Mitt Romney Finally Takes Credit For Obamacare

Former GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney struggled to distance himself from the health care program he implemented in Massachusetts. Now he has acknowledged it was a precursor to Obamacare.

It's a good thing for him that Mitt Romney isn't running for president again.

The 2012 GOP presidential nominee — who has still been bandied about as a potential candidate — just embraced everything that made many conservatives skeptical of him. He admitted that the health care plan he instituted as governor of Massachusetts was the precursor to Obamacare.

In a quote in a Boston Globe obituary for Staples founder Thomas Stemberg, Romney praised the businessman who opened his first store in the Boston suburbs with backing from Romney's Bain Capital.

Romney often mentioned the success of the company on the campaign trail, and Stemberg even addressed the Republican National Convention in 2012.

Romney credits Stemberg with pushing him toward implementing universal health care in the state in 2006 (with nine key words we bolded):

Romney said that shortly after he was elected, Mr. Stemberg asked him why he ran for governor. Romney said he told him that he wanted to help people, and Mr. Stemberg replied that if he really wanted to help, he should give everyone access to health care, which Romney said he hadn't really considered before.

"Without Tom pushing it, I don't think we would have had Romneycare," Romney said. "Without Romneycare, I don't think we would have Obamacare. So, without Tom a lot of people wouldn't have health insurance."

During the campaign, Romney was forced many times to defend the law, arguing that it was never intended to be expanded nationally.

"I like the fact that in my state, we had Republicans and Democrats come together and work together," Romney said during an October 2012 debate. "What you [President Obama] did instead was to push through a plan without a single Republican vote. What were some differences? We didn't raise taxes. You've raised them by $1 trillion under Obamacare. We didn't cut Medicare. Of course, we don't have Medicare, but we didn't cut Medicare by $716 billion. We didn't put in place a board that can tell people ultimately what treatments they're going to receive."

But in the primary, Romney was often on the defensive from GOP rivals on the program. Former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty tried to land a jab by branding Romney's brainchild, "Obamneycare." But Pawlenty pulled the punch in the next debate.

Still, Romney also never withdrew his support from the program.

"I respect the views of those who think we took the wrong course and who think we should have taken a different course," he said in a May 2011 speech. "I also recognize that a lot of pundits around the nation are saying that I should say that was a bone-headed idea, and I presume folks would think that would be good for me politically. But there's only one problem with that. It wouldn't be honest."
After a backlash Thursday, Romney tried to walk that line again, posting on Facebook that he still opposes Obamacare because "it has failed," "drove up premiums" and "took insurance away from people":

"Getting people health insurance is a good thing, and that's what Tom Stemberg fought for. I oppose Obamacare and believe it has failed. It drove up premiums, took insurance away from people who were promised otherwise, and usurped state programs. As I said in the campaign, I'd repeal it and replace it with state-crafted plans."

But Romney never outright made such a direct correlation as he did in his remembrance of Stemberg, essentially taking credit for the current health care law, which is anathema to Republicans.

Trying to bill his plan as conservative, President Obama has repeatedly made the case, including in the run-up to his 2012 re-election, that the law was built off of Romney's, even borrowing advisers who helped conceive the Massachusetts program.

Almost a year ago, there was a clamoring for Romney to make a third bid. He appeared very close to getting in again, but he ultimately passed. As the year has gone on, Jeb Bush has faded from previous strength, Donald Trump continues to lead and there have been rumors in some circles that Romney could make a late entrance.

But with those nine words, he may have just sealed his GOP political fate, forever — and vindicated many conservatives who were skeptical of his intentions to begin with.

source

OP-ED | The Health Care Industry’s Campaign Of Fear, Uncertainty And Doubt

Yesterday marked the fourth anniversary of Obamacare, but it marked the seventh anniversary of opposition to the concept underlying health care reform. 

At least two years before the first words of legislation were written, and three years before the Affordable Care Act was signed into law, the entrenched health care interests were hard at work creating their strategies to ensure as much as possible that whatever passed would not have an adverse effect on profits.

The overall plan included a broad range of initiatives to plant fear, uncertainty and doubt about reform ideas in the minds of elected officials and ordinary Americans. For instance, the special interests collaborated under the auspices of organizations like the Healthcare Leadership Council, a coalition that encompasses executives from insurance companies, drug and medical device makers, biotech firms and hospitals. I know because I participated in many meetings of the HLC during my years as an insurance industry executive.

The campaign of fear, uncertainty and doubt — or FUD, to use its acronym — continues to this day against the law, and it will be waged in coming months by cynical politicians who believe it will be the surest way to win votes in November. I’m already seeing the outlines of the latest iteration of the campaign taking shape.

But let’s first go back to the spring of 2007. Both health insurance premiums and the number of uninsured Americans were continuing to skyrocket. Polls were showing that voters were fed up with our money-driven health care system, and that was emboldening the Democratic presidential candidates to include reform proposals in their policy platforms.

At an industry briefing I attended in May of 2007, Bill McInturff of Public Opinion Strategies, which has been conducting opinion and message research for health insurers since the early 1990s, made crystal clear the point that Americans were losing confidence in the private health insurance market.

As I described in my book, Deadly Spin, McInturff’s first slide showed that there had been a significant recent shift in opinion and that a majority of people were now telling his pollsters that the government should do more to solve the many problems plaguing America’s health care system.

Those of us in the room who were members of the industry’s Strategic Communications Committee could see we had our work cut out for us. We knew we would have to scare people away from the notion that more government involvement would be beneficial.  

Also at that meeting were representatives of the industry’s big trade group, America’s Health Insurance Plans, and one of its PR firms, APCO Worldwide. The AHIP and APCO staffers briefed us on the tactics they were recommending, which included using a front group, initially funded by the pharmaceutical industry and called Health Care America, to begin the scare campaign. Such a campaign wouldn’t be effective if the public knew that drug makers and insurance companies were actually conducting it, so steps would need to be taken to make the media and public believe that Health Care America was really a grassroots organization.

One of the first targets of Health Care America was Michael Moore, whose movie SiCKO was about to have its U.S. premier. The objective of Health Care America’s attacks on Moore and SiCKO was to frighten people into believing that quality of care would suffer if we allowed the government to “take over” the health system.  

Immediately after the first American screening of SiCKO in Sacramento, many reporters got this in their inbox:

“Health Care America, a non-partisan, non-profit health care advocacy organization, released the following statement in response to a California rally held by Michael Moore and a variety of advocates in support of a government takeover of our health care system: The reality is that government-run health systems around the world are failing patients — forcing them to forgo treatments or seek out-of-pocket care in other countries.”

Fast forward to the spring of 2009. Before Democratic congressional leaders had written any reform legislation, political consultant Frank Luntz suggested in a memo to Republican leaders that they should characterize anything the Democrats proposed as a “government takeover.”

“Nothing else turns people against the government takeover of healthcare more than the realistic expectation that it will result in delayed and potentially even denied treatment, procedures and/or medications,” Luntz wrote.

The industry’s years-long FUD campaign clearly has scared millions of Americans into believing — erroneously — that Obamacare represents a government takeover.

This past week, we got a glimpse into how the insurance industry and its political allies will give the “government takeover” campaign a new spin: Obamacare will cause insurance premiums to double in 2015.

Citing “one senior insurance executive who requested anonymity,” The Hill, an inside-the-Beltway publication, predicted last week that “Obamacare-related premiums will double in some parts of the country.”

There is absolutely no reason to believe this will happen — and good reasons why it won’t, which I’ll explain next week — but facts have little place in most political campaigns. Rest assured, the specter of skyrocketing premiums will be part of a carefully crafted and executed campaign designed to create fear, uncertainty and doubt in the minds of voters next November. Some things never change.

Former CIGNA executive-turned-whistleblower Wendell Potter is writing about the health care industry and the ongoing battle for health reform for the Center for Public Integrity.

source

Koch Brothers v. Health Care Reform

Do all roads lead to Koch?

Conservative activists will rally at the Supreme Court tomorrow to encourage the overturn of the Affordable Care Act. The "Hands Off My Health Care" protest -- which will feature the likes of Rep. Michelle Bachmann and Sens. Jim DeMint and Rand Paul -- is being organized by Americans for Prosperity, a right-wing group financed by industrialists Charles and David Koch.

The billionaire brothers provided the seed money to get this organization off the ground and have donated at least $5 million overall (possibly a lot more) to its operations. David Koch still serves as the group's chairman.

These facts belie the image that Americans for Prosperity would like to present as a humble grassroots organization. The stories we see today about regular Americans coming to D.C. to protest evil health reform are directly attributable to the corporate interests that the Koch brothers represent.

Yet the Kochs' impact on the current court battle doesn't end there. Group after group participating in the lawsuit to destroy the Affordable Care Act is a beneficiary of the Koch brothers' largess -- reflecting the outsized influence that these guys wield in our political debate. Indeed, one wonders whether this effort would be happening at all if not for these two billionaires with a direct interest in avoiding government regulation.

One of the most important groups in this case is the National Federation of Independent Business, which is bringing one of the lawsuits now before the Supreme Court. This group has received $88,000 from the Claude R. Lambe Charitable Foundation, which is controlled by none other than Charles Koch.

Several organizations that have filed amicus briefs with the Supreme Court have received substantial donations from the Koch family as well. These groups include:

• Competitive Enterprise Institute: $666,420


• Pacific Research Institute: $270,000


• Texas Public Policy Foundation: $74,500


• Freedom Works: $5 million


• Cato Institute: approximately $30 million.


• Family Research Council: brief co-authored by attorney Nelson Lund, a professor at George Mason University, which has received $29,604,354.


• Galen Institute: "partner organization" of the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation; extent of donations unknown.


• Landmark Legal Foundation: $5000
  

In addition, a Court-appointed attorney used a study by the Rand Corporation to show the impact of the individual mandate in the health care bill -- even though Rand has received $100,000 from none other than the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation.

Given this set of facts, the sheer reach of the Koch brothers in the movement to overturn health care reform is staggering. They have seeded and cultivated the very network of organizations that's now threatening to undo the most significant progressive reform in a generation. As shown in Brave New Foundation's new film, Koch Brothers Exposed, Charles and David Koch are, in effect, holding up the conservative sky.

So this week as we watch the rallies and press conferences and legal wrangling -- not to mention the media pundits lavishing attention on the hubbub -- let's remember that this spectacle is not the result of some organic, grassroots outpouring of opposition to the idea that all Americans should have health insurance. It's rooted in concentrated wealth belonging to men aiming to bend our democracy to their will.

source

NH GOP’s budget off to shaky start

If you visit the Web site of the New Hampshire House Republicans (http://nhhousegop.com), featured prominently under the heading “House 2011 Session Accomplishments” is a brief statement that summarizes its achievements and links to a detailed list inside.

That statement reads in full: “The House has passed legislation that accomplishes our campaign pledge of reforming government, living within our means, moving our economy forward, keeping New Hampshire safe, increasing transperency (sic) …”

Today, we want to focus on two of those “accomplishments” – balancing the budget (“living within our means”) and creating jobs (“moving our economy forward”).

For in the first 29 days since the Republican-controlled Legislature’s two-year budget became law without the governor’s signature, the choices made to achieve the first already have had a direct impact on the second.

And not in a good way.

On Monday, 10 New Hampshire hospitals – including the two in Nashua – filed suit against the state in U.S. District Court over the Legislature’s decision to withhold roughly $230 million in Medicaid money from the state’s hospitals to balance the budget.

The hospitals contend the state’s decision violates federal law and threatens the hospitals’ ability to adequately serve the needs of patients covered by Medicaid.

The next day, Elliot Health System announced it had laid off 182 employees at Elliot Hospital in Manchester – 4 percent of its work force – in response to what it said was a $17 million deficit created by the state’s action. It also froze contributions to its employees’ retirement accounts and ended its 24-hour hotline.

That was followed a day later by a similar announcement from Southern New Hampshire Medical Center in Nashua that it was in the process of laying off 100 employees, or 6 percent of its work force, to help offset a $10 million deficit created by the state’s decision.

And across town, St. Joseph Hospital intends to release its own budget-cutting measures within the next few weeks, which are expected to include layoffs, according to a spokeswoman.

So in less than a month, the Republicans’ “moving our economy forward budget” has resulted in nearly 300 layoffs at two of the largest hospitals with possibly hundreds more on the way.

And should the hospitals prevail in their suit, lawmakers would have to go back to the drawing board and come up with another $230 million in cuts, since we presume any revenue options would be off the table.

Earlier this month, House Speaker William O’Brien wrote an op-ed – titled “Republicans improved NH’s economic situation, as promised” – that ended with these words:

“The people wanted representatives in Concord who work to allow the economy to grow, cut spending and end the regime of out-of-control government expansion and numerous tax hikes. Today, we can see this Legislature has delivered results for the people of New Hampshire.

“The good news is that jobs are coming, and we’re just getting started.”

We can only hope this isn’t what he had in mind at the time.

source

Grassley and Grandma

PANORA, Iowa -- A day after President Obama condemned conservative critics for suggesting that a provision in health-care legislation would "basically pull the plug on Grandma," controversy over the issue bubbled up at a town hall meeting here.

Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa), who was holding a series of such meetings across his state, was asked by a Democrat in the crowd in Panora if he would criticize conservatives who have inaccurately suggested that a provision in the House bill would effectively create "death panels" to determine when people should die. In fact, the provision would provide Medicare reimbursement to doctors who counsel elderly or terminally ill patients about what medical interventions they would prefer near the end of life and about how to prepare instructions, such as living wills. The sessions would be voluntary.

"If you've got a government-run health-care program and you have crowding out, and then you go to a Canadian-style plan and everyone starts studying what England does ... when you couple this with all of other fears people have and what they do in England, then you get the idea that somebody is going to decide Grandma has lived too long," Grassley said in response, not quite batting down the inaccurate claim, nor backing it.

The questioner, Cheri Heiland, persisted, telling Grassley, "You know there is nothing in the House bill that will require any elderly person to stand before a committee and decide whether or not they are going to live or die." Much of the crowd booed and said she was wrong.

The senator instead went on to condemn the idea of end-of-life counseling, no matter how it is structured.

"I think the best thing to do is if you want people to think about the end of life, number one, Jesus Christ is the place to start, and after that, in the physical life, as opposed to your eternal life, it ought to be done within the family and considered a religious and ethical issue and not something that politicians deal with," he said.

source

Health Care's New Enemy: The British

As the health care debate grows ever more heated and vitriolic, there's a new enemy out there: the British National Health Service (NHS).

Sure, people have been invoking the specter of socialized medicine for some time now. But in the last few weeks, "NHS-baiting" has become the tactic du jour of conservative politicians and bloggers attacking President Obama's health care initiative.

Perhaps the most egregious example was furnished by Chuck Grassley, the most senior Republican on the Senate Finance Committee. Grassley argued that his ailing Democratic colleague, Edward Kennedy, would be left to die untreated from a brain tumor in Britain because he would be considered too old to deserve treatment.

An editorial in Investor's Business Daily similarly claimed that someone like world renowned scientist Stephen Hawking wouldn't have a chance in the British Health System because his extreme handicaps would render his life "worthless." (Never mind that Hawking is British and says he wouldn't be alive today without the NHS. The comment has since been excised from the Web site.)

But it's not just in the area of alleged death panels where the NHS is being pilloried by conservatives. A recent editorial in the Wall Street Journal suggested that animals are treated better than humans in Britain.

And take a look at this video -- an advertisement by the Conservative Club for Growth -- which brandishes images of Big Ben and a Union Jack flag as it argues against the dangers of government-managed health care.



The Brits have taken notice. As The Guardian reported yesterday, charges that the NHS is both "evil" and "Orwellian" are being received with dismay by doctors and politicians alike in the U.K. The British are proud of their 61-year-old tax-financed health care system, which spends less per head than the American system but yields a higher life expectancy. The World Health Organization ranks Britain's health care as 18th in the world, while the U.S. is in 37th place.

But while British Embassy officials are keeping a close eye on the terms of this debate to correct any inaccuracies, they are apparently loath to get involved in a domestic debate.

How noble of them. And what a shame that Americans lag so far behind the British in both their health achievements...and their manners.

source

Rioting against health care reform

By all accounts, many if not most of the rioters were elderly. So we have the spectacle of Medicare recipients rioting against government intervention in health care.

The question now is, what is the political impact of all this. Will there be a political backlash against the rioters and those who egged them on? Has the prospect of reform been strengthened? Or is thuggishness going to work as a political tactic?

Actually, I have no idea. I predict, however, that a number of commentators will blame the violence on … Democrats.

source

Jay Bookman - Town hall protesters forget the lessons of kindergarten

Remember kindergarten and first grade? You may not think you remember — for some of us that was a long time ago — but you do. The lessons are engrained in all of us, or ought to be.

If you want to speak, you raise your hand and take your turn. If you’re talking loudly while the teacher or other students are trying to discuss something, if you disrupt the class, you’ll be told to leave. It’s pretty simple, basic stuff. Literally, kindergarten-level. It also happens to be the bare minimum standard of civil behavior required in a civil society.

And if you cannot behave by those rules, you forfeit your right to participate.

Again, it’s all simple, basic stuff.

The people who are marching into town halls across the country to chant and shout down other voices have not forgotten those rules. They’re just frightened. They’re scared not by health care reform, but by the free and open and civil exchange of facts and opinion. They want their voice — but only their voice — to be heard. It is, they have been told, the only valid voice, the only “real American” voice. They are trying to impose their own point of view through volume and force of emotion and numbers because apparently they do not trust their ability to carry the day in a civil discussion.

The real irony is that many in those crowds believe themselves to be saving America, a holy cause that somehow makes them exempt from the usual rules. Well, America is not defined by how it decides to deliver health care to its people. It’s an important issue, but it is not fundamental to who we are.

From the very beginning, America has been defined by the way it governs itself, by the ability of its people — all of its people — to express their opinions openly and to listen to and speak to those whom they elect to represent them. That is the fundamental thing. That is the thing that must be and will be defended regardless of the outcome of this particular political battle.

The behavior we’re seeing at town halls across the country is childish, petty and destructive to the basic civil contract by which self-government operates. And that petulant childishness is never more apparent than when someone tries to actually enforce the basic rules, when figures of authority or even other Americans insist that the rules of discourse — the rules we all learned as five- and six-year-olds — be honored.

Suddenly these aggressive, loud agitators are transformed, at least in their own minds, into victims of censorship and repression.

Well, two words, ladies and gentlemen: Grow up.

source

Obama wants to kill your grandma

Five right-wing myths about healthcare reform, and the facts

Turning America socialist apparently wasn't enough for him -- now President Obama is trying to make old people kill themselves, callously deny important medical procedures, funnel tax dollars to abortion clinics and wiggle the government's way into every doctor's office in America.

At least, that's the sense you might have about the healthcare reform proposals Congress is considering from listening to opponents describe them. Already, conservative activists have erupted against the plan, with protesters hanging Democratic lawmakers in effigy and disrupting town hall meetings.

As both the House and the Senate clear out of the Capitol for the month, expect the viral buzz -- and the TV battle -- about what's in the bills to grow louder and louder. The White House finally seems to have realized that the administration can't win the policy debate without addressing some of the attacks from the right. Aides recently released a video rebutting some of the claims about what healthcare reform would and wouldn't do. An administration official told Salon Wednesday that the White House will soon launch a Web site modeled on the "Fight the Smears" site Obama's campaign ran last fall, where voters can find -- and debunk -- some of the rumors about the reform proposals, and the White House is already collecting chain e-mails at "flag@whitehouse.gov," an address Obama aides set up to receive them.

But the administration might already be behind the curve. Over the last few weeks, opponents have managed to get out their spin on the bill through talk radio, blogs, chain e-mails and other channels. And their talking points depend on a notably elastic approach to the truth. Here's a fact check of some of the more alarming claims that the right is making about healthcare reform, claims that are already hardening into myth.

Myth 1: Democrats want to kill your grandmother. This claim seems too outlandish on its face to get much traction, but Republicans actually made some headway on it recently. Two House GOP leaders put out a statement warning that the healthcare reform bill "may start us down a treacherous path toward government-encouraged euthanasia." To hear opponents of reform talk about it, the legislation would force seniors to go in for sessions once every five years -- and more frequently if they're sick -- where doctors will encourage them to end their lives. Rep. Virginia Foxx, R-N.C., summarized the scare tactic pretty well on the House floor last week, when she said the bill would "put seniors in a position of being put to death by their government," and therefore, wouldn't be pro-life. The GOP has pushed this line especially hard with some of the conservative groups behind the government's intervention in the Terri Schiavo case a few years ago, hoping to get antiabortion allies on board fighting reform. "Can you imagine the response of the American people when they find this out?" one-time GOP presidential candidate Fred Thompson asked about the alleged euthanasia scheme on his radio show last month. "They're going to counsel you on preparing you to die," Rush Limbaugh pronounced a few weeks ago. Proof of how far this attack has spread came last week, when a caller to an AARP forum asked Obama about it directly. (Probably unwisely, the president tried to make light of the question, saying there weren't enough government employees to go meet with old people to talk about end-of-life care.)

There is a kernel of truth at the root of this attack: The legislation would order Medicare to pay for consultations between patients and doctors on end-of-life decisions, which it currently doesn't cover. But the consultations wouldn't be mandatory; if your grandmother doesn't want to go talk to her doctor about end-of-life care, she won't have to. Because Medicare doesn't pay for this kind of planning now, only 40 percent of seniors who depend on the government insurance say they have an advance directive that tells healthcare providers what measures they do and don't want used to prolong their life, even though 75 percent say they think it's important. The lack of planning actually costs a lot of money. Medicare spends billions and billions of dollars annually on expensive treatment during the last year of a dying patient's life. Without allowing Medicare to pay for end-of-life consultations, it's hard to know whether patients even want to go to such expensive lengths.

Myth 2: The government -- i.e., you -- will have to pay for abortions. This is another way the GOP is stirring up antiabortion activists against healthcare reform -- by warning that your tax dollars will be used to pay for someone else's abortion. An ad by the Family Research Council dramatizes the issue about as creepily as possible. "To think that Planned Parenthood is included in the government-run healthcare plan and spending tax dollars on abortions," a distraught older man tells his wife, sitting at their kitchen table after opening a letter from the government. "They won't pay for my surgery, but we're forced to pay abortions." The narrator lays out what's going on: "Our greatest generation denied care, our future generations denied life." A House Republican aide says the GOP thinks this could be the most potent type of viral attack against reform, since antiabortion Democrats will have trouble voting for the legislation if it includes taxpayer funding for the procedure.

But only the most extreme antiabortion reading of the legislation would say it does that. The words "Planned Parenthood" and "abortion" don't appear anywhere in the text, despite conservative buzz that it would funnel millions of dollars to killing babies. (A proposal in the Senate version of the reform legislation would require insurance plans to cover preventive care and screening visits to community health providers, which could include Planned Parenthood.) Even an AP story that Matt Drudge was hyping on Wednesday as proof that the government would be funding abortions didn't go quite that far -- instead, the story detailed a fight over whether women who buy government-subsidized private insurance through a proposed exchange system should be able to have abortions covered by their plans. Pro-choice lawmakers are trying to craft a compromise that would require insurance companies to pay for abortions out of premiums paid by patients, not out of tax dollars. Pro-choice Rep. Lois Capps, D-Calif., amended the House version of the legislation to state that abortion is not part of an "essential benefits package" that all insurance plans must provide -- meaning someone could offer a special "pro-life health insurance" plan that doesn't cover abortions, even under the reforms.

Myth 3: Obama will ban all private health insurance. Allegedly, the House proposal for healthcare reform bans private insurance. This rumor comes complete with a citation: "Right there on Page 16 is a provision making individual private medical insurance illegal," the unflaggingly pro-business paper Investors Business Daily wrote in an editorial last month. Other right-wing blogs and news outlets picked up on the idea, as well. It fits in with a broader message Republicans have been using: The reform will lead to a total government takeover of healthcare.

The IBD line is literally true -- Section 102 of the House bill says insurance companies can't independently issue any new individual policies after the legislation takes effect (though existing policies are grandfathered in). But it misses the point. Private plans aren't banned, but rather shifted into the new health insurance exchange the legislation would set up. You can still get a private policy, but the way in which you buy it changes. If you wanted to buy your own insurance, you have to do it through the government-run insurance exchange. Your policy becomes part of broader risk pools, which makes the premiums cheaper and keeps insurance companies from dumping them once they get sick. PolitiFact looked into the claim and rated the IBD editorial "pants on fire," its lowest rating -- as in, "Liar, liar, pants on fire."

Myth 4: The government can't possibly run a healthcare program. Opponents of reform trot out comparisons to government services frequently when they try to argue against a public, government-funded healthcare plan. Republicans drew up a chart that purports to show how convoluted the bureaucracy involved in any government plan would be. This message doesn't make Obama the enemy, it makes government inefficiency the enemy. "If you like the Post Office and the Department of Motor Vehicles and you think they're run well, just wait till you see Medicare, Medicaid and healthcare done by the government," conservative economist Arthur Laffer told CNN this week.

If that doesn't quite make sense, there's a reason -- Medicare and Medicaid are, of course, government-run healthcare programs. Medicare in particular is quite popular; polling shows some seniors are anxious that the reform will affect the care they already get from the government. (In fact, Democratic pollster Celinda Lake says she frequently encounters voters who say they want to keep the government out of their Medicare.) The Department of Veterans Administration also runs a healthcare system that experts praise for its well-developed health information technology network, which lets doctors see results of tests and procedures any patient has had anywhere in the network -- eliminating the wasteful duplication that Obama says he wants to cut out of the larger healthcare world, as well.

Myth 5: Unlike private insurance, government bureaucrats will ration care. This line also makes government the enemy. "You may want healthcare that your doctor has prescribed for you," Peter Ferrara, of the anti-tax, anti-government Institute for Policy Innovation, wrote on the National Review last month. "But the rationing bureaucracy in Washington that doesn’t even know you, or your doctor, may decide that your doctor doesn’t know what he’s talking about, or that you are too old for the government to pay for your hip replacement to stop the pain, or to get an expensive triple bypass or a pacemaker operation to save your life." Since the Obama administration keeps talking about encouraging doctors to shift to outcome-based pay scales and evidence-based guidelines for what treatments or procedures to use, opponents don't have much trouble painting a troubling picture of faceless government hacks denying the care you -- or your loved ones -- need.

Of course, there are already plenty of faceless hacks denying people care right now; they just work for private insurance companies, not the government, and they're denying care because that helps keep the insurers' profit margins up. At a recent House hearing, just three insurance companies testified that they had "rescinded" -- or dropped -- coverage for nearly 20,000 patients between 2003 and 2007, often after patients had submitted claims they thought would be covered. Even Republicans seem to know the insurance companies can be bad. "I would always rather the devil I know than the devil I don't know," House GOP boss John Boehner said last week, explaining why going after the government works even though private insurance companies would seem to be just as much of a villain.

source

GOP Sees Death in Health Care

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

source

Insurance, health interests fill Baucus' coffers

But the senator 'puts Montana first,' his spokesman says

As Sen. Max Baucus has taken the lead on health reform legislation in the U.S. Senate, he also has become a leader in something else: campaign money received from health and insurance industry interests.

In the past six years, nearly one-fourth of every dime raised by the Montana Democrat and his political action committee has come from groups and individuals associated with drug companies, insurers, hospitals, medical supply firms, health service companies and other health professionals.

These donations total about $3.4 million, or $1,500 a day, every day, from January 2003 through 2008.

Baucus, who chairs the Senate Finance Committee, which is drafting a major health care reform bill this month, insists that this cascade of money is not unduly influencing his work. "No matter the issue, Max always puts Montana first," said his spokesman, Ty Matsdorf. "Max will continue to do what's right for our state, and groups like SEIU (a union representing thousands of health care workers) and AARP (a senior citizens' group) wouldn't line up in support of his health care reform effort if this wasn't true."

Baucus' office also lists numerous examples of how his proposed reforms are challenging the health care and insurance industries, such as requiring insurers to accept all customers, regardless of health condition.

Yet some reform activists and others who watch the political system say it's foolish to think this money doesn't hold some sway.

"When you spend so much of your time raising money, as members of Congress do, from those who have a compelling interest in the outcome of legislation, it has to change what you think about it, and the viewpoints that you have," said David Donnelly, director of Campaign Money Watch, a Washington, D.C., group that tracks money in politics. "It's just human nature. ... and members of Congress are human."

Advocates of national, public health insurance for all - a proposal largely excluded from the health reform debate - say their exclusion points to the power of moneyed interests in Congress.

"I'm convinced that this (money) has a profound influence," said Quentin Young, national coordinator for Physicians for a National Health Program. "Otherwise, how could Baucus, an otherwise respected and wise politician, say categorically that single-payer (national health insurance) is off the table?"

Only Baucus' Republican counterpart on the Finance Committee, Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa, rivals him in terms of percentage of funds from these business sectors.

The Gazette State Bureau examined fundraising data for Baucus, Grassley, Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (who chairs the Senate Health Committee, which is drafting health reform legislation), the other two members of Montana's congressional delegation, and President Barack Obama.

The data are compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonprofit group that tracks and sorts campaign donors by profession and industry. Here's a summary of what the State Bureau discovered:

From 2003 to 2008, the Baucus campaign and his Glacier PAC, which raises money and distributes it to other candidates, received 23 percent of their $14.8 million from health care and insurance interests.

The $3.4 million from these sectors includes $853,000 from pharmaceutical and health products, $851,000 from health professionals, $467,000 from hospitals and nursing homes, $466,000 from health service and HMO interests, and $784,000 from insurance.

The insurance sector money includes donations from all types of insurance company interests, including health insurance.

• Five of the top 10 specific donor sources for Baucus were drug companies, health insurers or health-related firms. For example, employees of Schering-Plough Corp., a major drug firm, gave him $92,000 over the period, more than any other single source.

• Grassley, the highest-ranking Republican on the Finance Committee, received 23.5 percent of his funds from health and insurance interests but a lesser dollar amount than Baucus ($2.3 million out of $9.8 million total funds).

• Kennedy, a Massachusetts Democrat and a longtime advocate of health care reforms, received only 7.5 percent of his funds from health and insurance interests, or about $1.2 million.

• Sen. Jon Tester, D-Mont., and Rep. Denny Rehberg, R-Mont., had minimal contributions from the health and insurance sectors.

• Obama, whose campaign raised a whopping $745 million in 2007 and 2008, received a relatively small share from health care interests ($19 million, or 2.5 percent) and insurance interests ($2 million, or 0.3 percent).

Baucus has been leading the charge on health care reform in the U.S. Senate since early 2008, holding numerous hearings and Finance Committee meetings on the issue. He released a lengthy "white paper" last November, outlining his reform ideas, and a major bill is expected to be introduced this month.

The general thrust of his proposals is to require all citizens to buy health insurance while also forcing the private insurance industry to stop practices that make coverage unaffordable for many. He supports subsidies to those who may have trouble affording insurance.

However, on a reform bitterly opposed by the insurance industry and most health care interests - a public, nonprofit insurance plan offered by the government - Baucus has been more ambivalent, saying he supports the idea but declining to specify in what form.

Baucus's office supplied nearly 20 examples of stances he has taken in direct opposition to drug, insurance and banking interests that have donated to his campaign funds.

He has supported importing lower-cost prescription drugs from Canada, allowing the government to negotiate for lower drug prices for Medicare recipients, funding research that would show when generic drugs are a better deal than brand-name drugs and reducing Medicare payments to private insurers by $13 billion over five years.

His office also points to an April 2007 Wall Street Journal article in which Baucus was quoted as telling medical industry contributors at a fundraiser, "You should worry about me coming after you."

Donnelly, the Campaign Money Watch director, says the proof on health care reform will be in the final product - and that he's not terribly optimistic.

Health and insurance interests are clearly targeting Baucus and his Finance Committee, which often have shown themselves to be receptive to their influence, he said.

"This debate on health care is a microcosm ... that even after a 'change' election, how much the special interests view (Washington) as their fiefdom," Donnelly said.

Supporters of national health insurance are even less optimistic, noting how Baucus, Obama and leaders in Congress won't even consider their proposal, which they believe would have broad public support.

"I can't think of any reason other than fidelity to your donors, to explain why they would keep us out of the debate," said Young of the physicians group. "Until we get campaign finance reform, it will be very difficult to do anything to challenge the status quo (in health care), and the status quo had better be challenged, because it's a very bad status quo."

source

Rick Never-Charged-for-Any-Wrongdoing Scott Seeks to Sabotage Health Reform

Rick Scott's "Conservatives for Patients Rights" has stepped up his swift-boat media campaign to sabotage health care reform. Reforming the system would cut his personal profit.

Ex-Hospital CEO Battles Reform Effort
Ads Cite Long Waits In Canada and Britain

The television ads that began airing last week feature horror stories from Canada and the United Kingdom: Patients who allegedly suffered long waits for surgeries, couldn't get the drugs they needed, or had to come to the United States for treatment.

"Before government rushes to overhaul health care, listen to those who already have government-run health care," intones Rick Scott, founder of a group called Conservatives for Patients' Rights. "Tell Congress to listen, too."

Scott, a multimillionaire investor and controversial former hospital chief executive, has become an unlikely and prominent leader of the opposition to health-care reform plans that Congress is expected to take up later this year. While disorganized Republicans and major health-care companies wait for President Obama and Democratic leaders to reveal the details of their plan before criticizing it, Scott is using $5 million of his own money and up to $15 million more from supporters to try to build resistance to any government-run program.

The campaign is being coordinated by CRC Public Relations, the group that masterminded the "Swift boat" attacks against 2004 Democratic presidential candidate John F. Kerry, and is inspired by the "Harry and Louise" ads that helped torpedo health-care reform during the Clinton administration.

"Everybody wants to say I'm against Obama's plan, but I'm not necessarily," Scott said in an interview last week. "The bottom line is that this is happening fast, and there is not much of a debate going on about what will happen if we go down this path."

But in ads, media appearances and other venues, Scott argues that whatever effort Obama is likely to put forth, it will put the country on a slippery slope toward a bureaucratic, British-style national health service.

The effort has alarmed many Democrats and liberal health-care advocates, who are pushing back with attacks highlighting Scott's ouster as head of the Columbia/HCA health-care company amid a fraud investigation in the 1990s. The firm eventually pleaded guilty to charges that it overbilled state and federal health plans, paying a record $1.7 billion in fines.

In an ad broadcast in the Washington area and in Scott's home town of Naples, Fla., last week, a group called Health Care for America Now says of Scott: "He and his insurance-company friends make millions from the broken system we have now."

The group's national campaign manager, Richard Kirsch, said: "Those attacking reform are really looking to protect their own profits, and he's a perfect messenger for that. His history of making a fortune by destroying quality in the health-care system and ripping off the government is a great example of what's really going on."

Scott, 56, seems unfazed by such criticism, emphasizing that he was never charged with any wrongdoing and that other health-care companies were also fined for overbilling problems. A lawyer with no formal medical training, Scott built Columbia/HCA into the largest U.S. health-care company before he was ousted by the board of directors in 1997. He was also once a partner in the Texas Rangers with George W. Bush. Scott now runs an investment firm and owns, among other things, a chain of walk-in urgent-care clinics in Florida called Solantic.

Conservatives for Patients' Rights spent about $600,000 a month on ads in March and April but is ratcheting up its buy for May to more than $1 million, CRC representatives said. Scott has also spent recent weeks meeting with lawmakers on Capitol Hill and addressing conservative groups in Washington, including the influential weekly breakfast organized by anti-tax activist Grover Norquist.

Scott said he has met with "some Democrats" but acknowledged that most of those aligned with his views are Republicans.

"I believe that free-market principles will solve our health-care problems," Scott said, adding that he was successful in cutting costs and improving customer satisfaction at both Columbia/HCA and his Solantic clinics.

For the moment, Scott's campaign is a relatively independent operation, in part because major insurers, hospitals and other health-care providers have muted their criticism in hopes of shaping the outcome of a final reform package. The situation is remarkably different from that in the early 1990s, when the insurance industry bankrolled the "Harry and Louise" ads, which featured a fictional couple worrying about a nationalized health-care system.

The void has left Republicans somewhat adrift. In a 28-page memo circulated among lawmakers this week, prominent GOP pollster Frank Luntz urged Republicans to be "on the side of REFORM" and warned against direct attacks on the popular president. Instead, Luntz wrote, Republicans should warn about a "takeover" by "Washington bureaucrats" who would force patients to "stand in line" for care.

One senior Democratic staffer involved in the health-care debate said the arguments by Luntz, Scott and others are "distractions" that rely on distortions of the actual debate taking place in the House and Senate. Reform advocates note that many of the problems highlighted by Scott, such as long waits and shoddy care, are already major problems in the United States under the private insurance system.

Democrats especially bristle at the central allegation in Scott's advertisements: that they hope to create a fully government-run, or "single-payer," health system of the kind seen in Canada and Britain. In fact, Obama and Democratic leaders have effectively ruled out that option in discussions so far, leading angry left-wing activists to disrupt a Senate hearing on the issue last week.

"We are not Europe. We are not Canada," Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.), who is leading the debate over a health-care plan as chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, said in a recent speech. "We need a uniquely American solution. It has to be a partnership of public and private players."

source

Let's get the facts straight on health care reform

With the debate over health care reform getting hot and heavy, opponents of President Barack Obama’s proposal have been feeding the public a lot of misinformation. Unfortunately, one of my Examiner colleagues has joined them.

In an April 12 post, Watchdog Politics Examiner Martha Gore falsely characterized Obama's health care reform proposal as a “nationalized health care plan,” and Media Matters for America rightly took her to task for misinforming the public.

Let’s get our terminology straight. Nationalized or socialized medicine is a health care system that is publicly financed and delivered, such as Great Britain’s National Health Service. That is not part of Obama’s proposal or the Single Payer plan put forward in HR 676 and S 703.

The public health insurance option in Obama’s proposal and Single Payer both provide for health care that is public financed and privately delivered. In effect, both would extend Medicare beyond the elderly, with everyone covered under Single Payer or having an opportunity to choose such a plan under Obama’s proposal.

While Single Payer would automatically cover everyone, the Obama option would give consumers a lower-cost alternative to private insurance. Since the overhead for private insurance averages 30 percent, compared to only 4 percent for Medicare, such competition could force private insurers to become more responsive to consumer needs.

It should also be noted that under both Single Payer and the Obama proposal, patients have a free choice of doctors, while private insurance limits those covered to doctors within each insurer’s system. It can sometimes be difficult to build a doctor-patient relationship under such an arrangement, as I personally found when I twice had to change primary care physicians when they stopped taking my insurance.

By putting profits ahead of everything else, the insurance companies are the primary cause of our broken health care system, and they are now fighting tooth and nail to maintain their racket. Their fear is that they can’t compete profitably with the cheaper public insurance alternative proposed by Obama, leading many businesses to switch to it for employee health insurance. Under this scenario, the public alternative would likely evolve into Single Payer.

Opponents of the Obama proposal also claim that it would undermine consumer choice in health care, but this argument is absurd. When health insurance is provided by the employer, as is now the case, there is usually no choice for the employee. They are stuck with whatever deal their employer can get, complete with co-pays, deductibles and exclusions that limit coverage.

Details on the Obama proposal are currently being worked on, and it is expected to be introduced in Congress in June. We can look forward to a fierce debate, but don’t expect honesty from the opposition.

source