When Reality Hits

While I have no doubt that the republicans will continue to wage an all-out deceitful campaign about the health care bill that, Lord willing, passes Congress and is signed into law, the reality of the good it does will rapidly become apparent - as long as Dems aren't afraid of going out and selling it. Our President started that process yesterday win a speech to House Dems:

The American people will suddenly learn that this bill does things they like and doesn't do things that people have been trying to say it does. Their worst fears will prove groundless, and the American people's hope for a fair shake from their insurance companies for quality, affordable health care they need will finally be realized.
...
If Republicans want to campaign against what we've done by standing up for the status quo and for insurance companies over American families and businesses, that is a fight I want to have. If their best idea is to return to the bad policies and the bad ideas of yesterday, they are going to lose that argument.

Exactly right. The core reason republicans are fighting this now, and fought it in 1994, is that they realize substantive health care reform would not only be popular, but also that it would demonstrate in a very personal way that government can work to make peoples lives substantially better. Which is exactly the opposite of their core message and beliefs. It doesn't matter to them if this is good policy for America, because they see it as bad for their political prospects.

Sadly, the Fox News/RW Radio people will never be exposed to these ideas through their preferred media, just as they have not been exposed to the unanimous economist's analysis that the stimulus bill is accomplishing precisely what it was designed to accomplish. They have their own reality that is very difficult to penetrate. However, as they, and people they know, suddenly find themselves with access to health insurance/care that was previously denied them, that new reality will start to penetrate. One would hope.
Sullivan: Palin's FNC/RNC Ratings

A smash hit. Ailes' tactic is vindicated. And the media-political-industrial complex grinds forward.

Benen: OBAMA HINTS AT ELECTION-YEAR MESSAGE WITH HOUSE DEMS

President Obama delivered a speech to the House Democratic Caucus Retreat late yesterday afternoon, and made it clear why the chamber is his favorite. He noted that it's "amazing" that "out of the major initiatives we were talking about before we took office, you've either completed or set the stage for almost all of them."

Indeed, the House's to-do list features a lot of checkmarks, which the president was only too pleased to emphasize: economic recovery, health care, cap and trade, Wall Street reform, Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay act, SCHIP, reducing Pentagon waste, cutting spending, reforming credit card rules, regulating the tobacco industry, a new national service bill, expanded hate-crime protections, new investments in education, etc. "In one of America's darkest hours, you answered the call," the president said. "Time and again you stood up and you led."

Specifically on health care, Obama acknowledged "how big a lift this has been." He conceded that he's seen the polls and the "occasional blog post or cable clip that breathlessly declares what something means for a political party, without really talking much about what it means for a country." But the president is nevertheless confident in the message he and other Dems can take to the country:

"The American people will suddenly learn that this bill does things they like and doesn't do things that people have been trying to say it does. Their worst fears will prove groundless, and the American people's hope for a fair shake from their insurance companies for quality, affordable health care they need will finally be realized.

"This year alone, this reform will ban some of the worst practices of the insurance industry forever. They'll no longer be allowed to refuse coverage for preexisting conditions for children or drop coverage when folks get sick and need it the most. They'll no longer be allowed to impose restrictive annual limits on the amount of coverage that you receive, lifetime limits on the amounts of benefits received. They'll be required to offer free preventive care -- like checkups and routine tests and mammograms -- at no cost. Patients will have rights. They will get what they pay for. And that's just the beginning."

And what about the politics of the debate and the 2010 elections?

"Well, let me tell you something. If Republicans want to campaign against what we've done by standing up for the status quo and for insurance companies over American families and businesses, that is a fight I want to have. If their best idea is to return to the bad policies and the bad ideas of yesterday, they are going to lose that argument. What are they going to say? 'Well, you know, the old system really worked well; let's go back to the way it was'? That's not going to appeal to seniors who are now seeing the possibility of that doughnut hole finally closing and so they can finally get discounts on their prescriptions. That's not going to appeal to the small businesses who find out all the tax credits that they're going to get for doing right by their employees -- something that they have been wanting to do, but may not have been able to afford. It's not going to be very appealing to Americans who for the first time are going to find out that they can provide coverage to their children, their dependents, all the way up to the age of 26 or 27.

"And that's why I'll be out there waging a great campaign from one end of the country to the other, telling Americans with insurance or without what they stand to gain; about the arsenal of consumer protections; about the long-awaited stability that they're going to begin to experience. And I'm going to tell them that I am proud we are putting the future of America before the politics of the moment -- the next generation before the next election. And that, after all, is what we were sent up here to do: standing up for the American people against the special interests; solve problems that we've been talking about for decades; make their lives a little bit better; make tough choices sometimes when they're unpopular. And that's something that every one of you who support this bill can be proud to campaign on in November."

It's not a bad message for the electorate over the next 10 or so months.

• from the comments:
  

  OK - President Obama will probably blow the house down with his SOTU address, yet some random Republican (joe wilson) will yell something really awful in order to raise massive amounts of money which will also have the effect of pushing the Presidents message out of the limelight, off the frint pages, and cause John McCain to appear on every Sunday talk show for the entire month of February.

  I really hate Republicans and their sleazy tactics.

  Posted by: bcinaz on January 15, 2010 at 8:50 AM

Sargent: Vicki Kennedy: Yes, It’s The People’s Seat, But Coakley Would Carry On Teddy’s Legacy

The Martha Coakley campaign goes up with a new spot starring Vicki Kennedy, in which she pushes back on Republican claims that Dems feel entitled to the Massachusetts seat because of the identity of its previous inhabitant:

“Tuesday’s election is to fill the term my husband didn’t have a chance to complete,” Vicki says in the spot. “But it’s not the Kennedy seat. It’s the people’s seat — the mother struggling to make ends meet, the father trying to find a job. My husband fought for them, and so does Martha Coakley.”

This is a response to Scott Brown’s now-infamous jab, in which he said it’s not “the Kennedy seat” and is instead “the people’s seat.” As Ben Smith notes, it’s a sign that Brown’s crack is framing the debate. And some D.C. pundits have pronounced themselves transfixed by Brown’s cleverness.

But there’s another level to Brown’s remark that’s worth looking at. Brown recast the claim by Democrats that Coakley is the rightful heir, policy-wise, to Kennedy’s seat as merely reflecting a sense of Dem entitlement to the seat.

But it’s an objectively true fact that in policy terms Coakley would seek to build on Kennedy’s legacy and would support an agenda that reflects Kennedy’s principles and priorities. Brown, by contrast, would do the opposite. Those so taken with Brown’s cleverness might point out this underlying reality, too.

Bellantoni (TPM): Health Care Talks Went Into Wee Hours At White House

After a big hurdle was cleared yesterday when the White House struck a deal with Congressional leaders and labor unions on the excise tax, the team went right back to negotiating late last night.

An administration official told us that several top leaders huddled in the Cabinet room from 9:15 p.m. until 1:25 a.m. That's after a more than 8-hour meeting Wednesday. (President Obama left just before 1 a.m., the official said.)

"The President and congressional leaders continued to work through the differences in the health bills. They made solid progress toward a final package, including common-sense adjustments that strengthen the legislation and make sure it works for middle-class families while bringing down costs and expanding coverage to millions of Americans," the official said.

Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) was at the White House this week discussing health care, TPMDC has learned. Officials wouldn't disclose details of what was discussed, but to be sure Obama and Democratic leaders want to make sure they keep his vote in place for the final health care compromise.

Members attending last night's meeting after the jump.

Speaker Pelosi
Leader Hoyer
Congressman Clyburn
Chairman Miller
Chairman Rangel
Chairman Waxman
Leader Reid
Senator Durbin
Senator Schumer
Chairman Baucus
Chairman Dodd
Chairman Harkin
-- Secretary Sebelius attended a portion of the meeting.
-- Staff attending this evening included Rahm Emanuel, Phil Schiliro, and Nancy-Ann DeParle

Here is the White House's description of the excise tax deal:

Ø Include permanent adjustments based on age, gender and high-risk professions - factors that affect the cost of health plans regardless of the generosity of the benefits they provide. This makes good sense, as it focuses the impact on plans that provide the highest-cost benefits - not those that happen to cover the highest-cost workers.

Ø Phases in an exemption of the cost of dental and vision plans from the cost of coverage. These benefits are outside the core health spending which this provision is aimed at slowing.

Ø Provide transition relief to help employers, insurers and workers adjust to the permanent provision. This includes a transition period for high-cost states, as well as providing health plans for state and local workers and collectively bargained plans a 5-year transition window before being subject to the tax. This is similar to the approach in other areas of the bill - including insurance market reforms and the insurer fee - where transition periods are built in to give stakeholders time to adjust.

Ezra Klein: Do national exchanges wreck Ben Nelson's abortion compromise?

A few of you have been asking me about this, so I may as well put it up on the blog. The abortion compromise that brought Ben Nelson onto the bill essentially calls for states to do whatever they want within their own exchanges. Moving to a national exchange, as the House bill suggests, sounds like it could muck that up.

But it only sounds that way. The national exchange envisioned in the House bill is not national in the sense of being one exchange serving the nation. It's still a separate exchange in each and every state. The difference between the House and Senate bills is that the Senate lets the states regulate and administer those exchanges unless they prove unable to do so while the House bill hands the federal government the job unless the states ask to do it themselves. To put it more simply, the national exchange is really just a federally-regulated state exchange. There's no reason that should harm the Nelson compromise, as different states will still be able to choose different ways forward on abortion.