GOP Skeptical Of Obama's Health Care Mtg Motives

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

GOP Cool To Obama's Call For Health Talks


Republicans gave a chilly reception Monday to President Barack Obama's invitation to discuss health care in a bipartisan, televised setting later this month, part of the White House effort to revive the stalled legislation.

The House and Senate GOP leaders said Obama and his fellow Democrats must shelve their long-debated health care bill, which was on the verge of becoming law until Republican Scott Brown won a special Senate election in Massachusetts last month. The White House says Obama has no plans to do so but is willing to hear Republicans' ideas.

Rep. Darrell Issa of California, the top Republican on the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, said Monday that the first question for Obama should be: "Did you lie about moving forward on malpractice reform?" He was alluding to the president's earlier remarks about possibly curbing malpractice lawsuits, which is not included in the health bills passed separately by House and Senate Democrats in December.

In the first major move to jump-start his health care agenda after his party's loss of a filibuster-proof Senate majority, Obama on Sunday invited GOP and Democratic leaders to discuss possible compromises in a half-day, televised gathering on Feb. 25.

It comes amid widespread complaints that Democrats' efforts so far have been too partisan and secretive.

The meeting's prospects for success are far from clear. GOP leaders insisted on starting from scratch. But many Democrats want to use their party's remaining parliamentary muscle to enact their plans with as few changes as possible.

"If we are to reach a bipartisan consensus, the White House can start by shelving the current health spending bill," said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.

But House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., said his earlier efforts to reach out to Republicans "did not result in any serious follow through to work together in a bipartisan fashion."

Obama told CBS's Katie Couric that he and the leaders of both parties will "go through systematically all the best ideas that are out there and move it forward."

Asked if he was willing to start from square one, the president said he wants "to look at the Republican ideas that are out there."

"If we can go step by step through a series of these issues and arrive at some agreements," Obama said, "then procedurally, there's no reason why we can't do it a lot faster than the process took last year."

Democratic and Republican leaders in Congress have differed sharply on most major questions in the long-running health care debate. Only one Republican voted for the health care bill that the House approved in November, and no Republicans voted for a similar Senate version.

Many liberal groups want congressional Democrats to enact the health care bill that the Senate passed on Christmas Eve, employing rules that could bypass GOP filibusters to make changes demanded by House Democrats.

The White House has not ruled out such a strategy. But Obama's recent talk of inviting Republican input and extending the debate for several weeks has caused uncertainty about his plans.

A White House statement Sunday said Obama repeatedly has made it clear "that he's adamant about passing comprehensive reform similar to the bills passed by the House and the Senate."

Polls show that many Americans feel Obama and his congressional allies have not sought enough GOP input, although Democrats say Republicans have shown virtually no interest in seeking a realistic agreement.

Obama also is trying to address criticism of Democrats' closed-door negotiations that led to special accommodations for Nebraska and Louisiana senators when their votes on health care were in question. Some Republicans taunted Obama for suggesting earlier that health care negotiations should be aired on C-SPAN, and one GOP senator said health care would be the president's Waterloo.

Obama said the closed-door deal-cutting was not helpful to the process.

"They did not help. They frustrate me. But, you know, this is a democracy," Obama said.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said, "we have promoted the pursuit of a bipartisan approach to health reform from day one."


Sources: MSNBC

Schwarzenegger Says Senators Were Bribed For Health Care Votes

In a recent interview to be broadcast on Sunday’s “Meet the Press,” California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger criticized and accused the U.S. Congress for passing Health Care Reform bills by "buying" votes.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

"While I enthusiastically support health care reform, it is not reform to push more costs onto states that are already struggling while other states get sweetheart deals".

"Health care reform, which started as noble and needed legislation, has become a trough of bribes, deals and loopholes".

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's 2010 State of the Union Address

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

View Larger Map


Sources: Politico, MSNBC, Google Maps

13 Attorney Generals Threaten Lawsuit Over Nelson's Medicaid Bribe...Repeal

13 Attorneys General Threaten Lawsuit Over Health Care Reform



Republican attorneys general in 13 states say Congressional leaders must remove Nebraska's political deal from the federal health care reform bill or face legal action, according to a letter provided to The Associated Press Wednesday.

"We believe this provision is constitutionally flawed," South Carolina Attorney General Henry McMaster and the 12 other attorneys general wrote in the letter to be sent Wednesday night to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.

"As chief legal officers of our states we are contemplating a legal challenge to this provision and we ask you to take action to render this challenge unnecessary by striking that provision," they wrote.

In a rare Christmas Eve vote, Senate Democrats pushed sweeping health care legislation to the brink of Senate passage, crushing a year-end Republican filibuster against President Barack Obama's call to remake the nation's health care system. The 60-39 vote marked the third time in as many days Democrats posted a supermajority needed to advance the legislation.

The letter was signed by top prosecutors in Alabama, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Michigan, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Virginia and Washington state. All are Republicans, and McMaster and the attorneys general of Florida, Michigan and Pennsylvania are running for governor in their respective states.

Last week, McMaster said he was leading several other attorneys general in an inquiry into the constitutionality of the estimated $100 million deal he has dubbed the "Cornhusker Kickback."

Republican U.S. Sens. Lindsey Graham and Jim DeMint of South Carolina raised questions about the legislation, which they said was amended to win Nebraska Sen. Ben Nelson's support.

"Because this provision has serious implications for the country and the future of our nation's legislative process, we urge you to take appropriate steps to protect the Constitution and the rights of the citizens of our nation," the attorneys general wrote.

A conference committee begins meeting next year to work out a compromise between House and Senate versions of the bill. Experts expect those talks will likely last into February, and a spokeswoman for U.S. House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn, D-S.C., did not immediately comment on the letter.

McMaster says if the bill goes through to final approval with the benefit to Nebraska, taxpayers in the other 49 states will have to pay for it.

Meanwhile, Nelson is taking his message on health care reform directly to his constituents. In a television ad beginning during Wednesday night's Nebraska-Arizona Holiday Bowl football game, the Democrat says he stuck by his principles throughout the debate and doesn't want Nebraskans to be confused on his position.

While it's not uncommon for states to challenge federal laws in court, one legal expert said political bluster was likely behind the letter.

"I do think that it is some combination of the losers just complaining about the officiating, or complaining about how the game was played, in combination with trying to make the bill look as seedy and inappropriate as possible, for political purposes," says Andy Siegel, a former University of South Carolina School of Law professor now teaching at Seattle University School of Law.

"It is smart politics to try to tarnish it and make it look less like an achievement and more like some sort of corrupted bargain," he said.



View Larger Map


Sources: AP, Huffington Post, MSNBC, TPM, Youtube, Google Maps

Dems' Senate Health Care Bill Deals Teaching Youth "Dirty Politics"

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

A Senate Health-Care Victory That Stinks


The health-care reform bill coming out of the Senate presents a real dilemma for spectators: How do you applaud while holding your nose?

There is so much that is wrong with it -- and the way it was made -- and, at the same time, so much that is right that you just have to shake your head in despair and in wonder.

As one who covered the Clintons' struggle 15 years ago to pass health-care reform and who wrote an overly long book about their failure to even bring it to a vote in a Democratic Congress, I am in awe at the prospect of such a bill making it all the way to the White House.

When implemented years from now, it promises to make as many as 30 million men and women who now live with the fear of illness or hospitalization leading straight to financial ruin eligible for the same care as their more fortunate, insured neighbors.

Six decades after FDR's death, one of his Four Freedoms will, at long last, be guaranteed to almost all Americans. And the shame of this affluent society tolerating the denial of health care to its citizens will be largely lifted.

But Lord, what a load of embarrassment accompanies this sense of satisfaction! What should have been a moment of proud accomplishment for the Senate, right up there with the passage of Social Security and the first civil rights bills, was instead a travesty of low-grade political theater -- angry rhetoric and backroom deals.

There's blame enough to go around. Start with the 40 Republicans, not one of whom was willing to break out of the mold of negative conformity and offer a sustained working partnership in serious legislative effort.

But even those Republicans who were initially inclined to do that -- and there were at least a handful of them -- were turned away by the White House and the Senate Democratic leaders, who never lifted their sights much beyond the Democratic ranks.

Forced to bargain for every vote among the 60 in his caucus, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid did what he usually does: He reduced the negotiations to his own level of transactional morality. Incapable of summoning his colleagues to statesmanship, he made the deals look as crass and parochial as many of them were -- encasing a historic achievement in a wrapping of payoff and patronage.

The taint has rubbed off on the bill.

This week's Quinnipiac University poll found a majority of Americans disapproving of the legislation by 53 to 36 percent and an overwhelming number -- 73 to 18 percent -- saying they do not believe it will, as promised, reduce future budget deficits.

It now becomes President Obama's responsibility to strengthen the bill's cost-saving features and present them in a better way. Two of them are vulnerable to attack when the bill goes back to conference with the House in January.

Liberal Democrats do not like the Independent Commission in the Senate bill having power to enforce savings in Medicare and the Private Health System. And Labor does not accept the Senate plan to Tax high-end insurance plans.

Obama has not intervened with a heavy hand as the bill has moved through the House and Senate, but now it is time for him to act.

It would help a lot if he reached out personally to those few Republicans who might still want to improve the bill rather than sink it. And it would help even more if he shamed the Democrats into rescinding some of the crasser bargains they made to buy votes along the way.

The country would welcome even a few signs that this legislation has Bi-partisan support.

Then we could applaud its final passage and take our thumbs from our noses.




View Larger Map


Sources: Washington Post, MSNBC, Freaking News, Youtube, Google Maps

Obama's Health Care Bill Win A Political "Game Changer"? At What Cost?

Obama's Game-Changing Win


To win passage in the Senate, Democrats gave away the store—and left the GOP an opening to exploit in 2010. But, Eric Alterman argues, they also transformed the political playing field.

Way back on December 2, 1993, an ambitious right-wing think tank denizen and former aide to Dan Quayle by the name William Kristol circulated a terse, four-page memo to Republican leaders warning of the political dangers of allowing a Democratic president to reform the U.S. health-care system.

The memo’s language is almost comically deferential, reflecting what was then its author’s near-complete non-notoriety. “Nothing in these pages is intended to supplant the many thoughtful analyses of the Clinton health-care plan already produced by Republicans and others….”

The thrust of the memo’s argument was clear and unapologetic: Republicans must resist health-care reform lest its success be allowed to “revive the reputation of the party that spends and regulates, the Democrats, as the generous protector of middle-class interests. And it will at the same time strike a punishing blow against Republican claims to defend the middle class by restraining the growth of government.”

We will never know if Kristol was right about 1993: His role as a political swami rather famously leaves much to be desired, (as hundreds of thousands of Iraqis might attest, were they still alive). But we do know his memo succeeded in bludgeoning the mind of what was then, relatively speaking, the Republicans’ moderate leaders—turning them from Clinton conciliators into Republican road warriors.

Of course the Clintonites screwed up considerably themselves, failing to embrace any number of perfectly palatable compromises the Republicans (and their own recalcitrant members) had on the table, demanding more than the system could deliver, and ending up, in the words of Elvis Costello, with “less than zero.”

Exactly why Barack Obama has been able to succeed where so many other presidents, going back to Harry Truman, have failed before him is not easy to pinpoint—at least not yet. The United States has long lagged behind other nations in the quality of the health care it delivered to the majority of its citizens.

Truman’s plan never really had a chance, particularly with the Korean War dominating his presidency. Lyndon Johnson focused his attention largely on the elderly and the indigent, and ended up creating Medicare and Medicaid; not bad at the time, one must admit, but they both left the vast majority of middle-class Americans at the mercy of a mercenary industry dedicated to denying coverage whenever it proved unprofitable.

Ted Kennedy writes in his eloquent and moving memoir, True Compass (p.359), of his bafflement at Jimmy Carter, who, after running on a comprehensive reform plan almost identical to the one Kennedy spent his career fighting for, was almost immediately replaced “by the President Carter who wanted to approach health insurance in incremental steps, over time, if certain cost-containment benchmarks were met—and after the 1978 midterm elections.

Pres. Barack Obama, it must be added, not only passed comprehensive health-care reform, but he passed it in a Senate whose barriers against the filibuster of legislation have been considerably reduced to next to nothing.

Filibustering, rather than voting against legislation, is the ideal way for a politician to kill something without being forced to take responsibility for an actual vote. After all, who can mount a campaign against you on behalf of an issue called “Cloture?”

The obvious answer to the question of how Obama managed it is that he gave away the Democratic store. The bill he passed has no public option, no expansion of Medicare to those under 65, and additional restrictions of abortion funding. It is littered with provisions showering holiday goodies on the insurance industry, the pharmaceutical industry, the citizens of Nebraska.

To win, Obama and his advisers appeared to offer up one concession after another, coupled with gratuitous insults to the Democrats’ liberal base—as if they needed some outrage on the left to make the whole thing feel kosher. Over all, the 60 votes secured by Harry Reid demonstrated, as no political-science lesson can, that the passage of major legislation in this country makes sausage-making look awfully pretty.

The question, to return to Kristol’s terms of analysis, is what it will mean politically. Sen. John Barrasso (R-WY) told ABC News, "I think it's going to be a historic mistake for the country if this is what happens to health care," said Barrasso. "Now, as you know, the changes don't actually go into place until four years from now, so people aren't going to be able to see immediately what the problems are.

But they are going to notice the cuts in Medicare and, specifically, the increased taxes which go into effect the day that this bill is signed into law."

He has a point. And the Democrats’ concession on this point is one, from the standpoint of a political observer, I find most puzzling. Why in the world would they agree to a bill that leaves them vulnerable to the whims of the insurance companies—and Republican rhetoric between now and 2014, when they have to win congressional and presidential elections in 2010 and 2012?

How can you sell the benefits if all that people have experienced are the costs?

You can argue, as American Prospect Editor Mark Schmitt does, that it comes down to good government, an aspiration even the most cynical Democrats on occasion find unavoidable.

“The bill as it has passed provides the basic components needed to construct a workable system of near-universal health coverage, and all that is outstanding—implementation and legislative improvement—can be accomplished without anyone needing to beg at the feet of a gleefully sneering Joe Lieberman or Ben Nelson.”

But why then, are (most) Democrats so happy and (all) Republicans so glum this Christmas? My guess is that Democrats are gambling on exactly the same ground that so worried William Kristol 16 years ago.

They’ve redefined the playing field of American politics to ground that is inherently favorable to their team. When Americans complain about their health care in the future, are they going to look to the party that wants to do nothing to fix it? No, they’re going to go with the side of political activism and government involvement.

The other side, after all, isn’t even in the game. Republicans had their chance and all they could say was “Bah Humbug.”



View Larger Map


Sources: The Daily Beast, Politico, American Prospect, Google Maps

Ben Nelson Slammed By Nebraska's Governor For "Medicaid Compromise" Deal

Nebraska Guv Blasts Nelson


POLITICO's Manu Raju gets in touch with Nebraska's Republican Gov. David Heineman, who pulls a Sanford, telling Manu he doesn't want hundreds of millions in free Medicaid money.

Plus he suggests that 'Husker voters will punish Democratic Sen. Ben Nelson, a former governor, for securing the cash at the cost of implementing the overall reform package.

“The last few days have made Nebraskans so angry that now it’s a matter of principle,”

Gov. David Heineman told POLITICO: “The federal government can keep that money.”

When told about the governor’s comments, Nelson said:

“If he wants to subject Nebraska to future liability — it’s his call.” And he called it “foolish” since the money wouldn’t be available until several years down the road, when other states would almost certainly lobby to get increased federal aid.

Nelson is engaged in a tense war of words with his home-state governor over his health care vote and the Medicaid deal he helped secure for their state, a signal that Nelson’s political opponents plan to bloody him up for his health care stand — and that could impact his standing ahead of his 2012 re-election.

“The reason he’s in hot water right now is that he’s not listening to Nebraskans – it’s very unusual for him,” Heineman said. “I am shocked.”

Asked about the governor’s direct aim at him, Nelson said it’s just “partisan politics.”



View Larger Map


Sources: Politico, Google Maps

Michael Steele's Reaction To Senate Health Care Bill Final Vote

(Published Dec. 23, 2009) Same Trojan Horse Just Under a Different Name


Tomorrow, early Christmas Eve morning, Harry Reid plans a final vote in the Senate to pass his government-run health care bill. One of the only reasons why Reid has been able to get this far was by dropping the “public option,” thus calming the fears of moderate Democrats who couldn’t defend to their constituents this measure as a Trojan Horse for a single-payer system. (I.E. nationalizing America’s health care).

Below are passages from a piece that appeared in National Review Online this morning, written by my close friend Kay Coles James, a former director of the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM), discussing Reid’s new plan. Unfortunately, as Mrs. James writes, “given the statutory requirements, this arrangement seems to be a ‘public option’ in ‘private’ option disguise…”

Instead of a “public option” Reid’s new bill sets the OPM as the new proprietor for his government-run health care plan—the same Trojan Horse to a single-payer system, just under a different name.

Section 1334 of Reid’s bill calls on OPM to administer a new set of “multi-state” health plans for the general public. These plans, one of which must be non-profit, would “compete” against the other private health plans in the states. But given the statutory requirements, this arrangement seems to be a “public option” in “private” option disguise. Why? Because OPM would not merely serve as the umpire overseeing competition among private health plans. It would also become a health-plan sponsor, fielding its own team of players to compete against the existing private plans in every state. That’s a very different role for OPM and the inherent conflicts are obvious…

That’s worrisome indeed. It gives political appointees at OPM the means to manipulate rules for the benefit of the government’s “own team.” As a result, OPM could crowd out the private insurance providers, forcing millions of Americans to lose or be transitioned out of their existing health coverage...

Taxpayers worried about the dangers of the proposed “Public Option” should be no less alarmed by the Senate’s proposed new role for OPM.


Sources: GOP.com, National Review Online, Think Progress, Youtube, Zimbio

"Ted Kennedy Would Be Disappointed Health Care Bill Isn't Bi-Partisan"...McCain

Exhausted and Divided, Senate Casts Holiday Vote


The last time the Senate voted on Christmas Eve, in 1895, it represented a moment of national reconciliation, as lawmakers agreed to lift a ban on federal officers who had joined the Confederacy from serving in the post-Civil War military.

“No Animosity Remaining,” proclaimed a celebratory front-page headline in The New York Times the next day.

The same could not be declared about Thursday’s vote approving a bitterly contested health care overhaul at the end of an exhausting 25-day legislative journey. It was the second-longest consecutive stretch in Senate annals and one that severely strained the traditions of collegiality that underpin the institution.

Beneath the bright red jackets, blouses and holiday ties donned to signify the exceedingly rare occasion of a sunrise session the day before Christmas, real tension remained over the merits of the proposal passed along hardened party lines as well as over how the debate unfolded, with its odd postmidnight and early morning votes.

Democrats and their allies rejoiced at realizing an achievement that had eluded them for decades, saying they were on the verge of enacting an expansion of health care coverage that would provide security for millions of Americans. But the excitement was tempered with the reality for some that they will now have to persuade skeptical voters that the measure, which has been subjected to a blizzard of partisan analysis, is in the public’s best interests.

“I know there are a lot of people who have an opposing point of view,” said Senator Ben Nelson, the Nebraska Democrat who was the key 60th vote for the bill. “The use of information and misinformation has really confused the public. Don’t be surprised if you have people who are upset.”

In the minutes leading up to the 7:05 a.m. call of the Senate roll, Republicans sat glum and scowling at their desks as Senator Harry Reid, the Nevada Democrat who is the majority leader and architect of the measure, chastised them for choosing “to stand on the sidelines rather than participate in great and greatly needed social change.” It was not a happy holiday moment for them.

“It is sad,” said Senator Susan Collins, a Maine Republican who has been willing to cross party lines to work with Democrats but remains firmly opposed to the bill. “I feel that we missed an opportunity.”

Senior Republicans pledged to continue to resist the measure as it heads for negotiations with the House.

“I guarantee you, the people who voted for this bill are going to get an earful when they finally get home for the first time since Thanksgiving,” said Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader. “There is widespread opposition to this monstrosity.”

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

For all the buildup, the final act was accomplished speedily as senators, ready to race to the region’s airports, assembled with Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. presiding and zipped through the climactic vote in about 15 minutes. The outcome drew applause as weary Congressional staff members and administration negotiators looked on. A second vote to approve an increase in federal borrowing power was quickly disposed of, and in just over 30 minutes, lawmakers were heading for the doors with their travel bags.

At the White House, President Obama hung around long enough to congratulate his party, then headed to Hawaii for the holidays with his family.

On Capitol Hill, there was little griping about working right up to the holiday. “Those kids in Iraq are out there,” said Senator Jeff Sessions, Republican of Alabama. “We have no basis to be whining around here about working.”

Among those in the gallery was Victoria Reggie Kennedy, widow of Senator Edward M. Kennedy, who was credited by Democrats as inspiring them to push the measure through after his death last summer.

Senator Paul Kirk, who filled Mr. Kennedy’s seat after the Massachusetts legislature took extraordinary steps to provide a dependable vote for health care, said it was an emotional moment that left him elated.

“He is having a Merry Christmas up there in heaven, proud of the leadership and all the work that went into it,” Mr. Kirk said.

The scores of police officers and Senate staff required for a daily session arrived at the Capitol in the dark to prepare for the final vote. Some opponents of the bill did as well.

“I am here to watch my country get signed away,” said Sherri Cooper, who traveled from Georgia to witness the vote, as she searched for an open entrance to the Capitol.

With a final measure near approval, Democrats say they believe they can better sell the plan and focus on benefits intended to provide coverage to more than 30 million Americans and stop ever-rising insurance costs.

“When people learn what is in this bill, which is a lot of good stuff for them, I think we will be in good shape,” Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York, the No. 3 Democrat, said as he headed into the chamber to cast his vote.

The 25-day Senate run fell one day short of the record set in 1917, when antiwar lawmakers were stalling a measure allowing the arming of merchant ships during World War I.

President Woodrow Wilson, greatly frustrated at the power of a “little group of willful men,” pushed the Senate to create a process to cut off debate, and the Senate adopted its rule allowing senators to impose cloture and force final votes.

That power allowed present-day Democrats to use their 60-vote bloc to overcome Republican objections through a series of cloture votes and push their health care plan into talks with the House.



View Larger Map


Sources: NY Times, MSNBC, Zimbio, Google Maps

Health Care Bill Passage Another Political Win For Pres. Obama...Decision 2010

Health care reform will be an Obama victory. When Senate health care legislation finally passes, it will be a win for the president.

However for Congressional Democrats facing re-election in 2010, it won't be a reciprocal victory.

NBC’s David Gregory offers analysis.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Sources: MSNBC