Do We Still Get To Shout About It Daily In the Media? Okay, it's a fairly simple proposition: Given the Chicken Little screaming we've heard since the Healthcare.gov website failure to launch, do we get to expect triumphal praise at the same frequency and magnitude? No, really. Think about it. When news is good, it's really quite hard to get any substantive discussion. Fast-forward. These days, pointing out the fact that a website launch is not the rollout of Obamacare gets one denounced as the moral equivalent of a propaganda minister to a murderous dictator. No, really. Think about it. Really, it is not that there is not a diversity of arguments in their arsenal, but when you strip away the tinfoil, note the Godwin boundaries, and demand facts, that diversity is merely lexical, as it all comes back to how many ways one might seek cowardly comfort in sleaze. So let us either jump to some other willfully misinformed conclusions about the PPACA, or wait and see what happens: For the last several weeks, the consensus in establishment circles was that the Affordable Care Act's open-enrollment period was not only a disaster, but a catastrophe that would destroy Obama's presidency, the Democratic Party, the American health care system, and the very idea of progressive governance. Pundits could hardly contain their analogies – this was Obama's Katrina, Obama's Iraq, Obama's Watergate, Obama's Iran-Contra, and even Obama's Bay of Pigs. But the funny thing about narratives is that they're sometimes fleeting. Ezra Klein suggests today that "Obamacare" may finally be "turning the corner." There are increasing reports that HealthCare.Gov is working better – perhaps much better – for consumers than it was a few short weeks ago. "Consumer advocates say it is becoming easier for people to sign up for coverage," report Sandhya Somashekhar and Amy Goldstein in the Washington Post. "The truth is, the system is getting stronger as it recovers from its disastrous launch," writes Sam Baker in the National Journal. Applying "was no problem at all, with no delays," says Paul Krugman. Reports from inside the health care bureaucracy are also turning towards optimism. People who knew the Web site was going to be a mess on Oct. 1st are, for the first time, beginning to think HealthCare.Gov might work. Data backs them up: By mid-November, the pace of enrollment in the federal exchanges had doubled from what it was in October. The Obama administration is certainly acting like they believe the site has turned the corner. Somashekhar and Goldstein report that they're "moving on to the outreach phase, which had taken a back seat as they grappled with the faulty Web site. Next week, the White House will host an insurance-oriented 'youth summit' aimed at people ages 18 to 35, an age group whose participation in the health-care law will be critical to its success." Why didn't the White House do this sooner? Because officials didn't much see the point in directing people to a website that didn't work. If they're increasing the website, it's the result of greater optimism. Perusing the news this morning, there are more than a few compelling pieces along these lines. The L.A. Times has a terrific article, for example, on "the Obamacare success stories you haven't been hearing about." NPR today highlighted some Californians who received cancelation notices – and are thrilled with the results. National Journal made the case yesterday that Obama not only can recover from the troubled rollout; he already has. Moreover, Greg Sargent has a great piece noting that for all the talk about health care crushing Democrats, there's a credible argument that the Republican position "is actually a political liability of its own." (Benen, "Turning") I mean, come on. In the first place, we can acknowledge that it's Benen. And while even he goes on to note that much of the interpretive part of the optimism is being described by sympathetic pundits and analysts, well, that's the thing. So if, as some have demanded, we are to— (1) Ignore facts in order to ... (2) ... revel in potential crisis because it serves someone's political desires, and ... (3) ... actually denounce facts as lies in order to gratify that political lust —then why should we not— (A) Observe facts ... (B) ... consider rationally their meaning, and ... (C) ... figure real outcomes —and then trumpet every goody-goody fluff story, whiff of rumor, and actual success with the same ferocious vigor? Well, in truth, it probably is overkill. There is still plenty of head-vs-wall bad news coming, to be certain, and plenty of prissy prancing to panic. However ... The far-right congressman, acknowledging resistance to his approach from his own allies, explained, "And there's some criticism, 'Well, are you helping improve this law when you make that change? And should we be doing that?' A lot of conservatives say, 'Nah, let's just step back and let this thing fall to pieces on its own.' But I don't think that's always the responsible thing to do." Kingston added, "I think we need to be looking for things that improve health care overall for all of us. And if there is something in ObamaCare, we need to know about it." For his trouble, RedState.com published an item this morning with the headline, "Jack Kingston has Surrendered on Obamacare." The piece, written by the Madison Project's Daniel Horowitz, argued, "Sadly, the recent comments by [Kingston] suggesting that we should help fix the law serve as a vivid illustration of why we failed the battle to defund the law." Now, when a far-right blogger and a far-right congressman are at odds, it may be tempting to just sit back and watch, but there's a larger significance to this. (Benen, "Case Study") ... there is also work to do. Benen's larger point, of course, is about the extremity of oppositional fervor, but that fervor only really matters if it actually degrades the utility or efficacy of the public discourse. And in that question, much of the pushback Rep. Kingston (GA-1) experiences from his fellow Republicans seems to originate with an alternate reality—a web of mistaken notions, calculated lies, and echoing whathephucks that just happened to accidentally slip their way into the discussion. Consider Tyler Hansen's note at Media Maters: Fox News reported that the Cleveland Clinic was instituting "massive layoffs" due to the implementation of the Affordable Care Act, but when asked about the reports, a Clinic spokesperson told Media Matters, "We're not." On November 25, The Daily Caller published an article titled, "Top U.S. hospital laying off staff due to Obamacare." On Fox Business' Markets Now, host Connell McShane reported on the "massive layoffs." America's Newsroom host Bill Hemmer claimed that the Cleveland Clinic was going to "shed workers." Later, during the America's News HQ, Fox reporter Chris Stirewalt claimed that the layoffs "rocked the community there in northeastern Ohio." But there's one problem: the Cleveland Clinic is not laying off any employees. Eileen Sheil, Cleveland Clinic's Executive Director of Corporate Communications, said in an e-mail to Media Matters, "There have been several mis-reports and they keep mentioning that we're laying off 3,000 employees. We're not." Sheil explained that Cleveland Clinic is offering voluntary retirement to 3,000 eligible employees and that the Clinic is also "working on many initiatives to lower costs, drive efficiencies, reduce duplication of services across our system and provide quality care to our patients." Sheil continued, "Many of these initiatives do not impact our employees." Sheil told Media Matters that Fox had been notified of its error and that the Cleveland Clinic requested Fox's future reporting on the issue more accurately present the Clinic's plans. According to a Media Matters search, Fox had not corrected its mistake by the time of publication. Despite Fox's reporting, Sheil reiterated the Clinic's support for the Affordable Care Act .... And every time someone wants to spike the ball because more than half of Americans hate Obamacare? The CNN Political Unit notes: According to the survey released on Wednesday, four in 10 say they support the law, with 58% opposed. Those figures are little changed from a CNN poll a month ago, just two weeks into the rough start up of HealthCare.gov and mostly before the controversy over insurance policy cancellations due primarily to the new health law. But 41% say they oppose the law because they think it's too liberal, with 14% saying the measure doesn't go far enough. That means that 54% either support Obamacare, or say it's not liberal enough. So when the time comes, should the massive headlines scream: They Did It! Website Fixed, Attention Turns to Congress for Legislative Fine Tuning And when whatever is still amiss with the PPACA is openly recognized as the fault of the sleazy cowards pinning their political hopes on subverting it, perhaps our conservative neighbors can finally shut their holy cornholes long enough to understand that the only difference between the shit they give and the shit they're taking is that the shit they're taking actually has some legitimacy in fact. Personally, I don't think we need a screaming headline for, "Yay! The website is ... er ... um ... finally ... ah ... almost? ... working." But, you know, since we've been expected to believe the sky is falling for the last couple months while simultaneously ignoring all the good things the law has done, because Saddam Hussein! or something like that, perhaps that is what it takes to make the point to these people. They've been demanding we lower the bar to accommodate them for generations; imagine a world in which politicians are expected to spike the ball and dance around every time government screws up a little less. Especially when the contest is expected to recognize those who are asking to govern based on the principle that government doesn't work. And while that oddly counterintuitive proposition—would you hire someone who says the job can't be done and says he's willing to do anything to prove it?—apparently has no place in the discourse, since we always presuppose around it, what about the observable fact that the shock drama augmenting the already problematic formula of the government getting anything right on the first try by variables, coefficient and exponential, of falsehood. The family glitch could have been fixed months before it became a factor, except for Congressional Republicans. Indeed, the comedy of the Vitter Amendment is multivalent; what Vitter wants is a Congressional exemption from an exemption to an accidental exemption. That could have been debated and fixed legislatively, except for Congressional Republicans. So if Klein and Soltas are correct, and there is a reason the administration is "acting like they believe the site has turned the corner", what? Is something about to happen? It is reasonable to suggest that in a decade, when the system is running as smoothly as an individual mandate to the private sector can, people will forget how big of a fit everyone was supposed to throw these few months. Of course, the point for Republicans is to carry this fight through 2014, for the midterm election. We should not be surprised, then, when the conservative focus turns to all of the difficult effects Republicans could have helped prevent except for gambling on making sure they occurred. One need no pretense of clairvoyance to foresee the political posturing that will occur, early next year, as the administration races near to lightspeed in an effort to make sure everyone signing up gets accounted for in the IRS question. Ordinarily, the fixes to such a situation would be fairly simple, except of course that Republicans refuse the fixes in order to complain about the problems. Something about sleazy cowardice goes here. It is time for people to accept that the only reason the sky will fall is if Republicans try to defund it. It is time for a new discussion about the PPACA. About Obamacare. It is time for a discussion that actually attends reality. Some have chosen to ignore denounce facts. They would celebrate crisis and failure, regardless of who actuallly gets hurt. They're trying to make that crisis and failure happen. And they are ready to run on it in 2014. To the other, that the horror story isn't real, horrors of success, the ... er um ... you know, something, something, horror story isn't real ... um ... ah ... horrifying optimism, horrible metaphors even in sympathy, or even horrendously obvious prognosticatory vagaries exist is no reason to go spiking the ball. But for those who have had enough chicken-little tortilla-coast soup, it is worth remembering that there are, in fact, reasons for that better discussion. You know, the one dealing with reality? Even amid the really bad metaphors? (Bay of Pigs? Really?) But there's a lot going on. The sun will rise tomorrow, even if it's cloudy or you sleep late and miss it. And it is time for a different discussion. It's okay to sleep late; this one will be going on for a while—it would require deliberate effort to miss. ____________________ Notes: Benen, Steve. "Turning the health care corner". MSNBC. November 26, 2013. MSNBC.com. November 27, 2013. http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/turning-the-health-care-corner —————. "The Jack Kingston case study". MSNBC. November 26, 2013. MSNBC.com. November 27, 2013. http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/the-jack-kingston-case-study —————. "'A multilayered, sequenced assault'". MSNBC. November 21, 2013. MSNBC.com. November 27, 2013. http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/multilayered-sequenced-assault Hansen, Tyler. "Fox Blames Obamacare For Fictional Layoffs At Cleveland Clinic". Media Matters for America. November 25, 2013. MediaMatters.org. November 27, 2013. http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/11/25/fox-blames-obamacare-for-fictional-layoffs-at-c/197048 CNN Political Unit. "CNN/ORC Poll: Are Obamacare's flaws fixable?" Political Ticker. November 27, 2013. PoliticalTicker.Blogs.CNN.com. November 27, 2013. http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/11/27/cnnorc-poll-are-obamacares-flaws-fixable/ Klein, Ezra and Evan Soltas. "Wonkbook: Is Obamacare turning the corner?" Wonkblog. November 26, 2013. WashingtonPost.com. November 27, 2013. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/11/26/wonkbook-is-obamacare-turning-the-corner/ Westneat, Danny. "Debunking Obamacare sob story". The Seattle Times. November 23, 2013. SeattleTimes.com. November 27, 2013. http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2022321213_westneat24xml.html Hiltzik, Michael. "The Obamacare success stories you haven't been hearing about". The Economy Hub. November 25, 2013. LATimes.com. November 27, 2013. http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-obamacare-success-20131125,0,1801769.story O'Neill, Stephanie. "These Californians Greeted Canceled Health Plans With Smiles". Morning Edition. November 26, 2013. NPR.org. November 27, 2013. http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/201...ans-greeted-canceled-health-plans-with-smiles Seitz-Wald, Alex. "Can Obama Recover? He Did Already". National Journal. November 25, 2013. NationalJournal.com. November 27, 2013. http://www.nationaljournal.com/white-house/can-obama-recover-he-did-already-20131125 Nocera, Joe. "Obama's Bay of Pigs". The New York Times. November 22, 2013. NYTimes.com. November 27, 2013. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/23/opinion/nocera-obamas-bay-of-pigs.html Sargent, Greg. "The Morning Plum: What if the GOP stance on Obamacare proves a liability, too?" The Plum Line. November 26, 2013. WashingtonPost.com. November 27, 2013. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...p-stance-on-obamacare-proves-a-liability-too/
Obamacare "McCarthyism"? Here's a Fun Phrase: "Obamacare McCarthyism" Talk about hyperbole. No, really, McCarthyism? Pray, say huh? Rep. Jack Kingston (R-GA), who, despite being very conservative, is probably the only Republican candidate for the Georgia Senate nomination who doesn't make a habit of selling really crazy crap. Yesterday he said he doesn't think it's "the responsible thing to do" to simply let Obamacare collpase. Today he was attacked at Redstate.com for having "surrendered on Obamacare." Today Sen. Mike Enzi (R-WY), who's being haplessly primaried by Liz Cheney, was hit by an ad from the conservative SuperPac Americans for Job Security which quotes him from a 2010 conference on Health Care Reform in which he said "I like the exchanges. These exchanges can be good." "Good?" a voiceover in the ad responded. "Wyoming's Obamacare exchange has the most expensive premiums in the country, and it's marred by glitches." The ad ends with the tagline "tell Mike Enzi we don't like these liberal, Big Government Obamacare exchanges." Notably, Enzi is one of the most conservative members of the Senate, though he was the most conservative member of the so-called health care reform Gang of Six in 2009, who basically delayed things for 6 months or so before the White House realized there would be zero Republican support for Health Care Reform. (Marshall) While the attack relies on the dishonest proposition that the individual mandate was not a Republican-devised plan, it also overlooks the fact that Sen. Mike Enzi (R-WY) boasted of bad faith in his support for an Obamacare negotiating gang. But apparently joining a negotiating gang in order to subvert the negotiations is too liberal for some. Of course, Enzi's conservative opponents in Wyoming are desperate; polling in November put Liz Cheney down fifty-three points, and turning on her sister and embroiling the whole family in a public feud didn't seem to help. Still, the analysis is puzzling; Ed Kilgore nearly ties himself in knots trying to figure it out: I see Josh's point, though I'm not sure this is really anything new. I know the CW is that the "defund Obamacare" crowd—from whence the attacks on both Kingston and Enzi are emanating—have been silenced by the negative public reaction to the government shutdown and the subsequent explosion of bad publicity about the ACA exchange rollout, which the "defund Obamacare" crusade obscured for a while. But best I can tell, the "defunders" feel entirely vindicated, and think a citizenry souring on Obamacare will now see the wisdom of killing it off early at any price. So in their view, "fixers" like Kingston are really indistiguishable from the "let Obamacare fail" advocates Kingston himself was criticizing. In other words, "Obamacare McCarthyism" is likely to be a continuing weapon against any Republican who doesn't favor the the most radical tactics available at any given moment to bring down the Great White Whale of the Affordable Care Act. So don't be surprised if Georgia candidates like Paul Broun soon lump Kingston's critics together with the "Establishment" congressman himself as RINO wimps unwilling to turn the country upside down to kill the hated law that would outrageously give looters access to affordable health care. It's a bit of a stupid term, I think, kind of like calling the website launch a Katrina or Bay of Pigs, but largely in the same way that its truthiness is entirely superficial. That is, to the one, it's a bit godwinesque in its paranoia or hyperbole, while, to the other, it's also at least applicable in the context that the PPACA has become, for its hardest critics, something of a litmus test akin to communist sympathy—you cannot be part of decent and respectable society if you waver in the slightest. Inevitably, of course, the question arises what Republican politics in Wyoming or Georgia have to do with reality, but that sort of partisan back and forth is actually beside the point. Regardless of what we think, it's the difference between not believing in ghosts and not believing in guns; that is to say, guns can definitely be said to exist, so the disbelief must necessarily mean something else. As a simple force of nature, a factor existing in the environment that must be accounted for, this is taking place. And for Democratic sympathizers, regardless of what they think of the individual mandate itself, the fact that this all is taking place can be seen as an encouraging political sign. That is, as we hear whispers of the healthcare website turning its proverbial corner, Republicans have no more or less to complain about now than before insofar as it is quite clear that the problem is not dysfunction within a government entity, but, rather, that conservatives, for two decades, pushed a product they apparently didn't support. The idea that this was all some sort of bizarre trap certainly has a measurable weight in tinfoil, but at the same time it is hard to figure out what Republicans think they're doing. And that difficulty stems in no small part from the observable fact that the "Obamacare McCarthyite"—such as it might be—does not, and never did, have any real integrity about it. All of this bluster and fury from the right, it turns out, is toothless partisanship. As the hardline push advances, it is driven entirely by partisan emotion. One would think, listening to conservatives, that they are somehow shocked by the notion that government doesn't always get things right on the first try. To the other, we know they're not that naïve; the inherent dysfunction of government is one of their fundamental articles of faith: I believe government does not and cannot work, which is why you should elect me to govern. The reality is that they're hoping that people get hurt, and that's why the idea of tweaking the PPACA even in a way to make it work more conservatively is verboten; the law cannot be allowed to work, lest the thesis of perpetual government failure—and therefore the somehow marketable assertion of governing capability—is weakened. In the larger picture, Democrats and sympathizers are defending the individual mandate; score one for Republicans. But in a more proximal view, that's the only point the GOP gets; in order to create this chaos, achieve the harm they hope to inflict, Republicans must abandon all pretense of reality. Score one for everybody else. ____________________ Notes: Marshall, Josh. "The Birth of Obamacare McCarthyism". TPM Editor's Blog. November 26, 2013. TalkingPointsMemo.com. November 27, 2013. http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/the-birth-of-obamacare-mccarthyism Hohmann, James. "Commissioned poll: Mike Enzi up 53 on Liz Cheney". Politico. November 13, 2013. Politico.com. November 27, 2013. http://www.politico.com/story/2013/11/mike-enzi-liz-cheney-poll-99814.html Benen, Steve. "Enzi Explains His Approach to Negotiations". Political Animal. August 26, 2009. WashingtonMonthly.com. November 27, 2013. http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_08/019650.php Kilgore, Ed. "Obamacare McCarthyism". Political Animal. November 27, 2013. WashingtonMonthly.com. November 27, 2013. http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal-a/2013_11/obamacare_mccarthyism047974.php Linkins, Jason. "So, About That Whole 'Obama's Katrina' Thing". The Huffington Post. November 15, 2013. HuffingtonPost.com. November 27, 2013. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/15/obamacare-hurricane-katrina_n_4283628.html
Boehner's World Personal Responsibility: PPACA Blamed for Father Who Can't Count to Four Oh, the horror: On Sunday morning, the New York Post published the story of Cornelius Kelly, who was dismayed to learn that the New York State health insurance plans could cover his wife and three older children, but that he would have to buy a separate plan for his 18-month-old daughter. Fox News ran with the story on Monday morning, and had Kelly on to retell the tale. Within hours, the story had spread. The problem is, Kelly appears to have been given some bad information. Family plans in New York cover the whole family. No baby has to wait until its second birthday to join a family plan, as the article described Kelly being told. “It was 100 percent false,” said Bill Schwarz, a spokesman for the state's Department of Health. “Of course, everyone is covered in the family policy.” (Goldberg) It might behoove reporters—presuming, of course, that any actual, real, genuine reporters work for the Post—to reactivate the smell test sensors. On its face, the claim is absolutely ridiculous. Furthermore, given that it's the Post? The New York healthcare exchange is a state-run entity, not federal. The question thus becomes whether the president of the United States is to be held accountable for the decisions made by governors, legislatures, and regulators in the states. That, of course, is a question that arises even before we find out the story is bogus. The mixup appears to have been rooted in Kelly's application, which originally listed only three of his children even though he has four. When the clerical error was discovered, it was corrected, Schwarz said. Kelly said the state only reversed course after he went to the Post. "Someone from the state called me and apologized," he said. "Why would they apologize if they had done nothing wrong?" This is one of the curious developments in our society of late. People should not apologize for the sake of courtesy. They should not apologize for any frustration you might have experienced. Indeed, since the problem was Mr. Kelly's own inability to count to four, the state should not have apologized at all. I mention this because, at some time in the future, one might have cause to note the lack of basic courtesy in society. If expressions of sympathy can only be confessions of wrongdoing, then who should care how much any given arrhythmia actually disrupts another's life? A caveat worth noting, of course, is that in addition to the question of how many children Mr. Kelly actually has, and at what point he ran to the state's most spectacular conservative tabloid, is the note that Mr. Kelly ran in 2011 for a seat on the Suffolk County legislature, as part of the Conservative Party perhaps best known for costing New York Republicans a seat in the House of Representatives in the 2009 special election to replace Rep. John McHugh (R-23). Yesterday, Speaker Boehner included Kelly's tale as part of his justification for ongoing House hearings into the PPACA, and even pushed the story via Twitter. Note that Speaker Boehner, too, wants to blame Kelly's inability to count to four, which caused some confusion in a state office, on President Obama. No, really, this is what they've got. We should not expect any sort of retraction, correction, or other acknowledgment from the Speaker's office to advise about Rep. Boenhner's incredibly irresponsible conduct. It is also worth noting that Republicans are itching for a reason to tear into the New York exchange. Post crosstown competitor New York Daily News ran a story by Glenn Blain on Sunday under the headline, "New York's health exchange one of few Obamacare success stories". And Blain is not subtle about the state's role in the PPACA: President Obama has New York to thank for helping to keep his health insurance program afloat. While federal officials have scrambled to fix their glitch-ridden online insurance exchange, New York's Obamacare rollout — despite some initial hiccups — has become one of the initiative's biggest success stories, officials and analysts said. “It's working great,” said Elisabeth Benjamin of the Community Service Society of New York, a nonprofit group that helps people navigate the state's health exchange. “We are enrolling people like gangbusters.” New York's enrollment numbers far surpass those posted by the federal government and rank third among the 16 states and the District of Columbia that operate health insurance exchanges, according to figures tracked by the Kaiser Family Foundation. The good news: The PPACA is, in fact, working. There are several states, including New York, Washington, Califonia, and Kentucky, whose PPACA numbers are good. The bad news: There are still problems to work out. Three of those states—California, New York, and Washington—account for nearly three quarters of successful PPACA enrollment. No news, or what killed the dog: Republicans are still freaking out. Welcome to Boehner's world. ____________________ Notes: Goldberg, Dan. "Obamacare covers babies too, despite a 'Post' report". Capital New York. December 2, 2013. CapitalNewYork.com. December 3, 2013. http://www.capitalnewyork.com/artic...amacare-covers-babies-too-despite-post-report Boehner, John. #Trainwreck: ObamaCare to Undergo More Oversight Scrutiny". Office of the Speaker of the House. December 2, 2013. December 3, 2013. http://www.speaker.gov/general/trainwreck-obamacare-undergo-more-oversight-scrutiny-week —————. "I couldn't believe what I was being told". Twitter. December 2, 2013. Twitter.com. December 3, 2013. https://twitter.com/SpeakerBoehner/status/407648775612547072 Blain, Glenn. "New York's health exchange one of few Obamacare success stories". New York Daily News. December 1, 2013. NYDailyNews.com. December 3, 2013. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/pol...e-obamacare-success-stories-article-1.1533961
Quasimicroevolution The Metaphorical Corner: Republican Talking Points Edition Zachary Roth notes: Here's what Rep. Scott Rigell of Virginia told The New York Times. It's not in dispute that many Americans' lives are being disrupted in an important way by this law. Is it also true that some Americans' lives have gotten better? Yes, and not to acknowledge that is to deny reality. Rigell's right. On Sunday and Monday alone, 29,000 people signed up for insurance on the federal exchanges (that doesn't count those who used the state exchanges). That's more than had enrolled in the whole month of October. In fact, pretty soon it's going to become clear that the number of people helped by the ACA—and remember, that's not just those signing up on the federal and state exchanges, but also the the millions covered under the law's Medicaid expansion—dwarfs the number who are hurt. That's likely to be true even if you define "hurt" to apply to people who lost their sub-par insurance and can now get better coverage for less on the exchanges. Gradually, enough data is emerging for news reports to be able to convey the full picture, rather than relying on cherry-picked anecdotes. That means more and more Republicans are going to be forced to acknowledge, like Rigell, that, OK, the law may be helping a large number of struggling Americans find affordable health coverage, but they oppose it anyway. And that kind of equivocation just isn't likely to produce a winning political message. Reading through the news, it seems much less spectacular that the administration is rearranging certain deadlines. Indeed, without a website debacle to tie those stories to, people might start paying attention to more affecting parts of reality, such as Wyoming becoming the latest state to refuse Medicaid expansion; Mississippi Republicans taking down a functioning, successful healthcare exchange site; or deliberate efforts by Koch-funded and other right-wing organizations to deliberately misinform people. Perhaps the biggest difference as we round this metaphorical corner is that Republicans really do need to rethink their plans heading into 2014. The hue and cry against the PPACA is such that they are no longer trying to prevent the rise of some imagined monster, but aiming to take away the benefits our people and society are now enjoying. Pop quiz, of a sort: I would like you to please imagine a guy named Jeff. He's fifty-two, a disabled former electrician. His ribs are damaged. His spine is wedging. He smokes, has buried four siblings to lung cancer, and last he heard had a strange spot on his lung when he was in the emergency room several years ago. "I'm covered?" he asks, clapping his hands and drumming the table. "I can go to the doctor now? I'm seious, I need to go." In my world, the great tragedy is that Jeff might finally get to the doctor and find he's too late. If only we'd seen you six months ago, you know? For some of my conservative neighbors, though, it seems the great tragedy is that Jeff might live. That he might get medical attention, and a doctor who can wean him from cigarettes. That he might get his ribs and spine working reasonably enough again that he can actually go back to work. I mean, sure, give a man a fish or teach him to fish, but let's imagine Jeff lives. Well, okay. So he gets to the doctor and it's not tragic news. Great. Maybe it's even scary news, but they can win that fight. Point being, what is the post-repeal situation? That he should save his money so that he can afford to go back to school in order to get the training and certificates or degree that will allow him to get a better job that offers health insurance? And let's be honest, at fifty-two, living on five hundred dollars a month with his wife, that ain't happening. So, what, then? Hurry up and die? So let's say Jeff lives, and his doctor even convinces him to quit smoking. That would be the tragedy of "Obamacare"? For Republicans who were, recently, preparing a 2014 blitz against the PPACA, yes, that would be the pitch. That is, in theory, Jeff's delegation to the United States Senate objects to him having access to the health care that might well save his life. This is ... well, it would not be an ideal political position heading into the midterm, to say the least. Still, it would seem that there must, necessarily, be a plank in the 2014 platform dedicated to destroying the PPACA. As silly a phrase as Obamacare McCarthyism is, what it describes is real; in safe House districts, and, it seems some red-state runs for the U.S. Senate, a Republican incumbent's biggest fear is a right-flank challenge. Think of it this way: Sen. Mike Enzi (R-WY) is getting hit for a health exchange he tried to sabotage. Not because he tried to sabotage it, but because, I don't know, he failed? And now that the federal website is functioning reasonably, Republicans need a new angle to keep the news cycle focused on the horrors of Obamacare. There is a long way still to go, which is perhaps the strangest aspect insofar as it is hard to either quantify or classify the irony of the effect; watch how conservatives posture themselves in coming months—they've actually managed to do this to themselves. As far as the health insurance exchanges go, it's actually still hair-on-fire mode in some of the states, and the federal government can't relax yet, either. But conservatives are running out of smeatgobs to set ablaze and catapult over the gates. The signal to noise ratio might not get any better, but the noise is about to change. ____________________ Notes: Roth, Zachary. "Virgina Republican: Yes, Obamacare is helping some Americans". MSNBC. December 5, 2013. MSNBC.com. December 6, 2013. http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/republican-obamacare-helping-some-people McCrummen, Stephanie. "In rural Kentucky, health-care debate takes back seat as the long-uninsured line up". The Washington Post. November 23, 2013. WashingtonPost.com. December 6, 2013. http://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...9dc6e0-5465-11e3-9e2c-e1d01116fd98_story.html Acosta, Jim. "CNN obtains GOP playbook to target Obamacare". Political Ticker. November 21, 2013. PoliticalTicker.Blogs.CNN.com. December 6, 2013. http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.co...ook-because-of-obamacare-i-lost-my-insurance/ McMurry, Evan. "Consumer Reports Changes Verdict on Obamacare Website, Tells MSNBC: 'It's Time'". Mediaite. December 3, 2013. Mediaite.com. December 6, 2013. http://www.mediaite.com/tv/consumer...ct-on-obamacare-website-tells-msnbc-its-time/
Round and Round For It Before They Were Against It Before They Were ... Well, Okay With It, I Guess .... Once upon a time, Republicans conservative, moderate, and liberal (yes, there was once such a thing), pushed an idea called the "individual mandate" as an alternative to single-payer healthcare. They spent nearly two decades pushing the idea, celebrating when a Republican governor in Massachusetts managed to get a functioning version of the plan passed. The governor later declared it a model for the nation. In 2009, however, a Democratic president conceded that he could not win single-payer, so he abandoned the idea for the conservative reform. At this point, Republicans began defining socialism as using government to force people to give money to private corporations. One might wonder, under such a definition, why the private sector is so wary of socialism. Republican governors and state officials so opposed the plan that they calculated the ways they could ensure health care reform failed. Indeed, in Mississippi, the Republican governor ordered a successfully functioning state-run web portal to the health care marketplace shut down, citing legal concerns that do not actually exist. Some Republican-controlled states have moved to make it a crime to assist people signing up for health insurance through the federal web portal. The fight has become so fierce that Congressional Republicans actually shut down the federal government and threatened to upend the worldwide economy by forcing the United States to default on its debts. Yet, after all of their efforts to sabotage the Affordable Care Act, they found themselves cornered, complaining about a dysfunctional website that they helped ensure did not work properly. And for a time, it worked; the president's poll numbers sank, and he has even been branded with the lie of the year—after all, it is, apparently, the president's job to run every private corporation in America. True, that might seem a shocking new standard, but that's the one Republicans and several health insurance companies have implicitly demanded; that is to say, sure, knowing the policies they were devising and selling wouldn't work under the new law, but that was the point, to sabotage the law and then complain about the mess. Still, though, the ACA continues, and its November enrollment numbers are much better than many pundits expected, and well above what Republicans hoped. As Republicans look to the 2014 midterm, one which by statistical history should be theirs, they find themselves in danger of a 2012 repeat, in which they lost a presidential election that, by statistical history, should have been theirs. As Steve Benen noted last week: Just over the last couple of weeks, unexpected cracks have started to emerge. The Republican approach to "Obanacare" has started to evolve, at least a little. Rep. Jack Kingston (R-Ga.), a U.S. Senate hopeful, said recently, "A lot of conservatives say, 'Nah, let's just step back and let this thing fall to pieces on its own.' But I don't think that's always the responsible thing to do." As Zachary Roth explained last week, that was soon followed by Rep. Scott Rigell (R-Va.), who conceded that "some Americans' lives have gotten better" as a result of the law, and to fail to acknowledge this is to "deny reality." Yesterday, Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), who ran on an anti-ACA platform in 2010, stopped by National Review's office and said he realizes his party's repeal crusade is a bust. "We've got to start talking about transitioning," the far-right Wisconsinite said. He continues, "Am I opposed to state-based exchanges? No." He thinks "it may be that they can be usable." "I'm all for repeal," he stipulates, "but it's there. What do you do with what's there? ... We've got to start talking about the reality of the situation." At first blush, comments like these may seem unremarkable. But remember, Johnson has devoted much of his brief political career to condemning the Affordable Care Act, and he's now telling one of the more important news outlets in conservative media that he's comfortable with state-based exchange marketplaces – which is not only one of the key elements of Obamacare, but is also one of the provisions conservative Republicans have been fighting against. "We've got to start talking about the reality of the situation"? Even that's a new posture for the GOP, which has been adamant about denying reality as long as humanly possible. Similarly, Sabrina Siddiqui noted, for Huffington Post: Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), one of the most ardent opponents of Obamacare, conceded Thursday that the law's health insurance exchanges "will work and work well." "I'm not worried about the exchanges," he said in a Senate floor speech. "They'll get that fixed." Coburn attributed the early failures of HealthCare.gov -- the online portal where individuals can shop for coverage under the Affordable Care Act -- to an "incompetency of management." But the exchanges would ultimately be successful, Coburn said. "It will eventually work and work well," he said. Coburn was less favorable toward the rest of the law, which he said would remain problematic due to "centralized management" within the federal government. "It is inefficient, most of the time ineffective, oftentimes complicated by fraud or incompetence," he said. Coburn's embrace of the exchanges is nonetheless significant, as Republicans continue to argue that Obamacare should be repealed and focus on problems with the rollout to prove their point. But as enrollment numbers have started to rise -- recently surpassing one million -- some of the GOP's fiercest attack dogs have started to show signs of hedging from their hardline positions that the law should be done away with in its entirety. Perhaps one of the most fascinating of these cracks in the wall might be the tale of Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX). The current Senate Minority Whip considered the ACA last week; Paige Lavender explained, for Huffington Post: Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) said the effort to defund Obamacare "was not achievable" in an interview with Texas Monthly, where he also opened up about his relationship with Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas). "I have to give Ted a lot of credit for capturing the imagination of people who are angry at Washington. We did have a disagreement about tactics, but it wasn't about policy," Cornyn told Brian D. Sweany of Texas Monthly. "I think we have different styles, and that may be because I was a judge for thirteen years, so my style of discourse is more suited for the courtroom. I've had a fair amount of success in the Senate, which has been good for Texas, and I'm number two in the leadership, which is good for advancing the Texas model in Washington, D.C. But I don't think there is any daylight in terms of our philosophy." Sweany asked Cornyn about his hope "that the people who advocated a government shutdown" -- which includes Cruz, who led the fight to defund Obamacare -- "had learned a lesson." Cornyn called the fight against Obamacare "not achievable": I would say that I hope we'll be less confrontational. It's a difference of opinion within the family about the tactics of achieving a goal, not the goal itself. But you're right, I thought the effort to defund Obamacare was not achievable, and I think the facts bear that out. I've made mistakes in how I've approached certain things, and I've learned from every one of them. That's part of being a rational human being. I've read that a number of the folks who were proponents of the defund Obamacare on the continuing resolution are not going to pursue that tactic again, and I think that's good. The shutdown did not help our cause. What did help our cause was the president's implementation of Obamacare, which has overwhelmed everything else. I don't hear anyone thinking that another government shutdown is the way to achieve our goals. Citing the "11th Commandment"—that Republicans shall not publicly criticize other Republicans—hardline Rep. Steve Stockman (R-TX36) filed a last-minute primary challenge against the second-term senator. Yes, really. That Steve Stockman. Ordinarily, opening a campaign against a ranking fellow, facing such a financial disparity—numbers suggest Cornyn's favor at the outset, well over 200:1—this is, after all, Texas. The questions for Republicans going forward might seem matters of how badly did they hurt themselves, and how to recover. With over half of the Class 2 Republicans facing primary challenges from the right, the increasing friction between the GOP establishment and its diverse hardliner factions is heating toward explosion. Right now, the reality is that the ACA isn't going to go away, and the cooler heads in the Republican Party would like to start counting up the lessons they need to learn from their immersion exercises in hard-right waters. Whether or not conservative voters allow them that (ahem!) "luxury" is yet to be determined. Meanwhile, the politics of the matter are becoming more clear: Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Red Fish, Blue Fish: Yes, there is a difference. As senior GOP leaders try to guide the flock back toward a sane semblance of reality, they face blowback from the hardliners. While this will provide all manner of political entertainment for the Midterm Spectacular, we must remember that one of the reasons this drama is happening at all is because, well, the ACA is working. When the GOP is ready, they can help Americans make it work better. But Republicans ... well, the primary cycle will tell us whether they're ready or not. Stay tuned. ____________________ Notes: Benen, Steve. "Cracks emerge in anti-ACA wall". MSNBC. December 10, 2013. MSNBC.com. December 15, 2013. http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/cracks-emerge-anti-aca-wall —————. "Cornyn vs. Stockman". MSNBC. December 10, 2013. MSNBC.com. December 15, 2013. http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/cornyn-vs-stockman Siddiqui, Sabrina. "Tom Coburn: Obamacare Exchanges 'Will Work And Work Well'". The Huffington Post. December 12, 2013. HuffingtonPost.com. December 15, 2013. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/12/tom-coburn-obamacare_n_4434220.html Lavender, Paige. "John Cornyn: 'The Effort To Defund Obamacare Was Not Achievable'". The Huffington Post. December 10, 2013. HuffingtonPost.com. December 15, 2013. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/10/john-cornyn-ted-cruz_n_4419128.html Tashman, Brian. "Meet Steve Stockman (R-WorldNetDaily)". Right Wing Watch. December 10, 2013. RightWingWatch.org. December 15, 2013. http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/meet-steve-stockman-r-worldnetdaily Conaway, Laura. "Chart: Who gets Obamacare". MSNBC. December 13, 2013. MSNBC.com. December 15, 2013. http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/chart-who-gets-obamacare
Imagine That: When Reality Bites One to Watch: Compulsive Liar and Leaker Wants ACA Security Data Imagine if HHS had a vault. Issa, with oversight authority, can see the vault, examine its contents, and even review security testing of the vault, but HHS doesn’t want to give Issa a piece of paper with the combination to the vault, fearing he’d just leak it to his allies. Why would he do that? Because he’s already said he hopes the the vault gets robbed. —Steve Benen The continuing battles between Congressional Republicans and the White House have taken the sort of interesting twist that one could easily see coming. Or, as Matt Fuller explains: While Republicans continue to characterize HealthCare.gov as a brazen security hazard that could expose personal information to unnecessary risks, the Health and Human Services Department has its own concerns regarding a place of compromised security: the Oversight and Government Reform Committee. On Thursday, HHS wrote a letter to the panel’s chairman, Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., regarding his committee’s request for “unredacted copies of sensitive security testing documents prepared by the MITRE Corporation (MITRE), in connection with HealthCare.gov.” The HHS assistant secretary for legislation, Jim R. Esquea, signaled that HHS was blocking MITRE from turning over the documents, which have been subpoenaed, over concerns that Issa would — as he has done in the past — leak the documents to the public, potentially giving hackers a road map to the “potential vulnerabilities in the cyber defenses.” “To be clear, this is not a question of whether [HHS] will share this information with the Committee — we have already done so and will continue to make the documents available for your review,” the letter said. “Rather, it is a question of whether the Committee will work with us to ensure the sensitive information contained in these documents is adequately protected.” Oversight and Government Reform staff have been able to review the documents in a secure space, but they have not been given copies. While they’ve had “in camera” sessions with the documents at HHS, they haven’t been able to leave the building with their notes. That has left Issa unsatisfied. The back and forth is about what you would expect; HHS rightly points out that Chairman Issa has observable trouble with leaking sensitive information, while Frederick Hill, a spokesman for the House Oversight Committee, accused the Obama administration of selectively releasing information. The latter is a GOP standard; while Hill tried to make the question of Issa's conduct about names "actually on State Department-associated websites", the thrust misses about as cleanly as it can; the most apparent problem with Issa and leaks is that the Oversight Chairman is blatantly dishonest. As Steve Benen put it: For months, congressional Republicans have pushed the “security” argument: the health care exchange marketplaces, the GOP insists, put Americans’ personal health information at risk. Have there been any successful security attacks? No. Have any consumers’ personal information been jeopardized? No. But the point to scare people into avoiding the system – if Americans believe there’s a risk, maybe they’ll be more reluctant to get covered, which would further Republicans’ sabotage goals. In reality, however, there’s been extensive testing of healthcare.gov to ensure security measures are in place. Issa wants “unredacted copies” of these sensitive materials, and this has caused a problem. These materials include information that, if leaked or misused, could cause catastrophic damage to the health care system. With that in mind, HHS has shared the information with Issa and his committee, and continue to make the documents available for committee review, but HHS won’t simply give the committee copies of dangerous information .... .... And while I’m all in favor of vigorous oversight, HHS has a point. Issa has a nasty habit of carelessly leaking sensitive information – usually in the most misleading way possible – to advance partisan goals. In this case, Issa wants to sabotage “Obamacare” and wants information that would make that sabotage possible. Imagine if HHS had a vault. Issa, with oversight authority, can see the vault, examine its contents, and even review security testing of the vault, but HHS doesn’t want to give Issa a piece of paper with the combination to the vault, fearing he’d just leak it to his allies. Why would he do that? Because he’s already said he hopes the the vault gets robbed. Congressional Republicans have become dangerously silly in recent years. We have seen, repeatedly, how Issa operates. Last month, he was called out by fellow Reps. Gerald Connolly (D-VA11) and John Tierney (D-MA06) for deliberately misrepresenting closed-door testimony about the HealthCare.gov website; only a week before he was blasted for misrepresenting the testimony of the same CMS employee. In June, the Chairman was furious when Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD07) called him out for deliberately misrepresenting an interview with an IRS employee about how 501(c)(4) groups were regarded. It's a huge functional problem. To the one, the House Oversight Committee has its authority and its job. To the other, Chairman Issa clearly prefers to use that authority to botch the job. With a known liar demanding sensitive security information, HHS has every reason to be cautious. They have absolutely no reason to believe Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA42) would not leak security details and then complain that the administration allowed security leaks. As Benen noted, when the guy who wants the bank robbed uses his congressional authority to demand the keys and combination, everyone should be cautious. In this case, if Issa wants the information he already has access to packaged into a form he can leak, there really isn't any reason for HHS to not be suspicious. ____________________ Notes: Benen, Steve. "Obama admin has trust issues with Issa". MSNBC. December 16, 2013. MSNBC.com. December 16, 2013. http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/obama-admin-has-trust-issues-issa Fuller, Matt. "HHS to Issa: You Can’t Be Trusted With Obamacare Documents". 218. December 12, 2013. Blogs.RollCall.com. December 16, 2013. http://blogs.rollcall.com/218/hhs-to-issa-you-cant-be-trusted-with-obamacare-documents/
ACA Horror Story in Real Time ACA Horror Story in Real Time I knew this day would come, so we might as well make a record of it. Assurant, my health provider, sent me a letter in November, advising that there would be changes coming to my policy. And those changes have arrived. The real ACA Horror Story villain: Other people. I have just had some frustrating conversations with family. My premium just "doubled"? In the first place, we knew that was coming. In the second, if we really want to be pedantic, a 66% increase is not doubling. But why did the premium jump so dramatically? Well, after several minutes of conversation, the purpose of which is apparently to let other people state the obvious as if they have given it deep thought, the speculation emerges that maybe the premium went up when this stopped being a catastrophic plan and became an ACA-compliant plan. But that's so expensive ... I'm paying .... Okay, but we might observe that your individual plan is more expensive than mine. What is the point? Well what about the state? You're already aware that state law locks me out of my daughter's Medicaid decisions; we've been through this. (Five minutes of discussing why the child's mother won't do this or that, when the reality is that we have no idea what the mother has or has not done, since getting basic information about essential needs is only slightly more frustrating pulling teeth.) Bottom line: the new plan is exactly nine dollars more than its nearest competitor; the bottom-shelf plan is an HMO that can't even tell me where its provider network is in my state. There is a weird cognitive disconnection in the discussion around the house, today, and that's what's frustrating. To the one, people tell me I pay too much attention to political news, and there is some truth in that, just as many of my friends pay too much attention to sports news. And just like they know what's up with the latest trades, rumors of gay athletes, and all sorts of internal team politics that they couldn't possibly actually know, it occurs to me every once in a while that there is, in fact, a payoff for attending politics with such enthusiasm. Unfortunately, it's not a rewarding payoff in practical experience. That is, every question I found myself sidetracked with today was something that one could answer simply by having paid attention to the news; the facts are there, whirling among the many pieces of this living mosaic. Nothing that is happening here is unexpected, unless, of course, one hasn't paid attention to the news. In other words, it's hardly a horror story. More to the point, it's an annoyance. Not an annoyance specifically caused by the ACA, but, rather, one historically associated with insurance companies.
