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 '10
Re: Romney's Transition Leader Favors Implementing Obamacare
Possibly a sign of our worst fears being realised. Gingrich 2012.
Apr '11
Re: Romney's Transition Leader Favors Implementing Obamacare
Bassett and Wilson: 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. ·
If people want to be hard on Mitt over policy, I can totally see their point. You dislike the new education manifesto? Go to town.
If people want to demand a campaign/ administration mostly run by conservatives? You got it. You want a campaign totally run by conservatives? That's a bit tougher, but Governor Leavitt (R-UT) is decently conservative.
You want a campaign/ totally run by people who agree with you on all the important issues? Can't be done, not competently.
Objecting to Bush's spending? Sure, that would have been good. Objecting to Condi's running state because of her pro-choice views? Nuts; she did absolutely no harm with them.
Constructive criticism is helpful. Demanding that all appointments are of the ideologically pure? Which of Reagan's appointments met those standards? Demanding the impossible is doing Obama's work.
Apr '11
Re: Romney's Transition Leader Favors Implementing Obamacare
I can see the argument for keeping the heat on, but if you do so indiscriminately, you're not persuasive. If you offer nothing but criticism, promise to vote right but make it clear that you'll never offer anything more, then why should the campaign care about your views?
Who, amongst the people who Mitt knows well and trusts, who would be connected to be effective in this role, and who won't have another critical job during that period, would you want taking the job? If you don't have an answer, there probably isn't one.
If you offer unavoidable criticism, with no viable right answer, you're not encouraging the campaign to avoid future criticism, you're just indulging yourself.
Apr '11
Re: Romney's Transition Leader Favors Implementing Obamacare
I shudder to imagine what ol'Newt's poll numbers and fund raising would look like right now.
Jul '10
Re: Romney's Transition Leader Favors Implementing Obamacare
David Williamson: 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.
Regardless of the government entity implementing, exchanges just provide more gate events where health care companies have to kow tow to lower and lower levels of governmental stooge to stay in business, and more preposterousness can be implemented with the force of law. RomneyCare accelerated the rate at which health consumers were consigned into the maw of Medicaid purposely. Exchanges are the mechanism.
Romney's best hope is that the Tea Party of 2012 contribute and vote for him in a coattail effect from their support for serious reform candidates in local and Congressional elections. Not on the theory that Romney is a good idea, fewer than 20% of Tea Partiers appear to hold that view, but on the theory that he will be less dangerous than Obama and that a decent Congress (OK, a more decent Congress) will check his mad (OK, evil) technocratic impulses.
Jul '10
Re: Romney's Transition Leader Favors Implementing Obamacare
With regard to comments on Leavitt: There is nothing decent about exchanges, and the people who promote them are dangerous to the Republic. I could not care less whether a man is considered conservative, liberal, progressive, socialist, libertarian, or fabian, if he his proposing devices by which more vain pea brains in official government hair shirts can muck about with services many of have, do, or will rely on to save the life of a loved one, then a pox on him and all of his, unto the hundredth generation.
In order to be attracted by this proposition, one must overlook every insane, ludicrous, and criminal result that government spews out daily, most of it unnecessary. If Romney would be Gulliver, then let's make a Lilliputian Congress to lash him down tight.
Jul '10
Re: Romney's Transition Leader Favors Implementing Obamacare
As a side note, Mark Levin opened his show tonight with this Conversation tonight, citing "our friends at Ricochet" and Ben by name. His wrath is not assuaged by the campaign's reassurances.
Oct '11
Re: Romney's Transition Leader Favors Implementing Obamacare
Shades of things to come. The apologistas are sounding pretty lame tonight.
Y'all must think we're stupid. Hey, look, Tea Partiers! It's Halley's comet!
Apr '11
Re: Romney's Transition Leader Favors Implementing Obamacare
When is Mark Levin's wrath ever assuaged?
Jul '10
Re: Romney's Transition Leader Favors Implementing Obamacare
wmartin
When is Mark Levin's wrath ever assuaged? · 12 hours ago
He speaks reverently of president Reagan on a consistent basis, and if you can get him started on dogs he will share stories for hours without a cross word. Just don't mention Obama in that context.