Kausfiles: A mostly political weblog.

The Michael Bay Theory of Health Care Reform

Ezra Klein:

If there are no circumstances under which Congress will reform Medicare, there are no circumstances under which the federal government will not go bankrupt.

No circumstances? Has Klein never heard of taxes? Is he an extreme supply sider who thinks increasing taxes will never increase revenues? Even under grim budget scenarios in which the medical cost curve doesn't bend at all, the federal budget rises to consume about 30% of GDP in 2050. You could, in theory, increase taxes to pay for 30% of GDP (they're a little under 20% now).  You could also do something to dramatically shrink Social Security spending--the big non-medical driver of federal spending--by raising the retirement age and cutting benefits for those who don't need them (means-testing). It's hard to believe that some combination of taxes and means-tested Social Security cuts couldn't bring revenues and spending into long term balance even if generous Medicare spending goes unpared by Harry Reid's new panel of unelected experts.

Klein's exclusion of these obvious alternatives seems to be part of a new strategy to reconcile the Democrats health care plan with deficit-consciousness. The old argument--Classic Orszagism--claimed simply, if enigmatically, that the solution to the budget crisis was Obama's health care reform, because somehow only when the government insured coverage for all would it have the leverage necessary to "bend the cost curve" down. One problem with Classic Orszagism was that it scared the elderly, and near-elderly, who are hardly crazy to see the suggested restrictions on mammogram spending as the opening bid in an ongoing campaign to "scientifically" lower high-tech expenses (by playing up the "anxiety" caused by false positives, for example). Another problem is that if the government can bend the cost curve, the logical place to start is with Medicare--and, indeed, the powerful Fed-like "IMAB" board in Harry Reid's bill is mandated to cut only Medicare. But if we can cut Medicare, why not just cut Medicare--without also adding Obama's admittedly expensive subsidized coverage for the uninsured?

If all you cared about was the deficit, that would be your position: First see if we can cut Medicare, then talk about extending health care to everyone in a few years. The fierce reaction to the mammogram recommendations, though, reinforced an already amply justified skepticism of the governments ability to reduce treatments to constituents who see them as life-saving. Why do we have any expectation that the cost curve will be bent at all, ever?

Here is where Klein's new argument comes in: Curve-bending skeptics like David Broder have to be wrong because ... well, they have to be wrong. Broder's skepticism

is another way of saying that Congress can't cut health-care costs and the American government will go bankrupt. For one thing, that's not a very good reason not to at least try and avert that outcome. But if Broder's position is that we face certain fiscal collapse, then the only real question is whether we would prefer that 30 million Americans had insurance in the meantime, or went uninsured over that period.

It's Doomsday Orszagism: The government has to be able to bend the curve because the alternative, even without Obama's health care reform, is a fiscal apocalypse in which "the federal government will not be able to honor its debts." The asteroid is heading towards earth, and a mild mannered CBO wonk has his hands on the only plan for heading it off. You gotta believe!

But if there are other ways to head off bankruptcy--namely taxes and Social Security cuts--you don't gotta believe. An alternative argument for health reform would say: extending generous health coverage to all citizens is part of America's social equality. We don't deny people what they need to regain their health. We don't decide that some people are worth care and others aren't, British-style. We can pay for it--it's expensive, it certainly doesn't help the deficit picture, but it's not that expensive at the moment, maybe a hundred or two extra billion a year. It's worth raising some taxes and maybe denying the affluent government retirement checks (which is not such a necessary part of social equality). If we can do some reasonable curve-bending in the long-run to bring down the cost, even better. But we're not counting on it, since so far nobody's been able to do it.

Maybe the various versions of Orszagism--the confident invocations of curve-bending power--are the only way to sell health care this year, even though they've already (by raising the rationing issue) helped consign Obama's reform to seemingly permanent general unpopularity. Maybe it's even necesary to go further, in a Michael Bay-like direction, and claim disingenuously that Orszag's curve bending is the only way to save us all from horrific doom. BS sometimes works to pass legislation. But it's still BS. ... [Thanks to alert reader S.W. for the link to Keith Hennessy's chart] 10:29 P.M.

___________________________

Does Harry Reid's Health Care Bill Create a "Fed" for Medicare?

[Update: This post has been corrected. New text has been underlined.***]

David Leonhardt, complaining that the House health care bill doesn't do enough to control costs, touts a particular model for imposing parsimonious changes on the nation's health care delivery system: 

Twice a year, an outside advisory board sends Congress a list of suggestions for Medicare payment rates, based on the available evidence. Congress generally ignores them, in deference to the various industry groups that oppose any cuts to their payments.
 
We already have a wonderful model for how to avoid such interference. It’s called the Federal Reserve. The Fed is charged with setting interest rates based on economic conditions, not politics. The Senate bill would create such a commission for Medicare.

But does the Senate bill really have a cost-cutting commission that's like the Fed? The Fed is a highly independent agency whose actions take effect without approval from Congress. Maybe Congress could overturn a Fed action, but it would require a new piece of legislation, passed by both houses and signed by the president. In contrast, the current cost-cutting "MedPAC" panel submits proposals that then have to be passed as new laws by Congress or else they don't take effect (which, as Leonhardt notes, is usually what happens).

The logical middle ground would be to have an independent panel whose recommendations take effect unless they are somehow vetoed by Congress without presidential involvement,** or whose recommendations must be affirmatively passed by Congress but get the benefit of a streamlined, limited-amendment up-or-down fast-track "base closing" type of legislative process.

I assumed that the second of these obvious middle ground alternatives--rather than a "Fed" approach--had been taken when I read this description of the Reid Senate bill on Ezra Klein's blog:

The idea isn't simply that a panel of experts gets to dream up interesting reforms to try out in Medicare. It's that they are charged with making sure that Medicare hits certain growth targets, and their package of reforms has to achieve that goal. Those reforms are then sent to Congress, where Senate debate is limited to 30 hours, and amendments must be both budget neutral and "germane." This report, in other words, is exempt from the filibuster. So far as anything is ever easy to pass, this is easy to pass.

Then I read the bill.  As far as I can see, it's actually a whole lot closer to Leonhardt's "Fed" model than I'd thought. In general, there is an independent panel ("IMAB"), and if Congress does nothing, its cost-cutting rules take effect.  What's more, the "fast track" process described by Klein would not allow Congress to simply stop the board's rules, only to substitute its own plan to save the same amount of money. This would be a very powerful unelected board. David Broder may explode.

**********

You can read the law yourself--the relevant provision (Sec. 3403) runs from page 1000 to page 1053 here. But what it seems to say, specifically, is:

--The new 15 member "IMAB" board makes cost-cutting recommendations if Medicare spending exceeds specific targets.

--Congress then 'considers' these changes in bill form. But like other legislation, the president can veto this bill (and his veto can be overridden).

--The "fast tracking" provisions Klein discusses apply to this bill. But they also sharply restrict what the 'fast track' bill can do. Congress can't, under the fast track, just block the IMAB board's decrees. It can change them, but if it changes them it has to meet the cost-reduction targets in some other way. It's not allowed to not save money, apparently (though the Senate is allowed to do some unspecified things by 2/3 vote that I don't quite understand). In other words, the 'fast track' isn't designed to enable Congress to swiftly pass the new IMAB board's rules. The IMAB board doesn't need Congress' OK (see next paragraph). The fast track is designed to allow Congress to tinker with the IMAB board's rules as long as it reaches the same result. In this sense, the Reid fast track isn't like base closing, where Congress votes a package of cuts up or down in a special procedure. Voting down is not an option here.

--Key point: If Congress doesn't pass the fast-tracked 'tinkering' bill, the Secretary of HHS must implement the IMAB panel's recommendations.

--And Congress loses even its fast-track tinkering power after 2020, unless, by a 60% supermajority, during a specific window in the first half of 2017, while standing on one leg and humming Battle Hymn of the Republic, it passes a joint resolution discontinuing the whole process. Correction: The part about standing on one leg and humming doesn't seem to be in the final bill.

Complicated! (If I got it wrong, let me know.) The most obvious flaw seems to be this: Under the Reid bill, the way Congress react to the "IMAB" board's rules is by passing a law, subject to presidential veto, on a carefully-circumscribed "fast track." But Congress can pass a new law, subject to veto, anytime it wants on any subject, using its traditional "slow track" (or any faster track it feels like creating). The Reid bill can't stop future Congresses from doing that--passing a law simply throwing out an IMAB board recommendation, for example, without offering an alternative way to save money. Or killing the IMAB board completely (whether or not it passes this law in the first half of 2017). All the Reid reform can hope to do is prevent Congress from doing this via the specified "fast track." A meddling Congress, faced with constituents angry at Medicare cuts, might well say, in effect, 'take your fast track and shove it--we'll show you fast'.

Suppose, say, the "expert" IMAB board decrees that the feds won't pay for routine mammograms for women in their forties. How do you think Congress would react? ... 

**--Several readers suggest that this "legislative veto" middle ground would be unconstitutional under the principles of INS v. Chadha. They may be right--which could be why the Reid bill envisions a fast-track legislative process that requires the President's signature, as with any regular law. But the Reid bill appears to rely on a legislative veto of its own--allowing Congress, by joint resolution, without the President's approval, to terminate the whole IMAB board in 2017. Why would it be unconstitutional to let Congress, acting alone, kill the IMAB board's rules, but not unconstitutional to let it kill the IMAB board? ...  Paranoid thought: It's a trap. Proponents of a strong, Fed-like panel would love to sucker opponents into attacking it via a "joint resolution" mechanism that's later held unconstitutional and void. ...

***--Correction: Underlined words and sentences reflect a second, and I hope more accurate, reading of the bill. The "fast track" resolution is not designed to let Congress nix the board's rules, as I initially thought. It apparently only lets Congress substitute other ways to save the same amount of money. All the more reason Congress is likely to simply skip the 'fast track' entirely.

Cynical view: This entire "Fed for Medicare" provision, with its nanny-like restrictions on what Congress can do on the 'fast track,' isn't going to pass, and if it passes it won't last. It's mainly Kabuki designed to convince the CBO to "score" the whole health bill as a deficit-reducer. ... 10:40 P.M.

___________________________

Murder in the White House: I've read the Lloyd Grove's account and Steve Clemons' account and  Elizabeth Drew's account--and I still don't have a clue as to why Greg Craig was forced out as White House Counsel--just that it was a bad, bad thing and was done by leaks. ... If you could force someone out merely by leaks, wouldn't Rahm Emanuel have been forced out of the Clinton White House in 1993? ... There's something here we don't know, no? Someone Craig pissed off, maybe. Someone unfireable from Chicago? (I'm just speculating, but that is the sort of thing that would fill the role of ninth planet here.) ... 

Update: Time's account fills much of the void, portraying Craig as a politically tone-deaf civil liberties purist. Maybe there is another side to the story. But if Craig really did want to release photos of detainee abuse, that's enough for me. ... 11:49 P.M.

___________________________ 

Suckers of the Week

Explainer Wanted: Why would a politician ever concede a non-blowout race until every last ballot is counted? The momentary frisson of good will can't be worth the possibility that the concession will turn out to have been a mistake--as it was for Jimmy Carter in 1980, Al Gore in 2000, and now conservative Doug Hoffman in the NY-23 congressional race. ... Hoffman will probably still lose when all the ballots are in, but his concession has already had real world consequences--it allowed Nancy Pelosi to swear in Hoffman's Democratic opponent in time to give health care reform its narrow House majority. I'm assuming the people who voted for Hoffman aren't happy with that. ... P.S.: Dick Morris claims, plausibly, that Pelosi had many Dem votes in reserve. Still, thanks to Hoffman's concession she didn't have to use them. ...

Update: Mystery Pollster answers.

One answer: They remember Ellen Sauerbrey http://tr.im/EToC Hoffman wants to run again next year, also counted right http://tr.im/EToX 

I'm not convinced. You don't have to be nasty about it. Just say "Let's see how it turns out" and don't concede. ... 9:48 P.M.

___________________________ 

Things you thought you were getting in the auto bailout. ... Chrysler's showy electric and hybrid cars? Forget them. Now that Chrysler has your money, they're dead. ... GM's 2010 IPO? The one that was going to raise money to repay taxpayers? It's receding rapidly into the future. "It depends on how quickly we become profitable. ... I can’t promise a date," says GM Chairman Ed Whitacre. Translation: Not going to happen. ... Suckers! ... 9:40 P.M.

___________________________

Am I the only one who smells Kabuki in the reports that President Obama has dramatically rejected all the Afghan war options with which he was presented, demanding to know where the "off ramps" are? If you were about to recommend a troop increase that was unpopular, especially with your Democratic base, wouldn't you precede it with some drama like this to demonstrate that you are a) in charge, b) not being conned, and c) insistent on a withdrawal as quickly as possible? Just asking. ... 10:54 P.M.

___________________________

What's wrong with the upcoming Chevy Cruze? Production of the new compact has been delayed three months. The New York Times says the problem is "engine performance and the quietness of the Cruze's ride." AP, quoting the same GM executive, says the problem is the transmission ("No one was thrilled with where it shifted, how it shifted.") What if they're both right? ... P.S.: It's fine that GM postpones a launch for a car that's not yet up to snuff. But the NYT's Bill Vlasic is a sucker for buying the line that this sort of delay represents a dramatic "culture" shift: 

In the past, G.M. rarely held back a product to add the extra touches that would improve its chances in a fiercely competitive market.

Please. GM's been peddling this line for years. See, for example, this U.S. News report:

Concerns over quality have substantially altered the way Detroit launches new models. A case in point is the line of luxury midsized cars planned for this fall by Cadillac, Buick and Oldsmobile. Transaxle problems with these front-wheel-drive C-body models caused GM to delay their introduction until at least January, and possibly spring. ''The car will have to tell us when it's ready," says Robert Burger, Cadillac's general manager. Notes a longtime industry observer: ''In the old days, that would be unheard of. They'd move the cars in the fall, whether they were right or not.''

That paragraph was published in 1983. ... 10:56 P.M.

___________________________

"CNN doesn't have a brand.  It has a bland.  It just got blander." -- Alert reader T. ...  11:36 P.M.

Did Fox Win the War?

Obama aide Anita Dunn, who started the White House war against Fox, is leaving her post. ... Meanwhile, Obama will give an interview to Fox's Major Garrett. ... Did Fox win? ... Or was it an October fundraising ploy all along? ... If Obama won, his communications shop certainly knows how to magnanimously make it look like he lost. ... Is that what Sun Tzu would do? ... 11/13 Update: Dunn a) declares victory on her way out the door("People took a step back and said, ‘Hmm, am I really wanting to go chase those stories?’”) b) lobs a few more shells  c) suggests she had a White House pre-clearance to launch the war ("White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, Press Secretary Robert Gibbs and perhaps even the president himself gave her the green light," says Sam Stein.) d) says “There are no confirmed television interviews in China," where the Major Garrett interview was reported to be planned. Won't that make it a bit embarrassing if it happens? ... P.S.: Still looks like a retreat to me, even if I agree with Dunn's underlying premise--that Fox News is in essence a different sort of animal from even MSNBC. ...  6:20 P.M.

____________________________

BriarPatch.org: From ABC's Note:

MoveOn.org is launching a round of TV ads this week targeting Democratic House members who voted against the health care bill over the weekend.

Thirty-nine Democrats voted against the bill, though MoveOn is starting by targeting only six fiscally conservative "Blue Dog" Democrats: Rep. Mike Ross, [D-Ark.]; Rep. Jason Atlmire, D-Pa.; Rep. Glenn Nye, D-Va.; Rep. Rick Boucher, D-Va.; Rep. Larry Kissell, D-N.C..; and Rep. Heath Shuler, D-N.C. ...[snip]

A spokesman for the group said MoveOn plans to spend $500,000 on the ads, which come as liberals seek to pressure moderate Democrats in the Senate to support President Obama in his quest for health care reform.

 Alert reader T. emails:

If you were a Democratic House Member from a relatively conservative district (especially if you've already taken a bad vote on cap and trade) how much would you pay MoveOn to come into your district and publicize your vote where you stood up to Pelosi and Obama on government-run health care?

True. But doesn't MoveOn know this? They still get to look tough, and raise money. Conservative Dems get to triangulate. It's win-win. ... 7:41 P.M.

___________________________

A very pretty mid-50s FIAT with a body by the late Elio Zagato. Note subtle grille graphics. ... 7:41 P.M.

___________________________

Health Care Reform: Got Id?

TTAC asks: Will today's recyclable cars fall apart? ... 5:36 P.M.

___________________________ 

Are you as sophisticated as Politico? Spot the weak point in Carrie Budoff Brown's optimistic health care reform report:

Reid also said he will deliver a final bill to the president by Christmas, meeting the White House deadline.

"We sure hope so," Reid said.

2:18 P.M.

___________________________

"Abortion Dispute Could Derail Health Bill": Do you really think an abortion dispute will derail the massive health bill? Me neither. I think if the Democrats are scared to pass the health bill they will let an abortion dispute derail the massive health bill. If they aren't too scared, the abortion issue can be finessed with a variety of possible compromises. (Sample: The Stupak Amendment with an opt-out for states that vote explicitly to allow private insurance premiums (on federally subsidized policies) to fund abortions.)
 
That goes for all the allegedly difficult House/Senate sticking points. Timothy Noah lists four, in addition to abortion: the public option, the government's ability to negotiate drug prices, the size of the lower-income subsidies, the tax that will pay for it all. I'm not impressed. It would take a conscientious conference committee, working in secret, maybe, what, two days to split the difference on most of them? Even if differences can't be split, they can be finessed, or kicked down the road. And even if that's impossible--well,nobody really believes that the left is going to sabotage a once-in-a-lifetime chance at health care reform over abortion, or the "robustness" of the public option, or the ability of illegal immigrants to get insurance.
 
The problem facing health care reform, as Dick Morris and others have been arguing for months, isn't these tediously subtle legislative complications. They're what we see on the surface. The problem is the crude, primal politics underneath them--the legislature's' "id." It's the fear, among power-lusting Democratic Congresspersons, that if they vote for health care they won't be Congresspersons much past November, 2010 (or that even if they win, they will no longer be in the majority party). They're not worried about Cadillac plans. They're worried about castration.
 
Note that Obama's House pep talk, according to John Dickerson, focused on the primal politics:
 

Before the House vote last Saturday, Obama made two key political points to Democratic House members. First, they needed to vote for health care because it would motivate the party base in 2010. Second, those who think they can run away from the president by voting against his signature legislative effort are kidding themselves. The president believes that a key lesson of the Republican rout of Democrats in 1994 was that Democrats who oppose their president can never get far enough away to survive politically. So if you're going to get stuck defending the president, you should get behind his plan and benefit from the political cover he'll work to give those who support him.
 

Of course, if the fate of health reform in fact turns on such non-wonk, non-policy analysis, reform supporters couldn't help but notice at least two danger signs:

1) The size of the House majority. 220-215 votes. It's hard to believe it was this close--that Pelosi didn't have more votes she could have called on in a pinch. But if (as reported) she really needed to agree to the anti-choice Stupak amendment in order to get past 218, maybe she did pull out nearly all the stops. If so, yikes! The thinness of Pelosi's House majority is a very bad sign--not because it shows the House doesn't have any room to negotiate with the Senate. (If the bill moves to the right by, say, dropping the public option, they'll cave.) It's a bad sign because it shows that even in the heavily Democratic, disciplined, liberal House the primal drive for health care reform just isn't that high. There is no room for more fear.

2)  "[Y]ou should get behind his plan and benefit from the from the political cover he'll work to give those who support him," Dickerson has Obama saying. You mean like the cover he gave Jon Corzine in New Jersey? ...

Update: Matt Yglesias clarifies some of the Kabuki--

[I]nsofar as there are members who don’t want to take the political risk of voting “yes” on a comprehensive health care reform bill, but also don’t want to be seen as spiking the initiative, then developing a hard line position on abortion can be convenient. Like say Ben Nelson and Bob Casey say they can’t vote for health care unless it contains Stupak language, and then Joe Lieberman (Freedom of Choice Act cosponsor!) and Olympia Snowe say they can’t vote for health care unless it doesn’t contain Stupak language. Well, then health care dies. And yet nobody has to take the blame for having killed it if a constituent gets mad. [E.A.]

It's also true that if you don't want to take the political risk of voting "yes" on a comprehensive health care reform bill and also don't want to take the political risk of developing a hard line position on abortion then it's in your interest that others, like Ben Nelson, develop that hard line position and cause a train wreck. You can't be blamed, of course. You supported health care! You were nowhere near the scene of the crash! It just kind of happened. Terrible thing, just terrible. ... But maybe you will quietly thank Nelson in your prayers. ... Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, of course, was accused of engineering just this kind of train wreck on "comprehensive immigration reform" in 2007. ... 2:23 A.M.

___________________________

Is it an accident that Rep. Alan Grayson, despite his respectable resume, turned into a flamboyant hey-look-at-me bombthrower after hiring famously intemperate blogger Matt Stoller as "policy adviser"? (Here's Stoller displaying his laid back personality on bloggingheads.tv.) The NYT, which puzzled on Grayson's transition a week ago, missed this angle. ... Or was Grayson intemperate before--and that's why he hired Stoller (and why Stoller went to work for him)? Hard to see which way causality runs. Could run in all directions, of course. A vicious circle of hotheadedness. ... 1:48 P.M.

___________________________

Health Care Reform: Reich Overboard!

Canary Ejects from Coal Mine: Robert Reich sure seems to be saying that Obama should have focused on the economy and put off health care reform:

a) Reich's test of success or failure seems to be whether "the Democrats lose one or both houses of Congress in the midterms." His analysis of why this might happen (benefits of health plan won't be felt, lack of jobs will) appears sound. But if Obama had focused on the economy, what measures, exactly, could he have taken to avoid a midterm massacre? A larger stimulus? Obama got as big a stimulus as he could last spring, no? Maybe Reich thinks Obama could have gotten a second tranche earlier this fall if he'd delayed health care. But Reich more or less admits that now it's too late for any measure to have a big impact before the election. So why not get health care reform? The way things are going, it's not like Dems will have another chance in 2011.
 
b) Reich's clearly still miffed that President Clinton rejected his stimulus plans in early 1993, choosing instead to lower the budget deficit and interest rates. As a result, Reich declares, "the Clinton years produced few if any major social reforms." Hmm. I can think of one. Actually, two and a half (work-oriented welfare reform coupled with the expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit and medical care for poor children). Even if Reich perversely won't count that as a "social reform," Clinton's rejection of Reich's advice was followed by the longest economic expansion in our history. The combination lowered the child poverty rate from 22% to 16%. Never trust content from Robert Reich.
 
c)  You could say it's a bad sign for Obama if Reich has ejected from the health care express. On the other hand, if there were a theatrical, left-cultivating, personal-branding semi-economist who was going to get attention for himself by jumping ship, it would be Robert Reich. He's sort of a canary in the coal mine in this respect. The canary has jumped! But at this point it's only the canary. ... Any metaphors left? [Shark-ed Well, Reich's chances of returning to power in an Obama administration are now close to zero. Maybe he's jumped that too. ... ]  9:01 P.M.

___________________________

Allthumbsucking: From WaPo reporter Michael Shear's exceptionally gauzy and correct "analysis" of Obama's "challenges"--including handling the aftermath of the Ft. Hood mass shooting:

And the incident -- clearly out of Obama's control -- comes as the president appears nearing a decision to send thousands more troops to Afghanistan. Explaining that decision to the public will be a critical job for Obama during the next several months, and Hasan's actions can only make that more difficult. [E.A.]

"Only"? Really? If Obama wants to send thousands more troops to bottle up radical Islamic terrorists who would like to bring violence to America, it seems as if this violent incident might make explaining it easier, no? ... P.S.: I'm not saying it necessarily makes it righter--just easier to win support for. ... 9:01 P.M.

___________________________

Zombie Orszagism Returns to Kill Health Care Reform For Good?

The Obama Administration will find a way to blow health care reform yet. Mere Rhetoric notes a report that Obama aides plan to address Tuesday's election defeats by resurrecting Orszagism, the doctrine that health care reform is the way to control the deficit because it will enable the government to "bend the cost curve" down without compromising care. From Josh Gerstein:

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs insisted Wednesday that the White House plans no changes whatsoever in its legislative strategy or agenda as a result of this week’s contests. However, a White House aide told ABC that the administration will seek to bolster moderates by returning to an argument that health care reform will curb the deficit—a talking point Obama aides have de-emphasized in recent months in favor of a focus on making the insurance system more secure and predictable. [E.A.]

If I recall, the White House had"de-emphasized" Orszagism because those who heard the argument tended to fall into roughly two camps: 1) Voters who thought it was at best pie-in-the-sky and that the government probably couldn't "bend the curve" over the next two decades--the way it hasn't been able to do with Medicare, for example; and 2) Voters who thought the government could indeed "bend the curve" and were terrified by the prospect, because the argument seemed to be that only if the government controlled virtually the entire health system could it really turn the screws start denying treatments initiate a "very difficult democratic conversation" over which treatments were really cost-effective, including treatments at the end of life. ... 

It was only when the Orszagism was in fact de-emphasized (over the summer) that opposition to health care reform stopped its relentless upward rise and actually fell for a brief period. Why go back to the debacle of last Spring?  Vague policyspeak about curve-bending has already, unnecessarily, cost health care reform the support of the elderly. Does Obama want to give reform's opponents the ammo to drive opposition above the 60% line?  Go ahead. Make Dick Morris' day. ...

P.S.: I should make it clear that I am in camp #1--I don't think Americans will tolerate draconian, or even semi-draconian, denials of service. As a result I don't think the curve (which is driven mainly by advances in medicine that yield expensive treatments) will be bent. That's why I'm for health care reform. But Orszagism is still lousy politics, because lots of voters will fall into Camp #2. ...

For more: See kf's extensive fall Orszagism collection. ... 12:06 A.M.

___________________________

Why Are the Health Care Polls Going South?

Another seemingly grim health care poll--49/39 against, compared with 42/40 earlier in the month by the same pollster (Ipsos/McClatchy). The new poll eerily resonates with Rasmussen's increased margin of 54/42 against. But, again, part of the drop in support could come from erstwhile reform supporters worried about the status of the "public option." I'd be interested in the breakout of independents and Democrats--but I can't open the file. If you can, feel free to let me know. Mickey_Kaus at msn dot com. ... Mickey's Assignment Desk: Mark Blumenthal--maybe you can help. Why are the health care polls going south? Unaffiliated voters worried about the deficit? Libs worried about the public option? Seniors worried about death panels overzealous cost containment measures? Everyone worried about rising premiums? ... Or any combination of the above (including voters betraying their stereotypes--e.g. liberals worried about overzealous cost controls or deficits?) ...

Update: Thanks to all who sent the numbers. Opposition to reform appears to have held steady among GOPs. but risen among independents by 15 percentage points (from 38% opposed to 53%) and also among Democrats by 7 percentage points (from 18% to 25%). Less clear is what could have provoked these drops. It's hard to say "lack of a public option," given that the public option seems to be in better shape today than early in October--though the poll was taken immediately following Sen. Lieberman's filibuster threat. ...

More: CNN is out with another grim survey--  53/45 against, a sharp change from the 49/49 tie CNN reported in mid-October. ... On the other hand, Rasmussen has moved slightly in the pro-reform direction (it's now 7 points down instead of 12). The Rasmussen poll is fresher, by a week, than CNN's. But it also was taken the very weekend the House passed it's version of the bill (with an anti-abortion amendment)--so it may record a potentially short-lived bounce. ... 4:27 P.M.

___________________________

Conservatives Against "Spiritual Health"

Conservatives against prayer ... Or, rather, against requiring health insurance in Obama's "exchanges" to cover prayer treatment ("religious and spiritual health care"). a) Yes, a government-run plan will always have to contend with this sort of pressure, in addition to pressure to cover experimental procedures and expensive mental health treatments. These pressures are often harder for our political system to resist than for private insurers to resist; b) But if the government can avoid covering Christian Science prayer treatment under Medicare you'd think it could avoid covering it under the smaller health insurance exchange plans envisioned by the Dems, no? c) Wonder which way Sarah Palin comes down on this; d) Can the Scientologists be far behind? ... 12:18 P.M.

___________________________

Hugh ("only time will tell") Sidey has a worthy successor: Eugene Robinson in this morning's WaPo:

Reading too much into Tuesday's off-off-year election results would be a mistake, but reading too little into them would be wrong as well.

[Thanks to reader J] 12:08 P.M.

____________________________ 

Chrysler to break out new "Ram" line of trucks. If they'd called it the Rahm line I'd really start to worry about politicization. ... P.S.: Chrysler has now "projected that it will double its sales over five years." Do you believe that? Me neither, though I guess if Chrysler sales keep falling (down 39% so far this year from last year, which wasn't so great itself) they'll eventually be able to double their sales just by selling another one. [Update: They put an actual number on what they expect to do--increase sales from 1.3 million in 2009 to 2.8 million in 2014. With this? Okeydokey.] ... 12:04 P.M.

___________________________

Election 2009: Some Winners, Losers,

Winner: Robopolls. Rasmussen's final poll, showing a 46-43-8 Christie win, was pretty damn accurate. Polls using conventional human operators tended to show Corzine ahead. They were wrong.** ... If you have a choice between Rasmussen and, say, the presitigous N.Y.Times, go with Rasmussen! ... Why this is important: Rasmussen's polls tend to show the highest level of opposition to health care reform. If they accurately predict who will turn out to vote, they may signify big potential trouble for Democrats in lower-turnout mid-term elections. The Democratic Congressional id--at least the part that represents primordial existential fear of non-reelection--is throbbing. Expect a lot more time-consuming negotiating hangups and talk about how we should avoid arbitrary deadlines when it comes to passing Obama's big reform. ... (I still think it will eventually pass, but it may take until next Spring or beyond.) ...
 
Loser: Health care reform (see above) ...

Loser: Obama, who tried to work his magic for Corzine and discovered it wasn't there. (I don't buy the "he invested his prestige" line. A President is still allowed to try to help in a tight race. But he was clearly not a transformative presence in this one. It was more an Olympics bid situation.)

Winner: The Incumbent Rule--which holds that late-breaking voters do not go to the incumbent.  Tarnished in 2004, it's having a Nixon-like rehabilitation in New Jersey. Update: And in New York City. ...

Losers: E.J.Dionne, Walter Shapiro and others caught in the MSM negative-ads worked narrative for New Jersey (which just happened to favor the Democrat). ... Update: Negative ads were losers in Virginia too, says Byron York. ...

Winners: ACORN, SEIU, voter fraud. A close election would have put the spotlight on them, no? I guess that could still happen in NY-23. ... Corollary Loser: John Fund. A close election would have given him six months of well-paying work. ...

Losers: Dems who were planning to argue that a Corzine victory, when contrasted with Deeds' loss, shows the need to stick with "core Democratic values" (i.e. unions) ...

Loser: Card check. Virginia Republican McDonnell didn't fudge on labor's "card check" bill. He bashed it. He won. Virginia is hardly a union state, but neither are the states with Senators who are swing votes on "card check". ... 

Losers: Beck, Limbaugh, New Media conservatives who thought the rebellious Reaganite vote was bigger than it turned out to be in NY-23. ... Also Dem-leaning MSM who were planning to use a rebellious Reaganite victory as demonstrating a tea-party takeover of GOP (as opposed to a botched candidate-selection process). ...

Winner: GOP, because now that the rebellious Reaganites have had some serotonin leakage, they might be a bit easier to handle. ...

Winner: Lawrence O'Donnell of MSNBC. Breath of sanity next to K. Olbermann ...

Perennial loser: Exit polls (see below).

P.S.: Always trust content from kausfiles!

**--Note, though, that robopollster PPP was way off on NY-23. ... 8:33  P.M.

___________________________

NSFT--Not Safe For Twitter--Election Eve Special

R, Robot: Could this be the election that validates automated polls as more accurate than regular polls conducted by humans? Robopollster Rasmussen may have more riding on the New Jersey results than Obama. Mark Blumenthal (citing Nate Silver) discusses whether the reluctance of some potential voters to answer automated surverys eerily replicates the reluctance of some potential voters to ... vote--in effect giving robo-polls an effective screen for "likely" voters.** .. Also, in an especially exciting development, the Incumbent Rule may make a comeback ... P.S.: If robopolling really does focus accurately on "likely" voters, this latest Rasmussen-heavy health care chart will terrify wavering Democrats. ...

**--Post Election Update: Rasmussen and the other robopollsters were more accurate, but Blumenthal now attributes this to their "simulating a secret ballot, thus pushing voters harder to make a choice" between anti-Corzine candidates Christie and Daggett." Does this mean the robots' "likely voter" screen wasn't any better? ...10:30 P.M.

___________________________

Bonus Conditional CW: If conservative insurgent Doug Hoffman defeats the Democrat in New York's 23d District (after Republican party candidate, Dede Scozzafava, dropped out)--

Old CW: Sure, Scozzafava is a moderate Republican but that's what her constituents want.

New CW: It's a conservative district, what did you expect?

9:49 P.M.

___________________________

kf--Always the Positive Spin: The UAW's Ford workers have rejected contract concessions that would have almost-but-not-quite lowered Ford's labor costs to match GM and Chrysler's new costs, which are said to almost-but-not-quite match Toyota and Honda's. But is that really so bad? It means pattern bargaining is broken. The UAW strategy was always to take labor costs out of the auto industry's competitive equation by making basically the same deal with each of the Big Three. Yet Ford's workers obviously saw that their company was doing better than Chrysler or GM, and they refused to get in line. It's now clear that the fate of even unionized auto workers will vary with the success or failure of their individual employers. They're back to competing against each other, not just against the "bosses." ... P.S.: Too bad the GM and Chrysler bailouts, with their minimal UAW contract concessions, may have given Ford workers an excessively rosy impression of what it really means to have a failed employer. Were Ford workers scared enough to avoid the UAW's too-little-too-late tradition of concessions?  Obama has short-circuited bankruptcy's shock-and-awe function. ... And not just in this case. [via RCP] ... 3:33 P.M.

___________________________

That Mid-term CW in Full:

Old CW: Wow, Corzine's a goner. Voters are pissed.

New CW: Mixed message! Mixed message!

Next CW: What do midterms mean, anyway?

2:21 P.M.

___________________________

Uncensored Twitter Vitriol Unleashed! Someone calls Stephen Fry "a bit ... boring." Can't have that. ... More evidence that many celebrities have skins of pre-Internet thinness. It seems plausible that they would have to be insulated--or have their public insulated--from what's really tweeted about them. ... 2:21 P.M.

___________________________ 


Hostages to Fortune: Mid-term Edition [E.A.]

[NPR Host: ...[N]ext week, the off-year election could be a political weathervane for the Obama administration. ...  E.J., what do you - what do you find of interest in next Tuesday's elections?]

I think the weathervane is going to be going in circles in the end. I mean, what you're looking at in New Jersey, an embattled Democratic governor, Jon Corzine, on today's numbers is likely to squeak out a narrow victory. He's run a very, very tough campaign against Republican Chris Christie. It's as if Corzine lost the referendum on himself, then he turned it into a referendum on Christie, and Christie lost that one. And there's a third party candidate called Chris Daggett who's drawing off enough votes that Corzine will come through. And Corzine has hugged Barack Obama.

--E.J. Dionne, All Things Considered, Friday Oct. 30
 

John Corzine by all estimation is going to be reelected Governor of New Jersey.

--Walter Shapiro, KCRW's Which Way L.A.?, Thursday, October 22 **

Reader submissions accepted. (Email to Mickey underscore Kaus at MSN dot com). ...

P.S. I was sure this Bob Shrum column would yield a potentially embarrassing quote, riddled as it was by the assumption that Gov. Corzine was headed to unexpected victory (because unlike Creigh Deeds he "refuses to yield on core Democratic values.") But it's worded very carefully. ...

**--Maybe Shapiro left out the qualifiers speaking on a radio show? Here's the written version: "Aided by a superior Democratic get-out-the-vote drive, Corzine is now widely expected to prevail ..."   2:16 P.M

___________________________

Too Catty to Twitter--The mask of adopted authority slips: Someone who admits he thought the Ford Fiesta was "already out" --i.e. being sold in the U.S.--is maybe not the go-to expert to explain the "5 Reasons Ford Bounced Back." ... 2:14 P.M.

___________________________
 
"[M]ore people read the Newark Star-Ledger than watch Anderson Cooper": Jerry Skurnik claims I've failed to see the forest for the lede (about CNN's last place finish). The real story is how few people watch CNN and MSNBC and FOX combined: 

And it’s not like the bigger names in Cable are reaching a vast audience either. The “giants” of cable news do much better but still reach a puny number of viewers (O’Reilly, Beck & Hannitty reach 2-3 million a night) in a country where 130 million voted for President last year.

Skurnik claims this reinforces his theory of the growing gap between the "two electorates"--the tiny minority of super/faster informed politicos and the vast mass of less up-to-speed voters. But the driver of the two-electorate phenomenon isn't so much the increased knowledge of the superinformed, its the decrease (or leave-it-until-the-last-minute delay) in the common knowledge of the less informed, no? Sure, cable news' audience is tiny in a nation of 130 million voters. It's small compared to the 20 million who watch broadcast network news. But even that 20 million is small in a nation of 130 million voters! What about the other 110 million? There's your lede! (They used to watch Walter Cronkite or Huntley/Brinkley. Now they don't. Do they remain relatively uninformed, or inform themselves at the last minute--and if so, how? On the Web? If so, where? ... Word of mouth from neighbors? Neighbors in the first electorate? Neighbors who watch cable news? ...)

P.S.: I'm not so sure about Skurnik's near-CW point that

Cable news does sometimes play an important role in our politics. But that’s only when a story they report gets picked up by those parts of the media that bloggers & cable news say is dead or dying.

I suspect Dede Scozzafava might disagree. Did the conservative rebellion in her district gain unstoppable momentum because of coverage in the broadcast and newsprint MSM? ... Update: No! It was New Media! [via Insta] ...  2:12 P.M.

___________________________

Why Does the "Public Option" Have to Lower Costs?

The Curve Has To Want to Bend: Like Steven Pearlstein, Robert Samuelson more or less assumes the purpose of a "public option" is to control costs (as opposed to providing the security of a guaranteed fall-back plan). In an Un-Samuelsonesque fashion, he also assumes that there is some solution that will control costs in a manner agreeable to patients.

It's not insurers that cause high health costs; they're simply the middlemen. It's the fragmented delivery system and open-ended reimbursement. Would strict regulation of doctors, hospitals and patients under a single-payer system provide control? Or would genuine competition among health plans over price and quality work better?

That's the debate we need, but in truth, doctors, hospitals and patients don't want to be limited, whether by government or markets. Congress reflects public opinion. Fearing a real debate, we fake it.

a) Maybe none of these options--single payer, competition among health plans--will significantly lower costs, and we'll simply have to pay the increasing bill. Just a thought. b) If, as Samuelson says, "doctors, hospitals and patients don't want to be limited," it sounds like the debate over our system of "open-ended reimbursement" isn't a "debate we need." It's a debate we've had. Samuelson's side lost. Nobody wants to bend the curve.

Maybe it won't be bent. 8:38 P.M.

___________________________

Give Him a Fifth Chance! After completely misreading the zeitgeist and-- in a series of self-servingly ostentatious steps ("storytelling," emo)--leading his network into a ditch, is CNN's Jon Klein really going to keep his job? He doesn't seem even to be "embattled." ...  8:34 P.M.

___________________________

The Federalist Capers: A federalism compromise on the "public option" always seemed more promising to me than a "trigger" based compromise. But I'd been viewing the issue through a welfare-reform prism, in which states would either be in or out as discrete statewide units. Josh Marshall points out that the virtue of Harry Reid's plan is it allows states to join a single nationwide federal plan rather than set up their own plans. That lets you create a big--or big enough--pool of insured. It's like letting states opt out of (or in to) Medicare. ... That said, the federalist approach still offers a giant menu of possible compromises, from 1 to 50. You can have opt-out, opt-in, opt-in with a numerical limit, opt-out with incentives not to opt-out, opt-in with incentives to opt-in if regional distribution isn't achieved, even opt-out with a trigger that offers the incentives only if too few states stay "in." ... Update: Sam Stein has more. ... 

P.S.: Note also that the federalist solution means at least one "juice" vote in every state legislature, as health insurance lobbyists seek to use campaign contributions to bribe gain access and thereby influence the "opt out" or "opt in" vote. Another source of federalism's appeal! And bipartisan appeal at that. ... 8:34 P.M.

______________________________

It's All Going According to Plan II

Walter Shapiro: "John Corzine by all estimation is going to be reelected Governor of New Jersey." Really? "By all estimation"? You giving odds with that? I'll take them. Depends on the Daggett vote, no? And the night is young. ... P.S.: Don't forget the Incumbent Rule. ... Update: Maybe Daggett's vote won't fade. Could he pull a Ventura and actually win? Mark Blumenthal clinically examines on this non-crazy possibility. Andy Pettitte's arm is in the algorithm! ... Backfill: Shapiro made the case for betting on Corzine here. .. I may be biased by memories of an incident recounted by Fred Siegel and Dan DiSalvo: 

Supporters of public sector union power have developed a rationale for the government employees' gold-plated perks. The argument is that public employees are the vanguard of the working class. As such, the benefits they achieve will eventually have to be matched by private sector employers. As Carla Katz, the leader of New Jersey's Communications Workers of America, explained to Paul Mulshine of the Newark Star-Ledger, reformers embrace "the progressive theory that unless you create a substantial wage and benefits package that reflects good jobs and the ability to have a middle-class life style, there will be a perpetual race to the bottom." 

Katz not only represents thousands of state employees, she is also the richly rewarded former girlfriend of New Jersey governor Jon Corzine. Katz's influence on Corzine became clear in 2006 when the impassioned governor spoke to a Trenton rally of roughly 10,000 public workers and shouted out: "We will fight for a fair contract." Corzine was of course management in that situation, not labor. [E.A.]

New Jersey taxpayers, who now have to pay for the resulting union pay and benefit packages, must be unusually forgiving. ... .4:15 P.M.

___________________________

How to Fill the Empty Hours After Health Care? Nate Silver writes:

It's becoming increasingly likely that regulation of the banking and financial sector is liable to be the issue that dominates the first half of 2010. Why? Well in the first place, it's badly needed ... [snip]  In the second place, it's not clear what else the Obama administration will do on the domestic policy front, once the health care issue gets resolved. Although the unpopularity of the cap-and-trade program is greatly exaggerated -- most polls in fact show it receiving a plurality or narrow majority of support -- the swing districts in 2010 tend to be big carbon emitters. Immigration reform, likewise, is liable to be a less favorable issue for the Democrats in 2010 than it will be in 2012, when we'll have a younger, more diverse electorate in which Hispanics play a larger role as swing voters. EFCA -- the White House's support for which has always been questionable -- almost certainly isn't going anywhere. Movement on gay rights issues is a possibility, but is more dependent on the White House's willpower than its bandwidth. A second omnibus stimulus bill is probably out of the question, although certainly there will be piecemeal efforts -- extended unemployment benefits, greater investments in transportation infrastructure -- that the White House will pursue. Still, for a hard-working White House, that leaves plenty of time on the table for a big-ticket item, and that item will probably be banking reform. [E.A.]

Banking reform. Not "card check" (EFCA).  Not "comprehensive" illegal immigrant legalization. Not even "cap and trade." Banking reform.  ... And the more time it takes up, the better! ... I'm less worried about my vote for Obama every day. ...

P.S.: But will immigration really be a more "favorable" issue for the Dems in 2012, when they will probably have a smaller margin in the House? Maybe Silver is saying they'll have more incentive to bring it up--their swing district freshmen will already have lost--even if passage will still be difficult. ... Card check, on the other hand, will be both harder to pass and less advantageous to bring up, no? ...

P.P.S.: I still think the issue that "dominates the first half of 2010" is likely to be ... health care. At least the first half of the first half of 2010. We're talking about what happens after that. ...  4:15 P.M.

___________________________

National Review Not Guilty So Fox Not Guilty Too! National Review 's Stephen Spruiell defends Fox against the charge that it is an instrument, not of conservatism but of the Republican Party and (for much of the past decade) the Bushes.

I grow so tired of this smear. National Review gets this kind of thing all the time. Last year, Jonah compiled a nice summary of our dissents from the Bush White House. One could compile a similar dossier in defense of Fox News, but I'm afraid it wouldn't matter. [E.A.]

Oh, go ahead! ... It will be a mighty thin dossier, at least if it doesn't include issues (like Harriet Miers and immigration) where Roger Ailes' network initially, and disconcertingly, appeared to toe and try to hold the Bush line before eventually acceding to its viewers' opinions and allowing dissenting conservatives to express themselves. ...  4:15 P.M.

___________________________

"Howard Kurtz, Missing in Action:" The Left is now on the case of the Biggest Conflict of Interest in Journalism. Writes Michael Massing:

Young people have embraced [Jon Stewart's] show precisely because he’s willing to take on cable news in a way our top media reporters are not. And not just Fox. Last week, “The Daily Show” offered a brilliant expose of the superficiality and hollowness of the journalism practiced on CNN, showing how its anchors allow partisan spokesmen to make all kinds of ridiculous claims without challenge. “We’ll have to leave it there” was the stock response of CNN interviewers to the ludicrous talking points of their guests.

You’ll almost never see Howard Kurtz scrutinize CNN in that way. Of course, he’s employed by the network.

 4:58 P.M.

___________________________

Guaranteed 50% Fox-Related Ingredients

Attention, "Fait Accompli" Brigade: This chart seems to be going in the wrong direction for health care reform, even if you discount the lopsided FOX poll (for Nate Silverish reasons--they only get the big support/oppose question after asking a series of spoiling questions). ... P.S.: Does this suggest that the much-derided insurance industry study (suggesting premiums would rise after reform) had an impact? ... It could also reflect increased dissent on the left, from public-option supporters, as hinted by the new WaPo survey. (See, for example, question 13.) ... 9:55 P.M.

___________________________ 

On Sunday, William Kristol argued it was "reckless" for Obama to delay surging in Afghanistan while he waits to see how legitimate our "Afghan partner" will be:

If the president issued the order now, he could always delay or revoke it later, if the political situation seemed truly insupportable....

Why do I get the feeling that if Obama ordered a surge of troops today and revoked it in two weeks, Bill Kristol would be among the first to savage him for being indecisive and prone to sudden reversal? There's a virtue in making the decision once, and then being able to stick with it, as Kristol surely knows. ... P.S.: I would suspect Kristol of adding his bad faith argument so he'd have three bullet points, but he already had his three. So no excuse! ... P.P.S.: Won't Kristol's post--which sneers that the White House had "failed" to improve the election process--look awfully silly if Obama's delay turns out to force Karzai to accept a cleaner runoff? ... 10:21 P.M.

___________________________

Gawker got hold of the first few words of ex-President Clinton's private twitters, including this entry:

Twitter / Bill Clinton:  John Edwards ... why did you ...

You'd think Clinton, of all people, would know that answer to that one. ...

Update: In a slyly invisible, joke-ruining revision, Gawker's Anthony De Rosa now says the twitters were probably captured from the account of a Bill Clinton imposter. ... P.S.: Is De Rosa the new night guy or the new ex-night guy? ... 10:50 P.M.

___________________________

Odd sloppiness in Monday's big N.Y. Times story with possible dirt on GOP N.J. gubernatorial candidate Chris Christie:

1) The Times writes that

interviews with federal law enforcement officials suggest that Ms. Brown [to whom Christie had loaned $46,000] used her position in two significant and possibly improper ways to try to aid Mr. Christie in his run for governor. [E.A.]

Motive is very hard to prove. The Times doesn't come close to showing that Brown was trying to aid Mr. Christie's run for governor if (as alleged) she a) supervised a FOIA request by the Corzine campaign of her and Christie's travel records and b) argued for making a big corruption arrest before Christie left office. In (a), she might have been trying to cover her own a--, since the FOIA request included her own records, no? In (b), maybe she just thought her friend and boss (rather than his successor) deserved to get full props for his hard work. I suppose the facts do "suggest" that Brown was trying to aid Christie's political run, but it's still a weird, easily abused way to write a lede. The first arrests at the Watergate suggested that the White House was a lawless operation headed by a crook who was trying to spy on his Democratic rivals, but I don't think that's how Woodward & Bernstein's nut graf read. The allegation about Brown's motive was hardly necessary to make a good story--all the Times had to say was that in both cases Brown seems to have taken actions that actually helped Christie's campaign.

2) In its tour of anti-Christie accusations, the Times refers to

reports that [Christie] discussed a run for governor with Karl Rove in 2006 led Democrats to assert he had violated the Hatch Act, which forbids candidates from “testing the waters” for a run for office. [E.A.]

The Hatch Act forbids candidates from "testing the waters"? There's your story! A whole lot of politicians are going to jail if that's the case. But maybe the Times "computer assisted reporting team" should hit the keyboards to find out what the Hatch Act says first. (And is talking to Karl Rove "testing the waters"?)

3) "$20,000 in mileage reimbursements during his seven-year tenure" is less than $3,000 per year--not that much. Even if it does include $79 to see a Mets game.

It would be wrong of me at this point to mention the famous Howell Raines Spike (of reports damaging to Democratic New Jersey Senator Robert Torricelli when he was running for reelection) as evidence that the NYT is trying to elect Dems in New Jersey. It certainly "suggests" that! But we're in the age of partisan media and if the NYT wants to try to elect Dems the way Fox wants to elect GOPs, that's their right. ...

P.S.: If you believe the Feiler Faster Thesis, this story was dropped way too soon. Plenty of time before November 3 for Christie to change the narrative. But maybe in New Jersey Feiler is slower. ... 10:52 P.M.

___________________________

No Amnesty for Windows 7!

We have ways of making you stress-free: Someone should write the fictionalized dystopian nightmare of mandatory "wellness" programs foreshadowed in Sen. Ensign's business backed plan to let insurers penalize even those who seek non-employer-based health coverage if they don't participate in healthy life regimens."  Like THX 1138, but with brownies. ... Nineteen-Eighty-Fat! ... Ensign says his plan "would guarantee that the incentive is strong enough for Americans to want to participate." ... Next:  Marital fidelity incentives! ... 9:33 P.M.

___________________________ 

It's pretty obvious Jacob Weisberg is right to assert that Fox News is a partisan, non-balanced outfit, more like a 19th century pamphlet than the 20th century "balanced" news outlet it pretends to be. During the Bush presidency, if Karl Rove gave an order, I think it was much more likely to be followed by Roger Ailes at Fox than, say, Christie Whitman at the EPA. I can see why this would lead Democrats to legitimately refuse to let Fox host a debate. But I don't see why this means that non-conservatives need to stop appearing on Rupert Murdoch's network. Are they only allowed to preach to the converted? ... P.S.: Weisberg notes that partisan media organizations like Fox (and now MSNBC) are not only one American First Amendment tradition but are also winning in the TV marketplace. Don't we need to learn to live with them? They aren't going to respond to sanctions. ('OK, we'll do anything. Just don't cut off Mara Liasson!'). ...  P.P.S.: It's true that going on Fox and effectively sowing doubt behind enemy lines is something Ailes is likely to only let you do once. So be it. But maybe not, if the ratings are good. ... 8:56 P.M.

___________________________

Nightmare of Vista Not Over! Attention, Fellow Vista-Skippers: We haven't made it yet. Yes, Microsoft is telling us we don't need to wait for the first bug-fixing "Service Pack" before replacing our creaky, precious XP machines with new Windows 7 devices. But they've said that sort of thing before. Given Microsoft's track record, it seems more sensible to wait for them to get it right right out of the box at least once before we start to take them at their world. ... P.S.: The obvious analogy is to .... comprehensive immigration reform!  Maybe fancy new employer-based verification systems and "biometric" identifiers (and "virtual" border fencing) really will survive ACLU challenge and then actually function effectively keep out illegal immigrants. But we were given similar assurances in 1986. It didn't happen. Better to wait and make sure the new high-tech enforcement mechanisms work before we take the plunge with the proven illegal-immigrant lure of an amnesty, no? ... 8:26 P.M.

___________________________

Mickey's Assignment Desk: Explain Away the Health Care Shell Game, Please!

Mickey's Assignment Desk: Senate Dems quietly move a bill to countermand a 21% cut in Medicare fees for doctors, which will add $247 billion to the deficit over ten years. Of course, the Baucus health care reform bill achieves its famed deficit neutrality through cuts in Medicare fees, mainly to non-physicians--saving (by my reading of the CBO analysis) at least $184 billion from Medicare over the same period. Plus there is a special panel set up to recommend further cuts.

Jonathan Cohn and Ezra Klein might productively explain a) Why this isn't a shell game, with Dems granting Medicare increases in one bill and then taking ostentatious credit for partly-offsetting cuts in a separate bill; b) Why Congress' unwillingness to put up with the scheduled Medicare doctors' cuts this year doesn't indicate that it won't put up with scheduled cuts in future years--that, as Megan McArdle among others argues, the projected Medicare cuts in Baucus' bill simply won't happen. ...

P.S.: I'm still for health care reform, of course, even if the accounting that scores it as deficit-neutral proves to be a fantasy. We make the mess now. We make it work and pay for it later. Stuff the beast!  If it turns out that to get the reform passed Dems have to resort to a shell game--using phony peas--well, just keep it between us, OK?. ... 7:21 P.M.

___________________________

If Peugeot instead of FIAT had bought Chrysler, we could have gotten the Bipper Tepee "playful space wagon"! .... It's no Skoda Yeti Roomster, but it would do. ... 12:42 A.M.

___________________________

The Dems' Fate Accompli?

Good for the Juice? The prospects for health care reform have been looking up. I've now seen it described by two separate non-complacent pundits as a "fait accompli." The only problem is this. That part's not still going so well! ... P.S.: I was going to write a post saying that Democrats in Congress are likely to ignore the polls (and the survivalist id those polls awaken) simply because they won't want to have to go through this whole tedious process again. Then I thought, have they really hated the process? Legislation like this is a good "juice" bill--it motivates all sorts of lobbyists--for insurers, hospitals, drug companies, unions--give a Congressman lots of money to try to make sure the fine print goes their way. Suddenly even backbenchers are worth millions. Meanwhile only a few Senators and Representatives have, so far, been put on the spot and forced to make difficult votes, no? Unless you are one of those unlucky pols (e.g., Blanche Lincoln) what's not to like? 
 
Someone who knows more about the culture of Congress might be able to better answer that question: Is Congress hating the health care reform slog or happily wallowing in it? ... 12:07 A.M.

___________________________

Funding for 300 miles of actual (not "virtual") fence along the Mexican border appears to have been killed in a House-Senate conference, after the Senate voted for it 54-44. So Senators from California, Arizona and Texas get to say they voted for the fence, but it doesn't get built. That's how Kabuki is done! ... [Tks to alert reader M] 12:06 A.M.

___________________________

Bending the curve both ways: Obama is planning to require a "Project Labor Agreements" on big federal construction projects, which will force non-union workers "to pay union dues and pension contributions for which they likely will never receive benefits," complains the Washington Times. But if that's what "delivering" for labor comes to mean, we'll have gotten off easy. Really delivering for labor would be applying Davis-Bacon-style government-set "prevailing wage" requirements to, say, all health care workers who are paid with federal money, no? ... [via Going Rogue] 12:05 A.M.

___________________________

Edwards Blog Mystery Woman Vanishes?

Where's "Cherubim"? I've been skeptical of the New York Daily News report that Elizabeth Edwards--she about whom no ill can be spoken--has been anonymously slagging her enemies (and others) in Web comments sections under the pseudonym "Cherubim." But I would be more steadfast in this skepticism if a) there had been some kind of denial from the St. E camp and b) the previously prolific "Cherubim" hadn't mysteriously stopped posting after the Daily News story came out. ... At least I can't find anything. ... Not a peep on HuffPo. ... Nothing on Kos. ... You'd think that if Cherubim wasn't Elizabeth (or even if she was) she'd post something saying "I'm not Elizabeth." ... I'm still off board--it's too bizarre--but, hey, maybe Elizabeth Edwards really is the sort of person who thinks Michael Jackson was "murdered by powerful people in the record industry." That would explain a lot. ... It's also possible that the Cherubim story is some kind of trap, attempting to bait the blogosphere and MSM into jumping to irresponsible conclusions. ... Yes, I'm that paranoid. ... 10:57 P.M.

___________________________

Charles Peters argues that any health care reform bill should simply prohibit doctors from owning the outfits that administer expensive tests (like CAT scans and MRIs).** This seems like a simple prophylactic measure that could do a lot to curtail excess ordering-up of services--the sort of thing that got Atul Gawande (and through him, Barack Obama) so riled about McAllen Texas. And it would do it without the grand untested curve-bending suggestions--including "difficult democratic conversations" about end of life treatment--that have only succeed in scaring the elderly into opposing, and perhaps sinking, Obama's reform. 
 
But Peters tells me the ownership ban is not in the  bill. ... What, they can come after bloggers for conflicts of interest, but not doctors?

**--Update: Alert reader A.K. notes I've mis-summarized Peters' point. A 1992 law already prohibits doctors from owning the imaging outfits to which they refer patients. But there's an exception for when the X-ray or MRI device is located within the doctor's office, a loophole that's gotten bigger as the machines have gotten smaller. It's this "in-office" loophole that Peters (and some in Congress) would like to see closed. ... That still seems like a simple change that would save money. If doctors want to give patients instant service, they could contract to have machines owned by others stationed in their offices, the way some water coolers are owned by bottled water companies, no?. ...10:56 P.M.

___________________________
 
Here's an aerial photo of Iran's once-secret centrifuge facility at Qom. Does it look non-blowupable to you? Me neither. I suppose it depends on how deep its tunnels go--but those certainly don't look like mountains it's under. And, as Mike Murphy's twitter feed notes, American weapons experts have been developing fancy new non-nuclear bunker-busting bombs that seem maybe capable of doing the trick. (You have to like the one with the Gatlin' gun on its nose.) ... Obviously I'm not advocating a strike against Qom. Even if it wouldn't be a geopolitical calamity, we may not know what other secret, buried facilities Iran has.  I'm just saying that when pundits say we can't strike because the facilities are buried and hardened, I don't believe them. Do the Iranians? ... Bloggingheads discussion here. ... 10:55 P.M.

___________________________

Another Prestigious Error from The Atlantic

It's Only a Draft: The prestigious Atlantic's Chris Good--perhaps as exhausted by the magazine's time-consuming Corporate Lobbyist Moneysuck as prestigious Atlantic columnist Andrew Sullivan after a "marathon twelve-hour session of passion"-- lectures Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal for saying that polls show "the people don't want" the Democrats' health care reform:

... [T]he polling doesn't say Americans oppose Democratic reforms. At best, we can say it's a mixed picture. Of the most recent, reliable, non-partisan major polls--a Sept. 12 Washington Post/ABC survey, an Economist/YouGov survey released Sept. 15, and a Sept. 25 NY Times/CBS poll--only the first shows Americans opposed to Democratic plans (48 percent to 52 percent); the other two show Americans in favor, though NY Times/CBS found that 46 percent say they don't know enough to decide. [E.A.]

The only problem with this paragraph is that in Good's highly selective survey of "the most recent, reliable" polls, he simply ignores the two YouGov polls taken after the Sept. 15 one he cites. Both showed a 51-49 majority opposed to health care reform. In other words, even if you ignore perfectly legit polls like NBC/Wall Street Journal and Rasmussen and use only the three polls Good picks, his sentence should read:

Of the most recent, reliable, non-partisan major polls--a Sept. 12 Washington Post/ABC survey, an Economist/YouGov survey released Sept. 29, and a Sept. 25 NY Times/CBS poll--two of the three show Americans opposed to Democratic plans. The only one showing even a plurality in favor is the wacky NY Times/CBS survey that managed to generate a 46 percent undecided number. [E.A.]

P.S.: Here's a handy page graphing recent polls for Good to bookmark in case he has to write about health care surveys again. It tends to support Jindal, if weakly. ... P.P.S.: This actually isn't a mistake you'd typically make if you set out afresh to look up the recent health care numbers. Maybe that's why I suspect someone fed Good this erroneous story, Dreidl style. Maybe someone he met at the prestigious First Draft of History conference! Who said it was a waste? [Update: Good's choice of polls seems based on an item he wrote about the 'public option' back on 9/29--ed.  OK. But who fed him that, I ask you? Never explain by conspiracy what can be explained by laziness--ed Laziness is the Spoonfeeder's Friend!] ... 9:17 P.M.

___________________________

Toyota's Salvation

Lots of fuss lately about Toyota's troubles. ... I suppose there are two ways to look at it. 1) See, even Toyota's in trouble! Hah! ...2) Toyota is panicking and taking corrective action while there is still time as opposed to the Detroit/UAW traditional method of one step (or two, or three) too late. ... P.S.: I'm not saying that this too-little-too-late phenomenon is built into Wagner Act unionism. ... Oh wait. That's exactly what I'm saying. The Wagner Act sets up a clunky, rule-bound bureaucacy of tooth-pulling negotiation--especially when it comes to administering pain--that wouldn't have worked even in the WWII era of massive industrial behemoths if we'd had any competition. It certainly won't work today. ...

Of course, GM once tried to set up a subsidiary with a less clunky, less rule bound bureaucracy--with flexible shifts and profit sharing but many fewer work rules, etc.. The UAW killed it, lest all those efficiency-enhancing innovations spread to other GM factories (where they might have, you know, saved GM).  That wasn't what unionism was all about, argued the UAW traditionalists. They were right. Paul Ingrassia has the grim details.  [via Hit & Run via Insta]

Update: Fire Mickey Kaus helpfully documents kf's decade-long record of "fact-free-speculation" eerie prescience regarding the Plot to Kill Saturn. ...

P.P.S.: The Next GM/Chrysler Bailout (#2): Pelosi seems to be on board! [Detroit News]

Pelosi said Democrats want automakers to "thrive," and she hasn't ruled out additional support for automakers if they show that they are "viable."

Here's a striking chart suggesting why Bailout #2 might be needed sooner rather than later. ...Toyota is down 19%. But GM is down 45%. ... [via TTAC]

Update: Big Money's Matthew DeBord argues that "signs are actually good" for Detroit's Big Three because "[a]ll are seeing their market share increase," He's apparently referring to this chart, which shows GM's share rising (from about 18.8 percent in July to 19.46 in August to 20.87 in September) while Ford and Chrysler are essentially flat, Unfortunately, many more people bought cars in the cash-for-clunkers months of July and August, when GM's share was down. It doesn't do much good to have impressive market share in September if the market is puny. When you add up all the good and bad months in 2009 to date, in fact, GM's share has fallen from 22.3 in 2008 to 19.6 in 2009.  Chrysler's down from 11 to 9.2, Meanwhile, Ford rose from 14.2 to 15.2 (and in the most recent three months is up at 16.4). Honda has gained a tiny bit and Toyota's share is flat. None of that convinces me that "signs" are "good" for GM and Chrysler. (It is suprising that Toyota hasn't capitalized on their distress, which may explain this.) ...12:21 P.M.

___________________________

A big 10-pt jump in relative support of health care reform in Rasmussen's latest poll, which either says something about public opinion or something about Rasmussen. Either way, it's good for Obama, since Rasmussen has been the most pessimistic of the health care pollsters.** ... Maybe everyone is calming down as familiar, boring Senate moderates take center stage. ... P.S.: But the Rasmussen progress is hardly enough to pacify the throbbing Congressional id--health care reform still loses by a 50-46 margin. ...

**--Update: Until this grim new FOX poll.. ...12:20 P.M.

___________________________

Always trust content ... : kf readers are not surprised Gourmet magazine is dead.. They're surprised that Bon Appetit isn't. ... 12:19  P.M.

___________________________