Reconsidering newspapers

We already know about the wit and wisdom of the Washington Post's inglorious editorial page. And while this guy has never bothered me all that much, I am getting pretty effin sick of crap like this. Basically, we had a summer full of the inmates from the insane asylum running wild with guns and threats, trying to shut down the process of reasonable political discourse in this country, but somehow the president's going on the media's array of Sunday blab shows constitutes overexposure? WTF?

Maybe in the future we can just subscribe to the Sports section. Or maybe not.

Numbers

On page A10 of its paper Thursday, the Wash Post has a table entitled "The Bills Compared". I was unable to find the same table on-line, so it may only be available in hard copy. But the table's notes say its information was compiled by its staff and taken from information provided by the CBO, the Senate Finance Committee, the Senate HELP Committee and the House Energy and Commerce Committee, the latter three Committees having produced legislation.

Anyway, one feature of the table was to show how many persons are projected to still be uninsured in 2019. The House bill, with a price-tag of $1.3 trillion over ten years would reduce the number of projected insured from 54 million in 2019 to 17 million. And the House bill includes a public option. The Baucus bill, which costs almost half that of the House bill ($774 bill), and notably does not include a public option, would leave 25 million uninsured in 2019, eight million more than the House bill. The Senate HELP Committee's bill, which also includes a public option, would leave the most uninsured, 36 million, in 2019, although its costs over ten years would be only $645 bill, almost $100 bill less than the Baucus bill.

So, each of these bills would improve the number of insured persons, which is expected to increase from the 44 or 45 million or so persons uninsured today. But these bills would cost quite a bit and still leave millions uninsured. More specifically, compared to the House bill, these figures indicate it would require legislation nearly twice as expensive as the Baucus bill to get 8 million more persons insured in 2019. Granted, eight million people is still a lot, but it doesn't seem to me that another $600+ billion provides much bang for the buck.

It's possible I'm missing something here; that the long term effects of these proposals compared to doing nothing would continually decrease the numbers of uninsured, and that this longer term effect isn't reflected in these tables. But that would suggest that the substantive impact of these bills in improving access would be much delayed. If so, that point hasn't been made abundantly clear.

But for all the political flack health reform has stirred up, none of these bills really "wow" me. And I'm still waiting for the opponents of Reform to get really pissed off at the idea of individual mandates. But that would of course imply that opponents are interested in substantive issues.

If it's Thursday

It must be anti-Chavez day at the Washington Post.

Also, how can the juvenile delinquents in the back of the room simultaneously wave placards with the words "What Plan?" or "What Bill" written on them while also, in regards to the much trumpeted death panels, yell at the President to "read the bill"?

Signs of Optimism

Because unlike 1993-1994 when no real health care legislation was working its way through congress, this year health care legislation has already cleared several committees and is about to clear its final one.

In addition, current health care reform polling deserves some important qualifying, namely that, the important thing is that voters approve of a final reform bill's goals, not an imaginery one.

No Mandate without a Public Option

There have a couple of posts to this regard at the Great Orange Satan in recent days but it bears repeating that forcing people to buy insurance (the Mandate)--which was the Hilary position in the campaign and which Obama at the time opposed and which I'm not crazy about for a variety of reasons--without providing a low-cost public option is illogical, blatantly unfair, and maybe even unconstitutional.

That there today (a) exists a private market for individual insurance and that (b) few people go for this private sector, free-market "option", should give policymakers pause about requiring people to buy into it without a low-cost, regulated public option.

The Rationing We Have

Steven Pearlstein rips Michael Steele's face off:

Indeed, Republicans seem determined to preserve the uniquely American system under which health care is rationed today -- on the basis of employment status and ability to pay. According to the respected Institute of Medicine, this market-based approach to rationing has held the number of untimely deaths each year to a mere 18,000 uninsured souls. Thanks to Medicare, all of those victims are younger than 65, but apparently that is the kind of age-based rationing that real Republicans can embrace.

After reading his broadside, one is left wondering exactly what health reform plan Steele thought he was attacking. At one point, Steele claims that Democrats would prevent Americans from keeping their doctors or an insurance plan they like. Later, he warns that government will soon be setting caps on how many heart surgeries could be performed in the United States each year. Where is he getting this stuff? Has the chairman of the Republican Party somehow gotten hold of a top-secret plan for a government takeover of the health-care system that GOP operatives snatched during a break-in at Democratic National Committee headquarters?

If all that sounds spurious and unsubstantiated, it is. And like many of the overstated claims in this column, its purpose is to highlight the lies, distortions and political scare tactics that Steele and other Republicans have used to poison the national debate over health reform.

Have you no shame, sir? Have you no shame?

Stuff I Wish I'd Written

If we make 9/11 a national day of service, that means the terrorists will have won.

This private-public, civilian army of phone-bankers and envelope-stuffers sounds pretty teh awesome, though.

What Booman Said

Vote for cloture or lose your Chairs.

Now, this isn't so hard to understand, is it?

If it's Monday...

It must be anti-Chavez day at the Washington Post.

But I'm confused, or maybe I'm just missing something.

Isn't the very pro American Colombian president--or at least his honchos in his rubber-stamp legislature--trying to ram through a constitutional amendment to allow him to run again, for a third consecutive term, which is unconstitutional?

Shouldn't we be supporting a military coup in Colombia to prevent such an undemocratic and unconstitutional thing from happening, like we did in Hondurus?

How could The Post not have thought to mention this to us?

Unhinged

Atrios:

Getting Scarier

SoCal:

WESTWOOD -- A man accused of making threats against the White House led officers on a wild freeway chase that ended in a standoff outside the Federal Building.

MD:

The Secret Service is investigating a man who authorities said held a sign reading "Death to Obama" outside a town hall meeting on health-care reform in western Maryland.

The sign also read, "Death to Michelle and her two stupid kids," referring to the first name of President Barack Obama's wife, said Washington County Sheriff's Capt. Peter Lazich.

Dangerous and also super classy.

---------------------------------

But I'm sure that swastika outside that congressperson's office was a fake.

Not Interested in Governing

That, I think, is the basic mind-set behind the townhalls, the worldview promulgated by hate radio, Faux TV, and the various astroturf freedomworks groups for the last ten years and beyond. It manifested itself, of course, in a variety of ways during the W presidency, Katrina and the occupation of Iraq being only the most disasterous examples.

The only legitimate use of government for this crowd consists almost exclusively of starting wars and harranging liberals, academics, uncoverted Hollywood actors, immigrants, secularists, and other perceived unpersons. Beyond that, there just simply isn't any interest in addressing the realities of the modern world.

Ezra Klein's column gets at this somewhat, as well.

What Matt Yglesias Said

Big Media Matt:

...Watching McCaskill on TV what I mostly thought of was that I don’t understand why members of congress are holding these town halls. There’s been so much focus on the spectacle of the whole thing that nobody’s really stepped back and explained what the purpose of these events are other than to give us pundits something to chat about. Obviously this is not a good way of acquiring statistically valid information about your constituents’ opinions. And it doesn’t seem like a mode of endeavor likely to increase the popularity of the politician holding the town hall. The upside is extremely limited, and you’re mostly just exposing yourself to the chance that something could go wrong.

I know this is a relatively older post, and with the townhalls that horse is already out of the barn or whatever.

Anyway, this has been another edition of What Matt Yglesias Said.

More Media FAIL

Pardon my French, but who gives a flying f$%$#& what this idiot woman has to say about anything?

She's a "raging Republican" who voted for McCain and that Wasilla wingnut. So, she actually voted to put that hair-brain know-nothing one heartbeat away from the presidency, and she would have us think her bitchy whining about Obama's health plan should be taken seriously? She's a partisan hack who has no business telling any of us what kind of health plan the nation should have.

That's Some Spirited Revolution You Got There

Let me see if I can get this straight. Two days ago, the founder of Free Republic, the flagship of the conservative intertubes, basically issued a Fatwah against the entire U.S. government. "The govmit is oppressing us, taking away our guns and bibles, imprisoning us in FEMA trailers, and so on, so we have a natural right to rebel and throw off said oppressive govmit, which is illegally headed by a muslim born in Kenya." Sounds pretty provocative. They even want to unilaterally dispense with some Constitutional Amendments in the process. And while the call to arms is obstensibly peaceful--they merely want everyone in the gov to resign--there's no telling what happens if this demand is disobeyed. Could get violent.

But fear not. They don't really mean it. Stay calm. Because this week, barely a day after Free Republic's call for holy war, or at least for state conventions across the heartland to secede, conservatives got all in a snit because an uppity black man in his own house in the middle of the day in a pretty swanky neighborhood protested being arrested for contempt of cop. And the illegal muslim president said the cops acted "stupidly". This was too much for the die hard patriotic rebels in the conservative movement who, immediately after collapsing onto their fainting couches at such an affront to law and order, rushed to defend the right of socialized police forces everywhere to unapologetically take away a person's Liberty and Freedom, and arrest anyone anywhere for whatever reason, even if the charges are bogus and have to be dropped later.

Sigh.

Not sure what this means for the conservative revolution and the spirit of '09. What happens if during their god-given right to purge the country of heretics, liberals, and humanists, these conservatives are approached nicely by the men in blue and told to stand down? I shudder to think. With this kind of meekness, defeatism, and cut-and-runism, how can we ever hope to have a non-ballot-box revolution?

The Do-Nothing Caucus

Not sure who’s been spiking Steven Pearlstein's coffee, but this observation by someone in the press is welcome:

The challenge for the Blue Dogs is that they want an America where everyone has insurance but are reluctant to force workers to buy it or employers to help pay for it.

They understand that achieving universal coverage will require subsidies for low-income workers and small businesses, but they insist that none of those changes add to the federal deficit or raise anyone's taxes.

They want to introduce more competition into the private insurance market, but not if it comes from a government-run insurance plan.

They complain constantly about the need to rein in runaway Medicare costs while at the same time demanding higher Medicare reimbursement rates for doctors and hospitals in rural areas.

The fact is, that unless you have an abortion-restriction idea, or want to eliminate the right of workers to unionize, or have a new grand scheme for "tort reform", the "blue dogs" aren't interested.

Meanwhile, a news flash: McCain voters don't like Obama's health care plan:

Like many in the country, Mr. Brown, a 36-year-old father of four who lives in an Atlanta suburb, has grown increasingly anxious about Washington’s efforts to reconfigure health care and what it may mean for his middle-class family. Although he and his wife, Judith, supported John McCain in the presidential race, they find Mr. Obama an earnest and compelling pitchman. But they remain frustrated by the lack of available detail about his plan’s contours and cost.

"The bottom line is there are so many unknowns," said Ms. Brown, 35, who works part time at her church and cares for her young children. "What we do know is there is going to be more government control, and with more control you’re going to have fewer choices. It’s an innate part of being American to have those choices."

(snip)

But the Browns said Mr. Obama and the Democrats had not convinced them of the need for radical change. They said the notion of establishing a new government health plan to compete against private insurers seemed un-American. They questioned the wisdom and fairness of taxing the rich. And they said individuals should bear more responsibility for staying healthy.

"I know the system is not perfect, but I’m not completely convinced it’s broken," Mr. Brown said. "And even if it’s broken, I’m not sure the government is the solution."

I see. So government "control" means no or fewer innately American guaranteed, employer provided "choices", but the addition of a government health plan "choice" to compete against other private plans is un-American. Teh stupid. It hurts.

I also guess this dude hasn't heard about Medicare. Or Medicaid. Or Social Security. Morans!!!!

Just Do It

I've been reluctant to delve too deeply into the health care reform debate, mostly because I just haven't kept up with all the ins and outs of the policy details over the years, so I probably don't know what the hell I'm talking about (not that that has ever stopped me before). Better to leave the arguments to people like this, and this dude.

Nonetheless, even though the cat's pretty much already out of the bag in terms of political strategery, here are my thoughts, driven in part by worries over the current stalemate and reactions to Obama's presser last night.

1. Drop the word "reform" from the issue. It sounds too much like "overhaul" and my guess is that's what scares some people, many of whom already have coverage, and provides openings for obstructionists.

2. Focus on the basic goals--expanding access and reducing costs. The first, it seems to me, needs to be addressed by something like a public option, a Medicare-like buy-in. My sense from most polls and political discussion generally is that this is seen by much of the public as a worthwhile objective. The second is related to the first, that the problems of cost are partly a function of higher cost, profit-driven system that's inefficient. Expanding access through a public option could help lower costs.

3. Don't make a big deal of it. Whether in some objective sense the American health care system is in crisis, I'm not sure the public has been so receptive to such an appeal (see: 1994). Leave the alarmism for the conservatives, many of whose concerns have been aptly demonstrated as contradictory.

4. Keep the bill as simple as possible, try to address any reasonable concerns Democratic opponents might have, and if their objections aren't reasonable, subject them to public ridicule. Reach out to certain select Republicans, but since Democrats have large majorities in both houses of Congress, don't fret too much about bipartisanship.

The "birthers" are sore losers. Plain and simple.

Gosh, times are gettin' so rough, a Republican congressman can't even go to his own townhalls anymore.

Look. In addition to being psycho nutjobs, the "birthers" are just sore losers. Plain and simple.

Giving the blue dog dems what they want

From TPM I learn that the blue dog dems are unhappy with the pace of health reform legislation--or that it is being discussed at all--and want Obama and everybody else to slow the hell down on it.

Since these loyal blue dog dems seem to have too much going on for the next five months--maybe they all have really hot dates or something--I thought I would try to solve the impasse by suggesting some alternative timelines for reform, which I hope the loyal blue dog dems will like.

1. December '10 after the congressional elections, that way if the Republicans should happen to pick up even one seat in either house, the Blue Dogs can claim that the public just issued a stinging rebuke to Obama's health reform efforts and any reform if it precedes at all, should be delayed for an indefinite period.

2. December '12, after the presidential elections. If Obama wins by a margin smaller than 8% or so, the Blue Dogs can claim that he lacks a mandate, etc. If Obama loses, then of course, the Blue Dogs can spend their time kissing Repub as#$@. If Obama wins by 8% or more then the Blue Dogs can say that of course health reform should be done right away, just as soon as a comprehensive plan to slash Social Security and Medicare spending is passed.

3. March '15, If Obama wins in '12, this would be an opportune time to cement his legacy during the time he's a lame duck when people really care what he says and about his agenda.

4. August '17, after there's a new president and after entitlement reform.

Sotomayor

Uh oh:

Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor's opinions show support for the rights of criminal defendants and suspects, skepticism of corporations, and sympathy for plaintiffs alleging discrimination, an analysis of her record by The Washington Post found. And she has delivered those rulings with a level of detail considered unusual for an appellate judge.

Holy shit, Batman. Support for the rights of criminal defendants and suspects! Skepticism of corporations! Sympathy (empathy!) for plaintiffs alleging discrimination?! That some damn crazy shit. Say it ain't so. See, that's why we can only have old white men on the Supremes.

And apparently, Ms. Mayor delivers opinions with a "level of detail considered unusual...". Really?! Seems like just yesterday when Sotomayor was being cast as an ignorant, Latina dope, unworthy of the majesty required of a Supreme Court Justice.

Out of the pool?

I keep waiting for this story to be declared a hoax. (h/t Atrios)