Democrats’s Heavy-Handed Healthcare Policies Are Backfiring

September 25, 2009 RSS Feed Print
  • Comment (24)

By Peter Roff, Thomas Jefferson Street blog

Ever since President Barack Obama spoke to a joint session of Congress about healthcare reform, his administration and its allies on Capitol Hill have been trying to refocus the debate. They want to move attention off their plan for reform and put it back on the insurance companies, which their pollsters tell them are about as popular with the American people as, well, Congress.

It's an interesting strategy—and one that might have worked if the Democrats were not so heavy handed.

Early this week, acting at the request of Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, Democrat from Montana, the U.S. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services imposed a "gag rule" on the nation's health insurers to block them from telling seniors how Obama's proposed reforms might affect their healthcare and their coverage.

Unfortunately this latest gag rule fits in all too easily alongside the Democrats' other efforts to muzzle the opposition in the healthcare debate. Telling the insurance companies they can't talk to their customers is just like telling members of Congress they can't mail out the chart explaining how the new healthcare system would work to their constituents. Or trying to control access to town hall meetings on healthcare by requiring folks to show picture ids or letting Obamacare supporters fill the room an hour before everyone else is allowed in.

The latest "push back against the push back" on the gag rule includes the allegation that the Obama administration is within its rights to block companies from communicating with their customers because their contracts with CMS prevent them from doing so.

Not so fast, says Michigan Rep. Dave Camp, the ranking Republican on the House Ways and Means Committee, who points to a Clinton administration ruling establishing the right of private healthcare plans that offer Medicare benefits to communicate with their customers about pending legislation.

Camp says Bruce Merlin Fried, who served as director of Clinton's Center for Health Plans and Providers, instructed health plans in 1997 that, "prohibiting such information would violate basic freedom of speech and other constitutional rights of the Medicare beneficiary as a citizen. As long as member materials that discuss the rights and responsibilities of the member and the HMO with regard to HMO membership are not misrepresented in the context of (the) article, we see no reason for prohibiting the distribution of information."

Critics of the insurance company communication that provoked the investigation, including Sen. Baucus, say the information being conveyed was inaccurate, which would run counter to the policy Fried established. But, healthcare experts say, the mailing that triggered the gag rule in fact provided accurate information about the impact of proposed Medicare Advantage cuts, backed up by the analysis of the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office.

The CBO, incidentally, determined that the proposed cuts could cause millions of seniors to lose access to their plans and others could see their benefits cut or out-of-pocket costs go up.

"The more we uncover about this gag order, the more disturbing it becomes," Camp said in a statement. "The White House is clearly trying to keep seniors from learning the facts about their proposed Medicare cuts. Reversing precedent and abusing the federal government's regulatory authority to restrict the constitutionally protected flow of information is wrong and unethical. We need to get to the bottom of this and we need to make sure all Americans, and especially seniors, know the facts about what the President and Congressional Democrats' healthcare bill will mean for them."

Moreover, the action taken by the Obama administration fails as a political strategy because it doesn't demonize the insurance companies; it makes the government look even more heavy-handed. And fear of a heavy-handed government is one of the principle reasons the push for healthcare reform stalled in the first place.

Tags:
health care reform,
health care

Reader Comments Read all comments (24)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

While I don't agree with the whole package,it does have some good things in it.Also the gop had the power for eight years and did nothing to improve healthcare.They passed the part d plan that has hurt all seniors because of the coverage gap.It was written not for the best plan for seniors but how the insurance companies could benefit best.So to all those who say

the majority party needs to be replaced.I say this.Why replace a party that at least in trying to do something about our healthcare problems.Why not replace the do-nothing republicans.

There are problems with the bill,but to start over should never be an option.Why not look at the good parts and work to get rid of the bad.I think that would be the best way to get a bill that would be the best it can be for the people.No bill of the

importance will be perfect,at least it's a start in the right direction.Just to sit back and put us in two wars with no way to pay for them and no notion of healthcare reform is the way either.There are no death panels in this bill but the insurance companies have let alot of people die because of dening coverage.Don't throw the very people out that are trying to get people coverage.Instead throw the do nothing policy out!!!

Richard of IL 8:25PM March 12, 2010

Both Republicans and Democrats in Washington and in California are corrupt. They all need to be fired.

We do need to clean house.

I doubt that they can be replaced totally. However, I think that it is time for a third party to help keep the Republicans and Democrats in line.

FRANK LITTLE of CA 11:42PM October 07, 2009

Obama has taken a page from Ronald Reagan's book.

As President, Reagan, spent the Soviet Union into bankruptcy.

As president, Obama is spending the United States into Oblivian!

FRANK LITTLE of CA 11:35PM October 07, 2009

Peter Roff

Peter Roff

Peter Roff is a contributing editor at U.S. News & World Report. Formerly a senior political writer for United Press International, he’s now affiliated with several public policy organizations including Let Freedom Ring, and Frontiers of Freedom. His writing has appeared in National Review, Fox News’ opinion section, The Daily Caller, Politico and elsewhere. Follow him on Twitter @PeterRoff.

advertisement

Robert Schlesinger

JFK's Virtuoso Turn at the Bully Pulpit

Kennedy presented a radical idea: Peaceful coexistence.

Mary Kate Cary

Calling Terrorism What It Is

Refusing to call terrorism by its name helps no one.

Latest Videos

advertisement