Tag Archives: Mike Pence

September 30 “Deadline” for Obamacare Repeal Is Fake News

Over the past several days, congressional leaders in both the House and Senate have claimed that a bill by Sens. Lindsay Graham (R-SC) and Bill Cassidy (R-LA) is “our best, last chance to get repeal and replace done.” They have made such claims because the press keeps “reporting” that Republicans’ “power to pass health care legislation through a party-line vote in the Senate expires on September 30.”

Don’t you believe it. The Senate’s 52 Republicans have multiple options open to keep the Obamacare repeal process alive after September 30. The only question is whether they have the political will to do so.

Option 1: Set a Senate Precedent

Democrats started the misinformation campaign regarding a supposed September 30 “deadline.” Politico reported at the start of the month that “the Senate parliamentarian has ruled that Republicans face a September 30 deadline to kill or overhaul the law with only 50 votes, Democrats on the Senate Budget Committee said.”

That assertion carries one big flaw: The Senate parliamentarian does not “rule.” The Senate as a body does—and that distinction makes a big difference. The procedural question centers around when, and whether, budget reconciliation instructions expire.

Budget reconciliation provides an expedited process for the Senate to consider matters of a fiscal nature. Reconciliation’s limits on debate and amendments preclude filibusters, allowing the bill to pass with a simple (i.e., 51-vote) majority rather than the usual 60 votes needed to break a filibuster and halt debate. (For additional background, see my May primer on budget reconciliation here.)

In one of its first acts upon convening in January, Congress passed a budget resolution for Fiscal Year 2017, which included instructions for health-related committees in the House and Senate to produce reconciliation legislation—legislation intended to “repeal-and-replace” Obamacare. But Fiscal Year 2017 ends on September 30, and Congress (thus far at least) hasn’t completed work on the reconciliation bill yet. So what happens on September 30? Does a reconciliation measure fail? Or can Congress continue work on the legislation, because the budget resolution set fiscal parameters for ten fiscal years (through 2026), not just the one ending on September 30?

Earlier this month, the parliamentarian advised Senate staff of her viewpoint that the reconciliation instructions would terminate on September 30—meaning the bill and process would lose their privileged status and access to the expedited Senate procedures. But her opinion remains advisory and not binding on either the chair or the body as a whole.

There is literally no precedent on this particular Senate procedural question of whether and when reconciliation instructions expire. If the chair—either Vice President Mike Pence, Senate President Pro Tempore Orrin Hatch (R-UT), or another Senate Republican presiding—wishes to disregard the parliamentarian’s opinion, he or she is free to do so.

Alternatively, if the chair decides to agree with the parliamentarian’s opinion, a 51-vote majority of Republicans could decide to overturn that ruling by appealing the chair’s decision. In either event, the action by the Senate—either the chair or the body itself—would set the precedent, not the opinion of a Senate official who currently has no precedent to guide her.

Option 2: Pass a New Budget

Because there is no precedent to the question of when reconciliation instructions expire, Republican senators can set a precedent on this question themselves—keeping in mind it will apply equally when Republicans are in the minority. But if senators believe that disregarding the parliamentarian’s opinion—even on a question where she has no precedent to guide her—might jeopardize the legislative filibuster, they can simply pass a new budget for Fiscal Year 2018, one that includes reconciliation instructions to allow for Obamacare “repeal-and-replace.”

While the Congressional Budget Act limits the use of reconciliation to one reconciliation measure (one tax bill and one spending bill, or one with both tax and spending provisions) per budget, it does not limit the number of budgets a Congress can pass in a given fiscal year. Indeed, as the Congressional Research Service notes, the Budget Act as originally written required adopting two budget resolutions per year.

While that requirement has since been changed, Congress could still pass multiple budget resolutions in a given year, along with a reconciliation measure for each. Congress could pass a Fiscal Year 2018 budget resolution with reconciliation instructions for Obamacare repeal this month, complete work on the Obamacare bill, then pass another budget resolution with reconciliation instructions for tax reform.

Political Will

Congressional leaders apparently want to portray the Graham-Cassidy bill as a binary choice—either support it, or support keeping Obamacare in place. The facts turn that binary choice into a false one. Republicans have every opportunity to work to enact the repeal of Obamacare they promised the American people, regardless of the opinion of an unelected Senate official. No legislator should use an arbitrary—and false—deadline of next week to rationalize voting for a bad bill, or abandoning his or her promises altogether.

This post was originally published at The Federalist.

Are Senate Republicans Going Soft on Obamacare’s Taxpayer Funding of Abortions?

Senate Republican leadership continue to draft their “repeal-and-replace” health care bill in secret, but it sure looks like staff are preparing for the bill to endorse Obamacare’s funding of plans that cover abortion, by re-characterizing—and mischaracterizing—how current law treats the procedure. While text is not yet publicly available and will not be until Thursday at the earliest, here’s how anonymous sources described the “new” insurance subsidies to the Wall Street Journal:

Tax credits are likely to be structured in ways similar to the [Obamacare] subsidies as a way to preserve restrictions on abortion funding, according to Senate GOP aides. Provisions restricting the use of the House bill’s tax credits to pay for abortion hit procedural hurdles in the Senate.

The [Obamacare] subsidies, which are advance tax credits paid to insurance companies to lower the cost of health-insurance premiums, currently can’t be used to cover the cost of abortions.

The problem is, though, that Obamacare does have “taxpayer-funded abortions.” And that’s not what I said—that’s what Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has said. Here’s his speech on March 17, 2010, as the House was preparing to vote on Obamacare (all emphasis added):

Americans woke up yesterday thinking they had seen everything in this debate already. Then they heard the latest….They heard that Democrats over in the House want to approve the Senate bill without actually voting on it. These Democrats want to approve a bill that rewrites one-sixth of the economy, forces taxpayers to pay for abortions, raises taxes in the middle of a recession, and slashes Medicare for seniors, without leaving their fingerprints on it.

Here’s McConnell the next week, the day after House Democrats voted for Obamacare and one day before it was signed into law: “Here is what the Democrats voted for last night: a vast expansion of the entitlement state that we cannot afford, massive cuts to Medicare, higher taxes, higher health care costs, worse care, taxpayer-funded abortions.”

Don’t consider McConnell a reliable source? The current vice president, Mike Pence, speaking in March 2010 during debate on the reconciliation bill intended to “fix” parts of Obamacare, noted that no provision in the reconciliation bill would fix its funding of abortion:

Mr. Speaker, the bill before us tonight doesn’t fix anything. It doesn’t fix the fact that this is a government takeover of health care that’s going to mandate that every American buy health insurance whether they want it or need it or not. It doesn’t fix the fact that it includes about $600 billion in job-killing tax increases in the worst economy in 30 years. It doesn’t fix the fact this bill provides public funding for elective abortion for the first time in American history.

And then there’s former House Speaker John Boehner. During his infamous “Hell no, you can’t!” speech on the House floor as that chamber was preparing to pass Obamacare, here’s what he said about the bill (soon to become law) and abortion:

Can you go home and tell your constituents with confidence that this bill respects the sanctity of all human life and that it won’t allow for taxpayer funding of abortions for the first time in 30 years? No, you cannot.

The current majority leader, current vice president, and former House speaker are all correct, of course—or at least they were seven years ago. Obamacare provides subsidies to plans that cover abortion, a significant break from the precedent used by the federal employee health plan, and one that will see more than $700 billion in taxpayer funds in the coming decade go toward plans that could cover abortion.

To repeat, the bill text is not yet available, but if it has strict pro-life protections in it, why are Senate staff suddenly trying to claim that a bill McConnell said has “taxpayer-funded abortions” in it actually prevents funding for the procedure? Are anonymous staff trying to lay the groundwork for a massive flip-flop that will alienate the entire pro-life community? Time will tell, but for those concerned about taxpayer funding of abortion, the initial soundings do not look good.

This post was originally published at The Federalist.

Past as Prologue? A Review of “The System”

A young president promising hope and change takes over the White House. Immediately embarking upon a major health-care initiative, he becomes trapped amidst warring factions in his party in Congress, bickering interest groups, and an angry public, all laying the groundwork for a resounding electoral defeat.

Barack Obama, circa 2009-10? Most definitely. But the same story also applies to Bill Clinton’s first two years in office, a period marked by a health-care debate in 1993-94 that paved the way for the Republican takeover of both houses of Congress.

In their seminal work “The System,” Haynes Johnson and David Broder recount the events of 1993-94 in detail—explaining not just how the Clinton health initiative failed, but also why. Anyone following the debate on Obamacare repeal should take time over the holidays to read “The System” to better understand what may await Congress and Washington next year. After all, why spend time arguing with your in-laws at the holiday table when you can read about people arguing in Congress two decades ago?

Echoes of History

For those following events of the past few years, the Clinton health debate as profiled in “The System” provides interesting echoes between past and present. Here is Karen Ignani of the AFL-CIO, viewed as a single-payer supporter and complaining that insurance companies could still “game the system” under some proposed reforms. Ironic sentiments indeed, as Ignani went on to chair the health insurance industry’s trade association during the Obamacare debate.

There are references to health care becoming a president’s Waterloo—Johnson and Broder attribute that quote to Grover Norquist, years before Sen. Jim DeMint uttered it in 2009. Max Baucus makes an appearance—he opposed in 1994 the employer mandate he included in Obamacare in 2009—as do raucous rallies in the summer of 1994, presaging the Obamacare town halls 15 years later.

Then there are the bigger lessons and themes that helped define the larger debate:

“Events, Dear Boy, Events:” The axiom attributed to Harold Macmillan about leaders being cast adrift by crises out of their control applied to the Clintons’ health-care debate. Foreign crises in Somalia (see “Black Hawk Down”) and Haiti sapped time on the presidential calendar and press attention, and distracted messaging. During the second half of 2009, Obama spent most of his time and energy focused on health care, leading some to conclude he had turned away from solving the economic crisis.

Old Bulls and Power Centers: “The System “spends much more time profiling the chairs of the respective congressional committees—including Dan Rostenkowski at House Ways and Means, John Dingell at House Energy and Commerce, and Patrick Moynihan at Senate Finance—than would have been warranted in 2009-10. While committee chairs held great power in the early 1990s, 15 years later House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid called most of the legislative shots from their leadership offices.

Whereas the House marked up three very different versions of health-care legislation in 1993-94, all three committees started from the same chairman’s mark in 2009. With Speaker Paul Ryan, like John Boehner before him, running a much more diffuse leadership operation than Pelosi’s tightly controlled ship, it remains to be seen whether congressional leaders can drive consensus on both policy strategy and legislative tactics.

The Filibuster: At the beginning of the legislative debate in 1993, Robert Byrd—a guardian of Senate rules and procedures—pleaded for Democrats not to try and enact their health agenda using budget reconciliation procedures to avoid a filibuster. Democrats (begrudgingly) followed his advice in 1993, only to ignore his pleadings 16 years later, using reconciliation to ram through changes to Obamacare. Likewise, what and how Republicans use reconciliation, and Democrats use the filibuster, on health care will doubtless define next year’s Senate debate.

Many Obama White House operatives such as Rahm Emanuel, having lived through the Clinton debate, followed the exact opposite playbook to pass Obamacare.

They used the time between 1993 and 2009 to narrow their policy differences as a party. Rather than debating between a single-payer system and managed competition, most of the political wrangling focused on the narrower issue of a government-run “public option.” Rather than writing a massive, 1,300-page bill and dropping it on Capitol Hill’s lap, they deferred to congressional leaders early on. Rather than bashing special interest groups publicly, they cut “rock-solid deals” behind closed doors to win industry support. While their strategy ultimately led to legislative success, the electoral consequences proved eerily similar.

Lack of Institutional Knowledge

The example of Team Obama aside, Washington and Washingtonians sometimes have short memories. Recently a reporter e-mailed asking me if I knew of someone who used to work on health care issues for Vice President-elect Mike Pence. (Um, have you read my bio…?) Likewise, reporters consider “longtime advisers” those who have worked the issue since the last presidential election. While there is no substitute for experience itself, a robust knowledge of history would come in a close second.

Those who underestimate the task facing congressional Republicans would do well to read “The System.” Having read it for the first time the week of President Obama’s 2009 inauguration, I was less surprised by how that year played out on Capitol Hill than I was surprised by the eerie similarities.

George Santayana’s saying that “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it” bears more than a grain of truth. History may not repeat itself exactly, but it does run in cycles. Those who read “The System” now will better understand the cycle about to unfold before us in the year ahead.

This post was originally published at The Federalist.

Weekly Newsletter — March 9, 2009

Government-Run Plan Could Cause Millions to Lose their Current Coverage

Following on the heels of last week’s “health care summit,” both the House Ways and Means and Energy and Commerce Committees will hold hearings this week on health care reform options.  However, while President Obama has stated that those who like their current health insurance should be able to keep it, several studies suggest that Democrat health reform proposals may result in significant changes for millions of Americans.

For instance, the left-leaning Commonwealth Fund recently released its own report outlining ways to generate savings within the health sector—one of which involved a proposal, also supported by President Obama, to establish a nationalized health insurance plan to “compete” with private insurance coverage in a new Connector or insurance Exchange.  The report’s technical appendix shows that less than one-quarter of those with employer-sponsored coverage—only 37.5 million out of 153.8 million currently receiving coverage through their employer—would maintain that coverage.  Virtually all of the rest would have their coverage shifted to the Connector—and, the report notes, two-thirds of those would end up on the government-run program.  The appendix also notes that this transition would be far from voluntary; the report projects hundreds of billions in savings for employers, largely “resulting from the shift of employers to the public plan”—in other words, businesses who currently offer coverage “dumping” their insurance plans and placing their employees on the government-run program.

The Lewin analysis of the Commonwealth report echoes a prior study of the Obama campaign proposal to establish a nationalized health insurance plan.  That estimate found that up to 118 million individuals would lose access to their current private health insurance if a government-run plan were established, and that more than 130 million individuals would enroll in the nationalized insurance plan.

Based on these data, some Members may be concerned by the implications of creating a nationalized health insurance option, particularly the dislocation of existing workers who may well be satisfied with their current coverage.  Members may also be concerned about the budgetary implications of creating such an expansive new entitlement—particularly given Medicare’s nearly $86 trillion in unfunded obligations—and whether this new government program would exercise controls on patient care as the sole means available to slow the growth of costs.

Members may instead support less radical alternatives to the nationalized insurance plan, that would focus more on expanding access to care for individuals of limited means.  Providing incentives for low-income individuals to afford coverage, expanding choices for individuals to purchase the plan that best meets their needs, and promoting healthy behaviors would all serve to expand access while slowing the growth of health care costs—alternatives that Members may prefer to a massive new government plan that could harm those happy with their current health insurance options.

Articles of Note: Problems with the Status Quo

Two recent articles, published in the same week, highlight the problems with the health system—specifically, the Medicaid program.  In the first, the New York Times cited a report noting that many Medicaid beneficiaries who remain eligible for the program often lose coverage when attempting to renew their benefits due to paperwork and related logistical difficulties.  In the second, the New York Post reported on an investigation whereby a single provider billed Medicaid for $1.2 million in allegedly fraudulent claims for prosthetic eyes for patients with normal eyesight.

Reading both these articles, many Members may be concerned that wasteful and fraudulent spending is improperly restricting access to care for millions of Medicaid beneficiaries.  Some Members may also believe that instead of spending additional money on the current flawed system—as Democrats did by providing $90 billion in “stimulus” funding for Medicaid—Republicans should explore solutions that can crack down on fraud, improve beneficiaries’ quality of care, and provide options for beneficiaries to voluntarily use Medicaid dollars to supplement private health insurance premiums.

House Republican Conference Chairman Mike Pence wrote an op-ed published in Investor’s Business Daily this week articulating many of these same problems, along with principles for reform; the article may be found here.

Rep. Mike Pence Op-Ed: The Morality of Health Care

Originally published in Investor’s Business Daily, March 7, 2009

“What it’s supposed to do for people doesn’t get done in reality.”

The speaker criticizing this government program wasn’t talking about the federal response to Hurricane Katrina, or failing inner-city schools. Instead, the chief operating officer of a Bronx health clinic was criticizing Medicaid, a program that in theory provides health care coverage to more than 50 million Americans.

In his budget blueprint, President Obama promises $1 trillion in new health care spending to expand the Medicaid program — and create a new government health insurance program — with many of the flaws of the current one.

Even as the White House convenes a health “summit” designed to build support for yet more entitlement spending, it’s important to remember that our current entitlements often neglect the poorest and most vulnerable Americans.

Investigations by the New York Times in 2005 confirmed the often-cited problem that a Medicaid insurance card doesn’t guarantee quality care. In fact, it doesn’t guarantee care at all.

The report cited Medicaid as paying $24 to specialists in New York City for an office visit — not nearly enough to cover physicians’ true costs. Not surprisingly, few specialists decide to participate in Medicaid, so patients must wait — and wait and wait — to receive care.

Meanwhile, the New York Medicaid program’s spending ranks highest in the country, likely because 40% of Medicaid spending goes to questionable or fraudulent claims, according to a former state investigator.

The overall picture is one of a dysfunctional Medicaid program struggling to meet the health care needs of the poorest Americans. Yet these systemic problems are rarely mentioned when talking about health care reform.

While Democrats talk about the “moral imperative” of covering all Americans, few words have been spoken for those who have a public insurance card — but no access to care.

Consider the case of Deamonte Driver, a 12-year-old Maryland boy, who died in 2007 when a tooth infection spread to his brain. A simple extraction costing under $100 could have saved his life — if his mother had not had to wait five months for Deamonte and his brother to receive treatment under Medicaid.

Testifying before Congress about this tragedy, a case worker who helped Deamonte’s family criticized a culture “that clearly condones gross underperformance” at both the state and federal levels and has become “accepted and widespread.”

It is a culture that required Deamonte’s mother plus a lawyer, three call center workers and a call center supervisor to schedule a single dental appointment.

It is a culture that lets a dentist in Brooklyn bill Medicaid for many patient visits in the same day, yet turns away a poor teenager three times without even asking her to fill out a Medicaid application.

It is a culture that fails the poorest and most vulnerable in our society and a culture that money alone will not fix.

Democrats and the president have focused on increasing federal Medicaid spending as an economic “stimulus.”

Providing $90 billion in new federal Medicaid spending without reforming the program, as the recent “stimulus” bill did, will not ensure better coordination of beneficiary care, will not create an administrative bureaucracy more responsive to patients and providers, and will not crack down on fraudulent spending that squeezes state and federal budgets alike.

A better way exists, and that is fundamental reform. One building block of reform would focus on a major inequity in the tax code. That code says individuals whose employers can’t afford to provide coverage — like Deamonte Driver’s mother — must use after-tax dollars to purchase health insurance.

That means that many hardworking people least able to afford insurance premiums must pay 30% to 50% more for coverage. Fixing this inequity in our tax code would let more individuals purchase their own policies.

When combined with insurance reforms that provide access to chronically ill people, and reforms that let state Medicaid dollars supplement private insurance premiums, many more people will have quality insurance coverage.

Unfortunately, our Democratic colleagues have blocked states’ efforts to test innovative ideas that would provide the improvements Medicaid needs — reforms designed to ensure coverage people can use, not just an empty promise of care.

Republicans see a better way.

Our party recently formed a task force to craft a proposal that would ensure true reform of our health care system, including proposals to improve the health or lives of those many Americans who need it most.

Our Democrat friends may be well-intentioned. But their plans would expand a failed government culture that has neglected the poor Americans it is supposed to serve. Throwing more taxpayer money at a structurally flawed program is not an audacious hope. It is a false one.

• Pence is chairman of the House Republican Conference.