Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
IS SEBELIUS CLOSING IN ON THE HHS NOMINATION?
The New York Times says that Kathleen Sebelius is "emerging as the president’s top choice for secretary of health and human services." It wouldn't be a surprising choice: Sebelius is well-liked by the activist community and broadly respected for her political and managerial in a deep red state. She knows health care well from the regulatory side, having served as insurance commissioner in Kansas. Her tenure in that position wasn't dramatic, but it was a solid performance that she smartly played for populist credibility. She refused to take money from the insurance industry or individuals connected to it and blocked a mega-merger between BlueCross/BlueShield of Kansas and an interested insurance based in Indiana. “I don’t mind standing up to the big powerful lobbies, I think that is the role you play in public office," she said. "There will always be well paid, very articulate lobbyists for industries that make money. What needs to happen is that the other side needs to be brought in, we need to bring that viewpoint to the table.”
As governor, Sebelius amassed a reputation as a savvy operator with a knack for predatory bipartisanship. Republicans in her orbit have a funny habit of becoming, well, Democrats. And I don't mean simply voting with the Democrats. I mean deserting their party and becoming actual, registered Democrats. Word is also that she gets along easily with Obama and there's little doubt that she'd sail through confirmation hearings. Of the names floated for HHS so far, she arguably makes the most sense.
But be clear: Sebelius is a choice for Health and Human Services, not health reform. She'd be a newcomer to Washington, with few contacts on the Hill and little knowledge of the players or the process. She's not versed in the administration's health care plan nor has she been present for the internal conversations that have sharpened in recent weeks as the coming budget forced hard decisions on the proposal. She'd be walking into a situation where various internal players and advisers have already carved out a broad role for themselves in the administration's process and she'd be facing down a Congress that's surprisingly far along in its own preparations. That's not to say that as head of HHS she wouldn't be in on the meetings and have a voice at the table. But she will not be replacing Daschle as the central figure in both the administration's health care reform effort and its health services bureaucracy.
COMMENTS (7)
You should probably check how Paul Morrison faired as a Democrat before citing him as a success story!
It was great that he bounced Phill Kline out of the AG's office, but subsequently getting kicked out of office for personal indiscretions gave rise to investigations by Phill Kline in Johnson County that raised Kline's profile and probably did more to prolong his absurd abortion witchhunt than anything else.
Posted by: zach | February 19, 2009 8:18 AM
One question: Has she paid her freaking taxes?
Posted by: Matt | February 19, 2009 8:20 AM
The elephant in the room is whoever gets sworn in as Kansas Senator in 2011.
Posted by: Neil the Ethical Werewolf | February 19, 2009 8:55 AM
A language pep peeve of mine is when people say, as Kathleen Sebelius does in the video, that everyone should have healthcare when they mean everyone should have heath insurance or afordable healthcare, maybe some even mean free healthcare. People should be more accurate.
Posted by: Floccina | February 19, 2009 10:08 AM
I think is another instance where there is a bifurcation between choosing a 'keep the trains running on time' manager of a huge government apparatus, and choosing a deep policy thinker who can also publicly speak for and sell a fairly big departure in our daily interactions with another huge apparatus (health care incorporated).
I'm not pursuaded Daschle was both of these, and I'm not sure I know of anyone who is - Sebelius included. Daschle was more of the policy driver and Sebelius is more of the competent government executive.
I'll take Sebelius because the health care railroad isn't just not on time, some of the cars are off the rails. That's important to fix. We've learned that excellence in execution (or the lack thereof, under Bush) is important in gaining and keeping public support.
I wish I had some clearer idea of how all the major actors will play together to get to one program that the Congress can push through.
Will Obama yield, as he did on the stimulus package, to the Congressional forces in shaping a healthcare reform, or will someone in the executive branch play the role of integrator and chief of the boat or executive officer? I see no name now that Obama could choose for chief policy wonk and cattle-drive organizer in the WH. Maybe that's OK or even preferred.
Posted by: JimPortlandOR | February 19, 2009 11:11 AM
Gotta say I agree with JimPortlandOR. Competence and not beholden to Corporate Health are strong posiitives. I suspect Daschle would have been prone to giving in too easily to health lobby demands. I think he was more known for getting along than getting things done when in congress, and since then he's been living off Corporate Health.
Remember, too, that Obama's health plans were the least aggressive and far-reaching during the campaign.
Like the stimulus plan, I think he's going to trend toward the politically useful, more moderate position and serve as pitchman and closer, but let congress do the heavy lifting.
Sebelius' input of "Uh, guys, that part of the plan just doesn't work" may be both all that is needed and just what is needed. . . I hope.
Posted by: Mr.E. | February 19, 2009 12:34 PM
ed hardy ed hardy clothing
ed hardy clothing
Posted by: ED Hardy | December 3, 2009 10:32 PM