are not responding to Republican monopoly concerns is that there is no response? They just hope people won’t ask probing questions about the reality of President Obama’s claims that you can keep your beloved current insurance plan.

Meanwhile, Politico.com’s Carrie Budoff Brown - House Dems release health care outline - offered at least a non-partisan look at the Democrats’ new plan, by actually detailing what it does, rather than sucking up to the presenters.

“The outline did not include details on how Democrats would pay for the plan,” is her second paragraph.

And she describes it as “more liberal” than what Senators are considering.

Another article by Mike Allen and Jim Vandehei - How Obama could lose the health fight - takes a similarly even tone on the horserace aspect.

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