Over the past few months I’ve visited with thousands of Oklahomans who are concerned about how the health care reform bills moving through Congress will affect their lives and their families’ lives.  Politicians in Washington have talked a good game about pursuing common reform goals, such as reducing costs and improving access and quality.  Unfortunately, the plan backed by congressional leaders not only falls far short of the goals of reform, but will place new burdens on families, seniors and state agencies.

  First, the plan’s sponsors have claimed that if you like what you have you can keep it.  That isn’t true.  You may be forced to drop your current plan, especially if Congress includes an aggressive “public option” – a government run health plan.  According to one estimate by the Lewin Group, if the public option language in the bill passed by the House of Representatives becomes law as many as 40 percent of Americans could lose their private insurance and be forced into a government-run plan.  The public option has been scaled back in subsequent versions of the legislation but House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has very clearly stated she wants the final bill to include the strongest possible public option. “There is no way I can pass a bill in the House of Representatives without a public option,” she said.

  If you do manage to keep to what you have, you can expect to pay significantly higher premiums, according to ten separate government and independent studies.  A self-employed Oklahoman or one working for a small business could see a premium increase of $1,600 annually, or $4,400 for a family policy.  Small business owners could pay an extra $814 per employee to cover each of their employees, or they could face penalties imposed on them by the IRS.

  Seniors will be hit hardest by the so-called reform bills.  One out of every eight seniors in Oklahoma is enrolled in a program called Medicare Advantage, which provides Medicare patients with greater choices.  Seniors enrolled in that program in our state – more than 81,000 seniors – could be forced to drop their plan and pick up the tab for any benefits they will lose.  Bill sponsors are justifying cutting Medicare because it will supposedly help “pay for” reform.  If congressional leaders were serious about paying for their plan they would eliminate their pet projects and some of the $350 billion government wastes every year.  Instead, they are hoping to pay for their plan on the backs of seniors who are enrolled in the Medicare Advantage program they oppose on ideological grounds.

  The bills will also place enormous new burdens on state agencies in Oklahoma, which are already facing five percent monthly reductions for the rest of the fiscal year because of declining state revenues.  Provisions in the plan expanding Medicaid will force the state of Oklahoma to come up with at least $100 million in additional funds.  It’s wrong for politicians in Washington who refuse to prioritize spending to outsource hard choices and fiscal responsibility to individuals, states and local communities.

  Adding insult to injury, congressional leaders are expecting taxpayers in Oklahoma to subsidize the re-election campaigns of Senators representing the states of Michigan, Nevada, Oregon and Rhode Island, all of which are exempted from additional Medicaid expenses for five years.

  Every Oklahoman can expect to pay higher taxes if this plan passes. When the plan is implemented in 2013 thousands of state employees will be forced to pay an additional $1,100 in taxes every year because their plans will be considered too generous and will be hit with an excise tax.

  Yet, what is even more troubling than what we know about the reform bills is what we don’t know.  Congress has a terrible track record of estimating the long term costs of government health programs.  For instance, when Medicare was created in 1965 Congress predicted it would cost $12 billion in 1990.  Instead, it cost $110 billion in 1990.  Medicaid now costs 37 times what it did when it was launched in 1965; Medicare 16 times, both adjusted for inflation.  If Congress’ projections are off again income tax rates will skyrocket.

  I believe health care needs to be reformed which is why I introduced a bill several months ago called the Patients’ Choice Act that empowers individuals rather than government bureaucrats.  My plan gives every American access to high-quality plans, reduces health care costs, promotes prevention and lets doctors and patients decide what is best.  Real reform is possible but the current plan is not real reform.  America has the best health care in the world but it is far too costly.  Unfortunately, the leading plan will destroy what is working in American health care and make existing problems, such as cost, worse for most Americans.

  With the health care bills moving toward a vote in Congress I encourage you to keep up the pressure on Washington.  Because you have made your voices heard, the bills have been moderated somewhat from the versions that were released this summer. Yet, Oklahomans should have no illusions about the goals of the politicians leading this process.  This effort is about moving the country as close as possible to a single-payer, health care system run by the government and paid for by higher taxes and premium costs for every American.  Speaker Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and President Obama will take as big an incremental step toward their ultimate goal they believe they can get away with.

  I can promise you that I’ll be on the Senate floor every possible moment conveying both my experience as a practicing physicians and the common sense I’ve heard from people across our state.  It’s time for Washington to keep the promises it has already made rather than making new promises we can’t afford.

The passing of Robert Novak has made me reflective about my chosen profession.

In a typically well-crafted commentary (published August 22 in The Oklahoman), David Broder praised Novak as notable “for the energy with which he tackled his assignments.” He described Novak as one of the three best political reporters who emerged from the 1960s, and characterized commentaries Novak wrote with Rowland Evans, Jr as “one of the most influential columns of the late 20th century.”

Broder wrote with some sadness that Novak and two other of his early contemporaries, Alan Otten and Paul Duke of The Wall Street Journal, were journalistic types we are not likely to see again. Novak and the others were reporters brought to Washington, D.C., “by editors who had a passionate commitment to covering Congress and politics as if the decisions being debated really mattered.”

As Broder observed, journalism in those days meant, and for some still means, “’getting down in the weeds,’ really understanding the personal dynamics of a Ways and Means subcommittee or the ambitions of the lieutenant governor of Texas.”

Broder seems to regret that most Americans may best remember Novak for his television reputation as “The Prince of Darkness,” the pugnacious conservative. I knew Bob Novak as well and, as Broder reports, his conservatism was real. Novak often fought with Evans over the contents of their legendary collaborations. That “darkness” was rooted less in his combativeness than in what Novak himself called an “unsmiling pessimism about the prospects for America and Western civilization.”

Year after year, Novak managed to do both commentary and straight reporting, rarely if ever “burning” a source on the political left or right. They knew he would report accurately and fairly what he learned. And, he protected confidential sources when necessary.

Several years ago, many liberals grew inflamed over a Novak report touching on the run-up to the Iraq war which included controversial intelligence disclosures. I predicted to friends that Novak’s critics would be wrong about the sourcing of those reports. When the primary source for the story was finally revealed, it was one of the moderates (not a “hawk”) in the Bush administration. Among prominent liberal journalists who never did trash Novak’s reporting in the matter was Sam Donaldson, the ABC-TV veteran who knew Novak well.

Novak was a member of the Society of Professional Journalists for more than 40 years. At SPJ’s 2007 national conference, he and former Time Magazine editor Normal Pearlstine presented a session on “Watching the Watchdogs.” They discussed ethical challenges journalists face when they become players in the stories they cover.

Novak might have been the most productive scribe of the post-World War II era. He and Evans wrote “Inside Report” six days a week for 30 years (1963-93). He sustained the column three days a week until his final illness forced his retirement last year. Novak’s CNN work spanned 25 years.

As for Broder, the Washington Post reporter and syndicated columnist leans more toward the liberal end of the spectrum, yet both his news stories and his commentaries have reflected such careful fairness that he has become an icon for professional journalists. With the exception of his consistently negative readings on the late U.S. Sen. Jesse Helms of North Carolina, Broder has modeled fairness.

When I was in Washington, D.C., Broder occasionally reported on my legal policy books, works which always included both Democrats and Republicans but which had a conservative policy orientation. Broder’s comprehensive report on my first edited compilation on constitutional issues (“A Blueprint for Judicial Reform”) influenced other national journalists, leading to serious (if sometimes critical) news stories about that book.
Additionally, other writers at the Post regularly interviewed me on the politics of direct democracy. For 10 years, I edited a “straight news” monthly that became a regular information source for reporters in the mostly liberal (but in my experience mostly fair) “mainstream media.” After I became an editor at The Oklahoman in 1990, I edited Broder’s column for publication there, and occasionally interacted with him on professional matters.

The most substantive exchange we had in the 12 years I was with the Oklahoma Publishing Company was when Broder came to the state to raise money for a journalistic good cause in Tulsa. I traveled up the Turnpike to join him at a luncheon where he spoke to a group of Tulsa-based editors and reporters. Thereby lies a tale.

At the Tulsa session, Broder delivered a balanced critical assessment of the Oklahoma congressional delegation. His analysis was a model of journalistic sobriety, noting the strengths and weaknesses of each conservative in what was then a 100% Republican (and pro-life) group of men. When he completed his evaluation of what he considered a consequential delegation having a major impact on national policy, he opened himself up to questions from the audience of journalists. I was inclined, as a guest of a Tulsa editor, not to intrude into that process.
Things got interesting. With the exception of one senior editor from Tulsa, the premise of the questions from Broder’s audience that day was persistently and harshly negative toward every one of the GOP conservatives he had assessed. The point of most of the questioners was that the Oklahoma members of Congress were more or less ignoramuses, retrogrades and most likely racists, to boot.

Broder stuck to his guns, contending members of Congress from Oklahoma were respected and having an impact for things they believed in, regardless of what one thought of their policy preferences. It was clear, further, that he did not regard them as outside the American mainstream, but as effective advocates of conservative policy thought.

After rebuffing efforts to marginalize the state delegation, Broder then found himself defending the tolerant but conservative social views of former President Ronald Reagan. It was during the Reagan discussion that Broder turned my direction and asked if I agreed with his assessment, which of course I did. The luncheon went like that. By the end of the session it appeared David Broder was the second most conservative guy in the room.

Broder and Novak have proven a good journalist can be both a straight reporter and a informed commentator. Novak spent an entire career modeling fairness and consistently superior methodology in journalism, and Broder still does the same.

As news business models continue to evolve, the lesson that should be drawn from these two is that good journalism is not a product of one political philosophy or another, but flows from a persistent commitment to present opposing views fairly and in sufficient depth to allow honest consideration.

“Objectivity” is a word sometimes used as a weapon in modern debates about the news business. The word is over-rated by some, and inaccurately defined in some quarters. Fairness, balance, depth of news sourcing and simply the ability to “walk a mile in the other fellow’s moccasins” are hallmarks of good journalism, including good commentary.

For all of the above, Novak and Broder provide wholesome examples.

 
Note:  This essay appears in this month’s edition of Perspective, the monthly magazine of the Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs. McGuigan is Managing Editor of The City Sentinel, and Capitol Editor for Tulsa Today, an online service, where this article will also appear. He  is a member of the National Press Club, The Tulsa Press Club, The Oklahoma City Gridiron Club and The Society of Professional Journalists. He recently joined Capitol Beat, a national association of editors and reporters.

Among the fallacies in Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s health care bill is the
pretense that bureaucrats are smarter than the rest of us. An unelected
bureaucrat would be given czar-like control over our lives, our health,
and our pocketbooks. Even super powers.

This new all-powerful “health choices commissioner” would be
entrusted with more power than most superheroes. The laundry list of
that special power is proof that it’s a government takeover of health
care.

This presidential appointee will both control the new government-run
insurance plan AND decide how private insurance companies are to
operate, by creating the standards for their coverage and enforcing
compliance. Likewise, employer-run health plans would answer to
super-czar.

In other words, this health czar will control both the government
plan and all of its competition. So much for claims about a level
playing field!

Rather than having Medicare dictate payment amounts to doctors and
hospitals (as Pelosi originally intended), her new 1,990-page bill says
the czar will “negotiate” rates. That will take an an awful lot of
staff. America has 788,000 active doctors and 5,708 hospitals.

But that’s not all. The new czar would also:

• Oversee the millions of Americans who would qualify for insurance subsidies
• Audit the country’s 1,300-plus health insurers
• Have power to collect whatever data the office deems necessary, which could involve review of medical records
• Assess fines
• Define our terms for us. This commissioner/czar would dictate all
  the definitions used in health insurance policies. After all, if you
  control the language, you control the debate
• Appoint a national health ombudsman to examine consumer complaints, but only in “a linguistically appropriate manner”

As we pointed out about the earlier version of the House bill:

“The House health care reform bill would establish a new entity
called the Health Choices Administration, headed by a presidential
appointee to be called the Health Choices Commissioner. Sounds
wonderful, right? A government official whose only job is to make sure
you have health care choices, right?

“No. If you read the bill, . . . it turns out that the Health
Choices Commissioner’s job is, essentially, to make your health choices
for you.”

The new super-bureaucrats may not be able to leap tall buildings in
a single bound. But they can put a lot of tall barriers between each of
us and our doctors.

Among the fallacies in Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s health care bill is
the pretense that bureaucrats are smarter than the rest of us. An
unelected bureaucrat would be given czar-like control over our lives,
our health, and our pocketbooks. Even super powers.

About the author: Ernest Istook is a former Oklahoma congressman and is now a Distinguished fellow with The Heritage Foundation.

A new poll out Thursday on Americans’ attitudes about climate change presents sobering findings for those that favor aggressive action to curb U.S. emissions of greenhouse gases.

The survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press finds a sharp decline over the past year in the percentage of Americans who see solid evidence that global temperatures are rising. According to the survey, conducted between Sept. 30 and Oct. 4 among 1,500 adults reached on cell phones and landlines, fewer respondents also see global warming as a very serious problem; 35% say that today, down from 44% in April 2008.

The survey also points to a decline in the proportion of Americans who say global temperatures are rising as a result of human activity. Just 36% say that currently, down from 47% last year.

Not everything in the poll is bad news for those that favor capping U.S. emissions. According to the survey, a majority (56%) of Americans think the United States should join other countries in setting standards to address global climate change, while 32% say that the United States should set its own standards. And half of Americans favor setting limits on carbon emissions and making companies pay for their emissions, even if this may lead to higher energy prices.

On the other hand, more than half (55%) say they haven’t heard about so-called "cap and trade" legislation being considered in Congress. (Then again, Sen. John Kerry says he doesn’t know what "cap and trade" means, either.)

The poll’s findings come just days before the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works is scheduled to hold hearings on legislation that calls for cutting U.S. emissions 20 percent beneath 2005 levels by 2020.

They also coincide with the release of a new Government Accountability Office study that says most federal, state and local officials have not yet taken steps to adapt to the impacts of global warming that America can expect.

Not surprisingly, opponents and supporters of carbon caps have very different takes on the poll’s findings.

"Perhaps the most interesting finding in this poll, aside from the precipitous drop in the number of Independents who believe global warming is a problem, is that the more Americans learn about cap-and-trade, the more they oppose cap-and-trade," says Sen. James Inhofe (R., Okla.), a longtime skeptic of climate-change warnings.

Daniel Weiss at the left-leaning Center for American Progress, says the findings point to the effectiveness of "right-wing media personalities" in "distorting science while the mainstream media remains trapped in its ‘he said, she said’ narrative" about the science.

Andrew Kohut, president of the Pew Research Center, says he’s a little surprised by the decline in the percentage of respondents who see solid evidence of global warming. On the other hand, Mr. Kohut said, "we have since the onset of the recession seen people giving lower priority to environmental issues" in polls.

Overall, Mr. Kohut says the disposition of most Americans appears to be "to want to do something" about climate change, "but it’s not as sharp as it would be in a different economic climate." 

Pick a political hat, and Pam Pryor wears it…or has worn it.

Pryor is among many Oklahomans who have gone to Washington on the staff of a member of Congress and moved on to other, more national, pursuits and the resultant national prominence.

Few have made the climb as far as Pryor, who now talks to the media on behalf of potential Republican presidential candidate Sarah Palin, walks the halls of power with the authority that a lot of years in Washington brings, and speaks across the country on behalf of groups like We Care America and through the White House Writers’ Group, consults with the Department of Labor, Habitat for Humanity and Convoy of Hope.

Pryor’s current national persona comes as the spokesperson for Palin’s SarahPAC, launched by the former Alaska governor as part of her coalition-building effort across the country.

A member of Palin’s team in 2008 says that Pryor today is Palin’s "go-to girl. If Sarah has a doubt about anything, she talks to Pam. If Sarah wants to do something, she talks to Pam. Pam is a solid lock in Palin’s future."

Pryor began her career as a college instructor at Point Loma College in San Diego and then at Bethany Nazarene College in Oklahoma City. Her background in media includes working as a television news reporter and anchor and hosting her own radio talk show, all in Oklahoma City.

In 1995, she joined the staff of Republican Congressman J.C. Watts, serving first as his press secretary and later as his assistant chief of staff and then as chief of staff for both his personal office and the House Republican Conference. It was her connection to Watts that launched her into prominence and cemented her reputation as a fierce defender of the congressman, and others with whom she works.

In 2001, after being responsible for all GOP House communications as head of the Republican Conference under Watts, she was named one of the 100 most powerful women in Washington by Washingtonian Magazine.

After Watts’ retirement, she continued the work begun in his office on faith-based initiatives and served as vice president of government relations for We Care America. At the same time, she joined the White House Writer’s Group, a communication firm, as associate manager and she consults with clients from the Department of Labor to Convoy of Hope. She is also on the board of the Reform Institute, a centrist think tank in Alexandria, VA. She also speaks on storytelling and creative communications.

Last year, Pryor was a consultant to the Republican National Committee, where she served as a senior advisor to Frank Donatelli, the Palin Texas website reports, and adds: "…the governor must has seen a kindred spirit in Pam Pryor, who may not be a fellow Alaskan, but she is a fellow evangelical. The Pryor resume includes more than 25 years in public relations and public affairs. She has worked in the area of government relations for non-profit organizations which were formed around the faith and community-based initiative. She has experience bringing faith and community groups together with government through the initiative by grant writing and introductions to government agencies and Congress."

During last year’s presidential campaign, those in the faith community had doubts about John McCain and presidential historian, author and conservative blogger Doug Wead wrote: "Evangelicals welcomed John McCain’s meeting with Billy Graham today, but more importantly, recent appointments, such as Pam Pryor as senior adviser at the RNC, is sending their morale soaring.

"…the recent appointment of Pam Pryor as senior advisor to the RNC’s Deputy Chairman, Frank Donatelli, over at the Republican National Committee has the evangelical leadership positively smiling. Pryor, the little firecracker who served for years as administrative assistant to former Congressman J. C. Watts and later helped Dave Donaldson move Faith Based Initiatives through the Clinton Congress, (yeah, you heard me right, Clinton, not Bush, although it was called Charitable Choice,) is no outsider to the rough and tumble of Washington politics. Pryor, an evangelical who attends McLean Bible Church in the Virginia suburbs of Washington, D.C. is smart and effective and knows how to play the game. A reputation for absolute loyalty to her boss, she is not the token evangelical that adorns most presidential campaigns. She can think, act and work the Washington scene well and her connections in evangelicaland are truly extensive."

About the author: Mike McCarville runs The McCarville Report Online, located here.