TW:
The Politics:
1) The Republicans clearly perceive opposition to almost any Obama led health care reform as an electoral winner. We have posted on this previously. To a certain extent from a purely Machiavellian view it is logical. Cutting Obama off at his knees versus helping him attain a huge legislative goal is not a difficult choice. So far the strategy has worked, Obama's poll numbers are down from high levels. What is the end game though?
We now have the RNC chair, Mr. Mike "Buffoon" Steele issuing senior bill of rights which would enshrine Medicare cost growth at extraordinary rates into perpetuity. Expanding the wedge between those over 65 and those under. As an aside I actually think at this point Steele's buffoonery is very intentional and quite effective. He can be the carrier for whatever pandering the Republicans need presently. In a couple of years he can be tossed aside never to be heard from again.
Should the Republicans re-gain electoral strength then what? The Dems would cry uncle and say lets toss out all of their own views on universal care etc? The Republicans have done a fine job of irresponsibly opposing whilst providing nearly no viable alternatives to a growing problem that will not go away.
2) Universal care and cost containment have become nearly hopelessly conflated. The two are very different concepts. Most Americans I believe sympathize with the need for universal care, they may be unclear on how to pay for it, but they empathize with the need for it. They understand or at least sense many of the inequities in our system. However, the Republicans have done two things well. Accuse the Dems of expanding government recklessly and accuse the Dems of trying to pay for universal care on the backs of Medicare reductions for seniors.
3) Seniors have the best health care deal in America. Their funding is open-ended and with minimal shared costs, no issues with pre-existing conditions, insurance rescissions etc. They sense not irrationally that there is only one way for their care to go in a new system -down- either through increased cost sharing or new limitations.
4) Those under 65 sense they are bearing increased risks and facing escalating cost sharing but a bird in hand still beats one in the bush. This cost escalation is relentless but still generally an ever growing drip, drip rather than a cold slap in the face sufficient to motivate comfort with a new system.
5) Many folks have discomfort with "bigger government". Some have a visceral discomfort, others a more subtle discomfort. Few though can articulate how to "reform" health care without "bigger government", but again the bird in hand.
6) Overlaying all of this are the entrenched interests of health care providers, insurers, unions, suppliers, state and local governments, you name it, they have skin in the game.
The solutions post tomorrow...
Showing posts with label Michael Steele. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Michael Steele. Show all posts
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
Why Reform Is So Hard (cont.)
TW: Micheal Steele's health care speech yesterday epitomizes why reform is so challenging. He combined blind support for the current Medicare program with untrue insinuations about the Dems' program. It is a potent prescription.
Dems can bash the hypocrisy of the Republicans coming out so strongly for the single-payer, cost expanding, voter coddling Medicare program. But why would they not support a program favored by 50MM aggressive voters. Power retention is not about what is right, it is about what gets votes.
In the mean time, Steele's program left universal care and how health care costs could actually be controlled essentially unmentioned. In other words, the opposition gains if nothing happens (as we have blogged repeatedly) so that the incumbent will be accused of amongst other things: indecisive, weak leadership; scattered focus; extremism, incompetence, yada, yada, yada.
From Ezra Klein at WaPo:
"There's no real secret behind Michael Steele's sudden adoration of Medicare: Seniors are the age group most solidly opposed to health-care reform, they vote in particularly large numbers in midterm elections, and they are uniquely active on the local level.
Still, what we're seeing here is the GOP swearing that they will protect, defend and preserve a single-payer health-care system. And this comes after months spent fighting a "government takeover" of health care. If you could hook that kind of cognitive dissonance up to a turbine, we wouldn't need cap-and-trade...."
From Micheal Shearer at Time summarizes Steele's program:
1. No cuts in Medicare, a government-run program Republicans like, which Steele admits is going "into the red in less than a decade." (Does this mean that Republicans now support tax increases to pay for the shortfalls? Or that there is no solution? Or that something else should be cut? What?)
2. No expansion of government-run healthcare, which could involve "boards that would decide what treatments would or wouldn't be funded." (Left unmentioned is the fact that such boards already exist in the private health care marketplace, and, in practice, in the Medicare system, which, in the words of its own website, "does not cover everything, and it does not pay the total cost for most services or supplies that are covered.")
3. No efforts to ration care based on age. (Left unmentioned is the fact that no one in the Democratic Party has proposed this...)
4. No government interference with end of life care. (TW: thx goodness Steele would protect us from death panels, dont get me started...)
5. Not cut the Medicare Advantage Plan. (Left unmentioned is the fact that Medicare Advantage provides a subsidy of about $17 billion a year to private insurance companies to offer services that would otherwise be offered by Medicare...)"
http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/08/24/the-republican-partys-no-line-on-health-care/
Dems can bash the hypocrisy of the Republicans coming out so strongly for the single-payer, cost expanding, voter coddling Medicare program. But why would they not support a program favored by 50MM aggressive voters. Power retention is not about what is right, it is about what gets votes.
In the mean time, Steele's program left universal care and how health care costs could actually be controlled essentially unmentioned. In other words, the opposition gains if nothing happens (as we have blogged repeatedly) so that the incumbent will be accused of amongst other things: indecisive, weak leadership; scattered focus; extremism, incompetence, yada, yada, yada.
From Ezra Klein at WaPo:
"There's no real secret behind Michael Steele's sudden adoration of Medicare: Seniors are the age group most solidly opposed to health-care reform, they vote in particularly large numbers in midterm elections, and they are uniquely active on the local level.
Still, what we're seeing here is the GOP swearing that they will protect, defend and preserve a single-payer health-care system. And this comes after months spent fighting a "government takeover" of health care. If you could hook that kind of cognitive dissonance up to a turbine, we wouldn't need cap-and-trade...."
From Micheal Shearer at Time summarizes Steele's program:
1. No cuts in Medicare, a government-run program Republicans like, which Steele admits is going "into the red in less than a decade." (Does this mean that Republicans now support tax increases to pay for the shortfalls? Or that there is no solution? Or that something else should be cut? What?)
2. No expansion of government-run healthcare, which could involve "boards that would decide what treatments would or wouldn't be funded." (Left unmentioned is the fact that such boards already exist in the private health care marketplace, and, in practice, in the Medicare system, which, in the words of its own website, "does not cover everything, and it does not pay the total cost for most services or supplies that are covered.")
3. No efforts to ration care based on age. (Left unmentioned is the fact that no one in the Democratic Party has proposed this...)
4. No government interference with end of life care. (TW: thx goodness Steele would protect us from death panels, dont get me started...)
5. Not cut the Medicare Advantage Plan. (Left unmentioned is the fact that Medicare Advantage provides a subsidy of about $17 billion a year to private insurance companies to offer services that would otherwise be offered by Medicare...)"
http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/08/24/the-republican-partys-no-line-on-health-care/
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Stick a Fork In Him- He Is Done
TW: Have avoided posting too much about Michael Steele since his Rush face off because I thought things might blow over but not now. Chairmen of the RNC cannot make such heretical (for Republicans, I mean he is right but that is not the point) comments and expect to keep his job.
He is in over his head. A shame for the Republicans as they could certainly use some fresh blood and ideas. Maybe they will surprise by saying it is a big tent with broad views but somehow I doubt it.
From Taegen Goddard:
"In an interview with GQ, RNC Chairman Michael Steele made some statements that will likely be controversial with many of his Republican constituents.
On if women have the right to choose an abortion: "Yeah. I mean, again, I think that's an individual choice."
On whether homosexuality is a choice: "Oh, no. I don't think I've ever really subscribed to that view, that you can turn it on and off like a water tap. Um, you know, I think that there's a whole lot that goes into the makeup of an individual that, uh, you just can't simply say, oh, like, 'Tomorrow morning I'm gonna stop being gay.' It's like saying, 'Tomorrow morning I'm gonna stop being black."
He is in over his head. A shame for the Republicans as they could certainly use some fresh blood and ideas. Maybe they will surprise by saying it is a big tent with broad views but somehow I doubt it.
From Taegen Goddard:
"In an interview with GQ, RNC Chairman Michael Steele made some statements that will likely be controversial with many of his Republican constituents.
On if women have the right to choose an abortion: "Yeah. I mean, again, I think that's an individual choice."
On whether homosexuality is a choice: "Oh, no. I don't think I've ever really subscribed to that view, that you can turn it on and off like a water tap. Um, you know, I think that there's a whole lot that goes into the makeup of an individual that, uh, you just can't simply say, oh, like, 'Tomorrow morning I'm gonna stop being gay.' It's like saying, 'Tomorrow morning I'm gonna stop being black."
Sunday, March 8, 2009
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
Having Fun With Rush and Mikey
TW: With the market heading into due south, the Bulls and Hoosiers scuffling, and world peace constantly in peril, it is nice to have guys like Rush and Mike Steele to amuse us. We have some fairly significant problems and this is the best they got? Actually I predict the next Republican leader will be the one that publically and shrewdly challenges Limbaugh without backing down, Romney being the most likely one to do so.
From Josh Marshall at TPM:
"I mean, I'm not sure how else to put it. This guy has to be about the worst, most embarrassing party chair we've seen in recent memory. It's embarrassing enough that Steele is like, what? ... the third Republican to criticize Rush and then make it less than 36 hours before being forced to undergo the 21st century Republican version of a Maoist self-criticism session. It's sad for the Republican party that no one can criticize Rush without having to be hauled out for this sort of humiliation a day or so later. But for Steele not to have realized that or not to have been sufficiently in control of his mouth to avoid saying this just shows once again that this dude is really, really not ready for prime time."
And more from Marshall:
"Dems gloat after Rush awards himself sole custody of Steele's testicles."
From Andrew Sullivan:
"Comrade Steele dutifully apologizes to the Great Leader and offer his regrets to his fellow comrades in the movement. Re-education camp will follow shortly.This climb-down marks the end of establishment Republican resistance to the Poujadist pontificator. It's Rush's party now. So why shouldn't he run for president in 2012? Make Palin his veep - and be done with it" [TW: that is a ticket I would pay to see]
And also on Sullivan quoting Andrew Breitbart (Drudge's go to correspondent)
"Anonymous liberal commentators, the rabid pests of the new media, sought out the most popular conservative blogs to flood the zone with familiar Rush Limbaugh slanders. Their goal: To demoralize the right with layer upon layer of media domination. Only talk radio with its emphasis on Socratic debate over raw emotionalism and with Mr. Limbaugh in the driver’s seat has escaped the left’s clutches of pure media dominance," - Andrew Breitbart, who appears to have lost his mind. "
[TW obviously in addition to losing his mind as Sullivan says, Breitbart apparently does not watch Fox, CNBC, etc.]
From Josh Marshall at TPM:
"I mean, I'm not sure how else to put it. This guy has to be about the worst, most embarrassing party chair we've seen in recent memory. It's embarrassing enough that Steele is like, what? ... the third Republican to criticize Rush and then make it less than 36 hours before being forced to undergo the 21st century Republican version of a Maoist self-criticism session. It's sad for the Republican party that no one can criticize Rush without having to be hauled out for this sort of humiliation a day or so later. But for Steele not to have realized that or not to have been sufficiently in control of his mouth to avoid saying this just shows once again that this dude is really, really not ready for prime time."
And more from Marshall:
"Dems gloat after Rush awards himself sole custody of Steele's testicles."
From Andrew Sullivan:
"Comrade Steele dutifully apologizes to the Great Leader and offer his regrets to his fellow comrades in the movement. Re-education camp will follow shortly.This climb-down marks the end of establishment Republican resistance to the Poujadist pontificator. It's Rush's party now. So why shouldn't he run for president in 2012? Make Palin his veep - and be done with it" [TW: that is a ticket I would pay to see]
And also on Sullivan quoting Andrew Breitbart (Drudge's go to correspondent)
"Anonymous liberal commentators, the rabid pests of the new media, sought out the most popular conservative blogs to flood the zone with familiar Rush Limbaugh slanders. Their goal: To demoralize the right with layer upon layer of media domination. Only talk radio with its emphasis on Socratic debate over raw emotionalism and with Mr. Limbaugh in the driver’s seat has escaped the left’s clutches of pure media dominance," - Andrew Breitbart, who appears to have lost his mind. "
[TW obviously in addition to losing his mind as Sullivan says, Breitbart apparently does not watch Fox, CNBC, etc.]
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Why Moderates Always Face Uphill Careers
TW: Am not sure if Steele is being more stridently ideological or merely amateurish. But his opening the door to cutting funding and supporting primary challengers against the three Republicans who voted for the stimulus package frames why working in a bi-partisan manner can be so challenging.
From NBC:
"In an interview yesterday on FOX, new RNC chair Michael Steele suggested that the three Republicans who voted for the stimulus -- Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe of Maine, and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania -- would face primary challenges, and he left open the possibility that the three might not receive funds from the RNC
...Steele's comments signaled a stark departure from past practice (the National Republican Senatorial Committee provided significant help to Specter in his '04 primary contest against Pat Toomey) and seemed to violate Ronald Reagan's famous 11th Commandment (never speak ill of another Republican).
One former RNC official said that he couldn't imagine past party chairs undercutting a sitting senator, especially one who's up for re-election in 2010 like Specter (and in a state that Obama carried by 10 percentage points, 54%-44%!).
"I just don’t think we’re at a point where the party can threaten senators and ask them to adhere to some type of monolithic ideology," the official said. "In fact, the party’s almost always been at its strongest when it was broad and had its big tent out. I get what Steele is trying to do in terms of channeling the anger and frustration at the stimulus bill, but there’s probably a more artful way of doing it."
Originally, when First Read reached out to the RNC for comment, we were told that Steele's words spoke for themselves.
But the RNC later reversed course. "The RNC has no intention of getting involved in primaries," a party official told First Read. "We work with state parties to elect Republicans and will continue to do that."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)