Anthony Weiner has admitted to sending the picture of his (covered) weiner over Twitter, and of similar behavior with other women he communicated with on line. As scandals go, Weiner’s is fairly small. As Steve Benen wrote:
On the Political Sex Scandal Richter Scale, I’m still not altogether sure why this even registers at all. Given what we know, Weiner shared adult content with women he met online. They were adults and the interactions were consensual. He didn’t commit adultery (Ensign), he didn’t hire prostitutes (Vitter, Spitzer), he didn’t solicit anyone in an airport bathroom (Craig), he didn’t pretend to be someone else in order to try to pick up women (Lee), he didn’t abandon his office for a rendezvous with his lover (Sanford), he didn’t leave his first two wives after they got sick (Gingrich), he didn’t have a child with his housekeeper (Schwarzenegger), there’s no sex tape (Edwards), and no interns were involved (Clinton). He’s not even a hypocrite — Weiner has never championed conservative “family values,” condemning others for their “moral failings.”
This assumes that there isn’t anything more to this. Nancy Pelosi has called for an ethics investigation of Weiner. Assuming that there are no minors and there are not more explicit pictures, my guess is that this is not a career ending scandal, but at very least will be a career stalling one. As can be seen in Steve’s list, the less severe sex scandals do not necessarily end careers, but I doubt he will be elected to a more competitive spot in New York anytime soon. (Elliot Spitzer might even beat him–time does seem to make these scandals less important to voters).
While Weiner’s transgressions appear to be relatively minor (at least so far), they were rather stupid. It is amazing how often we see similar patterns in politicians. Was whatever pleasure Weiner received from sexting with young women really worth all of this? I would ask whether this will dissuade future politicians (which can be from either party) from doing anything so foolish, but the answer, based upon the past history of sex scandals in Washington, is clearly no.
The White House had wanted to wage a battle over taxes for months but Congress was unwilling to hold a vote before the elections. I bet this was because Congressional leaders felt they could not win because some of the more conservative Democrats were unwilling to support the position of only renewing the cuts on income under $250,000. It turned out that many of these conservative Democrats still wound up losing and might have stood a better chance by supporting a cause supported by the majority of American voters.
After failing to take up this fight before the election when it should have been, there is suddenly a lot of noise coming from both the House and Senate. While the compromise is far from perfect and is not going to make everyone happy (which is the nature of compromise), critics are focusing too much on the extension of the tax breaks for the top ten percent while ignoring all the benefits for everyone else. As Ezra Klein has explained while discussing both the benefits and opposition from the liberal base:
If you’re worried about stimulus, joblessness and the working poor, this is probably a better deal than you thought you were going to get. “It’s a bigger deal than anyone expected,” says Bob Greenstein, president of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. “Both sides gave more expected and both sides got more than expected.” The White House walked out of the negotiations with more stimulus than anyone had seen coming. But they did it in a way that made their staunchest allies feel left behind, and in many cases, utterly betrayed.
That the Obama administration has turned out to be fairly good at the inside Washington game of negotiations and legislative compromise and quite bad at communicating to the public and keeping their base excited is not what most would have predicted during the 2008 campaign. But it’s true.
Bill Scher from the Campaign for American’s Future has more on reasons why the left should support the deal to help the poor and to help the economy. The Center for American Progress predicts the deal will create or save 2.2 million jobs. The biggest downside is the amount that the tax breaks to the upper ten percent adds to the deficit. How come the tea party supporters who are so concerned about the deficit aren’t protesting the Bush tax breaks?
It is risky to predict what issues will determine future elections, as we have seen with unexpected events such as 9/11 and Katrina. However, baring anything unexpected, Barack Obama might have taken a major step towards his reelection. Obama’s support is already well above that of either party in Congress. If the deal fails due to Congressional opposition, the unemployed will see their extended benefits dry up and the middle class will see more money taken out of their paychecks in January. That will only increase the gap between Obama’s approval and the disapproval of Congress. On the other hand, if the deal does pass Obama gets a bigger economic stimulus than he ever could have gotten through Congress on its own. Simply managing to get any deals through with the Republicans enhances Obama’s reputation as being effective at compromise, and most voters will not share the opposition to compromise seen on the extremes.
Passing the deal also moves the battle over taxes to the 2012 presidential election, giving the Democrats an issue supported by most voters. As this debate continues over the next couple of years, here is a handy table which demonstrates the differences in the tax plans of the two parties (via Ezra Klein):
Under the Democratic plan those with incomes under $200,000 get the larger tax breaks. Under the GOP plan the winners are those making over $500,000 per year, with the big winners being those making over $1,000,000 per year. Unless people really believe in trickle down economics, the Democratic plan looks like the winner in the 2012 campaign.
The New York Times believes that the Democrats need a new minority leader in the House:
Ms. Pelosi announced on Friday that she would seek the post of House minority leader. That job is not a good match for her abilities in maneuvering legislation and trading votes, since Democrats will no longer be passing bills in the House. What they need is what Ms. Pelosi has been unable to provide: a clear and convincing voice to help Americans understand that Democratic policies are not bankrupting the country, advancing socialism or destroying freedom.
All true, but not only of Nancy Pelosi. The Democratic Party as a whole has been suffering from an inability to articulate its views and give voters reason to stick with them once the limited memories of the voters have forgotten George Bush. When Democrats fail to explain their views, they allow the Republicans to define them, and Republicans have become very good at presenting distorted views of what Democrats believe. Hell, if Democrats really believed half the things which is claimed by Fox and right wing talk radio I certainly wouldn’t vote for them.
The Democrats saved the country from a depression but failed to get the credit. Democrats saved the auto industry and saw Michigan turn into a red state. Democrats gave the country a major tax cut, but tea party supporters march in the street believing that Obama raised their taxes. Democrats passed a health care plan which takes many ideas from the Republican Party of the 1990′s, freeing individuals from the whims of the insurance industry, and Republicans managed to fool voters into believing this was a government take over of health care. Meanwhile seniors voted Republican, supporting a party with policies which would seriously harm Medicare, believing distorted claims that the Democrats were cutting Medicare (as opposed to cutting George Bush’s subsidies to insurance companies handling Medicare Part D plans).
Democrats must find a way to counter the Republican misinformation. That’s all Democrats–not only Nancy Pelosi.
Of course correcting the problem is not only a matter of explaining how Democrats support freedom and a market economy (as opposed to Republican policies of concentrating wealth in the hands of a small minority). Democrats must do a better job of debunking the false Republican frames, such as showing that the “small government” supported by conservatives intrudes far more upon the lives of individuals than the government supported by Democrats. Democrats must also be consistent in their policies. Obama should have stuck to his campaign position and opposed the individual mandate. Dealing with the free-rider problem would be more complex without a mandate, but it could be done. Backing down and accepting an individual mandate only helps fuel conservative memes about Democrats. Democrats further complicated this with their naive belief that voters who opposed health care reform when it passed would change their minds by this fall.
Little legislation is likely to be passed this year. Democratic leaders (regardless of whether this includes Nancy Pelosi) should devote this time to figuring out exactly what they stand for and explaining this to voters. Obama has often said the right thing, but his actual explanations of policy get lost among all the shouting. Democrats need to work harder to amplify his actual positions in order for them to be heard above the right wing noise machine.
Some of the pundits analyzing the midterm elections described how the Republicans had a successful two-year strategy to return to power. Actually the strategy has been in play for far longer. The right wing noise machine has developed a false narrative about what Republicans and Democrats believe which enabled them to regain much of their lost support. Fortunately long term demographics continue to work against a party which rejects science and reason, and which acts contrary to the long term trend for greater individual liberty in this country. Democrats can speed up the process by better explaining how they really differ from Republicans.
After a lot of speculation she would do it, CNN has just issued a bulletin that Nancy Pelosi will run to be House Minority Leader. So far the only real opposition has come from the right. I had hoped she might step aside and that another liberal candidate might arise to replace her.
If you were to follow the conventional wisdom coming from the news media pundits you might believe that the Democrats are facing certain doom and Barack Obama is highly unpopular. There is still over a month before the election and there are signs that the election is tightening. While both houses of Congress are now in play, it is too early to predict the results. One problem with the conventional wisdom saying that the Democrats will do poorly is that this could influence behavior and harm Democratic chances, such as by reducing contributions when donors believe the race is futile.
The latest polls are showing that the difference in the generic ballot and in enthusiasm are not looking as badly for Democrats as previously. Republicans might have been more enthusiastic for months about a chance to vote out the Democrats, but the prospect of the extremist ideas of the GOP dominating Congress is starting to make more Democrats interested in voting. Democrats remain at a disadvantage in having to defend many seats which have traditionally been held by Republicans before the 2006 and 2008 elections. Voters in off-year elections are also more likely to be older and more partisan as opposed to the younger and more independent voters who propelled Obama to victory.
While Obama’s popularity is down (as Ronald Reagan’s was at this point in his presidency), the claim coming from many Republicans that Democrats wish to distance themselves for Obama, like most memes spread by the right wing media, is false. Democratic leaders are actually encouraging Obama to campaign more, knowing that he can often connect with the voters more successfully than members of Congress can. Unfortunately for the Democrats, Obama is not on the ballot and Democratic candidates still have to get a discouraged electorate to turn out to vote for them.
Some of the polls do not mean very much but make for some interesting discussion. Besides showing a tightening in the race, the recent NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll tried to show what the electorate wants and does not want. The manner in which this was reported gave a false impression of contradictory results as there are sizable numbers of both Democrats and Republicans answering making the desires of both come out high in the results. That said, here is how NBC summarized what voters don’t want:
And here are the most unacceptable outcomes: Palin becoming the GOP’s leading spokesperson (55% unacceptable), Pelosi continuing as speaker (51%), the Democrats continuing to hold the majority in Congress (42%), and the Tea Party becoming a major force in Congress (41%). If some of these results seem somewhat contradictory, well, they are. But these two lists do give you a gauge — however imperfect — what voters want and what they don’t. Here’s a final set of numbers: 41% said it’s an acceptable outcome if President Obama is dealt a setback in the midterms, while an identical 41% said it would be unacceptable, which is just more evidence that November will be more of a referendum on the economy and Washington than on the president.
It is a good sign that a majority do not want Palin leading the Republican Party, but I’m surprised by how much worse she came out here compared to the Tea Party.
If we bought the argument that Obama is to blame for the Democrats’ problems, the natural question would be whether he is susceptible to a primary challenge within his own party. In a poll which has near zero predictive value of what would happen in an actual race, Gallup found that Obama leads Hillary Clinton in a hypothetical Democratic primary race by 52 percent to 37 percent. Not surprisingly, Obama does better among liberals while the more conservative Clinton does better among conservative and female voters.
The planned Islamic Community Center planned near ground zero has resulted in a lot of nonsense. Most of it has come from the right, who mischaracterized it as a Ground Zero Mosque, with the right wingers showing no respect for either freedom of religion or property rights. Some of the nonsense also came from the Democrats. I really don’t know what Nancy Pelosi is talking about here, as she speaks of looking into “who is funding the attacks against the construction of the center.” Her clarification does not make much more sense. (Of course this is not the first time I’ve questioned if Nancy Pelosi was making sense).
What is obviously going on here (along with Harry Reid trying to sound like a conservative on this in the midst of a tough election campaign) is that the Democrats still have absolutely no idea how to counter the the hateful and ignorant rhetoric from the far right. Instead they look at the polls and find that a majority of Americans support the conservative position in this and fear saying anything meaningful.
If Islamic terrorists who had flown planes into the World Trade Building had wanted to build a mosque near ground zero I would understand the opposition. Of course those who desire to build the Community Center had no more connection to 9/11 than Saddam Hussein did.
As long as the Democrats fail to provide leadership and manage to speak out intelligibly on such issues a majority of people will listen to the right wing position. Democrats need to counter Republican rhetoric and misinformation with intelligent and factual responses. They won’t win by chickening out and hoping that Rachel Maddow or liberal bloggers will manage to bring some sense to the debates.
Update: Not Howard Dean too.
Right Wing News conducted a survey of conservative bloggers to find out who they thought were the worst twenty-five people in U.S. history. John Wilkes Booth beat out Nancy Pelosi, but only by one vote. Jimmy Carter leads, followed by Barack Obama. Both are well ahead of Timothy McVeigh, who also trails Ted Kennedy, FDR, and LBJ. The results:
23) Saul Alinsky (7)
23) Bill Clinton (7)
23) Hillary Clinton (7)
19) Michael Moore (7)
19) George Soros (8)
19) Alger Hiss (8)
19) Al Sharpton (8)
13) Al Gore (9)
13) Noam Chomsky (9)
13) Richard Nixon (9)
13) Jane Fonda (9)
13) Harry Reid (9)
13) Nancy Pelosi (9)
11) John Wilkes Booth (10)
11) Margaret Sanger (10)
9) Aldrich Ames (11)
9) Timothy McVeigh (11)
7) Ted Kennedy (14)
7) Lyndon Johnson (14)
5) Benedict Arnold (17)
5) Woodrow Wilson (17)
4) The Rosenbergs (19)
3) Franklin Delano Roosevelt (21)
2) Barack Obama (23)
1) Jimmy Carter (25)
It also appears that, in their view, we are living in really bad times considering how many of the worst people in American history are now living or were around in the not very distant past.
Another Gallup poll has demonstrated what we already knew–Tea Party supporters are generally part of the conservative Republican base:
There is significant overlap between Americans who identify as supporters of the Tea Party movement and those who identify as conservative Republicans. Their similar ideological makeup and views suggest that the Tea Party movement is more a rebranding of core Republicanism than a new or distinct entity on the American political scene…
While Tea Party supporters are not universal in their backing of Republican candidates, they skew heavily in that direction. About 80% of Tea Party supporters say they will vote for the Republican candidate in their district, slightly lower than the projected 95% Republican vote among conservative Republicans.
This suggests that the potential impact of the Tea Party on Republican chances of winning in congressional and senatorial races this fall — even if supporters turn out in record numbers — may be slightly less than would be expected.
It certainly came as no surprise that the poll showed unfavorable views of both Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi among the Tea Party supporters.
Nancy Pelosi’s misguided attempt to use Medicare as leverage to pass the unemployment and jobs measures in the tax-extenders bill failed. Fortunately Pelosi quickly realized there was no point in continuing this strategy when Senate Republicans again blocked passage. Forty Republicans and Ben Nelson voted against the measure, blocking the measure supported by 57 Democrats. Subsequently Pelosi backed down and the House passed the temporary Medicare fix.
While misguided, at least it can be said that Pelosi meant well, motivated by a desire to promote economic recovery, which certainly could not be said of the Republicans. After the Senate passed a Medicare fix as a separate measure, she was under the mistaken belief that she had some leverage over Senate Republicans by blocking a vote on the Senate measure.
I am surprised at how badly Pelosi misread the Republicans. Republicans were willing to vote for the Medicare “doc fix” but certainly would not be heartbroken if it failed and they could blame Democrats for destroying Medicare. Even if they were actually in support of the measure, their opposition to spending money on jobs or the unemployed certainly trumped any such feelings.
It is very clear that the Republicans in the Senate want this economy to fail. They see that things are beginning to turn around. You know the numbers. When this president took office, we were losing 750,000 jobs a month. … Now we are gaining jobs. … Unfortunately, and cynically [on their part], in cynical political terms, it doesn’t serve them in terms of their elections if things are beginning to turn around.
I believe when you look at this bill, which is all paid for — we raised revenues to pay for it — the one piece that is technically not paid for [is the federal unemployment benefit extensions and] that is done in a way that we have always done it, … [those are] always categorized as an emergency. And, frankly, if 15 million people without jobs is not an emergency, I don’t know what is.
Ezra Klein provided this political interpretation earlier in the day when he anticipated the loss on the jobs measures:
And still, it looks like Democrats might lose the vote today. And when I say “lose the vote,” I don’t mean that a majority of the Senate will vote against it. I mean that 58 senators, rather than 60, will support the legislation. All Republicans, and possibly Ben Nelson, appear to remain opposed. And why not? The less that Democrats appear to be doing on jobs — and the fewer jobs that Democrats actually create — the better Republicans will do in November. Substantial compromises on the bill haven’t brought any new votes, and that’s in part because Republicans see no political upside in passing the legislation.
While it made no sense for Pelosi to believe that the threat of not passing the Medicare fix would get Republicans to vote for unemployment benefits, at least she did quickly back down and get the Medicare fixed later the same day.
Getting this passed quickly was important for a number of reasons. After postponing the processing of payments since the beginning of June, Medicare began processing payments with the 21 percent cut. It will now be necessary to reissue these checks with the updated amount. Earlier in the week I saw estimates that this would cost $15 million, and this would increase with every batch of Medicare payments which must be reprocessed. The delay also increases expenses for physicians and undermines confidence in Medicare. This might lead more doctors, who now see Medicare patients at a considerable discount compared to commercial payers, to decide against accepting Medicare patients.
Now that it is established that both parties agree that this needs to be fixed, hopefully we can also achieve a permanent fix to the Medicare payment formula before the end of the year. Attempts last year failed because the Republicans had wanted to include this cost in the cost of health care reform and use it as another bogus argument against reform. Now that health care reform has been passed hopefully the Republicans will not see further political gain in blocking a permanent fix.
The failure of Congress to act on the Medicare “doc fix” has led to protests from medical organizations and the American Association of Retired People who have pointed out the harm this will do to the Medicare program and people dependent upon Medicare for their health care. The American Academy of Family Practitioners has called on Congress to stop harming patients and do their job. The American College of Physicians has blasted Congress for causing “Irreparable damage to Medicare” as seniors and military families face loss of access to health care. AARP sent the following letter to every member of Congress urging action on Medicare, warning that their inaction “threatens access to physician services for millions of Medicare beneficiaries.”
On behalf of millions of AARP members, I urge you to immediately pass legislation that ensures seniors have access to their physicians, and provides much needed fiscal relief to the states and to unemployed individuals.
Regrettably, given Congress’s failure to reach timely agreement on a Medicare physician pay package, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services has now been forced to implement a draconian 21.3 percent reduction in their reimbursements. This cut threatens access to physician services for millions of Medicare beneficiaries – especially those living in rural and other underserved areas.
While Congress continues to debate temporary patchwork solutions, people on Medicare are growing increasingly anxious about whether they will be able to find a doctor when they need one. Seniors, who have paid into Medicare their entire working lives, deserve the peace of mind of knowing they will be able to find a doctor who will treat them.
AARP urges Congress to act immediately to stabilize doctor reimbursement rates for as long as possible until a permanent solution can be found. For nearly a decade, Medicare patients and the doctors who treat them have been held hostage by short-term patches to an unworkable Sustainable Growth Rate (SGR) formula. In the months to come, we look forward to working with Members of Congress from both sides of the aisle to repeal the SGR formula and replace it with a permanent physician payment system for Medicare that rewards value and ends the uncertainty for patients and providers alike.
In addition, enhanced Medicaid funding to states to assist them with the added costs of providing health coverage to low income individuals and for home and community based services must be extended.
Finally, we urge the extension of unemployment benefits for those unable to find jobs during this economic downturn.
AARP members are counting on you to address these critical issues immediately to protect their health and economic security.
Medical blogs have been protesting the failure of Congress to resolve this problem. For example, Dr. Rob warns that Congress is playing “a great big game of chicken.”
Surely they will flinch. Surely someone will understand the consequences of the crash. But you know what? Sometimes each side expects the others will be the ones who flinch. Sometimes nobody flinches. Sometimes the cars crash and people are killed.
There are two potential ways to resolve this deadlock. The quickest would be for Nancy Pelosi to go along with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, and Rep. Robert Andrews (D-N.J.), the Chair of the Education and Labor health panel, and allow the House to vote on the temporary fix passed in the Senate last week.
Nancy Pelosi has been insisting on a different course by attaching the Medicare “doc fix” to other unrelated legislation. The Senate is attempting to pass legislation which includes some of Pelosi’s goals, but it is questionable if the Senate could pass such legislation without watering it down to the point where Pelosi would not find it acceptable.
For Nancy Pelosi to be the one who, at present, is blocking passage of this legislation might be political suicide for the Democrats, risking turning over control of Congress to the Republicans in November. The Democrats are already on shaky ground with seniors. As Ezra Klein pointed out earlier today, health care reform has become more popular since passage–except with seniors. The Democrats cannot afford to further alienate the senior vote, which tends to turn out more heavily in off year elections than the younger voters who are more likely to stick with the Democrats.
Nancy Pelosi’s irrational behavior regarding the Medicare “doc fix” is creating rifts between Pelosi and other Democrats. For the past several months we’ve had a repeated pattern of the Democrats taking the lead in trying to fix the problem while the Republicans have blocked passage. Suddenly it is Nancy Pelosi who is jeopardizing Medicare.
The Senate passed a six month temporary fix last Friday which differed from the House proposal. While far from perfect, the Senate bill would have at least bought some time to again work on a long term solution. It was initially assumed that the House would quickly approve the Senate bill but instead Pelosi has insisted she will not act upon a Medicare fix which does not also include the jobs proposals in the House bill.
While fighting for the jobs proposals are admirable, this should not be done at the expense of passing the Medicare fix. Failure to pass the fix endangers the Medicare program and will cause seniors, the disabled, and military families to have difficulty getting access to health care. (Medicare directly covers seniors and the disabled while Tricare, which covers active members of the military and their families, bases its fee schedule on the Medicare fee schedule).
As Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid took differing positions, Politco reported this morning that Congress battles as Medicare burns. There even appears to be some disagreement with Pelosi among the House Democratic leadership, as reported by The Hill:
Rep. Robert Andrews (D-N.J.), the Chair of the Education and Labor health panel, tells The Hill that Congress should quickly pass a bill delaying cuts to Medicare physician payments. The comments seem at odds with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-Calif.) statement Monday that the House should hold off on taking up the Senate’s Medicare doc fix until the Senate passes a tax extenders bill, which some House members fear might go nowhere if it’s uncoupled from the must-pass doc fix.
“Leverage is less important than ensuring seniors can see their doctors,” Andrews said as he was entering a meeting in the office of House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.). “So I think it’s important to pass it.”
As I said earlier as my Facebook status, also posted to Speaker Pelosi’s FB page (and on Twitter in an abreviated 140 character version):
Nancy Pelosi: We expect Democrats to fight to preserve Medicare, not give Republicans political cover to destroy it. So far it has been the Republicans who have been blocking the payment fix, but if you follow through with threats not to pass the latest temporary fix passed by the Senate the Democrats become responsible for endangering Medicare, and risk losing the senior vote.
USA Today reports that “The number of doctors refusing new Medicare patients because of low government payment rates is setting a new high, just six months before millions of Baby Boomers begin enrolling in the government health care program.” There have always been doctors who do not accept Medicare due to lower payment rates compared to private insurance but the number is now increasing due to uncertainty about future payments due to the flawed physician payment formula:
Recent surveys by national and state medical societies have found more doctors limiting Medicare patients, partly because Congress has failed to stop an automatic 21% cut in payments that doctors already regard as too low. The cut went into effect Friday, even as the Senate approved a six-month reprieve. The House has approved a different bill.
• The American Academy of Family Physicians says 13% of respondents didn’t participate in Medicare last year, up from 8% in 2008 and 6% in 2004.
• The American Osteopathic Association says 15% of its members don’t participate in Medicare and 19% don’t accept new Medicare patients. If the cut is not reversed, it says, the numbers will double.
• The American Medical Association says 17% of more than 9,000 doctors surveyed restrict the number of Medicare patients in their practice. Among primary care physicians, the rate is 31%.
The federal health insurance program for seniors paid doctors on average 78% of what private insurers paid in 2008.
“Physicians are saying, ‘I can’t afford to keep losing money,’ ” says Lori Heim, president of the family doctors’ group.
In past years Congress has acted at the last minute to override steep cuts called for under the payment formula but this year there has been increased uncertainty as the Republicans have repeatedly played politics to prevent a long term fix. If the scheduled 21% cut is not reversed it is anticipated that far more doctors will stop accepting Medicare patients. This cut would place Medicare payment closer to the level of Medicaid, which already suffers from difficulties in access to care.
Medicare not only covers those over the age of 65. The program covers many who are disabled, and the Tricare program which covers U.S. military personnel and their families also pays based upon the Medicare fee schedule.
This year, after attempts at a permanent fix were blocked, the fee cuts have been blocked in temporary measures which have only been effective for one to two months. The Senate finally passed a six month fix last week but payments from June were already being sent out at the reduced rates. The fix would restore the cut fees retroactively but now Nancy Pelosi is threatening that the House will not pass this until the Senate also passes a jobs bill. While a jobs bill is also necessary, these are two separate issues and Medicare beneficiaries should not be forced to suffer while Congressional Democrats are fighting to pass a jobs bill.
Harry Reid might be the leader of a House of Congress from Nevada but it is Nancy Pelosi who has turned into quite a gamble–a gamble which if she loses will probably turn the Democratic Party back into a minority party. On Friday the Senate passed a six month Medicare “doc fix” but regrettably could not also pass jobs legislation. Now Nancy Pelosi is threatening that the House will not pass the Senate bill until they also pass jobs legislation.
If her gamble works and the Senate passes the original House bill as opposed to the more limited Senate bill then Nancy Pelosi will come off as a legislative genius. However this is a very high stakes gamble. If she fails then it will be the Democrats who will receive much of the blame for the failure of passage of the Medicare fix.
Failure to pass the Medicare fix will lead to serious limitations on medical care for the elderly and disabled individuals now on Medicare. In addition, Tricare pays based upon the Medicare fee schedule so this will also adversely affect U.S. military personnel and their families.
Conservatives already are beginning to realize that Nancy Pelosi might have handed them a tremendous gift. Ed Morrissey writes:
In other words, Pelosi has handed the Senate Republicans the key to a filibuster not just in the Senate but also in the House, all to demand a massive expansion of the deficit on two separate fronts. The GOP couldn’t have possibly asked for a better political position even if they had begged Pelosi not to throw them into that briar patch. And if the “doctor fix” fails to get out of the House, it won’t be Republicans who get the blame, since Pelosi can call a vote on that any time she desires.
Let’s hope that Republicans manage to keep this advantage for as long as it takes Pelosi to realize that she’s blown it.
Morrissey is incorrect on an earlier point claiming, “the passage of the ObamaCare legislation whose financials were specifically predicated on keeping the Medicare reimbursement cuts in place.” A permanent fix was originally planned to be part of health care reform but Republicans made this politically impossible by counting the paper costs of this fix as part of the health care legislation.
Regardless of countless acts by the Republicans to play politics here and block a permanent fix, Morrissey is correct that the Democrats will pay the price politically if Nancy Pelosi is the one to prevent passage of the fix which has now passed the Senate. Loss of the senior vote will be devastating to the Democrats.
The AOA has joined the AMA in endorsing the health care reform legislation along with making recommendations for changes. The recommendations include eliminating the flawed physician payment formula and significantly modifying or abolishing the Independent Payment Advisory Board.
Following is the text of the item in today’s AOA Daily Report which includes their letter to President Obama, Speaker Pelosi, and Majority Leader Reid:
The full AOA Board of Trustees convened today to finalize the AOA’s official position on health system reform legislation as Congress nears a final vote after a year-long debate. The Board examined how the bill aligns with AOA policies established by the AOA House of Delegates over the last 30 years and developed a letter to President Obama, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid delineating our unanimous support of advancing the legislative process as well as our strong recommendations on how to ensure access to care, promote primary care, provide for fair physician payment, and reduce overall health care costs, especially by enacting federal PLI reform. Read a copy of the letter here.
Earlier I posted a copy of a statement faxed and emailed to physicians in support of the legislation by the American Medical Association along with links to letters sent by the AMA with their suggestions for improvements in the legislation.