Andrea Tantaros

More Obamacare insanity: Sebelius' shameless attempt to jawbone insurers on costs

2010-12-23T00:00:00-04:00

In early September, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius - throwing her new weight around after the passage of Obamacare - threatened the health insurance industry with a letter that spelled out "zero tolerance" for "unjustified rate increases."

This week, her agency unveiled a new rule that allows the federal government to decide what counts as an "unreasonable" rate increase. The upshot: If an insurance company increases the cost of a premium to above 10%, it may well feel the wrath of the feds.

There's just one problem: Under Obamacare, the federal government does not have the authority to block or overturn an insurance price increase. (Congress debated whether or not to give the Health and Human Services Department this authority during the crafting of the legislation, but it was ultimately rejected.) In point of fact, 43 states already regulate and approve rates in the individual or small business market through their insurance commissioners. This new law would let them continue to do their job - unless the federal government were to decide that their reviews weren't "effective." Once again, government is overreaching and telling private business what to do.

Yes, we can dump Obamacare: A roadmap for a GOP repeal

2010-09-23T15:17:00-04:00

Six months ago this week, Obamacare was a celebration for the left. Now, after a flashy White House bill signing, the new entitlement program is a political hot potato that nobody wants to touch.

On the campaign trail, Democrats are not just running from the issue - they are ignoring it altogether. Not one Democrat has taken an ad out touting the package, though many voted for its passage. And while Democrats duck, Republicans are seizing this opportunity. In the GOP's new "governing agenda," unveiled today, there is a pledge for repeal, while others in the party have proposed options for reversing or replacing this package. But how realistic are these proposed alternatives?

The Biggest Abuse of Power and Arrogance Washington Has Ever Seen

2010-03-22T11:36:12-04:00

In President Obama’s first State of the Union address, only mere months ago, he pledged to focus on jobs and stressed that it would be priority number one. After last night’s contested, contentious and downright partisan vote on health care, one that took rule manipulation and arm-twisting to achieve, it is clear that perversion and power lust are paramount to all else.

It is the biggest abuse of power and demonstration of arrogance ever shown by Washington, and it surely is the most gigantic and life-altering legislative move of my generation. In short, its impact can’t be underestimated.

America, after a year long battle, we've learned a lot.

We now know all about the secret deals: the Cornhusker Kickback, The Gator Aid and the Louisiana Purchase that use taxpayer money that our country doesn’t have to bribe lawmakers for their votes.

We know that this bill will not maintain quality. What is likely to happen for the average person is that the government will exert pressure to keep premiums lower and the industry will respond by offering standardized, shoddy and non-innovative products.

We know that people will now be fighting political battles to get a CAT scan or a cancer drug. Those who are ill won’t get the care they need because of some insurance company rule (that was ultimately determined by the government).

Shortly before the vote on Sunday evening, Speaker Pelosi and other Democratic so-called “feminists” called being a woman a “pre-existing condition”and argued that this bill will solve these injustices. Waiting for breast cancer screenings until age 50 is now in our the future. This bill is a nightmare for women and a nightmare for a sick person.

We know the premise that this will reduce the deficit is a hoax. The Congressional Budget Office does its analysis in a vacuum. It needs to complete its score based on assumption. Democrats can write anything into a bill and the CBO must do the tally. Even if the left writes into a bill that the revenues from a piece of legislation that will bring down the debt are coming from a pot of gold, guarded by a magic unicorn at the end of a rainbow in 2017, the CBO must score it. All of the “assumptions” that are written into this bill as almost as unlikely as that magic pot of gold (like the tax on Cadillac insurance plans in 2017).

We know, too, that once you go down the slippery slope of offering government subsidies, it’s almost impossible to climb back up. The penalty for not having insurance under the bill is far less than the cost of insurance, meaning that the people who will obtain insurance are the people who participate in the welfare portion of the new program and get these subsidies. Average Americans will be paying for all these new welfare recipients with income we don't have because of the lack of jobs we so desperately need.

Even worse, others will wait until they are sick to get insurance. You and I will be paying for the freeloaders who break their legs, sign up for insurance upon arrival to the hospital and then throw their membership out with their crutches. This is a growing issue in Massachusetts where Romneycare is failing. Democrats didn’t have the political guts to make the penalty for failure to obtain insurance high enough. Because of that cowardly move we all will pay.

We know that the most disgraceful premise of this bill uses the U.S. tax code to legislate a liberal value. Forcing people to buy insurance is unprecedented. Our government has taxed us for what we buy (i.e.: tobacco) but they have never taxed us on what we don’t buy. It’s akin to telling us what kind of car to purchase or where to buy groceries! It will open the door to whole host of mandates beyond health insurance. It didn’t work in the Soviet Union and it won’t work here.

We know that under President Obama, Speaker Pelosi and Leader Reid the title of “United” States of America no longer applies. Though candidate Obama ran on a promise to change the way Washington worked, President Obama has only exacerbated it.

The change we can believe in has resulted in something that is virtually unbelievable. We know that there is now one thing left to do: since Speaker Pelosi couldn’t drain the swamp as she pledged to, the American people will have to do it for her.

Andrea Tantaros is a conservative commentator and FoxNews.com contributor. Follow her on Twitter @andreatantaros.

Manipulation, payoff and lies: the endgame to healthcare

2010-03-16T00:00:00-04:00

Democrats have convinced themselves that it would be far worse to do nothing on health care than listen to the concerns of the public. And they have demonstrated they will stop at nothing to get some form of legislation passed – even using the House Rules Committee to draft a new rule that would make it possible for Speaker Pelosi to pass the bill without an actual vote!

This jaw-dropping abuse of power has appropriately been labeled the “Slaughter Strategy” after Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY) the tactic’s chief architect and a close Pelosi ally. It would give members of the Democratic Caucus cover. Why, you ask? Because it would skip the step that would force our lawmakers to place an “aye” vote next to a radioactive, unpopular piece of legislation that they will have to defend until Election Day in the fall.

This type of manipulation of government process might be the most perverse we’ve seen to date.

Why are they doing this, you might ask? Pelosi needs to employ any game plan she can to get her way since she’s poised to lose about a dozen members over the issue of federal funding of abortion. Though Bart Stupak, and others, will hold firm, there are members of Congress who will cave in to the Speaker’s wishes from pressure. Think of it this way: the vote on health care reform will be the defining moment that showcases who the true pro-life Democrats really are.

The White House will also help Speaker Pelosi any way it can to drag the bloody body that is the health care bill over the finish line. The Associated Press reported on Friday that though Obama has railed against the "ugly process" of cutting special deals, the president and his top advisers were prime time players in negotiations on the agreements to win votes and move the legislation forward.

So what exactly will they promise the members to get their way?

Answer: A lot. And a lot of those promises will include various ways to spend your money.

As of now, the votes for passage aren’t there. No less an expert than the House Democratic Whip revealed that the party is short of the votes on Sunday’s “Meet the Press.” This is despite Pelosi’s intentional deception to portray the picture as otherwise last Wednesday when she insisted she would have the 216 needed for victory if the bill was brought to the floor. But that was a lie; if she had the support necessary we would be watching a vote on C-SPAN. You’ve gotta believe that the second she hits the magic number, a vote will immediately be called.

This week will reveal the harsh reality of corruption in the Democratic leadership. All of the Democrat’s lip service on “change you can believe in” (Obama) and “cleaning up the swamp” (Pelosi) will be exposed as hollow and untrue. No matter the cost – financial or political – the left is prepared to do whatever it takes to score a win. But that’s the thing about cost, eventually you have to pay. And pay they will.

Sadly, so will we.

Healthcare Fatal Attraction

2010-02-24T09:28:00-04:00

“Fatal Attraction,” the Washington version is playing on a television near you as Obama’s bipartisan summit on health care approaches. Like a possessed, rejected maniac the president refuses to allow the idea of a massive restructuring of our health care system to fade.

You’re just not that into his health care bill? Too bad. He won’t be ignored.

Obama is hoping that by rebranding and reworking the old, rejected versions of the House and Senate bill into an even scarier narrative coupled with a televised meeting, the pressure will be so intense that he can kidnap the handful of Republican votes he needs to catapult this monstrosity over the finish line.

To get our attention, Democrats attempted legislative suicide. After laying low, they're back again, and like any prey dealing with a psycho, Republicans are nervous.

They understand that this is a carefully calculated public relations gimmick designed to force their hand. They know that if they don’t show up, the images of empty chairs across the table from their caucus will be used, repeatedly, to paint them as unwilling to govern and to target them in campaign ads as obstructionists. Forget alerting the wife, the White House is going to out your bad behavior on C-SPAN. In other words: this is blackmail, Beltway style.

Like any concerned observer frightened for my friend’s life, as well as my own, I urged Republicans to set some terms and not accept the invitation to the president’s gathering unless he agreed to start over. Apparently, Mr. Obama was in favor of a second chance for the relationship and demonstrated his willingness by crafting a more expensive and politically explosive version of the first health care bill -- just on his own terms (so much for bipartisanship).

Attention all elected officials: at some point, you need to dig in your heels and do the right thing. For too long the GOP has been concerned with staging and games. On Thursday, they finally have a chance to be principled, but because of the looming land mine, they must acquiesce.

In the days and hours that surround the meeting, the GOP must sing off the same song sheet and often. They must repeat that this summit is, by design, one big trick, and that they have crafted health care plans of their own that have been disregarded.

In the meeting, the right must stick to script, backs facing the wall. Do no harm. No flipping of chairs or sudden outbursts of uncontrollable anger. Let Obama boil the bunnies.

For rank and file Democrats, Thursday’s dance is much more delicate. Obama is winking and nodding his way through the process, while he’s triangulating and strangling his own party.

You see, the real drama is set to occur after Thursday.

News outlets are reporting that Democrats plan to jam the Senate bill thru the House, then pass the Obama amendments as part of a smaller bill, using reconciliation, with changes to the Senate bill. This would prevent the need to go back to the Senate again with all the legislative provisions that could be out of order. It is still questionable whether some legislative provisions in the new Obama bill will be allowed in the Senate. The new price control commission, for example, may not make the cut. But the final, most climactic scene will be the House.

Will they vote for the big Reid bill -- as is? Will they accept the Senate abortion language, or no public option, for example?

Grab the popcorn. This will be great theater. If I were a House Democrat, I'd be petrified.

With each passing week that the president ignores jobs, choosing to focus on his obsession and an unprecedented legislative trick to stalk the public into a submitting to a relationship they don’t want, the more he looks like a lunatic who has escaped the asylum, just waiting to surprise you outside your window, in the rain on your fire escape until you relent.

What has become evident to everyone except the Democratic leadership is that the American majority has no interest in a relationship so dysfunctional, so unstable, so completely unhealthy.

Obama has stumbled many times trying to get his way. Act Two of heath care reform might be his biggest mistake on the issue yet. In an effort to hit a button to reset the process, he might have hit the one that just blew it up. Like any good horror film, the element that’s most despised just won’t die. Let’s hope we can finish health care off before anyone gets hurt.

The Senate Healthcare Bill is Not on My Christmas List

2009-12-16T10:36:00-04:00

These days, the status and the support for the Senate health care bill seems to change by the hour. Over the weekend, Senator Joseph Lieberman said he couldn’t support the bill in its current form because of the expansion of Medicare through the buy-in compromise and the public option. And this week, amid much pressure and media attention, he’s sticking to his guns.

With other moderate Democrats vacillating on their votes as poll numbers continue to slip for support of this bill to all-time lows, can Harry Reid and Senate Democrats get this done by the arbitrary timeline of Christmas?

It’s likely something will get done, but questions about who, what, when and how still remain. Right now Senate Democrats are struggling to find the 60 votes they need to block a filibuster from Republicans who say the Democrat's proposed health care plan is too expensive and too bureaucratic--ironically, the main reasons Democrats argued we needed this plan in the first place.

What's the rush?

Senate Majority Leader Reid and his counterparts need to pass this bill because the longer they wait, the more likely its chances of dying on the vine become plausible. Plus, the American people want to see Washington focused on jobs -- not health care. The longer they spend talking about this (and it's been a while), the more disillusioned Democrats will look, and the more frustrated the voters will get (here’s the kicker) in an ELECTION year.

Moderates like Ben Nelson, Mary Landrieu, Blanche Lincoln and Lieberman might not be Reid's only problem. In a shocking twist, liberals are hearing the pragmatic opposition make threats and some are now suddenly starting to sing off the same sheet music as Republicans in a push to scrap the entire thing. It’s looking like some liberal Democrats might defect if the bill becomes watered down and stripped of its most questionable portions.

According to Greg Sargent of The Plum Line Blog, Howard Dean, de-facto leader of the progressive movement, in an interview "said the removal of the Medicare buy-in made the bill not worth supporting, and urged Dem leaders to start over with the process of reconciliation in the interview."

For the first time, I actually agree with Dean.

In the words of Dean, himself: “Yeeeeooooow!”

If liberals like Howard Dean and Obama-replacement Illinois Senator Roland Burris are poised to bail on a bill without a public option, how can Reid herd these cats?

To their credit, Republicans are fighting back, and hard. They are smartly messaging this as Democrats wanting to do this for themselves and Obama for his own lasting legacy.

On "60 Minutes" this past Sunday, Obama noted that though many have tried to pass health reform in his party, they’ve all failed, but that he would be the one to get it done.

Republican Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell spelled it out perfectly on Tuesday:

“The supporters of this bill seem to think this is about them, about their legacies. This isn’t about them. This is about the American people. This is not about making history. This about doing the right thing for ever single American’s health care. And Americans have a message: Higher premiums, higher taxes, and higher health care costs are not what they signed up for. This is not what they were promised. This is not reform. Yes: Doing nothing is not an option. But making current problems worse is worse.”

Stay tuned. The standoff on health care reform is taking place right before our eyes. More and more, it’s looking like the gift that the left wants to give the American people for Christmas – the one that most of us don’t want – won’t end up under the tree. Sounds like a Merry Christmas to me.

Obama's Healthcare Endgame

2009-12-02T15:49:09-04:00

Debate on the controversial Senate health care bill has begun and almost everyone has an opinion. Well, not everyone. Ironically, the administration has yet to go public with its views on what is arguably its most controversial principle in the plan: the public option. It’s a deal breaker for many Democrats in the middle – and even some on the left – and will ignite a civil war in the Senate for the left wing, as I’ve repeatedly predicted.

For months, administration officials have perpetuated the myth that a public option may be best hope when it comes to lowering costs and spurring competition among insurers. However, they’ve declined to say that a public option is a "must-have" piece of the legislation.

Budget Director Peter Orszag held a conference call with reporters last week to discuss what he referred to as the “four pillars” of a fiscally responsible health care reform bill – but the public option wasn’t even mentioned.

Why the crickets? Because there’s a good chance that’s it’s dead (we can only hope) and President Obama doesn’t want to marry himself to a losing component of the Senate's overhaul. But if it does pass, he’ll be the first to spike the football. Despite their suspicious silence, we know which team he's really on.

He has sent Senate leaders in to do his dirty work. Amid all this talk that a public option will spark competition, the end game is a single payer system and Obama, and the far left, know it.

“There is a transition process. I can envision a decade out, or 15 years out, or 20 years out,” Obama has said, referring to the possibility of eliminating employer insurance plans entirely.

This means that when they say you can keep your insurance if you like it, you really can’t. Many small business owners will be saddled with such high costs that they’ll force their employees into the government plan.

Senators Joe Lieberman (I) and Blanche Lincoln (D) are opposed to the public option and their votes are needed for passage. Senators Mary Landrieu (D) and Olympia Snowe (R) favor a trigger option.

Keep your eyes peeled for a compromise, but hope that it doesn’t involve the public option or the trigger. Remember the thing about triggers – if they don’t shoot you now, they’ll shoot you later.

Perhaps most ironic, is that the same week that the Senate begins debate on a costly health care restructuring, Obama will also deliver a prime time address to the nation on Tuesday outlining his plan for Afghanistan -- a strategy that will likely mean spending billions more dollars. Watch the liberals howl about cost when it comes to rooting out the Taliban and preventing another attack on American soil, but adding trillions to the national credit card for a government run health care plan? Hey, it's an investment, no matter how unhealthy it is for our fiscal state. -- Oh, the irony.

What could be healthier than the safety of our nation?

5 Things to Watch as We Get Closer to Healthcare Reform

2009-10-13T15:14:00-04:00

The Senate Finance Committee is voting on health care today. After five months of vigorous and often acerbic debate, lawmakers in Congress are still managing to get it wrong. Not only that, they're leaving many concerns unaddressed and lots of problems unresolved. Here’s what you need to know as we watch Congress embark on a roller coaster ride that will last for weeks:

#1. Questions Still Remain -- What About Taxes?

Many lawmakers remain unconvinced that most of the plans that Congress will mandate will be affordable. The Senate and the House are also at odds on how to pay for the legislation, with the Senate preferring a tax on high-value insurance policies as the primary source of revenue, and House leaders favoring a surcharge on millionaires. Democrats on the far left want to impose fines on companies that do not provide coverage to their employees and middle of the road Democrats favoring a more toned down model.

#2. This Is Just the Beginning

Keep in mind that despite the hype over today’s Finance Committee hearing, the Baucus bill is not the final product. After the vote, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will summon both Senators Baucus and Dodd -- the author of another piece of legislation that moved through the Senate Health Committee in July -- to his office discuss options about how to reach a compromise.

#3. Keep Your Eye On These Lawmakers

Senator Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) and liberal Republican Senator Olympia Snowe (Maine) are the two women to watch. It’s likely they will vote for the Baucus bill, and when they do it will send a message that the principles included in the bill will likely be the ones that Democrats will be forced to defend in the 2010 midterm elections to their constituents. With 13 Democrats and 10 Republicans on the committee, Baucus can only afford to lose one member of his party if Republicans vote to block his bill.

#4. Speaker Pelosi's Role

Typically the House votes first on legislation and then sends a bill to the Senate. But this time it was different. The House needed to go second because it was unlikely that House moderates and Blue Dog Democrats would cast their vote on controversial legislation that might never make it through the Senate, let alone become law.

There’s no question Speaker Nancy Pelosi wanted to go first. Her liberal penchant is for the House to lead (in other words, for her to lead the charge) and set the marker by which every piece of policy is judged going forward. But the legislative reality was different. The Speaker simply didn’t have the votes. And she decided early on in the health care fight to cut the vote pool in half by making this a partisan bill, winnable only with Democratic votes (we knew that was the endgame at the beginning, but she sure went there quickly).

She still believes this is a "message win" for her party. That’s why she’s gone gangbusters. Watch her misstep on the public option since she’s so blind to public opinion on this point in particular.

#5. Plenty of Doubts Persist

Despite a public outcry for smart health care reform and less government control, the bill in consideration still reflects a move to give the government more control of one sixth of our economy and our health care decisions, along with original concerns like ballooning costs, mandates and subsidies. And guess what else awaits? Every bill put forth on health care would result in higher taxes.

While there is a manufactured sense of extreme urgency to get something done, it’s crucial that our lawmakers in both houses get it done correctly. Keep in mind that even if the Baucus bill passes the Finance Committee today, the fight is far from over, and Congress is still far from getting it right.

Andrea Tantaros is the former Press Secretary to House Republican Leadership and a FoxNews.com contributor. Follow her on Twitter @AndreaTantaros.

Michelle to the Rescue?

2009-09-22T09:33:00-04:00

When it comes to selling health care, it's a family affair. As one Obama struggles to sell his plan to the broader public, it appears the White House is hopeful they can enlist another Obama to help close the deal.

According to Politico: First lady Michelle Obama “plans a packed autumn that aides say will include a ‘dedicated focus’ on health insurance reform”.

Up until today, we’ve heard little from the first lady when it comes to hot button issues. They’ve covered her gardening, gabbing with kids, and walking along side her husband to and from Marine One.

Like every first lady, she chose an issue that she wanted to champion during her husband’s tenure. For Michelle Obama, it was military families, a noble and paramount concern. Now, the Obamas plan to tag team the country making healthcare priority number one.

If history is any indication, a president’s wife might not be the best salesperson. Remember what happened the last time a President enlisted his wife to sell healthcare? Hillary Clinton found herself in a national battle, further complicating the issue for Congress, for her husband, and for herself.

Though CBS News senior White House correspondent Bill Plante reports that, “unlike Hillary Clinton who spearheaded the Clinton administration's early health care effort, first lady Michelle Obama will have a very different role in the president's non-stop effort to sell health care reform,” the move still remains dangerous. Sending a popular First Lady into a polarizing debate that is already turned against your favor is a gamble. Especially when that lady wasn’t always so popular.

Before we celebrated her bare arms and J Crew shift dresses, Michelle Obama has had a rocky relationship with the American people. During the campaign, Michelle was often considered a liability for her husband. She was stereotyped as “angry,” called a “militant black woman” on some blogs and most controversially, was caught in the crosshairs over comments about being proud of her country for the first time. Many joked she wore the pants in the relationship, and speculated that she harbored racist feelings toward whites.

Obama worked hard to reform that image. She stayed mostly behind the scenes, insisting she was focused on raising her daughters, not elbowing her way into Oval Office policy making. And it worked. In March 2008, her positive rating was only 32 percent, according to an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll. Now, the first lady boasts an approval rating of 70 percent, much higher than her husband’s.

Dissaproval for the president's healthcare plan is at an all time low. By thrusting her into the most divisive debate the country has had since the Iraq War, The Administration faces a host of risks.

First, they’ll expend the precious political capital that the First Lady has earned from a majority of the American people. If this strategy fails, the Administration risks having two unpopular Obamas at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. They may think she’s their secret weapon, but that weapon could be better used in 2010 and 2012.

Injecting Obama at this stage in the game could also throw gasoline on the race debate. Many on the left have accused anyone who opposes the President of harboring racist feelings. If they oppose both Obamas, will this further fuel the fire?

Society is generally tougher on females in the public eye than males. If Obama's advisers aren't careful, Michelle Obama could return to her lightning rod status and end up being a liability, not an asset, for her husband. She should stick to her original mission: military families, ribbon cuttings, recipes, and People magazine interviews. Helping the families of those on the front line is one thing, helping your president-husband on the front lines is another.

He Just Doesn't Get It

2009-09-09T22:44:00-04:00

They say that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over, expecting a different result.

Someone should have mentioned that to Obama. He gave us nothing new during his ultra-hyped speech on healthcare. After forty-five minutes and a teleprompter on the verge of overheating, he blew it. The President made history convening both Houses of Congress and doled out the same stale speech, from his proposed cuts in Medicare that he refers to as "waste" to tax hikes to fund his plan.

There was one bit of news: an indisputable leftward lurch on the public option that signified not only that he is bound to their demands, but also that he is no Bill Clinton.

Unlike Clinton, Obama tied the public health option to his ankle. And much like a concrete block, he will go down with it. Forty-four moderate Democrats will not vote for the current House bill that includes the public option, enough to deny Pelosi the ability to pass it without Republican support.

To be fair, Obama's opening and closing tone was one of his best yet. But fluffy imperatives that call for us to act, absent of hard facts will not result in a shift in polling. If you had ears but no brain, you would have been moved (Is that why Biden was crying?), but the public is much sharper, particularly when it comes to this issue.

Here's what was missing, besides new material:

No answer on how he can not only expand coverage but also cut costs.

No answer on how private insurance goes down by increasing the costs of insurance

No answer on how to cut the current deficit.

No answer as to why he will cut waste and abuse to help pay for for government run insurance option, but not to help cut the current ballooning deficit.

No answer on how to make medicare solvent.

No answer on why he won't cover illegals, but includes them in his 46 million uninsured count.

No answer on what his plan is for illegals.

No definitive, outcomes based answer on medical malpractice.

No answer on why if this is such an urgent imperative, the plan won't kick in until after he runs for re-election.

Public disapproval of President Barack Obama's handling of health care has leaped to 52 percent, according to Associated Press-GfK poll. At a time when we're running a 7-9 trillion dollar ten year deficit he is talking about adding another trillion to that number, begging the question, why now?

Mr. President, you just don't get it. The healthcare debate ripped your ability to persuade through rhetoric right out of your hands. You needed to give us facts, and you failed. You needed to compromise, and you bucked bi-partisan solutions showcasing the inflexibility of a zealot, and the policies of a hard core liberal.

Though Obama claims "we are back from the brink" it is his Presidency that is on the brink. The brink of collapse.

Follow Andrea on Twitter: @andreatantaros.

Five Biggest Blunders of Obamacare

2009-08-27T08:57:00-04:00

President Obama's health care "plan" is going down like a handful of tacks, and the Democratic Party, experiencing the political equivalent of a nervous breakdown, is poised to commence a civil war over health reform that could virtually tear the party's leaders to shreds.

The White House has made a series of irreversible blunders that have left the party, and the President, in peril.

* Message schizophrenia. The talking points coming out of the White House these days are harder to follow than a Jessica Simpson autobiography. First, there was the moral imperative that it wanted to move forward with universal health care to cover the 46 million uninsured. This number is misleading. Many of the uninsured are offered insurance and don't take it, and millions are illegal aliens. More troubling is the fact that the former director of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) says that 43% have the means to buy insurance but don't. CBO projections among the uninsured in 2009: 18% will be eligible for but not enrolled in Medicaid, and 30% will be offered, but will decline, coverage from an employer, leaving the electorate questioning a full overhaul.

When the original argument fell flat, the White House quickly shifted to an economic imperative that its plan would help cut the rising cost of care. Not so, according to the CBO, which found that the Democratic "plan" will raise - not cut - costs. Nothing blows up a sales pitch like getting mugged by reality.

* Hubris. There's a proverb that states that pride comes before a fall. Not only did Obama's overbearing pride cause him to grossly underestimate how savvy seniors and the entire American electorate is when it comes to health care, it also allowed him to overestimate his own understanding of the issue - particularly from a purely political standpoint.

* Playground Tactics. Insults are generally reserved for people who cut you off while driving. They aren't smart strategy when used against the people who elected you.

The left discounted the initial concern and anger of its constituents and insulted them by calling them "angry mobs" and "evil." When you put forth a plan that is baked with every possible political poison from half a trillion in tax hikes to penalties for small business to fund it, you can't expect anything but legitimate fury.

Worse yet, as polls show support for health reform declining along with Obama's approval numbers, the administration continues to ignore the public outcry. It is either in serious denial, doesn't give a damn about losing Congress to Republicans in 2010, or is more beholden to the far left than one could have ever imagined.

* Poor Planning. Obama and his team never expected to have to fight "evildoers" all August long over universal health care. The President's presumption anticipated a bill being sent to his desk the first week in August. In fact, that's exactly what Dr. Obama ordered. And because they didn't think they'd experience any pushback, they never had a real blueprint, especially when it came time to explain how they were going to pay for it. Cutting $300 billion from Medicare would result in fewer services for seniors. That's not exactly going to move the masses.

* History. They ignored it. What's the saying? "Smart people learn from their mistakes, while wise people learn from the mistakes of others." The Obama team didn't learn from the mistakes of the Clintons when it comes to trying to reform health care. One look back at the 1990s would have shown the left that the more people hear about drastic changes like a government option in health care, the more they dislike it.

Again we see the arrogance. Or perhaps it was ignorance. Notice a theme here?

The next few weeks will be pivotal for Obama and his credibility. There is little room for error. That means he'll need two plans: one for the nation, and one to protect his political health.

Obama Plays the God Card

2009-08-21T07:36:00-04:00

It’s said that when people are experiencing trials and tribulations, they often seek a higher power. The President is apparently one of them.

Yesterday, in perhaps the most overtly religious move of his tenure thus far, the selectively faithful Obama preached his message to more than 1,000 leaders of different faiths in two conference calls, hoping they will see the light with regard to his overhaul. No word if Reverend Wright was on the line.

According to the LA Times: “The effort, known as ‘40 Days for Health Reform,’ features a national television ad, prayer rallies, meetings in congressional districts where lawmakers are waffling and a nationwide ‘sermon weekend’ at the end of August. The push also aims to influence leaders in the Jewish faith before the fall religious holidays.

I suppose grassroots organizing isn’t so bad when you have the guy upstairs on your side. Take that town hall evil doers!

“We are God's partners in matters of life and death," Obama said during the call with Jewish leaders, according to Washington Rabbi Jack Moline via Twitter.

Translation: Seeee America?? It’s just you and the man upstairs. No death panels!

Further, Pastor Obama said that many were “bearing false witness” and took a shot at his opposition calling the pushback to date: “fabrications that have been put out there in order to discourage people from meeting what I consider to be a core ethical and moral obligation: that is that we look out for one another, that I am my brother’s keeper, I am my sister’s keeper. In the wealthiest nation on earth right now, we are neglecting to live up to that call.”

If Obama wants to be his brother's keeper, shouldn’t he start with his own family?

So much has been made over Obama’s religion it’s an interesting turn of events that he has strategically decided to channel biblical references in hopes of turning believers into believing in his plan.

But will this theme of holy healthcare stick? When it comes to messages on universal health reform Obama has been all over the map. He initially argued it was a moral imperative, then quickly shifted to an economic imperative that reform would save costs. When the Congressional Budget Office debunked that theory saying the plan would actually raise costs, the White House pivoted yet again to a political imperative: demonizing the big insurance companies. Now with his plan and poll numbers in peril, he’s back to embracing the moral dimension to this discussion in the hopes of a political miracle.

But what exactly are Obama’s morals? Defend the weakest or reward the dumbest? Obama paints a picture of an indigenous mass of nomads but the CBO projects that among the uninsured in 2009, 17 percent will have family income above 300 percent of the poverty level (about $65,000 for a family of four); 18 percent will be eligible for but not enrolled in Medicaid; and 30 percent will be offered, but will decline, coverage from an employer.

Isn’t it their moral duty to get coverage, rather than have others foot the bill for those who make bad decisions? And isn’t our moral duty to try and cover them first before strapping future generations into massive debt? Can I get an amen for personal responsibility?

Not long ago Obama criticized those who cling to their religion. With support for his mission rapidly fleeting, he’s now the one with open arms asserting that if you believe in God you should believe in his policies. I guess in times of adversity, it’s acceptable to use a Hail Mary to get us to cling to him.

Follow me on Twitter: @andreatantaros

O's Options

2009-08-20T07:55:00-04:00

As the Democratic Party finds itself on the precipice of a civil war over a public option in universal healthcare, President Obama finds himself in the political fight of his life. A fight for his credibility and capital, one that will present serious choices and leave little room for error. Nobody knows what he’ll do, but let’s take a look at his options:

Run. If Hillary Clinton were President she’d take that healthcare hot potato and chuck it. Obama has displayed an appalling lack of leadership on heath reform. He sent no bills of his own to the Hill. He took no specific positions on the five bills in the House and Senate. He gave flowery calls to action and gave Pelosi and Reid the reigns. The best thing that could happen to him is that he pretends he was never as close to the problem as we suspected (Think Reverend Wright style). He’d have to throw leftist, congressional Dems under the political bus but he’d rather be on the side of the popular opinion than in the progressive minority on this one. He may loose a body of Congress as Bill Clinton did, but he’ll have a better shot of re-election. Where else is the far left going to go in 2012? Nader?

Rebrand Republican Ideas. The polls collectively display an overwhelming opposition to the government getting its grimy paws in healthcare. If the mismanagement of Medicaid and Medicare are any indication, it’s undoubtedly best. Obama, typically one to never want to be on the wrong side of a poll, could forgo the real public option and co-opt a Republican idea like signing up those 18 million Americans who are eligible for Medicaid but aren’t on the rolls. He could then call that his government option. Throw some cultish iconography on it, shout “Yes We Did” a few times at some rally and hope for the best. The left would still be pissed, but it would help him save face with the rest of the country without completely going into the witness protection program.

Be a Faux Bipartisan. Obama preached about reaching across the aisle during the campaign but hasn’t exactly performed. If he thought about it, it was only to choke someone for nailing him on his excessive spending and failed stimulus. He could bring in the GOP for buy-in to his plan by forgoing the public option and adding some populist themes to his push like tort reform. Then once Republicans have come on board, he blames them for everything that’s wrong with healthcare and start with Medicare. The move is super Clintonian and it’s unlikely Obama has the ability to pull it off as adeptly as Bill did, but it’s still on the table.

Roll Over. His final, and most politically unwise option, is to let the far left have their way with him by unquestionably, consistently advocating for a public option. He’ll task Pelosi with ramming it through the House and gear up for a bloodbath in the Senate. He will likely write his own obituary, and his party will have just about eaten each other alive, but he might not care if he thinks it’ll earn him historic grandeur in academic textbooks.

Obama needs to make up his mind and do it quickly. The electorate may have signaled they’ll be patient with the new President, but after weeks of public blunders, insults, ignored outrage and message mismanagement their patience has run thin.