Baucus Plan - maybe it's a good start

I'm saying that not because I have analyzed everything, but because it seems to be taking flak from both sides of the aisle.  There's no Public Option, but co-ops are proposed as a competitive alternative to private insurance.  If one believes the math, it doesn't create large deficits.  Reaction from a Small Business Group has been somewhat positive.

So far, he has attracted no Republican support.  This is unfortunate - this bill seems to meet at least some of their desires.  I think it's an adequate starting point.

Here's some commentary from both sides.

Wall Street Journal
Washington Post
Huffington Post

Open Left
New York Times


In my opinion, Health Care Reform cannot be handled in one giant leap forward, in some sort of Washington waterfall software development model.  Let's get some decent bill in place.  In several years, revisit it.  This is going to be incremental.

We Need Some Real Honesty on Health Care Reform

Just to prove that I can be "progressive" at times...

The whole Joe Wilson thing is a distraction. It will be a very good thing for everyone, including illegals, to have insurance coverage. We already pay a lot for uninsured at emergency rooms. And presumably they will stay healthier, increasing their quality of life and perhaps decreasing expenses. Frankly, if a few illegals slip through the cracks and gain some government credits and benefits, not a biggie in the grand picture, since most illegals will be paying for their insurance. That's good for us.

President Obama stated, truthfully, said "Nothing in our plan requires you to change what you have". This skirts the underlying issue. One of the good arguments in favor of health care reform is that current practices place a large burden on businesses, hurting their competitiveness. For this argument to make any sense, that means that after the reforms, some businesses will stop their current insurance support, to make themselves more competitive. Their employees will then change to the Public Option. Is this horrible? Well, hopefully the Public Option is decent, and I have to believe that most doctors will sign up. But, even if this causes minor hardship, overall, it is good for the country. But allowing a struggling small family-run business to remain competitive, to resist losing out to a Borders or a Starbucks or, even worse, to outsource their labor overseas, that is a very good thing. If this requires a few employees to change plans or Doctors, so be it. It's good for us.

All sides complain about "rationing", or pander to Americans that there will be no rationing. Rationing is required. Call it cost-benefit analysis, call it sabremetrics, call it common sense, but it's required. In a perfect world, we'd have infinite money, and no need for rationing. In that perfect world I'd own both an Audi R8 and a Porsche Cayman S and check out whether Motor Trend ranked them correctly as the top two "driver's cars". We are not in that perfect world.

Finally, I'd like to cite a New York Times editorial with which I agreed. Will probably come back to comment on it later.

Media getting it wrong

Huff Post "exposes" Joe Wilson as a liar. By claiming that what Obama said was

"illegal immigrants would not qualify for credits for the proposed health care exchanges"

The Huff Post nicely presents the text of the speech. Search for "qualify for credits" or "health care exchanges". The text is not there. Obama did not say what Huff Post says he did, so the truth of that imaginary statement is irrelevant.

They cite a Time Article, which also ignores the plain facts:

The President's seemingly simple statement that "the reforms I am proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally" is not hard to check. In the Senate Finance Committee's working framework for a health plan, which Obama's speech seemed most to mimic, there is the line, "No illegal immigrants will benefit from the health care tax credits."

Now, some Time copy editor didn't read those two sentences to see that the second does not support the first. Obama did not say that the reforms he was proposing would not benefit illegals. He said they would not apply. Since the reforms require everyone, including illegals, to purchase insurance, they clearly apply. The difference is that they will not benefit from government credits. Whatever phrase Obama's "seemed to mimic" doesn't matter - it's what he said, which Time knows, since they just quoted it.

Now, I'm admittedly, making a mountain out of a molehill, arguing technicalities of phrasing. As I said in a previous post, Joe Wilson's outburst was wrong. I believe that Obama (or his speechwriter) meant to say something like "benefit". But he didn't. And arguing technicalities of phrasing is what lawyers and judges will do once this reform is passed. If the leader of our country uses sloppy language, and the media uses sloppy language to analyze the "truthometer", and one suspects that the eventual bill will have sloppy language, some of it deliberate, it's hard to analyze anything for "truth".

Obama's Health Care Speech

It sounded great to me. I'm all for That Health Care Reform Plan. But much of what he said didn't seem to match many of the proposals I have seen coming from Congress. I'm hoping he means "the health care plan I support will...", and that Congress works to meet his goals.

The most contentious part was when President Obama said

"There are also those who claim that our reform effort will insure illegal immigrants. This, too, is false – the reforms I'm proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally."

and Representative Joe Wilson rudely shouted "liar". (Rep. Wilson has quickly apologized)

The CNN truth check, after a bunch of hemming and hawing, concludes that Illegals will not get benefits. But, technically, President Obama's statement is false. He did not talk about benefits, but used the terms "insurance" and "apply to". Because the reforms force illegal immigrants to buy insurance, they clearly apply, and will end up insuring the illegals. A reasonable person would say the facts contradicts the strict text of his message.

Now, I think this was very poor, sloppy wording by his speechwriter, and I'll give Obama the benefit of the doubt that what he meant to say is something like illegals will not receive taxpayer dollars and benefits. Even so, if they buy from the Public Option, and that public option ever receives any government subsidies, then they would, technically, receive benefits. To my understanding, current plans for the Public Option do not call for government subsidies. A cynic may doubt this in the future, especially if the bill is as sloppily worded as the speech.

A Huffington Post blog, which calls Rep Wilson a liar, effectively supports him. Though the bills have text to exclude illegal immigrants, the Huffington Post piece admits that such text will be ineffective, saying, quite correctly, that

"this country doesn't have a feasible and comprehensive system for keeping track of who's who here".

So, in practice, many illegals would receive benefits. The piece than makes a very good argument that illegals should be covered. After all, we already pay for all uninsured, legal or illegal, for emergency visits etc.

Let me state unequivocally that nobody should shout "liar" at the President while he is giving a major policy speech. Very bad form, and deserving of censure and an apology, if not more. However, the exact words of the speech can reasonably be interpreted as untrue, and I hope that Obama or his staff will clarify their meaning and intent.

Maybe It ain’t so

An article in Chicago Lawyer (which I spotted not by reading lawyer magazines, but through Hardball Times) makes the case that Shoeless Joe Jackson was not complicit in the 1919 Black Sox scandal. Or at least, that the evidence is not there, and that the "definitive" book Eight Men Out by Eliot Asinof is not so definitive.

Asinof has admitted to adding a couple of fictional characters, "designed to prevent screenwriters from stealing the story and claiming their material was from the public domain". A key incident, where a mob thug threatens star pitcher Lefty Williams, is fabricated.

"Asinof ... never read, or had access to, the transcripts of the grand jury proceedings".

Based on this information, Eight Men Out was not written as a factual, heavily footnoted historical treatise, but was intended as a dramatic popular "history" account, with a clear eye on making money from a movie.

For some pro-Joe Jackson information, check out BlackBetsy.com. His Grand Jury testimony is confusing - he admits to taking money to throw games, but claims he took no actions to actually throw the games.

Obama's School Speech

I read that this was a very popular search phrase right now, so I'm trying to build some traffic. :-)

Also, I'm trying to figure out the hullabaloo over President Obama giving a speech to school children. It sounds pretty innocent. Of course, before Democrats get too righteous, they should remember that they complained about Bush I giving a speech to children in 1991. Apparently both parties can act like petty children.

O.K., I can see a minor case that schools shouldn't be "forced" to show the speech. And maybe the original Department of Education lesson plan could be interpreted as political, and by paranoids, as indoctrination.

Write letters to themselves about what they can do to help the president. These would be collected and redistributed at an appropriate later date by the teacher to make students accountable to their goals.

You'd have to be pretty sensitive to think that was a deep dark pod-people conspiracy, but, hey, some of us have read 1984. The Department of Education has changed the lesson plan. Those on the Left, such as the New York Times have generally refused to address the (very slightly) troubling text, simply calling the protests silly and bizarre.

In my opinion, conservatives have shot themselves in the foot on this one. They look over-sensitive. Besides, the best way to turn school children, and future voters, against the President would be to force them to listen to his speech telling them to work hard in school.

David Sirota Complains about Hate, Chris Kelly spews it.

On OpenLeft, David Sirota complains about some anonymous hate mail he has received. He quotes from one letter wherein there are terms like "drivel", "drooling buffoons", "incredibly stupid". I leave it to you to decide if this is "hateful" or merely "direct and colorful". Sirota makes one very good point:

"the political discourse in this country has gotten toxically coarse to the point where we're not having any kind of discussion about substance at all."

Of course, he blames this on the Right. Consider the first response to his column, by "the new", (an anonymous name) which has received high ratings (that 4.00/4 you see means 4 people voted favorably for the comment).

"I know it must be rough dealing with this shit, even from anonymous knuckle-dragging lunatics."

Good to see an intelligent response that gets to the substance of the issues. :-)


Over at Huff Post, here's a post by Chris Kelly (he posts there about once a week). He rips on conservative talk-show host Laura Ingraham, who suggested that the Democrats should not politicize Teddy Kennedy's funeral, especially about health care. Since they took a lot of grief for (supposedly) politicizing Wellstone's funeral, that seems like decent advice. How does Chris Kelly respond to the substance of the issues, about why Democrats should use the funeral to push for need health care reform? He claims that at the 1996 Republican Convention he bumped into Ingraham and she showed anguish for a "nanosecond". And, in that nanosecond, Chris Kelly, world renowned psycho-analyst, saw the "face of the most hated child in the meanest fourth grade in the world". He concludes that Ingraham is a sicko who was traumatized in grade school. "This hateful wounded second-rate soul. I hope she finds peace."

Kelly's post is completely non-factual, hateful, a deeply deeply personal attack, non-constructive, with no substance or discussion of the issues. And most of the responses / comments to his blog are worse. Kelly's other Huff Posts are similar or worse - he really has it in for Ingraham, and in hating her, he screws himself up into a rabid left wing version of Ann Coulter. I won't bother to link to his posts cause I don't want to send them any traffic. Search yourself.


Returning to Sirota's column, he adds

"Despising one another and ignoring the substance of issues has become the defining mark of Americanness in the 21st century - and that's a tragedy."

I'm not sure if this is a purely 21st century problem. With the blogosphere and the decline of traditional media, it's probably more apparent. But it isn't new. On March 9, 1830, Senator Edward Livingston of Louisiana gave a famous speech, after the even more famous speeches of Robert Hayne and Daniel Webster debating nullification. (Warning - these are long speeches. I recently learned of these from Jon Meacham's biography of Andrew Jackson). Livingston wanted to warn against too much partisanship, to

"mark the difference between the necessary, and, if I may so express it, the legitimate parties existing in all free Governments, founded on differences of opinion in fundamental principles, ... and that spirit of dissension into which they are apt to degenerate"

As he continues, his "spirit of dissension" seems the very antithesis of St. Paul's Love, it

creates imaginary, and magnifies real causes of complaint; arrogates to itself every virtue—denies every merit to its opponents; secretly entertains the worst designs—publicly imputes them to its adversaries: poisons domestic happiness with its dissensions; assails the character of the living with calumny, and, invading the very secrets of the grave with its viperous slanders, destroys the reputations of the dead; harangues in the market place; disputes at the social board; distracts public councils with unprincipled propositions and intrigues; embitters their discussions with invective and recrimination, and degrades them by personalities and vulgar abuse; seats itself on the bench; clothes itself in the robes of justice; soils the purity of the ermine, and poisons the administration of justice in its source; mounts the pulpit, and, in the name of a God of mercy and peace, preaches discord and vengeance; invokes the worst scourges of Heaven, war, pestilence, and famine, as preferable alternatives to party defeat: blind, vindictive, cruel, remorseless, unprincipled, and at last frantic, it communicates its madness to friends as well as foes; respects nothing, fears nothing; rushes on the sword; braves the dangers of the ocean; and would not be turned from its mad career by the majesty of Heaven itself, armed with its tremendous thunders.

Beware of the Spirit of Dissension. You will see a lot of it in today's political debates.

OK, Rex Rammell is stupid

But some of the columns against him are even stupider. Timothy Egan in the New York Times is discussing wolf hunting. For the record, I'm against it, as is he. But he sets up a typical rhetorical BS strawman is describing his opponents:

"For those who hate wolves and long for the era when they were wiped off the map, and for those who welcomed back this call of the wild"

In Egan's world, there is no middle ground. In his simplistic world, all in favor of wolf hunting hate wolves and want to wipe them off the map. Egan is unwilling or unable to discuss the matter civilly with them, so he dismisses them as genocidal haters. Does this technique sound familiar?

Egan goes on to condemn Rex Rammell who joked about issuing "Obama tags", that is, permits to hunt Obama. A bad joke. But by Egan's own works Rammel is a "fringe candidate", and the "Idaho Republican establishment came down hard on Rammell".

In conclusion, I'm not sure what the point of the editorial is. Egan is against wolf hunting, and against bad jokes about hunting the President. Fine points, but he brings no real insight about the American West (his specialty), no intellectual discussion, no nothing. I guess he had a bad day and a deadline to make.