More Health Care

Megan McArdle does not think Obama moved the needle with his health care summit, but I like this:

The longer these things wear on, the more hardened opinion gets.  I never saw this moving the needle of public opinion.  Democrats have to decide if they want to ignore what the voters think, knowing that this will be an issue in the next election.  I doubt they will, but maybe they care enough to toss away the house and the senate.  After all, what's the point of winning elections if you don't get to push through your policy agenda?

Exactly!  And what's the point of buying a new Toyota if you don't put the pedal to the medal and aim for the nearest tree?

Losing the House and letting curious Republican chairmen investigate everything under the sun seems like an odd way to advance the broader Dem agenda, but I am not smart enough to be a liberal strategist.  And maybe the House is lost anyway, in which case Pelosi and Reid may as well have the ultimate lame-duck session and cram this stuff down after the election.

Clive Crook and John Dickerson note that the professorial Obama on display did not exactly paint the Republicans and their ideas so daft that they need to be ignored while the Dems railroad their bill through.

Comments

[MarkO]

Would Obama resign if we could get him the Tonight Show?

[Clarice]

Every Congress critter follows the old Fullbright dodge about segregation--he believes he has so many good things he can do ONLY if he gets re-elected.

[bgates]

Mark - not since Kevin Eubanks left.

[Thomas Collins]

I think McCain should win the MVS (most valuable summiteer) award over Ryan and Alexander. McCain's class showed the nation just how small and petty a man Obama is.

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

I think Obama was looking for a face-saving way to concede defeat. Instead we got more confirmation that he's an arrogant jerk with way too much self-esteem.

[BB Key]

Desiree "fashion plate" Rogers is resigning must be another state dinner in the pipeline.

[anduril]

The FT has a very informative article today: Israel’s perceived lawlessness hurts its cause. Here are some of the highlights:

First of all, despite its reputation for daring, flamboyance and cold-blooded efficiency, Mossad’s record is mixed, to say the least. More importantly, even Israel’s operational successes increasingly backfire, politically and sometimes strategically – and now at a time when the country’s reputation is under the international microscope.

Israel has had its fair share of botched operations, going all the way back to the Lavon Affair of 1954, when an Israeli spy-ring was caught bombing Egyptian libraries and cinemas.

Mossad was lionised for hunting down the Black September terrorists who killed 11 Israeli athletes at the 1972 Munich Olympics. But that too ended in fiasco when the hit squad killed a Moroccan waiter it mistook for Ali Hassan Salameh, a top aide to Yassir Arafat, in Lillehammer in July 1973; several of its members were jailed by Norway, causing huge damage to the agency’s networks across Europe. While all this was going on, Mossad signally failed to detect any sign of the looming Yom Kippur war.

Mossad did eventually get Salameh, with a car-bomb in Beirut in 1979, but by then he had become US and British intelligence’s main conduit into the Palestine Liberation Organisation.

Most famously, Mossad agents (using Canadian passports) got captured in Amman in September 1997 after failing to kill Khaled Meshal of Hamas. The bungler in that case was Benjamin Netanyahu, then, as now, Israel’s prime minister, to whom the late King Hussein – Israel’s one friend in the Arab world – had just passed a Hamas offer of a 30-year truce. The king, his biographer, Avi Shlaim records, felt as though someone “had spat in his face”. The relationship never quite recovered. Not only that, but Israel had to release Sheikh Ahmad Yassin, the founder of Hamas.

Israel would later assassinate Sheikh Yassin (and 21 other Palestinian leaders in the three years from June 2001). Clearly, this Israeli preference for instantly satisfying, executive solutions to complex political and geopolitical problems continues apace. But does the balance sheet from this sort of activity redound to Israel’s credit or rebound against it?

Well, Mr Meshal survived to become the most powerful man in Hamas, and more radical than most of his slain peers. Arguably, Israel achieved a similar result by assassinating PLO leader Khalil al-Wazir (Abu Jihad) in Tunis in 1988, removing a weighty restraint on Yassir Arafat. A lot less arguably, Israel scored an own-goal by killing Hizbollah chief Abbas Mussawi in 1992; his successor, the wily and charismatic Hassan Nasrallah, has become Israel’s deadliest enemy. Israel even managed to network its enemies shortly afterwards, summarily expelling 400 Hamas and intifada activists and depositing them on the Lebanese border. As an aide to the late Yitzhak Rabin would ruefully observe, “we might as well have sent them to Hizbollah’s university”.

Lebanon figures prominently in Israel’s balance sheet in other ways. The 1982 invasion of Lebanon is acknowledged even inside Israel as the country’s first war of choice. True, Ariel Sharon drove Arafat and the PLO out of Lebanon, albeit at permanent cost to Israel’s reputation after a siege of west Beirut that killed nearly twice as many people as the siege of Sarajevo in one-twentieth of the time.

But that invasion created Hizbollah. “When we entered Lebanon,” said former prime minister and current defence minister Ehud Barak, “there was no Hizbollah.” Rabin, the slain former soldier-premier, lamented how the invasion “let the genie out of the bottle”. Israeli officials now portray Hamas and Hizbollah as creatures in an Iranian grand design. But if Iran did not exist these two Islamist groups would exist – and Israel knows why. And, as backfires go, they do not come much bigger than Hizbollah.

The Shia Islamist group not only bombed the US out of Beirut in 1983 but also fought the Israeli army back to its border, forcing it out altogether by 2000, reliant, paradoxically, on superior intelligence. In their last test of arms, the 34-day summer war of 2006, Hizbollah stood its ground and mercilessly exposed the limits of Israel’s military power. Israel’s damning report from the Winograd Commission confirmed this – as did the pinnacle to which Hizbollah and its leader were raised across the Arab world.

...

Yet, beyond this or that particular incident, it does Israel’s cause no good to encourage the perception that it is a rogue state – especially after it stands accused of war crimes in Gaza by the Goldstone report commissioned by the United Nations. Even though Israel came into existence as a result of the international system built around the UN, its leaders have tended to take the view that international law does not really exist or, if it does, it simply does not apply to them. They have got away with it because they have been able to rely on the US veto in the Security Council, exercised 29 times to shield Israel’s behaviour in the occupied Palestinian territories and 11 times to protect its actions in Lebanon.

[Janet]

Boris Karloff eyes...via Instapundit

He really is scary.

[Can you believe it all?]

Propagandist Toad.
===========

[Jane]

The investigation angle might be the exact thing that the House needs to kill this bill. Rangel's ethics violations will be probed, Pelosi's lies to Congress can be fully investigated, and maybe we need a special prosecutor re: Holder's refusal to turn over FOIA stuff - oh the possibities are simply endless.

The voters won't like it. But I sure as hell will.

[Clarice]

JPod on the impossible choices the Dems face on HCR:http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/jpodhoretz/247021

[centralcal]

Well, Janet, the eyes are windows into the soul, some say.

Gore has eyes of the "insane."
Bambi has eyes of hate.

[SunnyDay]

"What was Obama Thinking?" - Daily Beast - fun read. LUN

after this six-and-a-half-hour civics lesson, let us now return to the Leninist mode: that of crushing the opposition. I'm not keen on health-care reform, but I do wish that Obama and his friends had hammered the thing through in its full, robust, vital form, with all the "radical" logic built in. They had the political momentum and mandate and yet got stuck—as they got stuck today—tossing out or diluting all the elements that had made it the (supposedly) progressive thing it was. I so much prefer it when the winning side does what it likes, unapologetically. There’s honesty in that, and dignity. And the other side respects you more, too.

[centralcal]

Jane, I am a voter. I like it! Investigate away.

[windansea]

From Mike Allen at Politico

APRES SUMMIT: He's going for it. Top officials at the House, Senate and White House all tell us their goal is to pass “the big bill” through reconciliation (simple majority, Democrats only) by Easter break (“Spring District Work Period”), which formally begins Monday, March 29 -- four full weeks away. (Easter is April 4.) “It’s feasible [for Congress] if they really want it to be, but we will see,” a senior administration official says. A Democratic official said the summit gave "a face to gridlock, in the form of House and Senate Republicans.”

Ironic (but accurate) headline -- Bloomberg News: "Obama Bipartisan Health Summit Clears Path to Party-Line Vote."

PLAYBOOK FACTS OF LIFE: For passage to look likely, the summit will need to produce a radical change in public opinion -- and specifically in states and districts where voters are most worried about the future. The aides tell us their bosses are going ahead on faith, even though there aren’t currently 50 votes in the Senate or 217 votes in the House. A House aide tells us the sales pitch to members who voted “no” before: “This is less of a government takeover of medicine, and more going after insurance companies.”

Another obstacle to the big-bill fast track: The House wants the Senate to go first, and the Senate wants the House to go first. They’re working out the choreography, and leadership aides tell us it's doable. (The most likely route: For parliamentary purposes, the House will "deem" (assume) it has passed the Senate bill so it can take up fixes.)

As Chris Matthews put it on “Hardball” last night: “Much as in a kidnapping, the money and the baby have to be turned over as much as possible at the precise same time.”

[narciso]

I guess this was not unexpected, in the LUn

[Janet]

The other death stare was Steny Hoyer trying to kill Harry Reid with his eyes. Hoyer rubbed his face so much while Reid droned on that I thought I saw some blood.
It was Dennis Miller that said Reid sounds like a stuck caulking gun! Haha

[Jane]

They don't have the votes for reconciliation and according to some democrat I forget the HOUse has to go first or it's dead. They lack 100 votes in the house.

It's dead.

[Clarice]

Conrad, Jane.

[Ranger]

So, I guess we have a new informal national holiday. Obamacare Day. Once a year Obama goes to Blair House and if he sees his shadow on the way, we get 4 more weeks of healthcare foolishness.

[Rick Ballard]

"The aides tell us their bosses are going ahead on faith, even though there aren’t currently 50 votes in the Senate or 217 votes in the House."

There must be some awfully big bullets in the gun that Ayers is holding to BOzo's head. Maybe it's considerably more than just writing BOzo's autobiography for him?

[narciso]

Reid is as clueless as the character Harrison Roberts, that Dick Smothers played him as in Casino.

[Janet]

Obamacare Day...small towns across America can have parades featuring victims on floats. Instead of beads, the featured victims can toss dentures to the crowd.

[sbw]

put the pedal to the medal

The Nobel medal?

[Porchlight]

What a photo, Janet. And that sure looks like the middle finger extended against his cheek.

[JJ]

As far as I can tell this is not dead at all, but close to being done with legislative gymnastics.

I mean, I hope it does die; but was there ever a time when politicians were bent on doing something this disconnected from their constituents' will? I am thinking...

[Danube of Thought]

This is one of several scenarios John Podhoretz lays out in an excellent article:

"House and Senate negotiators will meet to harmonize their two bills. They will then agree on a single unitary piece of legislation. That unitary piece of legislation must then go back to the full House and the full Senate for final passage, at which point it is sent to the president, who can sign it into law."

Question: if it goes that route, wouldn't it require a 60-vote cloture motion in the Senate? Or can they just describe anything at all as appropriate for reconciliation?

[Janet]

The new conservative hero phrase...LUN
"I object."
Senator Jim Bunning (R-KY)

[DebinNC]

There are 15 House Dems in the Stupak contingent who will likely remain NOs, since abortion funding is not going away. Are there enough Dems in the Kucinich contigent who voted NO, but will now vote YES if the "fix" includes a public option, giving Pelosi 217?

[Porchlight]

I had the same question, DoT, and was somewhat annoyed at Podhoretz for not being specific about it (since his post was specific on other similar points).

He also seemed to think there were 51 votes in the Senate for reconciliation. I don't think he's right about that.

[anduril]

Propagandist Toad.

I wish you'd put it like that before. Now I see the light.

[bgates]

sbw, I think he meant "pedal to the mettle" - to test how strong one's foot is.

[Captain Hate]

the eyes are windows into the soul, some say.

BOzo's look like the windows of a haunted house. Maybe he was reflecting on how much he hated Stanley Ann, who he'd just used as a prop.

[Janet]

Organizing For America/radio.barackobama.com is having a coordinated call in campaign today to talk radio. Powerline linked to the site and I looked around. One of the radio shows they are targeting is Thru The Bible. That is my Bible study program. It plays prerecorded lessons because the teacher J.V.MaGee died years ago. Does Organizing For America know this? They can't really call in to prerecorded shows.
There are no calls...or debate. It is just an old time Bible study.

[Captain Hate]

Janet, sounds like we're up against some real geniuses.

[matt]

if they are looking at 60 days, then that would be the end of April, when the weather turns nice in DC.

Sounds like a great moment for the sans culottes to show up with with pitchforks and rotten tomatos.

[Porchlight]

Actually DebinNC, I'm not sure that's quite right. My understanding was that there are a dozen or so Stupak Dems who voted YES for the House bill the first time because the Stupak amendment removed abortion funding, allowing them to vote for it. The Senate bill does have abortion funding, so if the House votes on it as is, those Dems may flip to NO. (I can't imagine the Stupak Dems who did vote NO could become YES votes at this point.)

The Kucinich Dems were YES votes for the House bill because it had a public option, correct? So in order to stay YES votes they may have to be promised a public option in the "fix" bill - which will then anger anti-public option Dems in the Senate.

Please tell me if I'm missing something - this makes your eyes cross after awhile.

[Janet]

Yeah Captain Hate...they just figured that show was one of their enemies because it had the word Bible in the title.

[Clarice]

Now darn it bgates, it is pedal to the metal, isn't it?

[JM Hanes]

This was my favorite bit from Clive Crook:

Asked to name some steps, moreover, the Republicans offered a few: tort reform, interstate competition, health savings accounts, high-risk pools. Small stuff, to be sure, but the Republicans did not come across as the party of no. They looked well-informed, pragmatic, and engaged in the discussion. It was the Democrats who leaned more heavily on talking points, and seemed evasive and unspecific. Go figure.

A la Janet, above, I'd refer him to Mark Hemingway: Astroturfing: Obama plans to flood conservative talk radio with liberal talking points.

Seems like just last week, it was: "Obama has no executive skills. Go figure."

[bgates]

They can't really call in to prerecorded shows.

Not only can they call in, they can then troll blogs pointing to the fact that they didn't get on the air as proof that conservative radio personalities are afraid of debate.

[Fresh Air]

Podhoretz predicted Hillary would be nominated, then Hillary would be selected as VP, Romney would be nominated, Romney would be VP, McCain would win, etc., etc.

How many more predictions of his do we have to experience before it's clear that he has no political analytical skills whatsoever. I mean, I like the guy. He's funny and I agree with his philosophies about 95 percent of the time. But as an analyst, he's a joke. I defer to Barone, Cost, Cook and Sabato...in that order on any subject involving electoral mechanics.

Of these four Barone has said they don't have the votes and Cook has said it would be an epic disaster for the Media if they pass ZeroCare. JPod can go back to writing columns for the Post or whatever it is he does, but he should stick to philosophy and avoid political science.

[tollhouse]

It's not stupidity, well not overt stupidity. They have all their Web 2.0 geniuses programing crawlers that aggregate all this information automagically. At no point is there anyone actually vetting this info. So GIGO. Same goes with the recovery.gov numbers that they were raked over a few months ago. This administration had some extremely good web guys but they are all of the superficial branding and creative side of things, not the analysis and production side of things. Gen X (mine) and later are full of these types.

[Clarice]

It could be me--I'm fighting off something and none too sharp witted--but I think the Dems have no idea where they are going next. Yesterday O said he'd give the Rep 6 weeks to come aboard; today there are reports of a rather fast Congressional vote.

I take this as a further sign that they haven't got the votes and haven't agreed on the Alphonse/Gaston choreography.

[Janet]

a comment from the Politico article on the coordinated call-in scheme - LUN
Leave it to the stupid Liberals to come up with such a slimy plan.
There are over 1,100 comments.

[Clarice]

I give the most weight to Barone and Cost, too, F.A.

[Cecil Turner]

Interesting article by Byron York that discusses the poll variance on health care (and why observers come away with wildly different interpretations):

But why do people support some elements of the bill while opposing the bill overall? Some Democrats blame Republican misinformation. Some believe it's because the bill isn't yet a reality, and people would love it, if it were only passed. Others say the public is just stupid.

Few Democrats can accept the possibility that voters are telling them their whole approach is wrong. Big, comprehensive legislative proposals just make people nervous.

I think he missed the main issue, which is cost. Most folks get the big picture, which is that health care costs are bankrupting us. Where the disagreement comes in is what to do about it. The Dem proposal, with absolutely nothing to control costs, will obviously not work in the long term. (And contra the Obama/Alexander discussion, it has little to do with premium changes based on coverage or shifting payments to the healthy youngsters.)

Once you wrap it up in a package, that becomes apparent (and support drops off precipitously). I suspect a comprehensive approach to actual cost control (starting with tort reform and competition across state lines) would poll quite well.

[Old Lurker]

"tort reform, interstate competition, health savings accounts, high-risk pools. Small stuff, to be sure"

JMH, that that list can be called small stuff is pretty remarkable.

DoT, I too would have thought that approach required 60 votes but truthfully, those guys have become so unteathered from facts, logic, laws and rules, nothing will surprise me.

All the nose counting aside, if they were bluffing I doubt they are now. If a graceful exit had been sought, they showed no interest in it yesterday. So I have a real concern they are going to do it.

[Janet]

conservative radio personalities are afraid of debate
Well, I don't think J.Vernon MaGee is afraid to debate so much as he is unable to debate because he is DEAD.

[Old Lurker]

He could still beat some of these dopes, Janet.

[Porchlight]

So I have a real concern they are going to do it.

For sure, they want to try, so they may not be bluffing on that point. But talk isn't votes. I don't see how they get there from here.

[Ignatz]

--He could still beat some of these dopes, Janet.--

No doubt about that OL. Sounded like one of the more homespun bumpkins from Dogpatch but was sharp as a tack.

[Clarice]

Maybe when we weren't looking ACORN registered some more Congressmen.

[Cecil Turner]

He could still beat some of these dopes, Janet.

I wouldn't count on it. In fact, I hear he's been voting Democrat lately.

[Pofarmer]

Holy cow, look at Wattsup.

[Old Lurker]

Porch, it is too close to take any comfort in what we think about the headcount from last time. And it is clear they will bribe folks with unimaginable riches.

Remember these are textbook Ends Justify the Means people and accomplishing Nationalized Medicine is the Holy Grail for them. In their world, the is a profile in courage moment.

[Victor H]

“This is less of a government takeover of medicine, and more going after insurance companies.”

Yes, by mandating the millions of people buy policies from these insurance companies or face fines and jail time. Yep, that is looking out for the citizens and sticking it to the insurance companies.

And how can adding in the public option to the senate bill at this point, which would basically result in the government takeover of 1/6th of our economy, be considered just a budget reconciling item?

If this thing passes, and the GOP takeovers both houses and Presidency in 2012, the first day they should revoke this bill (of course by using reconciliation in the senate). Or even better, win both houses in 2010, and figure out a way to de-fund this thing (i.e. maybe exclude it from the budget and if Barry doesn't like it he can veto it and be responsible for shutting down government...and as a side benefit saving us some money).

[Old Lurker]

Don't get me wrong...I really really hope they crash and burn!

[Pofarmer]

Top officials at the House, Senate and White House all tell us their goal is to pass “the big bill” through reconciliation (simple majority, Democrats only) by Easter break (“Spring District Work Period”),

I think this sign is appropriate.

http://newsjunkiepost.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/912-TeaParty-DC-We-came-unarmed-this-time.jpg" alt="">

[Porchlight]

True, OL, we certainly don't know the calculus behind the scenes or what the bribe situation looks like.

FWIW Kim Strassel has a pretty good summary of best guesses here: WSJ: The Summit Sideshow

[glasater]

Kucinich was on O'reilly last night and he doesn't think there are enough votes in the House to pass the Senate bill.
He may not even vote for it......

[Old Lurker]

I guess what makes me most nervous is that their position seems so completely ludicrous by all traditional political measures, and it cannot be that everyone on that side is so wrong. (As Appalled has pointed out, it is not that they are all stupid and at the same time) Which makes me question my own calculations.

IF they do pull it off, then I assume we will have a unified national platform for November to "Repeal it All" and if so, then as was pointed out yesterday, this will not be over until November.

[DrJ]

competition across state lines

This may be a dumb question, but how is this supposed to work practically?

Suppose I in CA want to buy a lower-cost policy from KY or ND (for example). To be issued it would have to conform the CA requirements, which presumably they would not. One attraction of buying out-of-state is being able to purchase a policy that does not include coverage for gender-change surgery, for example. Would the Feds override states rights in this issue? Or would that policy still have to conform with state law?

Next, How would these out-of-state companies negotiate for services for the docs and hospitals in which I am interested? Presumably I could get care in KY or ND, but any coverage here would be out-of-network, and much more expensive.

What am I missing?

[Jane]

I'm telling you - they are 100 votes short in the house.

We've seen this about 10 times: "Health care will pass before we break. We have the votes, blah blah blah."

They can puff all they want, they do not have the votes.

[Charlie (Colorado)]

I wish you'd put it like that before. Now I see the light.

I don't know about the light, but look around carefully and see if you notice any polyps.

[Carol Herman]

The votes aren't there. Was the Blair House "show on C-Span" an attempt by the president to fulfill his promise to Brian Lamb? Why not? He's probably concerned the he had promised one thing. But it didn't clear the 'secrecy option.'

Moving the needle? No. What was lacking? You'd have to ask Ron Popeil. Because you'd be told "selling is easy." But first you have to be committed to a product that people want. And, then you massage that product so that when people gather round they see a bargain. It would be a lost opportunity not to buy it immediately.

But SHAM-WOW? No way. The Bamster didn't close.

[glasater]

The Reconciliation Rulebook

[Old Lurker]

DrJ, I don't think you are missing anything. I know the idea is that individual state mandates will not apply, and that will push the floor down. But you are absolutley correct that (as CathyF always explains) part of the service provided is for the insurance comopany to negotiate with the providers and I'm not sure how a small company in Ky can do that for my docs in DC. So on its face, that will limit some of the upside. OTOH, I can see simple workarounds that a creative industry could come up with to handle the mechanics. (Like letting the biggies beat up the local providers and then have the small cos piggyback on that work). In any event, implicit but not yet stated is that the costs ARE higher in DC than Lexington KY, and so it is only right that premiums also be higher here.

[Old Lurker]

Jane, I have rarley wanted you and Clarice to be right and me wrong than on this!

:-)

[Old Lurker]

rarely

[DrJ]

OL,

Thanks for that. While I do support the idea of lowering mandated coverage, it does seem to be a major intrusion of the Feds into the affairs of a state that in other circumstances would have people screaming.

It probably also would bankrupt many of the smaller local or regional insurance companies hobbled by existing state mandates. The larger ones (like BC/BS) undoubtedly would find a way to do this negotiation. Why or how a smaller company could piggy-back onto their work is not at all clear to me.

And yes, the costs in a major metropolitan area are higher than it is for those in the boonies. Cost of living, specialization/expertise, ability to pay, and so forth.

[Old Lurker]

Two points, DrJ:

1) My comment above about these guys being unteathered from the usual rules, etc...

2) You forgot the real objective: bankrupt the insurance industry so the government has to step in and do it.

Stay awake!

[Janet]

Gore has eyes of the "insane."

Or did you mean the hair of the insane centralcal? Hahaha

[Old Lurker]

I have a bad spelling virus I think...

[bgates]

They have all their Web 2.0 geniuses programing crawlers that aggregate all this information automagically. At no point is there anyone actually vetting this info

That's how they've been writing the legislation, too.

[bgates]

Clarice, I think it might be "peddle to the metal" - for when you are in a hurry to sell stuff to hard rock bands.

[Extraneus]

Nice analysis of the tea partyers from the LAT, linked at Ace's:

The partyers are essentially replaying the '60s protest paradigm. (We're aging boomers ourselves, so we know it when we see it.) They fancy themselves the vanguard of a revolution, when in fact they are typical self-absorbed, privileged children used to having their way -- now -- and uninhibited about complaining loudly when they don't. It's the same demographic Spiro Agnew called "an effete corps of impudent snobs who characterize themselves as intellectuals."

[qrstuv]

"After all, what's the point of winning elections if you don't get to push through your policy agenda?"

Reason #4,902 why I don't read Megan McArdle.

[DrJ]

OL, I thought this was the Republican position. I had no idea they were interested in bankrupting the insurance companies so the gov't could step in. I must be behind in my reading!

[Cecil Turner]

I know the idea is that individual state mandates will not apply . . .

That's it in a nutshell. The effect of those mandates is significant:

Overall, these results provide solid evidence that the state-level regulations of health insurance are correlated with higher premiums. The regression model estimates that the presence of health plan liability laws increases monthly premiums by $21.84. Laws that give subscribers direct access to specialists increase monthly premiums by $31.15. Provider due process laws increase premiums by $16.62. Finally, each additional mandated benefit increases premiums by $0.75. All of these findings achieve statistical significance.

The contention is that eliminating state mandates would save some money (though the savings would probably be significantly less than the premium increase estimates), and increase competition in areas currently served by only one (or very few) provider.

[Fresh Air]

They can puff all they want, they do not have the votes.

I think we have a really, really profound Emperor/Fuhrer complex going on.

Zero is totally deluded and no one on his staff will tell him. Reid and Pelosi are too cowardly. Emanuel's on the hot seat himself, and so Axelgrease volunteered to put his OFA goons on the case "just like in the old days" during the campaign when they smeared Kurtz on Milt Rosenberg's show.

They're down six, have the ball, but they're on their own 10 with 45 seconds to go and just threw an incomplete pass. And Zero's sycophants are preparing to douse him with the Gatorade bucket.

[Ignatz]

--Thanks for that. While I do support the idea of lowering mandated coverage, it does seem to be a major intrusion of the Feds into the affairs of a state that in other circumstances would have people screaming.--

While I deplore the abuse of the interstate commerce clause and often wish it had never even been inserted, what we have presently is the unequal application of the law. What otherwise nationwide industry is so shackled by regulations preventing interstate commerce?
I strongly suspect that if interstate policies were available overwhelming public pressure wuld very soon render the state's onerous regs null and void, once people found out they could buy cheaper and more flexible policies out of state.
Presently people see no choice
because there is no choice so they assume choice isn't even possible.

[Porchlight]

While I do support the idea of lowering mandated coverage, it does seem to be a major intrusion of the Feds into the affairs of a state that in other circumstances would have people screaming.

This is indeed a serious problem. When I've seen it brought up by Republicans in analyses it's been more along the lines of "if we're going to dismantle the current system of state mandates let's at least do it in a way that allows more freedom of choice for consumers, not less."

But it does seem like a difficult issue.

[Dave (in MA)]

">http://www.moonbattery.com/Barack-Obama-arrogance.jpg">
Now we know why he uses this posture all the time. It's so that his Nose Czar can see if there's anything that needs picking and let him know.

[Melinda Romanoff]

OL-

It's a virus uniqke to this site. I think the host patient lives near DC.

[Extraneus]

Newsweek loses $28M in 2009.

ATTEMPTS by Newsweek CEO Tom Ascheim and Editor-in-Chief Jon Meacham to reshape the magazine into a lower-circulation weekly with a more Economist-like feel do not seem to be paying off.

Heh.

[Neo]

The history of AGW

[Sara (Pal2Pal)]

The voice of a man who got hammered when he went home:

Sen. Ben Nelson (D., Neb.) says (for whatever it is worth) that he doesn't know if Democrats have the votes to do a comprehensive bill:

"We may be forced to doing healthcare -- to use my analogy -- by making a pie a piece at a time, which is typically not the preferred way to handle legislation," the senator added. "But this is so big, and has so many moving parts and has so many supporters and detractors, that maybe that's the only thing you can do. Grab a piece of it here, grab a piece of it there and try to put together as much of it as you can."

[Extraneus]

What otherwise nationwide industry is so shackled by regulations preventing interstate commerce?

The wine industry?

[Melinda Romanoff]

Neo-

Don't bother to read the WSJ whitewash/apologist front page piece today on the IPCC. Bleech.

[Appalled]

While I do support the idea of lowering mandated coverage, it does seem to be a major intrusion of the Feds into the affairs of a state that in other circumstances would have people screaming.

Dr J:

State insurance regulation is actually contrary to the Framer's intent, as expressed in the interstate commerce clause. Congress, in a monumentally lousy lousy bill passed back in the 40s, enabled this.

[Dave (in MA)]

Extraneus, isn't the wine industry's regulatory problem on a state-by-state basis, though?

[DrJ]

The wine industry?

Ugh. Try to purchase or ship a bottle of wine into OL's state of MD. Former: state store. Latter: impossible without a middleman. MA, NY and PA are nearly as bad.

[Sara (Pal2Pal)]

It is only going to get worse. With Andy Stern, the head of the SEIU thugs, appointed to the so-called debt commission and Obama insisting that the government contracts go to the union shops.

[Neo]

Well, let me just say that I inherited this property from my grandfather when he passed away. He was a war veteran and a little bit eccentric when it came to guns. Long story short, he buried a bunch of land mines in his backyard. I had no idea until the first idiot mowing my lawn ran over one and it exploded. He lost his right leg and then sued me like a little whining baby, claiming it was my fault.

The waiver pretty much says you won't sue me if you hurt yourself by detonating a mine.

LOL

[Clarice]

Dr J, I am not sure I understand your concerns. Car insurance is not subject to the same shackles although surely states have some different requirements and you can go online to purchase it from anywhere in the country, paying a different price depending , among other things, in what state the car is located.

I suppose companies which find one state's requirements onerous will not sell policies in that state.

[Dave (in MA)]

DrJ, I was given a beer of the month gift subscription once for Christmas. The first 6-pack arrived in early April after the company finally figured out how to make arrangements with a locally-based middleman, and the bottles had January sell-by dates on them. This was concurrent with receiving a note from the vendor saying that they had to cancel my subscription and offer a refund on the balance because the state's regulations made it too difficult to do business in MA.

[Soylent Red]

Just saying.

[Old Lurker]

:-) DrJ...just showing off my ability to sell it either as a glitch or as a feature!

You are right, of course, selling nationwide is meant to be a Rep position that on balance is a good thing. It does have the two implications you raised re state mandates and network pricing. As a victim of state mandates here in MD (gender changing for convicts not being the worst abuse), I'm not sorry to see that little fiefdom go away, and I do imagine they will work around the network issue.

[Extraneus]

Extraneus, isn't the wine industry's regulatory problem on a state-by-state basis, though?

Yes, but isn't that the same thing? Some states will let their citizens buy out-of-state plans and will remove any barriers that might otherwise prevent them from doing so. Other states will pile regulations on in order to protect their in-state companies and will get the pitchfork treatment once the people realize what the game is.