House Ways & Means Chairman Charlie Rangel (D-NY) announced this morning that he's asked Speaker Pelosi for a leave of absence as the ethics committee continues to investigate charges of unreported income and the like; I do think that the chairman of this powerful committee does need to have impeccable credentials in fact and appearance. He mentioned that he had offered to do this with Pelosi from the get-go. I don't think I've ever seen a case where the process ended up in a restoration to power. I am unaware of any such speculation, but I would not be surprised if Rangel announced his retirement in the near future. But then Rostenkowski kept his name on the ballot in 1994 and got elected out of office by a little-known Republican, Michael Flanagan...
Other topics in New York politics includes a surprisingly strong hand by Kirsten Gillibrand; not only did Harold Ford, perhaps her strongest potential Democratic challenger, withdraw from contention, but wealthy businessman Mort Zuckerman, who flirted with running against her as a Republican, decided not to run. Former Governor Pataki remains one high-profile Republican whom polls well against Gillibrand, but the GOP leadership has been unable to convince him to enter the race. On the other hand, Governor Paterson continues to be rocked with allegations, the latest being a backdated check for World Series tickets. I don't see how he survives this politically; the unconfirmed rumor is that he's looking for a deal in exchange for resigning.
For me, the weird thing is that the GOP should be able to capitalize from the gubernatorial scandals in Illinois and New York, but, at least at the current time, the Democrats seem to be in a good position to hold both seats. This is disconcerting for a number of reasons, including the fact that the Democrats have run their state economies into the ditch by unconscionable spending beyond their means. It seems to me in New York that Rudy Giuliani would be competitive in either role. But for some reason the progressive attorney generals in New York (Cuomo) and Connecticut (Blumenthal) seem enormously popular and well on their way to replacing Paterson and Dodd respectively. This does not look well for the GOP--because if you can't field strong candidates in Connecticut, New York and Illinois, what does that say of a national strategy this fall beating the $12T debt from free-spending Democratic Congresses?
What's equally stunning, from my standpoint, is that Senators Reid (NV-D) and Lincoln (AR-D) have closed their gaps behind GOP front runners, and I've seen one recent poll where renegade incumbent Specter (PA-D) has regained a poll lead over likely GOP candidate Toomey. All of this while the Democrats seem determined to move forward on an unprecedented violation of Senate minority rights to push through the Democratic Party Health Care Bill, just weeks after Scott Brown's stunning win in Massachusetts, based on being the 41st vote, and a health care bill which has repeatedly rejected in recent polls by the American people.
Texas Governor Rick Perry, the 10-year incumbent, surprisingly won renomination to face Democrat Bill White, former Houston mayor this fall without a run-off with US Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison. What is intriguing is how a 10-year incumbent turned the election into him as an outsider running against Washington. I think that Perry will pull it off this fall, despite anti-incumbency fever, but the Democrats have been creeping up on the Republicans during recent elections, I gather in large part to an increasing proportion of Latin Americans, whom have trended Democrat over the last couple of election cycles.
Commentary on the Big Picture of the Current Health Care Debate
The Democrats seem to think that there may be some initial unhappiness with the process, but they think it will eventually become popular like social security and Medicare for dealing with issues like guaranteed issue and catastrophic expense relief. The Republicans seem nonplussed, expecting that the Democrats are digging their political grave by ignoring the polls. I think that both points of view are fatally flawed, and the GOP is underestimating the difficult of getting rid of ObamaCare once it passes. I thought that the GOP made a strategic error at the recent health care summit for not presenting a strategic plan to deal with guaranteed issue and catastrophic expense relief. The GOP focused on tactical issues like insurance fraud, tort reform, and financing gimmicks; all of that is true. I think, though, the whole issue of the number of uninsured is much ado about nothing--after all, we guarantee emergency care, regardless of ability to pay.
I don't think the American people care whether the uninsured simply prefer to pay for medical bills a la carte as was the case before health insurance in this country. What they can relate to is people and small businesses finding it hard to find reasonably priced insurance given health insurer cherrypicking the best risks; for example, I am significantly overweight but have enjoyed good health for my adult life; however, if I try to find an individual coverage plan, my medical history and the fact that I have regularly exercised for most of my adult life are never factored in the decision. I find the only options available cost multiple times more. For many people, health insurance bills are now approaching or exceeding their mortgage payments or rent, at a time when their income has not kept pace. I also think that we need to provide catastrophic insurance so households are not forced to file for bankruptcy.
I do know that the GOP has discussed high risk plans and insurance cooperatives (I would have to review the transcript of the summit, but I didn't hear the Republicans really focus on the economic uncertainty issues families are facing.) What the Democrats are doing is addressing these issues with an obscene government bureaucracy and heavy-handed interference with the health care sector; we don't need to grow a federal bureaucracy to deal with catastrophic costs. In fact, as I recall, the President himself brought up the topic of catastrophic insurance (he simply attempted to dismiss it with a reducio ad absurdum argument over the definition of what constitutes a catastrophy). Dole had offered Clinton a deal on catastrophic insurance. The Republicans simply are not looking at this from a business perspective: a very small percentage of people account for most of the costs. If you deal with them and their costs directly (and high out-of-pocket costs: let's say, just to throw out a number, $50K in household expenses), it relieves much of the burden on the system. You then focus on having the rest of the people operating on a high-deductible insurance structure with health savings plans to promote vesting of the patient in cost containment. If people want no-deductible plans or special benefits (e.g., private rooms), they should pay for the extra costs.
The GOP should have copied the Democrats' typical reliance on talking points and political spin: I would have liked each Republican to have hammered into each statement catastrophic insurance, tax-advantaged interstate cooperatives, and national or state/region high risk pools. Maybe throw out an idea like a government-sponsored enterprise where the government subsidizes high risks as an alternative to a government-run system with individual and business mandates. But I found the Republicans' approach during the summit scattershot and not really addressing certain key issues. For example, interstate insurance marketing doesn't necessarily change the cherrypicking business model: it simply creates bigger cherrypickers.
Perhaps given my math background, it's only natural I think of an analogy (which I don't think I've seen others use, but I think is an interesting way to conceptualize individual state benefit mandates): the least common multiple versus greatest common factor versions of state mandates. I conceptualize the Democrats as focusing on the former approach, and conservatives/Republicans on the latter. The problem I have with Romney's approach in Massachusetts, besides the individual/business mandate of insurance coverage itself, is the high level of special interest insurance mandates, which correlate with costs. I think the Republicans could most effective in arguing for a baseline "greatest common factor" baseline of basic health insurance coverage policies, which could be universally recognized and marketed across states.
Political Cartoon
IBD Cartoonist Michael Ramirez shows that that Obama is so obsessed with his short-sighted political objectives in pushing the Democratic Party Health Care Bill, he can't see the dangers straight ahead.
Quote of the Day
A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.
George Bernard Shaw
Musical Interlude: Girl Groups
Supremes, "Reflections"
Bangles, "Hazy Shade of Winter" (Simon & Garfunkel classic remake)
Marvelettes, "Please, Mr. Postman"
Exposé, "I'll Never Get Over You Getting Over Me"
