Why Obama Is Screwing the Pooch On the Health Care Pitch

The national health care system is a myriad of give-and-takes and unintended consequences, and since I am not quite knowledgeable enough about it to comment on specific policy proposals, I figured I’m better off addressing why the Obama Administration seems to be failing in an area where they previously had experienced such success: sales. Despite the fervor and interest surrounding the issue, Obama has not convinced the American people that whatever phone-book thick proposal is being put through Congress is going to be a major step-forward. Polling magician Nate Silver takes on the sales pitch problem by grading the administration on a 5-point promotional plan put forth by Democratic pollsters/consultants James Carville and Stan Greenberg. Here are the points with my thoughts:

1. Voters need to hear clearly what changes health care reform will bring.

The public explanation has been seriously  lacking in details. How many people who hear the President explain the health care program can answer 1) How will this improve my care? or 2) If this won’t necessarily improve my care, how will it contribute to the nation’s fiscal health and/or significantly improve the care of a majority of the nation’s individuals? Instead, they just hear about how the plan will raise the deficit.

2. Build a narrative around taking power away from the insurance companies and giving it to people.

Say what you want about a populist narrative, but it’s got traction right now. His opponents mis-fire when instead of proposing better reforms, they rant about how the system shouldn’t be screwed with and any attempt to do so will take us on a straight path to Stalinist Russia. Well the American public certainly doesn’t think the current health care system is the bees’ knees and their grievances are for the most part aimed at insurance companies. And deservedly so. You don’t have to turn into Huey Long, nor stretch the truth. Simply highlight the fact that reform will break the strangehold of the insurance companies. Not too hard.

3. The president and reform advocates have to explain concretely the changes that will mean lower costs.

Here’s where they are really blowing it. Marginal cost is not the same as total cost. Of course the total costs of providing the nation with healthcare will rise if you start covering 50 million new people. But the goal is to reduce the marginal cost, meaning the cost of the next single person getting health coverage. The idea being that while total costs will rise in the short term (due to a wider coverage base), the marginal costs will decrease (as a result of efficiencies, competition, taking on the insurers, etc.), and will eventually lead to a reduction in total costs. Not to toot my own horn, but I think I just explained this fairly clearly. I don’t see why the President cannot.

Numbers 4) and 5) are pretty self-evident: 4) Show all voters that there are benefits for them, including prescription drugs, and 5) All of these points should be made with the dominant framework that continuing the status quo is unacceptable and unsustainable. As Silver points out, #5 (in addition to being scarily true) is probably the only one the Democrats are doing effectively. However, it just might not be enough.

Prideful Hypocrisy Is Her Favorite Kind

Everyone knows where I stand on Sarah Palin, so I’ll just take the opportunity of her Quitter Speech to point out the most ludicrous hypocrisy of what she claims to represent. She bloviates on rugged individualism, free markets, capitalism, and the dangers of “socialism”, meanwhile, she presides (or presided, should I say) over the state with the largest share of redistributive outlays to its residents. Moreover, she gladly promotes this fact!

As New Majority conservative David Frum puts it:

Sarah Palin’s most notable achievement as governor of Alaska was to increase the payout from the state’s energy tax take by $1200 per resident. Isn’t it odd then that she would use her farewell address to warn against the danger of government handouts?

So Chicken Little running around screaming “socialism” is one of the biggest culprits herself. Maybe if she looked up the actual definition of socialism she’d stop making her socialist policies the cornerstone of her marketing platform, but that would take actual intellectual effort and we all know how she frowns upon that.

No One Needs A Cheerleader

President Obama met with the leaders of major Jewish organizations on Monday to address concerns about the apparent disconnect between his administration and Netanyahu’s on the settlement question. Other than a few holdouts, the majority of the leaders acknowledged that while the administration was making certain demands of the Israeli government (i.e., stop settlement activity), this was far less than he was demanding of the Palestinians (i.e., reform your entire economic and politial system, and ensure Israel’s safety).  However, Malcolm Hoenlein suggested that public tension between America and Israel, regardless of its substance or fairness, could be harmful to Israel’s interests. Obama’s response:

“With all due respect, I would disagree. For eight years under the prior administration, there was no daylight between the two sides and there was no progress on the peace front, and no hard decisions were confronted, no progress was made.”

Amen. For 8 years the American government basically shrieked “Rah rah gooooooooo Israel” and look what happened: the only parties who got stronger were Iran, Hamas, and Hezbollah. I’d prefer an administration that has an interest in Israel’s long-term progress, not in using Israel as a political talking point. We’ve seen some progress with the defeat of Hezbollah in Lebanon and the popular uprising in Iran. We’ve even got the Pakistani government actually fighting the Taliban on the Pakistani border (a shocker, I know). Hopefully we can keep up the momentum. And I can guarantee you it won’t be accomplished by agreeing with Netanyahu just for the sake of it.

Dershowitz Chimes In

If there were a rock star in the Jewish intellectual community, it would be Alan Dershowitz. Dershmeister made his name during the cause celebre murder trial of Claus Von Bulow, which was memorialized in the 1990 film, Reversal of Fortune. The fact that he got a coldblooded murderer’s conviction over-turned notwithstanding, Dershowitz has been one of the most strident supporters of the Zionist cause over the past 20 years.

In today’s Jerusalem Post, he makes yet another spirited defense of the Israeli cause, this time as it pertains to the current Gaza incursion. I think Dershowitz overlooks a few counter-arguments and still doesn’t quite account for some of the unintended consequences of the battle, but he does make a strong justification for the Israeli response in this instance. It’s lengthy, but if you have time, give it a look.

Israel-Palestine: Putting the “Existential” in “Existential Crisis”

The first major news story in the new year is of course Israel’s incursion into the Gaza Strip in an attempt to once and for all put the kibosh on those pesky democratically-elected religious psycopaths from Hamas (or give the Kadima party legitimate military credibility to compete with the hawkish Likud party and everybody’s favorite resident of Beverlywood, Benjamin Netanyahu, in upcoming elections, depending on who you talk to). Trying to take a moral stance on the Israeli-Palestinian battle is about as pointless as the solar powered lightbulb. Support Hamas and you’re supporting a bunch of nihilistic Koran-boppers who would rather blow up Tel Aviv discos than build schools and feed their people. Support the Israelis and you’re in essence supporting military activities which result in the murder and maiming of innocent children regardless of intention and precaution.

Which brings us full circle and exposes the Conflict as a conundrum about as solvable as “why is the sky blue?” Can the Israelis accomplish their stated goal, which is to destroy Hamas, and their secondary goal, which is to stop rocket launchings into southern territories? As Allahpundit points out, eliminating the capacity of a group to launch rockets into the region is temporary and tenuous at best. And as far as “destroying” Hamas, Israel might heed the lessons of its 2006 Hezbollah showdown and not make such grandiose statements before their chickens have hatched. Claiming you are going to destroy a terrorist/resistance group and then failing to utterly destroy said terrorist/resistance group only enhances the group’s stature in its immediate community and the Arab world et al which is what a terrorist group derives its power from in the first place. Stating lower aims and accomplishing them may prevent Hamas from claiming some sort of “moral victory” when the dust settles since Israel’s odds of eviscerating Hamas for more than a temporary period are low at best. Regardless, the conflict between Israel’s goals and its assymetrical battle against the Palestinians evokes the “damned if ya do, damned if ya don’t” existential paradoxes that Andrew Sullivan comments on here.

Perhaps a lethal blow to Hamas and Gaza infrastructure will inspire the same type of introspection and self-criticism from the Palestinians that Israel’s victory in the Six Day War inspired in the Egyptians and lead them to the conclusion that Israel’s existence is inevitable and that backing villains like Hamas will lead nowhere but to the sinkhole of civilization that the Palestinians currently reside in. But honestly, I’m not counting on it.

Oh Vast Right Wing Consipracy, Not You Again

A lawsuit filed by various groups alleging that Barack Obama forged his birth certificate and is not actually a U.S. citizen was thrown out yesterday by the Supreme Court. Support groups are none too happy about the result. Aww right-wing lunatic nutjobs, you’re so cute when you’re angry.

Sometimes it’s what you don’t write that counts

Remember our old friend Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich? The one who courageously spat in the face of Bank of America for not extending a line of credit to a small window business to pay employee severance? Well, you should remember because it was only one day ago and I posted on it about 27 hours ago.

Oh how the tide turns. Today, Rod the Bod was indicted by U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald on a number of charges including trying to sell the appointment to Barack Obama’s vacant Senate seat! When news broke yesterday of his B of A bruhaha I was tempted to write a love letter posting about Rod, extolling his virtues and bravery in standing up to corporate America. And while I do still believe he was right in his actions towards the bank, man would I have looked stupid (looking at you, Huffington Post). A laudatory yet cautious posting has turned out to be much more appropriate and probably more accurate.

It just serves as another stark reminder to keep a tempered view of our politicians and their actions (unless that politician is George Bush or anyone in his administration, I’m sorry). Things are never as black and white as they seem and we must remember that just because politicians are corrupt doesn’t mean they can’t be right and just because they are right doesn’t mean they are not corrupt. Got it?

Obama to Bush: “Go Fuck Yourself”

Oh baby. This one feels good. Admit it, all of you are dying for Obama to drop the gracious dignity and really stick it to Bush at least once or twice in some way or form. Maybe end his Inauguration Speech with “And even those of you who voted for McCain, be honest, you’re happy we got that slack-jawed yokel out of office”, or something to that effect. But since the dignity thing has been working for Obama up until now, the only way for Obama to really stick it to Bush is through policy.

In this case, it’s by nominating former U.S. Army Chief of Staff and Bush administration martyr Eric Shinseki as Secretary of Veteran Affairs. As you may recall, Shinseki publicly clashed with Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz over the number of U.S. ground troops necessary to occupy Iraq (Shinseki said “more”, Rumsdick and Wolfmoron said “less”) so the Bush administration decided to fire him just like they decided to do with every other smart person who disagreed with them.

Shinseki is of course a man of stunning qualifications and is no doubt the best man for the job, but this is also a symbolic gesture which is clearly a slap in the face to Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Cheney, Bush and all the rest of the putzes who were wrong and fired Shinseki for being right. In the most benign and unspoken terms possible, Obama is sending an unmistakable message to Bush: “Go fuck yourself.”

Sean Hannity Molests Collies

Every time I think Sean Hannity can’t possibly be more of a jerk-off, he proves me empirically wrong. In an interview with Pastor/Yokel/Demagogue Rick Warren, Hannity exclaims that we should “take out” Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Sean thanks for continuing to display the asinine qualities that have somehow allowed murderous thugs and tyrants like Ahmadinejad to win the global public relations battle against us over the past 8 years.

Not that a closet case like Hannity actually uses logic, reason, and a regard for the consequences when he forms his opinions. Hannity, like most ultra-conservative middle aged white males (not conservative, just ultra-conservative) generates his thoughts based off a misplaced and phony sense of masculinity. In other words, he has a small penis and was picked last during kickball when he was a kid, so he overcompensates by trying to portray himself as a tough guy.

Sean, I have your prescription. You need to get raped in prison. Your ego and hubris are so maladjusted that it’s the only act that will deflate them to manageable levels. It will excise your inner most demons and give you a more realistic assessment of your own masculinity. Trust me, it’ll be good for you in the end.

Mumbai Massacre On Video

This shocking video captures moments of the Mumbai terrorist attack on camera. Turns out there the terrorists had more firepower than the police. The attackers came out guns blazing with state of the art AK-47’s while the police were stuck with outdated pea shooters.

One moment of satisfaction in the video comes when we watch some Indian citizens administer a savage beating to one of the captured terrorists. I wish I could say I was against torture…but I’m simply not. It’s effectiveness as an interrogation technique is still debatable, but it’s effectiveness as a satisfaction of revenge and bloodlust is not. The one terrorist they captured alive will surely be put to death eventually. Might as well make it count. Nothing is too cruel for these deranged lunatics.