Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

The Baucus Caucus: PhRMA, Insurance, Hospitals and Rahm

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU
 
Joanne98 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-19-09 03:17 PM
Original message
The Baucus Caucus: PhRMA, Insurance, Hospitals and Rahm

We started this whip count effort on June 23 because it became clear that in the course of making their deals with stakeholders, the Baucus Caucus (who were negotiating on behalf of the White House, with the participation of the White House) had very likely already dealt the public plan away.

On May 11, "stakeholders" including the AMA, PhRMA, the hospitals and the device manufacturers delivered proposals to the White House promising to "voluntarily" reduce cost increases over the next 10 years. In an effort to keep them "at the table," Baucus's Chief of Staff Jon Selib and Finance Committee staffer Russell Sullivan told stakeholders at a May 20 meeting that their participation in the process of crafting a health care bill was contingent on them "holding their fire":

Sources familiar with the lobbyist meeting described it as collegial, but they said Baucus’ aides made clear that any public opposition to the proposed financing of a reform package would be at their clients’ peril. The staffers’ message to K Street was clear: Tell your clients to let the process work and don’t torpedo it with advertisements, press releases and Web sites.

The goal of keeping stakeholders at the table was threefold:

1.Keep them from advertising against the White House plan
2.Keep them from torpedoing vulnerable Democrats in 2010 so there isn't a repeat of 1994
3.Keep their money out of GOP coffers
You can see the fingerprints in the deals that they made: the $150 million PhRMA was spending on ads for health care reform, the $2.5 million they spent helping vulnerable freshmen (and Blue Dog Mike Ross, who is anything but vulnerable), and the total fury that Boehner has unleashed on PhRMA and other stakeholders for making deals with the White House.

People make a mistake when they think the battle for health care reform is about ideology, because it's not. It's about who controls K Street and the cash that flows from it, which could fund a 2010 GOP resurgenece -- or not.

On June 9, a lobbyist who worked for the insurance companies, hospitals, and other stakeholders said that these groups were "considering joining their Republican allies and mounting a public relations offensive to put the brakes on President Barack Obama’s overhaul plans."

In response, on June 11 Sullivan and Selib fired a warning shot:

“They said, ‘Republicans are having this meeting and you need to let all of your clients know if they have someone there, that will be viewed as a hostile act,’” said a Democratic lobbyist who attended the meeting.

“Going to the Republican meeting will say, ‘I’m interested in working with Republicans to stop health care reform,’” the lobbyist added.

Republican leaders have been meeting with health care stakeholders for months, with those sessions occurring “more frequently than once a month,” according to a senior Senate GOP aide.

On June 17, Roll Call ran an editorial crying foul, called "intimidation":

Now, as the health care debate heats up, lobbyists representing stakeholders in the debate are being frozen out of meetings and — even worse — intimidated from speaking out in their clients’ interest.

[]

Democratic leaders have health care on a fast track to passage in the House and the Senate by August. And, intimidation or no, objections are beginning to be heard to various proposals, notably a Medicare-like “public plan” and taxes on sugar to help pay for health reform.

And that's right at the time that Kent Conrad unveiled his faux "public plan," the "co-op" plan (June 15). It was the time I started getting really nervous. There could only be one purpose served by such a plan: pull a bait-and-switch on a public plan. Which was why when we started the whip count effort on June 23, our goal was to define a public plan as not a co-op.

In short order, a series of deals were announced by Baucus and the White House. On Monday, July 6, the deal with the hospitals, whereby they'd commit to $150 billion in cost increases over the next decade. On Tuesday, July 7, PhRMA's Billy Tauzin and 5 CEO's went to the White House to seal their deal with Rahm Emanuel, Jim Messina and Nancy-Ann DeParle, Director of the White House Office of Health Reform. On July 8, Rahm tried to float the idea of triggers -- and it went over like a lead balloon. On June 10 Obama spoke to the AMA. There was a huge push to keep these groups happy during this period, and more importantly -- keep them from aligning with the Republicans.

And it seems to have worked. John Boehner recently wrote a scathing letter to Billy Tauzin saying that he had "betrayed" the drugmakers by failing to align himself with the Republicans. The GOP needs the money of PhRMA and other disgruntled businesses to fund its 2010 war chest. Just as it was during the bank bailout, the goal of the White House was clear: more important than saving the financial system was keeping the financial institutions happy and stop them from financing Republicans.

Who would think that way? Whose primary objective would be to keep anyone from funding a GOP ascendancy, to sell out health care reform worth billions for a hundred fifty million in pro-reform advertising? Who would think to ask PhRMA to run ads in the districts of vulnerable freshmen, as well as Blue Dog Mike Ross, who is anything BUT vulnerable? Certainly not some policy wonk.

But ask yourself -- would consider it a victory to use the "public plan" as little more than a political pawn with which to threaten stakeholders and force them to stay at the table, with no thought as to the emotional and moral consequences suffered by the people who had pinned their hope on having one?

Someone who had worked as the head of the DCCC. Who remembered the 54 seat swing to the GOP in 1994 after the failure to pass health care reform. Someone whose sole goal was a "political victory," so the White House could be 14-0 not "13-1."

Someone like Rahm Emanuel, who works through the Blue Dogs in the House to make the House bill conform to the deals he sets up in the Senate. Rahm wanted a public plan with "triggers" and had been pushing for it since January. Lo and behold, who is insisting that any public plan in the House have triggers -- Mike Ross and the Blue Dogs.

continued>>>
http://campaignsilo.firedoglake.com/2009/08/19/the-baucus-caucus-phrma-insurance-hospitals-and-rahm/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
lapfog_1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-19-09 03:28 PM
Response to Original message
1. There is a whispered story that Rahm
Edited on Wed Aug-19-09 03:29 PM by lapfog_1
promised big Ins and big Pharma that no public option would pass the senate, and, in exchange, He wanted them to NOT contribute to Republicans in districts where a Democrat has a tough race ( mostly bluedogs).

I never thought Rahm was a good choice for CoS. He has no concept of what the role of the White House and the President is. This isn't a game, this isn't Chicago back room deal politics. The President is the leader of the nation. He has to lead. This "float a trial balloon" messaging just makes them look weak. Even if it goes down to defeat, or we lose seats in the House and Senate, the President has to lead. If he does, the people will follow.

Everybody says that Obama is playing chess not checkers... they say that because it looks like Obama is making horrible stupid mistakes, and they want to continue the myth that he is just so much smarter than the rest of us, the pundit class, the other lawmakers. And maybe he is, but it's a game that he is losing his Presidency over. He isn't leading with conviction and moral certainty that he KNOWS the right path, the simple path, the one everyone can follow or oppose. But at least you know where he stands.

Rahm's got to go. He was a mistake. And, sadly, Axelrod has got to go too. We screamed bloody murder when it was clear that Cheney had financial gains (personally) from promoting a policy (outsource the war to Halliburton). Axelrod has stepped into the same pile of dogshit and it stinks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
polichick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-19-09 03:32 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. I agree that Rahm is mucking things up for the President...
You're right ~ partly because of the people Obama has surrounded himself with, "he isn't leading with conviction and moral certainty that he KNOWS the right path, the simple path, the one everyone can follow or oppose." Well said!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chimpymustgo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-19-09 03:39 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. Obama PICKED Rahm. He knew EXACTLY what he was getting! Where the fuck does the buck stop?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lapfog_1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-19-09 03:49 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. He picked a friend in Chicago politics.
A DLC democrat. He picked him on the night of the election victory. Things were probably just a little "heady" right then. A historic victory. I don't think it was thought out as carefully as the state by state strategy to win the nomination, frankly. Does Obama deserve blame, sure. Will I forgive him if he makes a change now and picks someone else, yes I would. He won't apologize for it, and I don't expect him too. But it's clear the WhiteHouse has not run all that well since January.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chimpymustgo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-19-09 04:11 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. He picked him the night of the election? All spur of the moment? No WAY. Obama is a very cautious
man. He thinks everything through before making a decision. I repeat. He knew EXACTLY what he was getting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kenfrequed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-19-09 04:20 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. I agree
Rahm is the antithesis of the progressive wing and working class base of the party. Running a DLC game is a losers tactic. The DLC was created in the 80's when the Reaganites were having a party. It was a survival tactic (and even then it was a bad idea), now that we are winning the triangulators and the deal makers and the middle are losing their raison d'etre.

Giving them a place in the administration wasn't a bad idea, elevating Rahm to CoS and packing the place with corporate democrats was silly and wasted a good deal of time and garaunteed that Obama would hobble himself right out of the gate presuming that president obama held the same ideals that he did up to and during his time in the legislature.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
democracy1st Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-20-09 12:39 AM
Response to Reply #3
7. You're right the pres picked these pack of clowns and also his unwillingness to fight
back has pissed me off
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed May 01st 2024, 12:37 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC