Tag Archives: Bush

Health Care

George Bush’s Healthcare Re-Framing & Today’s SinglePayer Update

1 Comment

( – promoted by Brian Leubitz)

Why’d he do it? Why did George Bush propose a series of initiatives widely acknowledged as “dead on arrival”?  Obviously to distract from his foreign policy woes-but his proposals also serve as an attempt to recast the healthcare debates in terms favorable to the insurance industry while gumming up the drive for genuine healthcare reform that our nation so badly needs.  We’ll take a look at the evidence and the unfriendly reaction this plan received around the nation.

Brought to you by the National Nurses Organizing Committee as we organize to make 2007 the Year of Single-Payer Healthcare.

The Wall St. Journal, long cheerleaders for America’s current healthcare system, give us our first clues to the political thinking behind Bush’s proposals: 

Most Americans can see for themselves that the current employer-based system is breaking down, as more companies pass along the rising cost of their insurance to employees (in higher co-pays and deductibles). Yet the system remains opaque and frustrating because of the underlying tax bias for businesses instead of individuals.

This status quo won’t hold, and the political race is going to be between those who want to move to a more genuine market and consumer-based health care, and those who want to move toward Canada, Europe and more government control. The Bush plan ought to jump start that debate.

And there we have it.  Bush is throwing out rhetorical head feints not as serious policy but in order to shift the debate in ways that encourage a “more of the same” health policy, specifically a “killer” market for health insurance companies.  This is a what the California Nurses Association calls “market-centered” as opposed to “patient-centered” approaches. 

It is cheering, or course, that the Journal (and apparently Bush) fear an imminent move to the patient-centered systems, known as single-payer healthcare, that are working in Canada and Europe.  Single-payer healthcare is cheaper and more effective–just what Americans are looking for in their health reform.

And, by the way, WSJ, it’s not the tax biases that make the system opaque and frustrating; it’s the system that does that.

In a different column in the Journal (reg. req’d.), editorialist Alan Murray lays it right out: “Still, the Bush plan is a big idea that will help frame the health care debate for the future.” 

This PR campaign is apparently coordinated on a wide basis.  Media Matters notes that all the administration’s cheerleaders are reading from the same talking points.

In line with the goals of this re-framing campaign, Ruth Marcus in a widely-discussed Washington Post article attacks healthcare reform advocates for daring to not buy into Bush’s reframing of the healthcare debate.  She writes:

And, yes, it’s fair to argue that a more comprehensive approach — Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) has proposed one — is needed.
But Democrats — if they care more about addressing health-care needs than scoring political points — ought to be finding ways to improve and build on the Bush proposal, not condemning and mischaracterizing it. Given that nothing’s going to pass without Democratic approval, what’s the risk in engaging in the discussion?

Bloggers Brad Delong and Kevin Sullivan should probably both get stipends this week from the Post for fact-checking the article.

While Bush’s proposals recast the long-term debate, insurance companies are short-term beneficiaries.  According to the AP

President Bush’s State of the Union proposal aimed at increasing health coverage for uninsured Americans might provide a boost to managed care providers such as UnitedHealth Group Inc., Wellpoint Inc. and others looking to increase their enrollment numbers.

At first, it would appear that hospital companies would benefit from Bush’s proposal because fewer uninsured would mean less bad debt. However, Bush is proposing to take money from funds given to hospitals that serve large numbers of Medicare and Medicaid patients and give it to states to bankroll their plans to expand health insurance. Plus, analysts said that if Bush’s proposal pushes people into plans with less generous coverage, more individuals will struggle to pay their hospitals bills.

And Maggie Fox at Reuters notes:

President George W. Bush’s proposed health-insurance plan will raise taxes while helping only a few people, and may eviscerate existing coverage, critics said on Wednesday.

The National Association of Health Underwriters and America’s Health Insurance Plans welcomed Bush’s ideas.

One result of this giveaway to the insurance industry? A possible hospital vs. insurance war? Proof that the coalition propping up our broken healthcare system might be finally breaking down.

Elsewhere, an LA Times reporter calls Bush’s proposal “dead-on arrival,”
a California blogger coins the term “cancer tax,” CNN Money suggests that it’s really a plan to soak the sick, while editorialists across the country took issue with the plan.  I like the article in the Des Moines Register:

The president’s plan represents a piece-meal approach to a national problem demanding a comprehensive solution. What ails this country’s health-care system can’t be fixed by fiddling with the tax code.

This country needs a national approach to health care that offers basic coverage to everyone, perhaps similar to Medicare for seniors.

The Seattle Post Intelligencer chimed in:

There are no guarantees of universal coverage and states are unlikely to receive additional funds to implement this plan, which will likely face opposition in Congress.

Bush would also like to tax employer-based health care plans starting in 2009, and offer a $4,500 tax deduction to individuals who purchase their own insurance plans for $3,000. Assuming, of course, that they earn enough for the tax deduction to matter.

Employer-based health care no longer works for the country, offering fewer options and costing more to employers and employees alike. But taxing those who are happy with their plans hardly seems right.

Diaries & Misc.

Tauscher Talks: Wants More Meetings With Bush

14 Comments

(as usual this can be found at Ruck Pad and is at dkos)

The Representative from CA-10 has done a lot of talking in the last few months.  She spoke of Kabuki, insinuating that Democrats will be put on a show, but standing, as Sirota says, “for nothing other than than their own party.”  She has spoken of the dangers of “getting the majority and running over the left cliff”.  This was of course before the election, which had the lovely consequence of reinforcing Republican talking points that a Democratic majority would be disastrous.

This week, we learn that she is going to some more talking, this time with President Bush.  The blogosphere is not happy, worried that this is an attempt by Bush to peel off Democrats for his own agenda.  The Democrat, representing a district outside San Francisco that went overwhelmingly for Kerry in 2004 says:

It won’t work, Tauscher says.

“I’m going to tell the president that I really wished that this was a bigger meeting that included other members of the Democratic leadership, including the Progressive, Hispanic and black caucuses,” Tauscher said by phone from the House earlier this afternoon. “This idea that he’s going to pick off the moderates is ridiculous.

“We are fully committed members of the Democratic Party and we are foursquare with Speaker Nancy Pelosi. There is no sunshine between us.”

The difference is that you are going to this meeting and Speaker-elect Pelosi is not.  The Democratic leaders already had their post-election make nice meeting.  Are you really telling me that in the 20 minute meeting you are having with the president that you will start off criticizing him?  Aren’t you worried that George Will is going to accuse you of disrespecting the President?

More from Tauscher:

When the White House called the New Dems last week to request the meeting, they were skeptical.

“We wanted to know, ‘Why now?’ ” Tauscher said. “After all, our phones have been working for six years.”

But when the President of the United States calls, Tauscher says, members of Congress pick up the phone.

“We are public servants that believe in the U.S. Constitution and the importance of dialogue between the branches of government,” she said. “We have had significant complaints about the fact that this White House has not engaged with us for a very long time. But we respect the office and when the president calls, members of Congress want to cooperate.”

Ok, this seriously made me laugh.  You know exactly why, everyone knows why.  Bush has not abruptly changed his tune.  He wants to find a way around the majority and he has the best shot at it by talking to you.

Lest you worry that this is a one time shot, Tauscher makes it very clear that she is looking for this to turn into a regular thing.

“It’s barely more than a photo opportunity, a fresh-start kind of meeting,” Tauscher said. “We’ve made it clear that this is nice and thanks, but we’re not going to take it too seriously unless there is some regularity to the offer and our colleagues are included.”

There you have it folks.  Tauscher wants to take this meeting seriously.  She wants it to be a regular occurrence.  Rather than having the President go directly to the Democratic leadership, she finds value in this sub group meeting with Bush.  The only value is to split our caucus.

Tauscher needs to go.

Arnold Schwarzenegger

Field Poll on Bush/Schwarzenegger

2 Comments

For all the money that the CDP put into tying Bush and Schwarzenegger, and all their self-congralatory praise, it seems that it hasn’t really sunk in for the general population.  This according to the most recent Field Poll release.

Californians’ view of the overall performance of President Bush remains in a very deep trough.  At present, just 29% of this state’s registered voters approve of the job Bush is doing as President, while 61% disapprove.  By contrast, voter opinions of Schwarzenegger’s performance have improved throughout 2006, with 48% now approving and 37% disapproving of the job he is doing as Governor. (Field Poll (PDF) 9/30/06)

Those ads where Arnold kept saying “Let’s all go out and relect George W. Bush” apparently didn’t work.  I actually prefer their more recent ads where they actually compare the policies of each, and maybe that will make a difference.  However, I haven’t seen any of those commercials on the air, so I don’t know what kind of buy they put behind that one.  If people aren’t getting the Bush-Schwarzenegger message by now, peraps we should work another tack.

Uncategorized

2006 Progressive Congressional Challenger Memo

1 Comment

(Part 2 of the MyDD/Courage Campaign Survey – promoted by SFBrianCL)

Today The Courage Campaign and MyDD have released their candidate memo laying out recommendations to progressive challengers this fall based on the results of the two polls we conducted in CA-50 studying the reasons for Francine Busby’s loss on June 6.

Our results from those polls can be found below:
Why Francine Busby Lost
Republicans Divided On Iraq, Accountability.

What we’ve discovered is that the lessons learned in CA-50 should be able to travel from district to district throughout the nation.
In a nutshell:

– Promise to hold Bush accountable
– Pick fights, do not shirk from them, to demonstrate toughness and credibility on the accountability issue
– Do not run from the war, run TOWARD it, but make it about oversight, not withdrawal.
The candidate memo can be found in its entirety over the fold.

(cross-posted at The Courage Campaign and MyDD)

by Chris Bowers, Rick Jacobs, Matt Stoller and Joel Wright

To: Democratic Congressional Challengers

Re: CA-50 Post-Special Election (Busby-Bilbray) Polling Memo

Fall Election Environment Overview:

This fall, you will face a grotesque political environment, one that requires strategic knowledge, great courage and fortitude to successfully navigate. Facing low approval ratings, Republicans will introduce you to the voters as a flip-flopping, gay-loving, liberal terrorist coddler who wants to cut and run from Iraq, all at the behest of self-absorbed Hollywood moguls and liberal elites.

The establishment Democrats have proven ineffective at combating this positioning, introducing empty slogans like `Together we can do better' that no one repeats or remembers, and policy proposals that few voters believe Democrats are capable of enacting. Most of the polling and advice you'll get from DC insiders and journalists will largely rehash bad information, false choices and irrelevant answers to poorly framed questions. If you take their advice, you will not make significant headway in convincing voters you are best to represent them. And when you lose, it'll be you who ran a bad campaign, not "them." Just ask Francine Busby how that works.

Perhaps worst of all, you will probably face some form of October surprise from the Republicans and your opponent: a game-changing event or message stream. And you will be blind-sided because establishment Democrats will be caught off-guard. Again. And you and your campaign will pay the price of their failure.

Realistically, when it comes to developing a winning position and messaging, you are on your own. Or rather, you are on your own, except that the voters – Democrats, Republicans, and Independents alike – agree with the outrage that you feel towards the political system and agree that Republican leadership is the problem. Yet, voters will only vote for change if they know you can deliver on that change once elected.

So far, few believe that will happen, as our data in CA-50 show.

Why CA-50 matters to you and your campaign:

Francine Busby and the DCCC spent more than $5 million on a nationalized Congressional race in California's 50th District. As the Democratic contender in the only partisan federal race so far this year, she was the Petri dish for testing Beltway techniques and messages. She ran on the national party's first semester message of "the culture of corruption" against a former Congressman turned lobbyist in a district where her predecessor is in jail for taking millions of dollars in bribes from defense contractors. A conservative, heavily military district where Dianne Feinstein won in 2000 and where Barbara Boxer lost by less than one percentage point in 2004, she ran as a "bi-partisan Democrat who would go to Washington to clean house and accomplish a seven point policy plan." She dodged the Iraq war as if it were a bullet aimed directly at her. In short, she played by the national insider rules.

And Francine Busby lost. The national committees and insiders have moved on. Her campaign team has simply moved out, taking the blame for doing what they were told by the `experienced' Beltway consultants.

Focus on this: Francine Busby lost a race to Brian Bilbray, a Republican lobbyist and former member of Congress, someone about as "inside" as it gets. Even though Busby ran on the culture of corruption line and Cunningham sits in jail with a mere 6% favorability in the CA-50, and, further, even though few voters believed that Bilbray had credibility on standing up to Bush on immigration, she lost. We know this because we polled extensively in the district this summer to find out why an extremely well funded national campaign utterly failed. Given that this was the only Congressional election so far this year between a Republican and a Democrat, we wanted to learn some lessons. This is the only data set on the only Federal partisan election that has happened in 2006 so far. It is very much worth understanding.

What happened in California's 50th?

California 50th is a right-leaning district, though not overwhelmingly so (John Kerry got 44% of the vote in 2004). The seat was open because Duke Cunningham resigned and ultimately went to jail in the midst of a bribery scandal. Democrat Francine Busby's messaging was therefore focused on the then national message of "the culture of corruption." She ran a policy-heavy campaign, proposing what she asserted was the `toughest' ethics legislation out there, while at the same time attacking Bilbray for his lobbying work. Republican Brian Bilbray focused his campaign on a hard-right message of cracking down on illegal immigrants.

Surprisingly, neither message worked. In an open-ended question, less than 4% of voters cited Republican corruption as a reason for voting for Busby. Similarly, Bilbray voters did not believe that Bilbray had the ability to divert from the Bush agenda and crack down on illegal immigrants. In fact, both candidates were largely undefined to the electorate, despite a highly agitated voter pool seeking change. While there was high Democratic turnout, Busby lost because independent voters did not believe that she could deliver on her policy promises and did not believe she was substantially more ethical than Bilbray. So, in large numbers, they either stayed home or voted for third party candidates.

Busby's lack of definition as a candidate and lack of message credibility allowed Bilbray to solidify his voter base, even though that base evidenced a substantial amount of dissatisfaction with the Republican Party and President Bush.

Lessons for Candidates Around the Country

The obvious problem with Busby's messaging was that she dodged Iraq as though it were a bullet aimed at her head. According to all available polling information, Iraq is consistently the number one issue on voters' minds. The absence of Iraq as an issue in the campaign is one likely reason why turnout was so low in CA-50. This in contrast to record breaking turnout in the Connecticut primary, in which messaging strategy did focus on the war. To the extent Busby discussed the situation in Iraq, it was in the context of a vague withdrawal plan rather than as a challenge to Bush and Republican war strategy.

In our research, we asked respondents in California's 50th a series of questions about Iraq and the political impact of the war situation. The findings were stunning, and reveal a deep split in the Republican base vote.

– 63% of Republican voters believe that Bush has made some or a lot of mistakes in Iraq.

– 34% of Republican voters believe that Bush has definitely or probably not told the truth about the situation in Iraq.

– 34% of Republican voters believe that Bush should probably or definitely be held accountable for the situation in Iraq.

– 40% of Republican voters believe that the Democratic Party is more likely to hold Bush accountable for mistakes in Iraq.

While the country is open to the idea of partial or total troop withdrawal, according to our data in CA-50 existing withdrawal messaging loses badly to Republican `cut and run' counter-attack messaging. This suggests that voters are seeking a set of actors in Congress who will tell the truth about the war and hold Bush accountable for mistakes. This is in contrast to an immediate end to the conflict and /or yet another withdrawal plan that Congress cannot enact. Voters intuitively understand that Congress doesn't run the military, and that regardless of the outcome of the 2006 election, Bush will be in charge of the military until 2009. As such, framing the election as a choice between rival Congressional military plans sacrifices the credibility of Democratic candidates who can only legitimately promise to hold hearings, restore congressional oversight of military matters, locate and identify blame, and serve as a check on a widely disliked and distrusted President.

Recommendations

Candidates should run aggressively on accountability and the war in Iraq. Here are six specific `rules of thumb' we recommend you use for planning purposes.

Iraq must be central in your campaign and you must blame Republicans for it Ignoring Iraq, downplaying its significance, or accepting Bush's framework by not blaming leaders is a sign to voters that you are weak, unlikely to bring change, and not addressing the main issue of the day. Regardless of how you approach the policy going forward in Iraq, the key trait that voters seek is a willingness to hold failed leaders accountable for the debacle. Be willing to uncover the truth, place blame, and demand consequences.

1. The debate on whether Bush is a competent, trustworthy President is over. He is considered among Republicans, Democrats, and Independents a leader who makes mistakes and then won't tell the truth about those mistakes. This is not about competence. This is about massive failure of leadership with no end in sight.

2. Republicans cannot run against Bush and Iraq. Voters do not think that Republicans are willing to hold Bush or other administration figures accountable for those mistakes, so Republican Congressional dissent on the war is unlikely to help Republicans. But dissent will, in fact, work to Democratic candidates' advantage. It shows strength and, most importantly, principle and personal values.

3. `Terrorism' scares only work in the absence of strong accountability messaging, since Republicans are no longer trustworthy on issues of war and peace. Voters know Republicans will let mistakes slide and they want accountability in the face of that.

4. Oversight beats withdrawal. Journalists or other messengers who frame politics in terms of a need to have an alternative plan in contrast to Bush are insulting voters, and should be taken to task aggressively for framing false choices and misrepresenting the role of Congress. Congress primarily serves as military oversight, not military policy. Voters know that.

5. Pick a fight, any fight. Voters need to be convinced that Democrats can credibly challenge Bush. Whether the fight is over de-funding Cheney's personal staff, attacking John Bolton's confirmation, impeachment hearings, or stopping war profiteering with a new `Truman Commission', Democratic candidates must demonstrate strength through aggressive confrontation where the term "accountability" is more than just an abstraction or corporate lingo. It must be made real through a fight you plan to pick.

6. When presented with squeals from journalists and Republicans over your fight, a resolute willingness to not back off in the face of criticism is key. Your willingness to hold Bush accountable must be made real. For example, demand that the president and the party in power come to account for having squandered lives, security and treasure while enriching CEOs of major corporations such as Halliburton.

Here's a real-world example of this dynamic from US history: Harry Truman became vice president because as a US Senator, he had the backbone to demand that major figures in the American economy either give back money stolen in the provision of shoddy materiel for World War II, or go to jail for treason. In sum, whatever fights you pick, whether specific local issues or national ones, our poll shows that accountability regarding Bush, Congressional Republicans and your opponent is crucial to building the credibility you need in order to break through with a majority vote in November. Democrats, Independents and even many Republicans want this to occur. Do it.