Price Confirmation Criticism All About Theater
This week’s Courier Herald column:
The political theater occurring in Washington is producing Oscar level material. In fact, it would be appropriate for Hollywood to add a best Kabuki theater category. This way, the Democrats in Congress could finally be recognized for their achievements in chutzpah. We know how much the left likes to celebrate themselves with the annual presentation of trophies.
Any good production needs a good screenplay. In the world of politics, this sometimes requires narrative creation. The basis for the upcoming production is the fight over repeal of Obamacare. The central character is Georgia 6th District Congressman and HHS Nominee Tom Price.
Price is an accomplished physician, having built one of the Southeast’s largest orthopedic medical practices. He’s also quite the policy wonk. As head of the House budget committee he has authored the Republican’s most recent plan to repeal and replace President Obama’s signature bill, and has the audacity to favor market and state based reforms over centrally planned solutions.
Democrats are heavily invested in the Affordable Care Act, with the investment being their majorities in the House, Senate, and now the White House. Previous awards for outstanding performance devoid of truth has been given to ACA defenses for “If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor” and “the average family will save $2,500 per year”.
Price has generally been the kind of guy in Washington that would rather present a 40-page PowerPoint on deficit reduction than give a 30 second soundbite for the evening news. As such, he’s generally regarded as a mild mannered, gentlemanly, policy wonk. He’s the kind of person that’s hard to demonize. Thus the outstanding effort for this year’s Democratic leadership.
With an assist from both CNN and the Wall Street Journal, stock transactions that have long since been properly disclosed and perfectly legal and ethical have been put into the spotlight devoid of context and with added spin. Price uses a broker to manage a directed account – meaning that the broker, not Price, picks the investments of publicly traded stocks.
His broker managed to buy 26 shares of a medical company worth $2,700 during a quarterly rebalancing of the portfolio, one of many trades. Price formally introduced legislation a week later that he had been working on publicly for the previous 18 months. The medical company would have found conditions more favorable if the legislation passed. The narrative is that Price is willing to sell out his reputation and character built over decades for profits off of 26 shares of stock.
It’s interesting that Democratic leadership has finally acknowledged the problems with members of Congress having inside information. A critical review of their charges isn’t complete without a review of the “Stock Act”, a measure passed by a Republican led house, which includes a “Pelosi provision”.
Pelosi as speaker profited from an Initial Public Offering from Visa as legislation worked its way through Congress benefitting credit card issuers. The Stock Act’s Pelosi provision specifically prohibits this practice.
Additional awards for chutzpah are given to members of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee who own and trade health care stocks. 6 members of the committee have healthcare stocks on their disclosures, 4 of whom are Democrats. Then there’s Senator Al Franken, who harangued Price before his committee for owning tobacco stocks while he himself currently profits from ownership of tobacco stocks.
Price’s formal confirmation hearing will be this week before the Senate Finance Committee. They will ultimately be the committee to vote on his nomination. Because Senate Minority Leader Schumer has demanded a lock down of Democrats against Price for ideological reasons, Price is almost guaranteed to be confirmed, as Republicans will respond by doing the same.
So why the character assassination, over perfectly legal investments that members of Congress make and disclose every day? Because in political Kabuki theater, it’s not about the show you’re actually watching.
Democrats know they’re going to lose this round. They’re playing for the next one. The one where Price assumes control of an agency with a $1.1 Trillion-dollar budget. The one where he has the power to grant waivers to states to demonstrate they can do more with less.
Quite simply, they’re not afraid of Price because they’re worried he will fail. They’re opposing him because they fear he will succeed. Then their great investment giving up all control in Washington, at least temporarily, will have been in vain. They can’t risk giving Republicans the opportunity to demonstrate there’s a better way.
Democrats are going to do whatever they can to trash Tom Price, in order to usurp his future authority by painting him as corrupt. It’s all theater, a show about raw power, and Tom Price is the one who bears the full burden of the cost of the ticket.
Add a Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Thank you Charlie. This is the best paragraph.
“Quite simply, they’re not afraid of Price because they’re worried he will fail. They’re opposing him because they fear he will succeed. Then their great investment giving up all control in Washington, at least temporarily, will have been in vain. They can’t risk giving Republicans the opportunity to demonstrate there’s a better way.”
I would love for Republicans to demonstrate there’s a better way. Up until now, if they know what the better way is they are not telling. Fact is the ACA was a Republican plan — universal healthcare using free market solutions instead of single payer. Partisanship kept them from fixing it when they had the chance (how long have they had a majority?) and partisanship, blind partisanship, is all over this piece. Price may be one of the less ick-worthy appointees of this new administration, but you act like Democrats are the only ones enjoying the theater of The Confirmation Hearing. Did you see any part of Mnuchin’s berating vs ass-kissing?
“Fact is the ACA was a Republican plan” That is false. There were parts that were taken from republican ideas. Keeping kids on their parents’ health plan and using tax credits are examples.
Cutting $800 billion from Medicare was not a republican idea. Expanding Medicaid to cover people who could afford private insurance was not a republican plan. Telling people what they have to have was not a republican idea.
So you just keep on lying to yourself and everyone you say that to.
“I would love for Republicans to demonstrate there’s a better way.” Cool your jets. They will show you very shortly. How about we allow Trump’s HHS sectary to get confirmed hire some staff before we say they haven’t done anything.
Cool my jets? They are voting to repeal something before they have identified the replacement. I don’t think it’s my jets that need cooling.
Yes there are some differences between what the Republicans (and the Heritage foundation) proposed, but the similarities are at the core of the plan: individual mandate, subsidies, market places. That is the fundamental structure of the system and it’s what Republicans proposed, regardless of the smaller differences. Democrats wanted single payer but compromised when Republicans opposed it. What did Republicans compromise on? As I said, they have been in power a while. If they wanted to be a part of an actual solution they’ve had many opportunities. Given that Trump is now our president, my guess is that we will see a rebranding rather than any alternate solution.
“They are voting to repeal something before they have identified the replacement.” Show me where they have repealed the ACA. They have passed a budget resolution as the vehicle for repeal. That is not the same as a repeal. When a replacement is ready they will use that budget resolution as the bill. Like setting the chess board up to play chess. Make sense? So yeah, cool your jets.
“What did Republicans compromise on?” Nothing, becasue they weren’t in the room when it was being written so were unable to compromise on anything. Do you remember that the bipartisan vote was against the ACA.
“As I said, they have been in power a while.” No, they have been in power since noon on Friday. Are you really that dense? You can’t say republicans are in power when Obama is president. That is called divided government.
“Given that Trump is now our president, my guess is that we will see a rebranding rather than any alternate solution.” Wrong again. There will be a repeal and replacement.
“Show me where they have repealed the ACA.”
Similar to how you differentiate between killing the budget for a program and actually repealing it, I also differentiate between voting to repeal and repealing. There’s this thing called the legislative process — PBS did a little diddy about it. Again, they have had, what, 6 years since the ACA passed to come up with a plan. So again, I’m not going to “cool my jets” when I’m not the one hurrying to defund something before I know what to replace it with.
“Do you remember that the bipartisan vote was against the ACA.”
I don’t know what this means.
“No, they have been in power since noon on Friday. Are you really that dense? You can’t say republicans are in power when Obama is president. That is called divided government.”
Gratuitous implications that my intelligence is subpar notwithstanding, the Republicans have had the house and the senate since 2015. They’ve already overridden one of Obama’s vetoes. There was a way, just not a will.
“Wrong again”
Hah. Well you and Trump certainly have one thing in common.
I’m well aware of how the legislative process works. If I could draw a picture for you I would.
Again, I ask you were in the 115th congress has a bill been passed to repeal the ACA.
“Do you remember that the bipartisan vote was against the ACA.” I don’t know what this means. Well, of course you don’t. You continue to talk about blind partisanship and republicans needing to compromise on the ACA. Not a single Republican voted for the ACA. There were democrats who voted against it. Meaning the bipartisan vote was against the ACA.
“Gratuitous implications that my intelligence is subpar notwithstanding, the Republicans have had the house and the senate since 2015.” Again, if I could draw you a picture I would. Repealing the ACA takes an act of Congress that must be signed by a president. Congress has passed repeals. They have not been signed by Obama. See how that works. A president has to sign it. Now there is a president that will. See the difference becasue there is one.
“Again, I ask you were in the 115th congress has a bill been passed to repeal the ACA.”
And again I remind you that I never said a bill was passed.
“Not a single Republican voted for the ACA. There were democrats who voted against it. Meaning the bipartisan vote was against the ACA.”
Perhaps you could defer to the alternate interpretation of my lack of understanding — that your meaning was not made clear by your choice of language — rather than some innate partisan feeble-mindedness. I think if you had said “the vote against the ACA was bipartisan” it may have been more clear. Your sentence gives the impression that the ACA didn’t actually pass. Regardless, the fact that you can illustrate the legislative process means that you know that Republicans were on the committees that originated the bills. They chose to vote against it as a block for partisan reasons.
“Congress has passed repeals. They have not been signed by Obama. See how that works. A president has to sign it. Now there is a president that will. See the difference becasue there is one.”
Perhaps, in your illustration, there are some boxes and arrows that reference the process of overriding a veto. I will reiterate, however, that this conversation was about Republicans offering replacement ideas, not about how repeal-happy they are. It’s easy to say no to something, a lot harder to come up with your own plan and put your name on it.
I’ve enjoyed our little chat. Really I have.
“And again I remind you that I never said a bill was passed.” Okay whatever you say. I’ll just leave your original statement that led me to believe you think the republicans are going to pass a repeal without a replacement being ready. “They are voting to repeal something before they have identified the replacement.”
“Not a single Republican voted for the ACA. There were democrats who voted against it. Meaning the bipartisan vote was against the ACA.” Yeah, sorry. I cannot help you with reading comprehension. You either have it or you don’t. Reading tends to help though.
“I will reiterate, however, that this conversation was about Republicans offering replacement ideas, not about how repeal-happy they are. It’s easy to say no to something, a lot harder to come up with your own plan and put your name on it.” You will have a plan soon. Then you can complain about it and say it’s not a real plan.
“If the “plan” is the one included in Paul Ryan’s #betterway or Price’s previously proposed Empowering Patients First Act, then I can go ahead and complain that 1) they are crappy plans and 2) they do not meet Trump’s promise that there will be “coverage for everybody.”
Then I’ll say exactly what Pelosi said when the ACA was being forced down our throats in the Senate on Christmas Eve. Sorry not sorry.
I did not say that the individual mandate was not a republican idea, but I do like how you had to go back to 1993 to find a republican plan that mandated health insurance.
What I said was, “Telling people what they have to have was not a republican idea.” I’m not going to argue the ins and outs of a plan from 1993. I was in elementary school.
Republicans have always wanted people to have coverage. The problem with the ACA mandate is that it narrowly limits what can be offered as a qualified plan. Republicans have wanted to expand what could be used as adequate health coverage. HSAs, cafeteria style plans, high deductible catastrophic plans are all illegal under the ACA. We would like to broaden the qualified plan. And if Republicans were allowed in the room when the bill was written those are the things that would have been offered.
It’s funny how quick history is rewritten. I’m sure that Grassley and Baucus were in a room together at some point. That’s what you call a dog and pony show.
When IPAB was placed into the bill were republicans in the room? No
When the medical device tax was put in? Nope.
Two old farts reminiscing about writing something in 1993 is not the bill writing process.
“How else do you explain how a guy who helped author the individual mandate writing op-eds and getting on TV to talk about how the individual mandate is unconstitutional?” I guess he came to his senses. You will have to ask him.
You seem to think that because I’m a republican I will defend anything that a republican has ever said. That’s not the case. Just becasue an old fart republican thought the individual mandate was good in 1993 doesn’t mean (1) it’s a good idea and (2) I will defend him. I won’t.
Yes, there were some good things in the ACA. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. You can put mayo on a turd sandwich and it will still be a turd sandwich.
It’s so funny. 60 different votes to repeal Obamacare when they know it won’t pass. Now that it would pass- suddenly they are not ready. Theater indeed.
The Senate introduced a replacement bill today. Trump was sworn in on Friday. The Senators were sworn in less than a month ago. Sounds like they are moving pretty fast.
I can’t find this bill you refer to. Can you link or something?
I’m away from my google machine. I’ll see if I can find it shortly, but it was the first of what will be many bills that will be debated for the replacement.
This must be it:
http://mainepublic.org/post/maine-gop-sen-collins-unveils-proposal-replace-obamacare#stream/0
“The Patient Freedom Act offers states three choices. Option No. 1: keep the Affordable Care Act, along with its subsidies, Medicaid expansion and individual and employer mandates. Skipping ahead to option No. 3, states could forego any federal involvement with health insurance. In between is option No. 2, which Collins suspects will be the most popular.
“Which we call the default option,” she says.
The default option would give states federal money to enroll people who can’t access health insurance into a standard plan. These would be high-deductible plans with basic pharmaceutical coverage, plus some preventive care.”
Maybe it will get a vote!
While the democrats kept everyone’s eye on that $2,700, Obamas last moves Friday slipped Palestine $227,000,000.
Which of course Congress passed, thereby directing the Executive branch to do so. Unless you think the President has the authority to defy Congress.
It’s very unlikely further investigation is going to turn up anything on Price, but that didn’t stop the GOP continuing Benghazi investigation.