Romney's spin

Romney may have instituted a universal healthcare reform in the state of Massachusetts, but when it comes to explaining why he opposes the new healthcare reform in the country, he's at a slight loss for words. Although, in his defense, he does his best to try and nuance the distinction between the two.

The nytimes, while probably not on Romney's side, shows how he is trying to make the case against Obama's plan while defending his own actions back as Governor of Massachusetts. Currently he's on a book tour for his latest "Mitt Romney: No Apology". No sense either.

He clearly wants to woo the conservative republican base while not looking like a flip-flopper on his own policies. It's tough, and unfortunately, he's having trouble maneuvering out of this one. The best he can come up with? His was a state plan, whereas Obama's is a national plan. State sovereignty will always trump federal policy.
The media's not buying the spin though, at least not the nytimes. So I decided to check out how other papers are covering this, focusing mainly on conservative papers. I found this by the wall street journal. Basically, it's the same article as the times posted (they're both written by their own writers though), minus some of the harsher language used in the times. It's a clear hypocrisy, and it's nice to see not just one side recognizing it.

Fox News lied. To everyone.

Recently saw this article posted by mediamatters at the end of March. It details the progression of Fox News' advocation against Obama & the healthcare bill, and how the network actively sought to misinform, enrage, and then encourage citizens to go forth and do their bidding.

The power of journalism gone awry, in the most serious kind of way.

Fox News did the following:

1. Had their hosts denounce the healthcare plan (during both the "news" and "opinions" hours) and celebrated when Democrats faced setbacks or difficulties

2. Encouraged viewers to contact congress & state their opposition to the bill (stepping away from reporting and moving towards advocation)
3. Announced, publicized, and encouraged viewers to go to different protest rallies across the country. Then, they would broadcast these people on the network, creating a continuous stream of making news for themselves and influencing the behavior of their viewers.

4. Offered unequivocal support of Republican congressmen (including Scott Brown) and used the anger (that they created) to springboard their platform of bolstering Republican campaigns & election coverage. Also offered support to tea partiers who harassed Democratic congressmen & women. Furthermore, they solicited donations for Republicans and boasted about how much they raised.

5. Misinformed viewers copious times about the information in the bill, the implications of the bill, and the effects the bill would have, all in an effort to promote their own agenda.

Mediamatters really did their research here, and they have all the video & clips to back up their assertions. I don't doubt what they found is true. I'm not even shocked. I am saddened that a news network, who still continues to claim non-intervention and non-partisan coverage of issues (complete with the mantra "fair & balanced") could be so harmful to the practices of journalism as well as detrimental to the American people. Many Americans were outraged when they learned the Bush administration had lied to them. I wonder how they would feel if they learned the same of their beloved Fox news.

This is undoubtedly the media's power to influence the minds of Americans, at its worst.

Giuliani mentions 9/11, misunderstands everything else

Rudy Giuliani held the torch for the conservative right and came out to attack Obama's plan to cut back our nuclear arsenals by 30%. Crooks and liars, albeit a very left-wing blog, does some good in pointing out the hypocrisies of Giuliani's statements. Some highlights of Giuliani on Hannity:

1. Giuliani fails to see that what Obama is doing, is exactly what Reagan did in 1983
2. "The biological agents and chemical agents that are available can do incredible catast...kill thousands and thousands of people"
3. "To announce how we might respond seems entirely irresponsible and naive"
4. Claims smallpox is still a danger to society.
5. It took Giuliani less than 10 seconds to mention the words "9/11". Lol.

Ok,

1. When Reagan does it, it's good. When Obama does it, it's bad. Typical hypocrisy depending on who's in power.

2.If these weapons can do such damage to mankind, how is that an argument FOR continuing to maintain an arsenal?
3. Yes, the terrorists in North Korea (who the treaty doesn't apply to!) will now be able to craft an attack based on our plans not to use nuclear weapons.... Apparently Giuliani missed the clause of the new agreement that states we reserve the right to use nuclear force in defense (a.k.a when attacked)

4. Smallpox has been eradicated from the world.

5. 9/11.

As crooksandliars put it:

"Everything that comes out from most of the right wing these days has no basis in reality. They speak only for the purpose of scoring cheap political points."

Truth.

The healthcare debate lives on through bloggers

I recently started reading a blog by a man named Mario Piperni, who I originally found through another blog that was recommended by the nytimes. He's quite good, and he updates several times a day on different topics. He's leans a little to the left (like most bloggers) but he seems to have an even-temper in regards to political issues. Anyways, enough of a plug.

He recently wrote this post on the healthcare debate, and how a desire for what should be considered a human right has been turned into a highly politicized debate. He gets to the heart of the argument when he writes:

Tens of millions have no health insurance. Tens of millions of others have lost their insurance because they lost their jobs in the time of recession. The cost of health care in the United States is one of the highest in the world. I could go on here but you know the rest, I’m sure.

How is this acceptable to anyone regardless of their political persuasion? This is the point. As much as conservatives want to make this an issue of bigger government, it is not. It is about fiscal responsibility and respect and dignity for your fellow Americans.

He's right. Before all the chaos started in congress, before rational and ethical debates turned into mud-slinging and personalized attacks, and long before anyone began to discuss the merits of a public option, there was this: Healthcare is broken, it's not working for the citizens, and it needs to be fixed.

Piperni is correct here in asserting that reform had a higher calling than that of partisan arguments. Holding and valuing human life as equal to your own was the matter at stake. It was high time America stepped away from its narrow-view of promoting laissez-faire economics through all walks of life, and started caring about their fellow citizens. This wasn't about socialism/communism, or big government trying to expand its powers. It's about human rights.

It all comes back full circle

Read this gem in politico today as Obama signed the new nuclear arms agreement with Russia's President Vladimir Putin Dmitri Medvedev to cut back their arsenals by one third over the next seven years. The world is now a safer place, at least if you're in the Super Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty Justice League.

While the article is a little too rosy for my liking, writing beauties such as, "In a gilded hall here in a castle" (am I reading a fairy tale or a diplomatic meeting between two superpowers?) "Obama [...] seemed to be in good spirits heading into [...] a significant foreign policy accomplishment to build on his recent health care successes" (define success, then we'll talk) and then goes on to discuss a jocular encounter between Obama and Robert Gibbs.

I guess all is swell in negotiations to control this kind of power.

The cherry on top is that this new treaty was signed in Prague, where one year ago Obama made a speech declaring his dedication to a nuclear-free world. While this treaty is a start (no pun intended) it certainly is not the complete fulfillment of Obama's promise. I am interested to see how this plays out alongside Obama's goals in when & where nuclear combat can be used (see previous post).

On another note, If the media's role is to influence American perceptions about the state of affairs in the world (whether things are "good" or "bad") Politico is doing a great job in moving away from observational reporting and moving towards opinionated news.

Jon Stewart exposes hypocrisies, again.

Like most other young Americans, I like to watch The Daily Show. The other day one of my favorite people, Reza Aslan, was appearing, so I made sure to tune in. In the beginning of the show I caught this:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Inethical Basterds
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Tea Party

Fast-forward to 3:46.

Jon Stewart explains how one doctor is already looking to not provide coverage to patients who voted for Obama. His reasoning for hating Obama & the healthcare reform? He found some stuff on the internet that told him hospices were going to be cut by 2012. Although this has no basis in reality, the man uses the Elizabeth Hasselbeck defense - he found it on the internet, and therefore it must be true.
He's a doctor.

He's supposed to be one of the brightest, most-educated individuals in the country. And yet, his mind has been clouded by the misinformation spewed by thedrudgereport, Rush Limbaugh, and Fox & Friends.

If this is the misunderstanding of a doctor, how can there be hope for the rest of the country?

START 2.0

I'd like to call to attention this article that I saw in the nytimes today. Following the announcement 2 weeks ago that Russia & the U.S. would cut their nuclear arsenals by about 30%, Obama has decided to revamp the current policies of where & when nuclear arms are acceptable to use.

As part of this new policy, Obama is limiting the terms under which the U.S. may use weapons in their stockpile, as well as ceasing development of any new weapons. However, this non-use of nuclear power is only valid for countries in compliance with the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, which is currently signed by U.S, England, France, Russia, and China.

In other words, Iran and North Korea are still fair game (if necessary).

As the nytimes notes, with this announcement Obama is making himself vulnerable to criticism from both the left and the right. Of course, I don't think Obama can do anything at this point without being criticized by both ends, as the hyper-partisan nature of politics right now almost demands it. For every two "Obama is soft on national defense" and "Obama is putting our children's safety at risk" there's at least one "Obama has failed to produce the necessary progressive policies for the 21st century". There is very little middle ground for him to tread.

From recent class discussions, I realize that Obama is trying to frame a new national discussion around nuclear weapons and national defense. Coming off of the breakthrough agreement with Russia, now is a good time to keep the idea of diplomacy between nations fresh in the minds of Americans (or at least try to). With the healthcare bill passed, Obama's new prerogative is to start checking off all the other items on his "to do" list*.

Furthermore, although the 2010 November elections are still far away, in political time they're quite close. The momentum is already starting to build for Republican candidates (with help from the ire over the healthcare bill). It seems Obama's current strategy is to try and counteract the negativity with a laundry list of other accomplishments. However, only time will tell how the voters in November will weigh these against each other. One thing the Democrats do have going for them is the few months grace between now and November, since time will tend to neutralize people's memories and emotions about the divisive healthcare bill. However, healthcare reform is so momentous that I'm not even sure time could heal the wounds.

* = not including DADT, because we can reform healthcare, repair US/Russia relations, and maybe even get new regulations for Wall Street, but God forbid we let homosexuals be soldiers.

Policy Concessions: Good or Bad?

A post on Ezra Klein's blog calls to attention an article written by David Roberts about the avoidance of Democrats from up-or-down votes. Republicans historically fall in line and follow out the orders from the upper echelons of the party. Democrats, on the other hand, don't follow in lockstep and instead, compromise and water down versions of bills.

Roberts argues that Democrats should be proposing maximally effective policies, get the Dems in line behind it, and worry about the politics later. The truth is, regardless of what the Democrats propose (it could even be a continuation of Bush's legacy!) the Republicans will be relentless in their opposition. This in itself is true.

However, as the author of the post writes, not all concessions are made equal. In his words:


But offering a minor concession to a vulnerable senator, who can then go home and say they only voted for the bill after having fought to make it better, doesn't make for a bad trade. Whipping members from ideologically diverse constituencies is tough enough with a leadership willing to broker deals; removing that tool would only make the process more difficult.

I agree here, but I still think that there has to be some sort of middle ground between the two ideas. Offering concessions to members within the own party does seem fair & rational, but if you look in the case of Bart Stupak, sometimes it's just a recipe for deadlock. Especially in issues as monumental as healthcare reform, compromises are what create more problems and difficulties, and divide a party even further.

What a conservative blogger has to say

I found this the other day after being linked from another blog. Interesting enough this article comes from a right-wing blogger. I was interested to see how they are covering (and in another sense, recovering from) the fallout from the passage of healthcare reform in the U.S.

I expected anger, frustration, and curses of ill-will. Instead, I found (at least with this blogger) a lot of rationality, melancholy and contemplation over what went wrong. While I don't agree with many of his ideas, I appreciated the serious nature and mature discussion he brought along with them.

The blogger, named Patrick Ruffini, explains that the Republican's failure lied not their inability to prevent healthcare passage, but in failing to put forth comprehensive ideas on how to fix the broken healthcare system. He believes that the Republicans' typical hands-off approach to social/private matters prevented them from framing the debate in a way that resonated with their congressmen and the American people.

He writes:

We have tried ineffectively to stretch free market rhetoric to health care without appreciating that health care is already too far removed from a free market for the analogy to make sense. Real markets are sensitive to price. Health care isn't.

I believe this is a central component to why Republicans were unable to put forth salient ideas in the healthcare debate. Because they were inexperienced with combining their party's ideals with a social problem, they fell short of being able to solve the central issues.

He continues:

Republican inattention to health care and the failure to develop a compelling free market narrative [...] led to the place we are now. By pounding home the notion that the uninsured were the central problem with the health care system, and [...] their numbers were growing each and every year, liberals built a sense of urgency that conservatives didn't have and were able to demand action

Although I disagree that this "sense" of urgency was just that, and not an actual urgency for healthcare reform, I understand the fundamentals of his stance. The Democrats capitalized on a national crisis, and the Republican's inability to deal with the same crisis put them at a disadvantage.

Here is where he becomes a little misguided though:

A well-developed Republican health reform effort could have addressed the high cost of health care -- actually the most glaring issue in our system -- in a way that would have served as a kind of tax cut for the already insured. And in lowering costs, we could have covered the people who wanted health care but couldn't afford it -- the nub of the uninsured problem.

I don't know how tax cuts for the insured would have somehow given the federal government more money to cover the uninsured. As far as I know, tax cuts take away money from the federal government. Also, he's clearly missing the fact that the cost of health insurance was not solely the reason people were uninsured. Two words: pre-existing conditions. Dropped coverage. Many Americans could afford healthcare (or, well, sorta) but were unable to purchase insurance due to underlying health issues or scams by insurance agencies. Furthermore, even when people did have insurance, many were underinsured and did not have the full coverage that they needed. Simply making health insurance cheaper would not have solved the problem, and neither would basic tax cuts for the insured have led to coverage for all. That's just flawed logic.

What Fox News doesn't want you to know

Obama has been going cross-country, trying to convince the American people to believe in his healthcare overhaul. Recently, he was in northern Virginia with a bunch of college students to sell his plan. While every other network covered Obama's speech in its entirety, mediamatters pointed out that one cable news network decided this didn't fit into their prepackaged storyline. Instead, they cut off Obama before the end of his speech to show Rep. John Boehner's rebuttal of Obama's points.

For comparison, CNN & MSNBC (surprisingly!) showed both speeches in their entirety.
Now who's fair & balanced?

At least Fox's anchor suggested that their viewers go to the internet if they really wanted to see the rest of the speech. Because it's not like informing the citizens is their job, right?

Just pretend to be someone you're not.

Obama can't catch a break from either side. Here is Chris Matthews saying that Obama needs to pretend to move towards the center because he's become too much of a populist. He needs to be more like Bill Clinton (wait what) and act more like a centrist so that he can push through his policies.

I don't understand how lying would ever work. And as far as I can tell, Obama is already pretty middle-of-the-road, what with all that "bipartisan" jargon he keeps coming out with.

But what do I know? I'm not Chris Matthews.

SAFRA

Update: it looks like SAFRA is being tacked onto the healthcare bill so that the Democrats can pass some legislation while they pass some legislation.

Killing two birds with one stone.

Wouldn't it be great if they could've been able to just pass both bills separately and in a timely fashion? Wishful thinking on my part I guess.

I'm actually very excited for SAFRA since it directly affects my life and was another campaign promise of Obama. It's nice to see him finally coming through, and I think the youth of America (a large constituency that aided his election) will appreciate the reform of the student-loan markets as well.

The Saga Continues

Well, what a week it was. This turned into this, which ultimately turned into this!
However, the linear progression wasn't the smoothest one.

I'll start with where the latest part of this chapter began, after the big healthcare summit was broadcast on tv (just like the Democrats promised this time!) and watched by, oh, tens of people.

On the last day in February, Obama announced that he would soon be releasing an updated proposal of healthcare legislation that incorporated some Republican ideas brought forth from the healthcare summit. He projected himself as bipartisan and willing to work across the aisle to finally get this bill completed.

Sounded good.

Flash forward to Tuesday, when Obama revealed his updated plan with four specific Republican ideas incorporated. Yet, despite this, two larger messages came across:

1. While the White House was willing to use these Republican ideas, regardless if Republicans got on board, the Democrats were going to pass this bill. (Which begs the question - why even bother trying to incorporate their ideas for the sake of PR when in the end you'll just do what you want anyways?)

2. The Republicans, while "appreciating" the effort the White House was making, were still universally opposed to the healthcare bill. In fact, even the Republican senators whose ideas were incorporated into the updated proposal were against it! Again, this begs the question - so why involve their ideas at all? Unless their ideas were actually good and beneficial for the American people (a.k.a the "higher calling" argument) why water down the legislation? But I digress...

So the long & short of it wound up being: Obama's attempts were futile.
Proceed to stage 2.

On March 3 President Obama, surrounded by a bunch of doctors wearing white lab coats (so you would know it was official 'n everything) gave a speech that called for an up-or-down vote on healthcare legislation.
Well, that only took 15-months.


Obama is now coming to a city near you to campaign against Hillary stump for his healthcare initiative. He is going to areas where incumbent Democrats are facing challengers in November elections, to speak at town halls and try and garner support for his bill.

Of course, Republicans are furious that such measures are being taken against them. And they're right; it's completely unfair, damaging to the democratic process, and
oh, what's that?
It's not like the Bush administration used the up-or-down tactic to, oh, I don't know, pass anything they ever wanted.
But now it's egregious. Now it's travesty. But again, I digress.

The White House is also facing opposition from within their own party. An up-or-down vote of reconciliation requires the house to accept the senate's version of the healthcare bill point-blank. Unfortunately, some issues with the senate version include the lack of the public option and budgetary concerns, among other problems. An up-or-down vote may be harder than it seems on paper, and the Democrats are really going to need to unite to pass this legislation.

In the coming weeks it will be interesting to see how the issue plays out within the Democratic Party, seeing as the Republicans have now been deemed completely superfluous to the debate. I'm eager to see how Obama does at town hall meetings and how the Republicans will try and stop him from meeting his new deadline. I'm just interested to see how this will all end up, seeing as at this point it looks like it's heading in A direction. Whether this is the right direction, or even a progressive direction, has yet to be determined.



If only Obama just listened to Rahm Emanuel earlier...

Bipartisanship! (sorta)

http://www.boston.com/news/health/articles/2010/02/23/obama_presents_health_care_plan/

Today Obama unveiled his healthcare plan in a pre-emptive strike against Republicans ahead of Thursday's health care summit. The proposal is meant to foster debate with the Republicans while still being able to have the upper-hand if necessary.

In other words, Thursday is a showdown.

Republicans will need to come to the table with ideas, or true objections, or else Obama's plan has the ability to be passed without a filibuster, without a 60-vote majority, without even so much as the blink of an eye.
Yikes.

Now, from Obama's point of view, I can understand why he's doing this. 2009 was the year of the healthcare debate. He doesn't want to become the 44th president to fail the country in providing comprehensive healthcare coverage. He doesn't want to leave a bad legacy.

And still, I can't help but feel a little uneasy about the whole process. I know, I know, the Republicans have been the ones to continually block any progress for a year, and stalling the debate at every twist and turn. And yet... it still feels somewhat wrong to be going about the process like this. But I guess that's one for history to decide, right?

It certainly will make the Republicans cowboy up. Put up or shut up. Other cliche expressions with the word up. You get the gist.

Who knew legislation could be so exciting?

Somewhere Glenn Beck is crying (although it's probably on live tv)

http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2010/02/22/brown_breaks_with_gop_to_support_jobs_bill/

Scott Brown, trying to prove he is as independent as the platform he ran on, is going to break with the Republican Party and vote for the Jobs Bill put forth by the Democratic Party.

On one hand, Brown needs to stay in lockstep with the Republican Party to appease party leadership.

On the other hand, he needs to not seem too red in a traditionally-blue state.

Thus, he votes for a jobs bill, despite admitting that he believes it is "not perfect".

Perhaps this is the dawn of a new congress. I would love to see more of this in the future from members of both parties.

Update: http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/22/with-g-o-p-help-senate-advances-jobs-bill/?emc=na

Scott Brown went first, then the two senators from Maine jumped ship, and then 2 other Republican senators.

Feel like I'm witnessing the apocalypse right now. Maybe Obama will have more luck pushing through other jobs creation proposals and economic reforms.

Wow.

Obama: Healthcare is still relevant.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/22/health/policy/22health.html?hp

Published February 21, 2010

President Obama and the White House plan to unveil a new proposal today that would give the government power to block "excessive rate increases" by insurance companies and regulate the currently unregulated insurance market. The plan comes on the heels of Anthem Blue Cross of California's announcement that they are raising their premiums to 39 percent, an egregious and unheard-of figure. While the company claimed it is only doing what's best to keep it afloat in these tough economic times, national outrage was sparked when it was learned that this raise far outpaces any rate of medicare inflation.

The Obama administration wants to draw on this ire and bring the two parties closer together on the issue of healthcare. The Republicans, who up until this point have steadfastly declared "no" to any sort of compromise or proposal put forth by Democrats, will not want to be seen as in support of insurance companies steamrolling over recession-driven and blue-collar Americans. The nytimes is optimistic that this will finally be the straw that breaks the camel's back and forces Republicans to work with their democratic brethren in congress. I'm optimistic as well! Given the intolerance among both parties, and the Republicans' begrudging nature, I am completely optimistic that the Republicans will find some way to block this legislation as well, stall the healthcare debate, and generally not give two cents about the welfare of the American people.

Anyways, the proposal outlines a creation of a new "Health Insurance Rate Authority", which would comprise of industry experts, consumer reps, a health industry rep, a physician (a token sage), and "other experts like health economists and actuaries". Oh, and the secretary of health and human services. Oh, and did I mention that the board was only 7 people? I hope someone can double-up. Paging Dr.Krugman...

With this announcement, the White House hopes to keep healthcare in the forefront of American policy and national debate...urr sorry, I meant deadlock. No wait I think I meant debate. Is the public option in there? I get so confused. Death panels.

In all seriousness, President Obama is still trying to push his agenda forward without overstepping his boundaries in the executive branch. Republicans are going to need to come to the table with ideas if they cannot compromise. The idea for this regulatory board of executives sounds good in theory. They will issue a report every year with their findings and their suggestions for acceptable rate increases by private insurance companies. Obama and the Dems want to be seen as the protectorates of the American people, who only want to do what's best for the country. They want to capitalize on the issue of rising insurance premiums, and Anthem Blue Cross has just given them a golden ticket. Perhaps their strategy work this time. But I'll believe it when I see it.

If only Obama could declare a war on healthcare.

To be continued...