Posts Tagged ‘Reform’

New Direction for Health Care Reform

June 7th, 2011

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act became the law of the land in 2010, but debate over its existence and implementation will rage on in the New Year.  The law’s serious policy flaws are already impacting health insurance and costs, but these are part of a deeper and broader issue: the proper role for the federal government in Americans’ health care.  The public’s stance on this issue has been anything but settled in the wake of the new law’s passage. Easy To Insure ME has the answers

As ramifications of Obamacare continue to play out, it becomes clearer that the changes made are the wrong ones. The new law cuts 5 billion from Medicare, but uses the savings to fund a new health entitlement, rather than deal with the financial insolvency that Medicare faces. “Bending the cost curve” was one of Obamacare’s original goals, but Medicare’s actuary reports that while the the new law indeed bends the curve, it is in the wrong direction: up, not down.

Furthermore, countless employers have said Obamacare accelerated increases in their health insurance premiums, prompting them to consider dropping coverage or pass more of the cost onto employees and their families. Mandates and new regulations are likely to further inhibit businesses’ ability to offer health insurance to employees, and also threaten to negatively affect the economy at large. Finally, when the law comes fully online and the true costs are accounted for, Obamacare is expected to significantly increase the nation’s deficit spending.

But the debate extends beyond these policy errors and into the realm of the federal government’s rightful role in health care. Obamacare significantly increases Washington’s influence over every aspect of the U.S. health care system—not just in the insurance market, but right down to the patient’s bedside. Medicare beneficiaries will be especially affected by the creation of new bureaucratic entities and top-down, cost-containing mechanisms included in the law.

Meanwhile, Americans continue to oppose parts or all of the new health reform law. Pollsters like Rasmussen show that Americans’ support for repealing Obamacare has ranged from 50 percent to 63 percent since the law’s passage.  In November, American voters chose to send a wave of new lawmakers to Congress, many of whom campaigned in support of repealing the law.  The provisions in Obamacare are not consistent with what Americans want, strengthening the case for repeal and a new direction for health care reform.

So what’s the alternative? Reform should transform the health care system to strengthen individuals’ control over their health care spending and decision-making. Patients, including those covered by Medicare and Medicaid, should have the opportunity to choose health care plans in the private insurance market that best suit their needs.

Market-based reforms would foster greater competition among insurers and more choices for consumers, enabling them to seek out the best value for their dollar.  This bottom-up approach to reducing health care costs would maintain the quality of care available in the United States.  It would put doctors and patients, not Washington bureaucrats, in charge of decisions relating to individuals’ care.

As the conversation continues, plans that embody these principles are gaining greater traction.  U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan’s “Roadmap for America’s Future” would drastically change Medicare, Medicaid, and the health care system at large, to put patients in the driver’s seat.  Ryan and Alice Rivlin, both members of the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, together offered a similar plan for Medicare and Medicaid that would replace the highly centralized, bureaucratic system with a defined-contribution program, offering beneficiaries greater autonomy.

In 2011, repeal must remain a priority for the new Congress, not only to undo the disastrous consequences of Obamacare, but as the first step to reform that will fix the health care system in ways that empower patients, not bureaucrats.

Comments Off »

Posted in Uncategorized

Tags:

health care reform failed to cure prices

June 1st, 2011

The health-care law of 2010 is, as Vice President Biden put it, a “big [expletive] deal.” It sets us on the road to universal health insurance. It is a favorite target for Republicans gunning to take over Congress. Lawmakers who supported it could lose their jobs. And it will remain a central focus after the midterms, as Democrats defend it against legal and political challenges through 2014, when it takes full effect. Easy To Insure ME

 

But the Democrats’ effort to sell the law to the public may be undermined by what even some ardent supporters consider its biggest shortfall. The overhaul left virtually untouched one big element of our health-care dilemma: the price problem. Simply put, Americans pay much more for each bit of care — tests, procedures, hospital stays, drugs, devices — than people in other rich nations.

Health-care providers in the United States have tremendous power to set prices. There is no government “single payer” on the other side of the table, and consolidation by hospitals and doctors has left insurers and employers in weak negotiating positions.

“We spend fewer per capita days in the hospital compared with other advanced countries, we see the doctor less frequently, and we swallow fewer pills,” said Jon Kingsdale, who oversaw the implementation of Massachusetts’s 2006 health-care law. “We just pay a lot more for each of those units than other countries.”

The 2010 law does little to address this. Its many cost-control provisions are geared toward reducing the amount of care we consume, not the price we pay. The law encourages doctors and hospitals to join “accountable care organizations” that have financial incentives to limit unnecessary care; it beefs up “comparative effectiveness research” to weed out inefficient treatments; and it will eventually tax the most expensive insurance plans to restrain consumers’ superfluous use of health care.

Such measures could reduce redundant tests, emergency room visits and hospital readmissions, which would help control the costs of Medicare, where the government sets rates. But they are less likely to lower prices outside Medicare and stem the growth of private insurance rates.

The main reason for this is politics. Remember how drawn-out the health-care battle was? It started in the spring of 2009 and was waged for a full year. The bill’s proponents in the White House and in Congress had some inkling of how tough the fight with the insurance companies would be. Taking on hospitals, doctors, and drug and device manufacturers as well — the people you’d face in a showdown over prices — might have been fatal.

So there was no price fight. The law will go on to face a likely post-midterm Republican onslaught — and dismantling it may be easier if Americans think it does little to restrain costs. It is one of those fine political ironies: The law derided as socialism may have had an easier time winning favor from a skeptical public if it was, well, a little more socialist.

It’s pretty far from socialist as it stands. The administration decided not to seek lower drug rates for Medicare, and it didn’t press for a “public option,” a government-run insurance plan that people under 65 could buy into. While supporters of the public option sold it as a way to compete with insurers, the real target was hospitals and doctors. A public option would have created a nationwide purchaser of health care that could have exerted leverage on providers to cut prices. This would have lowered the law’s costs by reducing the subsidies needed to make insurance affordable.

To avoid the wrath of hospitals and doctors, proponents of the bill rarely emphasized this cost-control argument. Nonetheless, when conservative “Blue Dog” Democrats weakened the public option in committee, they cited opposition from providers. And when the bill’s supporters floated a close alternative to the public option — letting people over 55 buy into Medicare — the reaction from Sen. Olympia Snowe, the moderate Maine Republican, said it all: “I am talking to a lot of my providers . . . and I know they are mighty unhappy.” Snowe exposed where the lobbying strength lay: No senator ever spoke of listening to “my insurers.”

“The public hates the insurance industry and trusts doctors and hospitals,” said Richard Kirsch, head of the liberal coalition Health Care for America Now. “But what killed the public option was the hospitals, not the insurance industry.”

Politicians wanted to avoid a confrontation over providers’ prices. So a different policy argument took hold: The real reason everything cost so much was the overuse of health care, not the actual prices of treatment.
This argument came primarily from Dartmouth College researchers who had amassed data showing wide disparities in Medicare spending among different regions. Hospitals in the lower-spending areas, mostly in the Upper Midwest and the Northwest, seized on the study to argue that the key to controlling costs was to reward providers like them. The case was popularized by Atul Gawande’s widely read New Yorker article in June 2009 focusing on McAllen, Tex., one of the highest spenders in the Dartmouth rankings. If health-care delivery in places such as McAllen could be brought in line with lower-spending places such as the Mayo Clinic’s home town, Rochester, Minn. — through the formation of integrated networks of salaried doctors — costs could be reined in.

The theory caught fire at the White House. It gave President Obama and his then-budget guru Peter Orszag a way to talk about costs without taking on doctors and hospitals; instead, the White House could simply differentiate between providers that offer “value” and those that don’t.

But the Dartmouth rankings, and the concept they supported, did a “disservice” to the debate, said Robert Berenson of the Urban Institute. For one thing, he and others say, the figures overstate regional differences in Medicare spending, which shrink when socioeconomic factors are taken into account. Second, rates of Medicare spending are not necessarily representative of health-care spending for people under 65. Some of the places that do well in the Dartmouth rankings charge high prices for non-Medicare patients — and were, not surprisingly, among those pushing hardest against a public option.

More broadly, the skeptics argue that merely providing care in smaller quantities will not sufficiently lower costs. They note that Americans already have shorter hospital stays and fewer doctors’ visits than people in other advanced countries. What sets us apart is our high prices for these health-care “units” — a finding trumpeted in a landmark 2003 paper by Princeton’s Uwe Reinhardt and others titled “It’s the Prices, Stupid.” The price problem is only getting worse, researchers and antitrust investigators have found, because of consolidation among providers, and it could be exacerbated by goading them to form even bigger networks.

But the notion that we pay more, despite using health care less, never caught on during the long march to reform. The main culprits driving our health-care costs were deemed to be inefficient doctors in a few corners of the country and demanding consumers — say, people seeking unnecessary surgery or patients with unhealthy habits and chronic conditions.

The camp that believes volume is the main problem disputes the idea that bigger networks of hospitals and doctors would make the price problem worse. “The more we’re able to encourage integrated systems of care, the better,” the new Medicare director, Donald Berwick, a Dartmouth data champion, told me before his nomination by Obama.

Berwick and his allies say they never meant for overuse of care to become the sole focus. Elliott Fisher, the lead Dartmouth researcher, said he did not intend for his data to be “interpreted as letting off the hook” those providers that kept overuse in check but charged high prices. “We clearly need to do both” prices and volume, he said.

But we didn’t do both in the health-care law, which raises the question of what will happen once the overhaul proves inadequate to the price problem. Perhaps the public option will be reconsidered, as many liberals hope. Perhaps there will be a new push for lower drug prices. Or maybe there will be a return to the rate-setting that prevailed decades ago, when hospitals, insurers and state officials worked together to agree on prices. Maryland is the only state that still does this, and data suggests that it has kept its cost growth lower than average. Massachusetts is considering a similar approach.

Would such measures have a chance? Perhaps. For one thing, as skeptical as insurers are of government intervention, they are glad to discuss reform that aggressively goes after providers. “We have a major cost problem, and we have to get on with the job of attacking it — with every stakeholder who is responsible for that,” said Karen Ignagni, the insurance industry’s chief lobbyist.

And the public? The Brookings Institution’s Henry Aaron predicts that there may be support for tougher action on high prices once the principle of universal health coverage is established, since taxpayers will be on the hook for more of the cost of insurance. “If we attacked costs right at the front end, [the legislation] would have died,” he said. “Now, we’ll have a mechanism that will force us to address it. There are only so many fronts you can fight a war on at the same time.”

That’s assuming, of course, that the law survives long enough to enjoy any embellishment.

Comments Off »

Posted in Uncategorized

Tags:

Health Insurance Quotes Reform Weekly January

April 2nd, 2011

Federal

Although the House vote to repeal health care reform is symbolic only (given the Democratic Senate and White House), it is a necessary first step leading to committee by committee action over the coming months on discrete provisions of health care. One such item, medical malpractice liability reform, got a hearing last week before the House Judiciary Committee as Republicans paraded several witnesses before the committee to showcase the need for legislation from the physicians’ perspective. Since it is very unlikely that the American Medical Association’s wish list would ever become law, the best result from the committee process would be a bill that skirts the more controversial items (e.g., cap on damages) and focuses on attainable and meaningful reforms, such as health courts, stronger pre-trial evaluation and settlement pathways.  This would be a path Aetna would strongly support.

States

ARIZONA: Governor Jan Brewer has announced that she will request a waiver from the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services so that the state can set Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System (AHCCCS) eligibility below levels mandated by the PPACA. In March 2010, Governor Brewer signed a fiscal year 2011 budget that stripped funding for the state’s Children’s Health Insurance program (KidsCare) and cut 5 million from AHCCCS, effectively repealing an expansion of AHCCCS to childless adults approved by voters in 2000. However, following enactment of the PPACA, the state rescinded the scheduled cuts to comply with the law’s “maintenance of efforts” (MOE) requirement. The MOE requirement prohibits a state from having eligibility standards, methodologies, or procedures for adults that are more restrictive than those in effect on March 23, 2010, until a health insurance exchange in the state is fully operational, and for all children in Medicaid and CHIP through September 30, 2019. The MOE requirement provides an exception for non-pregnant, non-disabled adults earning more than 133 percent of the federal poverty level if a state is projected to have a budget deficit. Arizona faces a mid-year budget deficit estimated at 5 million. A .4 billion shortfall is projected for the 2012 fiscal year.

CALIFORNIA: The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to review whether health care providers and patients have the right to sue California over budget reductions made to Medi-Cal reimbursements. The high court will review three legal challenges to California’s proposed and adopted reimbursement cuts. The Supreme Court’s ruling on the case could have major implications for efforts to address California’s budget deficit. Last week, Gov. Jerry Brown (D) released a budget proposal that would reduce Medi-Cal payments to health care providers by 10 percent to cut program spending by about 9 million in fiscal year 2011-2012. In addition, the case could have implications for other states seeking to address budget deficits by cutting Medicaid payments. With federal courts in California blocking the cuts, 22 states have joined California in appealing the issue to the Supreme Court.  The court is expected to hear oral arguments in the case next fall. A decision is expected in late 2011 or early 2012.

CONNECTICUT: Speaker Chris Donovan, members of the Public Health and Insurance Committees and a variety of advocates held a press conference last week to announce the Public Health Committee has raised the SustiNet bill based on the recent recommendations of the SustiNet Board. Few details were provided, but the original report recommends that SustiNet become a licensed insurance plan. ”We don’t need health insurance anymore, we need to move towards health assurance — health care that will be there for us, and the SustiNet plan will do that,” Donovan said. Lawmakers will face a .7 billion budget deficit by July 1. Rep. Betsy Ritter, D-Waterford, co-chairwoman of the Public Health Committee, said the plan will have to go before multiple legislative committees, with the actual bill some weeks away. A financial analysis on upfront costs is not yet available. Aetna is working with the Connecticut Association of Health Plans (CTAHP) and AHIP to secure an objective fiscal analysis of SustiNet’s, as a public option, true cost to the state, and of the strong, positive impact health insurers have on the state’s economy.

DELAWARE: In his State of the State speech, Governor Jack Markell emphasized the need for state government to spend more efficiently.  He specifically noted that the demands state employee health insurance and pensions are putting on the state budget are unsustainable. The Governor specifically stated he is open to any and all good ideas for addressing this budget issue. In other news, a joint meeting of the Senate Health Committee and the House Economic Development, Banking, Insurance, and Commerce  Committee was convened for an update on the state’s effort to implement health care reform. Rita Landgraf, Secretary of Health and Social Services, along with Bettina Riveros, Health Care Commission Chair, advised legislators the commission will spend the next six to eight weeks holding stakeholder meetings across the state seeking input on establishing a state health insurance exchange.

GEORGIA: The Exchange Workgroup formed by former Governor Sonny Perdue had its final meeting last week and will submit a list of issues for Governor Deal’s administration to review before deciding how to proceed on the issue of instituting an exchange in Georgia. As the head of this workgroup for Governor Perdue is continuing under Governor Deal’s administration, it is likely that there will be some enabling legislation during the 2011 session, though it is unclear what that will be. The legislative session began January 11, 2011 and continues for 40 legislative days.

IOWA: The General Assembly convened in Des Moines on January 10 and is expected to adjourn on April 29, 2011  In the November elections, Republicans took control of the House and gained a few seats in the Senate, narrowing the Democrats’ majority there. Republican Terry Branstad was sworn in as governor for the second time. Having served in the post from 1983 to 1999, Branstad is the longest-serving governor in Iowa’s history. The state’s budget deficit is projected to be more than 5 million for fiscal year 2012 and will dominate legislative discussions. House Speaker Kraig Paulsen has vowed to remedy the deficit through spending cuts rather than tax increases. The Governor’s proposal to revise the state’s annual budget to a two-year cycle will also be debated. Bills of interest so far include several challenging PPACA’s individual mandate, a prohibition on abortion coverage, creation of mandate-lite policies, a mandate for coverage of smoking cessation programs, a rate review bill that would require a public hearing for any increase over 10 percent in the individual market, and a bill establishing 0 as the minimum required payment for state employees.

INDIANA: Governor Mitch Daniels has issued an executive order  establishing the Indiana Health Benefit Exchange. In his order he directs the Indiana Family and Social Services Administration (IFSSA) to cooperate with appropriate state agencies, including the Department of Insurance (IDOI), to establish and operate the exchange. The IFSSA Secretary or the secretary’s designee will serve as the incorporator of the Exchange. If, after careful analysis, the state deems it appropriate to proceed with creation of the exchange, a board of directors will be selected. The board will include representatives of state agencies and the Indiana General Assembly. Standing Committees will be appointed that have stakeholder representation. In addition, Governor Daniels submitted a letter to HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius requesting approval of a state plan amendment to extend the Healthy Indiana Program (HIP) beyond its expiration date. HIP, the state’s consumer-directed program for covering the uninsured population, is scheduled to expire in 2012. Daniels notes he has received communication from HHS staff indicating the state plan amendment will be rejected due to HIP’s required level of contribution from participants.  The Governor said the state intends to utilize the program for the newly eligible Medicaid population pursuant to PPACA. Daniels cautioned that Indiana does not have the time and financial resources necessary to complete new rigorous requirements for applying for a waiver extension if the amendment is rejected. The current 45,000 enrollees in the program would have to be transitioned into traditional Medicaid.

MISSOURI: The 96th General Assembly convened on January 5 and is expected to adjourn on May 30, 2011. With 106 members to the Democrats’ 57, the GOP has the largest number of seats it has ever held in the House and is just three members short of being veto-proof.  Given the large Republican majorities in the General Assembly and 70 percent voter support for Proposition C – an effort to turn back health care reform, the legislature will be under pressure to do nothing to move Missouri closer to enactment of federal health reform.

Significant health care bills filed this session include a resolution calling on the Attorney General to file a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the PPACA, a bill requiring statutory authorization by the General Assembly to implement PPACA, a bill expanding the autism mandate, an MLR bill for large carriers requiring a 90 percent MLR for Missouri-associated revenues and 85 percent for smaller carriers, a bill requiring the state employee health plan to offer a minimum of three high-deductible options with differing annual deductibles and annual out-of-pocket expenses, a bill prohibiting “Most Favored Nation” clauses, legislation creating transparency and publication of carriers’ fee schedules and requiring carriers to contract with providers willing to meet certain provider participation terms and conditions, and creation of a uniform group application for insurance.

NEBRASKA: The 102nd unicameral legislature has convened in Lincoln where it is expected to spend much of the session grappling with a budget deficit approaching 5 million for the 2011-2013 biennium. Implementation of the PPACA is expected to receive serious attention as well, with six bills relating to implementation or rejection of PPACA introduced to date. Bills of interest include legislation creating an Exchange Task Force, an interim committee for PPACA study, and several bills challenging the individual mandate, prohibition of abortion coverage, and a cochlear implant mandate. In addition, a bill banning discretionary clauses in health and disability income insurance contracts has been introduced.  The legislature began its work on January 6 and is tentatively scheduled to adjourn on May 26, 2011.

NEW HAMPSHIRE: The legislature convened on January 5, 2011, and is scheduled to adjourn on June 30, 2011. Governor John Lynch will continue as the state Executive; however, Republicans have gained control of both chambers in the legislature. In addition to the state’s budget deficit, implementation of federal health care reform will continue to be a priority for the governor and the legislature. Given the Republican majority and anticipated revenue shortfalls, there will be limited, if any, activity on health insurance issues. The legislature will, however, be paying close attention to federal health reform implementation issues and activities. In addition, there have been discussions about eliminating certain state mandates if they are not included in the essential benefits required under the PPACA. In 2010, the state enacted legislation granting certain powers to the commissioner with respect to implementation of PPACA.  This legislation also created a legislative oversight committee, to which the Department of Insurance (DOI) must report monthly. This month the DOI submitted a request for a waiver of the 80 percent minimum loss ratio (MLR) requirement for individual health insurance market policies until 2014.

NEW YORK: In a new report, the United Hospital Fund (UHF) looks at how New York might set up health insurance exchanges. One option is to let HHS run the state’s exchange, While that could save money, it would also mean ceding key operational and regulatory issues to the feds. It might also jeopardize existing consumer protections in Medicaid that are unique to New York. If the state sets up its own exchange, it must decide whether to join a multi-state exchange, a statewide entity, or small local ones. UHF noted that New York might consider following the leads of Massachusetts and California by creating an independent public authority to run an exchange. Former Governor David Paterson created a 35-member Exchange Committee that met only twice and did not make any recommendations. Governor Andrew Cuomo has not indicated his plans for establishing an insurance exchange in New York.

PENNSYLVANIA: Governor Tom Corbett has announced his intention to nominate Michael Consedine as the next Insurance Commissioner. Consedine is a partner at the law firm of Saul Ewing, where he serves as Vice Chair of its Insurance Practice Group.  Prior to joining Saul Ewing 12 years ago, Consedine served as state Insurance Department Counsel.

The Corbett transition team has announced that adultBasic, Pennsylvania’s health insurance program for low-income adults, is expected to expire on February 28 due to lack of funding.  The announcement, unusual in that it comes from an incoming  administration, was necessitated by the need to provide advance notice to enrollees and to inform them of alternative coverage options. Originally started by former Governor Tom Ridge and funded through the state’s allocation of Tobacco Settlement dollars, the program was later funded through the 2005 Community Health Reinvestment Agreement (CHRA).  While that agreement between the Rendell Administration and the state’s four Blue Cross plans expired on Dec. 31, 2010, additional funding was later provided by the plans pursuant to the CHRA’s formula.  It now appears those additional funds will be exhausted by the end of next month.

TENNESSEE:  A new Commissioner of Insurance appointed by Governor Bill Haslam took office last week. Julie McPeak is an attorney at the Nashville firm of Burr and Forman and the former Commissioner of Insurance in Kentucky.  Aetna is scheduling a meeting with the new Commissioner within the next several weeks.

Comments Off »

Posted in Uncategorized

Tags:

Brown Vows To Send Health Care Reform ‘back To The Drawing Board’

February 17th, 2011

Republican Scott Brown, fresh off his victory in the Massachusetts race for U.S. Senate, called on the secretary of state to send him to Washington immediately, saying Wednesday that he wants to send health insurance reform “back to the drawing board.”

Though the state typically waits at least 10 days to collect absentee ballots before certifying, the senator-elect said he’s “confident” his margin of victory — 5 points and nearly 110,000 votes — was greater than the number of outstanding ballots.

Brown is champing at the bit to be sworn in since he would become the 41st Republican in the Senate, breaking the Democrats’ 60-vote supermajority and potentially scuttling health care reform if it returns to the chamber for a final vote.

“Since the election is not in doubt, I’m hopeful that the Senate will seat me on the basis of those unofficial returns,” Brown said, adding that he’s already spoken to members of the state’s congressional delegation, including Sen. John Kerry, and will travel to Washington Thursday. “I think it’s important that we hit the ground running because there’s some very important issues facing our country.”

On health care reform, he said he wants “everyone” to have some form of health care coverage, but questioned plans to slash Medicare and raise taxes to do it.
video
Brown Ready to Hit Ground Running

Brown ready to hit ground running

“I think we can do it better,” he said.

The Republican senator-elect said he was focused on moving to Washington as soon as possible to try to free up some of the political gridlock there.

“I have always just wanted to go down and solve the problem regardless of party,” Brown told NBC’s “Today” Show.

“While they’re in Washington talking about what someone said in a book and what this happened, we have some very serious problems when it comes to over-taxation, overspending and Al Qaeda who are trying to kill us. So we need to get back to the basics and start solving problems that affect every person in this country,” he said.

Brown’s insurgent candidacy has forced Democrats to rethink the basics on several matters, including the massive health insurance reform bill that is tagged to cost nearly trillion over 10 years. They are also reconsidering agenda items they plan to use in November’s midterm election campaigns.

By winning the Senate seat in Massachusetts by nearly the same margin that President Obama defeated Sen. John McCain in November 2008, Brown takes away Democrats’ filibuster-proof majority and can pull a reverse-Obama — claiming a mandate to defeat the health care legislation now stuck in Congress.

Despite the upset, Obama adviser David Axelrod said administration officials will take into account the message voters delivered Tuesday but declined to go further.

“It’s not an option simply to walk away from a problem that’s only going to get worse,” Axelrod said of the health care bill.

Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, said one of the many messages coming out of the Massachusetts election is that Americans are sick of partisan gridlock, but voters also had a much more expansive recommendation.

“They want better performance out of Washington, they want us focusing on the troubled economy and the need for more jobs and … they’re tired of sweetheart deals that were sneaked into the health care bill. They want that kind of bill to be negotiated in the open. And they’re tired of politics as usual and they also want controls. They don’t want unfettered, one-party control,” Collins told Fox News.

Collins said she cannot support a bill “that imposes billions of dollars for new taxes, slashes Medicare by 0 billion and would actually cause insurance rates to go up.”

“We really should start from scratch and do a completely bipartisan bill,” she added

But Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell said that Americans oppose the health insurance changes because “the administration and its supporters, myself included, haven’t done a good enough job explaining to people what’s in this bill.”

Rendell said he wants to go back to the drawing board in order to better communicate the message. If that fails, and a filibuster is threatened, then Democrats shouldn’t “just cave” but should make the other side “explain why they’re trying to block the bill with this type of political chicanery.”

“I haven’t heard one good alternative offered by any Republican except let’s start at the beginning, let’s start all over. Start all over to do what?” he asked.

Rendell added that he wants to call the GOP’s bluff.

“Let them filibuster, let them take to the floor and speak endlessly and endlessly about why this is bad for the American people and what the alternative is,” he said.

As the debate continues over whether to scrap the year-long health insurance reform effort, some are also looking at whether Republicans can repeat the feat in Massachusetts in other states.

Seven Senate seats now held by Democrats are now considered toss-ups in November — Nevada, Colorado, Arkansas, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Delaware and Connecticut. Four Republican seats are in the same situation — Missouri, Kentucky, Ohio and New Hampshire.

“I think anybody who’s up for election this November ought to take seriously what the people of Massachusetts had to say in that special Senate election,” said Sen. Joe Lieberman. D-Conn.
Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, head of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, said Democrats nationwide should be on notice

“Americans are ready to hold the party in power accountable for their irresponsible spending and out-of-touch agenda.”

But Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee Chairman Robert Menendez cautioned against “taking a single unique election and extrapolating what it means for the midterms 10 months away.”

Still, Menendez said he doesn’t want to sugarcoat what happened and Democrats will be sorting through the lessons in the days ahead.

Comments Off »

Posted in Uncategorized

Tags: