Tuesday, February 09, 2010
Health Care Summit
Will it do any good? Any harm? No idea. But I think the invitation Obama sent to Republican leaders, to discuss health care reform on teevee, is being seriously underestimated for its potential impact. It seems to me a central moment not just in the health debate, but in Americans' understanding and expectation of the process of governing. It could do for legislating what debates now do for campaigning: turn the public eye on elected officials' ability to be serious and reasonable, knowledgable and practical.
Jon Chait says it's also clearly part of the Obama Method:
What if events like this over major issues facing America become must-watch-tv for the general public the way campaign debates are? Even if Obama ends up losing this battle, that development could be a silver lining. What both sides surely realize is: nobody has done this before. They don't *really* know how to prepare, how it will look, what they have to do to win, etc. Along with answering Republican questions last week, this really could be a game-changer in getting Americans to demand our leaders talk to each other, about important issues, in front of us.
Could that be an even more awful thing for the legislation to come from it? I can imagine that as well...but feeling optimistic today. Am I wrong? Is this a one-time thing? Disaster in the making? Much ado about nothing? |
Will it do any good? Any harm? No idea. But I think the invitation Obama sent to Republican leaders, to discuss health care reform on teevee, is being seriously underestimated for its potential impact. It seems to me a central moment not just in the health debate, but in Americans' understanding and expectation of the process of governing. It could do for legislating what debates now do for campaigning: turn the public eye on elected officials' ability to be serious and reasonable, knowledgable and practical.
Jon Chait says it's also clearly part of the Obama Method:
Obama uses a similar approach toward Republicans as foreign enemies like the Iranian regime: take them up on their claim to some shared goal (nuclear disarmament, health care reform), elide their preferred red herrings, engage them seriously, and then expose their disingenuousness.The truth is, we can no longer depend on our mainstream media to accurately report the substance and import of what our government is up to - the good or the bad. If this works, not only will health care reform have a chance, but smart politicians may have found a way to finally and helpfully bypass media spin and sensationalism - if only for 60 minutes or so - and speak directly to the public about their ideas.
...
Obama knows perfectly well that the Republicans have no serious proposals to address the main problems of the health care system and have no interest (or political room, given their crazy base) in handing him a victory of any substance. Obama is bringing them in to discuss health care so he can expose this reality.
What if events like this over major issues facing America become must-watch-tv for the general public the way campaign debates are? Even if Obama ends up losing this battle, that development could be a silver lining. What both sides surely realize is: nobody has done this before. They don't *really* know how to prepare, how it will look, what they have to do to win, etc. Along with answering Republican questions last week, this really could be a game-changer in getting Americans to demand our leaders talk to each other, about important issues, in front of us.
Could that be an even more awful thing for the legislation to come from it? I can imagine that as well...but feeling optimistic today. Am I wrong? Is this a one-time thing? Disaster in the making? Much ado about nothing? |
When Parties Dream
Just a thought, reviewing the news of the last couple of days, because it's brought into very clear relief how fundamentally different the 2 parties really are: Democrats dream of being in the majority so we can finally bring universal health coverage to all Americans and finally bring an end to foolish wars. Republicans dream of being in the majority so they can privatize social security and finally bring an end to Medicare and Medicaid. |
Just a thought, reviewing the news of the last couple of days, because it's brought into very clear relief how fundamentally different the 2 parties really are: Democrats dream of being in the majority so we can finally bring universal health coverage to all Americans and finally bring an end to foolish wars. Republicans dream of being in the majority so they can privatize social security and finally bring an end to Medicare and Medicaid. |
Monday, February 08, 2010
Getting Obvious
If you've been following any of the particulars of the health care bill debate, you may be shocked to see details of the Republicans' "solutions". That's because out of the four main points they'd like to see included in health care reform, the current Senate bill already includes at least 3 of them. Ezra Klein has more. Republicans don't want a bill at all. |
If you've been following any of the particulars of the health care bill debate, you may be shocked to see details of the Republicans' "solutions". That's because out of the four main points they'd like to see included in health care reform, the current Senate bill already includes at least 3 of them. Ezra Klein has more. Republicans don't want a bill at all. |
Rooting for USA
...in Olympic hockey; partly because they will be big underdogs (I think any medal would be a good outcome, given how strong Canada and Russia will be), and partly because of this. |
...in Olympic hockey; partly because they will be big underdogs (I think any medal would be a good outcome, given how strong Canada and Russia will be), and partly because of this. |
Friday, February 05, 2010
Poster Boy for Senate Obstructionism Found
Basically, Senator Richard Shelby won't let Senators even think about doing anything until his state gets the defense pork he wants.
Now can we please demonize him the way Republicans would, and beat the living daylights out of this issue? Pretty please?
[UPDATE: Good start.] |
Basically, Senator Richard Shelby won't let Senators even think about doing anything until his state gets the defense pork he wants.
Now can we please demonize him the way Republicans would, and beat the living daylights out of this issue? Pretty please?
[UPDATE: Good start.] |
Thursday, February 04, 2010
Lunkhead of the Week
Former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop, who falsely claims in a TV ad that Britain's National Health Service would have denied him the pacemakers, stents and artificial joints he received in the U.S. because they would have deemed him too old to treat. Just completely made up lies.
factcheck.org debunks at link above. |
Former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop, who falsely claims in a TV ad that Britain's National Health Service would have denied him the pacemakers, stents and artificial joints he received in the U.S. because they would have deemed him too old to treat. Just completely made up lies.
factcheck.org debunks at link above. |
Dow Jones Deep Thought
Maybe somebody can tell me why I don't just have my money in a jar somewhere?
[Glass Half Full Update: At least I don't own shares of Toyota.] |
Maybe somebody can tell me why I don't just have my money in a jar somewhere?
[Glass Half Full Update: At least I don't own shares of Toyota.] |
Wednesday, February 03, 2010
SIDS
Autism may still be a mystery (see post below), but looks like researchers have made an important discovery regarding Sudden Infant Death Syndrome. |
Autism may still be a mystery (see post below), but looks like researchers have made an important discovery regarding Sudden Infant Death Syndrome. |
Vaccines and Autism Revisited
Thanks to Stevie T for sending this link:
Thanks to Stevie T for sending this link:
Dr. Andrew Wakefield, the lead investigator, brought international attention to the paper by saying he thought the MMR vaccinations were to blame. The assertions chipped away at confidence in vaccination.|
It later emerged that Wakefield had been taking money from a lawyer suing vaccine makers. The results of his study couldn't be replicated. Most of Wakefield's co-authors later retracted the paper's interpretation of the data. The Lancet backed away from the paper in 2004, but defended its publication on the grounds it helped "raise new ideas."
In the retraction today, the Lancet editors wrote that it became clear parts of the paper are "incorrect."
What was the last straw for the Lancet? An investigation by the U.K.'s General Medical Council, which regulates doctors, found that Wakefield had acted dishonestly and irresponsibly.
Tuesday, February 02, 2010
Could Have Done *This* a Year Ago
Annoying (my emphasis)
Annoying (my emphasis)
Launching a formal process to change the long-standing [Don't Ask Don't Tell] policy, the Pentagon also announced a review that will examine the effects of a policy change along with alterations in military benefits, rules and facilities that might be needed to allow gays to serve openly in the armed forces.So, figuring out how to stop discriminating is as complex and will take as long as figuring out how to close Gitmo? Ridiculous. The good news is that the highest ranking military official, Admiral Mike Mullen, is on the right side. In a sign of the times, he even tweeted so:
The review could take up to a year and will fuel concerns among advocates for gay service members that any change will be slow in coming about.
Stand by what I said: Allowing homosexuals to serve openly is the right thing to do. Comes down to integrity.I may be over-simplifying this, and a bit naive about the ways of the military, but this doesn't sound like the kind of thing that should take a year to figure out how to make work. As far as I can see, it's like this: stop firing people when you find out they're gay. Take out of the manual the part that says you will. Voila. What am I missing? |
Monday, February 01, 2010
Undemocratic
Senate holds. Much more egregious even than the filibuster. Why don't Dems make more noise? |
Senate holds. Much more egregious even than the filibuster. Why don't Dems make more noise? |
Education Reform: Is Your State Racing or Ambling?
With all the talk of deficits, health care reform, and Afghanistan, there has been precious little news on one of the largest and boldest areas of reform the Obama Administration has enacted: the "Race to the Top" education initiative. States seeking significant infusions of federal education money have only to make changes in education policy consistent with administration ideals, submit an application, and hope for the best.
What are those ideals? increased experimentation with charter schools, and test-score-driven teacher evaluation, to name a couple. If your state - like Tennessee - had tight rules limiting charter school creation, you had better change that law (we did) if you want the federal education money. If you won't base teacher evaluations on student performance, or won't spend the resources to implement comprehensive, coordinated data analysis, Secretary Duncan promises he will turn down your application. Some states like Texas have refused to play at all. Others, like apparently New Jersey and New York, might think they are getting money, but look like they may not, if Duncan lives up to his promised standards of review. Which state's application seems to look the best from the Obama Adminstration's point of view? Check out the Washington Post's (pundit contest winner) Kevin Huffman for the answer. Meanwhile, stay tuned. The NYTimes reports that President Obama is poised to unveil sweeping changes to current education law (No Child Left Behind), once Race to the Top funding is established. (via Ezra Klein) |
With all the talk of deficits, health care reform, and Afghanistan, there has been precious little news on one of the largest and boldest areas of reform the Obama Administration has enacted: the "Race to the Top" education initiative. States seeking significant infusions of federal education money have only to make changes in education policy consistent with administration ideals, submit an application, and hope for the best.
What are those ideals? increased experimentation with charter schools, and test-score-driven teacher evaluation, to name a couple. If your state - like Tennessee - had tight rules limiting charter school creation, you had better change that law (we did) if you want the federal education money. If you won't base teacher evaluations on student performance, or won't spend the resources to implement comprehensive, coordinated data analysis, Secretary Duncan promises he will turn down your application. Some states like Texas have refused to play at all. Others, like apparently New Jersey and New York, might think they are getting money, but look like they may not, if Duncan lives up to his promised standards of review. Which state's application seems to look the best from the Obama Adminstration's point of view? Check out the Washington Post's (pundit contest winner) Kevin Huffman for the answer. Meanwhile, stay tuned. The NYTimes reports that President Obama is poised to unveil sweeping changes to current education law (No Child Left Behind), once Race to the Top funding is established. (via Ezra Klein) |
