Reichert feels heat over health care legislation
LES BLUMENTHAL; The News Tribune
WASHINGTON – The 2010 elections are still more than a year away, but an alphabet soup of national unions, interest groups and political committees have already taken aim at Rep. Dave Reichert, R-Auburn, and his opposition to the health care reform bills Democrats are pushing on Capitol Hill.
As the incumbent in a swing district, Reichert said he isn’t panicked; that he’s seen it before. He has even launched a sort of counterattack suggesting AARP supports the reforms in order to eliminate competition and allow the advocacy group to make more money on its own supplemental health insurance plan for seniors.
For Reichert, Rep. Doc Hastings, R-Pasco, and other Republicans it’s the worst of times and the best of times. Their party has lost control of the White House and Congress and is struggling to find its footing. But in health care, they think they have an issue that could help them reverse their recent electoral losses.
Reichert and Hastings, however, sought to down play the politics.
“Health care is not a Democratic or Republican issue,” said Hastings.
Despite the political assault he already faces, Reichert said it was Congress’ responsibility to address the issue regardless of political affiliation.
“I believe it is the wrong approach to look at this and measure the success of what we are accomplishing in terms of election votes,” he said.
Reichert and Hastings both support reforms that will increase consumer choices, eliminate waste, fraud and abuse in Medicare and Medicaid, make health insurance policies portable as people move from job to job, limit medical malpractice liability and promote wellness.
But they are highly critical of the Democratic proposals, especially any requirement that everyone have health insurance.
“How do you make it a criminal offense if you don’t have health insurance?” said Reichert, a former King County Sheriff. “Who is going to enforce it? It makes no sense.”
Hastings said, “most responsible people have health insurance.”
Both are adamantly opposed to a public option providing a government-run health plan to compete with private ones.
“I find it very hard to compromise on anything that leads to a government plan,” Hastings said. “It’s a nose under the tent.”
Reichert said, “it’s exaggerated to say it will put a federal bureaucrat in every doctor’s office, but the government will have a role.”
Both are also absolutely convinced the Democratic proposals to rein in Medicare spending by more than $500 billion over 10 years will result in cuts in care for the elderly, an allegation Democrat’s dismiss as an outright lie.
The Democratic cuts are aimed at ending the 13 percent to 14 percent subsidy Medicare Advantage, private insurance seniors can buy in lieu of Medicare and which generally provides broader benefits. About one-in-five seniors in Washington state are in the Medicare Advantage Program.
“I don’t know how they can say they will cut $500 billion from Medicare and say it won’t affect seniors,” Reichert said.
Coming from a safe Republican district in central Washington, Hastings does not face the same political challenges Reichert does.
Reichert’s 8th Congressional District, which includes rural and suburban areas in eastern Pierce and King counties, has supported every Democratic presidential candidate since 2000. At the same time, the congressman has faced tough elections and been a continual Democratic target.
So far during the current election cycle,
MoveOn.org, Service Employees International Union (SEIU), the American Federation of Federal, State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) and Health Care for American Now, have run radio and television ads and made computer generated phone calls, known as robo calls.
“If this was my first campaign, it would bother me a lot,” Reichert said.
Reichert did take particular exception with a
MoveOn.org ad which he said was “dishonest,” questioned his integrity and was just another “divisive political attack.”
The ad noted Reichert’s vote against a $1.1 trillion health care reform bill when it came before the House Ways and Means Committee. Reichert is a member of the committee. It also said Reichert received more than $105,000 from health and insurance interests and asked “Does Reichert think special interest wealth is more important than your family’s health?”
Reichert did, in fact, vote against the bill which he called a “government takeover of health care” and he has actually received more than $282,000 in campaign contributions from insurance and health interest since 2005, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a non-partisan group that monitors campaign funding.
But Reichert said his vote was in the best interests of his constituents.
Nita Chandhary,
MoveOn.org’s national campaigns and organizing director, said the bill Reichert voted against would have provided tax breaks for 20,000 small businesses in his district, saved 1,000 families from bankruptcy because of medical bills and provided coverage to 29,000 uninsured.
“These ads are based on fact,” she said. “It certainly is an inconvenient truth for Reichert.”
Reichert said he was not going after AARP, but just had some questions when he sent a detailed letter asking the powerful senior citizens group for information on its finances and the insurance plans it offers.
“I have a responsibility to ask questions when I don’t think something is right,” Reichert said. “I have a background in interviewing, interrogating.”
Reichert said he found AARP answers inadequate and evasive and plans a follow up letter.
David Sloane, AARP’s chief lobbyist, said it was a “ridiculous assertion” that his group was supporting health care reform to bolster its own insurance programs and that Reichert was not the only Republican to take that line of attack.
“To suggest there is a commercial conspiracy is ludicrous,” Sloane said. “As we have said, we would gladly forgo every dime of revenue to fix the health care system.”
Democrats say given the Republicans’ long time opposition to Medicare, it is disingenuous for them to try and portray themselves as its defender.
Hastings said there aren’t any Republicans still in Congress who were around during the Medicare debates and it was a Republican Congress that passed the prescription drug benefit for seniors.
Asked whether the public should trust insurance companies when premiums in Washington state have more than doubled in 10 years, Hastings said part of that was the result of increased regulation on the state level.
Reichert said some changes might be needed, but it’s not something the government should mandate.
“No system is perfect, look at Congress,” Reichert said. “There are opportunities insurance companies should look at to make changes.”
Les Blumenthal: 202-383-0008
lblumenthal@mcclatchydc.com
