Eager to knock down the initial Republican proposal to replace ObamaCare, on her Tuesday MSNBC show, anchor Andrea Mitchell invited former Health and Human Services Secretary Sylvia Mathews Burwell on the program to slam the bill for “moving us in the wrong direction.”
Mitchell began the segment by fretting: “House Republicans unveiling their much-anticipated plan to repeal and replace it. It is going to be a tough sell as Democrats, and even some Republicans, are raising concerns about key provisions within the bill which could kick millions of Americans off their health care.” Turning to Burwell, she wondered: “...how would it affect Americans, how would it affect those who are less able to afford health insurance under the new plan?”
Burwell lamented how the plan “was done in secret” and labeled it “disappointing.” She warned: “We know that getting rid of the individual mandate, the only part of this bill that has been previously analyzed by the Congressional Budget Office, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, it said that that would increase premiums by 25%. So this is something that's moving us in the wrong direction with regard to coverage.”
Rather than point out the secretive nature of ObamaCare’s passage or press Burwell on all the major problems plaguing the current Democrat-backed law, Mitchell instead continued to lob softballs: “What about the freeze on Medicaid expansion in 2020? How many people would be affected by that?”
<<< Please support MRC's NewsBusters team with a tax-deductible contribution today. >>>
Moments later, Mitchell decried the defunding of Planned Parenthood in the legislation: “I want to ask about Planned Parenthood, because there's also a measure to strip funding for Planned Parenthood, given the women's health benefits in Planned Parenthood that are funded because, separately and non-federal funding, Planned Parenthood does provides abortion coverage for women. Can you analyze how that would impact women in many states?”
Burwell’s “analysis” consisted of her reciting misleading liberal talking points:
...there is no federal funding that ever goes for abortion and what Planned Parenthood, when they receive funding, they receive funding for preventative care services that they have provided to people in low income communities. And the idea that we are going to not fund one of the providers that provides services in terms of preventative care, that’s well women visits, that kinds of cancer screenings for women, that's contraception, and other types of care that they will not be funded is something that I think is concerning to many folks, and especially women.
Mitchell replied: “And I know that there’s a great mobilization against this already, but given the fact that the Republicans are in the majority, what are the prospects politically of dealing with this? Of coming up with some compromise?” Burwell claimed: “You know, I think it comes back to a conversation we've had the chance to have before, which is making sure that this debate is about the substance, not rhetoric.”
Here is a full transcript of the March 7 exchange:
12:31 PM ET
ANDREA MITCHELL: And now we turn to the showdown over the Affordable Care Act revealed late yesterday. House Republicans unveiling their much-anticipated plan to repeal and replace it. It is going to be a tough sell as Democrats, and even some Republicans, are raising concerns about key provisions within the bill which could kick millions of Americans off their health care. Joining me now is Silvia Matthews Burwell, former Secretary of Health and Human Services and president now of American University. Very good to have you with us, thanks so much. Of course we're interviewing you in the context of your prior job as overseer of all of health care under President Obama, once it got straightened out.
SYLVIA MATHEWS BURWELL: Thanks so much for having me.
MITCHELL: Well, in your initial look at what they are revealing, how would it affect Americans, how would it affect those who are less able to afford health insurance under the new plan?
BURWELL: So in the initial look, which is a complicated and difficult one, because I think as most folks know, this was a bill that was done in secret, and even Republicans weren't able to see it before it appeared. But in the initial look at it, what it does is it's disappointing because instead of taking us forward on the issues of making sure that people have health coverage, on issues of making health care more affordable, and making sure that quality of benefits are maintained, on all three of those fronts, this takes us the other direction.With regard to the issue of affordability, because they have taken away many of the tax issues that were for upper income Americans as well as corporations, money goes away, and then money is taken away from the subsidies and tax credits that people already received. So their health care will become more expensive. We know that getting rid of the individual mandate, the only part of this bill that has been previously analyzed by the Congressional Budget Office, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, it said that that would increase premiums by 25%. So this is something that's moving us in the wrong direction with regard to coverage.
It gets rid of Medicaid expansion, with regard to with regard to affordability, it increases premiums and deductibles. And also, with regard to making sure that you maintain the benefits, we know that the Medicaid changes it proposes would take away the enforcement of certain essential health benefits, things like making sure maternity is covered or things like making sure that there is help for people with behavioral health issues like opioids.
MITCHELL: What about the freeze on Medicaid expansion in 2020? How many people would be affected by that?
BURWELL: You know, we'll have to see what the analysis shows. This was a bill – usually bills are analyzed and what is called scored, or it helps us understand the actual impact on both money and people, by the Congressional Budget Office. That has not happened yet. But that impact would be great because the way that they have done the Medicaid changes in terms of expansion is it will result in the expansion going away for many people, and I think it’s fair to say millions, and we will see how high that number goes as the analysis gets done. But I think members on both sides of the aisle, the House and the Senate, as well as Republicans and Democrats, really need to understand what that means, what this bill would mean for folks at home.
MITCHELL: And the Republicans are saying they're going to have a CBO score before it goes to the House floor before Easter, so we'll wait to see exactly how those numbers add up. The CBO, as you point out, the Congressional Budget Office, is the nonpartisan scorekeeper of what the costs are and what the benefits are and who it would cover.
I want to ask about Planned Parenthood, because there's also a measure to strip funding for Planned Parenthood, given the women's health benefits in Planned Parenthood that are funded because, separately and non-federal funding, Planned Parenthood does provides abortion coverage for women. Can you analyze how that would impact women in many states?
BURWELL: Again, focusing on what, I think, most folks, that when I’ve been out in the country, have talked about, which is affordability, access, and quality. And this issue, because the funding does not go for – there is no federal funding that ever goes for abortion and what Planned Parenthood, when they receive funding, they receive funding for preventative care services that they have provided to people in low income communities. And the idea that we are going to not fund one of the providers that provides services in terms of preventative care, that’s well women visits, that kinds of cancer screenings for women, that's contraception, and other types of care that they will not be funded is something that I think is concerning to many folks, and especially women.
MITCHELL: And I know that there’s a great mobilization against this already, but given the fact that the Republicans are in the majority, what are the prospects politically of dealing with this? Of coming up with some compromise?
BURWELL: You know, I think it comes back to a conversation we've had the chance to have before, which is making sure that this debate is about the substance, not rhetoric. It's the actual, what impact will this have on people in districts and states all across the country? And I think already we have seen concerns being expressed – concerns being expressed from different parts of the Republican Party in the House and Senate in terms of different types of concerns. As has been said, this is a very complicated issue. I think it's important what we focus on what we've been hearing from the American people and making sure that we hear them and we listen to them in terms of what we're trying to do here in Washington, to move the ball forward and make improvements to access, making sure people have access to health insurance, affordability, and quality.
MITCHELL: Thank you so much, former Health and Human Services Secretary Sylvia Burwell, thank you.
