Obama: Big Business Sellout or Bolshevik Schemer?

So a neutered version of Obama's original health care proposal finally passed (so far at least). The existing fragmented private insurance system will get a tetanus shot that will help bend the cost curve. Yippee.

From the standpoint of free market fanatics, this is still "socialism." Obama is still apparently killing the free market and imposing his communist agenda. It's still "Obamacare." No matter what the Congressional Budget Office says about this bill actually bending the cost curve on health care and reducing the deficit (especially in the long run), they still kick and scream that "we can't afford it."

From the standpoint of the extremely (and borderline socialist) liberal, Obama totally catered to the special interests. He is no different than Bush. In fact, they've been angry since they realized he wasn't pushing for Single Payer health care (I guess they never read his health care plan when he was campaigning).

And on one hand you have the people who claim he should have been more partisan on this; that he should have included more Republican ideas (read Politifact's explanation of the borderline satirical Republican health care plan). On the other hand there are those that claim Obama didn't have the courage of his convictions to stick to his original plan. Similarly, some feel he did health care 'too early' (I wonder what they think of Bill Clinton's timing).

You would think these two viewpoints would cancel each other out. That the two sides would at least take the time to understand the plan from the other's point of view and realize that this is a very centrist plan and that it's the most that could possibly pass given the political climate. There exists a mandate because it's the only way for health insurers to cover people with pre-existing conditions without going bankrupt. The mandate wouldn't be necessary with a public option. Obama doesn't control Congress. The Republican minority was working lock-step to make this Obama's "waterloo." And just because the majority of Congress happens to be Democrat doesn't mean that these Senators and House Representatives are the same people with different heads. Harry Reid and Bart Stupak are not the same person. It's not Nancy Pelosi's fault that a good portion of the Democrats are borderline Republicans. And every member of Congress has their own geographically-based constituency to cater to.

To be fair, the plan does what it was intended to do. Those who can't afford coverage will mostly be covered now. Young adults can stay on their parent's insurance policy much longer. Insurance companies can no longer deny coverage based on pre-existing conditions (the mandate is necessary to keep people from gaming insurance companies by signing up when they need treatment, getting treated, then canceling their policies). Medicaid will be expanded and those still above the Medicaid threshold will receive subsidies to help pay for this mandated coverage. Medicare will become leaner and more efficient.

Unfortunately, pointing the finger is the easy thing to do. It seems finding a specific boogie man or at least a scape goat to point to is human nature. Or perhaps this is mainly an American thing? Are our political viewpoints affected by our love-hate relationship with villains and expectation of watching heroes eventually take it to them?

Health Care (H.R. 4872 ) Finally Passed

So Health Care passed (technically there could still exist one more painstaking battle in the Senate, but Democrats only need 51 votes to pass it). It's a historic moment that will largely be overshadowed by liberals who are disappointed that there's no public option (think of it is a Medicare that anyone can opt into so long as they pay premiums which would be much more affordable than private insurance companies), and conservatives who will wrangle on about inflated costs (as though what we have now wasn't scheduled to inflate far worse) and falsely claim that their ideas would have actually done anything to cut costs and increase coverage, and an endless debate on the obscure abortion funding.

Nevertheless, this bill is a big deal and had it not passed now, we'd of probably been looking at another 10-15 years before there was a large enough Democratic majority in Congress to get this done.

The essentials of this bill are:

1- A National Exchange where people can comparison shop for coverage (think Orbitz/Travelocity)

2- Tougher regulations/rules on insurers (no more denying coverage because you forgot to mention you had asthma as a kid and this counts as a pre-existing condition which you failed to account for in your coverage).

3- Required coverage for everyone. This makes many people gasp, but the truth is, #2 couldn't work without this one, since insurance companies would be overrun by people buying coverage when they get sick or injured, getting treatment, then canceling afterwards.

4- Subsidies for people with incomes low enough to make private coverage unaffordable but too high to qualify for Medicaid (makes #3 more palatable).

It will be interesting to see how this all plays out in the November primaries this year.

Politics and Current Events...Not Difficult to Follow

Lately I've had several friends tell me they don't 'get politics' or that it's too hard to follow. Oddly enough, most of them are able to keep up with sporting events, remembering which team is on a roll and how many times team X has kicked the crap out of team Y since 1996, as long as their quarterback/pitcher/defender/small forward/etc has Z attributes.

The point is, it's not hard at all. It only seems overwhelming at first (the way Fantasy Football seems to me). Once you get your head around it, it's pretty easy to follow, and you can stay reasonably informed with just tidbits of information here and there. When I have time, I may put together a political crib sheet, er, post to make it easier to understand.

The Tea Party and Public Opinion on the Health Care Bill

What appears to be a self-proclaimed journalism student attended a tea party protest, and interviewed several protesters. Not surprisingly, their opposition to the bill seems centered misinformation being spread by people like Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, and other right wing media sources. The infamous 'death pill' misconception whereby aging citizens are euthanized in order to ration health care costs finds its way in here. Others have an exaggerated idea of how effective tort reform will be at reducing costs (here is what the CBO says about tort reform). Republicans often cite large public opposition to the bill. I'd be curious to know how much of it stems from such basic misunderstanding of the plan itself.

How Climate Change/Global Warming Denial Works

Climatology is certainly one of those things few people know anything about. It's just not something we're exposed to. And let's face it, for most of us, it's pretty damn boring. The result? Few people, whether they accept or deny it, really understand it.

What this also means is that deniers can play fox in the henhouse with a misinformed audience. While there's no time to explain the science behind climate change, here are a couple of videos that give examples of the fallacies behind this shotgun approach deniers take.

Here is a great video from greenman3610's YouTube channel. It explains a couple of examples of quote mines and cherry picking of statistical analysis.

Remember Climategate? Those hacked emails that some deniers claimed exposed the rotten edifice that supported the data behind climate change? This is a perfect example of the aforementioned use of quote mining.

* Some of these skeptics aren't so much skeptics as they are climate change agnostics. And even within this subset, their agnosticism has more to do with the urgency or timing of projected warming trends. Nonetheless, deniers claim these groups as their own since it makes the size and quality of their numbers look much better.

Understanding Bias through Mission Statements

One of the frequent remarks I hear is the difficulty in finding good, unbiased sources of information. While biased interpretations can be difficult to filter out, I have found a certain consistency between the level of objectivity in which facts are presented and an organization's mission statement. Here are a few examples.

Current Events/Economics

Fiscal conservatives are often pointing to the CATO Institute and Heritage Foundation as objective think tanks. The irony is they openly admit a filtered presentation of facts on their own mission statements/about sections.

The CATO Institute:

Cato's Mission

The mission of the Cato Institute is to increase the understanding of public policies based on the principles of limited government, free markets, individual liberty, and peace. The Institute will use the most effective means to originate, advocate, promote, and disseminate applicable policy proposals that create free, open, and civil societies in the United States and throughout the world.

The Heritage Foundation:

Our Mission

To formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense.

In other words, these organizations aren't here to crunch data and interpret results objectively. They are here to make the facts fit the argument for limited government and a freer markets. Right or wrong, the answers is always the same; government spending doesn't work (it requires more government so it mustn't work), climate change is a myth (and even if it isn't it's probably best to slowly let the free market handle it and not the government), in health care, single payer or a public option would be a disaster (it requires government) etc.

Creationism

Now let's take an example that may be a bit less ambiguous. Creation science (laugh all you want, but YouTube is filled with videos like this, the blogosphere is filled with blogs like this, because the United States lags in acceptance of evolution as well as an understanding of genetics.

The Institute for Creation Research

ICR Research

For nearly 40 years, ICR has been the leader in scientific research from a biblical perspective, conducting innovative laboratory and field research in the major disciplines of science, as well as in ancient biblical studies and graduate science education.

Answers in Genesis

Mission:

We take the absolute truth and authority of the Bible to the world.

We teach the relevance of a literal Genesis to the mission fields of the world.

We obey God’s call for global evangelism for all ethnic groups in the world.

More objective sources include the US Geological Society, NASA, The National Academy of Sciences, and the Congressional Budget Office. Note they tend to be at odds with the small government stance, climate change and evolution skepticism of the aforementioned sources.

US Geological Society

Mission: The USGS serves the Nation by providing reliable scientific information to describe and understand the Earth; minimize loss of life and property from natural disasters; manage water, biological, energy, and mineral resources; and enhance and protect our quality of life.

NASA

What Does NASA Do?

NASA's mission is to pioneer the future in space exploration, scientific discovery and aeronautics research.

The National Academy of Sciences

ABOUT

The National Academies perform an unparalleled public service by bringing together committees of experts in all areas of scientific and technological endeavor. These experts serve pro bono to address critical national issues and give advice to the federal government and the public.

Congressional Budget Office

About CBO

CBO's mandate is to provide the Congress with:

Objective, nonpartisan, and timely analyses to aid in economic and budgetary decisions on the wide array of programs covered by the federal budget and

The information and estimates required for the Congressional budget process.

In Summary

It's natural for people to take stances, quote the sources that verify their own and filter out contradicting data. Unfortunately it seems to be taken to the nth degree here in the US. Egos become embedded in opinions and what should become objective discourse becomes rhetorical guerilla warfare.

Unemployment Perspective: Reagan and Obama