Header Blog

Politifact: How long would it take to read the health care bill?

thumbnail politifact

Apparently there are all sorts of complex calculations that go into how long Congressional leadership gives members to read a bill, beyond the standard meme that they’re trying to pull one over on the other political party. Turns out they try to avoid giving opposition to the legislation time to pull cherry-picked quotes out of the gargantuan bill and warp its meaning. Find this and Politifact’s estimate on the length of time it might take you to read this bill HERE.

Oh, and clear your calendar for the weekend.

Rachel Maddow and Rick Berman have honest but civil conversation that’s worth a watch

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Dick Ebersol on Morning Joe: Fix USOC

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Guess another quote…

“History teaches that war begins when governments believe the price of aggression is cheap.”

–Who said it? The person is a fairly contemporary national leader in one or the other political party. (Try to not rely on Google, K?)

Guess the speaker…

“I long for the day when Republicans and Democrats will sit around and have these raucous, exciting arguments and actually love learning from one another, and when we create the common good out of a dynamic center.”

–What prominent public political figure said it? Answer this afternoon…

President Obama’s speech to the International Olympic Committee

(the channel I was watching clipped the begging sentence)

… in history, when the fate of each nation is inextricably linked to the fate of all nations. A time of common challenges that require common effort. And I ran for president because I believe deeply that the United States of America has a responsibility to help in that effort. To forge new partnerships with the nations and the peoples of the world. No one expects the games to solve all our collective challenges. But what we do believe, what each and every one of you believe and what all of the Chicago delegation believes is that in a world where we’ve all too often witnessed the darker aspects of our humanity, peaceful competition among nations represents what’s best about our humanity. It brings us together, if only for a few weeks – face to face. It helps us understand one another just a little bit better. It reminds us that no matter how or where we differ, we all seek our own measure of happiness and fulfillment and pride in what we do. That’s a very powerful starting point for progress.

Nearly one year ago, on a clear November night, people from every corner of the world gathered in the city of Chicago or in front of their televisions to watch the results of a US presidential election. Their interest wasn’t about me as an individual. Rather it was rooted in their belief that America’s experiment in democracy still speaks to a set of universal aspirations and ideals. Their interest sprung from their hope in this ever shrinking world, our diversity could be a source of strength and celebration. And that with sustained work and deliberation, we could learn to live and prosper together during the fleeting moment we share on this earth. Now that work is far from over, but it has begun in earnest, but while we do not know what the next years will bring, there is nothing I would like more than to step just a few blocks from my family’s home with Michelle and my two girls and welcome the world back into our neighborhood.

At the beginning of this new century, the nation that has been shaped by people from around the world wants a chance to inspire it once more. To ignite the possibility at the heart of the Olympic and para-Olympic movement, in a new generation. To offer a stage worthy of the extraordinary talent and dynamism offered by nations joined together. To host games that unite us in noble competition and shared celebration of our limitless potential as a people.

And so, I urge you to choose Chicago. I urge you to choose America. And if you do, if we walk this path together, then I promise you this: The city of Chicago and the United State of America will make the world proud. Thank you so much.

A little stick in the eye of both rugged individualism and the notion that competition in health care will bring down costs


As a public option was voted down in the Senate’s powerful Finance Committee yesterday, Uwe E. Reinhardt – a professor of health economics at Princeton University – says that competition doesn’t work to bring down health care costs. If he’s right, uh, oops…

Find Reinhard’s assessment of the German health care model here, which relies on heavily regulated non-profits, lots of government involvement and only a tiny for-profit market for high-income earners.

Reinhard also had sharp words for our American frontiersman self-image (and he might just have a point):

Eighty percent stay in the traditional Medicare plan rather than choosing the private Medicare Advantage. Although the American people appear unaware of it, government is the only institution they really trust deep down. It’s utterly ridiculous to say they don’t trust the government. Where do Americans turn for help when they get into trouble? Do they run to the private sector? Even big bankers run to Washington. With a public plan, you would get something like Medicare. Just try taking Medicare away from the elderly. In the decades I have lived here, I have discovered this about America’s legendary rugged individualists: when the going gets rough, the rough run to the government.


Help us try out an option for live audience polling..

We’re thinking about making live audience polling available at some of our Village Square events. It will help us understand where the audience is on our topic and get us feedback as the event proceeds. Here’s one option we’re considering. Help us try it out by taking the poll, by simply clicking online, or by tweeting (@poll then 38821 for “no”, 38808 for “yes” and 38528 for “maybe” or texting your response (text the code you select to 99503).

Even the “individual mandate” is utterly complicated

In our three month crash course on health care reform we learned while we’ve been spinning in circles of factual inaccuracies in our public debate, the reality of health care reform is terribly complicated.

If we were pressed on naming a general consensus, we’d have to say it’s the growing sense that we’ve got to get most people insured, make insurance portable (not tied to job status), make it illegal to deny coverage based on preexisting conditions and to rescind coverage once there is an illness (a practice called “recision”).

We essentially already pay for catastrophic insurance for the uninsured today, at no cost to them, because if any of them walks into an emergency room bleeding, we treat them. Unless we’re going to stop treating all bleeding people, it is sensible to require people to step up to share some level of responsibility for the benefit they get.

Ah, but the devil is in the details and universal coverage comes with a direct price tag that’s hard to compare even-up to the indirect price tag society pays for the uninsured today.

From yesterday’s New York Times:

This is not the question of whether the proposed health care legislation is affordable for taxpayers and the federal government — an issue that seemed to be answered when the Congressional Budget Office said the Senate Finance Committee’s bill would eventually help reduce federal budget deficits.

The affordability question vexing Democrats is whether those with moderate income will be able to afford health insurance, even with the subsidies the legislation would provide and all sorts of new rules aimed at controlling costs.

The current Senate Finance Committee plan requires middle-income families to pay up to 12% of their income to health insurance before subsidies kick in. There are amendments pitched at decreasing this percentage, but they start to rub against the cost ceiling for the health care reform package set by Obama.

So even the no-brainer part of health reform isn’t no-brainer at all…

With and through each other

Helping Hands

“One man may hit the mark, another blunder; but heed not these distinctions. Only from the alliance of the one, working with and through the other, are great things born.”

—Antoine de Saint-Exupery
(1900-1944), aviator, writer

Sometimes it’s best to hold your tongue

“Sometimes it’s worth just not saying something that you want to blurt out… We need civility in the political world, we need it in the media world. We need it badly. There is a hunger for it. It may be a longer road to success but it’s worth taking that road.”

–Mika Brzezinski, today’s Morning Joe

Calling out extremism

Sam Tanenhaus, a student of the history of conservatism and author of The End of Conservatism***, told a story last weekend on Bill Moyers Journal:

There’s a very important incident described in this book that occurred in 1965, when the John Birch Society, an organization these new Americanist groups resemble — the ones who are marching in Washington and holding tea parties. Essentially, very extremist revanchist groups that view politics in a conspiratorial way.

And the John Birch Society during the peak of the Cold War struggle was convinced, and you’re well aware of this, that Dwight Eisenhower was a communist agent, who reported to his brother Milton, and 80 percent of the government was dominated by Communists. Communists were in charge of American education, American health care. They were fluoridating the water to weaken our brains. All of this happened. And at first, [William] Buckley and his fellow intellectuals at NATIONAL REVIEW indulged this. They said, “You know what? Their arguments are absurd, but they believe in the right things. They’re anti-communists. And they’re helping our movement.”

Cause many of them helped Barry Goldwater get nominated in 1964. And then in 1965, Buckley said, “Enough.” Buckley himself had matured politically. He’d run for Mayor of New York. He’d seen how politics really worked. And he said, “We can’t allow ourselves to be discredited by our own fringe.” So, he turned over his own magazine to a denunciation of the John Birch Society. More important, the columns he wrote denouncing what he called its “drivel” were circulated in advance to three of the great conservative Republicans of the day, Ronald Reagan, Barry Goldwater, Senator John Tower, from your home state of Texas, and Tower read them on the floor of Congress into the Congressional record. In other words, the intellectual and political leaders of the right drew a line. And that’s what we may not see if we don’t have that kind of leadership on the right now.

As if on cue, yesterday Joe Scarborough called out Glenn Beck:

“We’re going to have a conservatives’ honor roll on this show,” Scarborough continued, referring to his show, Morning Joe. “And trust me, you want to be on this honor roll. I’m talking to you Mitt Romney, and I’m talking to anybody who wants to be president in 2012 — you need to call out this type of hatred. Because it always blows up in your face.

“When you preach this kind of hatred and say that an African American president hates all white people you are playing with fire and bad things can happen and if they do happen, not only is Glenn Beck responsible, but conservatives who don’t call him out are responsible.”

***It’s worth noting that Tanenhaus distinctly does not want conservatism to end. He thinks it’s the heart of so much of what makes America unique.

Chris Timmons: Furniture in heaven

chris timmons

Please help us welcome Chris Timmons, who will be making occasional contributions to The Village Square blog to share his insights and conservative sensibilities.

“What I don’t get,” says one of the regulars in Donald Westlake’s hilarious John Dortmunder novels, “is all these clouds.” It continues: “A second regular put down his foaming beer glass to say, “Clouds? Which clouds are these?

“That they’re sitting on…You look at all these pictures, Jesus sitting on a cloud, that other God sitting on a cloud, Mary sitting on a cloud —” Well, yeah, but the point is, can’t heaven come up with furniture?”

Westlake’s skewering of the ordinary man and his whims is one of the many delights of reading his novels. Do me justice: I’m an egalitarian man. I have no choice. I’m poor. Always been.

It interests me as cultural anthropology only —a man fascinated by his own kind.

So many of the notions we ordinary mortals get are out of place, disorganized by carelessness of fact, out of context, incomprehension of an idea —or just a plain unwillingness to be surprised by the randomness of the cosmos.

Do we have to be so knowing?

This health-care debate has been one of those great moments to really look at the virtues and limits of the regular working stiff.

My first attempt at this was watching some of the various town-halls on TV, beginning with Chuck Grassley’s. Then I carried myself to City Hall for our own town-hall with Allen Boyd and two medical doctors.

What I found was a bizarre and often mind-numbing recitation of statistics without factual irony, Bible-thumping and offers of prayer and prophesies of Armageddon, vile and boorish outbursts, rambling questions, and historical illiteracy.

These were to be expected.

Some people have reasons for these phenoms: The proliferation of niche media, the high-watt nature of its mandarins like Glenn Beck and Keith Olbermann, political ignorance, the politics of personal destruction, political inertia, power grabs, a fiscal free-fall, racism, cynicism.

With all opinions or constructs, a point could be made for all of these things being true.

I think there’s among regular folks too much confidence in their political judgments, a knowing-ness that prevents them from taking in all views. How else can niche media be so successful?

Political ignorance is at an all-time high. Most people don’t know a fig about our political heritage, haven’t done any steady reflection on the ideas that have shaped this country since the founding.

Yet they feel entitled to have any kind of opinion on current events. Not only have an opinion, but have politicians and pollster quaver about their superior judgments on public matters.

This is all crazy, of course. Just like heaven having furniture.