The Will Ferrell Video - Actually Not A Parody

The video I linked earlier with Hollywood celebrities coming out to defend those poor insurance companies has gone viral, with hundreds of thousands of views today. What's a little less-known is that prominent Republicans are basically engaging in a note-for-note remake of that video, leaping to the defense of that industry which has turned in record profits, raising premiums even during the Great Recession and saving money by denying Americans care.

Here's the story so far: yesterday the Department of Health and Human Services launched an investigation into Humana for sending its elderly customers a mailer warning that they would lose benefits under the new health insurance reform plan. Interestingly, Max Baucus, yes that Max Baucus, registered the complaint that triggered the investigation. The whole thing concerns Medicare Advantage payments:

Humana is one of the largest private carriers serving seniors under a program called Medicare Advantage. About one-fourth of the elderly and disabled people covered under Medicare participate in the Advantage program, which offers a choice of private plans that usually deliver added benefits.

Humana has about 1.4 million Medicare Advantage enrollees, and the program accounts for about half the company's revenue, Noland said.

Government experts say the private plans are being paid too much — about 14 percent more than it costs to care for seniors in traditional Medicare. The Baucus plan — and other proposals — would reduce payments to the plans, and the health insurance industry is fighting back.

The Humana mailer focused squarely on the Medicare Advantage program.

Actually the Medicare Advantage plans cost the government about 14% more and deliver less than traditional Medicare, according to the Government Accountability Office. We are subsidizing private industry billions of dollars so they can perform the exact same task as Medicare, and with lower quality.

The mailer that Humana sent to beneficiaries, designed to look like official communication with customers and not naked lobbying documents, wasn't all; a website which generated automatic emails to members of Congress, claiming to be from customers (despite the fact that anyone could generate an email), is also being probed. And of course, this is not the only example of insurance companies filling their customers' heads with misinformation and turning them into citizen lobbyists.

Of course, the industry went into full-on whine mode as a response, with Republican leaders right behind them.

A spokesman for America's Health Insurance Plans, the industry's main lobbying group, issued a statement Tuesday criticizing what he described as the government's "gag order."

"Seniors have a right to know how the current reform proposals will affect the coverage they currently like and rely on," AHIP spokesman Robert Zirkelbach said.

Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Senate's Republican leader, denounced the HHS order as an attempt to squelch free speech.

"We cannot allow government officials to target individuals or companies because they do not like what they have to say," McConnell said.

"Is this what we believe as a Senate -- that this body should debate a trillion-dollar health care bill that affects every American while using the powerful arm of government to shut down speech?" McConnell said.

McConnell noted that Humana, an insurer at the center of the controversy, is based in his home state. The company has been a large contributor to McConnell, donating $112,452 over his career, according to Eric Schultz, communications director for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. (emphasis mine)

Shocking that Mitch McConnell would leap to the defense, Will Ferrell-style, of a health insurer based in his state which has feathered his nest to the tune of six figures, no?

There is a difference between free speech issues and what Humana and others are doing, namely violating federal law. Medicare Advantage providers are contracted employees of the federal government, and under the terms of Medicare Advantage, providers have strict limits on what they can communicate to beneficiaries. This lobbying effort would appear to violate those guidelines, and those customers receiving this letter could be excused for believing it to be an official document warning of loss of benefits if they failed to take action.

In short, Medicare Advantage is a wasteful corporate welfare program providing no benefit to individual subscribers and actually worse quality of care to seniors, at a cost of around $150 billion over 10 years to the taxpayer. The government has no imperative to keep such a scheme going, and they certainly shouldn't be paying providers to send misleading letters to their customers so they can keep the gravy train going.

But the real amusement here is watching Republicans like Mitch McConnell read from the Will Ferrell script and crying to "leave health insurance CEOs alone," as if they don't get enough help from the taxpayers to fund their lavish lifestyles.

Now They Want Sebelius

Looks like we may have a Health and Human Services Secretary by tomorrow, just in time to get started in the middle of a flu outbreak and fears of a pandemic. Funny how the GOP finally agreed to end the obstruction right at this time, ay?

On the flip side of this, I agree with Brian Beutler that the continued obstruction of Dawn Johnsen is troubling.

In fact, Dawn Johnsen's nomination to head the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel seems to be, if anything, in more trouble than does Sebelius'. There have been rumors of a Johnsen filibuster for weeks now, and outside groups, both pro-confirmation and anti, have been lobbying Congress as the process has all-but-ground to a halt. (Just today, the groups People For the American Way, Alliance for Justice, National Women's Law Center, and NARAL Pro-Choice America hosted a conference call for reporters during which former OLC-chiefs Walter Dellinger (who served under Clinton) and Douglas Kmiec (who served under Reagan and George H.W. Bush), along with Johnsen's Indiana University colleague Aviva Orenstein, made the case for a quick confirmation.)

Now, keep in mind that Sebelius will be a cabinet-level official while Johnsen will not, and in that sense it's plausible that Democrats have prioritized a vote on Sebelius' nomination in order to make Obama's cabinet whole. But it's also plausible that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (R-NV) isn't as sure he can clear the cloture hurdle if the question on the floor is on the confirmation of Dawn Johnsen. More on the apparent disparity as I learn it.

Especially given the release of the OLC memos justifying torture and the display of how important that office is to upholding the rule of law, we need Johnsen in that seat now more than ever.

...Sebelius will still need 60 votes, by the way, though it appears safe that she can get them.

Sebelius Is Go

Well, so much for that Senate seat in Kansas, although the next year and a half is going to be such a tough time to be a Governor that I think Obama is in some ways throwing Sebelius and Napolitano a lifeline. Anyone who is Health and Human Services Secretary when the system is reformed is going to get a massive amount of popularity. Sebelius herself might be looking to a higher office in 2016. And there's the Mel Martinez model of a cabinet secretary who moved into elected office after the first term. If Sebelius can manage the office, I think it's a good choice.

Looks Like Sebelius

In addition to California, another budget crisis has been simmering in Kansas, where the Governor signed a bill after getting resistance from Republicans to cover a budget deficit with reductions and moving money from other accounts. Tax refunds and state worker paychecks were at risk. The result is that services will go down, as they will across the country.

Therefore, it's no surprise that Kathleen Sebelius, the aforementioned Governor, may bail out and become the Health and Human Services Secretary.

Gov. Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas, an early Obama ally with a record of working across party lines, is emerging as the president’s top choice for secretary of health and human services, advisers said Wednesday.

Should she be nominated, Ms. Sebelius would bring eight years of experience as her state’s insurance commissioner as well as six years as a governor running a state Medicaid program.

But with President Obama about to begin a drive to expand health coverage, an issue on which the two parties have deep ideological divisions, her strongest asset in the view of the White House may be her record of navigating partisan politics as a Democrat in one of the country’s most Republican states.

I think Sebelius is one of the rising stars of the party, a popular Governor in a very red state. That she would not be running for US Senate in Sam Brownback's open seat at a time when we need all the Senate votes we can get is too bad, but if she stays in that Governor's mansion I don't know how popular she'll remain. It's a bad time to be running states.

I don't really know Sebelius' position on health care, but she's stepping into a difficult fight with a lot of competing interests. There are single-payer advocates and shared-responsibility advocates and those who want market-based solutions or absolutely nothing. I think Sebelius is going to have to harness the power of the American people to get anything major done, as well as navigate a lot of competing interests. There is momentum for reform but the devil is in the details and there are many pitfalls. Good luck to her.

Bredesen Down But Not Out

Phil Bredesen is telling people in Tennessee he's out as HHS Secretary.

Gov. Phil Bredesen told top legislative leaders this morning that he doesn’t think President Obama will nominate him for the U.S. Health and Human Services secretary position, lawmakers said.

House Democratic Leader Gary Odom of Nashville confirmed that Gov. Bredesen, a Democrat, made the remarks during his weekly meeting with House and Senate leaders.

“It came up during breakfast,” Rep. Odom said. “He basically said he’s expecting to remain governor of the state of Tennessee.”

On top of everything else wrong with Bredesen, it would leave a Republican to succeed him as Governor of Tennessee. So on politics and policy, his appointment would make no sense.

Nice work so far by progressives to make themselves heard on this one. It's good that he's saying he's out, but I'll wait until I see the official announcement. Until then, the pressure must be kept - no Bredesen, no deal.

Proudly Presenting Yourself As A Tool - Not Quite The Way To Win

In the past week, several progressive advocacy groups have come out against Tennessee Governor Phil Bredesen for Secretary of Health and Human Services, including MoveOn.org just today.

How can you tell who's a real health care champion? We need someone who's going to support visionary progressive health care reform; someone with a track record of standing up to the insurance and pharmaceutical giants at the heart of our health care crisis; someone who is 100 percent committed to giving every single American the choice of a public health insurance plan so we're not at the mercy of the private insurance companies (just as Obama promised).

Obama is reportedly considering several governors and a few senators. Many of these folks would be great, but at least one would be a bad choice for health care reform: Tennessee Governor Phil Bredesen made his fortune acquiring and running HMOs. As governor, he gutted Tennessee's public health insurance program, causing more than 320,000 people to lose their health insurance. And Bredesen let the private insurance industry pay for his multi-million dollar redecoration of the governor's mansion.

You would think that, faced with this opposition, Bredesen would defend his record, show his independence from special interests and his commitment to reform. Even if it was only rhetorical, this would be the standard move. Yeah, you would think:

“Anybody who’s got some real scars and experience is going to have their detractors,” the governor said Monday in an interview with The Wall Street Journal. “People at the White House are smart enough to be able to assess that.” And he took a swipe at his opponents, saying that “advocacy groups don’t matter nearly as much as the pharmaceutical groups, the hospitals, the doctors’ groups. There’s a lot of very powerful interest groups that will play in this thing.”

The charitable reading of that is that Bredesen thinks the important groups to do combat with are those special interests, but that would be completely at odds with his history:

This quote by Bredesen — dismissing advocacy groups and embracing industry interests — is typical of his tenure in office. In 2005, Bredesen’s wife, Andrea Conte, embarked on a $9.4 million renovation of the governor’s mansion. The largest donor to the project? BlueCross BlueShield of Tennessee, which gave $150,000.

While in making cuts to TennCare, Bredesen largely “cast aside” the “cost saving ideas of advocates” that would have increase health care coverage while also addressing the state’s budget crisis. But as TNR’s Jonathan Cohn notes, advocates will be necessary in pushing health care reform through Congress; a lack of coordinated support amongst liberal allies was part of the reason that President Clinton’s health care plan failed to conservative attacks.

Ezra Klein thinks that the advocacy groups are working too hard opposing Bredesen when they could be coalescing around one of the other candidates. But recent history with the Obama Administration shows that advocacy groups have been much more successful helping to disqualify than to qualify - see John Brennan. What's more, most of the other names mentioned (Rosa DeLauro, Kathleen Sebelius, John Podesta) don't have much to distinguish them from one another. Howard Dean IS attracting grassroots support, and I personally would like to see Judy Feder of Georgetown University because I think she knows her shit more than anyone. But this is not a weakness of the advocacy groups, it's a strength. If they knock out Bredesen, they know HHS will be in relatively good hands.

Cannibalizing

The Obama Administration is floating Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius to replace Tom Daschle as the nominee for Secretary of Health and Human Services.

Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius was very near the top of President Barack Obama's list of candidates to head the Health and Human Services Department, a senior administration official said Saturday.

The source, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss private administration deliberations, said no decision was imminent. But the official added the former Kansas insurance commissioner was rising as Obama considers prospective candidates [...]

Advocacy groups like the consumer watchdog role 60-year-old Sebelius played as insurance commissioner for eight years before she became governor.

This is all well and good (though being a watchdog to insurers isn't the same as promoting any kind of health care policy agenda, which I haven't seen), and Sebelius is certainly a better choice than Phil Bredesen, who would be a disaster. However, just this week a poll commissioned by Daily Kos showed Sebelius way ahead in the race for the open Senate seat in Kansas being vacated by Sam Brownback. A Democrat hasn't won this seat in Kansas since 1932, and there's nobody but Sebelius who would have a chance. We've seen just this week with the stimulus debate that having less Republican rubber stamps in the Senate would probably be a good idea, and based on her performance in Kansas, I think Sebelius would be slightly less wankerrific than her red-state Democratic counterparts. Similarly, before she was picked for Homeland Security Secretary, Janet Napolitano looked to be a threat to send John McCain into an unwanted retirement in Arizona.

We need capable cabinet secretaries, of course, but this week showed the importance of the Senate. Maybe the Administration shouldn't be cherry-picking the best candidates to win Republican seats.

...the flip side of this is that Governors aren't going to be popular the next couple years with the economic meltdown and all the budget cuts, so Obama may just be saving the reputations of some of these red-state governors.

Harkin (Hearts) Dean

When I saw the boomlet for Howard Dean as HHS Secretary, I didn't think it was plausible. I certainly didn't think a high-profile Senator would come out and back him.

Iowa Senator Tom Harkin, who endorsed Dean's presidential campaign in 2004 and is rumored to be in the HHS running himself, applauded the idea of the former DNC header taking over the cabinet post vacated by Tom Daschle.

"I think that would be a very good move," Harkin told the Huffington Post. "He brings all the background and experience. He's very strong on prevention and wellness, which I'm very strong on. I think he'd make an outstanding secretary of HHS."

Asked if he had spoken to White House on the matter, Harkin demurred: "I'm not going to get into that," he said after a pause.

The thousands on Facebook, I expected, but not this. Color me surprised, and good for Tom Harkin.

By the way, here's a short list of Vermont's health care picture after Dean's leadership. As a small state Vermont has different issues than the rest of the country, but this is an indication of what Dean has done and can do.

Under Governor Dean's leadership, Vermont developed one of the best health care systems in the country.

• 96% of Vermont children have health insurance and 99% are eligible for coverage under Governor Dean's Dr. Dynasaur program.

• More than a third of Medicare recipients in Vermont receive state help in paying for prescription drugs.

• Vermont was ranked the "Healthiest State" in the U.S. in 2001, 2002 and 2003 by the Morgan Quinto Press.

• In 1997, Governor Dean signed a law requiring insurance companies in Vermont to provide the same coverage for mental illness and substance-abuse treatment that they provide for physical conditions.

• As a result of early intervention programs established by Governor Dean, 89% of pregnant Vermont women enter prenatal care in their first trimester and 91% of families with newborns receive a voluntary home visit.

• Vermont has the lowest teenage pregnancy rate in the country – teen pregnancies decreased 49% during Governor Dean's tenure.

• Child abuse dropped 45% under Governor Dean. Vermont was the first state to institute a statewide protocol for abuse investigations.

• Vermont ranks second in the nation in child immunizations -- 81% of children are fully immunized by age 2 and 97% are immunized before kindergarten.

A Revealing Window Into The Minds Of Washington

In the wake of the Daschle mess, there are a lot of possibilities for both HHS Secretary and the newly created "health care policy czar," ranging from the sublime - Dr. Dean - to the ridiculous - anyone else that the corporate-owned media can come up with.

You have Marc Ambinder and Karen Tumulty ringing the bell for Mitt Romney, because he "can claim the provision of universal health care as a resume line." Which isn't true at all, he sought to derail MassCare at almost every opportunity, it bubbled up directly from the state legislature, and the usual fallacy of attributing everything to the executive is at play. By the way, if you want to go that route, you could mention that Howard Dean provided universal health coverage for children and pregnant women, and unlike Romney he actually drove the policy and did it well before MassCare ever started.

Then Craig Crawford offers up Newt Gingrich, ferchrissake:

Gingrich? Now before you lefties have a collective heart attack, think about it. Something as big as overhauling our entire health care system will be tougher to get done on a purely partisan basis. There are Republicans who want to play.

As much as it would infuriate liberals, picking Gingrich would be a hyper-bipartisan move. Would it confound the GOP into submission on health care? Maybe not, but it would be a bold move to change the political dynamics that has killed reforms in the past.

This is the stupidity of Washington on full display, being conned into thinking a movement conservative like Gingrich would want to do anything but derail an Obama Presidency, believing that bipartisanship for its own sake is the highest good known to man, etc. And Obama has enabled this to a large extent, and now in many ways he's trapped by it, as Republicans use the "bipartisanship" talking point to block fundamental change.

The history-making moment unfolded in the White House press room on January 23, when the topic open for questioning was President Obama's proposed economic stimulus package and whether the administration, which was hoping for a bipartisan effort on the legislation, would be disappointed if the bill passed with little Republican support. And that's when Todd asked if Obama would veto his own bill if it didn't garner enough Republican votes.

If nothing else, though, Todd's absurd query helped highlight the unheard-of double standard that's been constructed by the press specifically for the new Democratic president with regard to the pressing issue of bipartisanship. Virtually all the news accounts are stressing the same story: If there's little or no bipartisan support for Obama's stimulus package, then it's Obama fault, and his fault alone. (No surprise, the media narrative echoes the latest GOP talking point, as dutifully pushed by RNC writers like Peggy Noonan.)

A bit ironic, isn't it? While addressing the issue of bipartisanship (i.e. "involving cooperation, agreement, and compromise between two major political parties") the press holds only one party accountable: the Democrats. Apparently, that's how the press now views the issue of bipartisanship -- it's something Democrats must bring to fruition.

Meanwhile, by the grand poohbahs in DC, Dean is seen as "too partisan" even though he won in Vermont with 70% of the vote including lots of Republican support, was elected chair of the bipartisan National Governors Association, and was a deficit hawk who balanced budgets in Vermont even though he wasn't constitutionally obligated to do so. But he's out of bounds.

The Return of the Friday News Dump!

Tom Daschle edition:

ABC News has learned that the nomination of former Senator Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D-SD) to be President Obama's Secretary of Health and Human Services has hit a traffic snarl on its way through the Senate Finance Committee.

The controversy deals with a car and driver lent to Mr. Daschle by a wealthy Democratic friend, a chauffeur service the former Senator used for years without declaring their use on his taxes.

It remains an open question as to whether this is a "speed bump," as a Democratic Senate ally of Daschle put it, or something more damaging."

More here. The "wealthy Democratic friend" is Leo Hindery, who was almost Obama's Commerce Secretary. Yikes!

President Obama’s pick for secretary of health and human services, Tom Daschle, filed amended tax returns and paid more than $100,000 in back taxes on Jan. 2, administration officials said on Friday.

Mr. Daschle concluded that he owed the taxes for free use of a car and driver that had been provided to him by Leo Hindery Jr., the founder of a private equity firm known as InterMedia Advisors, the officials said.

Mr. Daschle was chairman of the firm’s advisory board. In a financial disclosure statement filed this month with the Office of Government Ethics, Mr. Daschle reported that he had received large amounts of income from InterMedia, including more than $2 million for consulting and $182,520 in the form of “company-provided transportation.”

The larger problem, perhaps, is how easy it is for reasonably wealthy and well-connected people to cheat on their taxes. Or, if you're more forgiving, how hard it is to untangle the complex web of rules in the tax code.

And, with now three reports of trouble with nominations, you have to wonder how world-class that Obama vetting operation is.

Still-President Bush Still Causing Harm

So the President vetoed the bill stopping cuts to Medicare payments to doctors today, despite the bill receiving more than enough votes to override. But this is more than a simple inconvenience for Congress to need to stage an override vote. This will affect people's lives, as Kagro X explains.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services had issued a temporary delay on physician pay cuts until July 15 to allow lawmakers more time to pass the legislation.

Tomorrow's date, of course, is July 15. This way, Bush assures either that the bureaucrats have to go through an embarrassing scramble again, or that medical care providers actually get hurt by his veto crayon.

The "grown up" in charge, ladies and gentlemen. They can't get this asshole out of the White House fast enough.

But this thumb in the eye of doctors and medical providers who dared to oppose his cuts to their paychecks is nothing compared to what his Health and Human Services Department has in store:

The Bush administration wants to require all recipients of aid under federal health programs to certify that they will not refuse to hire nurses and other providers who object to abortion and even certain types of birth control.

Under the draft of a proposed rule, hospitals, clinics, researchers and medical schools would have to sign "written certifications" as a prerequisite to getting money under any program run by the Department of Health and Human Services.

The rule defines "abortion" so broadly that it could also apply to birth control pills and emergency contraception. And because the rule would apply to federal health programs, low-income and uninsured women will be most affected.

This is an extension of the "Landmine Project," to install both personnel and federal rules requirements that would enshrine radical conservative goals inside of government. Check this out, they're trying to base their redefining of when life begins on polling information.

Abortion: An abortion is the termination of a pregnancy. There are two commonly held views on the question of when a pregnancy begins. Some consider a pregnancy to begin at conception (that is, the fertilization of the egg by the sperm), while others consider it to begin with implantation (when the embryo implants in the lining of the uterus). A 2001 Zogby International American Values poll revealed that
49% of Americans believe that human life begins at conception. Presumably many who hold this belief think that any action that destroys human life after conception is the termination of a pregnancy, and so would be included in their definition of the term "abortion." Those who believe pregnancy begins at implantation believe the term
"abortion" only includes the destruction of a human being after it has implanted in the lining of the uterus.

Since Griswold v. Connecticut restricting birth control has been a central project of the radical right. This proposed ruling would give that project the force of law, at least temporarily.

The guy's still President, everyone, and there's plenty of damage he can cause in six months.

UPDATE: The Senate overrode Bush's veto, and so the cuts to Medicare will stop. What is unknown is whether or not the cuts have already begun for July and if doctors will end up getting stiffed.