The Race to the Bottom

This is an excerpt from "Come Together," Hendrik Hertzberg's commentary on the Health Care Summit, which appeared in the March 8 edition of The New Yorker.

The Democrats made it clear that they intend to cover the uninsured before another lifetime or two elapses; the Republicans made it equally clear that they do not. “We just can’t afford this,” Eric Cantor, the House Republican whip, said, adding dismissively, “In a perfect world, everyone would have everything they want.” But, even when the two sides seemed to agree on a particular goal, the similarities were irreconcilable, so to speak. For example, both sides say that they favor making it impossible for people with “preëexisting conditions” to be refused insurance. Obviously, this can’t be done by simply ordering insurance companies to accept such people. Too many of the young and healthy, knowing that they couldn’t be refused, would wait to buy insurance until they got sick; the ranks of the insured would grow thinner and sicker, and premiums would balloon. Without the universal or near-universal coverage that Democrats support, just telling insurance companies that they must accept everyone becomes another way of distributing health care by ability to pay. We have enough of that already. Segregating the sick into “high-risk pools”—the oxymoronic Republican solution—has generally flopped in states where it has been tried. A similar logic holds for allowing the purchase of insurance across state lines, another point of nominal bipartisan agreement. Without the sort of standards that Democrats want and Republicans don’t, those among the young, the healthy, and the poor who bought insurance at all would choose the cheapest, skimpiest policies from companies in the least regulated states, leaving people who need the kind of insurance many of us are lucky enough to have in shrinking pools with increasingly unaffordable premiums—the “race to the bottom” that the Democrats kept talking about.

Source: http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2010/03/08/100308taco_talk_hertzberg

"The fault . . . is not in our stars, but in ourselves."

David Luban at Balkinization compares Liz Cheney's Keep America Safe television ad and the activities of Senator Joseph McCarthy:

Liz Cheney and her group "Keep America Safe" is after the lawyers who work for the government but (her ad disgustingly insinuates) are secret sympathizers with Al Qaeda. "Whose values do they share?" appears in bold white letters across the black screen, as the voiceover intones the same words against a background of ominous music. The slanders against government lawyers who represented detainees is an uncanny repetition of Senator Joseph McCarthy's hunt for Communists in government 60 years ago. In one of the most dramatic moments, McCarthy went after a lawyer.

It is easy to see the parallel between the accusation that Department of Justice lawyers are Al Qaeda sympathizers and the accustation that certain lawyers 60 years ago were communist sympathizers. Luban suggests that what Cheney and McCarthy also have in common is that they both seized on an opportunity to take advantage of our fear of an enemy for political gain. Read the entire entry here.

The Killers, "For Reasons Unknown"

The Redistribution of Wealth

Source: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/030310-snapshot1.jpg

To take from one, because it is thought that his own industry and that of his father’s has acquired too much, in order to spare others, who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association — the guarantee to every one of his industry and the fruits acquired by it. —Thomas Jefferson

Public Enemy No. 1

Dahlia Lithwick explains more clearly than I ever could why Liz Cheney is one of the most reprehensible people in the history of the United States. And unlike the losers at RedState, when I say something, I freaking mean it. Here's a taste:

Wednesday night, Liz Cheney told Bill O'Reilly that Guantanamo prisoner Omar Khadr "killed Americans." His trial doesn't start until July. So before you call the Justice Department to question the loyalty of the "al-Qaida Nine," ask yourself whether you really want to take the Bill of Rights out of the hands of the lawyers, courts, and officials sworn to defend it.

Liz Cheney: you are a far greater threat to this nation and its constitution than any single terrorist. If anyone deserves a one-way ticket to Guantanamo, it is you.

Sen. Byrd's reply to barkings from Glenbeckistan

It has been said that a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing. In the Daily Mail's March 2 editorial regarding health care reform legislation, "Using reconciliation would hurt Democrats: Choking off debate is no way to muscle through health legislation," the newspaper's misunderstanding of congressional procedures misinforms readers who, in rapidly increasing numbers, find themselves unable to obtain or afford medical insurance.

The editorial correctly quoted me as saying in the spring of 2009 that using reconciliation to enact a huge health care package would "violate the intent and spirit of the budget process . . .".

I believed then, as now, that the Senate should debate the health reform bill under regular rules, which it did. The result of that debate was the passing of a comprehensive health care reform bill in the Senate by a 60-vote supermajority.

I continue to support the budget reconciliation process for deficit reduction. The entire Senate- or House- passed health care bill could not and would not pass muster under the current reconciliation rules, which were established under my watch.

Yet a bill structured to reduce deficits by, for example, finding savings in Medicare or lowering health care costs, may be consistent with the Budget Act, and appropriately considered under reconciliation.

With all due respect, the Daily Mail's hyperbole about "imposing government control," acts of "disrespect to the American people" and "corruption" of Senate procedures resembles more the barkings from the nether regions of Glennbeckistan than the "sober and second thought" of one of West Virginia's oldest and most respected daily newspapers.

My commitment to protecting the best interests of all West Virginians and the American people remains as firm and consistent as my devotion to observing the necessary and essential Senate rules and procedures intended to guarantee debate and the airing of diverse views.

Robert C. Byrd

Washington, D.C.

Byrd is the senior U.S senator from West Virginia.

Source: http://www.dailymail.com/Opinion/LetterstotheEditor/201003030609

RedState, Abortion, and the Senate Health Care Bill

Brian Faughnan of RedState recently claimed that "Obamacare" pays for abortion. His evidence for this claim was a quotation of Sen. Barbara Boxer appearing in California Catholic Daily:

Boxer, who played a prominent role in brokering the ‘compromise’ in behind-closed-doors meetings with Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nevada, and Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Nebraska (who insisted on the abortion provision to obtain his yes vote), came under withering attacks from her longtime pro-abortion supporters following the inclusion of the Nelson provision. . . .

But not to worry, Boxer told McClatchy News Service. Boxer, reported McClatchy, “said it's only an ‘accounting procedure’ that will do nothing to restrict [abortion] coverage.”

So is it true? Does the Senate bill provide for government funding of abortion as California Catholic Daily, that paragon of objective and impartial reporting, claims?

Here's what Timothy Noah of Slate has to say about the matter:

"If you go to Page 2069 through Page 2078 [of the Senate bill]," Stupak told George Stephanopoulos on March 4 on Good Morning America, "you will find in there the federal government would directly subsidize abortions, plus every enrollee in the Office of Personnel Management-enrolled plan, every enrollee has to pay a minimum of one dollar per month toward reproductive rights, which includes abortions." Stupak is here referring to the exchanges created under health reform and to a nonprofit plan managed by the Office of Personnel Management that would be sold through the exchanges. The latter was a consolation prize to supporters of a public-option government health insurance program that didn't make it into the bill.

Let's go to Page 2069 through Page 2078 of the Senate-passed bill. It says, "If a qualified plan provides [abortion] coverage … the issuer of the plan shall not use any amount attributable to [health reform's government-funding mechanisms] for purposes of paying for such services." (This is on Page 2072.) That seems pretty straightforward. No government funding for abortions. (Except in the case of rape, incest, or a threat to the mother's life—the same exceptions granted under current law.) If a health insurer selling through the exchanges wishes to offer abortion coverage—the federal government may not require it to do so, and the state where the exchange is located may (the bill states) pass a law forbidding it to do so—then the insurer must collect from each enrollee (regardless of sex or age) a separate payment to cover abortion. The insurer must keep this pool of money separate to ensure it won't be commingled with so much as a nickel of government subsidy. (This is on Pages 2072-2074.)

Stupak is right that anyone who enrolls through the exchange in a health plan that covers abortions must pay a nominal sum (defined on Page 125 of the bill as not less than "$1 per enrollee, per month") into the specially segregated abortion fund. But Stupak is wrong to say this applies to "every enrollee." If an enrollee objects morally to spending one un-government-subsidized dollar to cover abortion, then he or she can simply choose a different health plan offered through the exchange, one that doesn't cover abortions. (Under the Senate bill, every insurance exchange must offer at least one abortion-free health plan.)

When Boxer said that the bill would do nothing to restrict abortion coverage, then, she was claiming that those who enroll in a health plan through the exchange would be able to obtain coverage for abortion if they so chose; she was not claiming that taxpayers would pay for those abortions, as California Catholic Daily claims.

If I had to speculate, I would say that the folks at California Catholic Daily made an honest mistake. Their belief that Democrats want people to have abortions, combined with their own incompetence, resulted in their mistaken reporting. The losers at RedState, on the other hand, did not make an honest mistake. They want health care reform to fail, and they are willing to say anything, true or false, to help bring that about.

Another swing and a miss by RedState. You're the gift that keeps on giving. This is too easy.

RedState's incoherent take on the torture memo lawyers

Leon H. Wolf of RedState is a very confused man.

Recently, he criticized liberals for criticizing the Justice Department's treatment of Bush II lawyers who wrote legal memos authorizing the torture of suspected terrorists. The men, John Yoo, Jay Bybee and Steven Bradbury, were accused of exercising poor judgment. This ruling superseded the original judgment of the investigation, which was that the lawyers were guilty of professional misconduct. That judgment could have led to their disbarment or even criminal prosecution. Read more from my sources here and here.

On my view, this ruling is troubling. There is no doubt that the Bush II administration used torture, and torture is illegal. Those responsible for the torture are guilty of war crimes. David Margolis, the man at Justice responsible for this latest judgment, has exonerated the men responsible for the torture memo and thus saw to it that they will not be punished for war crimes. The memos themselves justified the Bush II administration's use of torture, and therefore those in charge of the torture can avoid responsbility for their criminal acts. In the end, everyone involved in these war crimes will not be prosecuted and are therefore in effect above the law. As Scott Horton argues, this is a very serious matter:

Open criminality is a cancer on democracy. It implicates all who know of the conduct and fail to act. Such compliance presents a practical crisis, in that a government that is allowed to torture will inevitably transgress other legal limits. But it also presents an existential political crisis. Many democracies have simply collapsed as the people permitted their leaders to abandon the rule of law in the face of alleged external threats. The turn to torture was rapid, for instance, in Argentina at the time of the Dirty War and in Chile after the American-directed coup against Salvador Allende. In both cases, that turn had little to do with a perceived benefit from the use of torture in interrogation. To the contrary, the very criminality of the act had a talismanic significance. It asserted the primacy of the will of the torturer. It made the claim, for all to accept or reject, that the ruler was the law. Such a claim is, of course, intolerable to democracy, which presupposes, as Thomas Paine wrote, that “the law ought to be King; and there ought to be no other.”

So, what is Wolf's take on this? I'll quote his post at length:

Like a spoiled and petulant child who has tattled on a sibling to Daddy to no effect, angry liberals who are mad that Bush Administration lawyers suggested it was legal to put a terrorist in a box with a caterpillar have decided to try the other parent to see if they get a more satisfactory response. . . . Ever content to parody themselves, outraged liberals offended at our very uncouth treatment of people who plot our national destruction have been busy demanding the heads of current law professor John Yoo and current federal appeals judge Jay Bybee ever since. . . .

Of course, as everyone (most especially the Obama Administration) realizes, this course of action is preposterous and dangerous for the future of our country.
In the first place, . . . it’s preposterous to go on a witch hunt against lawyers for the crime of rendering a legal opinion, simply because that legal opinion proves to be politically unpopular with certain sets of the population. . . .

More to the point, the ridiculous hyperventilation directed at Messrs. Yoo and Bybee by people who haven’t the foggiest clue of these basic principles - and the politically-motivated witch hunt that has followed, will lead inexorably to the practice of defensive (read: bad) law. . . . In a rare exercise of foresight, it appears that someone in the Administration has posed the question, “Say, what’s to prevent people from going after our license if we, say, opine that it’s legal for the EPA to enact cap-and-trade without legislative authorization?”
This, however, is a point that is lost on the bungling left, who seemingly have no guiding star or principle other than being nice to people who want to kill Americans and destroy this country.

One can immediately see that Wolf is going to use whatever fallacious, non-rational means of persuasion are required to convince his readers, who are all too ready to believe what he says anyway and whose intelligence Wolf obviously does not respect. For who is the opposition here? The "bungling left," composed of "spoiled and petulant" children who want only to "[be] nice to people who want to kill Americans." If Wolf's actual arguments are so good, what purpose does the abuse serve? But think about it: how plausible is it that liberals, who are actual Americans, really want to be nice to actual terrorists? Last I heard, they want to convict them in civilian courts and execute them. So the portrayal is not only false; it is ludicrous.

Second, notice that, according to Wolf, the reason why liberals want to go after the torture memo lawyers is that their "legal opinion proves to be politically unpopular with certain sets of the population." This is, of course, false, as Horton makes clear. And, of course, it is also ludicrous.

Third, Wolf argues for the claim that punishing the lawyers will produce bad law. But his argument for this claim is that, if the torture memo lawyers are punished, then other lawyers might also be held responsible for their own actions. But what is wrong with that, exactly? The Bush administration wanted a specific legal opinion for political reasons, and it was the job of the torture memo lawyers to provide it. Holding lawyers accountable for their actions would not only give them additional incentive to do their jobs competently, it would also protect them from politicians would would prey on them. This might not have occurred to Wolf: as I have said before, those on the right have spent so long avoiding responsibility for their actions that by now it is probably second nature for them.

Finally, Wolf mischaracterizes the nature of the torture. He writes that the lawyers said only that "it was legal to put a terrorist in a box with a caterpillar." And this is where Wolf's post is not only false and misleading, it's just freaking incoherent. The justification of torture on the right is that it works, i.e., that it rapidly produces actionable intelligence better than alternative methods—a claim that is almost certainly false, by the way. (Just ask John Kiriakou.) Now, how could torture be so effective if it involves merely putting people in boxes with insects? It couldn't be, of course, so it must involve techniques that actually traumatize its victims. But then the liberal concern about the use of torture seems justified. I would be willing to waterboard Wolf it would help him see the point. But I doubt that he would sign up for it.

Electric Light Orchestra, "Ordinary Dream"

Ratigan shows us how to look worse than the guest you want to trash

Lori Ziganto at RedState posted a video of Dylan Ratigan of MSNBC having a meltdown during an interview with Tea Party leader Mark Williams. Her commentary on the video consists of the same overworked and tedious conservative talking points. But she is right to view the video with disapproval. It's painful to watch, and Williams comes out it looking a lot better than he otherwise might have, which is quite an accomplishment, considering the things that Williams has said about Barack Obama.