On Leavitt

I found out yesterday Michael Leavitt has a blog. I feel like I should have known this sooner, but alas, I found out about it from an article in USA Today. I don't even like USA Today.

Nonetheless, it turns out Leavitt has used it recently to defend President Bush's veto of S-chip. Not a huge surprise, but I thought it'd be fun to see what exactly he's saying. Here's some clips of a post from Oct. 9:

Some months ago, the Democratic leadership in Congress made clear they were going to send the President an SCHIP bill he would have to veto.

Hmm. I find this argument interesting. "Congress sent something to the president they knew he would HAVE to veto." As if someone is forcing his hand to sign that veto.

During that period we will hear a lot of political rhetoric but in the end the veto will be sustained. When that occurs we can get down to the business of solving this problem. ... [Democrats] have chosen to proceed as though the President’s opinion isn’t important.

Here's my other problem with the administration's political tactic. Why didn't they attempt to compromise BEFORE the bill's signing? President Bush didn't have a reasonable opinion prior to the bill's passage. What makes his opinion important now? Is it really any wonder the Dems aren't open to additional compromise?

It's not really any surprise how Leavitt's blog reads. I mean, he's the White House mouthpiece, this is how it should go. Doesn't stop me from thinking he's wrong.

****

Despite his party line belief in the inherent evil-ness of S-chip, I don't actually dislike a lot of Leavitt's policy ideas. David Broder of the Washington Post wrote an opinion piece on Sunday about Leavitt, which I think highlights some of the good that he can do for the health care system. Leavitt last week at a conference of insurers and health care providers described what he sees as the "coming revolution in health care in this country," according to Broder, which "is a story that, while less publicized than the SCHIP fight, holds promise of a better day not just for children but for all Americans." Broder writes

What I learned about Leavitt in his years as governor is that he is blessed with vision that sees future policy challenges and developments more clearly than most politicians. In this case, he is visualizing a radically different kind of medical marketplace, in which families armed with specific information about the treatment success and prices of hospitals and doctors can shop at will for the best quality and most affordable care.

...

Leavitt's view is that the government should not own health care; instead, it should organize the health-care marketplace and then let competition based on full information proceed.

Broder notes ("do not faint," he says) that Leavitt's plan is consistent with Hillary's health care plan. Leavitt's view that the health care marketplace needs to be organized is an important one, one that I think is often ignored. Government has organized other fields -- technology is a great example of this. Radio and the switch to digital cable, for example. When the government doesn't set standards, innovation flounders a bit, i.e. electronic health records. It's important that they all work together, but no one has stepped up to say how exactly those systems should work. I have to add that a bit of regulation is necessary, and I would imagine that Leavitt would not agree with that.

That's all for now, but look forward to more clips from Leavitt's blog, now that I've discovered it exists.

An embarassment to bloggers everywhere

Yep, that's me. It's been almost a month since my past entry, which is so sad. I'm going to blame it on my work load, which has become out of control as S-chip has spiraled out of control (perhaps the increase in news is actually MORE reason to blog, but still) and has left completely exhausted and unable to write another sentence about anything related to health care. Today, though, I am feeling energetic. And plus, you may have heard that just two hours ago, the House failed to override President Bush's veto.

Surprise, surprise, I know. Doesn't mean I wasn't rooting for some rogue Republicans to heroically stand up when voting and say, "I vote for children!" ... alas, no luck there.

So what's next? Dems have a couple of options when it comes down to it.

Change the bill slightly, so it becomes more difficult for Republicans to lie to the American people about why they should hate the bill (but can't ... a recent CBS poll found that even 70% of Republicans wanted to reauthorize S-chip). If Dems put in language that prohibits states from enrolling children in families with annual incomes of over 300% of the federal poverty level -- which the vetoed bill does in essence anyway -- then Republicans will be unable to break out their "Familes earning $83,000 a year will be on the public dole!" line.

The small revisions will have the effect of either a) persuading enough Republicans to switch their vote and vote to override, or b) make Republicans look sooooo bad that they won't be able to get reelected. It's 10 million children or the president, as Rahm Emanuel, Pelosi and Reid are so fond of saying. Who are they going to choose?

Another alternative: actually work with the president and Republicans to craft a different bill. I don't personally think this will ever happen. There's a pretty big differences between $5 billion and $35 billion and they'll never be able to bridge that gap. I don't think the president seriously thinks they'll be able to compromise either. In my head, I envision Bush as a whiny little child throwing a tantrum over S-chip. He was invited to the party, but thought no one was going ... now that it turned out to be a big deal, he wants in -- and he'll cry, and cajole and veto until he gets his way.

Here's some preliminary coverage from the New York Times and CNN.