Jmhconsult, LLC Blog

Tort reform is a bipartisan must
By: Rep. Darrell Issa
February 25, 2010 05:17 AM EST
POLITICO

Now that his yearlong partisan push for government-run health care has so far failed to produce legislative results, President Barack Obama wants Republicans to join him for another White House summit to see if he can salvage his proposals. But unless the president and congressional Democrats address the need for tort reform as a critical component of cutting health care costs, a bipartisan solution seems unlikely.

The unsustainable path of rising costs is a serious national problem. Currently, health care spending exceeds $2.5 trillion per year. By 2019, it is expected to top $4.7 trillion per year. Any hope for cost containment would involve comprehensive medical malpractice reform to end the practice of defensive medicine, close the loopholes that allow frivolous lawsuits to clog up the system, and set reasonable limits on jury awards.

The president seems to think that eliminating wasteful spending alone would get Americans on track to more affordable coverage. But the government’s track record of recouping its losses from waste, fraud and abuse leaves something to be desired. In 2008, for example, the government recovered a meager $35 million from criminal prosecution of fraud once enforcement costs were factored in. Real savings would start when Congress tackles the billion-dollar problem of defensive medicine.

Defensive medicine — when doctors order unnecessary and usually expensive tests and procedures in order to avoid lawsuits — is a major contributor to skyrocketing health care costs. As much as $210 billion is spent on defensive medicine annually — equal to $700 for every U.S. man, woman and child. This helps drive up insurance premiums that are already too high for many Americans. And the excessive malpractice litigation inevitably leads to physician shortages — especially among obstetricians, neurosurgeons and emergency room physicians.

Fewer doctors mean reduced access to medical care for everybody. New Jersey, for example, will be short 2,800 family doctors and specialists by the year 2020, according to a recent report from the New Jersey Council of Teaching Hospitals. The reason for the shortage, council President Richard Goldstein says, is a “morale problem” because of the state’s “hostile” environment for doctors and the heightened threat of malpractice lawsuits.

As long as out-of-control malpractice premiums are built into medical costs, many will never be able to afford coverage. Shamefully, it is estimated that the cost of defensive medicine and the associated liability-based medical care costs account for at least 3.4 million uninsured Americans.

Moreover, the current system is studded with irresponsible lawyers’ fees associated with malpractice claims that do not involve injury or medical error. A large share of the awards goes to pad the pockets of plaintiffs’ attorneys. Recently, the Manhattan Institute concluded that approximately 10 cents of every dollar paid for health care services goes to cover malpractice premiums, defensive medicine and other costs associated with excessive litigation.

Tort reform that reduces frivolous lawsuits and caps outrageous jury awards is a critical component of any solution to bring the cost of health care within reach of every American. So far, however, the president has barely mentioned it.

If bipartisan support is what he’s after, the president needs to do more than host Republicans at the White House for a chat. He’s going to have to get serious about the damage being done to U.S. health care by frivolous lawsuits and the cost of defensive medicine, which real reforms could correct.

Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) is the ranking member of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

How the White House lost its message
By Alexander Bolton – 02/24/10 08:21 PM ET
The Hill

The White House fumbled the message on healthcare reform and left President Barack Obama’s administration hanging in the balance, according to Democratic lawmakers and senior aides.

In his first year, Obama failed to use the bully pulpit effectively and rally the public around one proposal early in the debate, despite polls showing strong support for core elements of the Democratic plan, the lawmakers and aides told The Hill.

That left an opening for Republicans, who convinced the public that the White House was pushing a massive government takeover of healthcare.
“We did a very poor job in framing this debate and presenting the issues to the America people. I don’t think the White House used its bully pulpit effectively,” said Sen. Mary Landrieu, a centrist Democrat from Louisiana who came under strong pressure from the GOP to oppose the Senate bill.

A senior House Democratic aide put it even more bluntly: “We lost the message fight on healthcare.”

Democrats say a challenging communications job was made more difficult by competing legislation and the absence of any clear direction from the White House on which approach was best.

“There were so many bills,” said Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), noting that two Senate committees and three House panels produced legislation.

“That was the problem with the approach,” said Feinstein. “No one ever knew what you were talking about and [the president] spoke in general terms; he didn’t say, ‘Here’s my bill, it’s on the Web.’ ”

The White House did not respond to a request for comment.

Mike McCurry, who served as press secretary to former President Bill Clinton, said Obama’s press team has faced the most difficult media environment in 40 years.

McCurry argued that the diminishing influence of daily newspapers and network television, combined with the raw, chaotic power of cable news, talk radio and the Internet, has made it very difficult for White House advisers to manage the message.

“They’re adjusting to the new history they’re in,” McCurry said of Obama’s press team. “They’re utterly encumbered by the historic transformation of the media itself.”

McCurry noted that when Clinton served as president, two-thirds of Americans got their news from nightly television broadcasts. A 2008 Pew Research Center poll showed that only 32 percent of the public regularly learned of political news from nightly network broadcasts.

In an attempt to respond to huge changes in the media environment, McCurry said the White House press operation has undergone the biggest transformation since the administration of Richard Nixon, who established separate offices for the press secretary and the communications director.

McCurry said Obama has held about the same number of formal press conferences as his predecessors, but many more targeted media interviews.

Mark Feldstein, an associate professor of media and public affairs at George Washington University, who is writing a book on Nixon’s press operation and its impact on subsequent presidencies, said Democratic presidents have typically lagged behind Republicans.

Feldstein said the Nixon administration marked “the beginning of the modern White House propaganda machine,” which he said former President Ronald Reagan and his aides perfected.

Feldstein ranked Obama’s press operation in the bottom half of presidents since Nixon.

“It’s been surprising how weak the Obama message machine has been since he has been elected president,” Feldstein said. “Too often they’ve turned to Obama’s oratory to save the day as a last resort to clean up the message mess.”

Democrats say the messaging defeat is frustrating because polls show most Americans support the components of pending healthcare legislation, such as healthcare subsidies, insurance exchanges and a ban on discriminating against pre-existing medical conditions.
But Democrats are optimistic this week could mark a turning point in the healthcare debate because of the bipartisan healthcare summit at the White House on Thursday. A significant development, lawmakers and aides say, was the release of Obama’s healthcare proposal on Monday.

The proposal hews closely to the Senate bill but includes important changes demanded by House lawmakers. Democrats say this will give them a single platform to rally on. The summit, they say, will put pressure on Republicans to offer competing proposals.

“It could potentially be a very smart move,” said Landrieu.

Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) said he wanted the president to become more engaged in the effort to pass a bill. He said he sees signs that is happening now.

Lanny Davis, a White House counsel in the Clinton administration and a columnist for The Hill, said the Obama administration had difficulty managing the message on healthcare reform because of what he called a “cacophony” of Democratic voices on the complex issue.

Liberal lawmakers and activists made loud demands for a government-run insurance program, while centrists such as Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) insisted on spending weeks negotiating an elusive compromise with Republicans on his panel.

Democrats on Capitol Hill also sparred over whether to tax millionaires or high-cost health plans to pay for the proposal and whether to impose a mandate on employers.

But Democrats acknowledge they were also hurt by wonky policy jargon, such as Obama’s repeated pledge to “bend the cost curve,” while Republicans used visceral arguments to turn the tide of public opinion. The most prominent example was the Republican-fostered rumor that healthcare reform would institute so-called “death panels” to ration care for the elderly and infirm.

“They used the politics of fear,” Feinstein said of the GOP.

Feinstein said the time has come for Obama to become fully engaged in the healthcare debate, claiming his presidency is at stake.

“I would urge the president to play a very dominant role, to use his bully pulpit and to push,” Feinstein said. “He has now, essentially, in a sense staked his presidency on this bill.”

Corker predicts ‘lots’ of GOP support for financial reform bill
By Michael O’Brien – 02/25/10 10:42 AM ET
The Hill

Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) said he expects “lots” of Republican support for a forthcoming financial reform bill.

Corker, a member of the Senate Banking Committee who joined with Chairman Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) and other committee Democrats to negotiate financial reform legislation, said a bill was coming soon, but wouldn’t say for sure whether it’d come next week.

“I think we’re going to get to a place soon on a bill that’s going to stand the test of time,” Corker said during an appearance on CNBC. “I think there’s going to be lots of Republicans who come on board.”

Talks had broken down earlier this month between Dodd and the top Republican member of the committee, Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.). The breakdown in talks over the Senate around the creation of a standalone Consumer Financial Protection Agency.

Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.), another member of the Banking committee who’s close to Corker, said that Wall Street shouldn’t have to worry about too stringent of an agency.

“I think the market will react favorably to what we’ve seen,” Warner said of the forthcoming bill.

Corker said he’d talked frequently with Shelby in recent days — including twice on Wednesday — and expressed optimism with the tone of those conversations.

Sen. McCain ‘doesn’t understand’ Sen. Reid’s repeated attacks on him
By J. Taylor Rushing and Bob Cusack – 02/25/10 06:00 AM ET
The Hill

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said Wednesday he is confused about his relationship with Harry Reid (D-Nev.), noting that the majority leader has a habit of lambasting him one day and praising him the next.

In an interview with The Hill, McCain said, “It’s very confusing because he was very personal in his attacks on me during the [2008 presidential] campaign, and then occasionally he’ll stand up on the floor of the Senate and say, ‘Oh, this good guy McCain.’ I don’t understand this. I don’t understand it.”

Following the 2008 election, Reid said he and McCain patched things up, but McCain downplayed that conversation: “Well, he came over and said he wanted to work together in the Senate. Sure.”
With a shrug and a laugh, McCain said, “I don’t hold any grudges. It’s just paradoxical some of the things he says. One day he’ll go out there and say one thing, and then the next day he’ll say another. You’ll have to ask him about what apparently are contrasting views about me…. He’s a bit contradictory.”

Reid spokesman Jim Manley declined to comment.

Reid and McCain came into the House in 1982 and both joined the Senate four years later. They are both navigating challenging reelection fights in neighboring Southwestern states that have been socked by the economic recession. Nevada’s housing market is the hardest-hit in the country; Arizona’s is second-worst.

In 2004, McCain and Reid — who are both avid boxing fans — attended a championship fight together in Nevada.

The 2008 election changed much between the two men. During the election year, Reid said he “couldn’t stand” McCain and labeled his campaign tactics “scummy.” He later acknowledged he had “said things I wish I hadn’t said.”

But the tension resurfaced. Reid recently accused McCain of flip-flopping on his support for Medicare and described him as a “name-caller. In a January New York Times article, Reid was quoted saying McCain has failed to live up to his potential as a “statesman” since the election.

Earlier this month, Reid said, “John has no reason to be the way he is. He’s become very, very kind of opposed to everything.”

McCain has sometimes returned fire. Minutes after Reid accused McCain of flip-flopping on Medicare cuts, McCain went to the floor and fired back at the majority leader.

Over the last year, McCain has become one of the most consistent critics of President Barack Obama and Reid’s legislative agenda. More than a few have said he’s bitter about losing the race.

Not so, says McCain.

“I am the luckiest guy who has ever lived that I’ve ever known,” McCain said. “For me to look back in anger, I mean, it’s just foolish. Some people say, ‘He’s bitter, he’s resentful.’ I’m not. I’m grateful.”

McCain, known for his strong opposition to earmarks and attempts to reduce federal spending, is skeptical that Republicans have learned their lesson from the last two elections.
Asked if the GOP is ready to govern, McCain laughs and says, “We’re always ready to govern.

“We have to convince these independent voters out there that we did learn our lesson about spending and we will be fiscally responsible,” he said.

“You’ll notice that the approval ratings of Republicans hasn’t shot up. You’ll notice that the voter registrations for Republicans haven’t dramatically increased. So we still have a real sales job to do.”

McCain is facing what could be a challenging primary with former Rep. J.D. Hayworth. Even though polls show him comfortably ahead, McCain is taking nothing for granted.

“I know I’m in a tough fight. I’ve taken every campaign I’ve been in seriously. I take this one seriously,” he said.

McCain has enlisted his 2008 running mate, former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, to campaign for him in Arizona. Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.) is also coming to Arizona next week to return the favor McCain paid him as an early supporter of his campaign.

And Mitt Romney, who ripped McCain regularly during the 2008 presidential primary, endorsed McCain this week.

McCain said he reached out to ask Palin, adding that the two talk “every few weeks.” He called Romney’s endorsement “very important.”

“He clearly ran a very impressive campaign in ’08,” McCain said of Romney. “Two, there are a lot of admirers of Gov. Romney in my state. He did very well in Arizona in the primary. And he’s viewed by many — I think very appropriately — as one of the leading candidates for the Republican nomination in 2012.”

Leaning back in a chair in his Russell Senate Office Building suite, decorated with Southwestern-motif paintings, McCain brushed off conservative commentator Rush Limbaugh’s criticism of Romney for endorsing McCain.
McCain doesn’t bite much at questions about what he would have done differently in the presidential race. But he does say it made his skin thicker.

“You learn, you grow … you learn to roll with the punches,” he said.

He called the Tea Party “a potent political force,” saying it “represents the frustration and dissatisfaction of Americans toward Washington and the Congress and the president.”

McCain said the so-called “birther” movement — a vocal group that has questioned Obama’s U.S. citizenship — “doesn’t have very much influence” among Republicans or the Tea Party. Hayworth aligned himself with the movement in a CNN interview this week in which he said “it would be great if people can confirm who they say they are.”

McCain’s campaign pounced, highlighting the statement in an e-mail to reporters.
The 73-year-old senator said he hasn’t been asked by Florida Gov. Charlie Crist (R) to campaign for him in his GOP primary battle with former state House Speaker Marco Rubio (R), but that he would be willing.

Crist and then-Sen. Mel Martinez (R) gave McCain a critical endorsement in the waning days of Florida’s GOP presidential primary in 2008 that helped McCain defeat Romney and former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani. Both dropped out of the primary race within days, clearing McCain’s path to the GOP nomination.

“Sure, I’d be glad to try to help him,” McCain said of Crist, who is under fire from conservatives for backing Obama’s stimulus package.

A month after Obama’s one-year anniversary in office, McCain declined to offer a grade on the president’s performance, but indicated he would grade much lower than the B+ that Obama gave himself.

However, McCain said Obama has acted wisely in trying to improve America’s image abroad and increase U.S. troop levels in Afghanistan.

“But domestically, I have to say very frankly that America is a right-of-center nation and he’s governing from the left,” McCain said. “That is why the American people have expressed their dissatisfaction.”

On the eve of the healthcare summit at the White House, which McCain will be attending, he also said Obama’s apparent strategy to push the bill through the Senate without GOP support contradicts his campaign-trail pledge to seek bipartisanship. Obama and Reid appear poised to use reconciliation rules to get the bill through the Senate with a simple majority.

“They’re in a very difficult position,” McCain said of Democrats.

“If they do nothing, they have failed for a year in the view of most observers. But if they jam something through with reconciliation, then they risk a backlash.”

Cracking a smile, McCain said, “Obviously, I prefer option A.”

The Big Question: What can Democrats do to get a jobs bill passed?
By Sydelle Moore – 02/19/10 11:09 AM ET
The Hill

Some of the nation’s top political commentators, legislators and intellectuals offer their insight into the biggest question burning up the blogosphere today.
Today’s question:

Senate Democrats are scrambling to find votes to pass their jobs legislation. What do they need to do to pass a bill?

Frank Askin, professor of law at Rutgers University, said:

If reconciliation is not possible on this issue, make the Republicans filibuster night and day against JOBS. No virtual filibuster, a real filibuster with the cots in the Senate cloak room.

Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit said:

The stimulus failed to deliver on Administration promises that it would keep unemployment below 8%. It didn’t even keep it below 10%. There is little reason to believe that more wasteful spending will somehow do better.

The most stimulative thing the Administration could do would be to promise not to pass any more big spending or regulatory bills until after 2012. Aside from the lousy underlying conditions, the biggest drag on the economy is the regime-uncertainty cloud that hangs over any sort of business plan.

Peter Navarro, professor of economics and public policy at U.C. Irvine, said:

Democrats should offer this: For every new dollar they want to spend for the new jobs bill, they should cut an old dollar from the old stimulus bill that has yet to be spent AND is not scheduled to be spent until 2011. One of the big problems with the 2009 stimulus bill has been its lack of timeliness. This approach would be both timely and fiscally prudent. We don’t need a 2011 stimulus.

Hal Lewis, professor of Physics at UC Santa Barbara, said:

The usual big-city politics way. Strong-arm as many as you can, buy enough more to get a one-vote majority, and then ram it through. But beware the long-term consequences in public trust. I do think that many of them are beginning to learn that.

John F. McManus, president of The John Birch Society, said:

The Democrats need to find enough Republicans who will join them in completely ignoring the Constitution. Simply stated, it is not a function of government to “create” jobs. It is the government’s function to get out of the way so American entrepreneurs can create jobs.

The greatest employer in recent months has been the federal government. If government hires the people, or supplies money for some others to hire the people, the government grows toward total control. The old Soviet Union had full employment – everyone working for the state. The “jobs bill” being proposed would have truly delighted Nikita Khrushchev, Joe Stalin and a long line of totalitarian socialists.

Justin Raimondo, editorial director of Antiwar.com, said:

What they need to pass a bill is a majority — or, these days, a
super-majority that is filibuster-proof.

They also need to convince the more sensible wing of their party that
spending more money and going into debt is somehow going to “solve”
the jobs problem. Of course, the Democrats are good at providing
government “jobs” — it’s real jobs that are the stumbling block. I
hear real estate prices are up in D.C. — while here in California
they’re plummeting. Until and unless they can fix that, the Democrats’ “job-creation” bill is going to be just another albatross around the party’s neck.

Brad Delong, professor of economics at the U.C. Berkley, said:

What was the appropriate scale of additional deficit spending when (a) short-term interest rates are zero, (b) long-term interest rates are at historic lows, (c) the unemployment rate was 7.3% and was expected to rise to 9%? That was the question the incoming Obama administration faced at the start of December 2008. The answer that Christie Romer and Jared Bernstein calculated was $1.2 trillion over the next three years. Instead, the Senate passed a package that contained about $600 billion of extra stimulative deficit spending — about three quarters of which will have gone out the door by the end of this fiscal year in September.

Now (a) short-term interest rates are zero, (b) long-term interest rates are at historic lows, (c) the unemployment rate is 9.7% and was expected to stay stable for a while. And what is the appropriate scale of additional deficit spending?

The same chain of logic that led Christie Romer and Jared Bernstein to — correctly — say $1.2 trillion in December 2008 should be leading us right now to go for another stimulus at least as large right now — say $1.4 trillion, in order to get the total stimulus spending up to $2 trillion. That’s what the technocratic logic tells us, and what the technocratic logic will continue to tell us until long-term interest rates start rising or unemployment falls significantly.

Instead of $1.4 trillion, however, theSenate is talking about $15 billion — 1% of what we need.

Don’t get me wrong: $15 billion is better than zero. But it is a drop in the ocean relative to the need.

Lautenberg diagnosed with cancer, will miss Monday jobs bill vote
By Eric Zimmermann – 02/19/10 12:01 PM ET
The Hill

Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) has been diagnosed with stomach cancer, his office announced Friday.

The New Jersey Democrat was hospitalized last week with a bleeding ulcer. Doctors have now determined it was caused by B-cell lymphoma.

Lautenberg’s office said the 86-year-old senator would immediately begin chemotherapy for the cancer, which they characterized as treatable.

But the Demcorat will miss Monday’s cloture vote on the jobs bill. Democrats will now need at least two Republican votes to cut off debate.

Lautenberg’s office released a statement from his oncologist on Friday predicting he’d make a complete recovery and would be back to work soon.

“We expect a full and complete recovery for Sen. Lautenberg,” said Dr. James Holland of Mount Sinai Medical Center.

“The senator will be treated with chemotherapy administered approximately every three weeks. We anticipate that he will receive between six and eight treatments, and in between treatments, the senator is expected to be back at work in the Senate,” Holland added.

A spokesman for Lautenberg tells the Newark Star-Ledger that the 86-year-old senator will finish out his current term and plans to run for reelection in 2014.