When protesters marched on washington a few weeks ago, one of the most common rallying cries was that congress was disconnected from the opinions of the American people.  They argued that Americans were outraged that congress was (among other things) shoving a healthcare bill down American’s throats that they don’t want.  I found this to be a curious charge, considering the bipartisan calls for healthcare reform that have grown louder over the last few decades.  But maybe the protesters had something there.  Perhaps it’s true that congress has become disconnected from what mainstream Americans want out of all this healthcare reform talk.  Fortunately, a few polls have been released recently which give us some insight into how the public feels about the public option , perhaps the most famous, most misunderstood, and most contentious element of the healthcare plans proposed thus far.

First up is an ABC news poll released Sept 14th, shortly after the president’s healthcare address.  The entire poll is interesting (found here) but in regards to the public plan the numbers were close but clear:

“On specifics in the health care plan, 55 percent support a so-called public option, with 42 percent opposed – slightly less opposition than in last month’s 52-46 percent division, but still shy of the initial reaction in June, 62-33 percent support.”

Notice the reference to numbers from earlier in the summer, when support for the public option started out strong, and then dipped significantly in popularity through July and August.  Clearly the townhall protests, the “death panels”, the abortion furor, and the numerous other healthcare reform myths had taken their toll.  So was the slightly aleviated opposition after Obama’s speech a blip on the radar or a sign of a turning tide?

If the recently released NYT/CBS poll is to be believed then the tide has turned indeed.  Here are their numbers on the public plan:

What surprises me most is that they threw “like medicare” into the language of the question which, in my opinion, makes the public option seem more socialistic than it actually is, and still the result was dramatic.  Perhaps some of this increase in support can be explained by a bloomberg poll, released in between the two afformentioned polls, which asked those surveyed to rate the validity of various claims they’ve heard about healthcare reform.  Here are the results:

While these wild charges were certainly making headway at first, it seems that the fact-checkers have caught up and most Americans have, by now, recognized them as non-issues.

While not representative of America as a whole, another poll released a couple weeks back asked America’s physicians what they thought of the public plan:

“When given a three-way choice among private plans that use tax credits or subsidies to help the poor buy private insurance; a new public health insurance plan such as Medicare; or a mix of the two; 63 percent of doctors supported a mix, 27 percent said they only wanted private options, and just 10 percent said they exclusively wanted public options.”

To clarify, the “mix” option refers to the public plan which would compete with private insurers, and the “new public health insurance plan such as medicare” refers to single-payer healthcare ala Canada.  This means that a full 73% of doctors support either a public option or something far stronger.  This is not surprising to me having come recently from a CMA conference in LA where I heard republican physician after republican physician extol the benefits of healthcare reform and lament the lack of competition in the private insurance industry.

So lest my tentative support of the Baucus bill confuse anyone, I count myself among the 65% of Americans who would support a public plan.  The co-ops of the Baucus Bill, while better than nothing, aren’t shaping up to be strong enough to have the negotiating power necessary to substantially lower premiums or lower long-term costs as efficiently as a public option.  While I’m nearly always in favor of political pragmatism, and I believe compromise is superior to partisanship even when one has the power to make their ideals law, I feel it should be noted that the public option was a proposal that came pre-compromised.  It was, in itself, an attempt to bridge the gap between the liberal and conservative theories of healthcare reform.  And as recent polls have shown us, it remains a mainstream, moderate choice.  And if these polls weren’t evidence enough, Bill O’Rielly came out in support of the public plan recently.  I’m not kidding! And when both Keith Olberman and Bill O’Rielly agree on a policy proposal, maybe that’s a sign we have found a reasonable compromise.

So perhaps the tea-party protesters were right in a way.  Maybe congress isn’t listening to the public on this one.  How else could we, with a democratically controlled congress, and a democratic president now be laying our hopes on a healthcare reform plan that does not include a public option, and thus lies to the right of the feelings of most Americans and the large majority of doctors?

Honestly I think it was a strategic issue more than anything else.  Had Obama come in pushing a more liberal plan we might be happily settling on a public option right now.  But, as he has on bills past, Obama attempted to bridge the gap first, then present the plan.  But I think we’ve learned that no amount of concessions prior to coming to the negotiating table will placate those who simply don’t want Obama’s presidency to succeed.  One of the things I liked about Obama during the election was that he consistently expressed a calm faith in the ability of Americans and congress to overcome partisanship.  Perhaps he gave us too much credit?  I hope not.  At the very least we’ve learned that acting as if we’re living in a post-partisan America, isn’t enough to make it so.

If you liked this article, subscribe to posts here: http://thefactofmyignorance.com/post_notification_header/

Or sign up for the FactofMyIgnorance RSS feed here: feed://thefactofmyignorance.com/feed/

No related posts.

As the battle for healthcare reform rages on, many of the myths that I once expected to quietly die have instead become stronger and more entrenched. In particular, the degree of misunderstanding surrounding the “public plan” portion of healthcare reform proposals continues to astound me, both on the Right and the Left. I addressed some of those concerns in a post last week entitled “All About the Public Plan” and I think some of the misconceptions I discussed in that article have pertinence to the discussion of alternate reform mechanisms as well. Especially in regards to Co-ops, I think misunderstandings on the part of the Left have hobbled any chance at real discussion of this viable public plan alternative. So hopefully this will help clear some things up:

What is the Healthcare Co-op?

First off, it’s important to know that when we’re talking about co-ops, we’re not talking about the local health insurance co-operatives found in states like Wisconsin. CNN recently wrote an entire article while apparently operating under this misunderstanding, and pretty much all of the statements deriding co-ops that have come from Gov. Tom Pawlenty recently also fall into this category. We are talking about a single, national co-operative or small group of cooperatives, given special permission to compete nationally across state lines to provide competition to the overly-consolidated private health insurance markets. To fully understand this type of co-op, you should first go back and read “All About the Public Plan” if you haven’t already. Seriously, you won’t understand this article without it. I’ll wait… Okay, are you done? Do you understand what the Public Plan is? The Co-op is exactly the same, except administered by elected board members rather than government appointed officials. Literally, that is the only difference I have been able to come up with.

Disadvantages of the

Healthcare Co-op

Now I should clarify that the Co-op idea has the potential to be exactly the same as public plan proposals, and would likely function almost exactly like the public plan, but since no bill has actually been written up with a co-op component, we can’t say for sure yet exactly what it would be like. Sen. Kent Conrad, one of the first to propose co-ops in the context of the current healthcare reform debate has said that they could operate on a state level, a regional level, or a national level. It’s a national healthcare co-op that would function like a public plan. State or regional co-ops would probably be beneficial but would not have nearly the same strength in bargaining power as a national co-op or a public plan and thus would be a less formidable competitor to private insurers. So this remaining ambiguity is certainly one disadvantage to dumping the public option in favor of a co-op.

The only other reasonable argument I’ve heard against the healthcare co-op is that since administrators would not be appointed by the government, it’s not a guarantee that the co-op would remain dedicated to its original mission of lowering America’s insurance premiums. There’s not much to prevent the administrators of the co-op from pursuing the interests of their organization over those of the American people should they ever come into conflict. The primary situation in which that might occur would be if the co-op became too successful and threatened the fabric of our private insurance industry. In that situation, those not participating in the healthcare co-op would not have any direct input into its operations, while those who are members would have only an incentive to increase the size of their organization to grow their risk pool. Of course we’d still have some control over the co-op through legislation, but as we’ve seen that can be a slow and arduous process. In other words, a government administered program would theoretically give the American people (through our elected officials) somewhat more direct and time-sensitive control over how the plan operates.

Advantages of the

Healthcare Co-op

While I’ve stated several times in the past that I believe it to be very unlikely that a public plan would bankrupt private industry, it’s impossible to say that it could never happen. With that in mind a state or regionally based healthcare co-op plan would essentially eliminate that risk, which should ease the minds of conservative reform opponents.

But I think the primary advantage is political. It’s clear that, due to unfortunate naming, insurance company smear tactics, and the white house’s perplexing decision to sit back and let the wings define the debate for the first several months, the public plan has become a very, very controversial proposal. To many conservatives it has become synonymous with “Socialized medicine” and a “government takeover of healthcare”. If a strong, national, healthcare co-op would give us nearly the same result without the controversy then it seems like the logical choice.

I know some are frustrated with that option because they see it as a sign of giving in to misinformation. Yes it’s true that the Public plan has been unfairly smeared and is almost universally misunderstood. Yes it’s true that if it were abandoned, healthcare reform opponents would trumpet from the hilltops that they were clearly right all along and that their protests and screaming had succeeded in averting socialism. The liars would be gratified and the screamers would not learn their lessons, and that would be frustrating. But there will always be liars and there will always be screamers. One win or loss on one item of policy will not change that. Are we willing to accept no reform at all in place of a healthcare system with a strong national co-op, or even strong regional co-ops, for reasons that essentially amount to pride?

Unfortunately I’ve found that this is a frequent occurance in politics. Idealogues often get their way because they’re loud and more than willing to lie their faces off. But if anything is going to be accomplished then somebody has to compromise, and it won’t be them. And in the end, I think it’s less about who believes they won or lost and more about the end result for the American people. I think the most noble policy makers are those who pragmatically seek the best result for their constituents. They’re rarely anyone’s hero, they don’t often make the news, and they don’t have a rabid fan base since they’re not out there boldly and defiantly waving some ideological banner. But they’re the one’s we can thank for most of the positive change that has actually been enacted over the years.

Conclusion

So is the co-op the way to go? If that’s what we have to do to get a bill passed, then I say yes. And all signs from the Senate say that the public plan is a no-go there. I’m all in favor of a public plan, I think it’s the superior choice. But not by so much that healthcare reform is worthless without it. I think it’s wise to push the public plan as much as we can and fight the misunderstanding that’s out there. But when it becomes clear that it will not succeed, we need to accept the co-op and move forward as quickly as possible, before the next smear campaign has time to gain momentum. I really liked what Pres. Obama had to say about this subject in his healthcare address last week actually. and I’ll let his words close out this article.

“It’s worth noting that a strong majority of Americans still favor a public insurance option of the sort I’ve proposed tonight. But its impact shouldn’t be exaggerated – by the left, the right, or the media. It is only one part of my plan, and should not be used as a handy excuse for the usual Washington ideological battles. To my progressive friends, I would remind you that for decades, the driving idea behind reform has been to end insurance company abuses and make coverage affordable for those without it. The public option is only a means to that end – and we should remain open to other ideas that accomplish our ultimate goal. And to my Republican friends, I say that rather than making wild claims about a government takeover of health care, we should work together to address any legitimate concerns you may have.

For example, some have suggested that that the public option go into effect only in those markets where insurance companies are not providing affordable policies. Others propose a co-op or another non-profit entity to administer the plan. These are all constructive ideas worth exploring. But I will not back down on the basic principle that if Americans can’t find affordable coverage, we will provide you with a choice. And I will make sure that no government bureaucrat or insurance company bureaucrat gets between you and the care that you need.”

If you liked this article, subscribe to posts here: http://thefactofmyignorance.com/post_notification_header/

Or sign up for the FactofMyIgnorance RSS feed here: feed://thefactofmyignorance.com/feed/

No related posts.

For those who didn’t get to see it last night, I give you Obama’s healthcare speech, in both video form and text form (after the jump).  Frankly, it was better than I expected.  He effectively summarized the rational for many of the most controversial reform elements, and added in enough personal stories and emotional appeals to keep it from becoming too dense with policy details.  I also thought he did a fair job of criticizing some of the tactics that have been used by his opponents, while promoting cooperation.  I sincerely hope that the olive branch of tort reform Obama extended last night was in good faith, and that the republicans will actually become more cooperative as a result.  It would be nice if it felt like congress was actually trying to do what they thought was best for the country and not what they thought was best for their party or their political future.  Hit the read link to see the full text.

Madame Speaker, Vice President Biden, Members of Congress, and the American people:

When I spoke here last winter, this nation was facing the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. We were losing an average of 700,000 jobs per month. Credit was frozen. And our financial system was on the verge of collapse.

As any American who is still looking for work or a way to pay their bills will tell you, we are by no means out of the woods. A full and vibrant recovery is many months away. And I will not let up until those Americans who seek jobs can find them; until those businesses that seek capital and credit can thrive; until all responsible homeowners can stay in their homes. That is our ultimate goal. But thanks to the bold and decisive action we have taken since January, I can stand here with confidence and say that we have pulled this economy back from the brink.

I want to thank the members of this body for your efforts and your support in these last several months, and especially those who have taken the difficult votes that have put us on a path to recovery. I also want to thank the American people for their patience and resolve during this trying time for our nation.

But we did not come here just to clean up crises. We came to build a future. So tonight, I return to speak to all of you about an issue that is central to that future – and that is the issue of health care.

I am not the first President to take up this cause, but I am determined to be the last. It has now been nearly a century since Theodore Roosevelt first called for health care reform. And ever since, nearly every President and Congress, whether Democrat or Republican, has attempted to meet this challenge in some way. A bill for comprehensive health reform was first introduced by John Dingell Sr. in 1943. Sixty-five years later, his son continues to introduce that same bill at the beginning of each session.

Our collective failure to meet this challenge – year after year, decade after decade – has led us to a breaking point. Everyone understands the extraordinary hardships that are placed on the uninsured, who live every day just one accident or illness away from bankruptcy. These are not primarily people on welfare. These are middle-class Americans. Some can’t get insurance on the job. Others are self-employed, and can’t afford it, since buying insurance on your own costs you three times as much as the coverage you get from your employer. Many other Americans who are willing and able to pay are still denied insurance due to previous illnesses or conditions that insurance companies decide are too risky or expensive to cover.

We are the only advanced democracy on Earth – the only wealthy nation – that allows such hardships for millions of its people. There are now more than thirty million American citizens who cannot get coverage. In just a two year period, one in every three Americans goes without health care coverage at some point. And every day, 14,000 Americans lose their coverage. In other words, it can happen to anyone.

But the problem that plagues the health care system is not just a problem of the uninsured. Those who do have insurance have never had less security and stability than they do today. More and more Americans worry that if you move, lose your job, or change your job, you’ll lose your health insurance too. More and more Americans pay their premiums, only to discover that their insurance company has dropped their coverage when they get sick, or won’t pay the full cost of care. It happens every day.

One man from Illinois lost his coverage in the middle of chemotherapy because his insurer found that he hadn’t reported gallstones that he didn’t even know about. They delayed his treatment, and he died because of it. Another woman from Texas was about to get a double mastectomy when her insurance company canceled her policy because she forgot to declare a case of acne. By the time she had her insurance reinstated, her breast cancer more than doubled in size. That is heart-breaking, it is wrong, and no one should be treated that way in the United States of America.

Then there’s the problem of rising costs. We spend one-and-a-half times more per person on health care than any other country, but we aren’t any healthier for it. This is one of the reasons that insurance premiums have gone up three times faster than wages. It’s why so many employers – especially small businesses – are forcing their employees to pay more for insurance, or are dropping their coverage entirely. It’s why so many aspiring entrepreneurs cannot afford to open a business in the first place, and why American businesses that compete internationally – like our automakers – are at a huge disadvantage. And it’s why those of us with health insurance are also paying a hidden and growing tax for those without it – about $1000 per year that pays for somebody else’s emergency room and charitable care.

Finally, our health care system is placing an unsustainable burden on taxpayers. When health care costs grow at the rate they have, it puts greater pressure on programs like Medicare and Medicaid. If we do nothing to slow these skyrocketing costs, we will eventually be spending more on Medicare and Medicaid than every other government program combined. Put simply, our health care problem is our deficit problem. Nothing else even comes close.

These are the facts. Nobody disputes them. We know we must reform this system. The question is how.

There are those on the left who believe that the only way to fix the system is through a single-payer system like Canada’s, where we would severely restrict the private insurance market and have the government provide coverage for everyone. On the right, there are those who argue that we should end the employer-based system and leave individuals to buy health insurance on their own.

I have to say that there are arguments to be made for both approaches. But either one would represent a radical shift that would disrupt the health care most people currently have. Since health care represents one-sixth of our economy, I believe it makes more sense to build on what works and fix what doesn’t, rather than try to build an entirely new system from scratch. And that is precisely what those of you in Congress have tried to do over the past several months.

During that time, we have seen Washington at its best and its worst.

We have seen many in this chamber work tirelessly for the better part of this year to offer thoughtful ideas about how to achieve reform. Of the five committees asked to develop bills, four have completed their work, and the Senate Finance Committee announced today that it will move forward next week. That has never happened before. Our overall efforts have been supported by an unprecedented coalition of doctors and nurses; hospitals, seniors’ groups and even drug companies – many of whom opposed reform in the past. And there is agreement in this chamber on about eighty percent of what needs to be done, putting us closer to the goal of reform than we have ever been.

But what we have also seen in these last months is the same partisan spectacle that only hardens the disdain many Americans have toward their own government. Instead of honest debate, we have seen scare tactics. Some have dug into unyielding ideological camps that offer no hope of compromise. Too many have used this as an opportunity to score short-term political points, even if it robs the country of our opportunity to solve a long-term challenge. And out of this blizzard of charges and counter-charges, confusion has reigned.

Well the time for bickering is over. The time for games has passed. Now is the season for action. Now is when we must bring the best ideas of both parties together, and show the American people that we can still do what we were sent here to do. Now is the time to deliver on health care.

The plan I’m announcing tonight would meet three basic goals:

It will provide more security and stability to those who have health insurance. It will provide insurance to those who don’t. And it will slow the growth of health care costs for our families, our businesses, and our government. It’s a plan that asks everyone to take responsibility for meeting this challenge – not just government and insurance companies, but employers and individuals. And it’s a plan that incorporates ideas from Senators and Congressmen; from Democrats and Republicans – and yes, from some of my opponents in both the primary and general election.

Here are the details that every American needs to know about this plan:

First, if you are among the hundreds of millions of Americans who already have health insurance through your job, Medicare, Medicaid, or the VA, nothing in this plan will require you or your employer to change the coverage or the doctor you have. Let me repeat this: nothing in our plan requires you to change what you have.

What this plan will do is to make the insurance you have work better for you. Under this plan, it will be against the law for insurance companies to deny you coverage because of a pre-existing condition. As soon as I sign this bill, it will be against the law for insurance companies to drop your coverage when you get sick or water it down when you need it most. They will no longer be able to place some arbitrary cap on the amount of coverage you can receive in a given year or a lifetime. We will place a limit on how much you can be charged for out-of-pocket expenses, because in the United States of America, no one should go broke because they get sick. And insurance companies will be required to cover, with no extra charge, routine checkups and preventive care, like mammograms and colonoscopies – because there’s no reason we shouldn’t be catching diseases like breast cancer and colon cancer before they get worse. That makes sense, it saves money, and it saves lives.

That’s what Americans who have health insurance can expect from this plan – more security and stability.

Now, if you’re one of the tens of millions of Americans who don’t currently have health insurance, the second part of this plan will finally offer you quality, affordable choices. If you lose your job or change your job, you will be able to get coverage. If you strike out on your own and start a small business, you will be able to get coverage. We will do this by creating a new insurance exchange – a marketplace where individuals and small businesses will be able to shop for health insurance at competitive prices. Insurance companies will have an incentive to participate in this exchange because it lets them compete for millions of new customers. As one big group, these customers will have greater leverage to bargain with the insurance companies for better prices and quality coverage. This is how large companies and government employees get affordable insurance. It’s how everyone in this Congress gets affordable insurance. And it’s time to give every American the same opportunity that we’ve given ourselves.

For those individuals and small businesses who still cannot afford the lower-priced insurance available in the exchange, we will provide tax credits, the size of which will be based on your need. And all insurance companies that want access to this new marketplace will have to abide by the consumer protections I already mentioned. This exchange will take effect in four years, which will give us time to do it right. In the meantime, for those Americans who can’t get insurance today because they have pre-existing medical conditions, we will immediately offer low-cost coverage that will protect you against financial ruin if you become seriously ill. This was a good idea when Senator John McCain proposed it in the campaign, it’s a good idea now, and we should embrace it.

Now, even if we provide these affordable options, there may be those – particularly the young and healthy – who still want to take the risk and go without coverage. There may still be companies that refuse to do right by their workers. The problem is, such irresponsible behavior costs all the rest of us money. If there are affordable options and people still don’t sign up for health insurance, it means we pay for those people’s expensive emergency room visits. If some businesses don’t provide workers health care, it forces the rest of us to pick up the tab when their workers get sick, and gives those businesses an unfair advantage over their competitors. And unless everybody does their part, many of the insurance reforms we seek – especially requiring insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions – just can’t be achieved.

That’s why under my plan, individuals will be required to carry basic health insurance – just as most states require you to carry auto insurance. Likewise, businesses will be required to either offer their workers health care, or chip in to help cover the cost of their workers. There will be a hardship waiver for those individuals who still cannot afford coverage, and 95% of all small businesses, because of their size and narrow profit margin, would be exempt from these requirements. But we cannot have large businesses and individuals who can afford coverage game the system by avoiding responsibility to themselves or their employees. Improving our health care system only works if everybody does their part.

While there remain some significant details to be ironed out, I believe a broad consensus exists for the aspects of the plan I just outlined: consumer protections for those with insurance, an exchange that allows individuals and small businesses to purchase affordable coverage, and a requirement that people who can afford insurance get insurance.

And I have no doubt that these reforms would greatly benefit Americans from all walks of life, as well as the economy as a whole. Still, given all the misinformation that’s been spread over the past few months, I realize that many Americans have grown nervous about reform. So tonight I’d like to address some of the key controversies that are still out there.

Some of people’s concerns have grown out of bogus claims spread by those whose only agenda is to kill reform at any cost. The best example is the claim, made not just by radio and cable talk show hosts, but prominent politicians, that we plan to set up panels of bureaucrats with the power to kill off senior citizens. Such a charge would be laughable if it weren’t so cynical and irresponsible. It is a lie, plain and simple.

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 one more misunderstanding I want to clear up – under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions, and federal conscience laws will remain in place.

My health care proposal has also been attacked by some who oppose reform as a “government takeover” of the entire health care system. As proof, critics point to a provision in our plan that allows the uninsured and small businesses to choose a publicly-sponsored insurance option, administered by the government just like Medicaid or Medicare.

So let me set the record straight. My guiding principle is, and always has been, that consumers do better when there is choice and competition. Unfortunately, in 34 states, 75% of the insurance market is controlled by five or fewer companies. In Alabama, almost 90% is controlled by just one company. Without competition, the price of insurance goes up and the quality goes down. And it makes it easier for insurance companies to treat their customers badly – by cherry-picking the healthiest individuals and trying to drop the sickest; by overcharging small businesses who have no leverage; and by jacking up rates.

Insurance executives don’t do this because they are bad people. They do it because it’s profitable. As one former insurance executive testified before Congress, insurance companies are not only encouraged to find reasons to drop the seriously ill; they are rewarded for it. All of this is in service of meeting what this former executive called “Wall Street’s relentless profit expectations.”

Now, I have no interest in putting insurance companies out of business. They provide a legitimate service, and employ a lot of our friends and neighbors. I just want to hold them accountable. The insurance reforms that I’ve already mentioned would do just that. But an additional step we can take to keep insurance companies honest is by making a not-for-profit public option available in the insurance exchange. Let me be clear – it would only be an option for those who don’t have insurance. No one would be forced to choose it, and it would not impact those of you who already have insurance. In fact, based on Congressional Budget Office estimates, we believe that less than 5% of Americans would sign up.

Despite all this, the insurance companies and their allies don’t like this idea. They argue that these private companies can’t fairly compete with the government. And they’d be right if taxpayers were subsidizing this public insurance option. But they won’t be. I have insisted that like any private insurance company, the public insurance option would have to be self-sufficient and rely on the premiums it collects. But by avoiding some of the overhead that gets eaten up at private companies by profits, excessive administrative costs and executive salaries, it could provide a good deal for consumers. It would also keep pressure on private insurers to keep their policies affordable and treat their customers better, the same way public colleges and universities provide additional choice and competition to students without in any way inhibiting a vibrant system of private colleges and universities.

It’s worth noting that a strong majority of Americans still favor a public insurance option of the sort I’ve proposed tonight. But its impact shouldn’t be exaggerated – by the left, the right, or the media. It is only one part of my plan, and should not be used as a handy excuse for the usual Washington ideological battles. To my progressive friends, I would remind you that for decades, the driving idea behind reform has been to end insurance company abuses and make coverage affordable for those without it. The public option is only a means to that end – and we should remain open to other ideas that accomplish our ultimate goal. And to my Republican friends, I say that rather than making wild claims about a government takeover of health care, we should work together to address any legitimate concerns you may have.

For example, some have suggested that that the public option go into effect only in those markets where insurance companies are not providing affordable policies. Others propose a co-op or another non-profit entity to administer the plan. These are all constructive ideas worth exploring. But I will not back down on the basic principle that if Americans can’t find affordable coverage, we will provide you with a choice. And I will make sure that no government bureaucrat or insurance company bureaucrat gets between you and the care that you need.

Finally, let me discuss an issue that is a great concern to me, to members of this chamber, and to the public – and that is how we pay for this plan.

Here’s what you need to know. First, I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits – either now or in the future. Period. And to prove that I’m serious, there will be a provision in this plan that requires us to come forward with more spending cuts if the savings we promised don’t materialize. Part of the reason I faced a trillion dollar deficit when I walked in the door of the White House is because too many initiatives over the last decade were not paid for – from the Iraq War to tax breaks for the wealthy. I will not make that same mistake with health care.

Second, we’ve estimated that most of this plan can be paid for by finding savings within the existing health care system – a system that is currently full of waste and abuse. Right now, too much of the hard-earned savings and tax dollars we spend on health care doesn’t make us healthier. That’s not my judgment – it’s the judgment of medical professionals across this country. And this is also true when it comes to Medicare and Medicaid.

In fact, I want to speak directly to America’s seniors for a moment, because Medicare is another issue that’s been subjected to demagoguery and distortion during the course of this debate.

More than four decades ago, this nation stood up for the principle that after a lifetime of hard work, our seniors should not be left to struggle with a pile of medical bills in their later years. That is how Medicare was born. And it remains a sacred trust that must be passed down from one generation to the next. That is why not a dollar of the Medicare trust fund will be used to pay for this plan.

The only thing this plan would eliminate is the hundreds of billions of dollars in waste and fraud, as well as unwarranted subsidies in Medicare that go to insurance companies – subsidies that do everything to pad their profits and nothing to improve your care. And we will also create an independent commission of doctors and medical experts charged with identifying more waste in the years ahead.

These steps will ensure that you – America’s seniors – get the benefits you’ve been promised. They will ensure that Medicare is there for future generations. And we can use some of the savings to fill the gap in coverage that forces too many seniors to pay thousands of dollars a year out of their own pocket for prescription drugs. That’s what this plan will do for you. So don’t pay attention to those scary stories about how your benefits will be cut – especially since some of the same folks who are spreading these tall tales have fought against Medicare in the past, and just this year supported a budget that would have essentially turned Medicare into a privatized voucher program. That will never happen on my watch. I will protect Medicare.

Now, because Medicare is such a big part of the health care system, making the program more efficient can help usher in changes in the way we deliver health care that can reduce costs for everybody. We have long known that some places, like the Intermountain Healthcare in Utah or the Geisinger Health System in rural Pennsylvania, offer high-quality care at costs below average. The commission can help encourage the adoption of these common-sense best practices by doctors and medical professionals throughout the system – everything from reducing hospital infection rates to encouraging better coordination between teams of doctors.

Reducing the waste and inefficiency in Medicare and Medicaid will pay for most of this plan. Much of the rest would be paid for with revenues from the very same drug and insurance companies that stand to benefit from tens of millions of new customers. This reform will charge insurance companies a fee for their most expensive policies, which will encourage them to provide greater value for the money – an idea which has the support of Democratic and Republican experts. And according to these same experts, this modest change could help hold down the cost of health care for all of us in the long-run.

Finally, many in this chamber – particularly on the Republican side of the aisle – have long insisted that reforming our medical malpractice laws can help bring down the cost of health care. I don’t believe malpractice reform is a silver bullet, but I have talked to enough doctors to know that defensive medicine may be contributing to unnecessary costs. So I am proposing that we move forward on a range of ideas about how to put patient safety first and let doctors focus on practicing medicine. I know that the Bush Administration considered authorizing demonstration projects in individual states to test these issues. It’s a good idea, and I am directing my Secretary of Health and Human Services to move forward on this initiative today.

Add it all up, and the plan I’m proposing will cost around $900 billion over ten years – less than we have spent on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and less than the tax cuts for the wealthiest few Americans that Congress passed at the beginning of the previous administration. Most of these costs will be paid for with money already being spent – but spent badly – in the existing health care system. The plan will not add to our deficit. The middle-class will realize greater security, not higher taxes. And if we are able to slow the growth of health care costs by just one-tenth of one percent each year, it will actually reduce the deficit by $4 trillion over the long term.

This is the plan I’m proposing. It’s a plan that incorporates ideas from many of the people in this room tonight – Democrats and Republicans. And I will continue to seek common ground in the weeks ahead. If you come to me with a serious set of proposals, I will be there to listen. My door is always open.

But know this: I will not waste time with those who have made the calculation that it’s better politics to kill this plan than improve it. I will not stand by while the special interests use the same old tactics to keep things exactly the way they are. If you misrepresent what’s in the plan, we will call you out. And I will not accept the status quo as a solution. Not this time. Not now.

Everyone in this room knows what will happen if we do nothing. Our deficit will grow. More families will go bankrupt. More businesses will close. More Americans will lose their coverage when they are sick and need it most. And more will die as a result. We know these things to be true.

That is why we cannot fail. Because there are too many Americans counting on us to succeed – the ones who suffer silently, and the ones who shared their stories with us at town hall meetings, in emails, and in letters.

I received one of those letters a few days ago. It was from our beloved friend and colleague, Ted Kennedy. He had written it back in May, shortly after he was told that his illness was terminal. He asked that it be delivered upon his death.

In it, he spoke about what a happy time his last months were, thanks to the love and support of family and friends, his wife, Vicki, and his children, who are here tonight . And he expressed confidence that this would be the year that health care reform – “that great unfinished business of our society,” he called it – would finally pass. He repeated the truth that health care is decisive for our future prosperity, but he also reminded me that “it concerns more than material things.” “What we face,” he wrote, “is above all a moral issue; at stake are not just the details of policy, but fundamental principles of social justice and the character of our country.”

I’ve thought about that phrase quite a bit in recent days – the character of our country. One of the unique and wonderful things about America has always been our self-reliance, our rugged individualism, our fierce defense of freedom and our healthy skepticism of government. And figuring out the appropriate size and role of government has always been a source of rigorous and sometimes angry debate.

For some of Ted Kennedy’s critics, his brand of liberalism represented an affront to American liberty. In their mind, his passion for universal health care was nothing more than a passion for big government.

But those of us who knew Teddy and worked with him here – people of both parties – know that what drove him was something more. His friend, Orrin Hatch, knows that. They worked together to provide children with health insurance. His friend John McCain knows that. They worked together on a Patient’s Bill of Rights. His friend Chuck Grassley knows that. They worked together to provide health care to children with disabilities.

On issues like these, Ted Kennedy’s passion was born not of some rigid ideology, but of his own experience. It was the experience of having two children stricken with cancer. He never forgot the sheer terror and helplessness that any parent feels when a child is badly sick; and he was able to imagine what it must be like for those without insurance; what it would be like to have to say to a wife or a child or an aging parent – there is something that could make you better, but I just can’t afford it.

That large-heartedness – that concern and regard for the plight of others – is not a partisan feeling. It is not a Republican or a Democratic feeling. It, too, is part of the American character. Our ability to stand in other people’s shoes. A recognition that we are all in this together; that when fortune turns against one of us, others are there to lend a helping hand. A belief that in this country, hard work and responsibility should be rewarded by some measure of security and fair play; and an acknowledgement that sometimes government has to step in to help deliver on that promise.

This has always been the history of our progress. In 1933, when over half of our seniors could not support themselves and millions had seen their savings wiped away, there were those who argued that Social Security would lead to socialism. But the men and women of Congress stood fast, and we are all the better for it. In 1965, when some argued that Medicare represented a government takeover of health care, members of Congress, Democrats and Republicans, did not back down. They joined together so that all of us could enter our golden years with some basic peace of mind.

You see, our predecessors understood that government could not, and should not, solve every problem. They understood that there are instances when the gains in security from government action are not worth the added constraints on our freedom. But they also understood that the danger of too much government is matched by the perils of too little; that without the leavening hand of wise policy, markets can crash, monopolies can stifle competition, and the vulnerable can be exploited. And they knew that when any government measure, no matter how carefully crafted or beneficial, is subject to scorn; when any efforts to help people in need are attacked as un-American; when facts and reason are thrown overboard and only timidity passes for wisdom, and we can no longer even engage in a civil conversation with each other over the things that truly matter – that at that point we don’t merely lose our capacity to solve big challenges. We lose something essential about ourselves.

What was true then remains true today. I understand how difficult this health care debate has been. I know that many in this country are deeply skeptical that government is looking out for them. I understand that the politically safe move would be to kick the can further down the road – to defer reform one more year, or one more election, or one more term.

But that’s not what the moment calls for. That’s not what we came here to do. We did not come to fear the future. We came here to shape it. I still believe we can act even when it’s hard. I still believe we can replace acrimony with civility, and gridlock with progress. I still believe we can do great things, and that here and now we will meet history’s test.

Because that is who we are. That is our calling. That is our character. Thank you, God Bless You, and may God Bless the United States of America.

If you liked this article, subscribe to posts here: http://thefactofmyignorance.com/post_notification_header/

Or sign up for the FactofMyIgnorance RSS feed here: feed://thefactofmyignorance.com/feed/

No related posts.

Well needless to say there’s a lot going on in the healthcare arena lately.  In case you missed it, the House of Representatives released their healthcare bill last week.  I’m planning on writing up my analysis of it but unfortunately I’ve got midterms early next week so you’ll all have to wait a week or so for that.  But in the meantime I thought I’d provide some basic information about what the bill contains since I’ve had several people recently express frustration to me that they don’t know where to get an objective description of the contents of the bill.  So I’ve provided some helpful links after the jump.

The text of the bill can be found here:

http://edlabor.house.gov/documents/111/pdf/publications/AAHCA-BillText-071409.pdf

Its 1018 pages. So they have prepared summary sheets of the most important points, broken down by topic:

Public plan: http://edlabor.house.gov/documents/111/pdf/publications/AAHCA-PUBLICOPTION-071409.pdf

Guaranteed Benefits: http://edlabor.house.gov/documents/111/pdf/publications/AAHCA-BENEFITS-071409.pdf

The Health Insurance Exchange: http://edlabor.house.gov/documents/111/pdf/publications/AAHCA-EXCHANGE-071409.pdf

Making Coverage Affordable: http://edlabor.house.gov/documents/111/pdf/publications/AAHCA-AFFORDABILITY-071409.pdf

Paying for Healthcare Reform: http://edlabor.house.gov/documents/111/pdf/publications/AAHCA-PAYINGFORHEALTHCAREREFORM-071409.pdf

And finally, here’s the CBO’s (Congressional Budget Office) analysis of the bill. They’re a non-partisan research organization that does forecasting for congress:

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/104xx/doc10430/House_Tri-Committee-Rangel.pdf

No related posts.

While politicians hammer out the details of healthcare reform legislation and debate some of the more “controversial issues” (which I put in quotes because they shouldn’t be as controversial as they are) surrounding healthcare reform, the administration is busy doing things that everyone should be able to happy about.  Of course good news doesn’t draw as many readers as doom and gloom so its easy to miss some of these developments if you’re just clicking through a news website or taking in a bit of CNN, so I’ve highlighted a couple of the recent positive developments after the jump.

Key Senator, White House Strike Deal With Drug Industry for Health Coverage

First up is an article from several weeks ago.  And I apologize for using partisan news sources but I’ve got one from each side of the aisle so I guess it balances out.  Basically, Senator Max Baucus was able to negotiate a deal with the Pharmaceutical industry whereby they will eat some of the cost of drug coverage for seniors on medicare who make less than 80-85,000 per year.  They’re expecting to subsidize about 80 billion dollars worth of care over the course of the next ten years.  Not too shabby.

Biden, Hospital Leaders Announce Pact To Help Cover Uninsured

Next up is an article from today.  Joe Biden announced that the nation’s hospitals had agreed to comp 155 billion dollars worth of medicare and medicaid care over the course of the next ten years.  Nice.

These developments, along with the pledge from leaders of the healthcare industry a few months back (Titans of Healthcare Pledge to Reduce Healthcare Costs) are good news for members of congress as they attempt to draft legislation that is “budget neutral”, they’re good news for the country since healthcare costs are the primary drivers of our dismal deficit projections, and its good news for average Americans, who for some time now have been dealing with healthcare costs that are rising at more than three times the rate of their wages.

No related posts.

Well its been a while hasn’t it?  Sorry about that.  I’ll be posting with more regularity in the future.  As many of you know I recently got back from an AMA conference in Chicago and it was a surprisingly eye-opening experience in a lot of different ways.  There’s no way I can cover it all in one post so I’m just going to talk about one of the issues that was discussed at this meeting.  There is a now-famous article that was recently published in the New Yorker entitled “The Cost Conundrum” which analyzes some of the drivers of high healthcare costs.

Everybody was talking about this article.  The President of the AMA called the article a “watershed moment” for healthcare reform.  Supposedly President Obama had everyone on his healthcare team read the article.  So if you have even a passing interest in healthcare policy and reform, you should probably read it too.  So for your enjoyment I’ve posted a link to it after the jump.

But first, a quick warning.  While I think this article is extremely important and talks about an often-overlooked issue driving healthcare costs, we should keep in mind that it brings attention to this issue by focusing on an extreme case.  The behavior of the doctors in McAllen TX discussed in this article is in no way typical.  They are identified as an unusual case in the article but its still important to keep that idea in mind.  And the way this is portrayed as almost the sole driver of rising healthcare costs near the end is a bit misleading.  I don’t think very many people studying the economics of healthcare would speak quite so strongly.  And finally we should keep in mind that this is not a new problem, but has been talked about by organized medicine for years now.  There are plenty of physicians who support the principles laid out in this article.  In fact some companies, particularly in California (Kaiser), long ago embraced the capitated model recommended by this author (there’s even a mention of Sacramento as a “low-cost city”!)

So my point is, this article rips a lot on doctors.  Some of it is warranted but it uses extreme examples and a bit of hyperbole to make its case, without really acknowledging the work physicians have already been doing for a while to solve this problem.  With that said it brings attention to an important issue and makes recommendations that I (and many other students and physicians) wholeheartedly support.  So with no further delay, your article awaits.

The Cost Conundrum by Atul Gawande

ps – its really long.

No related posts.

Breaking News!  Tomorrow morning Pres. Obama is expected to announce that he has chosen John Huntsman Jr., governor of Utah and moderate republican as the new ambassador to China.  And sources say Governor Huntsman has accepted the ambassador position.  He learned Chinese while serving a mission for the church in Taiwan and he has an adopted daughter from China.  He also served as Ambassador to Singapore under President George H.W. Bush and worked in the Reagan Whitehouse.  I’ve always liked Gov. Huntsman and he seems to be extremely qualified for this position.  And I’m pleased to see Pres. Obama reaching across party lines to appoint more Republicans to important positions.  The full article follows:

SALT LAKE CITY — President Barack Obama intends to name Utah’s Republican Gov. Jon Huntsman, seen by many as a potential GOP presidential contender, to be ambassador to China, a source close to the governor said Friday night.

The popular moderate governor has accepted the appointment, said the source, who would speak only on condition of anonymity ahead of a White House announcement expected Saturday. Repeated messages to Huntsman’s spokeswoman and other staffers went unreturned Friday. The White House would not confirm the nomination.

Huntsman, a two-term governor, is fluent in Mandarin Chinese from his days as a Mormon missionary in Taiwan. One of his seven children, Gracie Mei, was adopted from China in 1999 after she was abandoned in a vegetable market.  He made headlines recently for encouraging the Republican Party to swing in a more moderate direction if it wanted to bounce back from the 2008 elections, angering some conservatives.

Obama’s 2008 campaign manager, David Plouffe, said Huntsman is a Republican who “seems to understand the party has to adjust _ not stubbornly believe that everything is OK and it is the country that has to change.”  Huntsman’s positions on the environment and other issues have led some to consider him a potential contender for president in 2012.

He signed an initiative that would set a regional cap-and-trade effort to reduce global warming. In a 2006 speech at Shanghai Normal University, Huntsman spoke of the need for China and the U.S. to work together on environmental issues.  ”The United States and China must be good examples and stewards of the Earth. We must match economic progress with environmental stewardship. The effects of industrialization are felt worldwide,” Huntsman said then.

Throughout his tenure as governor, Huntsman’s background as a diplomat has been evident. He preferred to win over opponents in private meetings rather than using his bully pulpit to give rousing speeches.

One of his most significant achievements was loosening the state’s restrictive liquor laws over the objections of many in heavily Mormon Utah in an effort to make the state more appealing for visitors. It was a feat many here didn’t think would be possible in Huntsman’s lifetime.  However, Huntsman has drawn the most attention for stating he favors civil unions for gay couples even though he backed a state constitutional amendment passed in 2004 that prohibited same-sex marriage.  Huntsman’s comments on civil unions drew the ire of conservatives in his own state and elsewhere.

Officials in Michigan last month canceled a GOP county fundraiser where Huntsman was to speak; they said he had abandoned important party principles.

Huntsman’s career began as a staff assistant in the Ronald Reagan administration and he also served as ambassador to Singapore under President George H.W. Bush and as a deputy U.S. trade representative and U.S. trade ambassador under President George W. Bush.  Utah’s only Democratic member of Congress, U.S. Rep. Jim Matheson, said he was pleased with the appointment. “It’s a great bipartisan appointment by the president,” he said.

Before becoming governor in 2005, Huntsman made millions serving as chairman and CEO of his family chemical company.  If confirmed by the Senate, Huntsman will succeed Clark Randt as U.S. ambassador to China.

Randt, a classmate of former President George W. Bush at Yale University, served as Washington’s top envoy to Beijing from July 2001 until January, making him the longest-serving U.S. ambassador to China since the two nations established diplomatic ties.

Utah Lt. Gov. Gary Herbert would become governor until a special election in 2010.

-Huffington Post

No related posts.

One of my absolute favorite political sites on the internet, Politifact.com, recently won a pulitzer prize!  They were apparently the first exclusively online news organization to do so.  And they really, really deserve it.  They do top-notch fact-checking of most of the controversial statements being thrown around by public officials.  They’re also running an “Obameter” where they keep track of over 500 of Obama’s campaign promises and record which ones are kept and which are broken, with comprehensive explanations for each.

Every time I start to get depressed about the sorry state of investigative journalism, the decline of objective reporting and rise of partisan pontificating, or the way our news media has devolved into a megaphone for the most apocalyptic, opinionated, and insane of our politicians and pundits, I surf on over to politifact.com and bask in their worship of sweet, sweet facts, and it gives me hope.  Seriously, if you have even a passing interest in politics, you should probably bookmark politifact and check it a couple times a week.  They only update every once in a while.  If they expanded into a full news agency I’d probably make them my number one source of political information.  Another fantastic, and equally objective, site is Factcheck.Org.  I know I’ve promoted them both before but seriously, check them out:

www.PolitiFact.com

www.FactCheck.org

No related posts.

Thanks to Joel for this tip.  It turns out my old stake president from my Glenwood days, Larry Echohawk, just got asked to head up the bureau of indian affairs!  Here’s a portion of the Salt Lake Tribune article about it:

President Barack Obama on Friday picked Brigham Young University law professor Larry EchoHawk to lead the Bureau of Indian Affairs, making him the first high-profile Mormon and first Utahn to join the administration’s senior ranks.

EchoHawk, a member of the Pawnee Nation of Oklahoma, has lived and worked throughout the West. He made history in 1990 as the first American Indian elected to statewide office when he won Idaho’s attorney general race. After a failed bid for Gem State governor, EchoHawk, a Democrat, relocated to Utah, where he started teaching courses on criminal law and federal Indian law at BYU.

“Larry EchoHawk has the right leadership abilities, legislative experience and legal expertise,” Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said, “to bring about the transformative improvements we all seek for Indian country.”

The rest of the article can be found after the jump.

EchoHawk’s official title — if the Senate confirms him — would be assistant secretary for Indian affairs within Interior. He would lead the bureau responsible for providing services to 1.7 million American Indians and Alaskan natives and for managing 66 million acres held in trust by the United States for tribes. ”I, for one, have been anxiously awaiting this appointment,” said Forrest Cuch, director of the Utah Division of Indian Affairs, “and I was wondering why it was taking so long.”

For months, rumors of EchoHawk’s impending selection have been bandied about among Indian communities. The Salt Lake Tribune first reported his likely nomination in early February. But some tribes objected to the choice because of his previous stance on Indian gaming.

While he served as Idaho’s attorney general, EchoHawk suggested changing that state’s constitution to prevent gaming on tribal lands. In recent weeks, he has reached out to tribal leaders in Idaho, saying he regretted those actions, according to Indian Country Today. Cuch said the dispute has been “blown out of proportion.”  ”Larry is a very reasonable person. He is going to work with all the factions and all groups, simple as that,” he said. “And he is very diplomatic in working with state and other entities, and that is what tribes must do.”

His BYU colleagues also credited EchoHawk, 60, for his judgment and willingness to delve into difficult issues.  ”His scholarship has focused in practical problems like juvenile justice on the reservation,” said former law school dean Kevin Worthen, now BYU’s vice president for advancement. “He can make headway on even the most difficult challenges.”

EchoHawk also is involved in a Pocatello, Idaho, law office that bears his name. His sons, Paul and Mark, work there as well.  ”We are very proud of him,” Paul EchoHawk said moments after hearing of his father’s nomination, “and we’re very excited about the positive things he can do in that position for Indian country.”

Larry EchoHawk, a former U.S. Marine, earned a bachelor’s degree at BYU, where he also played football, and a law degree at the University of Utah.  He and his wife, Terry, have six children and 22 grandchildren. He also is the president of an LDS stake.

mcanham@sltrib.com

Tribune reporter Brian Maffly contributed to this story.

From Article: Utahn picked for Indian Post

No related posts.

I’m finally catching up on articles I’ve been meaning to write for a long time and this one comes from a New York Times Op-Ed piece which was written last June but which I discovered more recently.  It can be found here. It describes a phenomenon known as “source amnesia”, which serves as yet another example of how none of us are nearly as smart, objective, or discerning as we think we are.

Most basically, source amnesia is just the idea that its much easier to remember a particular nugget of information, than it is to remember the context or source of that information, especially if its information we use, think about, or hear often.  For example where did you first learn that the gas pedal was on the right and the brake on the left?  Or where did you first hear that smoking causes lung cancer?  You’ve probably heard it plenty of times from lots of reputable sources but can you name one of those sources with surety?  Unless you’ve read something in the last few days your mind has probably long stripped away any memory of where you got that information or the context you heard it in, and now just stores it in the part of the brain where it stores “facts”.

The interesting thing is that your brain, in transfering this memory to its “fact bin” often strips out very important context, including whether or not that particular item is true or false, or whether it comes from a reliable or unreliable source.  I’ve long-since learned that its very difficult to memorize negative associations like “T-cells are NOT part of the innate immune system” because when test time comes, more often than not I’m only able to remember that T-cells and the innate immune system were somehow related in my studying and I’m not able to tell whether or not T-cells were or were not part of this system, which is usually the fact I actually need to know.  So I’ve stuck to memorizing only positive associations “T-cells ARE part of the adaptive immune system” because then when I remember there’s an association I can be confident its a positive one.

Well political pundits and partisan news organizations are aware of this little brain snafu and take advantage of it on a regular basis.  News headlines are particularly problematic.  Because of source amnesia the following three headlines:

Obama is a Muslim

Obama is not a Muslim

Is Obama a Muslim?

…are pretty much all stored in our brains in the same exact way.  Just a sourceless association between Obama and Muslims.  And because the source and context of these little factoids are stripped away more severely the more often we hear an association the proportion of people who believe (in this example) that Barack Obama is a Muslim has less to do with the content of any of the articles discussing the matter and more to do with the volume of articles that mention his name and Muslims in close proximity to each-other.

The New Yorker ran a controversial cover at the beginning of last July featuring Barack Obama and his wife dressed as militant Muslims which was supposed to be satirical.  It sparked a new interest into the subject of Obama’s faith and several news agencies ran articles looking into the Muslim connection, each one, of course, finding the idea that Obama was a Muslim to be rubbish.  And yet over the course of that month the percent of Americans who believed he was a Muslim had actually risen to 12%! Up from 10% previously. As it turns out remembering that “Obama is NOT a muslim” is about as difficult as remembering that “T-cells are NOT part of the innate immune system.”  After a while all you have left is the association which only gets reinforced the more often its brought up.

The picture I started this article with is another good example.  Hillary Clinton’s camp released it during the primary knowing full well that it doesn’t matter whether this picture is run with an article supporting (where there even any of these?) or debunking the idea that Obama is a Muslim.  And it doesn’t matter whether it’s seen in the National Enquirer or the LA Times.  The source and context will be forgotten and all that will be remembered is the image of Obama in Muslim dress.  And the more often that picture is shown the more people will associate Obama and Muslims in their minds.

Those who listen to talk radio or frequently watch cable news editorial shows can probably easily identify those times when these pundits are consciously using this technique.  They tend to use certain phrases frequently, associating their enemies with all things bad.  Over time, if you are a frequent listener/viewer these associations are pounded so far into your head that they become firmly rooted in the “fact” area of your brain and you completely forget that the only place you’ve heard them is from an uneducated, partisan, clearly-biased entertainer.  In fact a study on source amnesia at Stanford which was cited in this NYT op-ed, found that the more often someone hears a statement, the more likely they are to attribute that statement to a reputable source:

In one study, a group of Stanford students was exposed repeatedly to an unsubstantiated claim taken from a Web site that Coca-Cola is an effective paint thinner. Students who read the statement five times were nearly one-third more likely than those who read it only twice to attribute it to Consumer Reports (rather than The National Enquirer, their other choice), giving it a gloss of credibility.

Thus to our brains repetition=credibility.  And when we’ve heard/read/thought about something enough, we often believe we got it from a credible source, even if we never did.  This is another one of those quick and dirty shortcuts our brains use that are correct more often than not.  I mean generally speaking, the more often you hear something, the more correct it is, especially if you hear it from multiple unrelated sources.  But obviously repetition from a source with little or no credibility, or repetition over and over from the same source doesn’t make a statement any more true.  And our brain really doesn’t take those things into account.

So what does that mean?  Political pundits who frequently use repetitive statements or slogans, or who spend an inordinate amount of time discussing false accusations against their political enemies are literally trying to brainwash you.  And news organizations who frequently use headlines consisting of a controversial statement in the form of a question (Is Barack Obama a communist?  Is John McCain too old to be President?) or who, once again, spend large amounts of time dwelling on false accusations before finally debunking them at the very end of the article are stoking your fear and anger, and in the end, misinforming you for all practical purposes.

I don’t think merely knowing about source amnesia allows you to prevent it in any way.  But knowing how its abused can help you identify those that are taking advantage of it, and avoid them.  Knowing about source amnesia can also encourage us to question those “facts” that we believe we know.  Which doesn’t mean we should just throw up our hands in frustration, but maybe it will help us approach our political discussions with a little more humility. Because even those things that we think are common knowledge, or which we vaguely remember learning from credible sources, may very well be false.

No related posts.

No related posts.

Okay well I know the stimulus bill is passed and settled now so this will likely be my last post on the subject.  But I’ve had several questions recently about whether or not there’s any truth to accusations of pork in the stimulus and while I’ve mentioned some stimulus myths in a previous post (see “ACORN, Fieldmice, Banning Prayer, Socialized Medicine and other Stimulus Fear-Mongering“) and I’ve talked a little bit about pork in some of my previous posts, I haven’t yet focused on it specifically.  So with this post I intend to answer this question to the best of my ability: “Does the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (aka. The Stimulus Bill) contain pork-barrel spending?”

To address this question we’ll first have to decide on a definition for “Pork-Barrel Spending”.  A pretty representative definition can be found at TheFreeDictionary.com:

“A government project or appropriation that yields jobs or other benefits to a specific locale and patronage opportunities to its political representative.”

While the various definitions I’ve found do vary slightly they all seem to agree on the common theme that pork-barrel spending (which is synonymous with “earmarks” according to most sources) is a “pet project” inserted by a legislator primarily for the benefit of that lawmaker’s constituents.  Some examples of “Pork-Barrel Spending” taken from the website of the organization Citizens Against Government Waste include:

• $375,000,000 for an unrequested and unneeded amphibious assault ship in the state of Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.);

• $700,000 for the Admiral Theater in Bremerton, Washington, the district of House appropriator Norm Dicks (D-Wash.), despite a $4.2 million privately-funded facelift; and

• $500,000 for the Olympic Tree Program in the state of Senate appropriator Robert Bennett for the 2002 Winter Olympics.

So now that we’ve established what an earmark is, are they in the stimulus bill?  The short answer, as far as I can tell, is “not really”.  By the standard definition of earmarks, the definition listed above, the definition that has always been used to refer to earmarks in the past, I haven’t been able to find any evidence of any earmarks/pork-barrel spending items in the bill.  I’ve read the bill, and you can feel free to read it yourself (“Read The Stimulus For Yourself“).  The money is doled out very generally to various government departments.  Money intended for private industry is never allotted to particular companies or projects, and those specific projects that are mentioned are solely those run by the federal government, designed to benefit the government itself or the nation as a whole and can not accurately be called “earmarks”.  There are a couple items that could be classified as earmarks using a loose definition of the term and I’ll discuss those at the end of this article.

So what of all the angry rumors of money going to specific dog-parks, butterfly preserves, fieldmice in SF, golf carts, volcano monitoring, and on and on and on.  Some legislators claim that there are billions of dollars of pork-barrel spending in the bill.  Well most of those allegations are based on the same line of reasoning, which I think most readers will find to be pretty tenuously constructed.  We’ll review one of the most outlandish and oft-repeated claims, that there is “8 billion on the stimulus for a levitating train to DisneyLand”, as an example.

So the story of the Levitating train to Disneyland has been told by Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Glenn Beck, and made its way up to John Boehner, John McCain and Mitch McConnel, before finally being included in Bobby Jindal’s official Republican response to President Obama’s speech to the joint sessions of congress.  This money was supposedly inserted into the stimulus by Harry Reid, or so the story goes, to build a “levitating train” connecting Las Vegas and Disneyland.  Certainly this has to be an outrageous example of government waste gone wild!

Well the truth behind this claim is that Harry Reid, Arnold Schwarzenegger and the Republican Gov of Nevada Jim Gibbons, have been in talks for some time about building a high speed train to connect Las Vegas and LA.  In fact environmental research was performed last summer to those ends.  And “levitating trains” are in the works.  They’re more commonly called “Maglev trains” and they’re used all over the world because their use of magnets reduces friction allowing for higher speeds, increased safety, and greater energy efficiency.  So the Maglev train to LA became the “levitating train to Disneyland” and I can only assume that choice was made because that phrasing elicits a greater visceral reaction.  Now the rumor about this project being included in the stimulus arose because when the stimulus bill was transfered over from the house to the senate, the amount of transportation department money designated to go to high speed rail projects was increased from 2 billion (i believe) to 8 billion.  Since Harry Reid is in the senate, and he has apparently always wanted a bullet train connecting LV and LA, stimulus opponents jumped on the opportunity to portray this bump in funding as an example of wasteful pork-barrel spending.

Early on this claim may have been somewhat excusable, since Reid’s train may have been eligible for at least some of the money if the Department of Transportation had chosen to fund it.  While still not an “earmark” by the normal definition it, theoretically, could have been some underhanded attempt at an earmark if Reid has some kind of prior, secret, massively illegal agreement with the head of the transportation department.  Not a very likely conspiracy since the Transportation secretary is Republican Ray LaHood, but it was at least theoretically possible.  But after a few weeks the department of Transportation released their map of planned high-speed rail corridors.  And it looks like this: Designated High Speed Rail Corridors.   You’ll notice there isn’t a Las Vegas Train on the list.  And yet myths about this flying, disneyland-bound train persist even to this day and are repeated even by highly regarded stimulus opponents.

So we see that even in this example, there is no money designated for any specific train to anywhere.  There is money (8 billion) in the stimulus bill for high speed rail generally, with the decision of which trains should be funded left up to the transportation secretary.  Nearly all claims of stimulus pork are projects that stimulus opponents believe these departments may use their money on, but it has become common practice to say, “there is money in the stimulus for _____”  when in reality there is money in the stimulus for a particular department and stimulus opponents fear that money may be used for _______.   Remember the definition of Pork-Barrel spending is funding inserted into a bill for a particular “pet project” designed to benefit his/her constituents.  If items that a bill’s funds could possibly be used for in the future count as “pork” or “earmarks” then it is a drastic redefinition of the term, and its a definition that could be used to label any spending someone finds even potentially objectionable as “pork”.

The second way pork-claims are justified is very similar.  The US Conference of Mayors issued a report on Jan 17th listing all of the “shovel-ready” projects they had in their cities that could benefit from stimulus money.  You can see these lists, broken down by state and city at StimulusWatch.org.  Of course none of these projects are included specifically in the stimulus bill.  But money is being sent to states to use how they see fit, some of which will trickle down to various cities and will likely be used to fund some of these projects.  So stimulus opponents combed through this list, selected the most ridiculous sounding items, and then paraded them around as pork-barrel spending.  Statements such as this one from Erik Paulson of Minnosota…

“the [stimulus] bill contains a huge amount of spending on many things that are unrelated to saving or creating jobs… It will fund requests such as $2 million for neon signs in Las Vegas, $4.5 million for an eco park featuring butterfly gardens and gopher tortoises, $500,000 for a dog park, $3 million for a municipal golf course clubhouse, $886,000 for a 36-hole disc golf course, $1.8 million for replacement tennis courts, $6 million for three aquatic centers with water slides … the list goes on and on.”

…are simply lists of items from this report from the US Conference of Mayors.  In reality each of these projects would have to compete for stimulus funding and individual states would decide if they get the money.  Obviously the vast, vast majority of projects on these lists will not end up being funded at all, and we have no way of knowing right now which ones will and which ones wont.  And some of the projects on this particular list aren’t even eligible for funding since the Stimulus Bill stipulates that:

“ARRA: Sec. 1604: None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available in this Act may be used by any State or local government, or any private entity, for any casino or other gambling establishment, aquarium, zoo, golf course, or swimming pool. “

The claims of 3,000 or more pork-barrel spending items in the stimulus bill are arrived at by counting all of the shovel-ready projects listed by US mayors, governors, and government agencies.  Once again, this is a very new definition of “pork-barrel spending” and I think most people will agree its not very accurate, and could even be called purposefully sensationalized and distorted.

Now as I said above, the answer to whether or not the stimulus bill contains earmarks is probably more properly given “not really” than a straight “no”.  Because while 99% of “pork-barrel” claims are accounted for by one of the two methods described above, and its true that there aren’t any elements of the bill that fit the strict historical definition of pork, there are a few items that would probably be considered “earmarks” by a reasonable person.

Specifically, there’s several million dollars for philipino veterans of WWII from US owned islands who never previously received normal veteran benefits.  There’s also a provision in the bill calling for $2 billion for a “near zero emissions powerplant.” Which many suspect is intended to restart FutureGen, a near-zero emissions coal power plant in Illinois.  There’s also $70 million for “supercomputer activities, especially as they relate to climate research.” The Senate Conservatives Fund, a political action committee, says that is probably targeted for the National Center for Environmental Prediction in Camp Springs, Md.  The group also cites $250 million that is designated “to repair NASA facilities damaged by Hurricane Ike and to reduce the significant backlog of maintenance and repair projects at NASA facilities nationwide.” That appears to be for the Johnson Space Center in Houston.

Those were the only items in the stimulus I could find that could reasonable be construed as earmarks.  Though even these items are not earmarks in the strict sense since they were not planted by any particular legislators and they aren’t really clearly benefitting the constituents of any particular legislator.  But they could be considered earmarks because they contain cash that is specifically set apart for certain companies or projects.  Or at least they appear to be even if not explicitly designated as such.

So that’s it.  Not nearly as exciting or scandalous as its made out to be.  There are a few spending items that could be loosely defined as earmarks, so the administration’s claims that the bill is “earmark free” may be technically accurate though a little bit of a stretch.  But none of the projects often cited by stimulus opponents are mentioned specifically in the stimulus bill and most claims of “pork-barrel spending” are really hard to see as anything other than a misrepresentation, when investigated more thoroughly.

On a personal note I think the lack of significant earmarks in the stimulus bill is a laudable accomplishment.  Completely earmark-free or not its certainly a huge improvement over what we’ve done in the past.  The new “omnibus” spending bill, on the other hand, which is currently making its way through the legislature is unfortunately laden with thousands upon thousands of earmarks.  Most of those were established before the current administration took office but Obama hasn’t specifically spoken out against the pork-filled bill yet.  It remains to be seen whether the relative cleanliness of the stimulus bill signals a new direction for our government or just a momentary reprieve from pork-barrel spending.  Time will tell.

For more interesting stimulus fact-checking be sure to check out Politifact.com and Factcheck.Org both of which were used in researching this article.  They are the two most unbiased, non-partisan political fact-checking groups I’ve come across, and they’re very thorough.  I recommend checking their websites on a regular basis.

No related posts.

I think this video does a fantastic job of explaining the credit crisis in simple terms.  It doesn’t really discuss some of the newer developments, and it certainly over-simplifies some of the issues at points along the line.  But it explains the events that initially got us into this mess about as clearly and succinctly as they can be explained.  If you’re new to the economics of the credit crisis, you may still be a little shaky after a single viewing, but you’ll certainly understand things much better.  And even if you consider yourself a financial pro, you’ll likely have a clearer understanding of how the various problems facing banks, lenders, investors, and homeowners are connected after watching this.  It’s 11 minutes long but its definitely worth it.  And don’t forget to share your thoughts about it in the comments!

From Vimeo via MentalFloss

No related posts.

Well I’m a little late to the game on this one but for those of you who missed it, here’s Obama’s speech to the joint session of congress delivered tuesday night.  It was a great speech, which I thought was surprisingly informative, with a fair amount of detail.  He struck a more hopeful tone than he has in the past, which is probably what we need, and what we are ready for.  I was surprised at how many of his statements brought the Republican legislators in the room to their feet.  Of course its in the bizarre format of all Presidential speeches to congress, where everyone claps after every other sentence.  If you don’t want to deal with all of that then you can just read the transcript here.   

One thing that struck me during this talk, but which I’d like to develop further in the future, is how similar all of our values are in America.  I think, as much as political pundits like to portray political differences as a war of values, in most cases we all have very similar basic values and goals, just different ideas about how to go about achieving those things.  Obama touched on values a lot in this speech and when he was talking about those things was there really much there for any of us to disagree with?  If there are some conservatives in the audience maybe they can let us know in the comments.

No related posts.

To continue the themes of my post earlier today, if you want to read the stimulus bill for yourself, the Senate compromise version can be found here: Senate Stimulus Bill.  If you right click on the link you can choose to download it to your computer for easier reading.  Its 778 pages.  But its 778 pages of double spaced, 16 point text that only takes up the middle third of the page.  So it reads much more quickly than one would expect.  Its brought to you via Readthestimulus.org.  And you can go there to find previous versions of the bill.  The new house and senate compromise version should be available soon.

Once again, if you can find some kind of pet project hidden in it then by all means notify news agencies because you’ll have some pretty exclusive information.  For all the talk of the “bloated, pork-filled stimulus”  I haven’t been able to find anything yet.

UPDATE:  See the way that the spending in the final bill breaks down through this intuitive little tool: CNN Stimulus Spending Chart

No related posts.