What the Affordable Care Act Does

I should have posted this a month ago, but since the topic is back in the news cycle, here's a breakdown of what the Affordable Care Act does, and when.  Everyone should read it if they want to know what to expect from insurance companies in the next decade.

It's About Time

Andrew Sullivan at the Atlantic posted a great piece today that helps re-focus the discussion over health care reform. His excerpt from the New York Times fact check of Obama's discussion with GOP members yesterday was particularly interesting:

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office found that the Republican bill would extend insurance coverage to about 3 million people by 2019, while leaving about 52 million uninsured (PDF). (Find the original Prescriptions blog post on the cost analysis of the House Republicans’ bill here.)

The House Democrats’ bill, by contrast, would extend health benefits to roughly 36 million people over the same time period, leaving about 18 million uninsured (PDF), according to the budget office. The cost of the insurance coverage provisions in the House Democrats’ bill was about $1.05 trillion over 10 years, according to the budget office, while the cost of coverage provisions in the Republicans’ bill would be just $61 billion.

Republican leaders had said all along that expanding health insurance coverage was not a main goal of their bill, because they viewed it as unaffordable. Instead, they had focused on narrowly tailoring their bill to reduce health care costs.

The debate over health insurance has really gotten away from people, and this piece deserves to be read.

"Sunshine is the Best Disinfectant"

Watch this video.  All of it.  And pass it on to all your friends.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

President Obama was in Baltimore today to take questions from GOP party members about a variety of issues.  I'd be willing to bet my job that Republicans are trying to develop a time machine that allows them to go back and remove the cameras from the room.  For the GOP, this event ended with results similar to a no-holds-barred street brawl between an infant and Mickey from "Snatch."

In approximately 70 minutes, Barack Obama reinforced three things many people already know, but rarely get much press:

• He is incredibly smart.  Smarter than his opponents (and often allies) understand or appreciate.
• He is a pragmatist first, and a Democrat second.
• He will not suffer simpletons who skew reality to prevent him from moving forward with an agenda that they could otherwise be helping with.

What the president needs, is to do this sort of thing as often as possible, in front of larger audiences.  In an era where Fox news is hands down the most trusted media outlet in the country (specifically "because of its lack of neutrality"), it's pretty clear that the GOP establishment has a stranglehold on the resources needed to craft and broadcast a message that people adhere to for long periods of time.

Thought his instincts may tell him to shun it, Obama needs to begin using the celebrity status he holds with the American public.  In my view, he is the best option the Democrats have of getting an undiluted message to voters who want to see progress.  As president, he can hold talks like this or give speeches during prime viewing hours to talk directly with the people through a venue they won't shy away from.  I think this is an unfortunate necessity given what I've discussed before about Obama's attempts to get Congress to do its job without the Executive Branch coddling it every step of the way.

Americans don't watch C-SPAN, where a majority of the debates over health care reform legislation have been shown.  They don't read the White House blog, or keep up with where the funds from the stimulus bill are being spent.  Americans watch the people who stir up the most controversy.  Obama's cool dismemberment of the GOP today is something Americans would love to see, but not something that would force him to sacrifice his scaled-back view of managing the legislative process.  

Since the rise of the Tea Party protests, Republicans have profited politically on the feedback loop of anger they create.  The tactic works like this: 

1. Republican talking heads run with a sound bite about health care reform being a mortal threat to grandmothers everywhere.
2. People across the country rush into the streets with angry signs and slogans with considerable help from Republican organizations.
3. Republican politicians stonewall legislation on the basis that they're doing what voters want them to do.
4. Repeat steps 1-3 ad nauseum.

The Obama that came out swinging against the bullshit being pitched to him by GOP lawmakers could easily break the cycle I described above.  Furthermore, he is someone Americans would love to watch (again).  I understand the impetus to stay out of the limelight, but it's time for Obama to show he has some teeth while he's still taken seriously.  The longer he waits to start taking his message directly to the American people, the more time his status will dwindle and wane in the minds of Americans with short attention spans.  That is to say, nearly everyone.

A Quick Point

I'll deal with the all the bullshit being thrown around the airwaves about the election results from Massachusetts some time in the near future—too much going through my head right now to write a coherent post—but if you're desperate to dive into a heap of depressing news, Andrew Sullivan has done a great job of compiling reactions and predictions on the futures of where health care, the Obama administration, and the Democratic majority.  All I'll say about it tonight is regardless of what side of the aisle you're on, know that right now it's best to calm down and wait to see what happens next.

Before the election intruded into everyone's life, I'd been planning to do a post about the music I listen to these days, and how that's changed from my mentality in high school and college.  I followed through with that tonight to get my mind off the election and give you a respite from the mayhem.


Music talk after the jump!

Don't Cry Over Spilled Milk

I haven't written much on the debate (and I use that term loosely) over health care reform because while I've paid attention, I'm still not sure I understand the current system well enough to imagine what impacts the proposed changes will have. Still, there's no way to escape the bizarre (albeit typical) behavior of congressional Democrats regarding Joe Lieberman. For those who don't know, Lieberman has been threatening to filibuster any bill that includes an expansion of Medicare coverage, or anything resembling a government-run insurance plan... sort of.

Since his threat was issued, the liberals everywhere have flipped their lids, demanding, among other things, that Lieberman be removed of his chairmanship of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. Some have reiterated the call for Harry Reid to be replaced, contending that he is weak and incompetent, even when his party is in charge. Still others are blaming the White House for being too laissez faire with the processes at work in Congress.

I can't comment on Lieberman's motives or angle here; I just don't know enough about his political history. In principle, however, it doesn't seem ridiculous for someone who's listed as an Independent to decline falling in line with a major party, even if he has gone back and forth with his support several times. And this can't be completely unexpected! Lieberman actively campaigned against Barack Obama in the 2008 election.

A quick note for all those complaining about a lack of leadership and direction from the White House:

During his campaign and the beginnings of the health care discussions, Obama said that he wanted to be the kind of President that didn't have to lead a flock of 535 immature, incessantly-babbling politicians from one step of the legislative process to the next.

His words were obviously nicer than mine, but Obama's point was that he's purposely trying to pull back the amount of control he has to exert over Congress. He wants Congress (all of it) to grow a spine again. He has stated several times what he wants in the bill, and he'll help wheel'n'deal behind the scenes, but I don't think you're going to see the kind of heavy-handed leaning that we're used to unless something starts to go horribly, horribly wrong. To that end, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi will have to make damn sure that they get their party in line so that when they see a chance at success, they can pounce on it.

Whatever you do, don't mistake Obama's reluctance to lean on Congress for an aversion to participating in the legislative process. He wants to make sure that all his speeches and discussions count, and that means being judicious with his time. It's a lot like TNC's oft-repeated advice for himself: don't say anything if you don't know or can't add anything new.

While the administration might not be married to the public option, they have certainly been pushing for deals that make it possible. The White House has made clear that the administration's preference would be to appeal to Olympia Snowe (which would've practically guaranteed an public option in a few years), but bowed to Harry Reid's promise of 60 votes for a public option instead.

We haven't really seen Obama lean on Congress yet. Does anyone really doubt that he could make something good happen if he wanted to spend that kind of political capital? I don't think he's willing to settle for something that can't really be called successful. He knows too much is at stake for his party, his presidency, and the movement that gave him its banner last November.

Eugene Robinson Gets It Right

One quick post before I get back to work! Eugene Robinson over at The Washington Post has been a solid source for reasonable thought when it comes to race relations in the age of Obama, and he hit another home run with the last part of his column today on Rep. Joe Wilson's outburst:

"You will note that I have not yet mentioned race. For the record, I suspect that Obama's race leads some of his critics to feel they have permission to deny him the legitimacy, stature and common courtesy that are any president's due. I can't prove this, however. And if I'm right, what's anybody supposed to do about it? There's no way to compel people to search their souls for traces of conscious or unconscious racial bias. We could have an interesting discussion about the historical image of the black man in American society, but that wouldn't get us any closer to universal health care." (emphasis mine)

That last sentence is what I was trying to get people to realize yesterday. As much as it infuriates folks on both sides of the aisle when the other side won't admit that they're wrong or playing dirty, we really need to let go of getting the other side to agree to play by the rules of decency as a prerequisite for discourse. Obama proved that by ignoring the comment made by Wilson, and while there's been condemnation, it hasn't come from the White House because Obama knows that there are bigger things to worry about. Napoleon said it best: "Never interrupt your enemy when they're making a mistake."

If we expect to move past all this stuff and truly ostracize the folks who hold terrible things in their hearts, then we'll need to move on without them and force them to come with us by choice. That's how it's always had to be done. Nothing about the way we fight this stuff has changed... only the battlefield.