THE HEALTH CARE CAMPAIGN CONUNDRUM — Whether you support or oppose it, health care reform is treacherous campaign territory. A series of polls from the Quinnipiac University Polling Center, testing voter opinion on lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of the new law, underscore the difficulties of the issue for both Democratic and Republican candidates. Twenty-one states, mostly lead by Republican governors and attorney generals, have filed suits challenging in particular the mandate that people buy health insurance or pay a fine.

The Quinnipiac polls, conducted in three states across the past month, all find likely voters to have complex and contradictory views on these repeal lawsuits as well as health care reform itself. By a slight majority, likely voters tend to oppose the health care reform law. But they also tend to oppose the repeal lawsuits as a “bad idea” that would, for a sizable portion of voters, make them “less likely” to support a given candidate. In short, voters simultaneously don’t want to health care reform but don’t want to challenge it either.

Candidates have no clear path forward on health care reform in the coming election cycle. Neither vigorous attacks nor defenses of the law are popular with voters. Lying low on the issue may seem the soundest strategy, but that’s unlikely to be an option on such a polarizing issue.

CONNECTING DATA POINTS — These on-the-ground polls bolster a finding, earlier this week, from conservative group Resurgent Republic: the “repeal and replace” strategy is largely unpopular outside the party.

QUESTION: How much will health care reform, and a candidate’s position, matter when voters pull the lever? With financial regulation and immigration taking control of the national conversation, are we overplaying the significance that health care reform will have six months from now?

“Among both Democrats and Republicans, those who agreed with their party on health care were more enthusiastic about voting than those who disagreed with their party but Republicans who strongly opposed reform were a good deal more enthusiastic (78% were more enthusiastic than usual) than Democrats who strongly favored reform (63% were more enthusiastic than usual).”

“It could increase interest in the election and therefore voter turnout. So far this year most polls have found Republicans to be more enthusiastic about voting than Democrats and that was also the case in the Gallup survey. 71% of those supporting a generic Republican indicated that they were more enthusiastic than usual about voting this year compared with only 56% of those supporting a generic Democrat.”

“Among undecided voters, there is a fairly even split between those saying they would be more likely to vote for a candidate who supports the law and those saying they would be more likely to vote for a candidate who opposes the law. Based on these results, there appears to be little potential for this issue to produce a shift in voter preferences. The main effect of health care as an issue would probably be to reinforce voters’ partisan preferences.”

CANCER SOCIETY CRITICIZES U.S. PANEL FOR OVERSTATING RISKS – The New York Times’ Denise Grady reports: “A dire government report on cancer risks from chemicals and other hazards in the environment has drawn criticism from the American Cancer Society, which says government experts are overstating their case. The government’s 240-page report, published online Thursday by the President’s Cancer Panel, says the proportion of cancer cases caused by environmental exposures has been ‘grossly underestimated.’ It warns of ‘grievous harm’ from chemicals and other hazards, and cites ‘a growing body of evidence linking environmental exposures to cancer.’

“Dr. Michael Thun, an epidemiologist from the cancer society, said in an online statement that the report was ‘unbalanced by its implication that pollution is the major cause of cancer,’ and had presented an unproven theory — that environmentally caused cases are grossly underestimated — as if it were a fact.”

POLITICS:

HEALTH CARE LAW MAKES ALL THE DIFFERENCE FOR VULNERABLE DEMS — Congress Daily’s Jackie Clews reports: “Three House Democrats facing tough reelection bids this fall steered clear of President Obama in the months before he signed the health legislation into law but now say he is welcome to campaign for them in their divided districts. ‘I don't know that we're going to ask him, but we're certainly not going to shy away from him,’ said a spokesman for Rep. Mark Schauer, D-Mich. ‘We would love to have him in the district.’ Schauer's embrace of Obama — he happily shared the stage recently when the president gave the University of Michigan commencement address — followed a virtual blackout of the president's name from any of the 68 news releases Schauer's office issued from August to March, when opposition to health care reform was running high. Before that, Schauer had praised Obama eight times in news releases from Inauguration Day through the end of July, before angry protesters seized the stage in the health care debate at town meetings across the nation.”

UNIONS THANK PELOSI, PELOSI THANKS UNIONS — Over chants of “Best Speaker Ever!” Nancy Pelosi addressed hundreds of union workers gathered on the Hill today at a “Thank You” rally for legislators who supported reform, hitting familiar Democratic talking points. Pelosi: “No one will lose coverage because they are sick. Seniors will have access to affordable prescription drugs. Young people will enter the work force without the fear of being kicked off their parents’ policies. And being a woman is no longer a pre-existing medical condition.”

IMPLEMENTATION:

GROUPS VIE FOR $15 BILLION IN PREVENTATIVE FUNDS — Kaiser Health News’ Julie Appleby reports: “Some groups want the bulk of the money earmarked for programs to target specific diseases or problems that affect millions of Americans, such as obesity, diabetes or smoking. But public health officials say the majority of funds should not go solely to fighting specific diseases but be used to bolster agencies whose work targets a broad range of the causes of death and disability. Others advocate using the fund to transform communities to make it easier to exercise and buy fresh produce. Now it is up to the Department of Health and Human Services to decide how to divide up the fund, created by the new health care overhaul law.”

COST DISCLOSURE BILL STALLS — Modern Healthcare’s Matthew DoBias reports: “The chairman of a key congressional health panel said he would not commit to advancing legislation that requires providers, payers and vendors to publicly disclose the cost of their services. Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.), chairman of the Energy and Commerce health subcommittee, said today's hearing on a trio of bills was a critical first step, but declined to say if the bills would clear any more hurdles this year. ‘We also would like to compare the three bills and see what kind of support there is,’ Pallone said. When asked whether the legislation could move forward, he said, ‘it's a possibility, but no decisions have been made.’ One bill, introduced by Rep. Steve Kagen (D-Wis.), also a physician, requires hospitals, doctors, nurses, pharmacies and a range of manufacturers and vendors to openly disclose prices. Failure to do so would result in a financial penalty to be determined by HHS.”

FALLOUT:

WELLPOINT WILL CONDUCT THIRD PARTY REVIEW — Modern Healthcare’s Rebecca Vesely reports: “WellPoint will conduct a third-party review of all its individual market 2010 rate filings, as HHS calls on state regulators to take a closer look at the company's rate increases. The move comes a week after the California insurance commissioner announced that an independent actuary found flaws in WellPoint's rate filing in that state, which would have raised premiums for individual members by up to 39%. Anthem Blue Cross of California, a WellPoint subsidiary, has since withdrawn that planned rate hike and said it will submit a new rate plan to the state sometime this month. WellPoint will implement third-party reviews for all its individual market rate filings across 14 states, a spokeswoman for the Indianapolis-based insurer confirmed.”

HEALTH CARE REFORM? THERE’S AN APP FOR THAT — It was only a matter of time before health reform hit the iPhone. “Beaver Creek Consulting, today, introduced the Health Reform Calculator App for the iPhone, iPod Touch and the iPad. Because Americans have very little information regarding how this bill will impact them, this solution was designed to assist in providing a neutral view. After users download this App from the iTunes store, they can use an easy-to-use calculator which provides results based on individual scenarios.”

STATES:

REPORT: 41 STATES REBEL OVER REFORM — “Since President Obama signed health care reform into law, 22 states have filed lawsuits, challenging the constitutionality of reform and at least 36 states have introduced legislation or ballot initiatives repealing all or parts of health care reform. Today, the Wonk Room, releases a map, showing that 41 states are rebelling against reform in one way or another.

“The states’ efforts to independently repeal the individual mandate and other provisions of reform have received far less national media attention than the lawsuits, but they’re no less important. The campaign is being orchestrated and organized by the American Legislative Exchange Council [ALEC], a ‘business-friendly conservative group that coordinates activity among state houses.’ The Council has generally been used as a vehicle by which large corporations advance their agenda in state legislatures and has known ties to different parts of the health care industry.”

FEW BENEFITS IMPLEMENTED, UTAHNS SOUR ON REFORM — The Salt Lake Tribune’s Kristen Stewart reports: “Utahns have felt little to no impact yet from the newly passed federal health care overhaul. But they have grown even more opposed to it, according to a poll commissioned by The Salt Lake Tribune. Sixty-nine percent of registered and active Utah voters oppose the law, compared with 57 percent in November when Congress was still debating competing versions of President Barack Obama's health care fix. A slim majority would support Utah opting out of the new federal system, even if it greatly cost the state. And 64 percent favor Utah's move to challenge parts of the law as unconstitutional, according to a poll conducted last week by Mason-Dixon Polling and Research Inc., of Washington, D.C.”

MASS. TOWN STRUGGLES WITH RISING HEALTH COSTS — The Boston Globe’s Sean P. Murphy reports: “Last year, this large, diverse suburb west of Boston eliminated a few dozen jobs, including police, firefighters, and clerks at Town Hall. This year, at least 50 teachers and staff are slated to be cut. Everyone here seems to agree that a major factor is the rising cost of health care insurance for employees and retirees, which has jumped by $20 million in 10 years. But there is a deep split in town over what to do about it, illustrating on the most local level a friction that exists statewide as cities and towns struggle with mounting health care costs.

“On one side are the roughly 3,700 Framingham employees and retirees who enjoy health care insurance benefits among the best anywhere: For most, the town pays 87 percent of their premiums, with $10 copayments for office visits. … On the other side are the town manager, chief financial officer, and, judging by interviews conducted here, many taxpayers in this town of about 66,000 people. They want public employees to shoulder more of the burden, as has happened in the private sector, and town officials have infuriated unions by trying unilaterally to shift costs to workers.”

INDIANA REPS, GOVERNOR SPAR OVER HIGH-RISK POOL — WIBC’s Eric Berman reports: “Two Indiana congressmen are challenging Gov. Daniels's lan to wind down the state's health program for the uninsured in the wake of the new federal health care law. Democrats Andre Carson and Baron Hill sent Daniels a three-page Q-and-A they requested from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services. The letter flatly states there is no requirement in the federal bill to shut down the Healthy Indiana Plan. The letter to Daniels avoids urging any course of action regarding HIP, saying only that the congressmen seek to ‘dispel false claims.’‘ (The future of HIP) is for the governor and the people of the state of Indiana to decide,’ Hill says. ‘But they should have the facts, and the governor's not presenting people with the facts.’”

CUTS TO CHIP IN TEXAS FEARED — The Dallas Morning News’ Robert T. Garrett reports: “Seven years ago, state leaders working to close a $9.9 billion budget gap took a hatchet to government health insurance for children of the working poor. Thousands of children paid the price when officials tightened eligibility rules and whacked dental, vision and mental health benefits. Gradually, benefits were restored to the Children's Health Insurance Program and, this month, enrollment reached roughly the same level as in 2003. But CHIP proponents fear the program could be on the block again as lawmakers face an even bigger shortfall — maybe $15 billion — as they write the next two-year budget in their upcoming session.”

PATAKI LEADS ANTI-REFORM RALLY IN PENNSYLVANIA — The Pittsburgh Tribune Review’s Richard Robbins reports: “A former Republican governor of New York joined a GOP candidate for Congress in an appearance Thursday in Westmoreland County to voice their opposition to health care reform because so many Americans do not support it. George Pataki, a three-term New York governor, and Tim Burns of Eighty Four, who is running for Congress in the 12th District, said the legislation, passed by Congress in March with heavy Democratic backing, should be repealed. Pataki told a gathering at the Sheraton Four Points Hotel near Greensburg that ‘we know (the new law) is wrong for America, and it must be repealed and replaced.’ His Revere America organization was formed last month to collect a million signatures in opposition to what he and other opponents call ‘Obamacare.’”

PULSE OP-ED:

AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION TOO CLOSE TO POLITICS – In The Wall Street Journal, Hal Scherz writes: “Did someone in Washington give the AMA the order to muzzle outspoken doctors? Could it be Democratic Congressman Henry Waxman, the Malibu coastline representative who calls businesses to appear before his Energy and Commerce Subcommittee if in abiding by securities laws they reveal the hidden costs of ObamaCare? Perhaps it was House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who has staked her speakership on this bill? The irony is that in supporting ObamaCare and trying to silence doctors the AMA has forgotten its own mission statement and ethical code: ‘[T]o help doctors help patients by uniting physicians nationwide to work on the most important professional and public health issues.’ It is always medically ethical to tell patients the truth, which is what doctors are now doing by educating them about ObamaCare.”

OBAMA VS. INSURERS — At CQ Politics, Morton M. Kondracke writes: “Even though health care reform has passed and is in the midst of a complicated process of implementation — requiring cooperation from the insurance industry — the administration is still on the attack. Late last month, when America’s Health Insurance Plans, the industry lobby, announced that companies would speed implementation of the law’s ban on rescission of policies except in cases of fraud, the White House reacted snarkily. ‘Health reform made rescissions illegal because all Americans should be able to rely on quality care when they need it most,’ top Obama health adviser Nancy-Ann DeParle said. ‘It’s heartening to see that the insurance companies who employed these terrible practices — and fought reform — are coming around doing the right thing by instituting the ban right away. We’ll be watching closely and holding them to their word.’

“My own hunch is that Obama, at heart, is not a socialist but a liberal without the slightest idea of how private enterprises create wealth — and deeply suspicious of their practitioners. But he knows that unifying rhetoric is what the country wants to hear. So, one day it’s one thing. Another day, it’s another. If this is right, it won’t stop, and it’s very sad.”

Share this Article

Reader Comments (27)

Pages

1

The health care reform bill stinks because people don't have a real choice that could insurance corporations honest. It's not that people are displeased with the mandate. It's because people feel that the mandate is for the profits of the health care insurance industry. It does not tantamount to being a good bill for those who are uninsured. It's taking money out of the uninsured to keep the costs low for the already insured to make the insurance corporations the ultimate winner.

JanJan08 - the point is to have a Win-Win solution, which PPACA is. 32 Million additional insured (near universal coverage) is a big win for the public good and the insurance companies. I don't see anything wrong with insurance companies making a profit as long as the system is meeting the goals of access, affordability, quality, security of health insurance and health care. Even with a "public option" some of its work would have been farmed out to the private sector anyway.

A "public option" or Medicare4All would have been nice but there were not the votes for it. Don't blame the administration... blame Republicans and conservative Dems for not offering the needed votes.

Nevertheless, I think the approach in PPACA can work if well implemented and tweaked over time as necessary. For example, the penalty for not having insurance will need more teeth and probably higher $ amount.

the public good is not advanced when the 90% of people who have health care insurance in a good economy have to pay higher prices for less access, fewer choices and lower quality care.
thats the lesson you will be taught in this election. hope it tastes good.

Posted By: the public good is not advanced when the 90% of people who have health care insurance in a good econ | May 07, 2010 at 03:28 PM

Dan - "anJan08 and jhoger, why do you feel so darned entitled to mooch off the hard work and talent of others?"

Well I don't know who you're talking about, but I don't mooch off of anyone, you idiot. But, I do know that not everyone who has wealth did any "hard work" to get it. So your statement falls flat on its face right out of the gate.

Second, it is YOUR personal problem if you have a little piece of coal where your heart should be. You should be asking, why you are such a poor excuse for a human being that you don't think it is worth having a basic social safety net.

Third, PPACA is about health care security for ALL citizens, not just those who become eligible for Medicaid and subsidies.

As a society we choose to do some redistribution of wealth for the public good... public libraries, public works, public schools, community colleges and universities. I am not sure what kind of U.S.A would result from your extreme libertarian absolutism, but I can tell you it would look nothing like the U.S.A ever was.

Really, do some personal reflection and consider where you went wrong in life that you turned into a selfish jerk.

Dan: "jhoger, why do you feel so darned entitled to mooch off the hard work and talent of others? Have you no shame?"
jhoger: "Well I don't know who you're talking about, but I don't mooch off of anyone, you idiot."
jhoger: "But, I do know that not everyone who has wealth did any "hard work" to get it".
jhoger: "So your statement falls flat on its face right out of the gate."
yes, so clear. genius actually.
this line of reasoning shatters the "Rob Peter for Paul = BAD" myth. Thank you.
Frankly, you had me at "you idiot" off-the-bat. Such class is rare.
jhoger should run for office.

My point is that no man is an island. Some of us through a combination of luck and possibly hard work end up being blessed with significantly more material wealth than the average American.

Well I can guarantee you that if you ask a man like Bill Gates whether all that wealth he amassed was through his personal hard work, he'll tell you no. Many people contribute to any enterprise like Microsoft.

Every "self made millionaire" exists in the context of a society. Did that self-made millionaire drive on public streets, protected by an army, not die to due inspected beef, not die due to ineffective or dangerous medication, benefit from tax or trade policy, benefit from public school or publicly subsidized university, including the educated employees that work for him?

Of course he does. So there is a responsibility to the society that gives you the opportunity, and whose resources you exploit. Nobody is talking about making anyone poor or averaging out everyone's wealth.

It's not too much to ask that every American have access to an adequate level of health care, even if some privileged folks have to pay a bit more tax.

I work, I pay to insure my family, I pay taxes. I will benefit from PPACA primarily from the security I will get from the insurance reforms... I won't get subsidies or Medicaid.

Still I think it is the right thing to do as a society. Dan knows what I stand to gain from HCR and what I don't, but he's just being his usual, obtuse, idiotic self.

lets try not to throw the 'selfish' label around then. cause there ain't nothing "generous" about spending other people's money. you amplify polarization. not super helpful. surely there is something you and dan can agree on. start there.

The Democrats and Obama have lied. They fudged the numbers. When the costs start coming in, there will be outrage by the rest of the American people who drank the Reid-Pelosi-Obama laced kool aid. We will not forget!

Fine - "you amplify polarization. not super helpful. surely there is something you and dan can agree on."

Look, Fine... you don't know what you're talking about. Dan is an ideological, lying, misleading FreedomWorks stormturfer troll. He adds only heat, no light. If you read this blog you would know this. Every once in a while I slam him back the way he does to everyone else here. So, thanks but no thanks for your suggestion.

jhoger: There you go again. The poster above was correct. CBO numbers were based on the garbage Congress put in, resulting in numbers that were garbage coming out. ... See, I caught you in a lie again, defending the CBO numbers. Everyone with a functioning brain, except for you apparently, knows this to be true.

vlad - "CBO numbers were based on the garbage Congress put in, resulting in numbers that were garbage coming out."
I've heard this line of BS from conservatives.

Well I've heard this line of B.S. from Rep Paul Ryan. Note, Paul Ryan, our new "deficit hawk" voted FOR Medicare Part D and threw it on the national credit card. So although he can spew wonk technobabble, he has no credibility whatsoever.

Anyway, you believe this line I guess. So, please, do explain the "garbage" and how it made the CBO make incorrect projections.

See? You can't because you're just parroting stuff other morons told you to say. That makes you a rube.

"So, please, do explain the "garbage" and how it made the CBO make incorrect projections"

you would not understand. Heck ,it took the whole white house and capitol hill staff many months and 2000 pages to make it come out right. And you expect someone to lay it out in front of you on this board, here and now?.

sorry, just cause the regime LACKS TRANSPARENCY does not mean CBO numbers will be reality.

they will not. no matter what you say. j.

you are free to quote their numbers... but the second you claim they are more than wishfull thinking you are simply dreaming. sorry.

Not even the average citizen trusts governements numbers, on anything (check any poll jhoger, ever); the word for that is naive.

(btw: actually its not that hard.... one word will suffice...

wait for it...

....wait

BAMB! - Doc Fix

... you must hate that word. If not you soon will).

have a nice evening in Bama's-Balanced-Book Land -- where everything is always paid for - Or it's free.

Um... The "Doc Fix" is not in ObamaCare. The fact is that the Doc Fix has been done many times before PPACA, and it will be done many times after.

Attacking the bill for not paying for things that aren't in it is a big fat argumentative FAIL.

PPACA is primarily a reform of the individual and small group market while ending the worse business practices of private insurers. There isn't a whole lot in the bill about Medicare. Further Medicare reform is needed, but at 2000 whatever pages, are you arguing that they should have gone after Medicare reform too?

"Attacking the bill for not paying for things that aren't in it is a big fat argumentative FAIL."

Obama said he would bring Health Care Spending under control (ie make deficit neutral or better). He promised. He did not say just non-medicare spending, or just ER spending. Its fun to be able to pick-n-choose huh. DocFix is still HC spending though.

while we disagree over the reliability and relevance of the CBO projections, one need only add in the Doc Fix to see Health Care spending will ADD to the deficit (i.e. he lied). Basic math (138 - 200+).

this bill will NOT make Govt Health Care Spending deficit neutral, even if CBO is correct.And nothing the CBO or jhoger says will change that. But by all means, spin away.

Projections are not reality. Projections do not make something true or false. I'm sure you understand that. Good luck running on CBO Projections in November. In fact, please do.

Cancer society, cancer research, for decades they have shoveling the dough and we are not one step farther with cancer treatments or cancer origins then we were decades ago, only patients die faster from poisonous treatments that kill the patient but never the cancer . That some of our life styles we choose can cause cancer or encourage cancer is possible and likely, and we don't need Billions for study to understand that. It's time we re-direct our spending to cancer reserarch fat cats who for decades live of the research money and don't come up with one new approach that makes sense then killing and poison the patient even faster.

jhoger, first of all most people I know with money did earn it. Should they be misprepresented just so you can feel justified in taking what they earn. Second, whether they earned it or not it's not your money you greedy, covetous little weirdo. Third, how do you think taking what others have earned to subsidize a lifestyle you cannot earn for yourself makes you generous? In what world is that even possible? You are the greedy ones because you want what others have earned for your own selfish desires.

You keep talking about me taking something from someone else. I'll say it again... I will not benefit from any subsidies under ObamaCare. I pay for my own health insurance but I make too much money to get subsidies. My point in supporting ObamaCare is mostly altruistic. But it is also to get the security of ending medical underwriting for myself and other hard working folks.

Look if you cannot understand the social contract civilization implies, that's your damage, not mine. No man is an island. No one is really "self-made." That's an illusion.

We are a society, not a collection of individuals. You want to see a collection of individuals, all out for themselves, look at Afghanistan or Somalia. And if you like their system, go live there and trouble us no more.

jhoger, if you are not in the top 20% of income earners then you are clearly being subsidized by the hard work, talent and risk of others. So now all we are doing is talking about to what degree your lifestyle is being subsidized by others and if we should take more of what they earn so you can have more at other people' expense. Who said anything about limiting your sucking off the system to your involvment in Obamacare? The whole progressive tax system guarantees that greedy libs like you get to live on other people's dime. Get a clue little man.

jhoger, of course none of us are self made, but it wasn't your sorry liberal butt that got me ahead. It was the hard work and sacrifice of my parents and their parents before them. It was someone instilling in me the ethic of self reliance and hard work. It was being taught that a man isn't a man if he can't stand on his own two feet and get through life under his own steam. That is why you libs baffle me. Have you no pride? Have you no shame? How could it possibly be so easy for you to live off the hard work, risk and sacrifice of others when they do not willingly give it to you?

And this is where you greedy libs get really stupid with your class warfare games. Why do you want to do away with people who earn and achieve. Generally speaking, parasites do not try to kill their hosts.

I stand by my statement. Liberals are a bunch of mooches and freeloaders who feel entitled to use the government to force others to subsidize a lifestlye that libs cannot earn for themselves. And somehow the victims of these parasites are the ones who get labeled as greedy. It's incredible!

Explain to me how "learning to fish" assures you can find affordable, adequate insurance in the individual and small group market.

This wasn't an education issue. This wasn't a "you're not working hard enough" issue. It was an issue of needing fundamental insurance reform.

You need to look passed the parables and truisims and dogma and examine the ACTUAL problem at hand. In this case, the problem is that insurance companies were selling overpriced, junk insurance only to people they felt they could fleece for maximum profit, and denying/rescinding insurance for customers that weren't providing them the ideal profit margin. 47 million people are without insurance. The system isn't working, and something had to be done. So the grown-ups took charge and got it done.