| Morning Jolt
. . . with Jim Geraghty September 23, 2013 New York Times: Wait, Obamacare Has a Big Downside We Forgot to Mention Page A1 of the New York Times this morning breaks to readers the catch about Obamacare's offerings to low-income families: Federal officials often say that health insurance will cost consumers less than expected under President Obama's health care law. But they rarely mention one big reason: many insurers are significantly limiting the choices of doctors and hospitals available to consumers. From California to Illinois to New Hampshire, and in many states in between, insurers are driving down premiums by restricting the number of providers who will treat patients in their new health plans. When insurance marketplaces open on Oct. 1, most of those shopping for coverage will be low- and moderate-income people for whom price is paramount. To hold down costs, insurers say, they have created smaller networks of doctors and hospitals than are typically found in commercial insurance. And those health care providers will, in many cases, be paid less than what they have been receiving from commercial insurers. In a new study, the Health Research Institute of PricewaterhouseCoopers, the consulting company, says that "insurers passed over major medical centers" when selecting providers in California, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky and Tennessee, among other states. "Doing so enables health plans to offer lower premiums," the study said. "But the use of narrow networks may also lead to higher out-of-pocket expenses, especially if a patient has a complex medical problem that's being treated at a hospital that has been excluded from their health plan." Meanwhile, insurance companies continue to drop customers. Representative Cory Gardner, (R., Colo.) and Michelle Malkin are among those now looking for new -- much more expensive – health-insurance plans, because their old ones have been canceled. The U.S. Senate, Now With One Majority Leader and Two Minority Leaders Yes, this is weird. Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace said Sunday morning that he'd received opposition research from other Republicans about Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) in advance of Cruz's appearance this morning, a serious indication of how upset the GOP is with the Senator leading the risky charge to defund ObamaCare. "This has been one of the strangest weeks I've ever had in Washington," Wallace said. "As soon as we listed Ted Cruz as our featured guest this week, I got unsolicited research and questions, not from Democrats but from top Republicans, to hammer Cruz." Rarely does a comment launch so many unanswered follow-up questions. Which top Republicans? What kind of questions? And when Wallace says, "unsolicited research," does he mean, "here's some polling numbers" or does he mean "here's some dirt on Cruz" or "here's a question that will put Cruz on the spot"? Back on Fox News Sunday: "This was a strategy laid out by Mike Lee (R-UT) and Ted Cruz without any consultation with their colleagues," said Karl Rove. "With all due respect to my junior Senator from Texas, I suspect this is the first time that the end game was described to any Republican Senator. They had to tune in to listen to you to find out what Ted's next step was in the strategy." In case you missed it, here is the strategy: Listen up, Senate Republicans. Sen. Ted Cruz has some advice on how to win the defund-Obamacare fight in the Senate this week, and it's a little counterintuitive. The Texas Republican is advising his Republican colleagues to filibuster the House's continuing resolution — the very resolution he wants to become law. The House passed a bill Friday to keep government funded past the Sept. 30 deadline that included language that defunds the Affordable Care Act. Cruz is applying some conventional wisdom, assuming Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will strip the language defunding Obamacare as he has promised, using a simple majority in the Senate after reaching the 60-vote cloture threshold to end debate. "If Reid pursues this plan — if he insists on using a 50-vote threshold to fund Obamacare with a partisan vote of only Democrats — then I hope that every Senate Republican will stand together and oppose cloture on the bill in order to keep the House bill intact and not let Harry Reid add Obamacare funding back in," Cruz said in a statement. The idea is that as the deadline to avoid a government shutdown approaches, Senate Democrats will fold. Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, a Cruz ally, thinks the public's opposition to Obamacare will help persuade Democrats to oppose the president's signature health care law. "If the American people make their voices heard now and start contacting Senate Democrats, I truly believe that, along with a unified Senate Republican Caucus, we will convince enough Democrats to finally do the right thing for the country," Lee said. Reid says he and his caucus won't fold. The fact that he says they won't doesn't necessarily mean they won't, but . . . it's worth noting that he's saying that. "I have said it before, but it seems to bear repeating: The Senate will not pass any bill that defunds or delays Obamacare," Reid said. "I am glad to see more and more of my moderate Republican colleagues speaking up against the vocal, irrational minority within their ranks." Sunday night, Andy McCarthy spelled out the justification for the Cruz strategy: The current defunding effort is a put-your-money-where-your-mouth-is moment: Risk a government shutdown over Obamacare funding under circumstances where Republicans could be blamed, but where (a) Obamacare is very unpopular and its downside consequences are just beginning to kick in; (b) the defunding strategy includes a commitment to fund the rest of government so it can be demonstrated that Obama would really be the one shutting down the government over Obamacare; and (c) Obama himself has already unilaterally and unconstitutionally defunded aspects of Obamacare, including repugnant accommodations for big corporations, Obama insiders, and members of Congress -- such that, if the government shuts down, Republicans can compellingly argue that they are only insisting that the American people get the same relief from this awful law that Obama cronies, the ruling class, and the politically-connected get. It may not work. Even if it doesn't, though, it could have long-term benefits as Democrats up for election in 2014 and 2016 — Democrats who have gotten Obamacare fixes for themselves -- are forced to defend Obamacare in the light of day. And for conservatives, it is a chance to see which Republicans are for real and which ones talk a good game as long as it's just a game. Okay, but what if the public decides that they hate a government shutdown and its disruptions more than they hate Obamacare? Aren't Democrats who have gotten Obamacare fixes for themselves going to be forced to defend Obamacare in the light of day whether or not there's a government shutdown? The Clinton Foundation: Helping the Rich and Powerful Feel Good About Themselves The Clinton Foundation is going to be the subject of a lot of scrutiny from here on out: Hillary Clinton's announcement in May that she would be joining her husband's foundation seemed, to outsiders, like the most natural thing in the world: A high-minded, charitable base for whatever the former Secretary of State might choose to do. But inside Clinton's circle, the decision provoked a frisson of worry: Clinton was giving up, some thought, the (genuinely) plausible deniability that could protect her from a charitable venture that had always had, up close, a seedy side. The New Republic's Alec MacGillis Sunday night opened what are likely to be three years of close public scrutiny of the very private, elite, and lucrative shadow of the Clinton foundation — and specifically, the question of what the foundation's big donors got in exchange for their hundreds of thousands of dollars in contributions. MacGillis's article is a profile of the architect of what he describes as the "transactionalism" at the heart of Clinton-land, his former aide Doug Band, and his role in shaping a singular charitable enterprise. Band maintained, simultaneously, an "executive consulting" firm called Teneo, whose dealings are totally opaque, aside from having let Band spend $8.8 million on an Upper East Side apartment. "There's an undertow of transactionalism in the glittering annual dinners, the fixation on celebrity, and a certain contingent of donors whose charitable contributions and business interests occupy an uncomfortable proximity," MacGillis writes. Politico and the New York Times earlier this year touched on problems at the foundation, and at the suggestion that Chelsea Clinton had brought in an outside law firm to audit it. The TNR piece adds a great deal of detail, and raises the question of how money moved in and out of Teneo, and for what. Who does this guy think he is, Terry McAuliffe?
If you're wondering where the foundation spends all that money . . . Bill Clinton's foundation has spent more than $50 million on travel expenses since 2003, an analysis of the non-profit's tax forms reveal. The web of foundations run by the former president spent an eye-opening $12.1 million on travel in 2011 alone, according to an internal audit conducted by foundation accountants. That's enough to by 12,000 air tickets costing $1,000 each, or 33 air tickets each day of the year. According to previously undisclosed data provided by the Clinton Foundation, presidential trips accounted for 13 percent of the 2010 travel budget and 10 percent of the 2011 travel budget. That puts Bill Clinton's single-year travel tab for 2011 at more than $1 million. A foundation official wouldn't say how many presidential trips occurred in that time frame. The Clinton Foundation is a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit organization. Somewhere along the line, it became socially acceptable for nonprofits to spend as much on their executives as Fortune 500 companies do. But you know their response. Come on. Say it with me: "What difference, at this point, does it make?" Cory Booker, Pathological Liar In the past weeks, and with great emphasis this weekend, our Eliana Johnson and the New York Post's Michael Gartland prove that Cory Booker is a pathological liar when it comes to his own life story. He and a largely compliant New Jersey and New York-area media painted Booker as a heroic mayor who's doing his best in a troubled city. The truth is that he's a mediocre mayor in city that is basically in the same shape as when he started, with his personal legend largely based upon exaggerations and over-dramatizations. His single greatest skill is self-promotion. Are you paying attention, all of you national media correspondents, preparing for the "rising star" profile pieces after Booker's near-certain win October 16? Are you paying attention, New Jersey voters? If you find voting for Steve Lonegan unthinkable, you are allowed to stay home on Election Day. ADDENDA: A little while back, I answered a dozen mostly apolitical questions from Lisa De Pasquale over at Townhall.com.
NRO Digest — September 23, 2013 Today on National Review Online . . . To read more, visit www.nationalreview.com
| Why not forward this to a friend? Encourage them to sign up for NR's great free newsletters here. Save 75%... Subscribe to National Review magazine today and get 75% off the newsstand price. Click here for the print edition or here for the digital. National Review also makes a great gift! Click here to send a full-year of NR Digital or here to send the print edition to family, friends, and fellow conservatives.
| National Review, Inc.
Manage your National Review subscriptions. We respect your right to privacy. View our policy. This email was sent by:
National Review, Inc.
215 Lexington Avenue, 11th Floor
New York, NY 10016 | 
Comments
Post a Comment