A variety of things I've been thinking about health care reform of late, so I've decided to combine thin into one big, marginally coherent post.

1) It seems that Obama is finally taking the necessary leadership to get health care done.  Quite importantly, to use a term that I really don't like, but conveys the point, I think he's figured out the "optics" of the situation in a way that's going to help get this done.  Here, of course, I refer to the "summit" with Republican Congressional leaders.  Chait makes a couple great points on this:

 

I don't think that's what's going on. I actually had to read Obama's remark twice to fully understand what he's getting at, but now that I have, it seems pretty clear. I think Obama sees the perception that the process is broken -- that it's backroom deals and "ignoring the will of the people" -- to be the biggest impediment to passage of the bill. So he's proposing a remedy to that perception.

The most important part is what Obama says should happen first: Democrats should settle their differences and work out a final bill. That's crucial. Then he wants to sit down with both parties, and health care experts, and walk through the details in a methodical way. I'd guess he's imagining a process that might look a little like his back-and-forth with House Republicans -- they present him with wild claims about a government takeover, and he calmly responds. They insist that their ideas are better, and he gets to show that they're not. Then you vote. In other words, a debate in which he gets to take center stage, on top of the kabuki theater of a House debate. That way Obama gets to demonstrate that the plan he has is the product of having considered all the alternatives and arriving at the best way to solve the problem, not just cooking up a backroom deal. The idea seems to be to use his wonky, technocratic style to counteract the process-based objections and sell the bill.

In a subsequent post, Chait goes on to explain why these perceptions are actually false and illogical.  

2) Ezra Klein has a similar take, I'll excerpt the heart of:

This is, first and foremost, about defusing the lines of attack that have scared the hell out of Democratic legislators. If you talk to people on the Hill, there's relatively little concern about the substance of the likely compromise, but there's enormous anxiety over the public's belief that the bill is thick with noxious deals, which is fed by the idea that the process has been hidden from the American people. After all, people reason, if the bill was so good, why wouldn't they let C-SPAN into the negotiations? The White House hopes this summit will be a clean break with that narrative.

Second, and more importantly, this creates a next step for health-care reform. The House and the Senate have not been able to agree on a path forward. The president, of course, cannot hold a vote for them. But by setting this summit, he's bought them a few weeks to figure out how to hold a vote themselves. That won't be easy, but it'll be easier with the White House summit giving some structure and narrative to an effort that had collapsed into murky chaos.

So, to sum up these two, I think there's considerable reason for optimism at this point.  Obama has pointedly inserted himself in the process in a way that he's really needed to; he's done so in a way designed to blunt the most potent criticisms of health care reform; he's shown Democrats in Congress a clear way forward and hopefully the summit will provide some political cover for antsy Dems.  This is all good.

Since this is an omnibus post, you get two more links on health care.  First, Ezra Klein has a post nicely summarizing the ways in which the Senate bill already encompasses key conservative ideas on health care reform.  For anybody who thinks that Republicans actually want a compromise bill, I've got a bridge to see you.  Secondly, EJ Dionne has a nice column analogizing health care reform to a kitchen remodeling.  All that's left is installing the granite countertops. 

This is certainly one of my favorite Matt Yglesias posts ever.  He takes on Bush administration torture apologist Marc Thiessen, who essentially argues that waterboarding done by Americans was not at all like waterboarding the Spanish inquisition, because they also used nasty ropes that cut into the skin.  Right-- take away the mean ropes and waterboarding is all good.  Anyway, it's a terrific smackdown well-worth reading.  As for the title of this post, I'm going to take after Yglesias and mince no words on how we should refer to those who advocate torture as an appropriate policy.  

1) Not surprisingly the Republican party is, in fact, so scientifically illiterate as to actual suggest that recent VA snowstorms suggest global warming is not real.  

2)  In what state would they actually prosecute a nurse for blowing the whistle on a dangerous doctor?  If you guessed Texas-- you win. 

3) This is just wrong.

Really interesting article in Slate the other day about Don't Ask; don't tell.  We know service members get kicked out on a regular basis for "telling," but does anyone ever get punished for "asking"?  Not surprisingly, the answer is no.  

 For most service members, it's not even against the rules. The "don't tell" half of the 1993 agreement between Congress, the president, and top military brass is a matter of federal law. The "don't ask" portion stands for a combination of military regulations and memoranda that ended the Pentagon's long-standing practice of asking service members about their sexual orientation during the recruitment and security-clearance processes. It also limited the conditions under which a commanding officer may investigate suspected homosexual conduct. But there is no provision in law or regulation that forbids a rank-and-file service member from asking a colleague whether he or she is gay. Superior officers, of course, retain the general authority to discipline subordinates who engage in inappropriate behavior—like harassing a peer with repeated accusations—but there is no record of a service member being punished for asking about homosexual conduct.

It would be interesting to see just how different this policy would have actually been had it actually lived up to it's name-- imagine of people had actually got kicked out of the military (or at least punished) for "asking."   Safe to say, it would have been quite different. 

Via Huffington Post Sarah Palin's hand at the tea party convention.  

Closer inspection of a photo of Sarah Palin, during a speech in which she mocked President Obama for his use of a teleprompter, reveals several notes written on her left hand. The words "Energy", "Tax" and "Lift American Spirits" are clearly visible. There's also what appears to read as "Budget cuts" with the word Budget crossed out.

Again, I'll farm out short commentary to Chait: "This is pretty much the Republican program for you.  My favorite is budget cuts crossed out, replaced with tax cuts. Yup, that's it in a nutshell."  Can't imagine why anyone would question the intellectual credibility of the conservative movement.

Interesting essay in the Post today called "Why are liberals so condescending."  Especially interesting was that this was written by a political science professor at UVA.  He seems to be a political science professor, though, he is oddly divorced from reality and political science research.  He may very well have a legitimate point, but he sure doesn't make it with stuff like: 

It is now an article of faith among many liberals that Republicans win elections because they tap into white prejudice against blacks and immigrants.

Race doubtless played a significant role in the shift of Deep South whites to the Republican Party during and after the 1960s. But the liberal narrative has gone essentially unchanged since then -- recall former president Carter's recent assertion that opposition to Obama reflects racism -- even though survey research has shown a dramatic decline in prejudiced attitudes

As I said, he might want to check out some political science research that shows that, certainly in part, "Republicans win elections because they tap into white prejudice against blacks and immigrants."  While there has fortunately been a very real decline in prejudice, it has almost assuredly been less among Republicans and he is talking about overt prejudice in ways that a person would actually give a prejudiced answer to a stranger asking a survey question.  Due to social desirability, that has gone way down, but that does not mean prejudice itself has (and, in fact, alternative measuring schemes, still find much evidence for prejudice). 

I'm not going to deconstruct the whole essay, but needless to say, the rest is just as sloppy and misleading.  Also, the fact that this fellow with not only his conservative ideology, but non-impressive skills of argumentation is a tenured professor at University of Virginia would seem to suggest that there is not actually discrimination against conservatives in academia.  Or, maybe I'm just a smug liberal. 

In case you missed this absurd ad from Carly Fiorina's campaign for California Republican nomination for Senator, you must check it out:

Make sure you don't miss the demon sheep about 2:26 in.  Too funny!  I'll leave the commentary to Jon Chait:

The funny thing about this ad, aside from the clumsy over-the-top quality, is the metaphor. The message of the ad is that Campbell is an ideological deviant. All the other Republicans signed Grover Norquist's no-taxes-ever pledge, but Campbell refused. Campbell went off on his own and made a budget deal in order to prevent a fiscal collapse. And what's the metaphor the ad uses?

Sheep. But not in a disparaging way. The good politicians are sheep, doing what Grover Norquist tells them to do

I forgot to post this earlier this week, but was reminded by seeing sheep at the World's Toughest Rodeo (live in Raleigh!!) last night.  Haven't seen a lot of live sheep in my day, but it was truly amazing to watch the degree that they stuck together.  It was more like an insect swarm than something I'd expect from a mammal.  The idea that anybody would want to use sheep as a positive metaphor for what a politician should be is truly crazy.

So, I had a conversation with a Senate staffer friend last night, and it was plenty depressing on the health care front.  Like me, he still believes that ultimately the logic of passing a bill will win out, but it's hard to have any confidence in this now.  Every single Democrat needs to realize that it is in their own self interest politically (regardless of the fact that this is desperately needed policy) to pass this.  My friend was only slightly depressed by the attitudes of Senators, what was really depressing was just how incredibly stupid so many Democratic House members were (his girlfriend works on the House side).  A bunch of them had no idea how reconciliation actually works and seem absurdly willing to drop health care reform if they don't get exactly what they want.  As for those liberals in safe seats, they need to think about how it feels to be a minority rather than a majority party member.  My friend also agreed that Obama needs to take some more active leadership on this.  He needs to knock some heads of House members, in particular.  Either they want health reform or they don't.  

 (Photo by Flickr user pasukaru76 under creative commons licence)  

 Via one of my new blog reads:

A Staten Island fourth-grader was reprimanded and almost suspended yesterday when the principal spotted him playing with a LEGO policeman and a two-inch-long toy gun during lunch, the Advance reports.

Under the city’s no-tolerance policy regarding guns in schools, PS 52 Principal Evelyn Matroianni brought 9-year-old Patrick Timoney to her office and called his mother to say the boy might be suspended for carrying the miniature toy gun to school.

 Wow.  That's all I can say.  You all know my thoughts on zero tolerance, but a lego gun.  Seriously?!  Well, actually very good to see that reasonable judgment ultimately prevailed.  Though, I suppose this is going on the kid's permanent record.   Couldn't help but think about this while playing with a Lego rebel alliance fighter (i.e., the good guys in Star Wars) and his gun last night.  

Love this chart from the NYT about who is well-rested.  There main point is that poor people are less likely to be well-rested, I find it much more intriguing that the keys to being well rested seem to be 1) being male; 2) not having any kids in the home.  I feel pretty rested-- I guess they balance out for me :-).

There was some variation among demographic groups, however:

Big news in Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy this week as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen has come out in favor of ending DADT and allowing gay men and women to serve openly in the Armed Services.  It's not over yet, but this is a big step and is an important victory for gay Americans, but mostly I'm just pleased that the military is now on the way to abandoning such a clearly wrong-headed policy.  I accept that there are serious issues to address when you have openly gay soldiers serving in very close quarters in combat situations, e.g., a tank crew, but it is asinine to make a service-wide policy based upon the most extreme conditions.  Presumably, you've heard by now the ridiculous dismissals of Arab linguists (does it get any dumber?!) for being gay, as well as fighter pilots.  Surely, there's no issues of "unit cohesion" and personal privacy, etc., here, yet off they go.  Regardless of whether troops in infantry combat units, etc., are homophobic or not, there are obviously issues with having openly gay soldiers, but I suspect those largely resolve themselves, and where they do not, there's no reason the Army cannot have clear guidelines on the matter.  In a discussion with my "real" class today and in my on-line class, despite some concerns, not a single person actually believed it is a good idea for the military to keep DADT.  It's a bad idea who's time has passed.  The political scientist in me is quite looking forward to the fight play out in the year ahead, but with Mullen and SecDef Gates on board, not to mention Obama, it really can only be a matter of time.

The most frustrating thing since the election of Scott Brown has been the absurd panic of so many Democrats in Congress in trying to run away from a health care bill they have already voted for.  Hopefully, the results of a new poll should give them some spine.  Via Ezra:

A new poll shows that opinions of Democrats rise slightly if they pass a health-care bill. That's even truer among independents. The rise is well within the margin of error, but it's a rise nonetheless. More important, almost, is the fact that it's not a drop. A lot of Democrats are afraid that passing the bill will anger the electorate. This poll offers no evidence for that view.

Rather, Democrats don't suffer for passing this bill. They excite their base, impress some independents and get to promote an accomplishment rather than apologize for a failure. Oh, and they make life a lot better for millions and millions of Americans. So what're you waiting for, Dems? Pass. The. Bill.

I also think it's kind of cool that the poll is from Raleigh's own Public Policy Polling, which made a big splash as a new, and surprisingly accurate pollster during the 2008 campaign.  I really like Matt Yglesias' take on this.  He argues, quite correctly I believe, that is all about narrative:

The question is whether you’d rather get hit for your participation in a discredited failure that’s been abandoned by its own architects, or whether you’d rather get hit for participation in a controversial but successful effort to fulfill the decades-long promise of universal health care? I don’t think it’s even close. If the bill passes, that generates a positive narrative around the bill that can compete with the negative narrative. If it fails, then you’ve got all the negative narratives but you also add on a new bonus negative narrative of gridlock and failure.

Again, if Democrats fail to pass this they are truly so stupid they don't deserve to govern.  Sadly, I fear there's a relatively good chance that this is true.

Daily Kos commissioned a poll designed to let Republicans make themselves look stupid.  It worked.  (By all appearances, the poll was conducted according to common standards, the craziness comes from the random sample of Republicans).  I was going to summarize it, but fortunately Bruce Bartlett has already made a handy chart.  Gotta love his "why I am not a Republican" title, too:

Literally astounding.  And disturbing.  I'm sure you could come up with a poll that a fair portion of Democrats look pretty crazy, but I honestly doubt it would be half this bad.  Almost a quarter wants to secede?  Nearly a 1/3 think Barack Obama, who was raised by white people, is a racist who hates white people.  Clearly, the Glenn Beck-ization of the contemporary Republican party.

A headline at the post on-line today: "GOP urges Dems to scrap bill: Republicans want Democrats to launch bipartisan talks on a new consensus approach."  Right, and I've got a bridge to sell you.  What's so frustrating about this is that the reporter, Shailagh Murray simply credulously repeats all the GOP talking points despite the overwhelming evidence that Congressional Republicans have no interest in actually crafting a bipartisan health care reform (and for the record, Murray seems to be a frequent repeat offender of "unbiased" journalism that serves to mislead readers).  As many, including President Obama, have pointed out, this is a bipartisan bill in substance.  In fact, it is quite similar to what Republicans in the 1990's proposed as an alternative to Clinton's plans.  The Senate bill already bent over backwards to draw support from moderate Republicans, e.g., Olympia Snowe, who could never articulate a sensible reason for opposing it.  What exactly is a "bipartisan" bill that Republicans would actually approve of?  It's quote obvious the answer is nothing.  Republicans keep talking about malpractice reform (a flea on the rabid dog that is our health care system) and eliminating state barriers to regulation (e.g., the credit card company approach-- we know how well that's worked).  Real journalism would be honest about the fact that this is nothing more than (effective) PR from Republicans, instead, it is treated as if Republicans really do want bipartisan reform simply because they so despite mountains of contradictory evidence. 

One of the very frustrating things about the health care debate is that so many people who are opposed to health care reform are opposed because they simply don't understand it.  The underlying principles of the bills on the table remain quite popular.  Perhaps you could blame Obama and Dems for a failure to communicate, but I think it is mostly that the opponents have communicated more effectively and been perfectly willing to lie and distort to an amazing degree in doing so.  Generally speaking, in politics, the liars win.   Jonathan Chait has a nice run-down of the public support for key provisions of reform:

But polls suggest that Obama's diagnosis has it exactly right. The more people know about his plan, the more they like it. When read neutral decsription of his proposal, it enjoys strong support. And a recent Kaiser Foundation poll shows this even more strongly. The poll moves through every element of the Democratic plan. Nearly all of them enjoy strong support:

Prohibit insurance companies from denying coverage or charging higher premiums because of a person’s medical history or health condition: 63

Provide tax credits to small businesses that want to offer coverage to their employees: 73

Increase income taxes for individuals making more than $500,000 a year and couples making more than $1 million a year as a way to help pay for health reform: 59

Create a health insurance exchange or marketplace where small businesses and people who don’t get coverage through their employers can shop for insurance and compare prices and benefits: 67

Provide financial help to people who have incomes below 400 percent of the federal poverty level – about $88,000 for a family of four – and who don’t get insurance through their jobs to help them purchase coverage: 57

This is also, in sharp contrast to GWB's failed attempts at reforming social security, in which the more people learned about the plan, the more they opposed. it.  The numbers above are also why I (and most of the health care pundits I listen to) think that health care reform will be much more popular once (if) Democrats actually get this passed.  A tremendous amount of opposition is ultimately about this ugly process, more so than specifics of reform.