The battle over the future of health care in America continues to rage, with Democrats putting up a new ad criticizing Republicans as simple obstructionists, and Republicans firing back at the old stand by of wanting to prevent socialized medicine. And the title of this post brings us to the Steven Pearlstein article in today’s Post that bears the same name. Pearlstein is critical of Obama on several fronts, but makes the essential point that the status quo cannot be allowed to be an option here. The second article deals with the potential national adoption of the individual mandate, which appears to be picking up political steam. The Dems have produced a political ad scoring the Republicans for their health care position. I have included a Senator Jim Demint diatribe against the Dems as well.
The Health Care debate continues in Washington, with Republicans sensing some political opportunity from Democratic disagreement over financing health care reform. Republican Chair Michael Steele launched a broadside as part of a concerted Republican effort to undermine the President on this issue, and the President has sharpened his rhetoric in response. The President appears to have tacitly accepted the reality that his ambititous time frame for passage of health care legislation may be delayed. Read the Washington Post article on the Republican effort here.
Democratic Party Chair John Walsh has posed five questions to Republican candidate for Governor Charlie Baker, which I have posted below. I took the questions from a very interesting post over at Blue Mass Group which Walsh wrote. Baker has gotten the Patrick campaign’s attention, and the mismanagement of the Big Dig from its inception will clearly play a large role in this campaign. I don’t anticipate Baker will be posting a response any time soon, but the folks over at Red Mass Group were sniping at the Governor over the federal vs. state prevailing wage law as it applies to federal stimulus money. The bell hasn’t rung yet, and the candidates are storming to the center of the ring.
1)Now that you announced you are running for Governor, why do you refuse to answer questions about the Big Dig, one of the biggest financial challenges facing the state–and your past role in creating it?
2)When you were in charge of state finances, why did you claim, “I don’t see how anybody could argue that the artery will be pulling money away from non-artery projects”–even as the state had shut down scores of other highway projects due to the cash crunch?
3) Why does your campaign today claim you had “a limited role in the financing process” when in fact you literally wrote a key Big Dig financing report?
4) When you were in charge of state finances, why did you dismiss warnings that Big Dig spending was spiraling out of control–and instead insist you had the “right mechanism” in place to pay for it?
5) When you were in charge of state finances, why did you remain silent in the face of false claims “no one’s contemplating toll hikes”–or did you really believe this?
Former CBS News Anchor Walter Cronkite passed at age 92. Cronkite was one of the last of the network news anchors that had real stature, and he came to represent an era in television journalism that is long since gone. He was, in my opinion, a fine journalist who dominated his era. I tended more to Huntley-Brinkley, but Walter Cronkite was a real giant. He will be missed.
The President on Health Care Reform. I had done an earlier post on this, and I do agree that reform must occur before we implode financially. The question again goes to whether the bills winding their way through Congress achieve real cost savings, which is vital to the success of this effort.
It is the 40th anniversary of the first walk on the moon this week, and Fred thought it worth a post. I do too. This was a staggering achievement, and it is even more staggering when you think of President Kennedy’s call to go to the moon in 1962, with the landing achieved in 1969. It was a phenomenal achievement that shows man can do great things. I was only a young teen, but I felt real pride that our country had managed such a feat. Fred had posted a link to a great website we choose the moon.
Is there any utility to going back to the moon, and is it worth the cost?
Goodbye WBCN. The station I spent so much time listening to as a younger person is gone, swept up by changing times and corporate ownership. I have not tuned in to BCN for many years now, but they really did change the face of FM radio. And love him or hate him you cannot talk WBCN without tipping your hat to Charles Laquidara, who made morning radio into something that was really unique and entertaining. His alter ego Duane Ingalls Glasscock terrorized the airwaves. His campaign for Mayor certainly offered a budding candidate plenty of good campaign tips. (not) Great station in its day, with some of the best radio talent in the country working there. Ch Ch Ch Changes!
As the President pushes for health care legislation by August it is becoming increasingly clear that his timetable likely will not be met. And the Democrats continue to struggle with finding ways to pay for the bills that are winding their way through Congress. The House is looking to assess an income tax surcharge on individuals making $280,000 per year and on couples making over $350,000. That could raise about $544 billion over 10 years, but the House plan would require substantial additional savings through our existing health care system to cover the $1 trillion dollar plus pricetag of their bill. The Senate is stuck on financing, with the House surtax not being in favor. The idea of taxing existing health benefits also has foundered, with conservative Democrats and Republicans tending to support that concept, but the White House and labor opposing. That finance snag in the Senate will likely push back the Presidents timetable.
Nobody said this was going to be easy, but the Democrats have to be mindful that a simple expansion of coverage without real cost containment is doomed to failure. And yesterday’s testimony by Douglas Elmendorf, Director of the Congressional Budget Office, cast the existing health care efforts as just that. From the Washington Post:
Under questioning by members of the Senate Budget Committee, Douglas Elmendorf, director of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, said bills crafted by House leaders and the Senate health committee do not propose “the sort of fundamental changes” necessary to rein in the skyrocketing cost of government health programs, particularly Medicare. On the contrary, Elmendorf said, the measures would pile on an expensive new program to cover the uninsured.
Though President Obama and Democratic leaders have repeatedly pledged to alter the soaring trajectory — or cost curve — of federal health spending, the proposals so far would not meet that goal, Elmendorf said, noting, “The curve is being raised.” His remarks suggested that rather than averting a looming fiscal crisis, the measures could make the nation’s bleak budget outlook even worse.
Real cost containment would require a lot of political risk and courage. On that basis it is always the most difficult of tasks. And right now simply expanding the existing system to cover a wider swarth of the uninsured is simply going to crater our nations finances. The existing system is broken, and is going to destroy us in the years to come unless it is fundamentally altered. Simply adding expense to the system will not do.
Speaking of bending the long term cost curve a special commission in Massachusetts has recommended that the state move away from the fee for service model and towards some sort of lump sum payments for health care delivery to patients. I have attached their report at the bottom of this post.
Ezra Klein over at the Washington Post has written a piece today talking about health care reform that centers on Senator Ron Wyden’s Free Choice Act that is worth a read.
President Obama’s speech to the AMA is also attached.
Governor Patrick has found himself in the middle of a zoo controversy after issuing a veto of funding for the Franklin Park Zoo and the Stone Zoo. Patrick’s vetoes cut the zoo budgets, but did not eliminate funding. The PR offensive launched by Zoo New England included claims that the Zoos would have to be shut, and animals euthanized. That claim had the desired effect. The public outcry has led both the House and Senate to public statements of support for restoring the funding.
“With the amount of calls that I’ve gotten from the membership, I dare say that this is one of those items that I think will be overridden,” House Speaker Robert A. DeLeo said during a day that included several State House press conferences, political jockeying, and no public explanations from zoo officials.
Senate President Therese Murray, also citing a large volume of calls and e-mails, said in a statement that “it is likely the Senate will take similar action.’’
But the Governor has shown that the Zoo claims were in fact false, and that there was never any plan to euthanize Zoo animals. And he expressed some major anger at the misdirection coming from the folks at New England Zoo.
“I do think that the public needs to know that the claim that animals in the zoo are going to be euthanized was false,” Patrick said in what were his first comments after leaving criticism over the weekend to his aides. “And I think, frankly, the zoo is going to have to take some responsibility for that.”
Well when he is right, he is right. The Zoo veto should not be overridden, and New England Zoo ought to have to live with the same type of austerity that everyone else in the State is living with. How much are they paying that Public Relations firm again?
The opening dance in the Judge Sotomayor confirmation hearing was held yesterday, with Republicans critiquing her fairness and impartiality, and the Democrats offering warm words of praise. The prospective Justice offered an opening statement. From the Washington Post:
“The task of a judge is not to make law. It is to apply the law,” Sotomayor said. “And it is clear, I believe, that my record in two courts reflects my rigorous commitment to interpreting the Constitution according to its terms, interpreting statutes according to their terms and Congress’s intent, and hewing faithfully to precedents established by the Supreme Court and by my circuit court.”
Sotomayor said that in 17 years as a district judge and then on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit in New York, she has sought to “strengthen both the rule of law and faith in the impartiality of our justice system.”
Senator Jeff Sessions, the ranking Republican, offered some criticism.
Sen. Jeff Sessions (Ala.), the committee’s ranking Republican, praised Sotomayor’s statement as “from the heart and direct,” but earlier he had made clear that Republicans will challenge her speeches about how life experiences can form a judge’s view of the law, and Obama’s statement that understanding the real-life consequences of a decision is a necessary tool for a judge.
“I will not vote for, and no senator should vote for, anyone who will not render justice impartially,” Sessions said. “Call it empathy, call it prejudice or call it sympathy, but whatever it is, it’s not law,” he said. “In truth, it’s more akin to politics, and politics has no place in the courtroom.”
And Republican Lindsay Graham said the obvious, when he predicted an easy confirmation for Judge Sotomayor absent a “meltdown”.
One of my favorite political blogs is Chris Cillizza’s “The Fix” over at the Washington Post. Cillizza picked some first day winners and losers, and one of the Cillizza losers was New York’s Kirsten Gillibrand, who was cut off mid-sentence by Chairman Pat Leahy as she was making her home state introduction of Sotomayor. I have included that great clip below! Were there winners and losers here, or was it just political theatre?
Bill Manzi.com 