Kevin Drum

Conservatives on Healthcare Reform

| Sun Sep. 20, 2009 12:59 PM EDT

If you want to get a taste of the almost total conservative dysfunction over healthcare reform, the LA Times is your one-stop shop this morning.  They asked four well-known conservatives to go beyond just complaining about Obamacare and instead "propose ways to make the American healthcare system better."  Game on!  Let's see what they have to offer:

Bill Frist says we should encourage employers to offer wellness programs.  (Also: more PE in schools, better preventive care, and community planning to "include places to exercise and sources of healthy foods.") And if you get sick anyway?  Frist doesn't bother saying anything about that.

Mickey Edwards says the government should (a) "authorize" a private insurance pool that the uninsured and self-insured could join and (b) ban insurance companies from turning down applicants with preexisting conditions.  But (a) could exist today if anyone wanted to create such a pool and (b) would destroy the health insurance industry unless it's paired with an individual mandate.  Edwards seems unaware of either of these things.

David Frum says we should allow insurers to sell their policies nationwide.  End of proposal.  This is like being asked how GM can revitalize itself and suggesting they should put better tires on their cars.

And finally, there's Richard Viguerie, who even most conservatives shun as a crank.  Basically, he thinks we should make people pay for their own coverage (i.e., give them more "skin in the game"), we should encourage higher industry profits, and we should by God not create a government database of medical records.  Or something.  To be honest, I'm not sure.

This is pathetic.  Nationwide insurance companies might be a good idea.  Wellness programs are certainly a good idea.  (Though not an especially conservative one.)  And community rating is a good idea too.  But they do virtually nothing to extend healthcare to the uninsured, nothing significant to drive down costs, and nothing to reform the insurance industry unless they're embedded in a broader plan.  They're flea specks on a problem the size of an elephant.

Granted, these guys were writing op-eds, not white papers, but none of them made so much as a passing mention of anything more than these few disconnected talking points.  Our country's 47 million uninsured weren't even on their radar screen. The problem isn't that the Times didn't give them enough space, the problem is they flatly don't have any idea how to make American healthcare more broadly accessible or how to arrest its steady and relentless deterioration.  No wonder conservatives have decided to just say No instead.  When you've got nothing serious to offer, what choice do you have?

Advertise on MotherJones.com

Quote of the Day

| Sat Sep. 19, 2009 11:59 AM EDT

From Bruce Bartlett, lamenting the state of the modern conservative press since Irving Kristol shut down The Public Interest in 2005:

Commentary is now just a highbrow version of National Review, which is just a glossy version of Human Events, which has become a slightly less hysterical version of nutty websites like WorldNetDaily.

Nicely put.  Bruce is obviously adapting quickly to the polemical rigors of the blogosphere.

Friday Cat Blogging - 18 September 2009

| Fri Sep. 18, 2009 3:05 PM EDT

Today is Happy Cat Day™.  On the left, Inkblot is smooching himself on my computer speaker.  On the right, Domino is rolling around on the sidewalk.  May your weekend be as happy as theirs.

Chart of the Day

| Fri Sep. 18, 2009 3:00 PM EDT

This isn't any big surprise or anything, but it's still sort of breathtaking when you see it in such stark terms.  Via Steve Benen (from a Research 2000 poll), the Republican Party is just flat dead everywhere outside the South.  Even folks in the Midwest can't stand them.  The GOP is, for the time being anyway, a purely regional party.

And who's responsible for that?  "I know this probably sounds arrogant to say," George Bush told speechwriter Matt Latimer in a conversation last year, "but I redefined the Republican Party."  I'd say he had a point.

Money Money Money

| Fri Sep. 18, 2009 2:22 PM EDT

Hmmm.  Apparently Ben Bernanke wants to change the way that bankers pay themselves:

The Federal Reserve is preparing what would be the most sweeping rules yet to regulate the pay at banks across the country, people close to the discussions said on Friday.

The rules would apply not just to the compensation and bonuses of top executives but also to traders, loan officers and other employees. But rather than focusing on the specific amount employees are paid, Fed officials will be scrutinizing whether the structure of compensation, like the use of bonuses based on the volume of loan origination, encourages excessive risk-taking.

....The surprising move comes as both the Obama administration and the Congress, as well as governments in other industrialized countries, are pushing for restrictions on executive pay, which many experts say contributed to reckless risk-taking that led to the financial crisis of the last year.

In the mood I'm in right now, I don't think I'd do more than raise an eyebrow if Bernanke suggested we just shoot every tenth banker on Wall Street as an object lesson to the rest of them.  But even so, I'm really lukewarm to this idea — and not just on the practical grounds that it's almost impossible to really make it work properly.

Basically, I think it's an admission of surrender.  It's the kind of thing you do either because (a) you can't solve the underlying problem that causes dangerous pay packages in the first place, or (b) you don't want to solve the underlying problems and are casting around for some kind of window dressing to divert everyone's attention from that fact.

The big issue isn't that bankers get paid too much.  That's just a symptom.  The big issue is that banks make too much money by engaging in risky practices.  If you reduce that ocean of money, pay will follow.  If you don't, no set of rules in the world will prevent it from eventually making its way into the hands of traders and executives. So instead of trying to regulate pay, why not regulate the dangerous practices themselves and let compensation sort itself out naturally?

Paul Volcker, for example, thinks we ought to get banks largely out of the securities trading business.  If we did, that would automatically eliminate gigantic bonuses based on risky, short-term trading profits.  We could institute serious rules on the abuse of leverage and overnight repo financing.  That would eliminate some of the most volatile sources of short-term earnings.  We could levy a transaction tax, which would reduce some of the riskiest (but most lucrative) spread bets.  We could limit the size and interconnectedness of hedge funds and other parts of the shadow banking system.  All of these things would reduce the amount of money banks earn and therefore the amount they pay their executives.

Plus there's another bonus!  If you reduce the earnings banks get from risky and socially useless financial legerdemain, then (a) Wall Street will be forced to make money by providing actual useful services to the rest of the business community, and (b) more money and investment will flow into productive parts of the economy.  If we do that, bad pay practices won't be a big problem anymore.  If we don't, bad pay practices will be the least of our worries.

Jargon Watch

| Fri Sep. 18, 2009 12:33 PM EDT

Just as we were all getting used to "AfPak" as the insidery way of referring to the comingled problem area of Afghanistan and Pakistan, apparently the State Department is pulling a switcheroo:

State Department inspector general Harry Geisel, testifying about waste, fraud and abuse in Afghanistan and Pakistan to the House oversight subcommittee on national security, called the region "PakAf."

...."Is that just you," [Rep. Jeff] Flake asked, "or are others expected to do that?"

Geisel said he would check and, a few minutes later, offered this. "My staff has been kind enough to explain to me how AfPak became PakAf. And the answer is it was Ambassador Richard Holbrooke who started using PakAf."

You have been put on notice.  There will be a test on this stuff later today.

Advertise on MotherJones.com

The Future of TV

| Fri Sep. 18, 2009 12:11 PM EDT

In a move clearly inspired by Barack Obama's plan to turn the United States into a grim socialist hellhole, California plans to regulate giant TVs:

The first-in-the-nation TV efficiency standards would require electronics retailers to sell only energy-sipping models starting in 2011. Even tougher efficiency criteria would follow in 2013.

....The rules, which took more than a year to develop, are designed to shave $8.1 billion off Californians' electricity bills over a 10-year-period. That works out to $30 per set per year, according to commission officials.

It will also help California utilities head off the need to build more power plants just so residents can watch "American Idol" and other shows. TVs already account for 10% of residential energy use in California, driven largely by surging demand for large-screen TVs. Strict state mandates for cutting greenhouse gas emissions are further pressuring officials to act.

I suppose Congress could override this rule if TVs were part of interstate commerce, but that's a pretty ridiculous notion since practically everyone buys televisions from stores in their own state1.  So I guess we're out of luck.  We Golden Staters will have to continue our desperate struggle against the jackboot of the California Energy Commission all by ourselves.

1In case you don't get the joke, see here.

Fiji Water's Treats for Tweets

| Fri Sep. 18, 2009 5:00 AM EDT

It's Laura. Happy Friday! To celebrate, Fiji Water would like to give you a beach towel. Or some free junta-fueling water. Anything, really, if you'll just promise to tweet nicely about them—something people aren't doing after reading the MoJo Fiji Water investigation. Plus: 3 MoJo stories today you might like:

1) Why is GOP pit bull Darrell Issa modeling himself after the Dems' fiercest watchdog, Henry Waxman?

2) What happens when Enron-schooled ex-lobbyists become top energy regulators?

3) Can the drug ecstasy help post-traumatic stress patients confront their fears?

Laura McClure hosts weekly podcasts and is a writer and editor for Mother Jones. Read her recent investigative feature on lifehacking gurus here.

"Both Parties"

| Fri Sep. 18, 2009 2:14 AM EDT

Here's the fascinating lead in today's Washington Post story about healthcare reform:

Lawmakers in both parties raised concerns Thursday that the health-care reform bill offered by Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus a day earlier would impose too high a cost on middle-class Americans and said they will seek to change the legislation to ease that potential burden.

Italics mine.  Technically, this is true: apparently Olympia Snowe would like to increase subsidies to middle-income families above the level in Baucus's draft bill.  So that's one.  But the only other Republican even mentioned in this story is Chuck Grassley, who is suggesting "government assistance to insurance companies" to help them lower premium costs.

That's evidently the basis of the claim that "both parties" are concerned about the cost of healthcare insurance to middle class workers.  One Republican senator.  And a second who thinks insurance companies could use a little extra help.  Somebody shoot me now.

Truthers, Birthers, Tenthers

| Fri Sep. 18, 2009 1:47 AM EDT

Fox News legal analyst Andrew Napolitano, after citing a case in which the Supreme Court struck down a law that prohibited possession of guns in school zones, has this to say:

Applying these principles to President Barack Obama's health-care proposal, it's clear that his plan is unconstitutional at its core. The practice of medicine consists of the delivery of intimate services to the human body. In almost all instances, the delivery of medical services occurs in one place and does not move across interstate lines. One goes to a physician not to engage in commercial activity, as the Framers of the Constitution understood, but to improve one's health. And the practice of medicine, much like public school safety, has been regulated by states for the past century.

Orin Kerr, not exactly a screaming lefty, is fascinated by the sheer volume of obvious inanity in just this one paragraph.  "How many errors, misstatements, and plainly weak claims can you count?" he asks?

Sadly, I'm not a lawyer, so I can't really play.  But let's rewrite this a bit:

Applying these principles to President Johnson's civil rights proposal, it's clear that his plan is unconstitutional at its core. Running a restaurant consists of the delivery of vital nutrients to the human body. In almost all instances, the delivery of food occurs in one place and does not move across interstate lines. One goes to a restaurant not to engage in commercial activity, as the Framers of the Constitution understood, but to eat. And the licensing of eating establishments, much like public school safety, has been regulated by states for the past century.

To the dismay of people like George Wallace and Robert Welch, that didn't fly back in 1965 and it won't fly today.  Taking money for the delivery of services, intimate or not, is plainly commerce.  (In the case of medical services, about $2 trillion worth of commerce every year.)  Virtually everything in a doctor's office has crossed state lines to get there.  Thousands of insurance companies, medical groups, hospital chains, and medical suppliers are nationwide corporations.  The federal government has regulated the sale and distribution of pharmaceuticals for over 70 years.  Doctors are routinely employed by out-of-state corporations.  If the medical industry isn't interstate commerce, then nothing is.

Napolitano's reasoning wouldn't pass muster in a first-year con law class.  Like all the other "tenthers" trying to claim that Congress has no constitutional authority to regulate healthcare, he may really, really wish that his arguments were true.  But they aren't.  The guy's a clown.