From the graphic: “We all think of the hospital as the place to go to get better. But hospitals in the United States are making people sicker at alarming rates. Between overtired interns, germ-covered doctors, and haphazard record keeping, you might find yourself in more trouble than you were when you checked in.“

There is a large list of why US hospitals aren’t as safe as you may have thought. This infographic details medical errors, the spread of infections within hospitals, poor sanitation, and inefficiencies in record keeping.

Do you think a larger budget in Healthcare would improve hospital conditions?

Created by: Medical Billing and Coding

Leave a comment to let us know.

Medical Paperwork is something that not a lot of people really talk about, nor research all that much. It doesn’t surface as something that seems like it would be an issue as large as it is, but if there’s one thing Americans agree on, it’s that the cost of health care is absurd. Medical costs in the US are way higher than any other industrialized nation, and health care reform hasn’t been able to cut them down quite yet.

This infographic by medical transcription pinpoints where a lot of costs seem to go:

$400 billion on paperwork and administrative costs per year
Doctors typically spend 12 cents of every dollar covering administrative costs
$7 billion is wasted due to a complicated medical billing system
$12 billion wasted on communication inefficiencies

Click to enlarge the graphic:

Medical Paperwork Infographic by: medicaltranscription.net

Leave your thoughts in the comments.

Medical paperwork cartoon source.

We all knew this would happen sooner or later, but Romney seems to be finally throwing his Massachusetts healthcare plan under the bus.

ABC takes a look at the upcoming speech:

Former Massachusetts Governor and likely Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney will outline his approach to health care reform in Michigan Thursday, announcing a plan to “repeal and replace” the law that Democrats enacted last year.

As governor in 2006, Romney signed Massachusetts’ bipartisan health reform law. It required everyone in the state to obtain health insurance and became a model for the controversial law that national Democrats enacted for the entire country in 2010. [...]

A Romney adviser tells ABC News that he will address his own record on health care reform but that it won’t be a major focus of his speech. While Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty has apologized for his past support for legislation to enact a “Cap and Trade” system to cut down on carbon emissions, calling it a “clunker”, don’t expect Romney to do the same on health care reform. Look for Romney to continue his federalism defense: the plan he enacted was right for Massachusetts, but not for the entire country.

Sure, he says he’s not doing it, but he is. We all know he is, even if he doesn’t say that the Massachusetts program was wrong. You don’t set up a statewide system that mandates health care coverage without thinking about the implications for that working on a nationwide basis. Romney had presidential aspirations, was seeking to come up with a Republican alternative to single-payer and he found it. So kudos to him. That’s why Obama’s health care plan was originally seen as compromise until Republicans (who had once supported it) started demonizing it as socialist.

Regardless, here are the talking points for his new plan…

• Restore to the states the responsibility and resources to care for their poor, uninsured, and chronically ill.
• Give a tax deduction to those who buy their own health insurance, just like those who buy it through their employers.
• Streamline the federal regulation of healthcare.
• Reduce the influence of lawsuits on medical practice and costs.
• Make healthcare more like a consumer market and less like a government program.

So how are Americans liking Obama/Romney mandated healthcare? A majority favor it according to a recent poll…

The most recent Kaiser Health Tracking poll from April found that 52 percent of Americans wanted to either expand the health care law or leave it as is, while 35 percent said they wanted Congress to repeal it and replace it with a Republican alternative or simply repeal it without an alternative. Overall, just 15 percent preferred the repeal and replace option.

Still, we won’t really know what Americans think of it until 2014 when it really takes effect, but for now Romney is fighting with the GOP on what has become a more popular idea. Can his message translate to the presidential campaign and win swing voters who now favor his old plan?

More as it develops…

You can find more at Political Graffiti.

Rick Ungar digs up an argument ender for the idea that the Founders would never be in favor of mandated health care.

They were…because they passed a VERY similar law in the 6th Congress.

Rick…take it away…

In July of 1798, Congress passed – and President John Adams signed – “An Act for the Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen.” The law authorized the creation of a government operated marine hospital service and mandated that privately employed sailors be required to purchase health care insurance.

Keep in mind that the 5th Congress did not really need to struggle over the intentions of the drafters of the Constitutions in creating this Act as many of its members were the drafters of the Constitution.

And when the Bill came to the desk of President John Adams for signature, I think it’s safe to assume that the man in that chair had a pretty good grasp on what the framers had in mind.

So why did they do it? Were they secret socialists? Of course not. But they had a crisis on their hands so they crafted some common sense legislation to address it. And, by the way, it was way more “socialist” than what Obama got passed.

For example…

When a sick or injured sailor needed medical assistance, the government would confirm that his payments had been collected and turned over by his employer and would then give the sailor a voucher entitling him to admission to the hospital where he would be treated for whatever ailed him.

While a few of the healthcare facilities accepting the government voucher were privately operated, the majority of the treatment was given out at the federal maritime hospitals that were built and operated by the government in the nation’s largest ports.

As the nation grew and expanded, the system was also expanded to cover sailors working the private vessels sailing the Mississippi and Ohio rivers.

The program eventually became the Public Health Service, a government operated health service that exists to this day under the supervision of the Surgeon General.

That’s right…a sailor couldn’t even go to the hospital unless the government knew they had been paid…and the treatment was in government owned facilities…for people employed by private companies…who were required to buy insurance.

Now some will say that this doesn’t say people are required to buy private insurance. That’s right, it doesn’t say that. And if you want to split hairs between private and public insurance, well, we can go there but that again paints the Founders as far more socialist than the current legislation, thus negating the argument we’ve heard time and time again by the Repubs.

Republicans said they were going to do it…and so they did. And 3 Democrats joined them.

From The Hill:

The House voted on Wednesday to repeal the sweeping healthcare law enacted last year, as Republicans made good on a central campaign pledge and laid down the first major policy marker of their new majority.

The party-line vote was 245-189, as three Democrats joined all 242 Republicans in supporting repeal.

Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) said the healthcare law on the books would increase spending, raise taxes and eliminate jobs.

This is the same House that barely passed this legislation last year roughly around the same time (March 2010). That vote was 219-212. In November 2010 it was 220-215.

What a difference an election makes.

Still, this is just a symbolic vote. The Senate won’t pass this so it’ll die.

More as it develops…

Incredibly eerie in retrospect. Here’s what Gifford said on March 25, 2010…

“…for example, we’re on Sarah Palin’s targeted list, but the thing is that the way that she has it depicted has the crosshairs of a gun sight over our district, and when people do that, they’ve gotta realize there are consequences to that action.”

This was in response to Giffords’ door being shattered by somebody after the Palin target list popped up.

And here’s the video…

Again, I ask Republicans to stop using gun rhetoric and symbolism in their campaign literature. It’s completely unnecessary and only appeals to extremism within your base.

The report was released in early July, but the MSM and blogosphere are just now beginning to pick up on what it says about our new law of the land.

Politico: Health reform’s bureaucratic spawn

CNN: Cafferty File

Ed Morrisey at Hot Air: ObamaCare: The Infinite Bureaucracy Act

Washington Examiner: Obamacare is just the beginning

Some Democrats have taken comfort in a recent tracking poll indicating that opposition to Obamacare has marginally decreased. I’d put that in the same category of self-delusion as “America is a center-left country”,”demographic realignment means a permanent Democratic majority“, and “a Republican cannot win Ted Kennedy’s seat”. This is legislation that only looks good if you blur your vision and avert your eyes. The promised deficit reduction has evaporated, the expected cost controls – don’t, and even before the most expensive benefits and costs kick-in, healthcare reform has already become an economic drag aggravating unemployment.

I expect the GOP will make sure everyone gets a good long rub-your-nose-in-it look between now and November. Every GOP candidate will be taking shots at Obamacare, and that is one slow fat rabbit to hunt. When you look at the chart and read the CRS report – the campaign ads write themselves. Since few Democratic Party candidate have any idea of what is in the hairball they voted for – well – lets see what happens when they have to keep explaining the details to the voters.

Missouri voters have taken a close look and made it clear what they think about the law. Claire McKaskill’s response to the vote illustrates the Democratic dilemma. She simultaneously acknowledges the depth and breadth of frustration with the law while trying to minimize the meaning of the vote. You can’t do both.

This administration is nothing if not sensitive to the political winds. To counteract the worsening negative perception, they’ve recruited Andy Griffith as spokesman:

Color me skeptical, but I don’t think an advertising campaign that emphasizes “framing” over content is going to have much of an impact. Particularly if the content is understood to be misleading, and the taxpayer funded ad is possibly illegal. But then, if you can’t trust the Sheriff of Mayberry – who can you trust?

^{x-posted from “Divided We Stand United We Fall”}

Proposition C passed by 70% last night and that has a lot of folks wondering if more states will follow suit to get initiatives like these on the ballot during times when vote turn out is extremely low.

The answer, of course, is yes. Similar initiatives will be on the ballot in Arizona and Oklahoma later this year. And I’d be shocked if they didn’t pass overwhelmingly too.

From NY Times:

“My constituents told me they felt like their voices had been ignored and they wanted Washington to hear them,” Jane Cunningham, a state senator and Republican who had pressed for a vote, said Tuesday night. “It looks to me like they just picked up a megaphone.”

The referendum, known as Proposition C, was seen as a first look at efforts by conservatives to gather and rally their forces over the issue. In the end, though, the referendum seemed not to capture the general population’s attention. Instead, Republican primary voters (who had the most competitive races on Tuesday) appeared to play a crucial role in the vote’s fate.

By the way, guess what else passed by 70% in Missouri during the exact same primary election 6 years ago when Republican turnout was high.

Still, will this ultimately mean anything? My guess is no. Because federal law will trump this vote.

However, one can’t say for certain until the courts have their say.

More from NYT:

Practically speaking, it remains entirely uncertain what effect the vote will have. The insurance requirement of the federal health care law does not come into effect until 2014. By then, experts say, the courts are likely to weigh in on the provision requiring people to buy insurance.

“While we’re disappointed that Missourians didn’t vote against this, we think the courts will ultimately decide it,” said David M. Dillon, a spokesman for the Missouri Hospital Association.

More as it develops.

As this issue becomes less politicized, more folks seem to warm to the legislation.

Wait…what???

To me this is encouraging. Of course, we all know there are problems with the legislation that passed, but I think we can also collectively agree that the current system is completely unsustainable. So some type of fix had to be made, and Obama made his move.

Personally, I didn’t think it was smart politically, but I respect that he was able to at least draw some support from the other side of the aisle wit the compromises he made. After all, politics is the art of the possible, not the ideal.

Here’s more from Wash Post:

Opposition to the landmark health care overhaul declined over the past month, to 35 percent from 41 percent, according to the latest results of a tracking poll, reported Thursday.

Fifty percent of the public held a favorable view of the law, up slightly from 48 percent a month ago, while 14 percent expressed no opinion about the measure, according to the poll by the Kaiser Family Foundation.

The approval level was the highest for the legislation since it was enacted in March, after a divisive year-long debate. In April, the poll found 46 percent in favor and 40 percent opposed.

But wait…what do independents think?

Well, they’re more in favor than they were…

Independents, who can tip the balance in elections, split 48 percent to 37 percent in favor, compared with 49 percent to 41 percent a month earlier.

However…

The intensity of opinion among this group showed little change; just less than a fifth expressed a very favorable view, and just more than a quarter expressed a very unfavorable view.

So some in the middle have switched to the undecided column. That’s net win for Obama and Dems, regardless of the unfavorable view.

And that begs the big question: do we really think that Republicans can run on “Repeal It!” this year or in 2012?

I think not.

What do you think?

Do know that without the health care legislation…this wouldn’t have happened.

From Politico:

“While many health plans already abide by the standards outlined in the new law, our community is committed to implementing the new standards in May 2010 to ensure that individuals and families will have greater peace of mind when purchasing coverage on their own,” AHIP president and chief executive Karen Ignagni said in a letter to top House Democrats.

The decision to end rescission, as the practice is known, was made during a Tuesday afternoon conference call of chief executives organized by their trade group, America’s Health Insurance Plans, and represents the industry’s latest attempt to build political good will after the bruising health care fight.

The decision came on the same day that WellPoint, under fire for reports that it had targeted breast cancer patients for rescission, announced it would end the practice by Saturday. On Wednesday, UnitedHealth also announced it had eliminated the practice.

For more on this unethical practice, see here, here and here.

If you dig into the demographics of approval/disapproval on the health care question, some interesting trends emerge…

As expected, those who have health care don’t like reform. Because it won’t mean much for them and Dems haven’t made a compelling case that it will drive down their premiums. Well, not yet anyway. However, those who don’t have coverage, well, they’re head over heels. And those on Medicare, well, they’re close to being neutral. Because they already have government run health care and this won’t change things much either.

Next up…income. I find this one particularly interesting since those who make over $75K only have a net -8 disapproval, while those who make between $50 and $75K have -19 disapproval. Maybe this is where most small business owners fall? And, obviously those who are in a lower income bracket love that they’ll be able to afford health care.

The age demos are the most telling, especially when you’re looking at the long term viability of this program. 18 to 34 have a positive view of it, while all others don’t. It’s definitely harder to get that younger generation out to the polls, so 2010 might not turn out well for the Dems, but in the long term this could be huge for them.

What are your thoughts given this demo info?

As the debate about health care has stretched on, I’ve argued that it wasn’t smart for Republicans to be so strident about the Dems’ proposals. Better to have a seat at the table and argue for more cost cutting measures, different ways to fund it than tax hikes, etc. Instead, they said “NO!” at nearly every turn, and thus put themselves in a very bad strategic position, especially since it was always likely that some type of legislation would pass.

Because, after all, this isn’t a radical bill. In fact, the ideas in it have been presented as solutions by Republicans (or even implemented in some cases) and they know that.

Former Bush speechwriter David Frum agrees:

Could a deal have been reached? Who knows? But we do know that the gap between this plan and traditional Republican ideas is not very big. The Obama plan has a broad family resemblance to Mitt Romney’s Massachusetts plan. It builds on ideas developed at the Heritage Foundation in the early 1990s that formed the basis for Republican counter-proposals to Clintoncare in 1993-1994.

Barack Obama badly wanted Republican votes for his plan. Could we have leveraged his desire to align the plan more closely with conservative views? To finance it without redistributive taxes on productive enterprise – without weighing so heavily on small business – without expanding Medicaid? Too late now. They are all the law.

And back to that point about the rhetoric from the right. Well, it nearly worked. Characterizing it as a government takeover of health care did fire up a lot of conservatives/libertarians who would at least show up to rallies and argue with politicians. True, they had a lot of misconceptions, but they were passionate enough to gain worldwide media attention and that takes some doing. But they are a VERY small base of people who most likely would have voted for Republicans anyway. And the more Republicans catered to these folks, the more they back themselves into a corner where any sort of compromise would have been impossible.

Again, Frum agrees:

I’ve been on a soapbox for months now about the harm that our overheated talk is doing to us. Yes it mobilizes supporters – but by mobilizing them with hysterical accusations and pseudo-information, overheated talk has made it impossible for representatives to represent and elected leaders to lead. The real leaders are on TV and radio, and they have very different imperatives from people in government. Talk radio thrives on confrontation and recrimination. When Rush Limbaugh said that he wanted President Obama to fail, he was intelligently explaining his own interests. What he omitted to say – but what is equally true – is that he also wants Republicans to fail. If Republicans succeed – if they govern successfully in office and negotiate attractive compromises out of office – Rush’s listeners get less angry. And if they are less angry, they listen to the radio less, and hear fewer ads for Sleepnumber beds.

Or, to put it more bluntly…

How do you negotiate with somebody who wants to murder your grandmother? Or – more exactly – with somebody whom your voters have been persuaded to believe wants to murder their grandmother?

Indeed.

Folks, if you want to know why bipartisanship failed, don’t look to Democrats. Look to Boehner. Look to Palin. Look to Rush. Look to Hannity. Look to McConnell. Look to Beck. Look to Fox News. Look to the Tea Party.

Democrats came to the table ready to deal. What they weren’t ready to do is develop a health care bill that was based almost solely on Republican economic philosophies. Still, they eschewed a public option, even when their base was crying foul and demanding it. But Republicans made the political calculation that defeating the legislation was more important.

Fair enough, but Frum thinks that this bill represents the biggest legislative defeat for Republicans since the 60s. Because, even with all of this talk of repeal, it’s unlikely they’ll be able to sell the idea of jacking prices back up on prescription drugs, reinstituting the pre-existing conditions clause and a whole host of other things that this current legislation addresses.

This one always seemed like a non-brainer to me, and thankfully Stupak’s anti-abortion bloc and the White House have reached an agreement. Now Dems will have no problem getting the health care bill passed.

From Politico:

A cadre of anti-abortion Democrats announced Sunday that they’ve reached an agreement with the White House to defuse the controversy over abortion in the health care bill and will now vote yes — effectively putting the Democrats over the 216-vote threshold to pass health reform by day’s end.

The announcement by Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) and a half-dozen colleagues came just after the White House announced that President Barack Obama will sign an executive order reaffirming a ban on federal funding of abortions.

The agreement appeared to clear the final hurdle for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to shepherd to passage a sweeping health reform package that is Obama’s top legislative priority — and would mark the fulfillment of a decades-long Democratic goal, to make health insurance available to nearly every American.

Next, the White House’s statement…

STATEMENT FROM COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR DAN PFEIFFER

Today, the President announced that he will be issuing an executive order after the passage of the health insurance reform law that will reaffirm its consistency with longstanding restrictions on the use of federal funds for abortion.

While the legislation as written maintains current law, the executive order provides additional safeguards to ensure that the status quo is upheld and enforced, and that the health care legislation’s restrictions against the public funding of abortions cannot be circumvented.

The President has said from the start that this health insurance reform should not be the forum to upset longstanding precedent. The health care legislation and this executive order are consistent with this principle.

The President is grateful for the tireless efforts of leaders on both sides of this issue to craft a consensus approach that allows the bill to move forward.

Then the text of the Executive Order…

Executive Order
- – - – - – -
ensuring enforcement and implementation of abortion restrictions in the patient protection and affordable care act

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” (approved March ­­__, 2010), I hereby order as follows:

Section 1. Policy.
Following the recent passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“the Act”), it is necessary to establish an adequate enforcement mechanism to ensure that Federal funds are not used for abortion services (except in cases of rape or incest, or when the life of the woman would be endangered), consistent with a longstanding Federal statutory restriction that is commonly known as the Hyde Amendment. The purpose of this Executive Order is to establish a comprehensive, government-wide set of policies and procedures to achieve this goal and to make certain that all relevant actors–Federal officials, state officials (including insurance regulators) and health care providers–are aware of their responsibilities, new and old.

The Act maintains current Hyde Amendment restrictions governing abortion policy and extends those restrictions to the newly-created health insurance exchanges. Under the Act, longstanding Federal laws to protect conscience (such as the Church Amendment, 42 U.S.C. §300a-7, and the Weldon Amendment, Pub. L. No. 111-8, §508(d)(1) (2009)) remain intact and new protections prohibit discrimination against health care facilities and health care providers because of an unwillingness to provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for abortions.

Numerous executive agencies have a role in ensuring that these restrictions are enforced, including the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and the Office of Personnel Management (OPM).

Section 2. Strict Compliance with Prohibitions on Abortion Funding in Health Insurance Exchanges.
The Act specifically prohibits the use of tax credits and cost-sharing reduction payments to pay for abortion services (except in cases of rape or incest, or when the life of the woman would be endangered) in the health insurance exchanges that will be operational in 2014. The Act also imposes strict payment and accounting requirements to ensure that Federal funds are not used for abortion services in exchange plans (except in cases of rape or incest, or when the life of the woman would be endangered) and requires state health insurance commissioners to ensure that exchange plan funds are segregated by insurance companies in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, OMB funds management circulars, and accounting guidance provided by the Government Accountability Office.

I hereby direct the Director of OMB and the Secretary of HHS to develop, within 180 days of the date of this Executive Order, a model set of segregation guidelines for state health insurance commissioners to use when determining whether exchange plans are complying with the Act’s segregation requirements, established in Section 1303 of the Act, for enrollees receiving Federal financial assistance. The guidelines shall also offer technical information that states should follow to conduct independent regular audits of insurance companies that participate in the health insurance exchanges. In developing these model guidelines, the Director of OMB and the Secretary of HHS shall consult with executive agencies and offices that have relevant expertise in accounting principles, including, but not limited to, the Department of the Treasury, and with the Government Accountability Office. Upon completion of those model guidelines, the Secretary of HHS should promptly initiate a rulemaking to issue regulations, which will have the force of law, to interpret the Act’s segregation requirements, and shall provide guidance to state health insurance commissioners on how to comply with the model guidelines.

Section 3. Community Health Center Program.
The Act establishes a new Community Health Center (CHC) Fund within HHS, which provides additional Federal funds for the community health center program. Existing law prohibits these centers from using federal funds to provide abortion services (except in cases of rape or incest, or when the life of the woman would be endangered), as a result of both the Hyde Amendment and longstanding regulations containing the Hyde language. Under the Act, the Hyde language shall apply to the authorization and appropriations of funds for Community Health Centers under section 10503 and all other relevant provisions. I hereby direct the Secretary of HHS to ensure that program administrators and recipients of Federal funds are aware of and comply with the limitations on abortion services imposed on CHCs by existing law. Such actions should include, but are not limited to, updating Grant Policy Statements that accompany CHC grants and issuing new interpretive rules.

Section 4. General Provisions.
(a) Nothing in this Executive Order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect: (i) authority granted by law or presidential directive to an agency, or the head thereof; or (ii) functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(b) This Executive Order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(c) This Executive Order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity against the United States, its departments, agencies, entities, officers, employees or agents, or any other person.

THE WHITE HOUSE,

Now…on to the Senate.

Just got the news from Politico:

House Democratic Caucus Chairman John Larson says Democrats have clinched the 216 votes they need to pass President Barack Obama’s health-reform plan. “We have the votes now — as we speak,” Larson said Sunday morning.

But do they?

Looks like Bart Stupak and the White House are nearing a deal on abortion language…and he claims that the House leadership doesn’t have 216 until they can covert some of his bloc…and they aren’t changing unless the language changes.

From The Hill:

“We are close to getting something done,” Stupak said in an interview with MSNBC. Stupak said he engaged in talks late into Saturday night.

The possible deal would focus on an executive order that would specify there would be no public funding for abortions in the healthcare bill. “We’re close but we’re not there yet,” Stupak said.

Democratic leaders said Sunday they have the votes on healthcare reform, but Stupak said until there is a deal struck, they don’t have the 216 votes they need. Stupak said “there were eight of us” in the negotiating room, all of them no votes.

Long story short, it looks like this bill will pass today when the White House makes concessions for Stupak’s objections to current language on abortion in the Senate bill.

More as it develops…

Yes, the CBO says that the new bill will cover 95% of Americans and will save A TON of money. So this is a BIG win for Dems today in their fight to reform health care and win undecided Dem votes.

So how do they do it?

From Wash Post:

The program would be paid for by slicing nearly $500 billion from Medicare and other federal health programs, particularly a privately operated insurance plan known as Medicare Advantage. Democrats also propose taxing, for the first time, the health benefits of some people who receive coverage through employers. That proposal focuses on the most generous policies, which economists say are helping to drive health-care costs skyward.

The bill — to be unveiled Thursday and likely voted on Sunday in the House — also would increase Medicare payroll taxes for wealthy families, in part by applying the tax for the first time to investment income.

The cost of expanding coverage would exceed $200 billion a year by 2019, the CBO said. But new revenue in the package, combined with savings from program cuts, would outpace the cost of coverage, reducing the federal deficit by $138 billion over the next 10 years. The savings would continue to accumulate in the decade thereafter, the CBO said, eventually slicing around $1.2 trillion from the nation’s budget gap.

My prediction…on Sunday this will pass the House. And then it will pass the Senate via reconciliation soon after. Also, given the details of the bill, it’ll be hard to argue that this is a) a government take over of health care, b) adds to our deficit or c) represents something that will interrupt or upset our health care delivery in any way.

Basically, if Republicans think they can use this bill as a bludgeon in October…I’m thinking that won’t be the case once the final story is written on this. Especially when it comes to deficit reduction. Dems can say, “Okay, my Republican opponent is saying X about the health care bill. Let’s look at the facts,” and then list the dozen or so reforms and deficit cutting measures that this included. The only way Republicans will be able to make any traction is if they can convince Americans that the CBO’s projections are full of it, or that Dems shouldn’t have passed this without a supermajority…and I don’t see a lot of independents buying that line.

I also see this win energizing Dems across the country and coming out to defend their representatives. Because while the bill isn’t perfect, it’s certainly something to be proud of. Yes, the process was messy and there’s still work to be done, but to say that you stopped the preexisting condition clause AND cut the deficit at the same time? If that’s not a political winner with the moderate majority, I don’t know what would be.

Read the CBO’s entire report here (pdf).

SEIU prez Andrew Stern is threatening to “go independent” on local races to oppose Dems who oppose Prez Obama’s healthcare reform bill. One enabling factor in New York is fusion voting, which has empowered third parties like the New York Independence Party, Conservative Party and Working Families Party. Meanwhile, former Dem La Plata County Colorado Commissioner Joelle Riddle didn’t threaten — she went independent for real.

HEALTH CARE, OBAMA AND LABOR

Exploring The Mood Gap (Hotline)

Read more news for independent voters at The Hankster

]]> http://donklephant.com/2010/03/17/obamas-health-care-plan-will-labor-go-independent/feed/ 5 http://donklephant.com/2010/03/08/obama-stumps-for-healthcare-in-pennsylvania/ http://donklephant.com/2010/03/08/obama-stumps-for-healthcare-in-pennsylvania/#comments Tue, 09 Mar 2010 03:19:47 +0000 Justin Gardner http://donklephant.com/?p=18163

As I’ve said before, watch the following and explain to me how this amounts to a government takeover of healthcare. Explain to me why we shouldn’t be doing ALL of these ideas. Because it doesn’t seem like there’s anything in there that 80% of Americans can’t agree with. Sure, you’re going to have your 10% of conservatives who disagree philosophically and the 10% of liberals who think we should just have a government run system, but for the rest of us this makes a lot of sense.

So yes, take a look…

Should have Obama done this sooner? Sure. But he has been stumping for healthcare, talking about these ideas for months now. So when people talk about a lack of leadership on this issue, I shake my head. This isn’t an proposal you can boil down into a sound byte. Of course saying that Obama’s ideas is something that only takes up several seconds, so I can understand why Americans are skeptical. The Republicans have been very consistent with their messaging, and, well, good for them. That’s how this game is played.

But ask yourself…which party will deliver real reform? Those who are trying to figure this out or those who have vowed to vote against most of their own ideas?

I leave you to it…

]]> http://donklephant.com/2010/03/08/obama-stumps-for-healthcare-in-pennsylvania/feed/ 7 http://donklephant.com/2010/02/25/obama-sums-up-health-care-debate/ http://donklephant.com/2010/02/25/obama-sums-up-health-care-debate/#comments Fri, 26 Feb 2010 03:04:03 +0000 Justin Gardner http://donklephant.com/?p=18137

If you can watch the following 20 minutes, it’s hard to argue that the President’s proposals are anywhere close to radical. In fact, some of the more “radical” parts started out as Republican ideas.

Don’t believe me? Take a look…

Personally, I think the notion that we start over on this legislation is just a political ploy by the Republicans and Obama shouldn’t do it. They weren’t able to get the job done for decades and they’re certainly not in any hurry now.

Still, can we reach a compromise? I think so. Because if you watched any of this health care summit today you’ll realize that there is broad agreement on a vast majority of the issues…it honestly leaves you wondering why they can’t just close these gaps and get something passed already.

So tell me why we can’t get there?

Wait, I can answer that…politics.

Yes, it just isn’t smart politics for Republicans to back this bill. Even with all the areas of agreement, they literally have nothing to gain. Can you imagine the backlash from the overhyped tea party movement? Glenn Beck? Limbaugh? Because that’s who they’re worried about, not the regular Americans who want compromise on health care reform.

And so it goes…

]]> http://donklephant.com/2010/02/25/obama-sums-up-health-care-debate/feed/ 17