Yesterday, Tim Noah made a point in an MSNBC appearance that I think deserves a lot more attention. Media outlets have been doing lots of reporting on the problems of the Affordable Care Act rollout, but what they haven't done is provided their audiences with practical information that could help them navigate the new system. Of course, most Americans don't have to do anything, since they have employer-provided insurance. But for all the attention we've been paying to the individual market, media outlets haven't done much to be of service. "The New York Times has published the URL for the New York exchange exactly twice," Noah said, "both before October first."
My experience in talking to journalists about the publication of this kind of thing—unsexy yet useful information, whether it's how to navigate a new health law or understanding where candidates stand on issues—is that they often think that addressing it once is enough. When you ask them about it, they'll say, "We did a piece on that three months ago." The problem is that for it to be effective, they have to do it repeatedly or people won't get it. What we have seen is that this information can be found somewhere on news outlets' web sites (here's an example), but it isn't on the evening news broadcast or in the print edition of the paper.
This morning, I was listening to NPR—because yeah, I'm an effete pointy-headed liberal and that's how I roll—and I heard a story about people in California who got insurance cancellation notices, but then wound up getting better coverage and couldn't be happier about it. And the other day there was this story in the Washington Post about droves of poor people in rural Kentucky getting insurance for the first time in their lives—free, through Medicaid—because of the Affordable Care Act. In other words, after spending weeks telling the tales of people losing their health coverage (who in truth could get other health coverage), the media are finally putting at least some attention on the people who are benefiting from the ACA.
And encouraging news seems to be breaking out all over.
On the other hand, we could just listen to this guy's not-at-all-oversimplified argument. (AP photo by Seth Wenig)
If you want to know how the neoconservatives who brought us the Iraq War are reacting to the interim deal to freeze Iran's nuclear program, the best way is to head over to the web site of the Weekly Standard, where you can witness their wailing chagrin that the Obama administration doesn't share their hunger for yet another Middle East war. All five of the featured articles on the site concern Iran, including editor Bill Kristol's "No Deal" (illustrated with twinned photos of Bibi Netanyahu and Abraham Lincoln, believe it or not), one titled "Don't Trust, Can't Verify," and "Abject Surrender By the United States" by the always measured John Bolton.
These people would be simply ridiculous if they didn't already have so much blood on their hands from Iraq, and the idea that anyone would listen to them after what happened a decade ago tells you a lot about how Washington operates. But there is something important to understand in the arguments conservatives are making about Iran. Their essential position is that now that Iran has finally agreed to negotiate, we must "keep the pressure on" by not actually negotiating until they offer, to use Bolton's words, an actual abject surrender. We should not just maintain but increase sanctions, to make them understand that they'll get nothing and like it. The only way to get future concessions from Iran is to maximize their pain now.
You'll recall how much progress the Bush administration made in getting Iran to pull back its nuclear development with this approach (none). It seems pretty clear that the neocons understand about as much about negotiating as my dog does about delayed gratification. So let me suggest that an easing of sanctions now is exactly what could get them to agree to more concessions at the end of the interim agreement's period of six months. The reason is that what we've done is give the Iranians not only something to gain, but something to lose.
More than a few conservatives are of the opinion that should the Affordable Care Act fail to achieve its goals, it would make the adoption of single-payer health insurance in the United States more likely. The reasonable ones who believe this argue that their side hasn't done enough to come up with ideas to address the very real problems in the health care system, so if the ACA doesn't work, they don't have much to offer in response. If the question is, "Well now what?" and their response is, "How about making it impossible for you to sue your doctor if he cuts off the wrong leg? And can I interest you in a health savings account?", the American public may well turn to the big-government solution instead. I've spoken to conservatives who think that scenario is a real possibility. Carnival barkers like Rush Limbaugh, on the other hand, are telling the rank and file that the rocky rollout of the ACA was all part of the secret plan: things would go wrong, and then the socialist in the White House would be able to swoop in and implement single-payer before anyone realized what was happening.
And there are plenty of liberals who would say, "Sounds good to me!" Not that they're rooting for the ACA's problems to remain unsolved, but they are trying to make people understand that the difficulties are a result not of the ACA containing too much government, but of it not containing enough (this is a point I've made myself). But a belief that the ACA's failure would make single-payer more likely fundamentally misreads our political history.
Peter B. Lewis died suddenly of a heart attack on Saturday at the age of 80. A billionaire chief executive of the Progressive Insurance Company, Peter was a true progressive in his values and his deeds. After his father’s death, Peter and his mother took charge of the company. He became chief executive in his early 1930s and built Progressive from a small 100-employee company into America’s fourth-largest auto insurer, with $17 billion in premiums and 26,000 employees. He expanded his market by insuring high-risk customers, deliberately offering price comparisons with competitors, and setting claims promptly. He led Progressive with exemplary transparency.
A few weeks ago, Mark Halperin and John Heilemann released the follow-up to their 2009 best-seller Game Change, given the best title their publisher's Department of Inane Clichés could devise (though I'll grant that Double Down: Game Change 2012 was a bit better than Game Change 2: Game Changier would have been). The revelations weren't particularly revelatory, sales have been less than overwhelming, and an HBO film version seems unlikely. The behind-the-scenes campaign account as a journalistic genre is now half a century old, having been initiated by Theodore White's The Making of the President 1960, and it's showing its age. Is it interesting to know what Mitt Romney thought of the ads that were produced for his campaign, or whether one Obama strategist was feuding with another? Sure, if that's your thing. But it's hard to argue that learning the inside dope means you understand what happened in a truly meaningful way.
The Republican Governors Association is meeting in Arizona, and naturally the talk has turned to how the only way Republicans can win the next presidential election is if they nominate a governor. One after another, the assembled are taking to the microphones to say things like, "While D.C. talks, governors act" (South Carolina's Nikki Haley), "The cure for what ails this nation will come more from our nation's state capitals than it ever will from our nation's capital" (Indiana's Mike Pence), and "What I have seen here is the incredible contrast between what is being discussed here and accomplished by these people ... as opposed to what is going on in Washington D.C." (New Jersey's Chris Christie). While there were four former governors who ran in the 2012 primaries—the remarkably lifelike Mitt Romney, the foolishly moderate John Huntsman, the man who brought new meaning to the expression "all hat and no cattle" (Rick Perry), and the incandescent fireball of charisma that was Tim Pawlenty—in 2016 there could be even more, including Christie, Pence, Bobby Jindal, Scott Walker, John Kasich, and maybe even Jeb Bush.
And barring the unexpected emergence of the John Thune Explosion (feel free to take that as a name for your garage band, Senator) or the kind of collective suicide pact that would produce a Rand Paul nomination, it seems strongly likely that one of those guys is going to end up topping their ticket in 2016. So what is it that makes governors appealing as candidates?
It has been said many times over the last few years that now that Democrats successfully passed a comprehensive overhaul of American health insurance, they own the health-care system, for good or ill. Every problem anyone has with health care will be blamed on Barack Obama, whether his reform had anything to do with it or not. Your kid got strep throat? It's Obama's fault! Doctor left a sponge in your chest cavity? Stupid Obama! Grandma died after a long illness at the age of 97? Damn you, Obama!
OK, so maybe it won't be quite as bad as that, but pretty close. Here's an instructive case in exactly how this plays out
Behold my terrible rage! I will drink your blood and feast on your entrails! (Flickr/Gage Skidmore)
So now the Democrats have exercised the "nuclear option," which is really not particularly nuclear. They've changed existing Senate rules so that judicial nominations can not be filibustered, but can pass with a majority vote. Over the next couple of days you'll hear Republicans say that this is the most horrifying power grab since the February Revolution of 1917. They will weep and beat their breasts, lamenting the death of fairness and democracy, predicting all manner of horrors, perhaps culminating in a zombie apocalypse, now that a judge nominated by the president can be confirmed with a vote of a majority of senators. But then, their grief will turn to steely determination. "You shall rue this day!", they will cry. "Revenge shall be ours!"
And that might sound like a reasonable argument for why this rule change was ill-advised. After all, as Iowa senator Chuck Grassley recently threatened, "So if the Democrats are bent on changing the rules, then I say go ahead. There are a lot more Scalias and Thomases that we'd love to put on the bench." In other words, without the restraint of the filibuster, the next time Republicans have the White House and the Senate, which will happen eventually, they'll go hog-wild, appointing the most radical conservatives they can find. But there's one big reason that argument fails: They would have done it anyway.
The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development has released their latest health indicators report, and while you may not find 200 pages of charts and graphs on cross-national health comparisons as fascinating as weirdos like me do, let me just point to a couple of interesting things. Most of the findings will be pretty familiar to people who have followed the health care issue in the last few years, but there's at least one thing that surprised me, which I'll get to in a minute. First though, I have to point to this graph, which shows just what an outlier the United States is in terms of what we spend on health care and what we get. It shows the relationship between spending and life expectancy: