- Joined
- Mar 21, 2005
- Messages
- 25,893
- Reaction score
- 12,484
- Location
- New York, NY
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Conservative
Democrats are planning to introduce legislation later this spring that would permanently repeal annual Medicare cuts to doctors, but are warning lawmakers not to talk about it for fear that it will complicate their push to pass comprehensive health reform. The plans undercut the party's message that reform lowers the deficit, according to a memo obtained by POLITICO.
Democrats removed the so-called doc fix from the reform legislation last year because its $371-billion price tag would have made it impossible for Democrats to claim that their bill reduces the deficit. Republicans have argued for months that by stripping the doc fix from the bill, Democrats were playing a shell game.
“Most health staff are already aware that our health proposal does not contain a 'doc fix.' … The inclusion of a full SGR repeal would undermine reform’s budget neutrality. So again, do not allow yourself (or your boss) to get into a discussion of the details of CBO scores and textual narrative. Instead, focus only on the deficit reduction and number of Americans covered,” the memo, sent Thursday to Democratic staff, said.
...
The memo helps explains why the American Medical Association has supported reform even though their top legislative priority, the doc fix, was left out. The group is working behind the scenes with Democratic leadership and the White House to fix the cuts later this year.
The memo also repeatedly advises Democrats not to discuss the details of the CBO score. “We cannot emphasize this enough: do not allow yourself (or your boss) to get into a discussion of the details of CBO scores and textual narrative. Instead, focus only on the deficit reduction and number of Americans covered," the memo says.
They'd better vote quickly. This CBO report is unravelling faster than a new bride's garter.
Senator Tom Coburn threatened House Democrats– We will out you for selling your vote.
“I want to send a couple of messages to my colleagues in the House. If you voted “no” and you vote “yes” and you lose your election, and you think any nomination for a federal position isn’t going to be held up in the Senate, I’ve got news for you. It will be held.
Number two is if you get a deal, a parochial deal for you or your district, I’ve already instructed my staff and the staff of 7 other senators that we will look at every appropriations bill at every level at every incidence and we will outline it by district and we will associate that with the buying of your vote. So, if you think you can cut a deal now and it can not come out until after the election, I want to tell you that that aint gonna happen. And, be prepared to defend selling your vote in the House.”
I have got news for you. The memo is a forgery, and Politico has pulled the story from its web site. Politico got punked with this. Nobody knows who created and circulated the forgery, but the Dems are hopping mad over it, and are accusing Republicans of creating the memo.
FOX News is, however, still running with the fake story, which is just more proof that they are basically a propaganda arm of the GOP, as opposed to any kind of legitimate news organization.
Story is here.
I gave the memo a once over. I looked legit -- the points it makes are, indeed, potential trouble spots for Democrats. I wrote and posted an item on it. In doing so I committed an error of craft: I didn't check to see what the Democratic leadership or the White House or the Democratic National Committee had to say. Had I done so, I would have been told that they did not write the memo. So -- no Dan Rather Excuse here -- I didn't do due diligence, and I posted the item too quickly. For the sake of my post, it doesn't matter whether the underlying facts are true, it matters whether the memo is a real one. Before characterizing the memo as being from Democrats, or insinuating that the memo listed official talking points, I clearly should have made a call. I didn't. That's on me.
I don't know if the memo is a hoax. I suspect that it is was created by someone who is a Democrat -- but that it comes from an allied Democratic group, or from a committee staff member. Dozens of such memos circulate daily through the K-Street-Capitol Corridor. A Republican might have been 'cc'd on one such e-mail, which was then sent up the flagpole, and then send out to reporters by a hyperkinetic communications staff.
I do not believe that Mr. Steel or a member of his staff created the memo. You may ask why I believe this, and my reasons won't satisfy many of you, but here goes: I've know Steel for years. He is a stand-up guy and isn't dishonest; in trickier situations, he's told me the truth. Here he may have been overzealous, and I fell for it on a slow Friday afternoon.
Dana also missed that the Fox article calls the document "purported" in the title and that in the body of the article there are several references to the idea it is a fake. Which I guess is how the GOP told Fox to report the story, right after they told Politico to publish the story Fox picked up on and which appears to be anything but a settled matter of forgery.:dohPolitico pulled it, but it doesn't necessarily follow that it's a forgery. Marc Ambinder did some checking into the source and concluded this:
You're absolutely right that it looks like it didn't come from one of the people in Congress, but it's also too soon to call it a forgery. Ben Smith is trying to do more investigation, so hopefully he turns up something.
I want to see solid evidence that the memo exists, otherwise this is little more than a conspiracy theory.
I want to see solid evidence that the memo exists, otherwise this is little more than a conspiracy theory.
I want to see solid evidence that the memo exists, otherwise this is little more than a conspiracy theory.
Any fix will also have to be fought for. All of us should not think this passage is the end of the effort. And that doesn't mean anything is deceptive in noting this or doing this once it is passed.
Any fix will also have to be fought for. All of us should not think this passage is the end of the effort. And that doesn't mean anything is deceptive in noting this or doing this once it is passed.
The intent of the first bill was entirely deceptive.
If everything, that they want to pass, is so good.
Why not include together in this bill?
The Dems originally included the Doc fix in the healthcare bill. After talking with the CBO, they realized that it would drag the proposal down into the red. They then cut the doc fix from the bill and are now trumpeting the fact that the new bill will reduce the deficit, all while planning on passing the doc fix shortly afterward.
You don't see how that's deceptive?
That's an opinion. You need much more support to move that to a place where anyone not prone to accept your spin will see it as honest.
Before you can have the perfect, you have to have something. Had your side sat down and honestly tried to seek reform, things might be different. We'd certainly have a better bill. But once the death panels and the socialism nonsense started, all real hope for decent reform was lost. SO now, we have to just get something down and hope we can improve it as time goes by, and I mean that for both parties and all Americans.
Perhaps. But it isn't there now.
And if they pass it later, here will be a vote, and I'm sure your side will not be quiet about it, right?
The doctor reimbursement fix needs to be passed regardless of whether the health care reform bill is passed or not. These are separate issues.
The two issues, health care reform and doctor reimbursement, are related issues in that they both deal in health care and it is quite common to include related issues in one bill. But, they are independent in that if health care reform is not addressed for whatever reason, doctor reimbursement must still be addressed. Mixing the two allows some representatives to kill health care reform because they oppose fixing doctor reimbursement. Separating the two allows health care reform to be addressed in isolation and is a quite reasonable approach.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?