Daily Archives: September 24, 2010
The GOP’s “Pledge” health care section is, well, screwed up.
For instance, on the one hand they say this:
The American people wanted one thing out of health care reform: lower costs,which President Obama and Democrats in Washington promised, but did not deliver. Instead of expanding the size and scope of government with more debt, higher taxes,and burdensome mandates, Americans are calling for reforms that lower costs for families and small businesses, increase access to affordable, high-quality care and strengthen the doctor-patient relationship. We have a plan to do just that.
First the premise – anyone, do you remember Americans “calling for reforms that lower costs for families and small business?” Yeah, neither do I. I certainly remember a whole raft of politicians making their inept handling of government run insurance systems like Medicare and Medicaid and running up the cost of health care seem like Americans were calling for that.
What, in fact, Americans were calling for was for government to back off and spend less. But now, it appears, even the GOP has swallowed the poison premise. They have bought into the “need” for health care reform and so entitle their section on it “repeal and replace”.
Replace? Where did “replace” come from? Was anyone out in flyover land talking about replacing one bad government program with another? I certainly don’t remember it.
And zero in on the word “mandates” in the cite above. I believe the word “burdensome” is used in front of it and the implication is these “burdensome mandates” will actually increase both government size and scope as well as cost.
So what do the Republicans put forward as a part of their plan?
Ensure Access for Patients with Pre-Existing Conditions
Health care should be accessible for all,regardless of pre-existing conditions or past illnesses. We will expand state high-risk pools, reinsurance programs and reduce the cost of coverage. We will make it illegal for an insurance company to deny coverage to someone with prior coverage on the basis of a pre-existing condition, eliminate annual and lifetime spending caps, and prevent insurers from dropping your coverage just because you get sick. We will incentivize states to develop innovative programs that lower premiums and reduce the number of uninsured Americans.
Is that a fact?
Back to the premise they’ve bought into – if “Americans” were calling for health care reform that “lowered costs”, can anyone tell me how this does that?
Who is going to pay for these “mandates” on insurance companies? Why everyone is. This is a universal mandate which will require everyone with an insurance policy to kick in and fund health care costs with no spending caps.
It will drive them up!
This isn’t “access to health care”, this is an unlimited license to spend other people’s money via a legal mandate on insurance companies that would essentially require them to do so.
They supposedly spent a long time putting this together and “listening” to “Americans”. Sounds more like they sat in a few of Obama’s campaign stops and town halls to me.
Is the carefully nurtured relationship begun by the then Obama campaign between them and the "professional left" fraying at the edges?
Apparently some among the progressive blogosphere are tired of carrying the administration’s water:
On a conference call to give the progressives their marching orders was our friend David Axelrod smoozing the bloggers. :
"You play a great role in informing people about the stakes of elections," Axelrod told the bloggers. "One of the reasons I was eager to expend time was to enlist you."
But that didn’t set particularly well with at least one blogger – Susan Madrak of Crooks and Liars:
That tension burst out into the open when Madrak directly asked Axelrod: "Have you ever heard of hippie punching?" That prompted a long silence from Axelrod.
"You want us to help you, the first thing I would suggest is enough of the hippie punching," Madrak added. "We’re the girl you’ll take under the bleachers but you won’t be seen with in the light of day."
Yeah, well, guess what – they actually expected the administration to do what it said it was going to do. Apparently, like the woman who confronted the President at the most recent town hall, they’re dead tired of defending him.
Fun stuff. My guess is Robert Gibbs will have a coronary. But it is very indicative of the tension and lack of trust that now exists between two groups that were once simpatico.
The problem can be distilled into an easily digestible sentence – the administration has not done what it promised the “professional left” it would do.
So – is this just a fight or is it a break up?
Where would the professional left go? Who would they support? How would they get anything done … anything at all?
Well that depends I think. Many of those Gibbs tagged as the “professional left” are a part of the radical left. They’d actually be quite comfortable if there was a real “progressive” third party choice. At the moment there isn’t and Obama, who they were gulled into thinking was the answer to all their liberal dreams, hasn’t fulfilled the promises they wrote on the blank slate Obama presented.
Not much of a surprise for those who’ve observed politics for more than a day.
But back to the conference call:
"To the extent that we shouldn’t get involved in intramural skirmishing, I couldn’t agree more," Axelrod said. "We just can’t afford that. There are big things at stake here."
Madrak replied that Axelrod was missing the point — that the criticism of the left made it tougher for bloggers like herself to motivate the base. "Don’t make our jobs harder," she said.
"Right back at’cha. Right back at’cha," Axelrod replied, a bit testily, an apparent reference to blogospheric criticism of the administration.
This isn’t going to get any better. If anything, it is going to get worse. And whoever replaces Axelrod and takes over the outreach has their work cut out for them. As Greg Sargent concludes:
At any rate, for Axelrod to plead with liberal bloggers for their help turning out the base, only to get accused of "hippie punching," is an iconic moment in Campaign 2010.