Your End-Of-Week ObamaKennedyDeathCare Update

First, we have a couple more bits regarding the small OKDC bill that failed earlier this week.  Ace of Spades points out that Majority Leader Harry Reid's whiny reaction to the failure is deceitful by omission:

Naturally, Reid blames the GOP:

Reid angrily blamed the loss on bad intelligence from the American Medical Association, which he said promised him 27 Republican votes (he got none), as well as Republican dirty tricks designed to impede Democrats' progress on meaningful reform.

He made no mention of the 13 Democrats who sided with Republicans with statements of concern over ballooning deficits and budget overruns, nor that the Medicare measure failed to get even a simple majority of senators.

"I want everyone within the sound of my voice to understand that Washington is being driven by a small number of people on that side of the aisle that are preventing us from doing things that help the American people," Reid said. "We're not trying to run over people with the 60 votes we have. We want to work with people. We want to get along."

A small number of people? Obviously, Harry Reid can't count. No wonder he failed to find out how many Republicans he really had before bringing this to a vote. Heck, he didn't even bother finding out how many Democrats he had.

I'm actually kind of surprised he didn't blame George W. Bush.

The Heritage Foundation points out that that vote illustrates not only a failure of tactics, but also a failure of strategy:

Yesterday’s vote marks a significant failure of the Left’s special interest approach to passing Obamacare. From the beginning, the White House thought that if it bought off all of the business interests involved (the American Medical Association, the drug industry, health insurers, hospitals, etc.) opposition to the plan would wither. In one sense, the plan worked. USA Today reports PhRMA, Pfizer, America’s Health Insurance Plans, and the Federation of American Hospitals have all ponied up millions of dollars for lobbying and television ads in support of Obamacare.

But all these special interest television ads failed to rid Americans of their common sense objections to Obamacare’s government takeover of health care. Gallup reports today that Americans now more than ever believe the costs their family pays for health care will get worse if Obamacare passes. And more Americans now believe that Obamacare will lower the quality of care they receive, reduce their health care coverage, and complicate the insurance company requirements they have to meet to get certain treatments covered.

Instead of the massive overhaul being pursued by the White House, a solid majority of Americans tell Gallup they want to see Congress move in the opposite direction. By 58% to 38%, Americans would generally prefer to see Congress deal with health care reform “on a gradual basis over several years” rather than “try to pass a comprehensive health care reform plan this year.” Bipartisan, fiscally responsible, reform such as equalizing the tax treatment of health insurance purchases, freeing customers to purchase health insurance across state lines, and allowing states more flexibility on Medicaid spending are readily doable. And that is what the people want.

So, naturally, that's precisely what the Democrats will not allow.

Another interesting thing to note is the analysis by the Chief Actuary in the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services in the Obama Health and Human Services department:

As the Associated Press and other media outlets have been reporting, the study shows that- among other things- the legislation would, as President Obama promised, bend the health care cost curve … but  in the wrong direction.

The findings suggest that if the House legislation were enacted, President Obama would be breaking his long standing promise that reform would reduce rapidly growing health care costs. Although the President has continually argued that Americans spend too much on health care, and that under reform they would spend less, the new HHS report finds the opposite is likely to occur under the House legislation. Here are some key findings from the HHS memorandum:

• The legislation would increase total national health expenditures in the U.S. by about 2.1 percent during the period between 2010 and 2019.
• As a share of gross domestic product (GDP) health care spending would grow to 21.3 percent compared to 20.8 estimated under current law.
• The bill carries a price tag of about $1 trillion dollars (from 2013 to 2019), which does not even represent a full 10-year cost estimate.
• The measure is likely to deliver only small savings despite the many provisions intended to reduce the growth in health care costs.
• While the proposal might cover 34 million uninsured it would still leave 23 million people without coverage, including as many as 18 million Americans who would remain uninsured and face a new tax penalty.
• More than 50 percent of the new coverage gains under the bill (18 million out of 34 million) would come from expansions in the Medicaid program.
• 40 percent of those obtaining coverage through a newly established health insurance exchange could be enrolled in the public option.
• Cuts to the popular Medicare Advantage program for seniors could have the effect of reducing enrollment by 64 percent, with projected enrollment in 2014 falling from 13.2 million to only 4.7 million seniors.
• And, all told, the plan puts new strains on health care providers which could lead to price increases, increased cost-shifting onto the privately insured, and/or compromised access to high quality care.

Sounds pretty great, doesn't it? (ahem)

So where are things now?  Well, there are still multiple versions of OKDC floating around Washington, and the Dems are still smashing them all together into a single (destructive) bill.  Nancy Pelosi is bragging that she has the votes to pass such a bill in the House...but her very own whip -- the person who 'whips' the party into line and counts who is voting which way on big votes -- is saying she doesn't.  RedState calls her out, suggesting that if she truly had the votes, they'd be rushing the vote through immediately.  They don't, at least not right now.

Part of the problem is the far Left, which is demanding nothing less than government control:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is feeling the heat from his liberal colleagues to include a government-run health insurance plan, or “public option,” in the Senate health care bill.

Now, as Reid and other negotiators move closer to unveiling their health care plan, liberal advocacy groups are ratcheting up the pressure, saying they will run Reid out of Washington if he does not bring a public option to the Senate floor. With a tough re-election bid ahead of Reid next year, the liberal “Netroots” could potentially make good on their threat. Coming from a purple state, that puts Reid between a rock and a hard place — and has some local progressive activists at least somewhat worried.

A look at the polls will tell you that Reid's in trouble no matter what, and that if he loses his hardcore liberal base, he might as well pack up before the next election.

I saw an interview on TV last night that the AMA -- the lobbyist organization that schmoozes politicians, and which Obama brags is on his side -- only represents about 17% of the doctors in this country.  So, even if the AMA actually represents every single doctor in the organization (which it doesn't), that's still a small portion of all doctors in the country.

Hm...

One of the biggest disputes over OKDC is its price tag: who will pay for it?  Common sense and a brief look at the bill shows there is no way it can be paid for without some massive tax increases, especially on the middle class.  The Democrats, of course, claim there will be no such thing.  Except...

A word search of the 1,502-page Senate healthcare bill (S. 1796) reveals that the term "tax" is used 124 times, "taxable" is used 158 times, and "excise tax" is used 12 times.

Other terms of interest are as follows:

Senate Health Care Bill (S. 1796)
Term	Number of uses
"Tax"	124 times
"Taxes"	16 times
"Excise tax"	12 times
"Taxpayer(s)"	79 times
"Taxable"	158 times
"Tax-exempt"	15 times
"Penalty"	79 times
"Require"	88 times
"Must"	40 times

Eh, that whole tax thing is just right-wing lunacy, you know.

Jay Cost at RealClearPolitics provides us with some fascinating analysis that explains why we're seeing such a wide array of polling data showing everything from mid-50s opposition to mid-60s support for OKDC.  I strongly urge you to take a look at this link to see all the details.  The short version is that it depends entirely upon the literal wording of the individual poll, and these polling organizations know that.  I'll just pass along his look at Rasmussen (emphasis mine):

He has offered a series of really interesting questions on health care. First, he gives a basic version of the question that ABC News/WaPo, CBS News/NY Times, Marist, and CNN asked:

Would you favor or oppose the creation of a government-sponsored non-profit health insurance option that people could choose instead of a private health insurance plan?

That gets strong approval, as per usual when people hear words like "choose," "compete," and "option."
Then Rasmussen asks this follow up:

Suppose that the creation of a government-sponsored non-profit health insurance option encouraged companies to drop private health insurance coverage for their workers. Workers would then be covered by the government option. Would you favor or oppose the creation of a government-sponsored non-profit health insurance option if it encouraged companies to drop private health insurance coverage for their workers?

What happens when this Republican argument is substituted for the Democratic argument? Support for the public option plummets dramatically. Nearly 3/5ths of all respondents voiced opposition to the public option when it was phrased in this way.

Additionally, Rasmussen asked whether respondents thought the public option would save taxpayers money (they didn't), whether they thought it would offer better health insurance than private insurance (again, no), and whether people preferred to have a public option or a guarantee that nobody will lose their current coverage (the guarantee won in a landslide).

These results are very consequential. After all, Rasmussen is holding a lot of factors constant, enabling us to observe: same poll + same methodology + different frame for the question = different answer. That strongly suggests that the frame used for the public option question goes a long way in determining the answer the public gives.

This is why Rasmussen is the best polling place out there right now.  It also helps explain how some of these polls are being manufactured to show artificially high levels of support.  Bottom line: America wants health care reform, but not a government takeover of health care.

You know they're desperate when this is Obama's latest plea for support:

Apparently the secret to passing ObamaCare is for the President to acknowledge that all Members of Congress have something they don’t like about the bill, but to vote for it regardless:
AP reports the President said in New York yesterday:

“The bill you least like” improves coverage for millions, he said in New York. “Let’s make sure that we keep our eye on the prize.”

Vote for 'the bill you like least'?!  What is that?  It's desperation, that's what.  They can feel the momentum is going against The Obamessiah, and they're tring to spin things much better than they really are.  RedState highlights why this vote is so tough, even for many Democrats:

ObamaCare is not a single tough vote. It’s a tough vote on taxes, on abortion, on Medicare cuts, on illegal immigration, on guns, on government control, on the deficit and on spending. And it is a tough year for Democrats in the U.S. Senate. It’s a tough year for President Obama, who suffered the sharpest drop in any President’s approval rating in more than 50 years, according to Gallup.

And that's where you and I come in.  If we can make our elected reps more worried about being voted home than about what Obama is threatening to do to them, this can still be defeated.  But that will only happen with sustained, confident opposition every day until the votes are cast.

There's my two cents.