TPMDC

Republican Aide Cautions Use of AHIP Report: Check Your Donations First

Spread the word and support this article by retweeting it!

Share

Twitter Facebook Fark Reddit Send to a Friend

Send to a friend!

To email:    Your Name:    Your email:

We've been keeping a close eye today on Republicans using the new AHIP report to talk about the health care bill leading to rising insurance costs.

Spokesman Kurt Bardella of Rep. Darrell Issa's (R-CA) office told TPMDC that Republicans are sure to use the report as justification for opposing the plan. But he cautioned the minority party must "strike the right balance" between the report showing premiums would rise and "trying to avoid the perception they are doing the insurance industry's bidding."

"Any Republican that uses the report should double-check to see how much money they've received from the industry as that'll be a very easy rebuttal for Dems to hit back," Bardella said.

He views the report as "ample ammunition" for critics of the health care bill and said that it can be used by Republicans as I-told-you-so proof once a bill passes if premiums do rise over the next decade.

"Democrats won't be able to feign surprise or cast it as an unintended consequence - they've been warned and if their health care reform plan - which, right or wrong, seeks to minimize private insurers, results in a defacto tax increase for middle-class Americans - it could prove to be politically devastating," Bardella said.

House Republicans have emerged as a united group since President Obama took office, giving up nearly zero votes on key administration measures all year. That's unlikely to change, even though Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius last week met with the conservative House Republican Study Committee.

RSC Chairman Rep. Tom Price (R-GA) told TPMDC they had a "candidate and robust" talk with the secretary and 40 members. Sebelius didn't try to sell the plan since she knew she was facing staunch critics. Instead she opened it up to questions right away, he said.

"If the bill doesn't change significantly I would not anticipate any yes votes from our committee," he said.

One discussion point was a complaint the administration has held up Tennessee's health care system as a model, since the committee believes that failed "miserably," he said.

Price said Sebelius told the Republicans she would evaluate and consider their ideas.

A Sebelius spokesman said it was a "productive" talk, adding, "We are always open to good ideas that will help provide stability and security for Americans with insurance and affordable options for uninsured Americans. The President's plan contains good proposals from both parties and the bill he signs will be built on bipartisan ideas."

Join the Conversation!

11 comments

Recommend Recommend (0)

October 12, 2009 11:52 AM   

Well, now we know why Republicans wanted to delay the SFC vote for 72 hours! Gave their favorite industry sugar daddies, the insurance company, just enough time to push out their own bogus report ...

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 12, 2009 12:29 PM    in reply to mk3872

Exactly. Just like they knew the August Teabagger townhalls were coming, they knew this AHIP report was coming. And Baucus keeps playing exactly into their plans - only this time it might ahve burnt him.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 12, 2009 12:38 PM    in reply to Walter Mitty

The think is -- if AHIP had just stuck to the individual mandate penalty, even progressives would have been sympathetic to their cause as they had a legitimate case on that issue. But AHIP decided to play Betsy McCaughey instead, so they get this kind of ridicule.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 12, 2009 12:00 PM   

"it can be used by Republicans as I-told-you-so proof once a bill passes if premiums do rise over the next decade."

Sure, but this is like trusting McDonald's saying that a Big Mac value meal is good for you as you'll get 50% of your daily requirement of vitamin C from eating it.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 12, 2009 12:00 PM   

I don't see this report getting much traction with the public. They already distrust insurance companies, so a report like this is more likely to have the opposite of the intended effect. If the AHIP report had been strongly in favor, that would have gotten people thinking.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 12, 2009 12:35 PM    in reply to mans_best_friend

I agree, Goofy. I agree with AHIP, as does Jonathan Cohn, that the penalty for the individual mandate is too small, and would punish Joe & Jane Q. policyholder with higher premiums because Hank Healthy and Yani Young decided not having health insurance was a better return for their investment as a good portion of their premiums from the community rating would go to subsidize Joe and Jane Q. policyholder's premiums.

I think had AHIP just stuck to the individual mandate, where they had legitimate concerns that even progressives would have acknowledged, they would have been fine. But instead they had to play Betsy McCaughey. ...

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 12, 2009 12:01 PM   

Great news, screw the Baucus bill. How about a Public Option to control those costs? Dems should be using this to their advantage as well. The Baucus bill wasn't their plan anyway.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 12, 2009 12:25 PM   

Ezra Klein nails it

But if the PWC's report doesn't offer much in the way of trustworthy policy analysis, it is an interesting looking at the changing politics of the issue. In short, the insurance industry is getting scared. After many months of quiet constructiveness, they're launching a broadside on the week of the Senate Finance Committee's vote. The White House, which had a pleasant meeting with the industry's leadership last week, was shocked by the report, and so too was the Senate Finance Committee. The era of cooperation seems to be over, and they weren't given much advance warning. But the report might have another impact, too: The evident anger and fear of the insurance industry might do a bit to reassure liberals that this plan is worth supporting, after all.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/10/the_insurance_industrys_decept.html

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 12, 2009 12:27 PM   

Ah, Kurt Bardella: the thinking man's Republican. And, a brilliant strategist!

Let's simply trot out those relatively insignificant and unimportant members of Congress who's committee assignments won't have placed them in the position of currying the favor of their corporate partners. And, be sure to silence and shield those Republican members who are the recipients of obscene amounts of insurance industry 'donations' from the limelight.

The Democrats will never notice. And, the public? Why, they are already baffled and confused by who administers those death panels anyway. Brilliant!

Never mind the non-partisan CBO analysis: let's go with 'research' bought and paid for by the affected industry.

Seriously… are Republicans so stupid that they must publicly test their strategic messages in cases like this?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 12, 2009 1:48 PM   

Pass a public option and double-dog-dare health insurance companies to raise rates. Even they are not greedy enough to slit their own throats so quickly. That's what we have derivative markets for.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 13, 2009 3:56 AM   

I have yet to read why the AHIP report is bogus. Ezra compares insurers to the tobacco industry and challenges PWC's fitness to audit public companies. That's not what I would call "nailing it." So far the only actual refuting data consists of a couple of bar graphs "proving" that no one will pay more than 13% of income for premiums. Duh! The law says the government will pay anything above that. But who pays the government--the Chinese?

My expectation is that the AHIP report will prove prescient and the whole scheme is unworkable. Still it may pass because other stakeholders will lean on Congress to kick the can down the road at taxpayers' expense rather than accepting any real cost controls.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Leave a comment

Your response:

Follow us!

PollTracker

More polls »

Most Popular

TPM Stories Now Surging on