On of the Few Things Written on the Politics of Health Care Reform that Makes Sense

Brett  Budowsky in The Hill, makes a whole lot of sense:

“One day after the president spoke to rally the troops for the public option he said he supported, both the Speaker of the House and the majority leader of the Senate clearly changed their positions in ways contrary to the president’s words.

“Specifically, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said the health co-ops are an effective substitute for the public option, and Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), who had previously said a bill could not and should not pass the House without a public option, has changed to the position that it is negotiable.

“The significant retreat by Democratic leaders of the House and Senate, shortly after meeting privately with the president, immediately after the president’s speech suggesting support for the public option, is clearly, by far, the most important result of the speech. We can debate the merits of this in the comment section, but this is the news. Any new analysis must suggest that what the president told the leaders in the private meeting was much different than what he said in the public speech.

“Second, the president’s comments about how he will pay for the program are not received with high credibility from serious budget analysts. He spoke in generic terms about cuts in Medicare spending to pay for a major portion of the program without any specific explanation of what in Medicare would be cut.

“Setting aside the usual Republican attacks and Democratic support, there are virtually no serious independent budget analysts who give credence to “waste, fraud and abuse” without details. The news analysis is that there will be major controversy when a final bill must detail exactly where Medicare would be cut to pay for whatever is passed.”

In other words, we have not yet had the fight about how to pay for ObamaCare, since Obama’s speech was, well, fiscal fantasy.  And the other question is, how many liberals will go along with the public option walk back, the abortion walk back, and the illegal immigrant getting health care walk back by the White House?

“One day after the president spoke to rally the troops for the public option he said he supported, both the Speaker of the House and the majority leader of the Senate clearly changed their positions in ways contrary to the president’s words.

“Specifically, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said the health co-ops are an effective substitute for the public option, and Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), who had previously said a bill could not and should not pass the House without a public option, has changed to the position that it is negotiable.

“The significant retreat by Democratic leaders of the House and Senate, shortly after meeting privately with the president, immediately after the president’s speech suggesting support for the public option, is clearly, by far, the most important result of the speech. We can debate the merits of this in the comment section, but this is the news. Any new analysis must suggest that what the president told the leaders in the private meeting was much different than what he said in the public speech.

“Second, the president’s comments about how he will pay for the program are not received with high credibility from serious budget analysts. He spoke in generic terms about cuts in Medicare spending to pay for a major portion of the program without any specific explanation of what in Medicare would be cut.

“Setting aside the usual Republican attacks and Democratic support, there are virtually no serious independent budget analysts who give credence to “waste, fraud and abuse” without details. The news analysis is that there will be major controversy when a final bill must detail exactly where Medicare would be cut to pay for whatever is passed.”

In other words, we have not yet had the fight about how to pay for ObamaCare, since the speech was, well, fiscal fantasy.

You may also like...

Leave a Reply