Americans are waking up to the doublespeak the President and his Capitol Hill allies, to whom he has outsourced an inordinate amount of his policy formulation, continue to employ in frantically pushing their version of health care reform; Time calls these obvious paradoxes the fatal flaw of ObamaCare. The WSJ also describes the President's many contradictions, pointing out that voters aren't stupid and it's because they are listening that ObamaCare is in trouble. As the White House likes to say, "facts are stubborn things." Notice we haven't heard much from Obama lately about his unequivocal promise that "if you like your insurance, if you like your doctor, you can keep them." Why? It turns out saying something over and over with increasing force and conviction does not make it true. The Lewin Group, in a major analysis of the bill, estimates that 83 million people would be forced onto the "public option" under Obama's plan, losing their current, private coverage. Truly, no study was necessary to see the fallacy in Obama's claim. His purpose is sweeping health care reform that would transform the entire system... yet no individual would need to change their coverage. It's difficult to enact fundamental change if none of the players in the system change their behavior. Many Americans saw the wool being pulled over their eyes and reacted indignantly.
Speaking of wool being pulled over our eyes. Can we put to bed the debate about whether or not ObamaCare with a public option, not only would, but is designed to lead to single-payer care? Over the course of the debate, Democrat after Democrat, including Obama, has been caught telling friendly crowds that that is indeed the whole idea. The public option, it turns out, was part of a grand strategy developed in 2007 as a "stealth single payer." Hillary Clinton's chief strategist says the public option "was always meant as a transition to single payer, not merely as an aid to competition with private insurers." Case closed.
Obama would prefer single-payer, so why use the public option to get to the liberals' dream? Krugman explains that "politically it's hard to do in one step." I wonder why... Perhaps because only 32% of Americans favor single-payer health care. The rest understand what it would mean. Liberal leaders are being forced to confront a centrist nation. Realizing they've been found out, and with a plurality now opposing the trojan horse, the public option looks increasingly less likely to be included in any reform that passes. Meanwhile, Pelosi says she can't pass a bill in the House without it. In case you've forgotten why conservatives oppose the public option, here's Heritage...
The bottom line is that a public plan will grant the federal government unprecedented power to constantly tinker with the health care sector in ways that will make one sixth of our entire economy completely dependent on decisions made in Washington, DC. This is not the way free societies operate.
Democrats would also like us to believe their sweeping reform would be deficit neutral as Obama has demanded. It was a rude awakening for them when the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office scored their bills between $1 and $2 trillion dollars. Director Elmendorf said that rather than "bend the curve" on health care cost as Obama has promised, his proposals would "significantly expand the federal responsibility for health care cost." We are then to believe that health care and all of Obama's other big government initiatives can be paid for by pillaging the wealthiest Americans with a variety of surtaxes. The Washington Post has called this a "mirage." As Margaret Thatcher said of Socialism, "the problem... is that eventually you run out of other people's money."
Obama is right to preach the dangers of inaction on health care. Health care spending, especially in the form of entitlements, is on an unsustainable and dangerous path, one that could bring down the entire economy. However, the President loses me in using this fact as rationale for passing legislation that we now know would only make our bleak budget outlook much worse. CBO director Elmendorf told congress that ObamaCare would "put an additional long-term burden on top of an already unsustainable path." Indeed, doing nothing would be better than accelerating our dive into the red; 54% of Americans agree.
Time Magazine laid out the challenge for Obama very well:
The hard part is making sure that in transforming a system that is bankrupting the country, Washington doesn't create a new one that does it even faster. Or that in expanding health coverage to the minority of Americans who don't have it, Washington doesn't leave the majority who do have it — and who like what they have — with less.
Unfortunately, the President's proposals fail on both counts.
Obama and Democrats in Congress have simply lost credibility with the American people, including their strongest supporters. Republicans are not trusted much more, but have overtaken Democrats on the question for the first time in years. Only 27% of Americans believe members of Congress have a good understanding of the health care issue as they look to reshape one-sixth of the American economy; voters think they know the bill better. The polls were turning against the President in the early summer and by the end of July, only 36% thought ObamaCare was a good idea. Gallop presented the top 10 takeaways of public opinion on health care at the time and the numbers all look bad for the President. Obama's power has been dwindling ever since, leading some to conclude that he does not know how to legislate. In August, voters came to appreciate more of the reasons the plan is bad for America. At this point, Obama has been dealt a major blow in the polls with his approval dropping to 46% in one poll and losing 17 points with Independents.
The last hope for a bipartisan bill rests with six Senators on the Finance Committee, but talks appear to be breaking down on irreconcilable differences. Desperate to pass their signature piece of legislation, regardless of what the American people think, Democratic leaders on the Hill are considering twisting Senate rules to force through a bill with no Republican support, a move that many commentators believe would be ultimately suicidal. Mr. Obama's pledge to be a post-partisan president has quickly fizzled as he wages a permanent campaign, employing the politics of fear and blame, instead of governing. He is also providing a variant, incoherent message, the result of allowing focus groups to dictate his language. The carefully crafted phrases that Obama has used repeatedly have thus far not convinced a skeptical public. He now faces a "politically explosive mix of unpopular policies and an angered electorate." Some believe Obama's smartest move would be to "pull the plug on ObamaCare" and find an exit strategy in order to save his presidency, but I'm not holding my breath. He is indeed pushing ahead with a new strategy and plans to address a joint session of Congress next Wednesday night in an attempt to regain control of the debate.
Clearly a lot has transpired in Washington and around the country in the last month in the tumultuous world of health care reform. There is more to discuss, but it can wait until next week as I anticipate being able to post more regularly. We'll address the question of health care as a right and the co-ops alternative, look at the absurd reaction from the left to this great piece in the WSJ by the CEO of Whole Foods as well as cover the economy, the GOP and other issues that have been muffled by the town hall volume of health care in August.
In the meantime, cast your vote in the latest PG Polls: Do you think President Obama will sign a major health care reform bill this year? Will Obama ever fully recover from his downward slide?
3 comments:
ROFL don't know why I bother since I'm convinced rationality is not what the right is looking for in this specific debate (again, I'm talking about health care *only*...how I wish issues could be looked at separately and not in the spoke of partisanship) but for what it's worth and because misinformation kills me...
I could shed some accurate light on more but I'll just shed light on the main piece of evidence for most of your post: Lewin Group study.
If only you provided a link to the accurate PRIMARY source of the Lewin group study, rather than the Heritage Conservative's analysis of the bill. Sigh. Since not, I'm here. The Lewin group study analyzed variations of a public plan when this whole debate started. They did not analyze the actual bill. (You won't be happy to know, or perhaps you do know, that the CBO did analyze the ACTUAL bill and came out with some fairly "nice" numbers that go against what you say...more on that later after I talk about Lewin study). The number you mention from the Lewin Group assumes that the public plan is going to include large employers also. To my knowledge, that is not true. I'm pretty sure that's not true actually. Large employers are not going to participate in the exchanges. Even your number is wrong. I'm surprised you chose the 80mill. Lewin group estimated that 100 million people would end up enrolling in the public plan IF IF IF IF larger firms participated in the exchanges.
Now, to the CBO (the people you used as evidence when the said the bill would cost too much but I guess refuse to use as evidence now...). The CBO analyzed THE BILL OUT THERE NOW (aka no large firms participate in exchange), and predicted that approx. 5 million people would switch from employer coverage to public plan.
Now, before my next point, all the above is based on fact. But to go even further, it is worthy to note that the Lewin Group is owned by a private insurance company (United Health), but I'm not even claiming bias in my argument (which I could). Interesting that now the Republicans can't play the bias card with the CBO estimate bc 1. would look like fools and 2. they used the CBO to their advantage in prior arguments! So now what should they do? IGNORE THE CBO AND GO TO LEWIN WHO IS ANALYZING SOMETHING NOT ON THE TABLE! WOOHOO FOR HONESTY.
Also, congratulations in advance since now the right-wing "ObamaCare" slogan will FINALLY have some merit to it!!! Obama is going to give a talk to Congress this week as I'm sure you know. Up until now it has actually been the congressmen making the decisions and the bills (yeah, remember that "death panel" part of the bill. that was put into place by a Republican from Georgia. The irony...). Yup, this wasn't the Clinton years where Clinton led the charge. This was a way different approach but leave it to who else than the right-wing to simplify health care into death-panels, socialism, and ObamaCare rather than acknowledge the complexities.
To end on a positive note, looking forward to the Whole Foods stuff next week. Unbelievably absurd reaction from the left... (but, again, bc I can't get over it, if you compare absurd relatively to the right-wing "kill your grandma, forced abortions" nonsense in this hc debate it pales in comparison).
Danny, thanks for the comment. I've researched your claims and would like to respond. You highlight important truths and complexities, but you are incorrect in your criticism. While I clearly have a conservative point of view on the issue, I seek to be honest, straightforward and avoid evidence filtering. Confirmation bias is dangerous in decision making as well as policy assessment. Thank you for ensuring that I hold to this aim.
First of all, contrary to what you claim, the Lewin Group did analyse the July 15th draft of the actual bill. What I linked was a memo written by Lewin outlining their study.
http://www.heritage.org/research/healthcare/upload/Lewin_public_plan_National_all.pdf
The same document is cited by each fact check I've read. If a more primary, raw report on the study exists, I haven't seen it. And yes, Lewin is owned by UnitedHealth, which is good reason for a critical reading of their methodology and conclusions but no reason to dismiss their findings out of hand. WaPo addresses their ownership http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/22/AR2009072202216.html Lewin acknowledges that it creates a perception of a conflict of interest but vows that it has no effect on their work. Politifact.com notes "Lewin Group is respected by many health care analysts and operates with editorial independence, but it is a subsidiary of UnitedHealth Group, which also offers private health insurance."
I have also found the CBO analysis you cite and found the reasons for the discrepancy with Lewin's analysis interesting. You are correct that one of the two major points of divergence is the assumption of eligibility, small employers only vs. everyone. The other is the pricing gap between the public plan and private insurance. Lewin assumes the public plan will cost consumers 20% less than private insurance; the CBO assumes 10%.
The actual bill does not answer these questions, rather leaving them up to the "Commissioner." Therefore, we cannot know which analysis is more accurate and likely to prove true if implemented. We can use common sense, logic and contextual evidence to make a good guess. Lewin assumes that in year 3 the Commissioner will open up the exchange to all employers, which is allowed by the bill. See page 2 of the memo linked above.
I think the CBO is a very solid authority on legislation and would not selectively use their analysis. However you must understand that the CBO analyses only what is spelled out without making assumption about future behavior, no matter how likely or rationally anticipated based on contextual evidence. The Lewin Group took this extra step to analyse what the bill would most likely mean in practice as time goes on. I believe their assumptions are based on sound reasoning. Refer to my writing on the original purpose of the public option... it's not meant to be restricted to individuals and small employers. Also, my number is not wrong. I used the number Lewin found, under their reasonable assumptions, would lose their private insurance and move to the public option, 83.4 million, the number you refer to is an estimate of all people on the public option, 103 million.
For a more detailed explanation of the difference in the two studies, read the Investor Business Daily.
http://www.ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=333674253179704
They explain that the devil is in the assumptions and logically show why Lewin is likely closer to the truth of what will happen. Lewin has also addressed the CBO report and explained the discrepencies.
http://blog.heritage.org/2009/09/01/morning-bell-the-road-to-government-run-health-care/
I linked this piece in my original post.
Continued below...
You are free to think the public option would be wonderful, but the bottom line reached by both Lewin and CBO is that Obama's assertion that "you won't lose your private insurance" is categorically false. Americans deserve the truth of what Obamacare would mean. Then they should decide if it's a good idea for the country.
I'm thrilled that Obama has finally decided to stand up and lead on his signature issue. The fact that he has, indeed, left the sausage making to the Democratic leaders in congress on healthcare, the stimulus, the omnibus, etc. unchecked has demonstrated troubling weakness and lack of firm principles. Barack Obama is the President, not Nancy Pelosi; he should act like it on these domestic issues.
As for death panels and other claims made some conservatives, while often inflammatory and sometimes gross exagerations, there is almost always some truth and validity behind the claims which is cause for legitimate concern.
On "death panels"- http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/20/AR2009082003035.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns
And Palin defending her phrase http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203440104574400581157986024.html
Liberals acknowledge that she had a point, and she has won the argument.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204409904574350400852801602.html
On abortion funding- http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/abortion-which-side-is-fabricating/
On other fears- http://blog.heritage.org/2009/08/24/morning-bell-myths-and-facts-about-obamacare/
Post a Comment