August 10-13, 2009
Aug 10 02:33 Qualified Health Benefits Plans Aug 10 13:29 SEIU = ThugsAreUs Aug 12 02:35 They'll Never Learn Aug 12 10:21 ObamaCare Scaring Seniors Aug 12 13:21 'Windy Wendy' Thinks TPaw Making Mistake Aug 12 14:14 Mr. President Or Mr. Pinocchio? Aug 12 16:36 Is Sen. Berglin Really Sen. Go-It-Alone? Aug 13 12:46 Toomey's Momentum Building Aug 13 02:39 That's What Happened?
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul
Qualified Health Benefits Plans
In recent weeks, the Democrats have said that people with an acceptable health care plan could keep their insurance. That's been frequently disputed and refuted on the Right Blogosphere. Nonetheless, for the sake of this discussion, let's stipulate that it hasn't been refuted.
We've also heard Democrats say that they don't want anything or anyone to step in between the patient and their physician. In Section 122 of HR 3200 , they list the things that must be covered to be considered a "qualified health benefits plan." Here's what must be included to qualify for a "qualified health benefits plan":
Minimum Services To Be Covered- The items and services described in this subsection are the following:That isn't the end of the qualifications. Here's a section that bothers me:
(1) Hospitalization.
(2) Outpatient hospital and outpatient clinic services, including emergency department services.
(3) Professional services of physicians and other health professionals.
(4) Such services, equipment, and supplies incident to the services of a physician's or a health professional's delivery of care in institutional settings, physician offices, patients' homes or place of residence, or other settings, as appropriate.
(5) Prescription drugs.
(6) Rehabilitative and habilitative services.
(7) Mental health and substance use disorder services.
(8) Preventive services, including those services recommended with a grade of A or B by the Task Force on Clinical Preventive Services and those vaccines recommended for use by the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
(9) Maternity care.
(10) Well baby and well child care and oral health, vision, and hearing services, equipment, and supplies at least for children under 21 years of age.
(1) IN GENERAL- There is established a private-public advisory committee which shall be a panel of medical and other experts to be known as the Health Benefits Advisory Committee to recommend covered benefits and essential, enhanced, and premium plans.In other words, H.R. 3200 establishes a bureaucracy that regulates the definition of a Qualified Health Benefits Plan.
(2) CHAIR- The Surgeon General shall be a member and the chair of the Health Benefits Advisory Committee.
(3) MEMBERSHIP- The Health Benefits Advisory Committee shall be composed of the following members, in addition to the Surgeon General:
(A) 9 members who are not Federal employees or officers and who are appointed by the President.
(B) 9 members who are not Federal employees or officers and who are appointed by the Comptroller General of the United States in a manner similar to the manner in which the Comptroller General appoints members to the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission under section 1805(c) of the Social Security Act.
(C) Such even number of members (not to exceed 8) who are Federal employees and officers, as the President may appoint.
If Democrats wanted nothing getting between a patient and their physician, why is there such a list of federally-imposed regulations on what is or isn't a qualified health benefits plan? One possible answer is that they want this commission to establish what isn't a qualified policy. That way, the gutless politicians can claim that they didn't push people into the public option, that they passed well-intentioned legislation, then blame 'Washington bureaucrats' for the mess that they created.
For years, conservatives have been pushing cafeteria-style plans that let a patient and their physician sit down and figure out what coverages are high priorities and which coverages are less important. The health care consumer then figures out what their budget is and buys a policy that fits him/her and their family best.
That's something that I discussed with Paul Ryan in this post :
2. Shouldn't people, working in concert with their physician, have the option of putting together a customized health insurance policy ?It's never been the Democrats' goal to eliminate obstacles that get in the way of the doctor-patient relationship. It's been about controlling people's lives. Democrats are, by nature, control freaks. I don't say that vindictively. It's purely observational. That's why they love putting massive amounts of mandates into every bit of legislation they write. It's genetic.
Yes ; that's a great idea and just the type of innovative thinking we don't want the federal government to squash. Patients have different needs, and that's exactly why health insurance shouldn't be run by the federal government. The government does not know what is best for patients. Patients and doctors should be able to make decisions together about the types of health plans that best suit their individual needs. That concept is exactly what motivated the Patients' Choice Act . We don't want the federal government taking over these decisions, and we want to show people that there is another way that allows the individual to maintain control over these personal decisions.
Republicans are fighting to give people lots of options, including a custom-built policy that the health care consumer and their physician put together. The Democrats are pushing for a regulation-infested plan that limits options, inflates the deficit and that pushes people into rationing.
Which sounds more appealing to you? Make your voices heard because now's the time for choosing.
Posted Monday, August 10, 2009 2:38 AM
Comment 1 by eric zaetsch at 10-Aug-09 08:20 AM
Gary, that's not a plan. That's carping over one.
What's the GOP answer, besides stall and push to keep the sorry status quo?
I realize that's an oversimplification of all the sophistry. But, it is the gist.
What, Gary, is the GOP alternative plan?
What terms and conditions?
How financed?
What firm future cost containment proposals do the GOP make? Be specific.
What is the GOP position on age discrimination and preexistent condition exclusionary practices currently practiced by private sector insurance companies?
I am unaware of any. Do you know what I do not?
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 10-Aug-09 10:13 AM
Eric, The PCA's cost is born by individuals, not through taxes. Ryan's reform is based on truly getting the government out of being the arbiter between the physician and the health care consumer. It lets people set their own priorities instead of letting government tell them what their priorities should be.
It's based on the belief that people, acting after consulting with an expert, make better decisions for their families than does a disinterested DC bureaucrat.
Real reform isn't possible if the government sets down page after page of assinine regulation. Each mandate drives up the cost of the insurance premium.
The GOP is opposed to people being denied health insurance because they have a pre-existing condition. That's been their position for a decade.
Comment 3 by Alec at 10-Aug-09 10:45 PM
It has been the GOP's position for a decade that pre-existing conditions shouldn't disqualify someone? Really? Then you are either incompetent or lying. The GOP had all three branches of government for almost 8 years! Nothing was stopping them from realizing their position.
Comment 4 by Alec at 10-Aug-09 10:50 PM
In the system right now, a bureaucrat from a health insurance company makes decisions about our health in consultation with his actuary tables.
The insurance companies make money by denying care. Do you honestly think a free market entity is going to quit trying to make money?
A corporations job and responsibility to their stock holders is make as much profit as they can. Providing care is a liability for insurance companies. Is that who you want making your medical decisions?
Comment 5 by Dennis Elliott at 11-Aug-09 08:13 AM
In the late 19th century, insurance companies were numerous and activity was extreme with players entering the market at an ever increasing rate until competition became cutthroat. Many states saw this as a tax windfall and used those powers unmercifully and, at the same time, imposed large numbers of regulations that were highly variable between the states. State supervision was in many cases ignorant and corrupt as well. The companies were trapped between extremely high competition and equally high government-imposed costs and petitioned Congress for relief through a national regulation scheme with basic standards that they could all work under. This was stymied by a Scotus decision (Paul vs, Virginia, 1868) which essentially ruled that insurance was a contract as opposed to commerce and, hence couldn't be controlled by the national government. The Gordian Knot of state control continued. (This information is from The Triumph of Conservatism by Gabriel Kolko).
Assuming that the industry is still under that ruling and that fact is responsible for at least part of the cost problem (That every insurance company has to set up separately under the regulations imposed by each state it wants to do business in) it seems like that might be a good place to start to reduce costs. That is, untie the knot that restricts companies to state regulation.
I worked for the Federal Government and our insurance allowed us to choose from a bewildering array of companies and plans and the costs seemed to be fairly reasonable because of that competition. I believe this is the same plan that Congress is under.
With this as background, I think the Feds setting some basic ground rules could be in order as long as the purpose for them is to move to a position where insurance companies could offer their products nationwide. This would offer the competitive situation the Fed employees and Congress Critters have. The standards should be a basic entry level package that most anyone could afford.
The current proposal offers a Premium+ package for no other purpose than control of the system. Wrong strategy;wrong goal;wrong package.
Comment 6 by Jim at 19-Aug-09 06:48 PM
the patients choice act...the government doesn't know what's best, i agree. but, how can conservatives reconcile their current position of - the government doesn't should get in the way of an individual and their reaction to terri schiavo?
thanks for the posts!
SEIU = ThugsAreUs
Last week, the DNC said that Republicans were upset that they lost the election, they lost on stimulus, etc., and that the angry mob was back to stop health care reform dead in its tracks. Conservatives like me wondered quietly whether the DNC was projecting with that last statement on what seniors could expect if ObamaCare passes.
After the DNC's declaration, Kenneth Gladney attended a Russ Carnahan townhall event to sell "Don't Tread On Me" flags. Instead of being allowed to sell his flags, Mr. Gladney was kicked repeatedly by SEIU thugs, injuring him so badly that he's still in a wheelchair. (The Party of Tolerance strikes again, this time literally.)
What threat did Gladney pose to the SEIU? Kenneth Gladney didn't even go into the meeting. He sold his flags outside the meeting hall. Pay attention America. That incident says everything about the SEIU's priorities and methodology. The SEIU is willing to do whatever the Democratic leadership asks them to do.
It's time that rank-and-file Democrats, the ones who are still sane and with traditional values, wake up. They're part of a party of thugs and Blame America First types. Nancy Pelosi, Rahm Emanuel and President Obama don't share their priorities.
Pelosi's, Emanuel's and Obama's are Saul Alinsky's beliefs. They aren't main street America's beliefs. In fact, I'd bet that there wouldn't have been an Obama administration had Main Street America realized what radical beliefs that trio had.
The SEIU leadership shares those beliefs, which is why they're in the thug business. They're into intimidating meeting-goers and beating up black conservatives like Kenneth Gladney. They didn't hesitate when their leaders told them to interfere with the meeting-goers' First Amendment rights.
By the way, there's other names for meeting-goers: constituents and their bosses. After all, Russ Carnahan, Nancy Pelosi and President Obama work for us, not vice versa. It seems that they've lost sight of that. It's time that they relearned that lesson.
If I'm right, and the videos indicate I am, We The People appear more than willing to teach them lesson.
Posted Monday, August 10, 2009 1:33 PM
Comment 1 by Political Muse at 10-Aug-09 02:25 PM
That is weird, because the video shows that Gladney was on the ground for about two seconds, there is no one kicking him, and is seen walking around for the rest of the video. Not to mention the union member who is on the ground at the beginning of the video before Gladney ever reaches the ground. Why no curiosity about his situation? You conveniently leave some of these things out. Maybe that is why you didn't put the video up:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s3aTQt1XEWY
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 10-Aug-09 02:30 PM
Actually, I've watched the video. I've seen the bruises on his chest. These thugs & the SEIU union will be paying him a fistful of dollars after his lawsuit is settled.
Comment 2 by Political Muse at 10-Aug-09 02:37 PM
Really, because he never takes off his shirt in the video. Evidence, please? I call bullshit...
Comment 3 by Gary Gross at 11-Aug-09 03:08 AM
Call it whatever you want. I don't care.
Comment 4 by eric zaetsch at 11-Aug-09 08:32 AM
Gladney, isn't he one of the multitude of poor son of a bitches, unlike you apparently, Gary, without any healthcare coverage under the status quo you appreciate? That FACT has come to light, has it not? He has his begging hat out now, for contributions, he's unemployed and without coverage and facing medical costs he cannot pay? All true, or not?
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/08/10/gladney-uninsured/
Of the things in the debate mix, do you disagree with any of the following:
1- There are millions of uninsured, and thousands lose coverage weekly these days with the economy down.
2- Costs are rising at rates that require something to be done.
3- Private sector coverage, the insurance bloc, has adopted the widespread practice of denying coverage for preexistent conditions.
4- Per the status quo, you lose your job the probability will be you lose [or cannot afford to continue to carry] coverage.
5- Those having to bankrupt themselves and seek bankruptcy court relief because of medical expenses will not be underwritten by the insurance bloc.
6- The MSNBC term for the GOP and Blue Dogs, "Insurance Agents" has a ring of truth, they are acting as the representatives of that trade bloc.
7- The insurance bloc has spent millions on present members of the House and Senate, and since Truman's time has stymied healthcare reform, even being vigorously against Medicare and Medicaid when those measures were enacted.
Comment 5 by eric zaetsch at 11-Aug-09 08:43 AM
Gary, you've not posted it, but I think Pelosi and Hoyer were out of line calling the organized protest effort "un-American." In the give and take of free speech yelling has a place, (to frequently on FOX but that's a separate debate), and while civil quiet discourse should prevail in legislative arenas a bit of public raised-voice emotion can be legitimate [as well as orchestrated and staged with that aspect of things part of the free speech debate itself].
But Pelosi and Hoyer, with that approach they stoop to the Bachmann level of rhetoric. It is as divisive and non-productive with them as with Bachmann, it was error, and they should apologize and move on.
Comment 6 by eric zaetsch at 11-Aug-09 08:48 AM
In terms of "main street beliefs" I believe the Conyers bill captures that more than the compromise measure - that people in a majority want single payer, not public option. People think that little of the insurance industry, and the insurance industry has earned the disapprobation. In spades. They've been petty nickle-and-dime deceivers. With the nickles and dimes adding up to millions for them, grief for that massive uninsured bloc, and they and the provider community play games while the situation is falling apart.
Toomey's Momentum Building
Anyone thinking that the health care debate is helping Democrats need only read this post from Salena Zito to have that notion refuted. Here's the bad news for Democrats:
From Rasmussen Report:When Benedict Arlen switched parties, he did so because he was getting his backside handed to him in the potential GOP primary matchup. I suspect Sen. Specter was expecting a coronation. That's clearly not happening.
These figures reflect a dramatic reversal since June. At that time, before the public health care debate began, Specter led Toomey by 11.
Just 43 percent now have a favorable opinion of Specter, while 54 percent offer an unfavorable assessment of the longtime GOP senator who became a Democrat rather than face Toomey in a party primary. Those numbers have reversed since June when 53 percent had a favorable opinion of him.
The current figures include 15 percent with a Very Favorable opinion of Specter and 36 percent with a Very Unfavorable view.
Specter has found himself front and center in the health care debate just as support for the reform plan proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats has fallen to new lows nationwide. In Pennsylvania, 42 percent of voters support the plan, while 53 percent are opposed.
Those who like the congressional health care plan favor Specter 70 percent to 9 percent for Toomey. Those who are against the legislative effort oppose Specter and give Toomey an 82 percent to 9 percent advantage.
If Congressman Joe Sestak is the Democratic nominee instead of Specter, Toomey still leads but by a smaller margin. The polling shows 43 percent for Toomey and 35 percent for Sestak. In June, Sestak had a six-point edge over Toomey.
I suspect Sen. Specter is having trouble because this just isn't a triangulation election. I suspect that, when history writes the final chapter on this election, they'll note that this election was mostly about credibility or the Democrats' lack thereof. I further suspect that this election will be about whether the candidate is seen as fiscally responsible.
Rasmussen's polling is perfectly understandable in this context.
Those aren't the only bad numbers for Sen. Specter and Rep. Sestak. These numbers aren't likely to put a smile on their faces, either:
Toomey is viewed favorably by 54 percent, Sestak by 40 percent. However, opinions of both men are quite soft. Just 13 percent have a Very Favorable opinion of Toomey, and only 8 percent say the same about Sestak. On the negative side, 11 percent have a Very Unfavorable opinion of Toomey, and an identical number are that negative about Sestak.Rep. Toomey's support might be a bit soft but it's majority support nonetheless. If I'm Rep. Sestak, I can't be happy that a turncoat like Arlen Specter has 61% support in the Democratic primary. If this trend continues, it might mean that Democrats might be confronted with a meltdown of support in Pennsylvania. Honestly, if they don't change the dynamics with appealing substantive proposals, that scenario could play out in Florida, Ohio and Michigan, too.
Sestak trails Specter by 13 points in the race for the Democratic nomination.
Specter, a longtime GOP senator, switched parties and became a Democrat in April just after a Rasmussen Reports poll in the state showed him trailing Toomey by 21 points in a likely Republican Senate primary match-up. Specter's team initially dismissed the poll, but later acknowledged that one of the reasons he changed parties was a fear that he might lose his own party's nomination.
Particularly damaging to Specter among Pennsylvania Republicans was his vote for President Obama's economic stimulus plan, one of only three cast by Republicans for it.
Eighty percent of Republican voters now favor Toomey in a match-up with Specter, up from 68 percent two months ago. Specter draws 61 percent of the Democratic vote, down from 74 percent in June.
One thing that hasn't been discussed is the Obama factor on these races. His declining popularity is making Democrats rethink their re-election strategies. People aren't willing to support an unpopular president , especially on such a highly passionate issue as health care reform.
Another thing that isn't getting discussed is the 'Pelosi Factor'. The definition of the Pelosi Factor is Ms. Pelosi's dictatorial rule in the House. People aren't buying into the notion that the health care bill has to get passed ASAP. People would rather get this reform right.
While I'll quickly admit that this doesn't directly affect the PA senatorial race, I'd argue that it's part of the general atmospheric of this cycle. People noticed Speaker Pelosi's dictatorial management style during the stimulus debate. That's been re-inforced during the health care debate.
Democrats don't want to admit it but Americans believe in checks and balances. If a party owned the White House, the House and the Senate, they need to exercise a little common sense. If they do, they can sustain their majority. If that group started overreaching, which this group has done, that majority likely is in its final days.
Put all these things together and you have the conditions where Pat Toomey is leading an incumbent senator.
Posted Thursday, August 13, 2009 12:49 PM
No comments.
They'll Never Learn
The last couple of legislative sessions, Gov. Tim Pawlenty has totally schooled Sen. Larry Pogemiller and Margaret Anderson-Kelliher. The DFL's Dynamic Duo recently invited Gov. Pawlenty to a summit to discuss legislative solutions. Last night, Gov. Pawlenty responded:
Thank you for your recent letter regarding plans for a "Minnesota Leadership Summit" in early September.Gov. Pawlenty's line that there's already an annual "Minnesota Leadership Summit" is priceless. It's the perfect reminder that there's a lack of DFL leadership in St. Paul. (Perhaps that, along with having to work with Sen. Pogemiller, is what drove Tarryl into the CD-6 race?)
My Administration and I are declining to participate in your summit. As we have witnessed over the past year, DFL legislators have done a thorough job of admiring our state's budget difficulties, but have refused or been unable to take action to address them.
The state already has an annual "Minnesota Leadership Summit." It's called the legislative session and it lasts approximately five months. This past year, rather than taking timely and decisive action to deal with our budget deficit, the Legislature's DFL leadership wasted the first few months of the session. Passage of your final budget bills in the last few minutes before midnight on the final day of the session was indicative of how you managed the situation.
Rather than calling together former legislators and governors to rehash already established concerns, the Legislature's time would be better spent coming up with reasonable solutions, negotiating with my Administration and having them signed into law.
The reality is that the DFL hasn't had any new ideas in years. The fact that they keep pushing tax increases while touting the fact that there are 19 Fortune 500 companies in Minnesota rings hollow. People know that the headquarters are still here buy the manufacturing parts have left. People know that VitalMedix left because the DFL leadership refused to pass Keith Downey's proposal as a standalone bill.
Speaker Kelliher had the roughest year of her time of her speakership last year. She seamed to wear down towards the end of the session, perhaps because of the discord amongst her legislators. ( Reps. Pelowski and Poppe refused to walk the plank for Speaker Kelliher on the Tax Bill this year.)
Gov. Pawlenty offered numerous reform proposals, each of which was shot down by the DFL shot down. I'm glad that Gov. Pawlenty didn't give them the time of day because the only thing it would've 'accomplished' was that it would've legitimized Speaker Kelliher and Sen. Pogemiller as statesmen to John Q. Public.
They don't deserve that after the stunts that they've tried pulling this session. It's time Gov. Pawlenty exposed them as lacking the requisite leadership skills to run Minnesota's legislature.
Posted Wednesday, August 12, 2009 2:35 AM
Comment 1 by Leslie Hittner at 12-Aug-09 03:45 AM
While I agree that the legislature failed in their primary responsibility, the Governor cannot get off the hook quite so easily. He clearly does not understand the meaning of "summit" in a political environment. It's a meeting of different "leaders." Is Governor Pawlenty saying that he is no longer a "leader." That's a lame duck attitude the state of Minnesota could do without.
At some point the legislature and - yes - our Governor - need to stop playing politics and do what we elected them to do.
Lead!
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 12-Aug-09 08:22 AM
Leslie, The message that Gov. Pawlenty is sending is that Kelliher & Pogemiller aren't leaders. They played politics for all but 3.5 weeks, essentially to force a special session.
Pundits thought that that was the only way they could get a tax increase passed.
Comment 2 by J. Ewing at 12-Aug-09 07:34 AM
Count on these two court jesters and their cohorts to now roundly criticize the Governor, once again, for refusing to "negotiate" (that is, capitulate). I think Minnesotans are catching on, with the Governor's help, as to how ludicrous this pair, and by extension the whole DFL, really is.
ObamaCare Scaring Seniors
According to Rasmussen's recent polling , seniors are being scared by President Obama's proposed Medicare cuts:
The most ominous signal yet for the Obama healthcare plan emerged in the poll by Scott Rasmussen released today. While public support for the plan fell to a new low (42 percent support, 53 percent oppose, down five points in two weeks), the elderly emerged as the strongest opposition group. Those over 65 rejected the plan by 39-56 while almost half, 46 percent, said they were "strongly opposed" to it.All the townhalls in the world won't shift those numbers. It's time that the Democrats stopped with their drive for a single-payer health care plan.
Claire McCaskill and Arlen Specter found out firsthand Tuesday that people simply don't trust DC politicians. Some people cited the fact that President Obama and the Democrat leadership pushed the stimulus bill through without reading it, saying it had to be passed to avert a catastrophe. People were upset that President Obama signed the bill 5 days later in Denver during an elaborate photo op.
It hasn't helped that people are mocking this administration for having expiration dates on its campaign promises. If President Obama and the Democrats don't start moderating their policies ASAP, they'll be facing these angry mobs the first Tuesday in November, 2010 instead of in townhall meetings.
Posted Wednesday, August 12, 2009 10:24 AM
Comment 1 by eric zaetsch at 12-Aug-09 10:43 AM
Public option and single payer are not the same thing. I object to the concessions to Big Insurance and its lobbyists in that public option is, unlike Medicare which seniors have and like, a retrenchment from single payer which is something that wise elderly people do not want retrenched any more than has already happened. You misread a mood favoring single payer, and upset over the no-CHANGE bait and switch game that public option represents.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 12-Aug-09 12:07 PM
The public option isn't single-payer. It's just a step towards single-payer.
I don't understand why you think "Big Insurance" is a villain. They aren't villains. They're capitalists who want to make money & employ people.
'Windy Wendy' Thinks TPaw Making Mistake
According to this KSTP article , former Gov. Wendy Anderson thinks Gov. Pawlenty is making a mistake by not attending the sham summit that Sen. Pogemiller and Speaker Kelliher have put together:
"I think it's a mistake. If you want to run for national office, I think it's important to pay attention to your home base and I think it's important back home to be bi-partisan," Anderson said.Former Gov. Anderson is assuming that both parties have something to contribute in terms of leadership. Unfortunately, that isn't reality these days. Sen. Pogemiller isn't a leader. He's an obnoxious bully. Speaker Kelliher isn't a leader, either. If she were, she would've undercut Sen. Pogemiller. Sen. Pogemiller wasn't interested in solving Minnesota's financial difficulties. He wasn't interested in finding common sense solutions.
By not challenging Sen. Pogemiller, Speaker Kelliher is either saying she agrees with Sen. Pogemiller or she isn't a leader. (Personally, I think it's because she agrees with Sen. Pogemiller but that's another story.)
Former Gov. Anderson isn't the only politician who's expressing disappointment:
The summit idea came from former Republican Gov. Arne Carlson, who told 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS Tuesday that Pawlenty is wrong to pass. "I'm perplexed. But if he chooses not to go, that's his prerogative, but it's not his prerogative to opt out of the discussion," Carlson said via phone.Gov. Carlson is entitled to his opinion but he's wrong. If Gov. Carlson wanted to hold a serious-minded summit, he's a decade late.
This summit is nothing more than a PR ploy:
Details of the summit have not been announced, but it will most likely be a private meeting outside the glare of the media.Let me explain why I said what I just said. The first telltale sign that it's still a PR ploy is the fact that it doesn't appear to have an agenda. The reality is that its agenda is to have Sen. Pogemiller and Speaker Kelliher lead one round of attack after another against Gov. Pawlenty and the House GOP caucus.
If they wanted a true summit, they'd hold everyone's feet to the fire. That won't happen during this summit because it'll be Gov. Pawlenty vs. a roomful of liberals. Who will hold the liberals accountable? Who will factcheck the DFL's whoppers? You know that they'll try that because it's part of their eternal playbook of tricks.
If this summit was televised and if this summit was moderated by someone like Tom Hauser, then it might get taken seriously. Until then, it's as useful as your typical presidential commission, which is close to worthless.
Posted Wednesday, August 12, 2009 1:21 PM
Comment 1 by R-Five at 12-Aug-09 07:39 PM
Reverse the party designations and a DFL governor would be just as right to tell the GOP legislature to pound sand. Press coverage would obviously be favorable, though.
The only significant question now is: will the DFL let Pogemiller, Kelliher, et al continue to fail for yet another session?
Comment 2 by R-Five at 12-Aug-09 07:43 PM
p.s. I hope so!
Mr. President Or Mr. Pinocchio?
Much has been made about President Obama's townhall meeting in Portsmouth, NH yesterday. This article in Politico contains a quote from President Obama at the townhall that needs scrutinizing. Here's President Obama's quote:
At his Tuesday town hall event in New Hampshire, President Barack Obama made a point to reach out to seniors, noting the low support in polls for his health care proposals. "We are not talking about cutting Medicare benefits," Obama said, trying to assuage the audience.As Ed points out in this post , there's a method to President Obama's apparent insanity:
But Obama is talking about finding hundreds of billions in savings from Medicare, cuts supporters say will trim fat from the program, including slashing $156 billion in subsidies to Medicare Advantage, a privately administered Medicare program.
In fact, Medicare Advantage is a Godsend for those trapped within the Medicare system. Recipients pay substantial monthly premiums, but the plan allows for better provider payments, which keep providers from locking patients out of their clinics. The extended insurance provides coverage for services which Medicare ignores, and some create a co-payment system rather than the 60/40 system Medicare gives seniors and the disabled in practice.Anyone who's followed Ed's blogging knows that Ed's beloved First Mate had to deal with one major health crisis after another. Many is the time Ed's asked for prayer for the First Mate's health. In short, Ed's got instant, and total, credibility with me. But I digress.
How do I know this? The First Mate has Medicare Advantage, and we saw what Medicare did before we got the supplemental coverage. It's a disaster for anyone needing anything more than just maintenance care.
President Obama says that he isn't talking about cutting Medicare. I actually agree with him. In fact, I'd argue that the last thing he wanted to talk about was cutting Medicare. I'd argue that he wanted to avoid talking about his proposed cuts because he knows seniors don't like his proposal :
Under pressure to pay for his ambitious reshaping of the nation's healthcare system, President Obama today will outline $313 billion in Medicare and Medicaid spending cuts over the next decade to help cover the cost of expanding coverage to tens of millions of America's uninsured. The proposal comes on top of more than $634 billion in new revenue Obama suggested reserving for healthcare in his February budget plan.President Obama still hasn't told us how he'd cut Medicare funding by $300,000,000,000, a 10 percent cut, while Medicare enrollment is increasing by 30 percent at the same time. That's before telling us how understaffed nursing staffs and overworked doctors will deal with 46,000,000 new patients.
That's before President Obama admits the fact that his Medicare cuts are cuts in government expenditures, not cost-savings gleaned from a more efficient system that then get passed along to Medicare's customers, namely senior citizen John Q. Public types.
Among the proposed policy changes outlined by the president are:Hospitals are already getting shortchanged by Medicare. That's a big driver in the hospitals' cost-shifting.
The president described the proposals as "common sense changes" that could make the system more efficient.
- Reductions in payments to providers to reflect increased efficiencies in the system, which the White House estimates could save $110 billion over the next decade.
- Cuts in federal subsidies to hospitals that treat large populations of uninsured patients, estimated to save $106 billion over the next decade.Cuts in how much the federal government pays pharmaceutical companies to provide prescription drugs to seniors and others, estimated to save $75 billion over the next decade.
Posted Wednesday, August 12, 2009 2:17 PM
No comments.
Is Sen. Berglin Really Sen. Go-It-Alone?
Based on an email I just got, I'm questioning whether Sen. Linda Berglin shouldn't be referred to as Sen. Go-It-Alone from now on. Since Rep. Huntley is Sen. Berglin's co-chair , I'd suggest that he be referred to as Rep. Go-It-Alone going forward. Here's what the email said:
Message from Lynda BoudreauThis email was sent in response to this email:
Wed, 12, Aug 2009 09:28:47
GOP HHS members ,
See response from Senate staff to Jenn Holcomb regarding the GAMC working group.
Lynda
Jenn,Thank You, Shannon, for telling us that health care lobbyists were invited to the GAMC working group's informal hearing in advance but that Republican committee members didn't confirm that such a meeting was being held until 9:30 this morning. Shannon's email reveals what the DFL's priorities are.
There is no official composition of this working group. You are correct that it is an informal working group to discuss possible next steps to fix the GAMC situation. We did send an email out to quite a few health care lobbyists asking if there were interested to attending, but did not send a notice out to the listserv. I hope this helps!
S
Shannon M. Anderson
Committee Administrator
Health and Human Services Budget Division
What's wrong with that picture?
This is totally believable because lobbyists are the DFL's primary constituents. I won't pretend like the wishes of DFL in-district constituents are their primary constituents because I've seen too many examples of the DFL being swayed by DFL-friendly lobbyists.
It's important that I be perfectly clear about something: I'm not anti-lobbyist. What I'm opposed to is lobbyists having more sway with committee members than do the legislators' in-district constituents.
MN House Discussion on General Assistance Medical CareSen. Berglin and Rep. Huntley better answer these questions:
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
General Assistance Medical Care Working Group
Chairs: Sen. Linda Berglin and Rep. Thomas Huntley
3 p.m. Room 123 Capitol
Agenda: Informal discussion about the next steps for General Assistance Medical Care
- Why are you calling this meeting if it's just you talking with lobbyists?
- What is the work product gleaned from this meeting?
- Why were lobbyists included in the meeting?
- Why weren't Republican members of the committee invited in advance?
- Was this just a strategy session with lobbyists aimed at criticizing Gov. Pawlenty?
Though I haven't gotten corroboration on this, it's my hunch that this 'informal hearing' was really a DFL meeting with lobbyists with the intent being how they would attack Gov. Pawlenty.
When the Cherrypicked Testimony Tour visited St. Cloud , one testifier said that she didn't "have anything to add since I saw you yesterday at the Capitol." I don't remember the person's name or organization but I remember talking with Luke Yurczyk, the SD-14 Republican Party chairman, about that stunning admission. This Jane Q. Public type citizen was actually depending on the State budget to fund her organization. It was obvious to me that she also doubled as a lobbyist for the organization.
The DFL has tried pinning the Mr. Go-It-Alone moniker on Gov. Pawlenty since he announced that he wasn't letting the DFL to drag us into an unnecessary special session. The truth is that the DFL has gotten away with that mantra for a couple years. During the 2007 session, the House DFL defeated 95 percent of all GOP amendments and legislation .
It's time that the people of Minnesota heard that disturbing statistic. It's time that Minnesotans found out that the DFL isn't about solutions, that they're only about acquiring more power in St. Paul. That's unacceptable.
As unacceptable as hearing that the people's representatives weren't welcome to a meeting but lobbyists were welcome.
Originally posted Wednesday, August 12, 2009, revised 13-Aug 2:16 AM
No comments.
That's What Happened?
The headline for this article simply isn't credible for people who paid attention to President Obama's townhall meeting. Here's the story's headline:
Obama takes reins of health debateThat's a great headline if you're working for Linda Douglass but it doesn't have anything to do with reality. Considering the fact that Robert Gibbs is saying that President Obama simply misspoke when he said that AARP had endorsed the plan, it isn't a stretch to say that ObamaCare suffered a self-inflicted wound. Here's a perfect example of why President Obama is losing this fight:
President Obama launched a personal effort to reclaim the momentum for his health care initiative on Tuesday with a direct rebuttal of what he called "scare tactics," rumors and misrepresentations.I've said before what I'll say now: the American people are so interested in this debate that many are reading the bill for themselves. This Army of Davids knows more about the bill than do congressional Democrats who've hit the townhall circuit. They've read articles about President Obama when he proposed $313,000,000,000 worth of Medicare cuts. They've done the math and concluded that there will be rationing. That's the logical conclusion people reach when the Medicare budget is cut by 10 percent while Medicare enrollment is increasing by 30 percent.
At a town hall that had the feel of a campaign rally, administration officials sought to tap the skill in confronting public doubts and fears that helped Obama win the White House.
"Every time we come close to passing health insurance reform, the special interests fight back with everything they've got," Obama told a civil but not necessarily friendly crowd of 1,800. "They use their influence. They use their political allies to scare and mislead the American people. They start running ads. This is what they always do. We can't let them do it again. Not this time. Not now."
President Obama unwittingly hurt the cause with this unscripted quip:
And he said that a government-run option should not kill private insurers, but rather force them to be more competitive. "UPS and Fed Ex are doing just fine," Obama joked in an example. "It's the post office that's always having problems."Earlier tonight, I mentioned that the post office analogy didn't fit with Medicare. Here's why:
1. Medicare has the market cornered for seniors, with 80+ percent of senior citizens getting their health insurance through Medicare.
2. Medicare can impose price controls on doctors, hospitals and tests.
3. Medicare can raise premiums and raise taxes with little consequence to the program.
4. The Post Office has to compete on truly level playing field with Fedex and UPS for business.
5. The Post Office can't raise prices too much for fear that FedEx and UPS will take more of their customers away.
It's also important to note that the Post Office is losing money while UPS and FedEx are making money while they're competing a relatively level playing field. The playing field is anything but level for the reasons cited above.
Senior adviser David Axelrod said the president had for weeks been "relishing" the opportunity to engage directly with people to defend his efforts to overhaul the nation's health care system, and he said the angry crowds at congressional town meetings do not reflect the larger society.Does Mr. Axelrod mean relish as in saying making an ass of himself by showing government-run entities can't compete with the private sector? Let's get serious here. President Obama tried and failed to put out the fire that's erupted because this administration and congressional Democrats lack credibility. Having Linda Douglass put together a pathetic video saying that she was there to squash misinformation was a big mistake, though the NY Times will never admit it.
President Obama's credibility can be traced to the Friday night that the stimulus passed. President Obama spent the prior 2 weeks criss-crossing the country telling everyone who'd listen that Congress had to pass the bill ASAP to avert an economic catastrophe. When President Obama didn't sign the bill that night, he lost a ton of credibility. It didn't help that Congress admitted that they didn't even read the bill before voting on the bill.
That's the point at which people started asking questions like "If it was so urgent to pass the bill without reading the bill, why didn't President Obama sign it that night?" That's the point at which Republicans and independents started challenging the Obama administration directly.
This post , written by Powerline's Scott Johnson, includes an email from a Florida physician that excoriates President Obama's claim about amputations. Here's the content of that email:
I'm a neurosurgeon and my wife is a primary care doctor. In southwest Florida, the maximum allowable surgical fee for an amputation, under Medicare, is several hundred dollars. The hospital may be reimbursed $5,000-10,000, but $30,000-50,000 is a fantasy.Simply put, President Obama's credibility is shrinking rapidly. It's almost to the point where the Joe Wilson joke would apply. Applied here, it would read: How can you tell if President Obama is telling a whopper about health care? See if his lips are moving.
Primary care doctors spend all day trying to get their patients to live healthier lifestyles. Recently, the President confessed he has not fully kicked the cigarette habit, which is a condition far more unhealthy than obesity. Surely the President is aware of the dangers of smoking, or does he believe his habit is the physician's failure?
But for a few medical conditions, preventive medicine does not save money. This is not debatable, it has been proven repeatedly for most disorders studied.
The President's ignorance in these matters is breathtaking. Heaven help us if he controls our health care choices.
Personally, I think Michael Barone has it exactly right :
"I don't want the folks who created the mess to do a lot of talking," Barack Obama said on a campaign stop in Virginia on Aug. 6. "I want them just to get out of the way so we can clean up the mess."President Obama hasn't dealt with that reality yet. He can't afford to; if he tells the Nutroots that there's a limit to the amount of liberalism that this nation will take, they'll abandon him politically.
When a politician tries to stop debate, it's a sign he's losing the argument. Obama seems to have let the House Democrats overplay their hand. He ignored the fact that in our system neither party ever has all the advantages.
Does that sound like the type of person who took the "reins of the health care debate"? I didn't think so either.
Posted Thursday, August 13, 2009 2:48 AM
Comment 1 by Dave Thul at 13-Aug-09 04:59 AM
Interesting how the headline changed over time. It started as "Before friendly town hall, Obama takes on health care critics, says they create bogeyman".
Then the Strib changed the headline to "Obama takes on role of fact checker as he pushes for health care overhaul".
Comment 2 by FeFe at 13-Aug-09 09:23 AM
Funny how America's tolerance of nutroots over the past 8 yrs gave them visions of grandeur and intolerance.
Comment 3 by J. Ewing at 13-Aug-09 10:11 AM
I'm not sure that the failure of the USPS analogy has been fully vetted. The USPS has a legal monopoly on first class mail that USPS and FEDEX can't breach. They are STILL losing money. Medicare has a legal monopoly (it is mandatory) on basic medical care, yet many companies (like GM) are going broke trying to provide retiree health care benefits, and a "Medigap" insurance market continues to thrive. If government knew how to run a health insurance business that minimized cost, maintained quality and covered everybody they would have done it and "Medicare for all" would make eminent good sense. Instead, we discover that it is Medicare that is failing on all counts, illustrating the fundamental truth that government CAN NOT run anything that the free market cannot run better.
Comment 4 by ExZonie at 13-Aug-09 01:26 PM
Re J. Ewing, you are right. Isn't it convenient that HR3200 eliminates Medigap? Now we'll have MediCAP!
