Romney's Transition Leader Favors Implementing Obamacare
One of the few Republicans in the country who's been tirelessly pushing for the implementation of Obamacare at the state level has been tapped to head Mitt Romney's transition team, should he become president.
Former HHS Secretary Michael Leavitt, and his consulting group Leavitt Partners, are the primary advocates within Republican circles for implementation of Obamacare's exchanges. It just so happens that his consultancy is one of the major beneficiaries of the taxpayer funded gold mine of hundreds of millions of dollars in exchange implementation grants. But that's a coincidence, of course.
Leavitt has said some relatively positive things about certain elements of Obama’s health reform law, suggesting earlier this year that “Obamacare” empowers the HHS secretary “to do certain things that are clearly aimed at trying to move us in the right direction.”
McKeown, who still works with Leavitt at his Utah-based health care consultancy, acknowledged that the former governor does not want to undo one key part of the controversial legislation.
“We believe that the exchanges are the solution to small business insurance market and that’s gotten us sideways with some conservatives,” he said.
The exchanges are not only a matter of principle for Leavitt — they’re also a cash cow.
The size of his firm, Leavitt Partners, doubled in the year after the bill was signed as they won contracts to help states set up the exchanges funded by the legislation.
Over the past year, Leavitt and his staff have repeatedly tangled with conservative and libertarian think-tanks and advocates who oppose him on this point, understanding that there is no such thing as a state run exchange under Obamacare, and that this represents the primary front for states in the battle against Obamacare's implementation. This hasn't stopped him from lobbying all over the country for it. Here's Leavitt speaking last year to the National Governors Association, urging them to implement while failing to disclose his financial stake in doing so.
Speaking to a bipartisan group of governors at the National Governors Association, the former Republican governor who served as secretary of health and human services in the Bush administration, called the exchanges where individuals and small businesses can purchase health plans “a very practical solution to a problem that needs to be solved.” He warned governors who are reluctant to move forward with their state-level exchanges that their intransigence will only empower federal regulators.
And he said the health care law that passed is a compromise that gives the states the flexibility they need.
“This is a profoundly important time for the states,” said Mr. Leavitt. “States need to lead.” ...
The federal law gives the states until January 2014 to set up their own exchanges, with federal oversight. If they fail to do so, their citizens will get access to a federal exchange.
But some Republican governors have been reluctant. They oppose the federal law and say they hope it will be repealed by a Republican president in 2013.
Mr. Leavitt urged them to get moving anyway... He urged the governors not defend their “partisan flags” over the interests of their states.
Thankfully, this has been a push that Leavitt has been losing. A host of Republican governors have turned back his appeal to implement (you can read my own case against exchange implementation here). In fact, their obstinate refusal to implement has become an item of support in the courts for overturning Obamacare. And now most Republican-led states are holding back to see what happens at the Supreme Court, as they should've done in the first place.
One can argue about the merits of an exchange absent Obamacare's rules, regulations, authority shifts, price controls, and taxpayer funded subsidies. But the overwhelming majority of conservative policymakers understand that Obamacare's exchanges are nothing more than delivery mechanisms for massive taxpayer-funded subsidies and bureaucratic regulations from Washington. What's more, states which avoid implementing exchanges may be able to avoid the implementation of Obamacare almost in its entirety.
Those who favor implementation have been rebuffed, and they don't like it. As Michael Cannon notes:
USA Today reports that groups like the American Legislative Exchange Council and the Cato Institute have had much success in discouraging states from creating Obamacare’s health insurance “exchanges.” Even the Heritage Foundation, which once counseled states to establish “defensive” Obamacare exchanges, now counsels states to refuse to create them and to send all exchange-related grants back to Washington.
In response, Obamacare contractor and self-described conservative Republican Cheryl Smith sniffs: "When you work at a think-tank, it’s really easy to come up with these really high-risk plans."
Except, there is no risk to states. The only risks to this strategy are that health insurance companies won’t get half a trillion dollars in taxpayer subsidies, and that certain Obamacare contractors won’t get any more of those lucrative exchange contracts.
Smith works for Leavitt Partners. So does David Merritt, who as recently as two months ago, was making the case that Republicans should ignore the positions of governors like Bobby Jindal and Rick Scott and implement exchanges. Neither, of course, notes their financial stake in doing so (but hey, it's a living).
What's most concerning about all of this is not that Romney selected one of the few Republicans in the country who backs implementation of Obamacare's exchanges. It's what the selection of Leavitt means as an indication of how Romney would potentially "fix" Obamacare if repeal proves impossible. According to Politico, "already, plugged-in Republicans from Washington to Salt Lake City are buzzing that Leavitt could make his own transition next January into the job of White House chief of staff or as a Valerie Jarrett-like personal counselor to a President Romney."
Should the Supreme Court strike down only a portion of Obamacare, it seems clear Leavitt would be a major voice in deciding how to replace it. And he is convinced that "exchanges are part of the future, no matter what."
UPDATE: Matt Lewis reached out to Team Romney for response, and they say not to worry.
- Comment (50)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (4)
Comments:
Nov '11
Re: Romney's Transition Leader Favors Implementing Obamacare
wmartin
I can't believe this group is going into such hysterics over some guy who will be performing the purely administrative task of overseeing the transition.
"Odious?!?" Geez... · 12 minutes ago
You know, this guy doesn't exist in a vacuum. He's not the only data point. Did you miss that whole Romneycare thing? Sorry, but when it comes to the subject of RomneyCare, Mitt Romney and the people around him are guilty until proven innocent.
Apr '11
Re: Romney's Transition Leader Favors Implementing Obamacare
BrentB67
wmartin
Fred Cole: This is why the two parties craft the myth that you MUST MUST MUST hold your nose and vote for their candidate or else the sky will fall.
So it doesn't matter how odious Romney is, you have no choice. · 5 minutes ago
I can't believe this group is going into such hysterics over some guy who will be performing the purely administrative task of overseeing the transition.
"Odious?!?" Geez... · 1 minute ago
Because the man who is asking for our support to be the next President of the United States put this gentleman in the position for 'purely administrative task...'.
It isn't about Mr. Leavitt - it is about the person that thinks this is a good idea. · 5 minutes ago
From what I can tell, Leavitt has had an absolutely outstanding -and solidly conservative- career. It's a superb choice by Romney.
Edited on June 4, 2012 at 3:18amMar '11
Re: Romney's Transition Leader Favors Implementing Obamacare
I think the key words are "at the state level".
I don't have a big problem with the exchanges, if they are done at the state level by greedy capitalists, or at least for profit, rather than by Ms Sibelius.
The syphilitic camel rule still applies.
Jun '11
Re: Romney's Transition Leader Favors Implementing Obamacare
Oh OK. Thanks Ben. I'll look closer at supporting Obama now based on this post.
Jan '12
Re: Romney's Transition Leader Favors Implementing Obamacare
[deleted: double post]
Edited on June 4, 2012 at 5:45amJan '12
Re: Romney's Transition Leader Favors Implementing Obamacare
Mr Martin,
Your derogatory use of the word "hysterics" has a positively insidious, "trivialize the opposition" smell about it. Yes, my nostrils are picking up the odor; it wafts from over yonder on the Left.
Yours is a tired tactic, Mr. Martin. Arthur Schlesinger and John Kenneth Galbraith used it to effect against Barry Goldwater. The result was Lyndon Baines Johnson, his toady Michael Harrington, and the asphalt-stinking road to serfdom they paved with the Great Society. In the decades since it has gained credibility among the demos. And now the republic stands on the brink of bankruptcy while too many who possess the franchise clamor like villein seeking after a benign baronic lord to bestow upon them the soft servility that infests the Eurozone.
And YOU make frivolous with "hysterics?" For shame, sir.
Edited on June 4, 2012 at 5:57amFeb '11
Re: Romney's Transition Leader Favors Implementing Obamacare
The Utah Exchange model seems to have a lot to recommend it for a conservative. The government provides a portal for employers to give a greater number of private insurance options to their employees. What's not to like? This PBS story provides a pretty good summary, including an interview clip with Mike Leavitt. If you aren't clear about what is so controversial about exchanges, I think the story will help you understand the debate.
Nov '11
Re: Romney's Transition Leader Favors Implementing Obamacare
The syphilitic camel would not give us SyphiliticCamelCare.
Romney promises to repeal and replace, but "hasn't provided specifics" about the most important details.
ObamaCare . . . RomneyCare . . . after a few years you would not be able to tell the difference.
Jan '12
Re: Romney's Transition Leader Favors Implementing Obamacare
Although my inner libertarian screams No, No; I must admit that from a Burkean perspective there may be some merit in the Utah portal. The Devil, if devil he be, would be in the details, which at this moment lie beyond my competence to assess.
But allow me to thank you for calmly providing a link to the approach you recommend. You have showed vastly more wisdom and charity than the one who waxed indignant about purported hysterics.
Orson Scott Card has presented worthy communitarian ideas in a manner that invites a libertarian to stop and rethink his radical individualism. There seems to be some thinking going on in Utah that has been too unfairly misjudged. Perhaps not all the premises will be embraced, but none can disparage the good will with which they are presented.
Apr '11
Re: Romney's Transition Leader Favors Implementing Obamacare
Noesis Noeseos:
Your derogatory use of the word "hysterics" has a positively insidious, "trivialize the opposition" smell about it. Yes, my nostrils are picking up the odor; it wafts from over yonder on the Left.
Yours is a tired tactic, Mr. Martin. Arthur Schlesinger and John Kenneth Galbraith used it to effect against Barry Goldwater. The result was Lyndon Baines Johnson, his toady Michael Harrington, and the asphalt-stinking road to serfdom they paved with the Great Society. In the decades since it has gained credibility among thedemos. And now the republic stands on the brink of bankruptcy while too many who possess the franchise clamor likevilleinseeking after a benign baronic lord to bestow upon them the soft servility that infests the Eurozone.
We're talking about an administrative staffer here, not the candidate (or VP, or policy director, or anything that would touch upon Obamacare repeal in any way). And we're certainly not talking about anything that would justify such an unbelievably pompous post.
Mitt Romney wants to be elected President, and then be re-elected. To that end, he will do anything he can to repeal Obamacare (if that is even necessary after SCOTUS weighs in).
Edited on June 4, 2012 at 7:24amJan '12
Re: Romney's Transition Leader Favors Implementing Obamacare
wmartin
We're talking about an administrative staffer here, not the candidate (or VP, or policy director, or anything that would touch upon Obamacare repeal in any way). And we're certainly not talking about anything that would justify such an unbelievably pompous post.
Mitt Romney wants to be elected President, and then be re-elected. To that end, he will do anything he can to repeal Obamacare (if that is even necessary after SCOTUS weighs in). · 34 minutes ago
Edited 12 minutes ago
Well, there is what to a monolinguistic σεσαπός appears as pomposity and then there is what to a citizen must appear as sycophancy. The latter serves well in a cabal of the power-hungry, not so well in a republic of free men. Believe it, ὦ τᾶν!
Edited on June 4, 2012 at 8:57amOct '11
Re: Romney's Transition Leader Favors Implementing Obamacare
Peronnel is policy. I would prefer a model that got employers out of paying employees in health insurance. This is a wage and price control WW2 relic. Instead of fixing the problem we are going to layer on top of the problem another government program.
Apr '11
Re: Romney's Transition Leader Favors Implementing Obamacare
Bush appointed a pro-choice Sec. State. If that made you think that he was maybe pro-choice, or would maybe rescind the Mexico City policy, then you were confused about how the Presidency works.
Like Bush, Mitt has many officials to appoint, and many advisers. Obviously, you can't have the best officials if you only employ people who agree with you on everything. Justice Bork, Mitt's chief adviser on judicial matters doesn't think that the Ninth Amendment means anything. That doesn't mean that Mitt lacks a belief in the Ninth Amendment.
Norm Coleman opposed drilling in ANWR. Mitt isn't Norm or Robert or Mike. If Mitt was proposing to make the same HHS Secretary choice as Bush (Gov. Leavitt), then I could see the argument that his HHS commitment was less strong than he claims. Appointing a strong conservative with an HHS weak point to a temporary administrative position is no more indicative of HHS weakness than appointing Gov. Jindal to the position would suggest he was a protectionist.
Apr '11
Re: Romney's Transition Leader Favors Implementing Obamacare
Did you think that the Rice era Bush administration was pro-choice, or do you accept that sometimes officials don't get to dictate government policy on all matters?
Do you think that Bush's appointment of Clay Johnson III, far less of a movement conservative than Gov. Leavitt, was responsible for any major policy initiatives being dropped, or being initiated? Does Romney have a history of being dominated by his human resources departments?
This is just the latest in a series of Domenech/ Klein attempts to suggest that Romney's clear position in favor of repealing Obamacare is confusing. Whether it's misleading about the limitations of reconciliation, or suggesting that Romney not excommunicating the bulk of the party (most people are wrong about something or other) demonstrates that he believes the combined heresies of all of them, they have all been frivolous, albeit each one a novel claim.
Edited on June 4, 2012 at 10:48amFeb '11
Re: Romney's Transition Leader Favors Implementing Obamacare
It's an old saying that actions speak louder than words.
Romney's actions say over and over again that he really doesn't have too much trouble with Obamacare. This appointment fits that pattern.
Of course Romney knows the base-which-always-turns-out hates Obamacare, so he keeps them jaws a-flappin'.
If I felt charitably towards the GOP establishment I'm sure I'd accept that Romney probably knows Leavitt and thinks well of him, and stop at that.
But I don't feel charitably towards the GOP establishment. In fact Leavitt and lobbying group ring up as yet another in the endless list of grifters that have made the United States the brokest nation in history.
That thought doesn't make me think well of Leavitt, or of Romney for hiring him.
I strongly suspect, based on past observations, that before Leavitt leaves government service this next time he will have gotten much richer taking actions that would get me fired and possibly prosecuted.
Not illegal actions, of course. But I still remember how Dennis Hastert entered Congress as a wrestling coach and left a millionaire.
Nice work, if you can get it.
Oct '11
Re: Romney's Transition Leader Favors Implementing Obamacare
James of England, I agree and accept that there are going to be people in the administration that are too liberal for me and others on this or that issue and there will not always be ideological purity. I like Mitt and support him. I think he has great character but may have something of a tax collector for the welfare state tilt. My concern is that the position at issue is an important one with respect to the initial direction the administration takes. Obamacare is a big issue and Romney pre-election doesn't have the greatest track record on that type of health care program. This doesn't make me feel a lot better about it. Also the transition director position (or a chief of staff position) is different than having say a pro choice energy secretary. It is also true that this staffing choice isn't the dispositive predictive data point on this issue. It is good to keep the heat on these candidates so they don't get coopted in DC.
Oct '11
Re: Romney's Transition Leader Favors Implementing Obamacare
James of England, a follow up:
Do you think it was a mistake for conservatives to not have been harder on GWB's (and congressional Republicans) spending when he was in office? I will admit that I defended them/supported them/looked the other way at the time but wish I hadn't.
Mar '11
Re: Romney's Transition Leader Favors Implementing Obamacare
Our only hope is that SCOTUS throws the whole thing out. Because I damn sure don't trust Mitt Romney or John Boehner to do it.
Mar '11
Re: Romney's Transition Leader Favors Implementing Obamacare
I will (probably) vote for him, But it'll take years of good work in the White House for me to trust him. His history is simply too full of examples of speech and action that makes me distrust him. A few weeks back we had a thread excoriating people that weren't going Rah Rah for Romney, in essence saying they were tired of the skepticism and that it was time to fall into ranks. Well, tough. Because skepticism is what they're going to get. Romney has to earn my trust.
May '12
Re: Romney's Transition Leader Favors Implementing Obamacare
I don't get Republicans.
They love the campaign Mitt is running and love his organizational skills and his ability to get things done.
Duh! Maybe it is because he has good peeps? Just saying.
So what if one of his 'great' people have a misdirected opinion on an issue? As Reagan was wont to say- you don't have to agree with me 100% of the time, just 80% or something like that.
And now, still early, I read gnashing of teeth. Don't get on the roller coaster; just stay smooth and steady- it is a much better ride.