Guests: Linda Douglass, Bart Stupak, Eugene Robinson, Richard Wolffe, Phil
Gingrey, Angie Drobnic Holan
MICHAEL SMERCONISH, GUEST HOST: Angry words after health care passes.
Let‘s play HARDBALL.
Good evening. I‘m Michael Smerconish, in tonight for Chris Matthews,
whose son, Michael, got married this past weekend. Congratulations.
Leading off tonight: Health care reform, political suicide, or both?
Democrats are hailing last night‘s passage of health care reform as a
historic breakthrough on the scale of Social Security and Medicare.
Republicans are predicting disaster for the economy and defeat for
Democrats in November. We‘ll talk to some Democrats and Republicans on
what it all means and where we go from here.
Also, we heard reports that the “N” word was thrown at black
Democrats, and we heard a gay epithet hurled at Barney Frank. Bart Stupak
was called a baby killer on the House floor. The mood has become very ugly
out there.
And fallout: One thing President Obama gave up forever last night, the
idea of being a post-partisan president. Is there any hope of the two
parties working together, or will every fight look like health care?
Also, truth and lies. What‘s really in the bill, and the top lies
about health care reform.
Finally, speaking of hyperbole, you haven‘t heard anything until
you‘ve heard Congressman Devin Nunes of California.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. DEVIN NUNES ®, CALIFORNIA: Today we are turning back the
clock. For most of the 20th century, people fled the ghosts of communist
dictators, and now you are bringing the ghosts back into this chamber.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MATTHEWS: Believe it or not, Nunes didn‘t stop there, and we‘ve got
the rest in the “Sideshow.”
We start with the passage of health care reform. Let‘s go to the
White House now with Linda Douglass, who‘s the communications director for
the White House Office of Health Reform. Thanks for joining us.
LINDA DOUGLASS, COMM. DIR., W.H. HEALTH REFORM OFFICE: Thanks for
having me.
SMERCONISH: What‘s your level of concern or nervousness that the
Senate doesn‘t give you what you need to make this a closed deal?
DOUGLASS: Look, you know, I think the country is probably tired, at
this point, of, you know, these parliamentary, dilatory tactics and
obstruction tactics. We saw, you know, not too long ago, a senator holding
up, you know, for some time unemployment benefits for Americans. We saw
another senator who was holding up nominations for jobs, you know, needed
jobs in the government to do the people‘s work.
You know, the country‘s tired of all this. Certainly, this
legislation, you know, has passed the House of Representatives. What we‘re
talking about now is making some improvements that would lower prescription
drug costs for seniors, make it more affordable, strengthen consumer
protections and get rid of some of the special deals that people didn‘t
like. That‘s all the Senate is voting on, so we‘re confident that they‘ll
move forward.
SMERCONISH: Linda Douglass, here‘s President Obama last night talking
about what‘s on the Senate‘s plate. Let‘s listen together.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Now, as momentous as
this day is, it‘s not the end of this journey. On Tuesday, the Senate will
take up revisions to this legislation that the House has embraced. And
these are revisions that have strengthened this law and removed provisions
that had no place in it. Some have predicted another siege of
parliamentary maneuvering in order to delay adoption of these improvements.
I hope that‘s not the case. It‘s time to bring this debate to a close and
begin the hard work of implementing this reform properly on behalf of the
American people.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SMERCONISH: What would you say to critics who would today say that
Democrats are celebrating the passage of something that recent polls
suggest most Americans didn‘t really want?
DOUGLASS: Well, you know, if you ask people about the provisions of
the bill, the actual provisions of the bill—the small business tax
credits that will help most small businesses afford health insurance, the
fact that you can keep your young adult child on your plan until he‘s 26
years old, the fact that if you have a child with a preexisting condition,
that child can get coverage, and an adult with a preexisting condition will
also have access to coverage that is not available today, premiums will
start to go down—when you tell people what is actually in the
legislation, they‘re very much in favor of it.
And they will learn over the course of this year that many of these
benefits are going into effect this year. You know, the small business
will right away begin to calculate the business—small business tax
credit up to 35 percent that will help them afford health insurance.
SMERCONISH: Was there a lesson learned at the White House about
process? I mean, the president‘s approach to this really was to let
Congress do its own thing and then to get involved in the 10th or 11th
hour. If you had it to do all over again, perhaps you‘d say this is a deal
that you could have had three, four, five, six months ago and moved on to
something else. What lessons were learned about the approach?
DOUGLASS: Well, Michael, the one thing I would certainly dispute is
that the president got involved in the 10th or 11th hour. The president
was deeply involved from the very beginning, meeting with, you know, dozens
and dozens of members of Congress, speaking to them on the phone, in
negotiating sessions, in one-on-one sessions. You saw him, you know, in
various meetings, including a seven-hour meeting with the leaders of both
parties, seeking common ground.
You know, it was very important to have the Congress be involved in
writing the legislation, shaping it based upon his principles, which this
legislation absolutely is. You know, when you look back on what the
president asked for, which is, you know, lower costs, and you know,
strengthening consumer protections and reducing the deficit, those are all
the solid principles that the president was seeking from the very
beginning. This is absolutely the president‘s achievement, the president‘s
legislation. But the Congress, you know, has been deeply involved and a
tremendous partner.
SMERCONISH: Linda Douglass, congratulations on your success. And
thanks for being on HARDBALL.
DOUGLASS: Thank you.
SMERCONISH: Congressman Bart Stupak is a Michigan Democrat who made
the deal on abortion that paved the way for victory. Congressman, let‘s
listen together to a moment on the House floor as you spoke last night. By
now, the whole country has heard it.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Those who are shouting out are out of order!
REP. RANDY NEUGEBAUER ®, TEXAS: Baby killer!
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SMERCONISH: Did you hear the words “baby killer” as you spoke?
REP. BART STUPAK (D), MICHIGAN: Yes, I did.
SMERCONISH: Did you know from whom it had come? By now, you
certainly know that Congressman Randy Neugebauer has apologized. Did you
know when it was uttered that he was the one who‘d said it?
STUPAK: No, I did not. I was trying to focus on my speech and the
comments I wanted to make to the American people, so no, I really didn‘t
know who did it at the time.
SMERCONISH: He‘s apologized. Have you accepted the apology?
STUPAK: Yes, I accept the apology. It‘s unfortunate that it gets to
this point. We can have personal disagreements on issues, but we don‘t
need personal attacks. We got to keep proper decorum. We‘re supposed to
be professionals. We must be able to conduct ourselves at all times in a
professional manner.
SMERCONISH: He said, Congressman, that it wasn‘t a direct reference
to you. How could it not have been?
STUPAK: Yes, when he mentioned same thing to me, I said, Well, you
know, I was up there speaking and I was making my speech when you indicated
that. I certainly took it as a personal attack on me. And he said it
wasn‘t, and well, if that‘s the case, if it‘s not directed at me, then I
think he owes all of the members of the House of Representatives an
apology. It‘s in violation of our rules of proper decorum in the House of
Representatives, so maybe Randy needs to apologize to the House of
Representatives.
SMERCONISH: Congressman, allow me to show everybody the executive
order that you were able to negotiate with the White House. And I read it
today with some interest. It says, “The act maintains current Hyde
amendment restrictions governing abortion policy and extends those
restrictions to the newly created health insurance exchanges.”
It seems pretty straightforward. Maybe I‘m asking the wrong
individual, but on its face, it would suggest that nothing has changed from
Hyde.
STUPAK: Correct. Hyde applies. And I think you are asking the right
person, since a couple days of negotiations with the White House to get to
this final agreement. And I appreciate the president and the Speaker and
the rest of them working with us so we could get this agreement so we stay
true to the principle protecting the sanctity of life. And throughout this
whole debate, the president always said, I‘m not looking to use tax-funded
tax dollars to pay for abortion and to keep current law. And that‘s
what we did in this executive order, and it has the full force and effect
of law.
I‘m pleased to have played a role to get this Hyde language in this
legislation through the executive order and vote for health care to help
Americans because the real winners here are the American people, who will
now have quality, affordable health care.
SMERCONISH: Congressman, to what do you attribute the lack of decorum
that we‘re all familiar with now in Washington, whether it‘s the shout-out
by Joe Wilson, “You lie,” whether it‘s the shout-out now by Congressman
Neugebauer of “baby killer”—I mean, those of us who are sitting in
barcaloungers at home are wondering what‘s to explain all the shenanigans
in Washington when it comes to behavior.
STUPAK: Well, it‘s not just Washington. I mean, when we were walking
back and forth to votes this weekend, the protesters who were there are
people voicing their opinion, very derogatory comments towards members of
Congress. People were—members were spit on. I mean, we‘ve lost the
sense of civility, not just in the Congress but also in this country.
SMERCONISH: What‘s driving it?
STUPAK: We should respect one another.
SMERCONISH: What‘s driving it?
STUPAK: I think the polarization of the two parties and I—it‘s
becoming acceptable. I reject that. I don‘t think personal attacks on
people—just because you disagree—let‘s at least have a reasonable
conversation. Like in this case. I disagreed with my Democratic
colleagues. I wanted to protect the sanctity of life. I held to that
principle. And we were able to talk through it. We were able to work our
way through it, but we had to do it if we respect one another and try to
achieve a common goal. In this case, the common goal is to help the
American people have affordable, quality health care, and I‘m pleased we
were able to do it.
SMERCONISH: Have you given consideration—it‘s kind of funny for me
to say this because I wear two hats. I‘m a talk radio host by day, and
then I spend some time here doing this sort of thing. Have you given
consideration, Congressman Stupak, to the role of talk radio and the cable
outlets—and I mean both on the left and the right—that they present
this artificial view of America, that you‘re either red state, blue state,
black, white, Republican, Democrat, liberal, conservative, and then you
folks go down to Washington and you emulate what you hear on the radio or
see on TV.
STUPAK: Well, I hope we don‘t emulate it. And maybe talk radio and
24-hour news—maybe we ought to tone it down. Why don‘t we get to the
issues? You know, my biggest regret on this whole debate was the issue
ended up being all about abortion, all about abortion, instead of the
quality provisions that are in this health care bill, which really is there
to—and designed to help the American people.
And I‘m proud of the legislation. I look forward to the president
signing it soon and the Senate doing their job. And let‘s talk about the
positive aspects, instead of whether you‘re red, blue, green, whatever. As
President Obama says, we‘re not red states, blue states, we‘re Americans
and we have to work together.
SMERCONISH: What level of concern do you have, sir, that what you
were able to negotiate isn‘t going pass Senate muster, that the abortion
issue is going to come back up on reconciliation?
STUPAK: Well, first of all, the Senate has pledged there‘ll be no
changes. We can‘t have any changes. Otherwise, everything falls apart and
we go back to square one. Secondly, the Senate really has no impact on the
executive order because that‘s between the president and the American
people as he issued that executive order. I‘m confident the Senate will do
their job, pass those fixes we put in there, get it to the president, and
let‘s get those good consumer protection provisions signed immediately into
law to help the American people.
SMERCONISH: Congressman Bart Stupak, thank you for being on HARDBALL.
We appreciate it.
STUPAK: Thanks, Michael.
SMERCONISH: Let‘s go now to the gentleman who will have to sell this,
electorally speaking. Not only did the Republicans fail to defeat health
care reformed, they‘re left aligned with tea party protesters, some of whom
spewed gay and racial epithets at Democratic lawmakers over the weekend.
Can Republicans defend the ugly attacks of those on the far right?
You‘re watching HARDBALL, only on MSNBC.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Those who are shouting out are out of order.
NEUGEBAUER: Baby killer!
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SMERCONISH: Welcome back to HARDBALL. That was Texas Republican
congressman Randy Neugebauer yelling “baby killer” on the House floor
yesterday during the health care debate. It was an ugly moment on the
House floor, the same place where South Carolina congressman Joe Wilson
yelled out “You lie” at President Obama last year. Is the kind of rhetoric
that‘s now out of line and all too commonplace in Washington?
Republican congressman Phil Gingrey of Georgia is an obstetrician and
a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee. Thank you for being here,
Congressman. What explains the behavior that we‘re all seeing?
REP. PHIL GINGREY ®, GEORGIA: Michael, glad to be with you. Well,
you know, Joe Wilson and Randy Neugebauer, both good friends of mine,
they‘re good people, good, decent people. I guess you get caught up in the
emotion sometimes of what‘s going on on the floor. But we have to remember
there‘s a certain decorum and respect, and those members, of course,
apologized profusely for blurting out those remarks. I know they‘re truly
sorry for that.
SMERCONISH: Well, those two incidents took place inside the Capitol.
Let me show you Congressman Jim Clyburn today with Andrew Mitchell on MSNBC
describing something that took place outside of the Capitol.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. JIM CLYBURN (D-SC), MAJORITY WHIP: John Lewis told me that he
was called the “N” word more than once, and two other members in the
vicinity told me they heard those words being used. And when you look at
some of the signs that were painted out there, putting a Hitler-like
mustache on President Obama and other things that carried double meanings,
you know that much of this was not about health care at all.
All of this was about people who have been led to believe that for
somebody else to get insurance coverage would take something from them.
That is the craziest notion that I‘ve ever heard, but that‘s what people
seem to feel.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SMERCONISH: Congressman Gingrey, is it fair to hold the GOP
leadership accountable for the conduct of some of the tea party activists
outside that Representative Clyburn was just discussing?
GINGREY: Of course not. The tea party actors don‘t even represent
themselves as Republicans. They have a policy in regard to what they stand
for. But I mean, when you have literally thousands—I don‘t know, there
may have been 25,000 people on Saturday. And I stopped and spoke to many
of them, and they‘re good, red-blooded Americans and good, honest people
who travel thousands of miles in some instances. Some drove. Some took
buses.
So you know, they‘re frustrated. And in any crowd like that, you
always are going to get somebody who goes a little bit over the line,
whether it‘s in regard to their remarks that they shout out, or the signs
that they carry.
But I think Jim Clyburn, who‘s a good friend—I respect the majority
whip. And John Lewis, of course, in my own delegation, the senior member
of the Georgia delegation, is a great human being. And we—I think they
understand that people sometimes get out of line. But they‘re not
representative, certainly, of the Republican Party and I don‘t think of the
tea party movement in general.
SMERCONISH: Former Bush speech writer David Frum wrote in his column,
quote, “We follow the most radical voices in the party and the movement,
and they led us to abject and irreversible defeat. I‘ve been on a soapbox
for months now about the harm that our overheated talk is doing to us.
Yes, it mobilized supporters, but by them mobilizing with hysterical
accusations and pseudo-information, overheated talk, has made it impossible
for representatives to represent and elected leaders to lead.”
Congressman Gingrey, your response to that, sir?
GINGREY: Well, Michael, I don‘t agree with that. Quite honestly, I
think that when you look at all the social networking sites that members
are now using, whether we‘re talking about FaceBook, YouTube, Twitter,
watching 24-hour cable news, whether their favorite is MSNBC or CNN or FOX
News, I think people are just so much more informed today, whether their
favorite is Glenn Beck or Rachel Maddow.
I think it‘s a good thing, and we members have to understand that the
people on the street, we the people, are much better informed today, and we
people—members of Congress can‘t come up here and get away with the
shenanigans that maybe they got away with 25 or 30 years ago. That‘s a
good thing. It‘s a cleansing of the system.
We have to be responsible to the people because, after all, we‘re sent
here to represent them, to voice their concerns, indeed, to vote what it is
they want us to vote on. And you know, when you cram something down their
throats which 60 percent of them are saying they don‘t want, then
obviously, members are going to have to go back in the fall elections and
answer to those votes.
SMERCONISH: Isn‘t the challenge for the GOP headed toward November to
harness the passion from the tea party activists but not to let the
knuckleheads speak for Republicans?
GINGREY: Oh, I think I agree with you on that, absolutely.
(LAUGHTER)
GINGREY: I—I think that is true. And I think the Democrats are
the same way. They have their few knuckleheads in their camp as well.
SMERCONISH: Let me show you RNC Chair Michael Steele, if I may,
Congressman, on “Meet the Press,” and we will listen together.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, “MEET THE PRESS”)
MICHAEL STEELE, CHAIRMAN, REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE: Oh, it‘s not
a danger to be associated with the Tea Party movement. It‘s certainly not
a reflection of the movement or the Republican Party when you have some
idiots out there saying very stupid things.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SMERCONISH: Pretty much saying the same thing that I think you
offered a moment ago.
GINGREY: Well, we‘re all subject to saying idiotic things, including
me and Michael Steele, for that matter, and the two Republican members as
you mentioned earlier in the clip.
But we have to be very careful, of course, of what we say, because
we‘re held responsible, but John Q. Public out there that has come
thousands of miles to be on the west lawn of the Capitol, I don‘t think we
can hold them quite to the same standards, but they‘re not representative
of we the people.
SMERCONISH: Hey, Congressman, one other thing, if I may. I took a
look at the Medicare vote. When Medicare became law, there were 65
Republican votes, when Social Security became law, 77 Republican votes.
What‘s changed?
GINGREY: Well, I don‘t think anything has changed.
I mean, you—you—we had a bipartisan vote in this particular
instance, and that quite a few Democrats, maybe 25 in this final passage of
HR-3590, voted against the bill. So...
SMERCONISH: But no—but no Republicans, not a single Republican
vote, much unlike Medicare and Social Security.
GINGREY: Well, I think the Republican Party realized that we had a
better idea, a better plan. We tried to present that to the president at
the Blair House, when he had the health conference or summit. And we‘re
not listened to.
And, indeed, I‘m a physician with 31 years of experience. And we have
many physicians on the Republican side, and we were totally shut out. We
got no opportunity to lend our expertise in doctor/patient relationship,
and I think we could have helped tremendously and made this a whole lot
easier process for the president and the Democratic majority, had we been
included.
SMERCONISH: Congressman, speaking of where we go next, I have got
former Senate Republican Leader Bill Frist talking about the repeal
possibilities. Let‘s listen to this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BILL FRIST ®, FORMER SENATE MAJORITY LEADER: It will most likely be
a campaign of repeal. Repeal is not going to happen, but it‘s clear for
the American people, it‘s clear for the people who are out there,
Republicans did not support this type of reform, so I think that‘s what
they will be saying.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SMERCONISH: Is that possible? Is that the goal, retake the House and
the Senate and reverse all this?
GINGREY: Well, I think the goal, obviously, is to retake the House
and the Senate. And I think there‘s a distinct possibility, because of the
overreach of the Democratic Party since they gained control in January of
‘07 in this first year-and-a-half of the Obama administration. The
American people are outraged.
They‘re not happy necessarily with the Republicans either. But I
think we have a great opportunity to take control, both in the House and
the Senate, in November.
Now, I don‘t necessarily stand here and say we should repeal
everything that‘s in 3590. I think youngsters up to the age of 26 should
be included on their parents‘ policy. I see no reason why we shouldn‘t
continue the exchanges for people to purchase health insurance if they
can‘t get it through their employer and they‘re not—their income is not
low enough to make them eligible for one of the safety net programs, and to
have subsidies for the very low income.
I do take exception to expanding Medicaid to 133 percent, and forcing
it upon every state that‘s suffering so badly. My own state of Georgia is
$1.5 billion in arrears, and we have a constitutional amendment, as do 40
other states, that we have to balance our budget.
And—and there‘s no way, with this added mandate of Medicaid, that
we can survive that. So, there are a number of things in the bill,
particularly the forcing of individuals, under the penalty of law, to
purchase health insurance, and not only to purchase, but to purchase that
which is prescribed by the federal government, I‘m sure that‘s
unconstitutional.
SMERCONISH: But—but—but...
GINGREY: States are already...
SMERCONISH: But, Congressman, those who are being forced to pay for
it, you and I right now are paying for them when they show up in an E.R.
GINGREY: Well, again, this is true. And we should do everything we
can to lower the cost and encourage people to have coverage.
But they don‘t necessarily—particularly young, healthy people who
are taking care of themselves, why should we force them, when they can‘t
afford it, under the penalty of law, to buy first-dollar coverage? Why
don‘t we continue to encourage them to get these high-deductible, but low-
premium policies, that do give them catastrophic coverage, and let them
combine that with a health savings account?
SMERCONISH: Understood.
Hey, Congressman Phil Gingrey, thank you, sir, for being here. You
have lent some parity. I appreciate it.
GINGREY: Michael, thank you so much. Enjoyed being with you.
SMERCONISH: Up next—up next, we have heard critics use a lot of
hyperbole to describe the health care reform bill, but California
Congressman Devin Nunes may have taken the cake when he said it was like
bringing back the ghosts of communist dictators. And there‘s more where
that came from—next in the “Sideshow.”
You‘re watching HARDBALL, only on MSNBC.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SMERCONISH: Back to HARDBALL, and now for the “Sideshow.”
We saw a lot of fiery floor speeches on health care last night. None,
however, topped that of California Republican Congressman Devin Nunes, at
least when it came to Soviet references.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. DEVIN NUNES ®, CALIFORNIA: Today, we are turning back the
clock. For most of the 20th century, people fled the ghosts of communist
dictators. And now you are bringing the ghosts back into this chamber.
Today, Democrats in this House will finally lay the cornerstone of
their socialist utopia on the backs of the American people.
Say no to socialism. Say no to totalitarianism. Say no to this bill.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SMERCONISH: Ghosts of communist dictators, socialists utopia,
totalitarianism?
Folks, it‘s this kind of overheated rhetoric that makes compromise and
bipartisanship impossible.
Speaking of strange conservative pushback, in yesterday‘s “Washington
Post,” former House Speaker Newt Gingrich called the health care bill a—
quote—“radical social experiment.” He then took it one step further,
saying of Democrat—quote—“They will have destroyed their party as
much as Lyndon Johnson shattered the Democratic Party for 40 years with the
enactment of civil rights legislation in the 1960s.”
Hold on there. LBJ shattered the party with civil rights legislation
While civil rights did hurt Democrats in the South, can you really argue
that it wasn‘t the right thing to do, or that, long term, it wasn‘t the
right thing for the Democratic Party to do? Is this really the historical
analogy that Gingrich wants to make?
Finally, on a lighter note, CBS‘ Katie Couric last night asked White
House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel to account for his famous foul mouth.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, “60 MINUTES”)
KATIE COURIC, HOST, “CBS EVENING NEWS”: Why do you have such a foul
mouth? Didn‘t your mom ever wash your mouth out with soap?
RAHM EMANUEL, WHITE HOUSE CHIEF OF STAFF: I read a piece in “TIME”
magazine about how swearing is good for your mental health.
(LAUGHTER)
COURIC: Do you curse in front of the president? Because I know he
has tweaked you about your profanity in public.
EMANUEL: I have cursed before, but I do not curse in the Oval Office.
COURIC: Ever?
EMANUEL: I probably have done it once in the time we have been here.
COURIC: Does he curse?
No comment?
EMANUEL: Look, I‘m—you know, it‘s—I‘m not—this is—I‘m
going to let—I will go to the grave with my secrets.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SMERCONISH: Read into that what you will.
Time now for the “Big Number.”
These past few weeks, we saw the president take ownership of health
care reform. In fact, according to a White House tally, how many direct
pitches did President Obama make to Democratic House members? Ninety-two.
No question that helped push the bill past the finish line. President
Obama made 92 direct appeals to wavering House Democrats—tonight‘s very
telling “Big Number.”
Up next, we will do a little fact-checking on the health care reform
bill. What will it actually do? And what does it mean for the typical
American?
That‘s ahead. You‘re watching HARDBALL, only on MSNBC.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DIANA OLICK, CNBC CORRESPONDENT: I‘m Diana Olick with your CNBC
“Market Wrap.”
Stocks climbing steadily today, now that the uncertainty surrounding
health care reform has lifted—the Dow Jones industrials climbing nearly
44 points, the S&P 500 up about six points, and the Nasdaq adding 21
points.
Hospital operators and drugmakers like Merck and Pfizer ending mostly
higher, now that it‘s clear these companies will be seeing more customers.
Health insurers finished mixed due to varying levels of exposure to tighter
restrictions—Aetna holding onto a slight gain, WellPoint and Humana
pulling back a little more than 1 percent each.
Looking outside of the health care sector, Citigroup on fire today,
adding more than 3.5 percent on an enthusiastic ratings upgrade from
analyst Dick Bove. He says Citi is poised to return to its former status
as a—quote—“moneymaking machine.”
And household products retailers Williams-Sonoma soaring more than 12
percent after beating profit expectations, thanks to some blockbuster
holiday sales numbers.
That‘s it from CNBC, first in business worldwide—now back to
HARDBALL.
SMERCONISH: Welcome back to HARDBALL.
The health care debate has been almost as notable for the amount of
outright lies that surround it as for the enormous effort it took to get it
done. The nonpartisan Web site PolitiFact has kept track of the truth as
the debate unfolded and now has published a list of the top facts you
should know about health care reform.
Among them, there will be no new benefits for illegal immigrants. The
existing access they have to emergency care will stand, but nothing new.
The government will not pay for elective abortions. This is not a
government takeover of health care, like the Canadian or British models.
PolitiFact reporter and researcher Angie Holan put together the list.
Welcome.
I love the list. As a matter of fact, I rely on it. And we should
note you folks won a Pulitzer Prize for your efforts.
ANGIE DROBNIC HOLAN, POLITIFACT.COM: Yes, we did.
SMERCONISH: So, the plan is not a government takeover, like the
Canadian or the British system? How would we differ?
HOLAN: Well, in Britain, doctors are employees of the government. In
Canada, the government picks up all the bills for medical care.
Here, people will continue to buy insurance, either on their own or
they will get it through work, just like usual. Medicare stays in place.
What‘s new is more regulation for insurance companies. And that‘s
especially key for people who have to go out and buy insurance on their
own. It‘s called the individual market.
SMERCONISH: How about this one?
On the abortion issue, the government will not pay for elective
abortions. I saw Congressman Chris Smith on television yesterday incensed
yesterday because he said differently.
HOLAN: Now, let me say, activists on both sides are unhappy with how
the plan deals with the abortion issue.
We looked at this very carefully. There are detailed accounting rules
within the legislation that say, if someone gets help from the government
to buy a plan, but also puts up their own money, the insurance companies
have to keep those funds separate. We think it‘s a credible case.
Again, activists on both sides not so thrilled with it, but it does
seem to be a compromise.
SMERCONISH: Well, play—play—play devil‘s advocate with me.
What, then, is the argument from those who say, no, federal moneys will be
used for abortion?
HOLAN: Well, the argument is that the government is hosting this
exchange. The government is giving people part of the money to buy their
health insurance policy, and the people who are opposed to this just say
the government should keep its distance completely from the issue, that
policies should not be sold that cover abortion on the exchange.
SMERCONISH: Here‘s another one: Illegal immigrants will have no more
benefits under this health care reform plan than they already have, or so
you say at PolitiFact. What are the facts on that?
HOLAN: There are longstanding laws on the books that say, if illegal
immigrants show up in emergency rooms and they are critically ill, that
they must be treated. Those laws remain in place.
But, again, talking about individuals who qualify for assistance from
the government to get a little bit of help buying their own policies,
illegal immigrants will not be eligible for that.
SMERCONISH: Angie, PolitiFact has also put together a list of the top
lies about health care reform.
And here are a few. Bureaucrats will dictate what treatment people
will get and what plan they must buy. That‘s not true. Preventive care
will save the health care system money. Research shows that the benefits
of additional screening don‘t outweigh the costs. And it bans private
insurance in favor of a government-run plan.
Let‘s deal with the first of those.
HOLAN: Bureaucrats cannot dictate treatment for individual patients.
Now, I don‘t want to imply that the plan is bureaucrat-free. There are
boards that will study treatments for effectiveness. They will publish the
results of their studies.
Medicare, there will also be a board there to examine what are the
most effective treatments. But, as we—we have seen a lot of these chain
e-mails that imply that bureaucrats will pore over people‘s individual
health care records. And that‘s simply not the case.
SMERCONISH: How about preventive care saves the whole health care
system money? I have heard that time and again.
HOLAN: Yes, this is a nice idea that‘s just not true, the idea being
that, if you give people more care at the front end, you will save so much
money that you can pay for itself.
But it doesn‘t work that way. There have been some very rigorous
medical studies that show, if you want to give people more care and
screenings, that you do have to find money to pay for that. It doesn‘t pay
for itself over the long haul systemwide.
SMERCONISH: Here‘s another lie, according to the research at
PolitiFact, that this plan bans private insurance in favor of a government-
run plan.
HOLAN: No, private insurance remains in place. It is regulated much more
heavily. Insurance companies will be told the minimum standards that they
have to include in all plans. But private insurance very much stays in
place. And the public option, this idea of one plan that would be run by
the government, that didn‘t make it into the final bill. This public
option did not survive the legislation process.
SMERCONISH: If folks want to see more of the research that you‘ve
done, they would go where?
HOLAN: Politifact.com. We have many details on this policy and a
lot of these issues are very complicated.
SMERCONISH: Thank you, Angie Holan. I appreciate it very much.
HOLAN: Thank you.
SMERCONISH: Up next, much more on the political fallout on the
passing of health care reform. Who wins? Who loses? This is HARDBALL,
only on MSNBC.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. JOHN BOEHNER (R-OH), MINORITY LEADER: Look at how this bill
was written. Can you say it was done openly?
CROWD: No.
BOEHNER: With transparency and accountability?
CROWD: No.
BOEHNER: Without back-room deals and struck behind closed doors?
Hidden from the people? Hell no, you can‘t.
Shame on us. Shame on this body. Shame on each and every one of
you who substitute your will and your desires above those of your fellow
countrymen.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
OBAMA: I want to thank every member of Congress who stood up
tonight with courage and conviction to make health care reform a reality.
I know this wasn‘t an easy vote for a lot of people. But it was the right
vote. I want to thank Speaker Nancy Pelosi for her extraordinary
leadership.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SMERCONISH: Welcome back to HARDBALL. Time now for the politics
fix. After a year of fighting, negotiating and cajoling, health care
reform passed the House last night. But what‘s been the political fallout?
Eugene Robinson is a Pulitzer Prize winning columnist for the
“Washington Post,” Richard an MSNBC political analyst and author of
“Renegade.”
Richard, were any of those Republican votes ever up for grabs?
RICHARD WOLFFE, AUTHOR, “RENEGADE”: There was probably a point
early on, I think, when some of them were in play. But they closed that
door pretty quickly. And you can read about it now. Mitch McConnell had a
very effective strategy to block this whole idea of Barack Obama being a
bipartisan leader.
And I think actually that‘s why the health care summit was so
important. Not because anyone‘s minds were changed, but because the
president looked reasonable and open to Republican ideas. That itself was
a message to the general voters. But the votes themselves, as a
legislative proposition, on health care absolutely not. On the smaller
legislation, yes, but not on health care.
SMERCONISH: If you were charting, Eugene Robinson, when the
president turned a corner in this health care battle, would it have been
that summit at Blair House?
EUGENE ROBINSON, “THE WASHINGTON POST”: I do believe that summit
was a turning point, in that it did present this picture of the president
as the reasonable guy in the room. It it also, I think—signal number
one, he was going to persist on health care, and perhaps gave some impetus
to the process in the Congress.
Of course, Speaker Pelosi was intent on moving ahead, in any event.
So that was probably the moment when things turned in the administration‘s
favor.
SMERCONISH: Gentlemen, in the world in which I spend my daytime
hours, the world of talk radio, Republicans thumping their chests today,
looking at this as something A, they find appalling. But B, politically
speaking, they say it will be more of New Jersey, more of Virginia, and
more of Massachusetts, three examples of elections won by the GOP since
this president was elected. Here, by way of example, Rush Limbaugh on his
show today. Let‘s all listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
RUSH LIMBAUGH, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: They must, my friends, be
hounded out of office. Every Democrat that voted for this needs to know,
safe district or not, they are going to be exposed and hassled and chased
from office. We need to defeat these bastards. We need to wipe them out.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SMERCONISH: Richard, who wins politically, based on the vote last
night in the House, looking towards November?
WOLFFE: Well, I think a lot depends on where you think November is
going to be fought. If it‘s about base turnout, then the anger that you
just heard from Rush is more helpful—it‘s not just helpful to Rush
Limbaugh and his audience. It actually gets the base motivated. And the
conservatives have done a very good job of doing that.
I actually think we‘re now in this sort of zero sum game, where
people on the left have found a reason to believe again, and a reason to go
out there and vote. They feel like 2008 meant something. And also,
perversely, they are themselves riled up by the excessive rhetoric coming
out of the conservatives.
Where this debate may well, I think, get fought, though, is on those
independents, not the soft Republicans, the disillusioned Republicans, but
the real independents, who may be turned off by the anger, looking for
something more positive, a more positive agenda. And that‘s where I think
the White House has some room to grow.
I‘m not saying they‘ll definitely get them with health care, but
they have a positive message and an agenda to go out and sell to people in
2010. And I‘m not sure that saying this is about tyranny and socialism and
the evils that are going to come down from the dictator Barack Obama—I
don‘t think that‘s really going to be an effective platform.
SMERCONISH: Eugene, I hear from many callers, who also send e-mails
they say, the Democrats today are crowing about something that the
majority of Americans didn‘t want passed.
ROBINSON: Well, keep in mind, Smerc, that those polls that show 53
percent or 57 percent of Americans opposed to the health care bill included
some percentage that thought it didn‘t go far enough. I do think that
Democratic base is heartened by this result. It‘s, once again, change you
can believe in. And I think that was a—that was a crucial element, from
the Democratic point of view, that has been missing the past few months.
There was a sense that—that it wasn‘t happening, and that—
So, to the extent that it does give Democrats a reason to go out and
a reason to fight for their candidates in the fall, you know, I think
that‘s positive for Democrats. Look, either way, we expect the Democrats
to lose seats. It‘s an off-year election and that‘s what one would expect.
The question is their attempt to mitigate those losses.
SMERCONISH: Is this now the standard by which future votes are
going to be judged? Immigration, education, energy, three things, Richard
Wolffe, that are coming up in the near future. Can we expect a unified
Republican front and not a single vote for whatever this administration‘s
agenda might be?
WOLFFE: Well, I think the first test is going to come on financial
reform, where there was a lot of work going on between the parties in the
Senate. That seems to have broken down. It‘s going to be interesting
watching that politics play out, because it‘s a mirror image of health
care. Are Republicans going to side with the big industrial commercial
players, in this case big banks, and are they going to side with insurers,
for instance on the health care side of things?
But there are still people talking across the aisle. Energy and
climate change—there were 14 senators in the White House just before the
health care vote, and half of them were Republicans. There are pieces of
energy and climate change that there is still bipartisan support for.
So I don‘t think you can say, as some journalist did today, that the
era of bipartisan votes is over. People were voting together before this.
I think they‘ll do it again. I think the calculation is a bit more complex
than saying, well, just holding together and opposing everything Obama does
is a path for victory for Republicans. There are going to be questions
marks today about whether that‘s rise.
SMERCONISH: Eugene, who bends first, if there‘s an accommodation to
be reached in the future?
ROBINSON: Here‘s what I think is going to happen, Smerc: I think
Harry Reid, for example, in the Senate, a few weeks ago, found an issue
that—on which he could split the Republican vote. It was jobs, the jobs
bill. I think he‘s going to be looking for issues in which he can repeat
that trick, and framing these coming big issues—or trying to frame them
in such a way that he can carve off some Republicans, or at least make it
very difficult for them to hold together the way they held together on
health care.
SMERCONISH: Do either of you know—speaking of process in the
vote that was taken last night—when and how there was a change of
position over the weekend that they would not go the Slaughter position, or
the deem and pass route? I was here for Chris Friday night, had the
opportunity to ask Steny Hoyer how they were going to get it done, shared
with him concerns I heard from people who said it sounded quite nefarious.
In the end, it was a straight up and down vote.
WOLFFE: You know, White House people thought from the beginning
this was—this was a stretch. That, in any case, this would be a vote—
this would be treated and cast as a vote for or against health care. So
there was no real dodge going on that would survive until November. I
think the impracticality of that sort of played itself out through the
weekend.
SMERCONISH: Eugene, when was the critical milestone over the
weekend where they made that decision?
ROBINSON: It seems to me to be—there was a point, perhaps, early
on Saturday when the Democrats became more confident of not only ultimately
being able to get the votes, work out some sort of accommodation with
Stupak and the pro-life Democrats, but also to survive just an up or down
vote on the Senate bill that so many House members didn‘t like. And I‘m
not quite sure what the specific assurances were, but there was a point at
which the mood changed. And they became—
SMERCONISH: Got it.
ROBINSON: -- willing to take the gamble.
SMERCONISH: Eugene Robinson and Richard Wolffe, many thanks for
being here.
When we return, I‘ll have some thoughts about a big question on the
minds of many Americans. Will the new health system apply to average folks
the same way it does to members of Congress? You‘re watching HARDBALL,
only on MSNBC.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SMERCONISH: “I‘ll have what she‘s having.” Movie-goers no doubt
remember that famous line from “When Harry Met Sally,” in a scene shot in a
delicatessen. A similar sentiment has been on the minds of many Americans
who watched House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her colleagues during the health
care debate. They wonder whether this new health care system will apply to
members of Congress, their staff, and their families, the way that it
applies to the rest of us.
I posed that question both to President Obama and Secretary Kathleen
Sebelius in separate interviews last summer. Neither convinced me they
then fully appreciated its importance to the American people.
More recently, though, the administration seemed to get the message.
Quote, “for the first time, uninsured individuals, small businesses, they‘d
have the same kind of choice of private health insurance that members of
Congress get for themselves.”
That‘s what the president said in the days leading up to yesterday‘s
vote. So is it true? Yes, if you can find section 13-12 of the Senate
legislation. Here‘s how it reads: “requirement, the only health plans that
the federal government may make available to members of Congress and
Congressional staff shall be health plans that are created under this act
or offered through an exchange established under this act.”
That needle in the haystack is one that reform proponents should
have highlighted earlier. Instead, the wrangling and posturing over health
care have served largely to widen the gulf that many Americans see between
themselves and Washington. For six hours a day on two separate radio
programs, I field calls from people all over the country. The feeling I
get is that many Americans think the rules in Washington are different from
the rules everywhere else.
Those crafting the overhaul did little to convince those Americans
otherwise until the final hours. Section 13-12 may not have gotten the
attention the, say, the Stupak Amendment did. But the importance of
helping Americans believe that they can have what Congress is having
shouldn‘t get lost amidst the post-vote spin.
That‘s HARDBALL for now. Thanks for being with us. Catch us again
for a live edition of HARDBALL, hosted by Chuck Todd, in one hour, at 7:00
Eastern. And Chris Matthews returns tomorrow at 5:00 and 7:00 Eastern.
Right now it‘s time for “THE ED SHOW” with Ed Schultz.
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY
BE UPDATED.
END
Copy: Content and programming copyright 2010 MSNBC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Copyright 2010 Roll Call, Inc. All materials herein are protected by
United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed,
transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written
permission of Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any trademark,
copyright or other notice from copies of the content.
Watch Hardball each weeknight