Morning Report, September 3rd: "Trigger" to a Snowe Job, Another Palin-Bashing Party, the Best Military Reporter Ever?, Giving the Finger to Opponents, First Lady from Venus, and the Rove-Daschle Clash of '09

September 3, 2009 By Timothy Dalrymple

One Christian’s perspective on the day’s news.

1.  BIGGEST NEWS ITEM OF THE DAY: Happy Birthday to my beloved Joyce.

2.  FORECASTING SNOWE.  The health care reform saga takes another turn, or at least another trial balloon is being floated.  Talk emerges from the White House that the Obama camp and Olympia Snowe, Republican of Maine, are working on a compromise in which a government option is realized only if other reforms amongst private insurers fail to meet certain targets.  The idea is ostensibly this.  If costs can be made sufficiently low through free-market mechanisms, then wonderful.  If they cannot, if costs are still too high after a certain amount of time has elapsed, then this “triggers” the institution of a government option.

In theory, this is an excellent idea, and something I (and many others, of course) have advocated as a reasonable compromise.  I like the way it asks both parties to be true to their convictions.  Both parties want lowered costs, and, therefore, more accessible coverage for the poor.  If Democrats are truly interested only in increasing choices and competition and lowering costs (i.e., if they do not mean this as a first step toward the socialization of health care), then they should be satisfied if those goals can be met through private market means.  If Republicans are truly convinced that free market mechanisms are sufficient to lower costs and make coverage more accessible, then they should accept a test of this sort.

The devil is in the details.  Conservatives do believe that free market mechanisms are sufficient to lower costs, but the health-care market, even today, is not a free market.  It is radically regulated and constrained by the state, and will only become moreso under the new reform bills.  It is not only a question, given current rates, of whether private insurers can provide a reasonably reduced rate; it is a question of whether private insurers can do so with the added constraints and requirements and regulation entailed in the rest of the health-care reform bill.  Let’s imagine that the average low-cost insurance plan today costs X.  It may seem reasonable under present circumstances to ask private insurers to develop plans that cost 0.8X.  Yet present circumstances will change under the new regime, in ways that no one presently can understand in full.  The free market of private insurers might be able to do it (look at some promising new approaches here).  But they might not, through no fault of their own.

Essentially: the absence of a government option does not a free market make, and absent a truly free market it may prove impossible for private insurers to offer plans at sufficiently low rates.  Thus this would not constitute a true “test” of whether the free market is sufficient when it comes to health care, because the market will remain unfree even if the government option is removed.  Also, if one is concerned about the government gaming the system in order to institute a government plan, it is not sufficient to agree upon a target rate and establish a non-partisan arbiter to determine whether the target has been met.  This is because the government, by altering a single regulation or requirement or mandate, can force insurance companies over the target.  It is partly a question of good faith, then, and neither party presently is inclined to trust in the good faith of the other.

If the signals coming out of the White House are confusing, perhaps it’s because they’re confused.  Ezra Klein reports on divisions within the White House on where to go with health-care reform.

3.  Regular readers of this blog will know that I have mixed feelings regarding Sarah Palin, but that I cannot stand the way in which the mainstream media has abandoned all journalistic standards in its quest to mock and vilify her.  Now comes another hit piece from Vanity Fair, excerpts of which can be found here.  The piece is based entirely on the say-so of Levi Johnston, formerly the boyfriend of Bristol Palin, Sarah’s eldest daughter.  Since when have daughter’s ex-boyfriends become reliable sources?  Yet no attempt is made to verify Johnston’s claims, nor even to compare the present claims with previous ones (which they blatantly contradict).

Picture from www.michaelyon-online.com

Picture from www.michaelyon-online.com

4.  By far the best reporter on the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts has not been employed by any of the major news organizations.  He is rather a citizen-reporter, funded by those who contribute through his website because they value what he offers.  His name is Michael Yon, and if you have never read his material, you are in for a treat.  Ed Morrisey of Hot Air interviews Michael Yon by phone, and it’s worth hearing.  Check it out.

5.  In the midst of this contentious health-care reform debate, surely many on one side have given the finger to many on the other.  This is the only case of which I know, however, in which a man on one side took the finger of a man on the other side.  At a MoveOn.org rally, a supporter of Obama’s proposed reforms was “walking through” (just walking through?) the anti-reform group when an “altercation” began.  Who knows how the fight started, or who was at fault; probably both.  What we do know is that the pro-Obamacare fellow bit off the little finger of a 65 year old man who was protesting against Obama’s reform.  The older man picked up his finger and walked to a nearby hospital for treatment.

6.  Just as liberals feared that Bush would turn the country into a theocratic totalitarianism, conservatives fear that Obama will turn the country into a fascist totalitarian state.  Let me just say: not likely.  Sigh.

7.  A vile commercial, exploiting the 9/11 tragedy, for a pro-environment group.  It’s safe for work; it’s just morally obtuse and in unbelievably bad taste.

YouTube Preview Image

I’m not opposed to showing the planes crashing into the towers (this is an animation, obviously), if the purpose is to remind Americans of the men, women and children who were slain on that day.  I do mind if it is cynically exploited, not to mention minimized, for other purposes, even if those purposes in themselves are worthwhile.  Also, what happened on 9/11 was not a “tragedy” on a par with environmental disasters.  Speaking of it as a tragedy or disaster removes the agency involved.  It was a murderous act, an attack–and, like the killing of Archduke Ferdinand, its detrimental consequences cannot be measured, much less compared to natural disasters, in terms of the number of lives lost.

8.  Tim Pawlenty clearly intends to run for the Republican nomination for President.  Yet does he have the charisma and the keen intelligence that will be required to defeat Obama.  Call me skeptical.

9.  Nine out of ten Americans say the country is still in a recession.  Why is this news?  Got me.

10.  Apparently Japan’s rising First Lady was abducted by aliens and taken to Venus.  Some might see this as a negative, but I say good for her.  We could use a little interplanetary perspective right now.  And why couldn’t the aliens have taken her to Uranus?  The jokes would practically write themselves.  She also claims to have met a previous incarnation of Tom Cruise in a previous life.  I wonder if his thetan count, or midichlorian count or whatever it is, was as high back then as it is now.  Anyway, we can all rejoice that we will have a more entertaining First Lady of Japan than we have in quite some time.

11.  International rumblings.  Remember, Obama’s deadline for Iran’s response to his overtures is in a few days.  And the V-word is, inevitably, spoken: Afghanistan, says one author, is looking like Vietnam.  For a countervailing opinion, two highly respected Washington journalists explain why Afghanistan is not Vietnam.

12.  Column of the Day: the award goes to Michael Barone, who explains that the “facts on the ground” with regard to immigration, and underlying the immigration reform debate, have changed.  The most salient fact to change: there is no longer a flood of immigrants.  Barone gets the prize for turning out attention to a new topic (anyone else feeling health-care burnout?) but also for reexamining old positions in light of new facts.

13.  Today’s Two-Sides comes from two major political players.  Karl Rove, writing (obviously) for the Right, contends that Obama is selling a more radical health-care reform than America really needs.  Tom Daschle, writing (obviously) from the Left, and (it should be noted) in the employ interested parties, provides a different perspective.

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Morning Report, September 2nd: Kidnapped in Korea, Prayer (be)for(e) Sex, Class President, Droption, Fertility, and the Afghanistan Quagmire

September 2, 2009 By Timothy Dalrymple

One Christian’s perspective on the day’s news:

0.  Laura Ling and Euna Lee tell their own story.  They tell it well.  I’m reserving comment for later.

1.  The Roman Catholic Church (as explained here) has issued a Prayerbook for Couples that looks quite nice, and that features a prayer to say together before sex.  I like it.  A nice counterweight to the animalization of sex in the broader culture, the focus on performance and self-satisfaction and gymnastic variety.

The prayer asks God ‘to place within us love that truly gives, tenderness that truly unites, self-offering that tells the truth and does not deceive, forgiveness that truly receives, loving physical union that welcomes…Open our hearts to you, to each other and to the goodness of your will…Cover our poverty in the richness of your mercy and forgiveness. Clothe us in true dignity and take to yourself our shared aspirations, for your glory, for ever and ever.’

2.  To stay on the Catholic theme, First Thoughts (a blog of First Things) offers a very interesting reflection on “what is a religious belief?”  If the question doesn’t interest you, the answer will.

3.  At Patheos I began a series of videos I call YEV? — or Why are you an Evangelical?  I find that many friends and acquaintances, even Christian friends and acquaintances, don’t understand why a person would be Evangelical when there seems to be so much baggage with the term and even with the tradition.  The series has led to some interesting videos, for sure.  Yesterday I came across this blog entry from Parchment and Pen, where C. Michael Patton (whose material has appeared thrice at Patheos) explains why he believes evangelicalism is still the best option.  Although his answer is slightly different from mine, it’s an excellent answer.  For those who are willing to read a longer answer, the “Evangelical Manifesto” is probably the best place to go.  But Michael Patton does a fine job of giving a more distilled response.

4.  Next Tuesday the President will give an address directly to school children.  Given the proper preparation and discussion (as laid out here), it’s an excellent educational opportunity.  But I’m eager to see what the speech actually addresses.  Hopefully his advisers are wise enough to steer him away from anything that could prove contentious.

5.  Moving to hard news, it appears that the President is finally willing to abandon the public option.  There are several questions: (1) Will Congress also abandon the public option?  Many Congresspeople are saying no.  (2) Is it possible that the Senate would drop the public option in order to get past a filibuster threat, and the House would pass a bill with a public option, and the public option would be included in the reconciliation process?  (3) Many conservatives, since they believe that single-payer is the goal for the liberals who lead the Democratic party, will suspect that co-ops are merely a prelude to a public option — in effect, adding one more step on the stairway to single-payer.

David Axelrod previews the shape of their argument when he says that Obama’s “goal is to create the best possible situation for consumers, create competition and choice.  We want to bring a measure of security to people who have health insurance today. We want to help those who don’t have coverage today, because they can’t afford it, get insurance they can afford. And we want to do it in a way that reduces the overall cost of the system as a whole.”  The administration will emphasize “competition and choice,” “security,” broader coverage, and “reduc[ing] the overall cost.”  To my mind, it strains credulity to the breaking point to claim that all of these things can be accomplished together.  The tension is between “choice” and “reducing” cost on the one hand, and security (which means all sorts of mandates on who and what must be covered, meaning more expenses for insurers) and expanded coverage on the other.

In any case, it will be interesting to see how the hard left responds.  This could be explosive.  As Politico notes, the battle might benefit Obama politically, at least with independents, as he shows he is not entirely beholden to his base.  The question is: will he gain more points form independents than he will lose from liberals?  Obama is less concerned with losing liberals in the long term, since he can win them back before the election (though probably with less fanatical devotion).  But he is rapidly losing the trust of independents, and that is a far more troubling development for him politically.

6.  Good news for the millions of women who struggle with fertility.

7.  BP made a “huge” oil discovery in the Gulf of Mexico.  What might we discover if we were allowed to drill for exploration?  We often hear that the United States might as well not drill for our own oil because we have only 4% of “the world’s proven oil reserves.”  The key word there is “proven.”  That means that we only know about enough oil to account for 4% of the world’s total.  But the kicker: American law has prevented us from exploring for new oil for the past 25 years or so–and the technology of oil exploration has grown substantially since we were last allowed to explore.  It’s verbal sleight of hand.  Why, in the midst of a severe recession, we do not allow American companies, which would employ American workers, to explore American territory for a precious natural resource that Americans could use–especially when current technologies allow us to do so in an environmentally friendly way–is beyond me.  Yes, ultimately we need to devise other energy technologies, but we will continue to use oil at a high or a low rate for the rest of our lifetimes, and it will always be valuable.

8.  Amazing how “Big Brother” conspiracy theories arise among the opposition, no matter which party is in power.  The fact that Bush did not in fact seize perpetual power and establish a theocracy (I actually saw this foretold on lefty sites) will not prevent Democrats from having conspiracy theories the next time a Republican is President.  And conservatives tend to do the same.  Some of them, at least.  Then there are conservatives such as Michelle Bachman (who likes to compare herself to Sarah Palin, but she has nowhere near the charisma of Palin), who say that Obamacare would equal slavery.  Let’s get a grip, folks.

9.  Concerns rise over the H1N1 flu.  And I understand; my baby daughter is allergic to egg, so she cannot have the flu vaccine.  It worries me.  But the CDC says that they find it quite likely that H1N1 is less dangerous than the regular flu.

10.  Finally, Today’s Two Sides.  Not exactly opposing opinions here, but David Ignatius and David Harsanyi have two very strong arguments that are worth reading on the war in Afghanistan.

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Morning Report, August 20: Public Splition, Reverend Obama, Rabbi Obama, WWJD, In Government We Trust, LaRouchitler, Abortion Mandate, Ted Kennedy, Hold the Mayo (Clinic), and Avatar

August 20, 2009 By Timothy Dalrymple

1.  Democrats are now considering splitting the health care reform into two or more bills–which, as I’ve said previously, is what they should have done from the start.  The question is: can you get the water back into the glass?  More specifically, however, Reid proposes to set the budgetary elements into one bill, which can be passed through the budget reconciliation process, which does not require 60 votes, but only 50–and the other bill would have the more popular elements and be subject to the 60 vote requirement.  Whether this passes constitutional muster is unclear (it would be up to the nonpartisan “parliamentarian” to determine whether this was really a budgetary issue, and thus fit for reconciliation), and whether it would result in total gridlock in the Senate is unclear.  It may be more of a threat.  It’s just possible, however, that Reid is serious, and he’s willing to risk Republicans revolting and gumming up the works in the Senate, so that he can accuse them of being “the party of no” for the 2010 midterms.

2.  Yesterday President Obama held a conference call with tens of thousands of religious leaders, and I participated in the call.  It was highly scripted, an audio version of a dog-and-pony show.  Sojourners, amongst other progressive religious organizations, was behind the call (Jim Wallis was among the many who addressed the listeners).  What disturbs me is the way the evangelical and Christian Left excoriate those on the Right who perpetuate falsehoods (or “bear false witness,” as Obama told us over the line, using the religious language), yet raise no objection when Obama himself perpetuates falsehoods–such as the falsehood that anyone who likes his doctor or likes his coverage will be able to keep it.  Obama also repeated the false claim that there will be no federal financing of abortion (see below).  Folks like Jim Wallis know that these are, at the very best, deliberately misleading simplifications, and yet they are content to let Obama pull the wool over our eyes for the sake of the greater good.  This is not leadership, and it’s not the prophetic relationship that Christians are called to have in relation to any administration, Right or Left.  It falls short of the standard that Wallis and others have set for Christian engagement in the public sphere.

Then Obama also held a special conference call–one that was left off his public schedule–with 1000 rabbis in advance of the Jewish high holy days.  Obama said that “We are God’s partners in matters of life and death.”  As some even on the Left have noted, this is the kind of blending of theology and political advocacy that once outraged liberals when it was practiced by Bush.  But you can be sure Jim Wallis and his ilk will not raise a protest.  The reason?  It’s their theology Obama uses.  Bush’s was a triumphalist, nationalistic theology, Wallis often claimed, one that Wallis called heretical.

Yet again, there are huge holes in the argument here.  Yes, Jesus healed the sick and diseased, and we are called to care for the least of these.  But it’s a long way from “I was sick, and you cared for me” to “the government should fund its own insurance plan and dictate what other insurance plans do.”  Yes, yes, of course, we should care about health care reform.  We all do.  Yet there are differences on what should be done in that reform.  Simply because a group disagrees with you on the best way to meet the health needs of the country does not mean that the group does not care about the poor and the sick.  People like Barack Obama and Jim Wallis know this, which is why the demagoguery is getting old.  Neither side, neither side, should demonize the other, and neither side should declare that their opponents are irrational simply for opposing.  To return to the motto of this blog: neither party has a monopoly on good (or bad) ideas and intentions.

3.  HARDBALL.  As one story relates, “President Barack Obama‘s push for a national health care overhaul is providing a financial windfall in the election offseason to Democratic consulting firms that are closely connected to the president and two top advisers.”  David Axelrod’s consulting and lobbying firm is getting big money from health care companies, even as the firm gives Axelrod $2M, which creates at least the appearance of impropriety.  Then, as another story tells, “In a move some fear is a reprisal for opposing President Obama’s health care plan, Democrats sent 52 letters to health insurers requesting financial records for a House committee’s investigation,” records on executive compensation and other business practices.  Part of the problem, however, is that if insurance companies are gauging consumers and making obscene profits, those profits would show up either in executive compensation or in shareholder dividends.  Yet independent analyses have shown that insurance companies turn a very slight profit, and compensate their executive at under-market rates.  That doesn’t mean, however, that Waxman won’t be able to find examples of largesse that he can exploit politically.  This is getting uglier by the minute.  Pretty soon we’ll be hearing stories about how insurance companies are sending their executives to Vegas for conferences while they’re turning down the poor woman who could not afford her cancer treatments.

I think Daniel Henninger is right.  The fundamental problem here is that we do not trust the government.  We did not trust the Bush government, and so the American people would have objected wholeheartedly if the Bush team had offered to take a dramatic transformation of the American economy and society into their hands.  But even during the Bush presidency, the trust in the legislative branch was even lower than the trust in Bush.  That trust is low now as well, and Obama has squandered much of the good will and trust that he originally enjoyed.  People see their country being dramatically reshaped, and they do not trust the hands that are doing the reshaping.

4.  It is right to condemn those who bring Obama-Hitler posters to the town halls, and right to upbraid those who bring guns in order to make some misguided point about the right to bear arms.  In my view, however, it is wrong to paint the majority of protesters with these brushes, and wrong to suggest that they are truly, deep down, motivated by racism.  As MSNBC so cleverly edited out, one of the protesters bearing a semi-automatic rifle at a recent Obama event was African-American–and as many news outlets have neglected to mention, the Obama-Hitler posters are carried largely by Lyndon LaRouche Democrats.

5.  A coalition of pro-life groups (called Stop the Abortion Mandate, or STAM) has put together a video demanding that abortion funding be excluded from any health care reform bill:

YouTube Preview Image

The concern here is that taxpayer money, given in subsidies, will fund abortions (H/T Hot Air).  The fact is: they will.  The following is worth quoting:

Question: Won’t the Hyde Amendment and Capps Compromise  prohibit tax payer funded abortions?

Answer:  On July 30, the House Energy and Commerce Committee added to H.R. 3200 an amendment written by staff to Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Ca.) and offered by Rep. Lois Capps (D-Ca.), both of whom have consistently pro-abortion career voting records. This “phony compromise” explicitly authorizes the “public plan” to cover all abortions. This would drastically change longstanding federal policy. This means that any citizen who wants to take advantage of the public plan will be compelled to purchase coverage for abortion on demand. The federal agency will collect the premium money, receive bills from abortionists, and send the abortionists payment checks from a federal Treasury account. It is a sham to pretend that this does not constitute funding of abortion. If this passes, the federal government will be running a nationwide abortion-on-demand insurance plan.

Under H.R. 3200 as amended by the Capps Amendment, some private plans may elect not to include abortion, but private plans that cover elective abortion will be federally subsidized. Both bills provide funds for the new premium-subsidy program through a new funding pipeline that would not be subject to the Hyde Amendment, which is merely a year-to-year provision that currently prevents federal funding of abortions in the Medicaid program. As the Associated Press accurately reported in its August 5, 2009, analysis, “A law called the Hyde amendment applies the [abortion] restrictions to Medicaid . . . The [Obama-backed] health overhaul would create a stream of federal funding not covered by the restrictions.”

Further, there is no doubt whatever that the Obama Administration would immediately use the Capps authorization to cover elective abortions in the public plan.  On July 17, 2007, Barack Obama appeared before the annual conference of the Planned Parenthood Action Fund.  Speaking of his plans for “health care reform,” Obama said, “In my mind, reproductive care is essential care.  It is basic care, and so it is at the center and at the heart of the plan that I propose.”  He also stated that, “What we’re doing is to say that we’re gonna set up a public plan that all persons and all women can access if they don’t have health insurance.  It’ll be a plan that will provide all essential services, including reproductive services.”

6.  I respect Ted Kennedy.  The Chappaquiddick fiasco showed personal (and probably criminal) weakness, but that was long ago.  I am aware of no corruption or influence-peddling in Kennedy’s record.  He is a true believer in the liberal cause, and in some respects his family’s wealth and fame gave him the resources to accomplish much (for better or worse, Kennedy has moved a tremendous amount of legislation through the Senate) in a straightforward manner.  He is said to be a very nice person, and to treat his aides very well.  Now, everyone knows that health care reform has been his pet issue for decades.  It would be a major irony if Kennedy’s death prevented the Democrats from having the votes they need in the Senate to bypass a Republican filibuster.  Kennedy himself does not relish the prospect.  Thus Kennedy sent a letter urging Massachusetts lawmakers to change the state law so that an interim Senator could be appointed for the five months that are required to pass in-between the death of a Senator and the election of his replacement.

For Kennedy to look past his own death to the good of the cause he serves is admirable.  What is less attractive is the fact that it was Kennedy himself who lobbied to change the law so that the Governor could not appoint an interim Senator back when John Kerry was running for President and it appeared that Mitt Romney would be able to appoint someone to take his place if he won the Presidency.  In other words, it was once the case that the Governor appointed an interim Senator.  When the Governor was a Republican, Kennedy successfully campaigned to alter state law so that the Governor could not do so; when the Governor is a Democrat (Deval Patrick), and an important issue is on the table, Kennedy wants it changed back.

7.  Indications are that the jobs “created or saved” through federal stimulus money will mostly be saved, and will mostly be state workers who would otherwise have been laid off.  Of course, it is good that state workers should keep their jobs, their incomes, and their spending potential.  Yet this is not exactly equal opportunity between private and public sector workers.  There is a tendency for the state to pull together to protect its own, but this can quickly build resentment, as the majority of states continue to add to their payrolls even as the private sector is losing millions of jobs.

8.  Sarah Palin continues to make news and stir controversy.

9.  Commentary of the Day: David Ignatius.  Ignatius says that Obama needs a “Petraeus” on health care, a seasoned professional with great ideas who can lead us through the morass to a better place.  He suggests Denis Cortese, the head of the Mayo Clinic.  A quotation:

Talking to Cortese this week, I heard two themes that cut to the heart of the current debate. First, he thinks Obama has made a mistake in moving toward the narrower goal of “health insurance reform” when what the country truly needs is health system reform. Imposing a mandate for universal insurance will only make things worse if we don’t change the process so that it becomes more efficient and less costly. The system we have now is gradually bankrupting the country; expanding that system without changing the internal dynamics is folly.

Second, Cortese argues that reformers should stop obsessing over whether there’s a “public option” in the plan. Yes, we need a yardstick for measuring costs and effectiveness. But we should start by fixing the public options we already have.

In other words, show us that you can reduce costs and improve service in our existing public plans, and then we can talk about a public plan for all.

10.  Today’s Two-Sides.  On the issue of “death panels,” see Joe Klein for the Left, and Nat Hentoff of the Cato Institute for the Right.

11.  Finally, the hugely anticipated “Avatar,” from James Cameron, is coming soon, and the first trailer is viewable here.1

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Public Droption Dropped, the Blue Dog Battle, one Weiner of an Argument, Iranian Nukes, Obamanauts, Obama Goes Brazilian, the Amazing Disappearing Cargo Ship, and the Perils of Worldview

August 19, 2009 By Timothy Dalrymple

1.  Interesting spin coming out of the White House and Congressional leadership about the deterioration of the health care reform effort.  Suddenly, they announce (or see the NYTimes article here), they’re no longer going to try to include the Republican party in their solution.  This is absurd, but it’s excellent rhetoric.  The Dems have made no serious effort to include Republican suggestions and therefore court Republican support for their plans.  There was no effort at bipartisanship, except perhaps to lure some liberal Republicans to replace the lost votes of Blue Dog Democrats.  Yet Democrats have enough votes to pass health care reform without a single Republican vote, and the real problem has been the intra-party rift between Left and center-Left Democrats.  The rhetoric makes it appear that the reform effort has stalled because Democrats have been striving heroically to reach across the aisle, and now they’ve finally accepted that the Republicans are simply so evil that they will not cooperate.  All of the failure heretofore can be blamed on Republican intransigence, and now the Dems will simply do what has to be done.  There is also here an implied threat of pushing for health care reform through the budgetary reconciliation process, so that not even the Blue Dogs in their own party could stop them.  The Blue Dogs receive cover for their objections so far, and the Dems can even blame all the town hall ugliness on Republican obstructionism.  Yet now the attention will fall on the Blue Dogs, since the Dems will no longer be able to blame Republicans.  Once you’ve said you’ve written off the Republicans and gone it alone, you can’t come back to that table and blame the Republicans again.  (Perhaps the public is not much swayed by the town hall kerfuffles, but they were designed to sway Representatives.)

But what do the Dems want to do?  The suggestion that the Obama administration might accept a reform plan without a “public option” set off a firestorm within the party, as many liberal Democrats vowed not to support a reform bill without it.  Now the Obama administration says that it never seriously considered dropping the public option.  Is this a flip flop?  Or a trial balloon that popped?  Or perhaps just a media mischaracterization, and the administration truly never gave it serious thought?

Steve Pearlstein, whom Obama has called “required reading” in the White House, actually does recommend that Democrats drop the public option.  Here’s the rub.  For some–that is, especially for liberals of full stripe–the public option really was a way of working toward a government takeover of health care.  In fact they were quite open about it.  For others, the public option really is not about occluding the private market, and really is about controlling costs and increasing choice and competition.  But if controlling costs and increasing choice and competition are the goals, then the public option is only one way among many, and perhaps not a very effective way, of achieving these goals.  Pearlstein makes this quite clear.  As Pearlstein writes, “You also hear the argument that government-run insurance would have lower costs because it wouldn’t have to generate a profit (that’s true) and would be more efficient than private insurers (that isn’t). The evidence of greater efficiency is Medicare, which spends about 2 to 3 percent of its budget on administration. But if a government-run plan had to spend its own money to collect premiums, market itself to customers, maintain a reserve, and manage care in a way that lowers costs and raises quality — none of which Medicare now does — then you can be sure its administrative costs would be nowhere near 2 or 3 percent…In sum, there is nothing about having one government-owned health insurance company that is likely to change the competitive dynamic and bring costs under control.”

Watching their numbers plummet, the White House and its spokesmen are pretending as though the public option was a very minor part of the proposal, and pretending to be surprised that people on the Right as well as the Left have focused so much attention on it.  This is disingenuous.  The White House knows full well that many Democrats had pushed hard for a “single payer” system and only agreed to a compromise when they were promised a robust “public option.”  And since Obama himself, as well as other Democrats such as Barney Frank and Russ Feingold (see another explosive video here), have stated that the “public option” is the best way to lead to “single payer,” they cannot be serious when they say that it was not a big part of their design for reform.  Obama was in the camp of those who wanted a public option in order to move toward single payer; he said so himself on numerous occasions.  Of course, Presidents are allowed to change their minds; in fact, we should hope that Presidents do change their minds when they learn more about the issues.  If Obama has changed his mind, he should simply say so.  Instead, Obama again is insisting that he has not wavered in his commitment to a public option.

2.  There is one substantive point I want to address.  This video has caused a lot of buzz, as a Congressman Weiner is denouncing private health insurance providers and arguing that we would be better off if we had “national Medicare,” or a nationalized health insurance program.  Of course, this contradicts the rhetoric from the Obama administration, which constantly assures us that it is interested only in increasing the choices Americans have.  Weiner wants a single-payer system.  If people are so happy with Medicare, he says, why shouldn’t we all be on health care?  And what value to private insurers really add, if government can do the same job for cheaper?  And in fact one often hears this objection: so many people are happy with Medicare, so what would be the problem if we were all essentially on Medicare?

Yet there is a vast difference between having a government option (such as Medicare) and having a government monopoly.  Medicare has done well, in part, because it is not the only option.  Yes, it’s paid for by the state, but it has competition, and people can leave Medicare and get their own private insurance.  Because of the private insurance market, the United States health care system is extraordinarily innovative.  Roughly 80% of all medical and pharmaceutical innovations come out of the United States.  When the government goes from being one option and competitor in the marketplace to having a monopoly over the marketplace, then we will quickly find all the inefficiencies and mediocrity that come from monopolies.

Of course, for Christians, one of the questions, when it comes to health care reform, is: “What would Jesus do?”  The question is being debated.  I will join in later on a massive conference call between President Obama and “religious leaders” on the issue, and I’ll try to live-blog.

3.  It appears that the UN nuclear watchdog agency is withholding evidence of Iran’s militry nuclear program, evidence it recently received in a “classified annex” from its own Iran inspection team.  “The document was not included in the final report,” according to Israeli officials.  “British, French, German and US senior officials have recently pressured ElBaradei to publish the information, the newspaper said.”  Mohammad ElBaradei has been accused before of seeking to undermine the US/Israeli argument that Iran is seeking to weaponize its nuclear program.

4.  The Obama administration is apparently killing any notion of leading a manned mission to Mars or to the moon anytime in the next decade.  Aware that some Americans are still in love with the notion of space exploration, and aware that there are practical arguments to be made in its favor as well, the administration is blaming even this on the Bush administration.  As one White House official said, “We have inherited one of the many failed promises of the Bush administration–to set out a very good program without providing the resources to fund it.”  Of course, many at NASA believed they did have a very good program, and the fact that it would need increased spending in its later years is not unusual.  I’m all for blaming Bush for the things he clearly got wrong, but this strikes me as absurd.

5.  A very strange story: the Obama administration is providing a $2b loan for a Brazilian company, Petrobras, to explore the immense oil field that was discovered off the coast of Brazil.  Why would the US government subsidize a Brazilian company–a very large company with substantial resources of its own–in drilling for oil off the coast of Brazil?  We’ll have to learn more about this story.  One thing we’ve learned already: George Soros, a major supporter of Obama as well as organizations (such as ACORN) that Obama has been involved with, positioned himself to make major money off of Petrobras just a few days ago.  Strange goings on.

6.  In England, the average number of sick days in the private sector is 6.4; in the public sector, it is 9.7.  In the National Health Service that average rises to 10.7, as 45,000 NHS staff call in sick each day.  A few little factoids for ya.

7.  The mystery cargo ship called the Arctic Sea, which had disappeared after passing through the English channel was “found” by Russian authorities (the crew was Russian) on Monday near the Cape Verde Islands.  The Russian news service (essentially a state-run media organ) claims that it was hijacked, but speculation is rife that there was actually some sort of clandestine material on the ship. As one Russian opposition journalist said, “To put it plainly: The Arctic Sea was carrying some sort of anti-aircraft or nuclear contraption intended for a nice, peaceful country like Syria, and they were caught with it.”

8.  Yesterday we mentioned Tom Daschle’s work as a lobbyist for companies in the health care field.  Dick Armey, a Republican, recently left a firm for much the same reason.  As it happens, Howard Dean as well serves as a lobbyist with clients in the health care industry.  The incestuous relationship between government and lobbying is a major problem with Washington today, and one of the best arguments in favor of restricting the reach and power of the federal government.  The more power it has over the private market, the more money will be poured into lobbying and the more that federal legislation and government will be directed by those with the deepest pockets–directed not by national interest, but by corporate interests working through government manipulation.

9.  Today’s Two Sides.  Two views, from the Right and from the Left, of how the Obama administration is flailing.

10.  Finally, an article very much worth reading at Christianity Today on the notion of “worldview.”  The article concerns a recent book by the philosopher James K. A. Smith, who argues that evangelical obsession with “worldview” is not so much a response as a capitulation to the Enlightenment, rationalist conception of human nature, and that education in pursuit of a Christian “worldview” is therefore misguided.  If education is not primarily about what we know, but is instead primarily about what we love, then the task of education is that of formation, or rightly ordering our loves, and less about information, or rightly organizing and justifying what we know.  Read the whole article.

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Morning Report, August 17: Spiritual Snake Oil, Public Droption, Bushitler=Obamahitler, Mystery MD, Professor Summers, John Edwards' love child, and the amazing dancing Speaker of the House

August 17, 2009 By Timothy Dalrymple

1.  As mentioned in yesterday’s “Sunday Funnies,” the New York Times presented an article yesterday on “prosperity gospel” folks such as Kenneth Copeland and how they’ve continued to flourish in the midst of the recession.  In my role as the manager of the Evangelical Portal for Patheos, I try not to make any group that could be called “evangelical” feel unwelcome.  Yet this I cannot abide.  I find such spiritual swindlery obscene.  I do not doubt that many of the ministers engaged in this sort of ministry are sincere in their beliefs.  Yet they are exploiting the Word of God for financial gain, taking money from many who cannot afford it (and whose tithe would be better directed to authentic ministries) and making the whole of Christianity look like a farce to non-believers.

2.  The White House appears to be drawing back from the “public option,” which is presently one of the major centers of the anger the proposed reforms have elicited.  It’s unclear whether this was a white flag or a trial balloon, and probably it’s more of the latter.  Yet the Obama administration can claim that it is all for the public option even as its allies in Congress remove it from the bill.  This would shield the President from some of the anger that will surely flow from the Left should the public option be dropped.  Remember, there were many in the House who were pushing for single-payer government health insurance, and they only agreed to compromise when they were promised a strong public option.  Joe Klein thinks he is vindicated in his belief that the public option was never really intended, but was only kept in hand as a bargaining chip.  I don’t read it that way.  Klein thought the public option was not even going to make it into the bills, which it did so far, and I think the Obama team always wanted to pass the public option.

The public option is seen by many as an indirect way to crowd private insurers out of the market.  Since a government program need not turn a profit, and can operate at deficit as long as its funds are replenished by Congress, and can benefit in a thousand ways small and large from its status as the government’s own (and therefore preferred) provider, it is feared that private insurers would be unable to compete.  Barack Obama’s Op Ed yesterday promises four benefits for all Americans, and none of them requires a public option.  In fact, all could be achieved through more targeted changes, and it’s more than questionable whether the reforms currently on the table could deliver them.  Even those on the hard Left are condemning Obama for botching this whole process.

As Christians, we always have to honor an authority higher than the political.  We always have to ask: in what ways is this government failing to live up to the ideals set forth in the Word?  Even those who are ideologically liberal–actually, especially those who are liberal, since their voices will have more weight–should hold the Obama administration up against the highest standard and speak out where it is found wanting.  It seems to me that one of the reasons the administrations’ attempts to push reform through Congress have stalled is because people have begun to doubt that this is really about better serving Americans.  As with the stimulus package (which 57% believe has had no effect or a negative effect, and 60% believe will have no positive effect in the years to come), once the general principles are thrown into the meat grinder of Congress and all its committees, they emerge as an hodge-podge of half-efforts, dispensations to favored industries and voter constituencies, posturing for the next election, and efforts to grow the rolls of those who comprise government or are dependent upon it.  It’s hard to square the simple, idealistic rhetoric that streams so elegantly from Obama’s mouth with the inelegant, byzantine and ethically compromised monstrosities passing through Congress.

Obama should also stop saying things like “if you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan,” when so many people know that this will not be true, in practice.  If this reform passes, after people begin to find their employers dumping their insurance and paying the penalty instead, promises like that will come back to haunt Obama and the Democrats.  The administration is making the same mistake it made with the economic stimulus: claiming that we must either go their way, when we will find beds of roses, or we are headed to armageddon.  The public is smart enough to know a false sales pitch when it sees one.  Making the case for the need for reform is not making the case for why this reform is best.  Yes, the protesters at town halls should be civil and should allow for a true dialogue, but they’re angry, at least in part, because they are not getting a true accounting, a true dialogue that lays out all the facts and all the pluses and minuses, from the Obama administration.

3.  Whenever an activist strongly opposes something in the American political arena, there seems to be a strong temptation to label the leader of the opposite side a “Hitler.”  People on the Left referred to “Bushitler” for years and propogated all manner of Bush assassination porn (they didn’t receive the outraged coverage that anti-Obama posters have, but they were there, by the thousands).  Of course it’s not surprising to see the same thing appearing on the Right.  This is a human foible, not a Left or a Right one.  But it’s absurd.  Nothing we have seen has remotely approached the horror of the Nazi regime, or of fascism in general.  By likening Bush or Obama to Hitler, we belittle the evil that Hitler represented.  I’ve been against this from the start, and recently several opinion pieces (see this and this) have appeared along these lines.

We need a civil discussion of health care reform, one that is honest about all of the facts, not just the facts that support one side of the argument or the other (a fairly balanced look, which shows that America does not have the worst health care in the developed world, all claims to the contrary, can be found here).  We also need a transparent process.  Neither side is reassured by backroom deals with big Pharma.  (Pharma must have been betting that some major reform was inevitable, and this was the way they could limit the damage to themselves.  As major reform becomes less likely, and the Obama administration publicly retreats from the promises it made to Pharma, one wonders whether Pharma will want out.)

4.  Amid all the talk of astroturfing, of course, it has come to light that organizations associated with the Obama administration really are paying people to agitate for the Dems’ health care reform proposals.  Also, here is an interesting case of an Obama supporter pretending to be a doctor in order to give more heft to her support.  When the people who are supposed to be asking the tough questions are big-time supporters (or children of big-time supporters) of Obama, they are not necessarily “plants.”  They are simply people who wish for Obama to succeed, and understand that their words will mean more to listeners if they are not identified as complete partisans.  This happens on both sides, by the way.

It’s actually rather disappointing that the Obama camp has been screening those it lets into his town hall meetings on the subject.  It could have been enlightening if Obama spoke with someone who was genuinely upset about his proposed reforms–and especially if Obama acknowledged that there was legitimacy (since there is) in some of his/her concerns.  For a President so fond of ‘teaching moments,’ he should not let this one go.

5.  One of the big issues concerning Pharmaceuticals is how long they can be the sole producers of a drug they develop.  Pharma is pressing for 12 years from the time when a new drug hits to the market to when a generic version becomes available.  The Obama camp is pressing for 7 years.  Would it not be possible to institute a rigorous accounting process for the costs of developing these drugs, and when the costs are extreme give the manufacturer 12 years–and when the costs are lesser, the period of exclusivity is lesser?  This would seem to be a common-sense solution.  What is the problem with it?

6.  A thoughtful reflection on what Larry Summers the professor would think of the economic policies that Larry Summers the advisor has seen on his watch.  Also, as predicted, one of the metrics by which we will measure the Bush and Obama responses to the economic crisis is by comparison with Europe–especially since France and Germany, the two countries that famously rejected Obama’s call for more big spending, are leading the recovery, and well ahead of us.

7.  Apparently John Edwards is going to admit what seemed obvious: that he really is the father of Rielle Hunter’s baby.  All those protestations to the contrary, he fathered this child, which means that he carried on the affair far longer than he admitted, and indeed carried it on past the point where his wife Elizabeth was diagnosed with cancer and they went around the country advertising the wonderfulness of their relationship.  This raises all sorts of legal questions as well, since campaign money was flowing toward Rielle Hunter, and Edwards apparently arranged for his long-time aide to claim that he was the father instead.  Some on the Left, like Markos Moulitsas (the guru of the Daily Kos) insisted there was no evidence and only whack-jobs would believe Edwards was the father.  Others, like Micky Kaus (a center-left figure, I suppose), are justly redeemed.

8.  This story begins: “Students, teachers and local pastors are protesting over a court case involving a northern Florida school principal and an athletic director who are facing criminal charges and up to six months in jail over their offer of a mealtime prayer.”  Worth reading.

8.  And to end on a light note: the new cast of “Dancing with the Stars” is revealed.  Biggest surprise: Tom Delay.  I guess he decided his political career cannot be resurrected.  As Michael Sherer says, “What a country.”

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , , ,
« Older Posts