Video of the Week: “We have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it”
Author: Marguerite HigginsYou might have seen this week a stunning demonstration of political condescension on the health care front. In remarks at the 2010 Legislative Conference for the National Association of Counties, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said, “But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of controversy.”
This revealing comment reinforces a patriarchal (or in Pelosi’s case matriarchal) attitude Congress has taken with the American public: What lurks within the House and Senate health care bills will be revealed in the fullness of time, and it’s really good for us if we only knew better.
Ordinary Americans have had a common-sense resistance to Washington’s feverish attempt to overhaul one-sixth of the U.S. economy. But Congressional leadership has ignored the public’s concerns and instead clung to the idea that if they simply ram the bill through the legislative process — using unprecedented tactical maneuvers that may not even pass the parliamentarian’s smell test—Americans will finally understand and embrace ObamaCare.
When it’s law, then Americans can finally grasp the “goodness” of what’s in the 2,700-plus-page Senate bill, which is the most likely legislative vehicle that Congress will push to President Barack Obama’s desk. The problem for Pelosi and congressional Democrats is that Americans have been reading these bills, and they don’t like what they’re reading.
The more the public learns about the taxes, individual mandates, taxpayer-funded abortion coverage, and the potential breakdown of the private health insurance market, the less jazzed they are about ObamaCare. But politicians have blithely waved away little details like reading the actual bill and instead said “trust us”—at a time when public trust for Congress is at an all-time low during Obama’s presidency.
This whole dynamic helps explain why Obama and congressional leadership are insistent on another artificial deadline of March 18 for final passage of ObamaCare. They know that members of Congress, particularly those in the House, could see another wave of townhall protests when they go on a two-week recess starting March 26. That’s because the American people do know what’s in these bills. Popular discussion and debate—that “fog of controversy”—has helped to enlighten them.
President Obama used his health care summit to give his side every advantage possible. Whenever opponents spoke, he got to respond. By appointing himself the moderator, Obama gave himself the first word, the last word, and the most words.
Overall, Obama gave Democrats over twice as much speaking time as Republicans. The 17 GOP’ers attending received a collective 110 minutes. By himself, Obama hogged 119 minutes of microphone time and gave his 21 fellow Democrats an additional 114 minutes. When called to account for this, Obama proclaimed it fair because, “I’m the President.”
Obama exercised free rein to cut off opponents, speak sharply, and pass judgment on whether others’ arguments were legitimate. He wasn’t just a player; he also was the referee.
Despite giving his side all the advantages, most commentators agree that Republicans held their own or even carried the day. CNN’s David Gergen proclaimed that Republicans “had their best day in years.”
A key moment was when Obama—arguing passionately with Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN)–claimed his plan would reduce the cost of private health insurance, and then the President was forced publicly to back down from that claim.
As media such as the Daily Caller reported:
Later in the session, after an aide handed the president a note, Obama admitted he had been wrong: ‘What the Congressional Budget Office is saying is, is that if I now have the opportunity to actually buy a decent package inside the exchange, that costs me about 10% to 13% more but is actually real insurance, then there are going to be a bunch of people who take advantage of that. So yes, I’m paying 10% to 13% more because instead of buying an apple, I’m getting an orange.’
It was a crucial point because, for many Americans, the key issue is not whether government provides health care for the uninsured, but whether it lowers costs for the already-insured. Whether the number of uninsured is estimated at 30 million or 46 million (and both numbers are deceptive, it still represents only 10-15% of the population.
Among the 85-90% of Americans who have insurance, the main concern is affordability, not availability. Obama’s most important health reform promise to them was his oft-repeated pledge to lower their health insurance costs by $2,500 per year. Being forced to admit on live television that his plan fails to do that—and instead increases premiums—was the low point of the summit for the President.
As Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) noted, “It’s just another example of why because the bill has to raise so much money, it ends up hurting the very people that we want to help.”
Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) offered Obama a clear chance to embrace a premium-reducing solution. For example, she said, those Californians who face up to 39 percent increases in premiums should be given “the ability to go to Oregon, where they could buy a policy for 25 percent less, or individuals in New Jersey who could go to Pennsylvania and buy a policy and lower their cost 26 percent, or go to Wisconsin and buy one and lower their cost 74 percent.”
The need for a plan that lowers premiums rather than increases them is a major reason why the best course for Congress would be to start over. Lawmakers should take a different approach, rather than try to ram through Obamacare and impose it on a country that does not want it.