Here and There

update: great analysis of Wilson’s erroneous (not to mention disrespectful and misplaced) outcry at PolitiFact.com.

original post: I’m doing my best to look to the example of Barack Obama in his effort to move beyond partisan bickering in the dust-up over Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.) screaming out “You lie!” after Obama claimed that his health care reform bill would not insure illegal immigrants.

Therefore, my only response is: No, President Obama isn’t lying (PDF).

What the right thinks the left is up to: Killing seniors, babies, fetuses, the disabled, and (who knows?) gun-toting conservatives.

What the left thinks the right is up to: Protecting the enormous profits of health care industry* executives.

Not sure where you fit in in this debate? Read those two sentences again and decide for yourself. Think about ulterior motives, think about transparent motives. Then act.

* I don’t hyphenate “health care” here based on years of working with the AP Stylebook.

Whoa, stop the presses, Cue the reel at CNN. There’s actual disagreement among Obama supporters, and the man’s not even president yet.

From Josh Marshall and John Judis joining some Democrats in Congress to demur on the stimulus, to Rep. John Conyers, D-Michigan, announcing flat out that Obama should rescind his nomination of Sanjay Gupta to become Surgeon General, it’s beginning to look a little like a democracy.

Do I need to say how great this is?

Ignoring the economy and my personal stake in it, I’m becoming quite a fan of the United States of America these days.

Okay, that’s the capsulized version. I just really trust that we’re reprioritizing, and doing it right this time. This really does feel like a once-in-a-generation election. Obama has already made some very important decisions, and despite disagreeing with a few, they’ve almost all been good ones.

Jeff is back and instead of the usual return-home pleasantries, he wrote me this:

“The more i talk with European friends and people living there or Canada, the more I’m worried about bureaucracy. Yes, the argument of “do you want going to the doctor to be like DMV?” is gaining some weight with me.

Agreed, bureaucracy is an issue. However, I don’t think it is a symptom poisoning our Government only. Apparently, in this country, Health Insurance Advocates are available for hire. The service is run by former nurses and medical care professionals who will fight health insurance companies for you using their wealth of experience maneuvering through health care bureaucracy.

Another example of health care bureaucracy: Denial of first claims is a procedural maneuver by health insurance companies to bank on the laziness of their customers to not follow through to get proper coverage reimbursements, in the end paying full price instead. Ever read John Grisham’s “The Rainmaker?”

As Paul Krugman notes, almost 30 percent of health insurance company budgets go to administrative tasks — weeding through applicants and removing those who are “high risks” from their coverage. Health insurance companies only like to cover people who are in good health, removing those who need coverage the most. During Wednesday’s debates, our small audience of friends all agreed they would be frightened to have their health records online and transparent (as both candidates were espousing) in case they would be denied coverage for pre-existing conditions.

As with the banking industry, we can’t force health insurance companies to do the right thing and we can’t depend on competition to do it for us. So I think Obama’s plan is right. The DMV is no worse than health insurance companies today. At least at the end of the day I know I’ll get a new drivers license. At the end of the same day, I’m not sure my health insurance company will pay me for my medicine the way they agreed to.

If Obama’s health care service is better, I’ll do it. If health insurance companies rise to the challenge and compete, all the better. I’d be glad to jump over to their coverage again as soon as they offer a better service. Sounds like good capitalism to me.

-Scott

P.S. On another note, now that Jeff is back, I will be so pleased to once again get my elections coverage from his Reader’s shared items and the posts here. Nobody shares the same passion and enthusiasm as Jeff. I’m excited to see what’s up next for hereandthereblog.com.

This was one of my favorite McCainisms from yesterday. One of his policy crafters, John Goodman (but not the John Goodman), says there’s no such thing as uninsured Americans because anyone can go to the emergency room and get care.

Yes, I’m serious.

I brushed off your endorsement when I got wind of it early in the day. But damn you, you made me watch your speech.

And now I copy the embed code with wet eyes. Yes we can!

Do not give a misbehaving child what (s)he wants.

And with that implicit analogy, this blog now turns its full attention toward taking down John McCain. Reader submissions are accepted.

The aim will be to expose John McCain for what he is — an old-school politician, beholden to special interests with deep pockets who play by their own rules. The arguments about approach to government are tired, but must be hashed out. The real question is who these candidates are, what they represent, and how they will lead and represent the United States of America at home and to the world.

Given these tenets, the choice should be pretty clear, methinks.

… since I remembered what a colossal douche Michael Savage is.

These trifecta was too good to resist link-rec’ing:

• Obama pulling close in superdelegates
• Clinton’s role in children’s health care disputed
• (Former Senator and presidential candidate) Bob Graham: Iraq war vote was commander-in-chief test

Have I mentioned how awesome it would be if you sold your copy of My Life and gave the money to a candidate you believe in? It would be, like, so awesome …

I’ve admired Paul Krugman since about the first time I came across him, in the (actual) pages of The New York Times so many years ago. I appreciate his work not only concerning politics, but also economics, as this is still an area I have some trouble with. Krugman has some of the best metaphors to help me understand economics, and he delivers in an often entertaining way.

That’s why it’s been particularly difficult this election cycle for me to read him. From way back, Krugman seems to have made up his mind on which candidate not to support, based mostly (from what I can tell) on policy differences over health care. Krugman slammed the Obama plan for its lack of a mandate, which at first took me by surprise. Then, the more I looked into the candidates, the more Obama’s plan seemed tenable to me. But this post is not about my view of health care policy.

Krugman’s column in today’s paper went too far, referring to Obama supporters as the ones who “started it,” so to speak. He denegrates and devalues the passion on the other side, much like a child would tell another one, “you’re ugly and dumb.”

I hope other Krugman fans are noticing his cheap shots, and doing something to bring about a fairer sense of journalism. Slate.com’s XX Factor sure has noticed.

I’m reading and hearing more and more that Barack Obama lacks substance, that people don’t know what he stands for, other than the played-out cliché, “change.” Funny, but no one seemed to question this until it appeared he was a contender. I guess that’s to be expected, now that people are taking a closer look at him. But that’s what I can’t understand. Are people taking a closer look, or are they latching on to a desperate tactic employed by the ever apparently vulnerable Clintons?

Anyone watching any debate that wasn’t simply a petty rehash of candidates’ past sins would have been keeping score. Obama’s controversial (in that it doesn’t mandate, and therefore cannot guarantee universal coverage) health care plan has been pored over perhaps more than any other of his policies. His stance on the troops in Iraq is simple enough. His energy and education and tax policies have been laid forth for the electorate time and again. He weaves some policy into his stand-alone speeches, and definitely covers it well in debates.

I certainly didn’t come to support him by letting myself get carried by his so-called poetry. I admit the man can speak, but to me, he’s even more of a policy wonk. Funny, but I remember the exact same thing being said about a certain former president whose wife is running for the nomination now.

So, really people, what’s the problem? Or are you already grasping at straws?

It’s a great source, not unlike David Brock’s Media Matters, and today, they’re going after Clinton’s baked facts on health care costs.