In my survey, the numbers for and against the public option are about 80%-20%. Overwhelming support, to be sure, but upper-middle class students are hugely over-represented.
That being said, in the open-ended "Why or why not?" section (which you may choose to answer or not) I'm seeing only about 1 in 20 comments about why the public option is a bad idea. Since the rates of the follow-up question are pretty skewed, I've got to assume there's a strong emotional response to the public option; basically, unless you know what it is and are thoroughly convinced that it would be a good idea, the default decision seems to oppose it. Some comments even seem to express that sentiment: "I don't think I'm well informed enough to pick, so I can't support it."
That's fine, but unless you have a strong emotional affinity for the private ensurers, it's an interesting default to have.
Friday, October 30, 2009
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Los Angeles + Public Option = <3
In research for a class project, I deployed a two-pronged survey, utilizing both paper and online versions to reach the most people possible. The online version obviously reaches a more limited crowd, as it's limited by who's following me on Twitter and who happens to be in my email address book, but I cast a much larger net with my surveys distributed by hand.
To reach the broadest possible audience, I set up shop outside the LA Municipal Courthouse on Grand, just south of downtown. I figured this would draw people from the greatest geographical area and personal background, since everyone gets parking tickets and jury duty summons. To figure out which demographics were most supportive of the public option, I asked about race, education, and household income. A Spanish version of the survey made sure that I could get even more diversity in respondents.
So! Who likes it most? Everybody, apparently. LA is a coastal Californian city, which obviously leans to the left, but I had a grand total of one respondent who was philosophically opposed to the public option. Besides him, everyone from the Hispanic mother with 2 children to the fellow striding to his Mercedes, bluetooth earpiece abuzz, thought it would be a great way to bring down costs. I was surprised by the number of respondents that said health care was a moral imperative: regardless of their thoughts on the free-market system, health services for citizens were broadly seen as the responsibility of the state and a necessity. Thus, affordable premiums and broad coverage took precedence and support was nearly universal.
This was honestly surprising to me. I mean, I feel that way, too, but I make an effort not to say that "health care is a Right." That never makes constructionists very happy. I had several good conversations with folks that made it clear that laziness is not a factor, here. It's sadly argued that everyone should just go get a job for employer coverage, but anyone who's tried to find a new job right now knows just how fallacious that argument is. If jobs are not available, what are the alternatives? If people's budgets are already stretched as far as they can go between rent and food, there is no option but to lower costs. Regardless of how much people stated they had followed the ongoing debate, they grasped the urgency of the situation (in my far-from-unbiased opinion).
The opinions expressed online were very similar, but that was no surprise. Distributing my survey that way selected for my fellow college students, but I assumed that they would have a more liberal, idealistic outlook. Apparently not, though! If nothing else, I figured that the folks leaving the courthouse would have a chip on their shoulder regarding bureaucracy, having just dealt with some petty fine or a day of jury duty. Instead, they differed to the government on making health care affordable and accessible.
Unfortunately this limits what I could possibly write about for my school project; there don't seem to be any convenient demographic lines to draw, and I don't get to call poor people selfish or rich folks heartless or make any convenient generalizations.
Bringing in competition just rocks too hard, apparently. Let's do this.
To reach the broadest possible audience, I set up shop outside the LA Municipal Courthouse on Grand, just south of downtown. I figured this would draw people from the greatest geographical area and personal background, since everyone gets parking tickets and jury duty summons. To figure out which demographics were most supportive of the public option, I asked about race, education, and household income. A Spanish version of the survey made sure that I could get even more diversity in respondents.
So! Who likes it most? Everybody, apparently. LA is a coastal Californian city, which obviously leans to the left, but I had a grand total of one respondent who was philosophically opposed to the public option. Besides him, everyone from the Hispanic mother with 2 children to the fellow striding to his Mercedes, bluetooth earpiece abuzz, thought it would be a great way to bring down costs. I was surprised by the number of respondents that said health care was a moral imperative: regardless of their thoughts on the free-market system, health services for citizens were broadly seen as the responsibility of the state and a necessity. Thus, affordable premiums and broad coverage took precedence and support was nearly universal.
This was honestly surprising to me. I mean, I feel that way, too, but I make an effort not to say that "health care is a Right." That never makes constructionists very happy. I had several good conversations with folks that made it clear that laziness is not a factor, here. It's sadly argued that everyone should just go get a job for employer coverage, but anyone who's tried to find a new job right now knows just how fallacious that argument is. If jobs are not available, what are the alternatives? If people's budgets are already stretched as far as they can go between rent and food, there is no option but to lower costs. Regardless of how much people stated they had followed the ongoing debate, they grasped the urgency of the situation (in my far-from-unbiased opinion).
The opinions expressed online were very similar, but that was no surprise. Distributing my survey that way selected for my fellow college students, but I assumed that they would have a more liberal, idealistic outlook. Apparently not, though! If nothing else, I figured that the folks leaving the courthouse would have a chip on their shoulder regarding bureaucracy, having just dealt with some petty fine or a day of jury duty. Instead, they differed to the government on making health care affordable and accessible.
Unfortunately this limits what I could possibly write about for my school project; there don't seem to be any convenient demographic lines to draw, and I don't get to call poor people selfish or rich folks heartless or make any convenient generalizations.
Bringing in competition just rocks too hard, apparently. Let's do this.
Compromise in the House (Dems)
The liberal Dems in the House seem to be ready to move forward with a new compromise, despite earlier insistance that they would oppose anything short of a Medicare-tied P.O.:
I like this. Fight for what you want, stand together, rally the troops, but face the political reality when it rolls around. I promise, I'm not just supporting this because of partisan loyalties; this combination of conviction and pragmatism is admirable and how negotiations SHOULD be carried out.
If the GOP caucuses approached the debate this way, the opt-out compromise should seriously be enough to garner their support. The public-option itself is a compromise from single-payer systems. Now, to let states ultimately decide should most accurately manifest the opinion of constituents. That's what they want, right? It feels more and more like the right isn't even reading these suggestions anymore. They've figured out the "fighting" bit, but forgot about the second half of negotiating: reaching an agreement.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi will unveil a bill Thursday that falls short of the liberal vision of a public option -- and the liberals, so far and somewhat surprisingly, are going along with that.
After months of public hand-wringing and strident proclamations in support of the strongest possible government-run health coverage, liberal Democrats are bowing to the reality that party leaders don't have the votes.
So Pelosi will unveil a bill that creates a public option but one that would allow doctors and hospitals to negotiate rates with the government. Liberals wanted a bill tethered to Medicare rates.
I like this. Fight for what you want, stand together, rally the troops, but face the political reality when it rolls around. I promise, I'm not just supporting this because of partisan loyalties; this combination of conviction and pragmatism is admirable and how negotiations SHOULD be carried out.
If the GOP caucuses approached the debate this way, the opt-out compromise should seriously be enough to garner their support. The public-option itself is a compromise from single-payer systems. Now, to let states ultimately decide should most accurately manifest the opinion of constituents. That's what they want, right? It feels more and more like the right isn't even reading these suggestions anymore. They've figured out the "fighting" bit, but forgot about the second half of negotiating: reaching an agreement.
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Survey!
Howdy!
Help me collect some data with this very quick survey:
http://qtrial.qualtrics.com/SE?SID=SV_cYLK0lNo9cTXkNu&SVID=Prod
Help me collect some data with this very quick survey:
http://qtrial.qualtrics.com/SE?SID=SV_cYLK0lNo9cTXkNu&SVID=Prod
Collecting 60 votes
With Monday's announcement by Senate Majority Leader Reid (D-NV) that the final bill would include a public option (with the opt-out option for states) the struggle for 60 votes has heated up. Finding 50 votes to actually pass the legislation doesn't seem to be much of a problem, with the opt-out compromise giving solace to many Democratic senators at risk in more conservative districts. After all, if they can keep their constituents safe from the scourge of government-run health care, why not let other states make up their mind?
All in all, I'm very happy about this compromise both practically and politically. Since I have faith in the public option itself, its success in liberal states in comparison to the continued health care costs in the conservative ones that opt out will serve as a political boost for the Left. Trying to argue that private-only insurance is better on principal while a neighboring state might actually have a better situation on the ground would be a boon for Democrats come election time. This monolithic opposition would finally be called out by reality.
We have to get the plan through first, though. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) came out yesterday saying that not only would he vote against the final bill, but would fight its vote for cloture (the 60 vote threshold that would end the inevitable filibuster and actually bring the bill up for a vote). Whether or not Reid shows some backbone and finally strips him of his committee positions and caucusing privileges remains to be seen until after the fight: bringing down the hammer on him now would guarantee an enemy until the end of the debate, though Lieberman is going to be a consistent opponent regardless. Similarly, Olympia Snowe (R-ME) and the other potential GOP crossovers have decided, to the surprise of no one, that they're greatly offended by this disregard for bipartisanship and shall pout. Snowe even said she didn't want the bill to proceed to the floor for the debate/amendment process, which is just depressing. If anyone has given up on compromise and collaboration, it's her.
Again, there's an uphill battle here. It was a pretty gutsy move to include the public option (though the opt-out compromise makes it a very reasonable middle road) and it remains to be seen if 60 votes can possibly be gathered.
Update: Oh, and Evan Bayh (D-IN) has decided along with Mitch McConnell (the Minority Leader) and other Republicans that the procedural cloture vote (needs 60) is materially the same as the final vote on the bill (only needs 50). Why this is, he doesn't say; cloture is a vote to bring about a vote. How can he possibly equate the two?
...and WHY?
This comes back to what is an ongoing problem with the Democrat's cohesiveness as a caucus. If he had a reasonable fear of retribution, that if he was responsible for health care reform's failure that he would be stripped of all his privileges, we'd be seeing a very different situation. It's nice that he feels beholden to his constituents, but the utter lack of coordination and effective whipping in the Democratic Party has let this kind of activity proliferate. Before Snowe gave the Finance Committee bill a pass, the Republicans had been 100% unified in their opposition. They have suggested no actual plans, yet were able to all agree that there was no merit to any suggestions coming from the Dems. The amount of fury poured onto Snowe for her "betrayal" has been hefty, no doubt. Where is this level of anger for Bayh?
He's not even being bipartisan! He's not introducing some new idea or a pragmatic way forward. Instead, he's taken the procedural filibusters that have gotten so out of hand and given a nice little push down the progression towards absurdity. Thanks for making a further mockery of our legislative process, sir.
All in all, I'm very happy about this compromise both practically and politically. Since I have faith in the public option itself, its success in liberal states in comparison to the continued health care costs in the conservative ones that opt out will serve as a political boost for the Left. Trying to argue that private-only insurance is better on principal while a neighboring state might actually have a better situation on the ground would be a boon for Democrats come election time. This monolithic opposition would finally be called out by reality.
We have to get the plan through first, though. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) came out yesterday saying that not only would he vote against the final bill, but would fight its vote for cloture (the 60 vote threshold that would end the inevitable filibuster and actually bring the bill up for a vote). Whether or not Reid shows some backbone and finally strips him of his committee positions and caucusing privileges remains to be seen until after the fight: bringing down the hammer on him now would guarantee an enemy until the end of the debate, though Lieberman is going to be a consistent opponent regardless. Similarly, Olympia Snowe (R-ME) and the other potential GOP crossovers have decided, to the surprise of no one, that they're greatly offended by this disregard for bipartisanship and shall pout. Snowe even said she didn't want the bill to proceed to the floor for the debate/amendment process, which is just depressing. If anyone has given up on compromise and collaboration, it's her.
Again, there's an uphill battle here. It was a pretty gutsy move to include the public option (though the opt-out compromise makes it a very reasonable middle road) and it remains to be seen if 60 votes can possibly be gathered.
Update: Oh, and Evan Bayh (D-IN) has decided along with Mitch McConnell (the Minority Leader) and other Republicans that the procedural cloture vote (needs 60) is materially the same as the final vote on the bill (only needs 50). Why this is, he doesn't say; cloture is a vote to bring about a vote. How can he possibly equate the two?
...and WHY?
This comes back to what is an ongoing problem with the Democrat's cohesiveness as a caucus. If he had a reasonable fear of retribution, that if he was responsible for health care reform's failure that he would be stripped of all his privileges, we'd be seeing a very different situation. It's nice that he feels beholden to his constituents, but the utter lack of coordination and effective whipping in the Democratic Party has let this kind of activity proliferate. Before Snowe gave the Finance Committee bill a pass, the Republicans had been 100% unified in their opposition. They have suggested no actual plans, yet were able to all agree that there was no merit to any suggestions coming from the Dems. The amount of fury poured onto Snowe for her "betrayal" has been hefty, no doubt. Where is this level of anger for Bayh?
He's not even being bipartisan! He's not introducing some new idea or a pragmatic way forward. Instead, he's taken the procedural filibusters that have gotten so out of hand and given a nice little push down the progression towards absurdity. Thanks for making a further mockery of our legislative process, sir.
Friday, October 23, 2009
Comparing the Bills! (Senate Finance Cmte + House)
Hurray! Today we have a delightful comparison of the two leading bills being reconciled by Democratic leadership, courtesy of Ezra Klein:
(emphasis in the original)
Not a whole lot to add; Klein's a thorough guy.
To clarify on the mandates, though: an individual mandate would make it the responsibility of each person to get insurance, like the system we currently have for car insurance. Obviously this is difficult for the less affluent, though, which is why the subsidy rate is so important. The 3x subsidy funding in the House bill would go straight into the pockets of the families that need insurance most but couldn't afford it (or the new penalties for not having it).
The employer mandate would work in conjunction with the individual one by requiring that businesses offer their employees coverage. This also broadens coverage, brings in more competition, and would also be helped by a robust public option. With these mandates to bring in vast numbers of new customers, a non-profit force to drive competition will be that much more important.
Unfortunately this isn't a strictly finance- or health-based debate. I don't really have a lot of ideology invested in this: if it covers more people, with more stability, for less, let's go for it. We're just so behind the ball on this compared with other industrialized democracies... We cover fewer people and pay 150% for no discernible improvement in outcome. I can only hope that more of the stronger House bill ends up in the final product, but this is such a fragile, ideological balancing act that I'm not sure how optimistic to be. Are we close enough to the 2010 elections? Will legislators' votes on health care reform be the ultimate decider when they roll around? And would any Republicans cross over anyway, no matter how watered-down the bill is? Given the complexity of the political situation, I plan to sit tight, encourage the strongest bill, and hope that it makes it through the grandstanding and posturing that will assail it until the very end.
From what I’m hearing, the specifics will look something like this. The Senate Finance Bill gets to 94 percent coverage. The House bill will hit 96 percent. The Senate Finance bill spends a bit over $450 billion on subsidies to help people afford insurance. The House bill will spend more than $700 billion. The Senate Finance bill doesn’t have an employer mandate. The House bill does. The Senate Finance bill funds itself by taxing family health-care benefits over $21,000. The House bill funds itself by taxing incomes over $500,000. The Senate Finance bill expands Medicaid. The House bill expands Medicaid by more. The Senate Finance bill costs $829 billion. The House bill costs $871 billion.And the rumor is that there are some other goodies in there, but I’ve not been able to confirm that yet.
The House bill, in other words, will cover more people at a more affordable cost to individuals. It can do this for a number of reasons, but the big one is that it saves a lot of money by including a strong public option and a real individual mandate. The combination of those two policies allows the government and individuals to pay a bit less while encouraging employers to pay a bit more. Its funding mechanism is a whole lot more popular than taxing health-care plans, but it will also do less to “bend the curve.”
(emphasis in the original)
Not a whole lot to add; Klein's a thorough guy.
To clarify on the mandates, though: an individual mandate would make it the responsibility of each person to get insurance, like the system we currently have for car insurance. Obviously this is difficult for the less affluent, though, which is why the subsidy rate is so important. The 3x subsidy funding in the House bill would go straight into the pockets of the families that need insurance most but couldn't afford it (or the new penalties for not having it).
The employer mandate would work in conjunction with the individual one by requiring that businesses offer their employees coverage. This also broadens coverage, brings in more competition, and would also be helped by a robust public option. With these mandates to bring in vast numbers of new customers, a non-profit force to drive competition will be that much more important.
Unfortunately this isn't a strictly finance- or health-based debate. I don't really have a lot of ideology invested in this: if it covers more people, with more stability, for less, let's go for it. We're just so behind the ball on this compared with other industrialized democracies... We cover fewer people and pay 150% for no discernible improvement in outcome. I can only hope that more of the stronger House bill ends up in the final product, but this is such a fragile, ideological balancing act that I'm not sure how optimistic to be. Are we close enough to the 2010 elections? Will legislators' votes on health care reform be the ultimate decider when they roll around? And would any Republicans cross over anyway, no matter how watered-down the bill is? Given the complexity of the political situation, I plan to sit tight, encourage the strongest bill, and hope that it makes it through the grandstanding and posturing that will assail it until the very end.
Speaking of interacting with the public...
Ok, see, here are the issues that arise when talking to the public. If all Congress did was broadcast the non-partisan cost analysis of new programs, we wouldn't be in the bind that we're in today. Instead, we have this:
This is the charming, constructive debate we're engaging in. The point where I start getting confused is when I can't tell if she's being disingenuous or not. Surely she can't actually believe this to be the case? Between the CBO estimates that money will be saved, the inevitable cost-reduction for consumers, and the plans for the public option to be a self-sustaining plan, is this a genuine fear of hers? If so, she hasn't been keeping up with the most basic analysis of the legislation she's voting on. If not, she's engaging in bad-faith arguments, evoking fear rather than reasoned opposition that you could rationally compare side-by-side with the arguments FOR the plan.
This is nothing new; every day my RSS feeds dump these little stories into my brain about a deceptive talking point from this side or a fallacious argument from that. It's all part and parcel of the daily political drama. The thing is, I enjoy it. I seek it out. I want to see all this so I can get a sense of how the plans are moving forward and what's going on down the road. What about the people that aren't political junkies, though? I have the privilege of getting to hear these grandstanding opinions either bolstered or refuted across the blogosphere.
If I were, instead, interested in finding out what would be the best way forward to ensure health care for my family and wasn't interested in the legislative process, I'd be SOL. There's the country that I know and love going bankrupt and death panels on the one hand and skyrocketing premiums on the other. Is it too much to ask that we try to generate genuine support from constituents?
"I think if you asked, do you want a public option but it would force the government to go bankrupt, people would say no."
- Sen. Landrieu (D-LA)
This is the charming, constructive debate we're engaging in. The point where I start getting confused is when I can't tell if she's being disingenuous or not. Surely she can't actually believe this to be the case? Between the CBO estimates that money will be saved, the inevitable cost-reduction for consumers, and the plans for the public option to be a self-sustaining plan, is this a genuine fear of hers? If so, she hasn't been keeping up with the most basic analysis of the legislation she's voting on. If not, she's engaging in bad-faith arguments, evoking fear rather than reasoned opposition that you could rationally compare side-by-side with the arguments FOR the plan.
This is nothing new; every day my RSS feeds dump these little stories into my brain about a deceptive talking point from this side or a fallacious argument from that. It's all part and parcel of the daily political drama. The thing is, I enjoy it. I seek it out. I want to see all this so I can get a sense of how the plans are moving forward and what's going on down the road. What about the people that aren't political junkies, though? I have the privilege of getting to hear these grandstanding opinions either bolstered or refuted across the blogosphere.
If I were, instead, interested in finding out what would be the best way forward to ensure health care for my family and wasn't interested in the legislative process, I'd be SOL. There's the country that I know and love going bankrupt and death panels on the one hand and skyrocketing premiums on the other. Is it too much to ask that we try to generate genuine support from constituents?
Opt-out Option Looking Promising!
It's looking like the unified Senate bill will have the opt-out plan that got me so excited earlier, which is great news. Besides giving the states the option to participate or not, it looks like the public plan would be run by a non-profit board:
This is the kind of nuance that needs to be quickly shown to those on the fence. The greatest concern, I believe, is that a public option would require more spending by the federal government. In an age of TARP, bailouts, upcoming energy and banking regulations, and a deficit of historic proportions, fiscal responsibility has become an ultimate tipping point for the plan.
The CBO (our non-partisan price-tagging office) report, of course, said that the Senate Finance Committee bill would pay for itself and even yield a $81 billion surplus, but if the addition of a public option could be insulated from federal coffers that would put many people at ease. To be able to assure constituents that their Medicare benefits and our financial stability are secure would be a great help. America's Libertarian culture is pervasive, but not all-encompassing. There are some folks out there that object strongly just on principal of government interference, but I think the majority of the opposition could be convinced through arguments of common sense cost-effectiveness.
Here's to the battle ahead.
We ought to have a non-profit board--it could be appointed by the President but a non profit board. They'd have to retain earnings, create a retained earnings pool, so that if they run into financial problems later on the financial needs of the plan could be met by the retained earnings, not by the federal government.
- Sen. Carper (D-DE)
This is the kind of nuance that needs to be quickly shown to those on the fence. The greatest concern, I believe, is that a public option would require more spending by the federal government. In an age of TARP, bailouts, upcoming energy and banking regulations, and a deficit of historic proportions, fiscal responsibility has become an ultimate tipping point for the plan.
The CBO (our non-partisan price-tagging office) report, of course, said that the Senate Finance Committee bill would pay for itself and even yield a $81 billion surplus, but if the addition of a public option could be insulated from federal coffers that would put many people at ease. To be able to assure constituents that their Medicare benefits and our financial stability are secure would be a great help. America's Libertarian culture is pervasive, but not all-encompassing. There are some folks out there that object strongly just on principal of government interference, but I think the majority of the opposition could be convinced through arguments of common sense cost-effectiveness.
Here's to the battle ahead.
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
What's next?
So, what do we all do in the wake of the final reform bill leaving committee? I'm not even sure myself, so here's another case of learning on the fly.
First, a review. My ecstatic tweets yesterday centered on Olympia Snowe (R-ME) crossing over as the sole Republican to show a smidge of qualified support for any of the plans on the table right now. Of course, the bill would have moved on anyway (since the Senate Finance Committee breaks down 13-10, advantage: Dems) but it could potentially open the door to other GOP support.
In short, yesterday was undoubtedly a big day legislatively. The question is whether or not it was also a big day politically.
Regardless, with even Snowe saying that no one should take this as any more than a "go-ahead" for the weakest plan available, it's time to start grinding sausage. It took a while looking around to find out what had to be done to reconcile these bills from all the different committees: high school civics leaves the process at subcommittee -> committee -> floor debate/amendments, and none of my poli sci classes found it important enough to ever fill me in on. Basically, the ultimate period of reconciliation is, well, reconciliation. It's a famously-opaque process that a bill tumbles through after being approved by both the House and the Senate before trundling off to the President's desk.
In this case, it's apparently just "up to each chamber of Congress" to unify their committee bills (2 for Senate, 3 for House). After that, Pelosi and Reid will have to pull some major teeth to get their legislation on the same page. How they'll decide whether or not to have make-or-break issues like the public option will come down strictly to which will garner that extra vote or two as they try to keep the liberal and conservative poles of their own party from walking away. It's tough maintaining a majority.
Once this unified bill hits the respective floors, only the amendments added during debate will need to be reconciled after the fact. I'm glad that we'll get to see that bill as a starting point, but I expect the debate process to send the legislation off in very different directions; if the Dems had the unity of the GOP, this wouldn't be a problem. Ideally, when Pelosi and Reid declare, "Behold, the sacred reform is here!" the Democrats would fall in line, make some bureaucratic amendments, and line up lock step to ensure passage. Instead, we'll probably have a weak public option thrown in by the more-liberal House, while the Senate continues to water things down and "saves costs" by cutting subsidies to poor families. We'll see legislation unify and diverge again, I think.
One thing to note yesterday, though, is the health insurance lobby (AHIP) has finally come out against the reform efforts. It tried the whole "sitting semi-cooperatively in the back of the room" strategy, but with reform finally gaining momentum and a sense of inevitability, they commissioned a study to show how espensive this is by none other than PricewaterhouseCooper, none other than the notorious folks that provided data for Big Tobacco. The fire is finally under their butts; the millions of new, mandated customers will be great, but this is not meant as a windfall to insurance providers, and they've finally realized that perhaps profits will decrease. Fancy that.
Since the insurance companies were never the darlings in this debate, their open opposition could come as an enemy to unite against for Democrats and even some Republicans. The bickering over the public option, reimbursement rates, and taxes could fall to the wayside as the urgency for passing health care reform heats up. The attitude could evolve such that the bill might not be perfect, but must be passed as a first step towards fixing a situation that's gotten utterly out of hand.
So, yesterday was a big day. Legislatively, huge (in such a public, drawn-out struggle). Politically, just another day in the life. Normandy looms, so to speak.
First, a review. My ecstatic tweets yesterday centered on Olympia Snowe (R-ME) crossing over as the sole Republican to show a smidge of qualified support for any of the plans on the table right now. Of course, the bill would have moved on anyway (since the Senate Finance Committee breaks down 13-10, advantage: Dems) but it could potentially open the door to other GOP support.
In short, yesterday was undoubtedly a big day legislatively. The question is whether or not it was also a big day politically.
Regardless, with even Snowe saying that no one should take this as any more than a "go-ahead" for the weakest plan available, it's time to start grinding sausage. It took a while looking around to find out what had to be done to reconcile these bills from all the different committees: high school civics leaves the process at subcommittee -> committee -> floor debate/amendments, and none of my poli sci classes found it important enough to ever fill me in on. Basically, the ultimate period of reconciliation is, well, reconciliation. It's a famously-opaque process that a bill tumbles through after being approved by both the House and the Senate before trundling off to the President's desk.
In this case, it's apparently just "up to each chamber of Congress" to unify their committee bills (2 for Senate, 3 for House). After that, Pelosi and Reid will have to pull some major teeth to get their legislation on the same page. How they'll decide whether or not to have make-or-break issues like the public option will come down strictly to which will garner that extra vote or two as they try to keep the liberal and conservative poles of their own party from walking away. It's tough maintaining a majority.
Once this unified bill hits the respective floors, only the amendments added during debate will need to be reconciled after the fact. I'm glad that we'll get to see that bill as a starting point, but I expect the debate process to send the legislation off in very different directions; if the Dems had the unity of the GOP, this wouldn't be a problem. Ideally, when Pelosi and Reid declare, "Behold, the sacred reform is here!" the Democrats would fall in line, make some bureaucratic amendments, and line up lock step to ensure passage. Instead, we'll probably have a weak public option thrown in by the more-liberal House, while the Senate continues to water things down and "saves costs" by cutting subsidies to poor families. We'll see legislation unify and diverge again, I think.
One thing to note yesterday, though, is the health insurance lobby (AHIP) has finally come out against the reform efforts. It tried the whole "sitting semi-cooperatively in the back of the room" strategy, but with reform finally gaining momentum and a sense of inevitability, they commissioned a study to show how espensive this is by none other than PricewaterhouseCooper, none other than the notorious folks that provided data for Big Tobacco. The fire is finally under their butts; the millions of new, mandated customers will be great, but this is not meant as a windfall to insurance providers, and they've finally realized that perhaps profits will decrease. Fancy that.
Since the insurance companies were never the darlings in this debate, their open opposition could come as an enemy to unite against for Democrats and even some Republicans. The bickering over the public option, reimbursement rates, and taxes could fall to the wayside as the urgency for passing health care reform heats up. The attitude could evolve such that the bill might not be perfect, but must be passed as a first step towards fixing a situation that's gotten utterly out of hand.
So, yesterday was a big day. Legislatively, huge (in such a public, drawn-out struggle). Politically, just another day in the life. Normandy looms, so to speak.
Sunday, October 11, 2009
Let the states decide?
As the Constitution says, those powers not expressly written as the responsibility of Washington are, by default, differed to the states. Could this also work with health care?
States on their own wouldn't be able to stem the rising tide of premiums and costs; Massachusetts' "RomneyCare" hasn't pushed the nation's private insurers to work more efficiently. An idea that has been floated recently, and received a certain amount of bipartisan support (which is a huge deal in this polarized debate) is to set up a government public option but let state legislatures decide whether or not to offer the program in their state. This, to me, seems like a perfect solution. States like California with a healthy Democratic majority (though with such a deeply polarized Assembly, there would be little to no crossover) would be able to pass it, while those states that felt like opting out would be able to.
The key to this, of course, would be to keep the opting in and out fluid. States should be able to drop the plan if it is excessively hurting their insurance companies, and if a state feels like its neighbors are benefiting it should be able to join in the fun.
Unfortunately, this wouldn't leave it up to the voters. I haven't seen anything about running a referendum to decide such matters, and I think that would be most productive (since public support far outstrips congressional support for a government plan) It'd be delightful if there wasn't such a disconnect between Congressmen and their constituents, but given the outspokenness of the opposition, it's pretty understandable. Besides, state legislators are ultimately beholden to those constituents, and they would do their best to read their district before making an impulsive decision on the matter.
The last little caveat is that some of the states most likely to forgo the public option need it most; some states in the South are only served by one or two insurance companies, and breaking those monopolies would make a huge impact on coverage and pricing.
Having an initial run of the public option, though, could finally bring a spirit of pragmatism to the debate. If people in the more conservative states can talk to family and friends in other areas of the country and hear real-life experiences, we can, as a nation, decide if this is the way forward.
States on their own wouldn't be able to stem the rising tide of premiums and costs; Massachusetts' "RomneyCare" hasn't pushed the nation's private insurers to work more efficiently. An idea that has been floated recently, and received a certain amount of bipartisan support (which is a huge deal in this polarized debate) is to set up a government public option but let state legislatures decide whether or not to offer the program in their state. This, to me, seems like a perfect solution. States like California with a healthy Democratic majority (though with such a deeply polarized Assembly, there would be little to no crossover) would be able to pass it, while those states that felt like opting out would be able to.
The key to this, of course, would be to keep the opting in and out fluid. States should be able to drop the plan if it is excessively hurting their insurance companies, and if a state feels like its neighbors are benefiting it should be able to join in the fun.
Unfortunately, this wouldn't leave it up to the voters. I haven't seen anything about running a referendum to decide such matters, and I think that would be most productive (since public support far outstrips congressional support for a government plan) It'd be delightful if there wasn't such a disconnect between Congressmen and their constituents, but given the outspokenness of the opposition, it's pretty understandable. Besides, state legislators are ultimately beholden to those constituents, and they would do their best to read their district before making an impulsive decision on the matter.
The last little caveat is that some of the states most likely to forgo the public option need it most; some states in the South are only served by one or two insurance companies, and breaking those monopolies would make a huge impact on coverage and pricing.
Having an initial run of the public option, though, could finally bring a spirit of pragmatism to the debate. If people in the more conservative states can talk to family and friends in other areas of the country and hear real-life experiences, we can, as a nation, decide if this is the way forward.
Sunday, September 27, 2009
Burden of Proof is on the Naysayers
We passed a notable milestone the other day.
As of Friday, it has been 100 days since the GOP promised it would have an alternative health care proposal available, and thus far nothing has been presented. My attempts at centrism are an entirely uphill battle when there are no plans to be weighed; how can one pit government-run reform against market-based controls if there's no reform in the latter? The one thing that the White House and Democrats have unequivocally won is the battle of convincing Americans that the status quo isn't working.
This leads me to ask: What do you want us to do? If you say you want reform as well, explain to me how one might go about reining in costs and securing coverage without tampering with the almighty market. Kevin Drum notes the similarities between the health care battle and the fight over cap-and-trade; in both cases, the status quo is a relatively unregulated market. There are modest consumer protections in place on insurance companies, and there are emissions standards for industry. However, people still lose their coverage when they get sick, get denied insurance for pre-existing conditions, and the world is on its way to becoming a soggy piece of charcoal in a few centuries (hopefully, none of these points are too contentious).
The invisible hand of the market is what we have right now. Where's the reform going to come from if there's no money in it? If you're dealing with increasing the standard of living, then mechanized manufacturing and streamlined production are excellent. For issues like ensuring health care for our citizens or abating climate change, there's far less financial motivation. We're faced with momentous issues that require a scale of thought and action that I honestly don't think our founders planned to deal with. Living in a smaller community, you might be inclined to help out your neighbors, pursuing your business interests but also reaching out in charity. Instead, Conservatism has protected the right to pursuit of happiness above all else in these debates, leaving little non-governmental recourse for the problems of the day.
Libertarian Matt Welch, for instance, tears into Paul Krugman's recent column that makes similar connections between the health care and climate change debates. Yet again, though, what's missing from his argument is the elephant in the room. Welch is unconvinced by the effectiveness of cap-and-trade (despite evidence to the contrary) yet he does nothing to propose an alternative. The concepts of the public option in health care and cap-and-trade for climate change are, to me, the ultimate hybrids of government action and the harnessing of market forces. Want to make money on insurance? Well, fine, but you'd better be able to do it at least as well as the folks running the DMV and the Post Office. Shouldn't be too hard, should it? And how about continuing our survival on a fragile planet? Buying and selling the right to pollute gives direct financial incentive to clean up your act (no pun intended) as quickly as possible.
If these both are considered acts of government-overreach, I again challenge you folks to come up with an alternative. These are not single-payer systems or mandated emissions caps we're talking about here; they give you a chance to step up and make financial gains WHILE fixing the problems that face us. Sounds like a good deal to me.
Prove all of us crazy socialists wrong, yeah?
As of Friday, it has been 100 days since the GOP promised it would have an alternative health care proposal available, and thus far nothing has been presented. My attempts at centrism are an entirely uphill battle when there are no plans to be weighed; how can one pit government-run reform against market-based controls if there's no reform in the latter? The one thing that the White House and Democrats have unequivocally won is the battle of convincing Americans that the status quo isn't working.
This leads me to ask: What do you want us to do? If you say you want reform as well, explain to me how one might go about reining in costs and securing coverage without tampering with the almighty market. Kevin Drum notes the similarities between the health care battle and the fight over cap-and-trade; in both cases, the status quo is a relatively unregulated market. There are modest consumer protections in place on insurance companies, and there are emissions standards for industry. However, people still lose their coverage when they get sick, get denied insurance for pre-existing conditions, and the world is on its way to becoming a soggy piece of charcoal in a few centuries (hopefully, none of these points are too contentious).
The invisible hand of the market is what we have right now. Where's the reform going to come from if there's no money in it? If you're dealing with increasing the standard of living, then mechanized manufacturing and streamlined production are excellent. For issues like ensuring health care for our citizens or abating climate change, there's far less financial motivation. We're faced with momentous issues that require a scale of thought and action that I honestly don't think our founders planned to deal with. Living in a smaller community, you might be inclined to help out your neighbors, pursuing your business interests but also reaching out in charity. Instead, Conservatism has protected the right to pursuit of happiness above all else in these debates, leaving little non-governmental recourse for the problems of the day.
Libertarian Matt Welch, for instance, tears into Paul Krugman's recent column that makes similar connections between the health care and climate change debates. Yet again, though, what's missing from his argument is the elephant in the room. Welch is unconvinced by the effectiveness of cap-and-trade (despite evidence to the contrary) yet he does nothing to propose an alternative. The concepts of the public option in health care and cap-and-trade for climate change are, to me, the ultimate hybrids of government action and the harnessing of market forces. Want to make money on insurance? Well, fine, but you'd better be able to do it at least as well as the folks running the DMV and the Post Office. Shouldn't be too hard, should it? And how about continuing our survival on a fragile planet? Buying and selling the right to pollute gives direct financial incentive to clean up your act (no pun intended) as quickly as possible.
If these both are considered acts of government-overreach, I again challenge you folks to come up with an alternative. These are not single-payer systems or mandated emissions caps we're talking about here; they give you a chance to step up and make financial gains WHILE fixing the problems that face us. Sounds like a good deal to me.
Prove all of us crazy socialists wrong, yeah?
Friday, September 25, 2009
Finding a Social Bookmarking Soulmate! (SBS)
Finding a user that shares my interests and analyzing their use of social media
Paul Allitor (paulallitor) of Diigo shares my passion for progressive politics, along with a healthy sprinkling of web tools, music links, and other topics (there seem to also be quite a few links to weight loss stories). He will definitely be an excellent SBS for content related to health care and politics research, but he doesn't seem to have more recreational bookmarks; Since much of my browsing time is spent on cheeseburger reviews, web comics, and other miscellaneous entertainment, I'll have to turn to StumbleUpon or my Google Reader friends for more of that.
For the political reading, though, Allitor will be a great help. He's been on Diigo for almost a year, with nearly 3000 bookmarks, showing consistent use and up-to-date content. His tags aren't too organized, since his top two tags are "nytimes" and "nytimes.com," respectively, and there are separate "fat" and "obesity" tags. Also, there are tags for the words "of" and "in", meaning he probably messed up somewhere with putting quotes around the multi-word tags. All the same, working my way down the list of the materials he's bookmarked has been quite productive.
One blog, Hullabaloo, is run primarily by the blogger Digby with other guest writers occasionally visiting. While the site looks like it was made c. 1998 (off-yellow background, TNR font, distorted picture at the top) the commentary is sharp and astute, conveniently focusing on the health care debate. I'm proud to add it to my blogroll.
Allitor also brought to my attention "Little Green Footballs," written by the conservative-leaning Charles Johnson. He's actually in the midst of a scuffle over further-right folks condemning his "conservative" label, as he certainly doesn't follow the GOP party line. He's strongly against Islamic fundamentalism, but is very outspoken in his opposition to Glenn Beck and the sensationalism coming from his corner of politics. In my search for balanced commentary that comes from examination of the issues on a case by case basis instead of dogma, Johnson is a perfect blogger to have along for the ride.
All in all, I look forward to keeping up with paulallitor. He's pulled together some great stuff, and I'm sure he'll continue to do so.
Paul Allitor (paulallitor) of Diigo shares my passion for progressive politics, along with a healthy sprinkling of web tools, music links, and other topics (there seem to also be quite a few links to weight loss stories). He will definitely be an excellent SBS for content related to health care and politics research, but he doesn't seem to have more recreational bookmarks; Since much of my browsing time is spent on cheeseburger reviews, web comics, and other miscellaneous entertainment, I'll have to turn to StumbleUpon or my Google Reader friends for more of that.
For the political reading, though, Allitor will be a great help. He's been on Diigo for almost a year, with nearly 3000 bookmarks, showing consistent use and up-to-date content. His tags aren't too organized, since his top two tags are "nytimes" and "nytimes.com," respectively, and there are separate "fat" and "obesity" tags. Also, there are tags for the words "of" and "in", meaning he probably messed up somewhere with putting quotes around the multi-word tags. All the same, working my way down the list of the materials he's bookmarked has been quite productive.
One blog, Hullabaloo, is run primarily by the blogger Digby with other guest writers occasionally visiting. While the site looks like it was made c. 1998 (off-yellow background, TNR font, distorted picture at the top) the commentary is sharp and astute, conveniently focusing on the health care debate. I'm proud to add it to my blogroll.
Allitor also brought to my attention "Little Green Footballs," written by the conservative-leaning Charles Johnson. He's actually in the midst of a scuffle over further-right folks condemning his "conservative" label, as he certainly doesn't follow the GOP party line. He's strongly against Islamic fundamentalism, but is very outspoken in his opposition to Glenn Beck and the sensationalism coming from his corner of politics. In my search for balanced commentary that comes from examination of the issues on a case by case basis instead of dogma, Johnson is a perfect blogger to have along for the ride.
All in all, I look forward to keeping up with paulallitor. He's pulled together some great stuff, and I'm sure he'll continue to do so.
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Trifecta
For the first paper of the semester, all we're doing is reposting our first 3 posts, revised slightly. Here goes!
Hello World!
Hello World!
Hello world!
This semester I'm excited to delve into the ongoing health care debate. As a relatively new, fresh-faced political junky, I have a long way to go in figuring out the facets of health care policy itself (reimbursement rates, co-op systems, drug subsidies) as well as the political side of the battle (various committees putting together legislation, key players, etc). As a Political Science major, I'm naturally excited about such a momentous project put before our legislators by President Obama, and I hope that the ongoing developments will fuel my writing as I try to break down both the political and practical aspects of American health care.
I come to the debate, though, from an admittedly liberal perspective; I'm that guy with the laptop festooned with "No on 8" and Obama campaign stickers. However, I'm hopeful that further examination of the arguments of each side will drive me to a more centrist conclusion. Currently, pessimism has set in, with the public option's chances waning and looking to be replaced by what sounds by a relatively spineless co-op system. Republican pleas for bipartisan compromise have come across to me as little more than a begging for concessions through what often seem to be bad faith arguments.
A focused dissection of health care policy should fill a void left by the various forms of media and the corners that they understandably cut in their coverage. Bloggers, especially those with a partisan posture (which is the vast majority), have a vested interest in "securing their base" to both hold onto loyal readers and seize new ones; try as we might to be adventurous, there is a natural appeal to placing ourselves in "echo chambers" by surrounding ourselves with assenting voices. I've read Steve Benen (Washington Monthly) for years now, for instance, but while he is an astute and convincing writer, his blog is essentially a case built day by day against the Republicans. When you know your author enters the fray with certain preconceptions (that the GOP has given up on rational, good-faith debate, as in the linked post above) the partisan blogger loses some of his or her own credibility.
As we seek out our respective, ideological blogs, we tend to be drawn similarly to cable networks, with Fox holding down the right wing and MSNBC (and CNN, to a large extent) holding down the left. Just as blogs clamber for readers, these stations need to duke it out for viewers and advertising dollars. It is entirely in their interest to cultivate a select group of loyal viewers and hold them than to use their position for an impartial realization of our First Amendment. With their enormous national clout, they have the power to make or break a legislative battle, to sweep scandals under the rug or to end careers.
I have no such clout, so I have no reason to be anything but even-handed and discerning.
Again, with the sole goal of informing myself and my audience along the way, while I may come to partisan conclusions, I aim to approach each development, each twist and each turn, with a critical eye, healthy background research, and an open mind.
Monday, August 31, 2009
Analysis of another blog in my field, for inspiration and direction: FiveThirtyEight.com
Assignment for Aug. 31
In a political world increasingly defined by polling numbers and electoral struggles, FiveThirtyEight.com provides a statistics-based blog on goings-on both inside and outside the Beltway. Nate Silver, who started as a career baseball statistician, now uses his powers to predict (with great accuracy) the results of elections, check the accuracy of polling and other meters of public opinion, and just generally break down every political question to numbers and regression models to take a stab of measuring the otherwise immeasurable.
FiveThirtyEight rose to prominence during the 2008 election and the year running up to it, rising from a relatively unknown corner of the net to the 57th-ranked blog on technorati.com, an amazingly quick ascent. During the 2008 election season, Silver posted a few times daily, often more, aggregating polling results on the congressional, gubernatorial, and presidential races as well as providing commentary for any current developments. In recent months, though, his personal posting rate has fallen to several updates per week, with supplemental content provided by a few other bloggers who have a similar statistical bent. Between calculating the Democratic primary results and eventually nailing the popular vote spread (52.4%-46.3% predicted, compared to 52.3%-46.2% actual), Silver has earned his credibility with consistent results and an eye for effectively weighing the day-to-day developments in politics. In this post of Nate Silver’s final election projections on the morning of November 4th, he explains not just what he thinks the numbers will be, but why:
Our model projects that Obama will win all states won by John Kerry in 2004, in addition to Iowa, New Mexico, Colorado, Ohio, Virginia, Nevada, Florida and North Carolina, while narrowly losing Missouri and Indiana. These states total 353 electoral votes. Our official projection, which looks at these outcomes probabilistically -- for instance, assigns North Carolina's 15 electoral votes to Obama 59 percent of the time -- comes up with an incrementally more conservative projection of 348.6 electoral votes.
We also project Obama to win the popular vote by 6.1 points; his lead is slightly larger than that in the polls now, but our model accounts for the fact that candidaees with large leads in the polls typically underperform their numbers by a small margin on Election Day.
Far more wonkish posts outline the exact models used, showing the probability of each state being won by each candidate. By building a foundation of rock-solid methodology, Silver can maintain both a casual tone at no cost to his professional reliability.
This simultaneous accessibility and credibility has brought him a vast, broad readership. He is referenced and linked to across the web, with his data analysis often considered something of a primary source. Because of his transparent calculation methods and well-documented models, Silver can defend his assumptions against other bloggers who, quite often, take issue with certain posts. He truly brings something new to the table, even though his work is based upon widely available data.
Besides election analysis, Silver, who leans left, has been keeping tabs on Obama's campaign promises as well as the ongoing health care debate. He still maintains a monthly list of which states are most likely to have a senate seat switch parties in the upcoming midterm elections, but he has certainly turned his eye to the ongoing policy battles with critical analysis of other bloggers' assertions as well as generating his own thoughtful graphics and theses.
In this gaping hole between election seasons, filled by the heated back-and-forth on health care, Silver’s mathematical commentary is welcome in a world of fiery misinformation and partisan attacks. His years of experience making a living off his statistical expertise show through in each post, compensating for minor details that others often overlook, paying off in consistency and credibility.
My blog, obviously, won’t have the statistical clout. I’m inspired, though, by his impartial data analysis used to bolster any ideological arguments made. Rational analysis of research to a logical conclusion is exactly what I’d like to shoot for.
Friday, September 4, 2009
Voice Critique
As this blog is a class assignment first and foremost, there's going to be a certain amount of exercises on here; as eager as I am to jump into the crazy world of 'triggers' and co-ops, today is for analyzing the voice of another blog.
A prime candidate for this sort of examination is Steve Benen on Washington Monthly's Political Animal, whose partisan leanings come through in posts that are well-argued yet occasionally a bit hostile. With an often sarcastic and sometimes condescending tone, each post comes across as building a case not only against the GOP but for liberalism:
As for those deeply concerned about the politicization of America's classrooms, I'm sure the right-wing critics of the president's stay-in-school message will be quick to denounce the conservative efforts in Texas. Any minute now.
I picked this quote from literally his most recent post simply because of how consistent this tone is. Without fail, a post will end with a sort of parting shot at whoever he's just torn apart, some sort of final jab at his opponent. The closing brings a sort of resignation to the craziness of the opposition and just how darn silly/scary they all are:
The crazies have a political party, a cable news network, and a loud, activist base. They're mad as hell and they're not going to take their medications anymore.
Of course, such positions require a bit of dehumanization of the opponent. A mere 2 posts down (he makes my job too easy), Benen finishes an entry saying,
About one in three Georgians lack health care coverage. Some state representatives want to make sure it stays that way.
While I agree that some representatives don't seem to have their heads screwed on entirely right, I wouldn't be able to bring myself to assert that they actually wanted people to stay uninsured. I mean, maybe to the Georgia representative it's less important than bringing down the deficit or standing up for free-market values, but to assert that he is trying to perpetuate a dearth of coverage in its own right hinders discourse.
This hostile tone fits the content, though. Posts tend to focus on refuting conservative talking points and efforts, positioning the blog as an oppositional force. Arguments are picked apart bit by bit using credible sources and commentators, and Benen is impeccable at picking up the perfect older post or on-the-record comment that can contradict his opponent.
His dismissive tone and occasional exaggerations, though, honestly make me feel guilty for reading him. If this is how very partisan he is and how much he despises the Republican Party today, should I be listening to him? The very best writers on either side can make a compelling point and argue it using cherry-picked facts. A writer's revealing their disdain of an opponent doesn't speak well for their putting forth a strictly rational argument.
Don't get me wrong: I really do like his work. He takes the irritations I'll have at the events in Washington and present the perfect people and facts that can refute the disinformation flying around. I just hate to have to rely on such a biased fact-checker.
Monday, September 14, 2009
Repost a Comment - Posted originally at Kevin Drum
I'm curious who those 6% or so are that like the public option but NOT current reform. I mean, I know they don't need to overlap necessarily, but there's a certain chunk out there that apparently like the public option but DON'T support the plan. Would that mean that the talk of triggers and co-ops is making these folks pessimistic, and would only be happy with the public option?
Also, though, I'd like to agree with JS up top, there. I know Obama has tried to explain those points, and if the whole nation watched his address they'd get that the public option doesn't make up more than 25% of this multi-pronged health care fix. Again it comes down to a messaging war, though. Your progression of points is great, but it requires an actual speech to make; you just need scary pictures of mourning, frightened seniors looking out windows at a cloudy sky in a 30 second spot to refute that for millions of folks.
This whole debate has felt like a free-fall in ambitious discourse... we're supposed to argue, and we're supposed to make reasoned arguments like JS. Instead, we get health care ads running one after another that are so utterly contradictory that one or both need to be either fabricating or badly mutilating what few facts we have. We're going into new territory, so there's a certain amount of uncertainty, but these aren't the days when one can make an argument and be respectfully heard.
I'm curious who those 6% or so are that like the public option but NOT current reform. I mean, I know they don't need to overlap necessarily, but there's a certain chunk out there that apparently like the public option but DON'T support the plan. Would that mean that the talk of triggers and co-ops is making these folks pessimistic, and would only be happy with the public option?
Also, though, I'd like to agree with JS up top, there. I know Obama has tried to explain those points, and if the whole nation watched his address they'd get that the public option doesn't make up more than 25% of this multi-pronged health care fix. Again it comes down to a messaging war, though. Your progression of points is great, but it requires an actual speech to make; you just need scary pictures of mourning, frightened seniors looking out windows at a cloudy sky in a 30 second spot to refute that for millions of folks.
This whole debate has felt like a free-fall in ambitious discourse... we're supposed to argue, and we're supposed to make reasoned arguments like JS. Instead, we get health care ads running one after another that are so utterly contradictory that one or both need to be either fabricating or badly mutilating what few facts we have. We're going into new territory, so there's a certain amount of uncertainty, but these aren't the days when one can make an argument and be respectfully heard.
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
Live Blogging the Joint Session Speech!
What a festive-looking day on the House floor. An actual analysis post will come later, but this is obviously the en vogue way of covering such events. They're a bit behind schedule, since the cabinet seems to be greatly enjoying their grand entrance.
8:11PM Eastern: Here comes the chief! Over-under on how long it takes to actually get to the podium: 5 minutes.
8:16PM: ...and we're off, after a jaunty 5 minutes of clapping and hand-shaking!
8:17PM: In case you forgot, the economy still has us collectively bent over. How 'bout that.
8:23PM: Focusing on middle class folks; no, they're not all welfare kings. We're the "only developed-nation" that doesn't have this figured out, and people are 'losing their insurance at a rate of 14,000 per day.' Followed by those horrible "people-dying-because-insurance-companies-are-big-old-meanies" stories, for Personal Connection!
8:27PM: Leaving any notion of single-payer by the wayside; 'let's build on what works, because it isn't our business to change what's working for most people.' Again, I'm not entirely sure what the objectionable bit is.
8:28PM: 'Too many people have used this as an opportunity for cheap political shots... the time for games has passed!'
8:30PM: Oh man, the plan! There shalt be details, he says!
Ok, so far this is all unanimous across the bills that have passed through committee already. 'Since there's consensus on this, we will definitely pass SOMETHING. We'll iron out the rest, but this stuff is hugely significant regardless.'
8:35PM: Boehner is still very, very orange.
8:38PM: Republicans take a page from their constituents' books and start bitching when Obama says illegal immigrants won't be covered. Great, guys.
8:43PM: Public Option! Just as I was typing about how we've heard this all before. Excellent analogy with public and private universities... UCLA didn't drive us out of business, thank God.
8:45PM: Mentions the trigger, and co-ops... "But, if you still cannot find affordable coverage, we WILL offer you a choice." Sounds like a ringing, continuing endorsement of the public-option, without actually committing to it. Can't expect much else, really.
8:47PM: 'It will have a bit in the bill that requires us to cut spending if the savings don't come through. Also, thanks turds for not paying up for YOUR spending.'
8:48PM: Silly Eric Cantor can't keep his thumbs off his Twitter-machine.
8:50PM: We won't privatize Medicare? Didn't know that was even on the table.
8:53PM: NEW STUFF! Starting the process of reforming malpractice laws, which is a big GOP favorite. I like that idea quite a lot. Very kind gesture on his part.
8:54PM: 'I want every idea you have, but I won't waste a minute on any of you that have decided that politically it would be best if this died.'
8:57PM: Kennedy. This means we're wrapping up?
8:59PM: "This will express the 'character of our country.'" 'It's gonna be tough, guys, but this is a moral obligation. Kennedy was driven by empathy, not just an expansion of government. Compassion is not a partisan phenomenon.'
9:03PM: ...and we're out of here!
I think he's done a great job of laying out what feels like a broad consensus. He's positioned it in such a way that we're 90% on board together, and that the public option is little more than a speed bump to be ironed out. All I can say is I genuinely hope that many people tuned in. In the room, of course, it was harshly partisan (one GOP congressman yelled very audibly, "You lie!" in reference to Obama's assertion that illegal immigrants wouldn't be covered).
I'm glad he threw in the bit about malpractice reform. Without any new policies this could have felt hollow.
In other news, one could have basically written the Republican Response from the talking points we've all heard a million times recently. Not really worth further analysis.
Update: In case you missed it, here's Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC) giving us an excellent "Oh-no-he-di'nt" moment:
8:11PM Eastern: Here comes the chief! Over-under on how long it takes to actually get to the podium: 5 minutes.
8:16PM: ...and we're off, after a jaunty 5 minutes of clapping and hand-shaking!
8:17PM: In case you forgot, the economy still has us collectively bent over. How 'bout that.
8:23PM: Focusing on middle class folks; no, they're not all welfare kings. We're the "only developed-nation" that doesn't have this figured out, and people are 'losing their insurance at a rate of 14,000 per day.' Followed by those horrible "people-dying-because-insurance-companies-are-big-old-meanies" stories, for Personal Connection!
8:27PM: Leaving any notion of single-payer by the wayside; 'let's build on what works, because it isn't our business to change what's working for most people.' Again, I'm not entirely sure what the objectionable bit is.
8:28PM: 'Too many people have used this as an opportunity for cheap political shots... the time for games has passed!'
8:30PM: Oh man, the plan! There shalt be details, he says!
- Ok, we're all aware that this won't change what you have, yeah?
- No more pre-existing condition denials
- No more recision (cutting off coverage when you get sick for BS reasons)
- No more annual/lifetime caps
- Preventative care!
- Marketplace system for policies, in the same vein as Congress or businesses' systems.
- Tax credits, 'course. And John McCain is just such a fine upstanding citizen that we should all buy him a beer.
- Individual + business mandates
Ok, so far this is all unanimous across the bills that have passed through committee already. 'Since there's consensus on this, we will definitely pass SOMETHING. We'll iron out the rest, but this stuff is hugely significant regardless.'
8:35PM: Boehner is still very, very orange.
8:38PM: Republicans take a page from their constituents' books and start bitching when Obama says illegal immigrants won't be covered. Great, guys.
8:43PM: Public Option! Just as I was typing about how we've heard this all before. Excellent analogy with public and private universities... UCLA didn't drive us out of business, thank God.
8:45PM: Mentions the trigger, and co-ops... "But, if you still cannot find affordable coverage, we WILL offer you a choice." Sounds like a ringing, continuing endorsement of the public-option, without actually committing to it. Can't expect much else, really.
8:47PM: 'It will have a bit in the bill that requires us to cut spending if the savings don't come through. Also, thanks turds for not paying up for YOUR spending.'
8:48PM: Silly Eric Cantor can't keep his thumbs off his Twitter-machine.
8:50PM: We won't privatize Medicare? Didn't know that was even on the table.
8:53PM: NEW STUFF! Starting the process of reforming malpractice laws, which is a big GOP favorite. I like that idea quite a lot. Very kind gesture on his part.
8:54PM: 'I want every idea you have, but I won't waste a minute on any of you that have decided that politically it would be best if this died.'
8:57PM: Kennedy. This means we're wrapping up?
8:59PM: "This will express the 'character of our country.'" 'It's gonna be tough, guys, but this is a moral obligation. Kennedy was driven by empathy, not just an expansion of government. Compassion is not a partisan phenomenon.'
9:03PM: ...and we're out of here!
I think he's done a great job of laying out what feels like a broad consensus. He's positioned it in such a way that we're 90% on board together, and that the public option is little more than a speed bump to be ironed out. All I can say is I genuinely hope that many people tuned in. In the room, of course, it was harshly partisan (one GOP congressman yelled very audibly, "You lie!" in reference to Obama's assertion that illegal immigrants wouldn't be covered).
I'm glad he threw in the bit about malpractice reform. Without any new policies this could have felt hollow.
In other news, one could have basically written the Republican Response from the talking points we've all heard a million times recently. Not really worth further analysis.
Update: In case you missed it, here's Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC) giving us an excellent "Oh-no-he-di'nt" moment:
This, to me, is simply stunning. I expect the rules of public discourse to fall apart a bit in a contentious battle like this, and when you have citizens that are out of the loop feeling under attack. When you are one of the most powerful people in the country, though, with hundreds of thousands of constituents relying on you to represent their region and interests, you fail utterly when you fall to such a level.
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
The Plot Thickens...
Our first real blog post is conveniently timed just after Obama's speech Wednesday evening. This has been a tough month, as no actual legislating work could possibly proceed as Congress was on its August recess.
Now, with Labor Day over and our various representatives reconvening in Washington, we should set the stage for what could potentially be an enlightening speech to a joint session of Congress.
...and the health care situation will not be solved by any stretch.
So, the ball is in your court, Mr. President. For all the flashy CNN graphics declaring August to be "HEALTHCARE MAKE-OR-BREAK MONTH," this is the last chance before any hope of effective reform rolls off the cliff. Obama doesn't seem to be planning to present a full bill on Wednesday(login required for link), yet without a definite road map the constant back and forth that is tearing apart any congressional collaboration will continue.
It's go time!
Now, with Labor Day over and our various representatives reconvening in Washington, we should set the stage for what could potentially be an enlightening speech to a joint session of Congress.
- Our senators and House reps spent their summer vacations being shouted at by the most fired up of their constituents. Democrats managed to lose more ground in what was already an uphill battle for moderate votes as "government-run takeover" talking points proliferated and were promptly yelled at representatives across the nation.
- A robust, "immediate" (in 2013, that is) public-option is seeming more and more unlikely. What was once described by the White House as a "necessary" part of reform has been relegated to merely "a good tool."
- Polarization is tumbling along at an alarming rate. We have the most liberal House members digging in their heels FOR a public option, while many moderate senators have declared total opposition to such a plan. Each representative that takes an uncompromising, make-or-break position damages these efforts of bipartisanship that they all profess to crave so deeply.
...and the health care situation will not be solved by any stretch.
So, the ball is in your court, Mr. President. For all the flashy CNN graphics declaring August to be "HEALTHCARE MAKE-OR-BREAK MONTH," this is the last chance before any hope of effective reform rolls off the cliff. Obama doesn't seem to be planning to present a full bill on Wednesday(login required for link), yet without a definite road map the constant back and forth that is tearing apart any congressional collaboration will continue.
It's go time!
Friday, September 4, 2009
Voice Critique
As this blog is a class assignment first and foremost, there's going to be a certain amount of exercises on here; as eager as I am to jump into the crazy world of 'triggers' and co-ops, today is for analyzing the voice of another blog.
A prime candidate for this sort of examination is Steve Benen on Washington Monthly's Political Animal, whose partisan leanings come through in posts that are well-argued yet occasionally stinging. With an often sarcastic and condescending tone, each post comes across as building a case not only against the GOP but for liberalism:
I picked this quote from literally his most recent post simply because of how consistent this tone is. Without fail, a post will end with a sort of parting shot at whoever he's just torn apart, some sort of final jab at his opponent. The closing brings a sort of resignation to the craziness of the opposition and just how darn silly/scary they all are:
Of course, such positions require a bit of dehumanization of the opponent. A mere 2 posts down (he makes my job too easy), Benen finishes an entry saying,
This hostile tone fits the content, though. Posts tend to focus on refuting conservative talking points and efforts, positioning the blog as an oppositional force. Arguments are picked apart bit by bit using credible sources and commentators, and Benen is impeccable at picking up the perfect older post or on-the-record comment that can contradict his opponent.
His dismissive tone and occasional exaggerations, though, honestly make me feel guilty for reading him. If this is how very partisan he is and how much he despises the Republican Party today, should I be listening to him? The very best writers on either side can make a compelling point and argue it using cherry-picked facts. A writer's revealing their disdain of an opponent doesn't speak well for their putting forth a strictly rational argument.
Don't get me wrong: I really do like his work. He has taken the irritations I'll have at the events in Washington and point to the precise people and facts that can refute the disinformation flying around. I just hate to have to rely on such a biased fact-checker.
A prime candidate for this sort of examination is Steve Benen on Washington Monthly's Political Animal, whose partisan leanings come through in posts that are well-argued yet occasionally stinging. With an often sarcastic and condescending tone, each post comes across as building a case not only against the GOP but for liberalism:
As for those deeply concerned about the politicization of America's classrooms, I'm sure the right-wing critics of the president's stay-in-school message will be quick to denounce the conservative efforts in Texas. Any minute now.
I picked this quote from literally his most recent post simply because of how consistent this tone is. Without fail, a post will end with a sort of parting shot at whoever he's just torn apart, some sort of final jab at his opponent. The closing brings a sort of resignation to the craziness of the opposition and just how darn silly/scary they all are:
The crazies have a political party, a cable news network, and a loud, activist base. They're mad as hell and they're not going to take their medications anymore.
Of course, such positions require a bit of dehumanization of the opponent. A mere 2 posts down (he makes my job too easy), Benen finishes an entry saying,
About one in three Georgians lack health care coverage. Some state representatives want to make sure it stays that way.While I agree that some representatives don't seem to have their heads screwed on entirely right, I wouldn't be able to bring myself to assert that they actually wanted people to stay uninsured. I mean, maybe to the Georgia rep it's less important than bringing down the deficit or standing up for free-market values, but to assert that he is trying to perpetuate a dirth of coverage in its own right hinders discourse.
This hostile tone fits the content, though. Posts tend to focus on refuting conservative talking points and efforts, positioning the blog as an oppositional force. Arguments are picked apart bit by bit using credible sources and commentators, and Benen is impeccable at picking up the perfect older post or on-the-record comment that can contradict his opponent.
His dismissive tone and occasional exaggerations, though, honestly make me feel guilty for reading him. If this is how very partisan he is and how much he despises the Republican Party today, should I be listening to him? The very best writers on either side can make a compelling point and argue it using cherry-picked facts. A writer's revealing their disdain of an opponent doesn't speak well for their putting forth a strictly rational argument.
Don't get me wrong: I really do like his work. He has taken the irritations I'll have at the events in Washington and point to the precise people and facts that can refute the disinformation flying around. I just hate to have to rely on such a biased fact-checker.
Monday, August 31, 2009
Profiling Another Blog
Analysis of another blog in my field, for inspiration and direction: FiveThirtyEight.com
Assignment for Aug. 31
In a political world increasingly defined by polling numbers and electoral struggles, FiveThirtyEight.com provides a statistics-based blog on goings-on both inside and outside the Beltway. Nate Silver, who started as a career baseball statistician, now uses his powers to predict (with great accuracy) the results of elections, check the accuracy of polling and other meters of public opinion, and just generally break down every political question to numbers and regression models to take a stab of measuring the unmeasurable.
FiveThirtyEight rose to prominance during the 2008 election and the year running up to it, rising from a relatively unknown corner of the net to the 57th-ranked blog on technorati.com, an amazingly quick ascent. Between calculating the Democratic primary results and eventually nailing the popular vote spread (52.4%-46.3% predicted, compared to 52.3-46.2 actual), Silver has earned his credibility with consistent results and an eye for effectively weighing the day-to-day developments in politics. During the 2008 election season, Silver posted a few times daily, often more, aggregating polling results on the congressional, gubernatorial, and presidential races as well as providing commentary for any current developments. In recent months his personal posting rate has fallen to several updates per week, with supplemental content provided by a few other bloggers who have a similar statistical bent.
In this post of Nate Silver’s final election projections on the morning of November 4th, he explains not just what he thinks the numbers will be, but why:
Our model projects that Obama will win all states won by John Kerry in 2004, in addition to Iowa, New Mexico, Colorado, Ohio, Virginia, Nevada, Florida and North Carolina, while narrowly losing Missouri and Indiana. These states total 353 electoral votes. Our official projection, which looks at these outcomes probabilistically -- for instance, assigns North Carolina's 15 electoral votes to Obama 59 percent of the time -- comes up with an incrementally more conservative projection of 348.6 electoral votes.
We also project Obama to win the popular vote by 6.1 points; his lead is slightly larger than that in the polls now, but our model accounts for the fact that candidates with large leads in the polls typically underperform their numbers by a small margin on Election Day.
Far more wonkish posts outline the exact models used, showing the probability of each state being one by each candidate. By building a foundation of rock-hard methodology, referenced in each post as the information becomes relevant, Silver maintains both a casual voice and professional reliability.
This simultaneous accessibility and credibility has brought him a vast, broad readership. He is referenced and linked to across the web, with his data analysis often considered something of a primary source. Because of his transparent calculation methods and well-documented models, Silver can defend his assumptions against other bloggers who, quite often, take issue with certain posts. He truly brings something new to the table, even though his work is based upon widely available data.
Besides election analysis, Silver, who leans left, has been keeping tabs on Obama's campaign promises as well as the ongoing health care debate. He still maintains a monthly list of which states are most likely to have a senate seat switch parties in the upcoming midterm elections, but he has certainly turned his eye to the ongoing policy battles with critical analysis of other bloggers' assertions as well as generating his own thoughtful graphics and theses.
In this gaping hole between election seasons, filled by the heated back-and-forth on health care, Silver’s mathematical commentary is appreciated in a world of fiery misinformation and partisan attacks. His years of experience making a living off his statistical expertise show through in each post, compensating for minor details that others often overlook, paying off in consistency and credibility.
My blog, obviously, won’t have the statistical clout. I’m inspired, though, by his impartial data analysis used to bolster any ideological arguments made. Rational analysis of research to a logical conclusion is exactly what I’d like to shoot for.
Thursday, August 27, 2009
Hello World!
(this post cross-posted from our Moogle forum)
Hello world!
This semester I'm excited to delve into the ongoing health care debate. As a relatively new, fresh-faced political junky, I have a long way to go in figuring out the facets of health care policy itself (reimbursement rates, co-op systems, drug subsidies) as well as the political side of the battle (various committees putting together legislation, key players, etc). As a Political Science major, I'm naturally excited about such a momentous project put before our legislators by Obama, and I hope that the ongoing developments will fuel my writing as I try to break down both the political and practical aspects of American health care.
I come to the debate, though, from an admittedly liberal perspective; I'm that guy with the laptop festooned with "No on 8" and Obama campaign stickers. However, I'm hopeful that further examination of the arguments of each side will drive me to a more centrist conclusion. Currently, pessimism is settling in, with the public option's chances waning to be replaced by what sounds by a relatively spineless co-op system. Republican pleas for bipartisan compromise have come across to me as little more than a begging for concessions through what often seem to be bad faith arguments.
A focused dissection of health care policy should fill a void left by the various forms of media and the corners that they understandably cut in their coverage. Bloggers, especially those with a partisan posture (which is the vast majority), have a vested interest in "securing their base" to both hold onto loyal readers and seize new ones; try as we might, there is an inherent appeal to placing ourselves in "echo chambers," and surrounding ourselves with assenting voices. I've read Steve Benen (Washington Monthly) for years now, for instance, but while he is an astute and convincing writer, his blog is essentially a case built day by day against the Republicans. When you know your author enters the fray with certain preconceptions (that the GOP has given up on rational, good-faith debate, as in the linked post above) the partisan blogger also loses his or her own credibility to some extent.
As we seek out our respective, ideological blogs, we tend to be drawn similarly to cable networks, with Fox holding down the right wing and MSNBC (and CNN, to a large extent) holding down the left. Just as blogs clamber for readers, these stations need to duke it out for viewers and advertising dollars. It is entirely in their interest to cultivate a select group of loyal viewers and hold them than to use their position for the full manifestation of our First Amendment. With their enormous national clout, they have the power to make or break a legislative battle, to sweep scandals under the rug or to end careers.
I have no such clout, so I have no reason to be anything but even-handed and discerning.
Again, with the sole goal of informing myself and my audience along the way, while I may come to partisan conclusions, I aim to approach each development, each twist and each turn, with a critical eye, healthy background research, and an open mind.
Hello world!
This semester I'm excited to delve into the ongoing health care debate. As a relatively new, fresh-faced political junky, I have a long way to go in figuring out the facets of health care policy itself (reimbursement rates, co-op systems, drug subsidies) as well as the political side of the battle (various committees putting together legislation, key players, etc). As a Political Science major, I'm naturally excited about such a momentous project put before our legislators by Obama, and I hope that the ongoing developments will fuel my writing as I try to break down both the political and practical aspects of American health care.
I come to the debate, though, from an admittedly liberal perspective; I'm that guy with the laptop festooned with "No on 8" and Obama campaign stickers. However, I'm hopeful that further examination of the arguments of each side will drive me to a more centrist conclusion. Currently, pessimism is settling in, with the public option's chances waning to be replaced by what sounds by a relatively spineless co-op system. Republican pleas for bipartisan compromise have come across to me as little more than a begging for concessions through what often seem to be bad faith arguments.
A focused dissection of health care policy should fill a void left by the various forms of media and the corners that they understandably cut in their coverage. Bloggers, especially those with a partisan posture (which is the vast majority), have a vested interest in "securing their base" to both hold onto loyal readers and seize new ones; try as we might, there is an inherent appeal to placing ourselves in "echo chambers," and surrounding ourselves with assenting voices. I've read Steve Benen (Washington Monthly) for years now, for instance, but while he is an astute and convincing writer, his blog is essentially a case built day by day against the Republicans. When you know your author enters the fray with certain preconceptions (that the GOP has given up on rational, good-faith debate, as in the linked post above) the partisan blogger also loses his or her own credibility to some extent.
As we seek out our respective, ideological blogs, we tend to be drawn similarly to cable networks, with Fox holding down the right wing and MSNBC (and CNN, to a large extent) holding down the left. Just as blogs clamber for readers, these stations need to duke it out for viewers and advertising dollars. It is entirely in their interest to cultivate a select group of loyal viewers and hold them than to use their position for the full manifestation of our First Amendment. With their enormous national clout, they have the power to make or break a legislative battle, to sweep scandals under the rug or to end careers.
I have no such clout, so I have no reason to be anything but even-handed and discerning.
Again, with the sole goal of informing myself and my audience along the way, while I may come to partisan conclusions, I aim to approach each development, each twist and each turn, with a critical eye, healthy background research, and an open mind.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
