Never mind that "Meet The Press" is dark this week - good call there - instead of going dark next week after the holiday, take off this week and miss the biggest diplomatic story of the year.
Iran has agreed with a coalition of countries - the United States, France, Germany, Great Britain, Russia and China - to freeze parts of its nuclear program for the next six months while a permanent deal can be reached.
The other Sunday talk shows are blowing with debate as to whether this pause is one that is beneficial for furthering safety and security in the region. The first thing one has to say is that any diplomatic agreement between Iran and the West is a positive sign, but beyond that we don't find ourselves getting too excited.
In exchange for lifting about $6 billion in sanctioned assets, Iran will agree to stop building centrifuges, equipping a 'heavy water' nuclear plant, and dilute some of its highly enriched uranium. However, during this time the Iranians will continue to enrich uranium at lower levels for non-military use. All of this only serves as a temporary positive for both sides because for Iran, it's a small part of their nuclear program, and for the West the money is a small fraction of frozen Iranian assets. Make no mistake, do not call this accord 'historic.'
There is still much reason to be skeptical, not to trust, and to insist on verification. Beside, if the sanctions were severely crippling then Iran would not have been able to keep building centrifuges and enriching uranium - obviously not crippling enough to have an effect.
Anything short of Iranian dismantling their military nuclear program doesn't warrant a more permanent agreement, and maybe the Iranians do not realize it yet but its in their interest to not have a nuclear weapons program. We can't help but think of the bigger picture for Iranians. The citizenry, mostly young and educated, have a natural inclination and acceptance toward many aspects of Western culture and have the intellect to create a balance between that and their own. Being more integrated, these people will want a better life for themselves and the tide of this will eventually overcome all resistance. And the West and China, frankly, each want the business.
Given what we've just said about the Iranian people, we do not think they would actually launch or set off a nuclear weapon, however, Hezbollah would, and there's the rub. If the long-term goal is to have better relations and have Iran rejoin the international community then their ceasing of state-sponsored terrorism has to be part of the overall negotiations. Economic sanctions haven't stopped the Iranians from funding Hezbollah extremists who wouldn't have the moral intellect to understand why employing such a weapon is destructive beyond their comprehension.
And the 'resistance' we mentioned, inside Iran, is not going to go quietly meaning that hardline leaders do not want to capitulate to the West in any way on either support for Hezbollah (and Assad in Syria) and the nuclear question. Knowing this, its understandable that Prime Minister Netanyahu is condemning the agreement, but there has to be a first step of engagement that has to be diplomacy instead of a military first-engagement option.
A great agreement? Certainly not, but we would call it a good act of non-denominational faith.
Also part of the even larger picture for Iran, is why would they, being located on one of the most major active fault lines in the world, want a nuclear anything. Think about Fukushima [in Japan] and then think about an Iranian earthquake and a nuclear plant. Just saying.
Sunday, November 24, 2013
Sunday, November 17, 2013
11.17.13: The Affordable Care Act Needs a Fixer
There is no doubt that the start for the Affordable Care Act has been a mess, mechanically and politically. Going into the interview with Nancy Pelosi, we were thinking that she would say the things to clarify what is going on that the President doesn't seem to be able to articulate. However, that was not the case at all on today "Meet The Press."
When you don't have a straight answer, the best way to go is to get technical, which is what we saw from Ms. Pelosi. She spoke about how people who had plans before the Affordable Care Act was enacted, back in 2010, wouldn't have their policies cancelled, grandfathered in, if you will. Most people aren't thinking back to 2010 when the law was passed and then signed by the president. They're thinking of a month ago when the exchanges were supposed to be up and going as the real start of the law. That's incorrect but that is the perception.
It brings to mind another point, that the worst premise of the Affordable Care Act is that it relies on the insurance companies to do the right thing, but in reality what they'll really do is examine the law to find loopholes and exploit those loopholes. Nancy Pelosi said that the insurance company needs to issue another letter following a cancellation letter explaining that the exchange offers more coverage for a lower rate. Why would the insurance companies have any interest in doing that? They would not send a letter saying basically that they charge too much and don't give you enough cover so when you go to the exchange please pick us again. It's not going to happen. Also, if we're going back to 2010 to the initial enactment of the law, why hadn't these letter gone out sooner? It's convenient timing for the insurance companies to deflect blame about inadequate insurance and simply point to 'Obamacare' and how seemingly awful it is.
And when the former House Speaker says that there is nothing in the law that says you'll keep your policy, as noted by Washington Post columnist Kathleen Parker, that doesn't help especially now that it is all we can remember President Obama saying about the law in the midst of a flood of soundbites.
Ms. Pelosi corrected noted that the state exchanges work very well, which is good news if you live in a state with a Democratic governor, that's just where we are politically. But maybe that makes Senator Kelly Ayotte's (R-NH) suggestion about being able to buy health insurance over states lines a good one. Give the 'red' states the opportunity to mitigate the ill-serving national healthcare site for one of the states' web sites that work. Otherwise, Ms. Ayotte's one and only concrete suggestion about what Republicans would offer is a stupid idea. If you live in New York and you buy an insurance plan in Alaska because its cheaper, you can pretty much guarantee that your doctor will be 'out of network.'
Other than that, Ms. Ayotte, very indicative of Republicans at large, had no alternative solutions to insure more Americans and curb costs. Doing a 'time out' on the Healthcare Law is not an alternative idea; that's a vote for nothing. The Republicans would be wise to offer a series of amendments, 'fixes,' to the law and this way, they can get some things they want out of it while politically looking like the compromising problem solvers. However, Republican political ranks are so fixated on ideological purity and opposition that they will not take that tact.
The bottom line is if the Affordable Care Act is going to work, the web site has to work. As Wall Street Journal editorial page deputy editor, Daniel Henninger, and the Washington Post's Ezra Klein agreed, with younger adults relying on and relating to connectivity, if the web site doesn't work, you will not have their support, they will not sign up, and then it's a complete disaster.
And we appreciate that Mr. Obama is willing to take responsibility for this disastrous role out, but it is very indicative of Chris Matthews' point that the Administration doesn't have a chain of command; not his cabinet but his White House Staff. Who in the Administration can the president assign to come on the Sunday programs and make the case? This only contributes to Mr. Obama's less than stellar performance and character poll numbers, which he could restore a bit if he were able to get a real 'fixer' in the administration. No one is filling that role.
And speaking of a fixer, the key is fixing the web site, because once the people who have had their plans cancelled see the better plans that are offered, then the outrage will subside. There will still be problems but they won't be for lack of communication.
We would also guess this an inappropriate time to ask about the possibility of an app.
*****
On this 50th Anniversary of President John F. Kennedy's assassination, the perspective offered by Tom Brokaw and Chris Matthews is important to note because it was a particular generations' before and after moment, just as 9.11 is for us now. One can not fully negotiate today's complexities without having the historical reference to put it in perspective, or so we'd like to think so.
Then the program went off the rails again with speculative discussion of presidential politics. This was the time to further examine the President's handling of other issues, but this is a current failing of "Meet The Press" right now as they go for the political gossip instead of furthering examining what is important at the moment. Viewers tune out because of this. Tom Brokaw mentioned Mr. Obama's handling of Syria, and how the Russians basically bailed him out. Why not explore that topic further. What about discussing jobs? But no, instead we have to hearing nothing new about Hilary Clinton's prospects if she decides to run for president. Mr. Brokaw also said that with three years to go before the election, we'll offer no answer here today. To which Kathleen Parker quipped, "well, we have to fill up the hour," which pretty much summed it up.
Roundtable: NBC Special Correspondent Tom Brokaw; Washington Post columnist Kathleen Parker; Republican Strategist Mike Murphy; and host of MSNBC’s “Hardball,” Chris Matthews.
When you don't have a straight answer, the best way to go is to get technical, which is what we saw from Ms. Pelosi. She spoke about how people who had plans before the Affordable Care Act was enacted, back in 2010, wouldn't have their policies cancelled, grandfathered in, if you will. Most people aren't thinking back to 2010 when the law was passed and then signed by the president. They're thinking of a month ago when the exchanges were supposed to be up and going as the real start of the law. That's incorrect but that is the perception.
It brings to mind another point, that the worst premise of the Affordable Care Act is that it relies on the insurance companies to do the right thing, but in reality what they'll really do is examine the law to find loopholes and exploit those loopholes. Nancy Pelosi said that the insurance company needs to issue another letter following a cancellation letter explaining that the exchange offers more coverage for a lower rate. Why would the insurance companies have any interest in doing that? They would not send a letter saying basically that they charge too much and don't give you enough cover so when you go to the exchange please pick us again. It's not going to happen. Also, if we're going back to 2010 to the initial enactment of the law, why hadn't these letter gone out sooner? It's convenient timing for the insurance companies to deflect blame about inadequate insurance and simply point to 'Obamacare' and how seemingly awful it is.
And when the former House Speaker says that there is nothing in the law that says you'll keep your policy, as noted by Washington Post columnist Kathleen Parker, that doesn't help especially now that it is all we can remember President Obama saying about the law in the midst of a flood of soundbites.
Ms. Pelosi corrected noted that the state exchanges work very well, which is good news if you live in a state with a Democratic governor, that's just where we are politically. But maybe that makes Senator Kelly Ayotte's (R-NH) suggestion about being able to buy health insurance over states lines a good one. Give the 'red' states the opportunity to mitigate the ill-serving national healthcare site for one of the states' web sites that work. Otherwise, Ms. Ayotte's one and only concrete suggestion about what Republicans would offer is a stupid idea. If you live in New York and you buy an insurance plan in Alaska because its cheaper, you can pretty much guarantee that your doctor will be 'out of network.'
Other than that, Ms. Ayotte, very indicative of Republicans at large, had no alternative solutions to insure more Americans and curb costs. Doing a 'time out' on the Healthcare Law is not an alternative idea; that's a vote for nothing. The Republicans would be wise to offer a series of amendments, 'fixes,' to the law and this way, they can get some things they want out of it while politically looking like the compromising problem solvers. However, Republican political ranks are so fixated on ideological purity and opposition that they will not take that tact.
The bottom line is if the Affordable Care Act is going to work, the web site has to work. As Wall Street Journal editorial page deputy editor, Daniel Henninger, and the Washington Post's Ezra Klein agreed, with younger adults relying on and relating to connectivity, if the web site doesn't work, you will not have their support, they will not sign up, and then it's a complete disaster.
And we appreciate that Mr. Obama is willing to take responsibility for this disastrous role out, but it is very indicative of Chris Matthews' point that the Administration doesn't have a chain of command; not his cabinet but his White House Staff. Who in the Administration can the president assign to come on the Sunday programs and make the case? This only contributes to Mr. Obama's less than stellar performance and character poll numbers, which he could restore a bit if he were able to get a real 'fixer' in the administration. No one is filling that role.
And speaking of a fixer, the key is fixing the web site, because once the people who have had their plans cancelled see the better plans that are offered, then the outrage will subside. There will still be problems but they won't be for lack of communication.
We would also guess this an inappropriate time to ask about the possibility of an app.
*****
On this 50th Anniversary of President John F. Kennedy's assassination, the perspective offered by Tom Brokaw and Chris Matthews is important to note because it was a particular generations' before and after moment, just as 9.11 is for us now. One can not fully negotiate today's complexities without having the historical reference to put it in perspective, or so we'd like to think so.
Then the program went off the rails again with speculative discussion of presidential politics. This was the time to further examine the President's handling of other issues, but this is a current failing of "Meet The Press" right now as they go for the political gossip instead of furthering examining what is important at the moment. Viewers tune out because of this. Tom Brokaw mentioned Mr. Obama's handling of Syria, and how the Russians basically bailed him out. Why not explore that topic further. What about discussing jobs? But no, instead we have to hearing nothing new about Hilary Clinton's prospects if she decides to run for president. Mr. Brokaw also said that with three years to go before the election, we'll offer no answer here today. To which Kathleen Parker quipped, "well, we have to fill up the hour," which pretty much summed it up.
Roundtable: NBC Special Correspondent Tom Brokaw; Washington Post columnist Kathleen Parker; Republican Strategist Mike Murphy; and host of MSNBC’s “Hardball,” Chris Matthews.
Sunday, November 10, 2013
11.10.13: Stay Firm At The Table with Iran/ Chris Christie
The United States Secretary of State, John Kerry, said in a prerecorded interview that he did not get the sense that the Iranians were playing games at the negotiating table. However, it apparently seems as though they were, with Mr. Gregory reporting before the interview that the Iran President Hassan Rouhani stated that, in fact, Iran would not stop enriching uranium. Should we be worried about Mr. Kerry's ability to read the room during negotiations?
It's a bit of a jab we will admit, not to be confused with a criticism, as Mr. Kerry has overall acted on and defended the Obama Administration's foreign policy effectively, doing what he can where he can, a solid fill-in for Mrs. Clinton, but we do have questions about some of the policy. He didn't have the knowledge of the Iranian statement, but that didn't render the interview an entire loss.
A criticism would be that the program is meeting the standard of its heritage right now and doesn't have the clout to get a live interview with the Secretary. We understand that there may have been scheduling problems; however, they should have had a more in-depth interview on multiple topics.
Basically, the deal is that there is no deal between Iran and the West. If Iran is not going to stop enriching, a decision by the way that Rouhani certainly does not make, then the sanctions will remain in place. As Senator Bob Corker (R-TN) noted, meetings about reviewing sanctions have been cancelled. There's the question of whether the sanctions should be ramped up even more, in light of the Iranians' decision, but if you have them at the table, punitive at this moment is not the way to go. We agree, in sentiment but not in tone, with the Tennessee Senator that the Administration should not deal away its leverage. Right now, you stay at the table, but stay Gibraltar firm. Mr. Corker referred to North Korea diplomacy where the Bush Administration got burned in an attempt to increase normalization of relations. It looked bad politically but you have to at least make an attempt, however with that said, the Obama Administration should heed that lesson amongst their attempts to increase overall communication.
We've been hard on President Obama lately with regard to his foreign policy because we see it as a blown opportunity entirely if he achieves no dramatic effect. On domestic policy, there is no confidence in Congress and the Administration to collaborate on anything, obviously, so where the Administration can more effectively chart its own course. Success is fleeting more quickly for Mr. Obama on this front because of daily N.S.A. revelations causing the slow death of credibility by a thousand cuts.
Secretary Kerry did say that 'no deal is better than a bad deal,' which echoes previous statements by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu... purposefully and prudently. He contested Mr. Gregory's question about broader criticism on the Administration not exercising power in the region. But that's not what we're referring to. Exercising power for the sake of it is short term thinking. We're talking about influence and the long term.
[Note: The format for the program has been all over the place lately so we're reserving the right to not include a comment about every aspect of the program. To this point, it seems as though the producers have lost a little confidence in their moderator using special reports (Harry Smith), book promotions (Joe Scarborough), and various news segments with Chuck Todd to fill up time. Case in point is Mr. Gregory focusing on Mr. Kerry's Kennedy comment more than focusing on his answers about Iran. And why not ask about Syria? We were almost going to fire missiles into this country, as the Secretary noted. It feels like "Meet The Press" loses its concentration from week to week.]
On Governor Chris Christie...
There is no doubt that the citizens of New Jersey like the way Mr. Christie (R-NJ) runs the state. It would seem that Mr. Christie is a moderate conservative because fiscally he is very much a Republican and on social issues, he's liberal. However, that is not entirely accurate. Mr. Christie is conservative on social issues, but a Democratic state congress is responsible for that perception because they push a more tolerant, open social policy that overrides a veto. This dynamic creates a political center with which most Americans are comfortable. Mr. Christie doesn't share the attitude of an extreme ideologues in his party that the opposition party is not to be collaborated with or that it's the 'enemy.' Mr. Christie's success is the result of his pragmatism, unlike Mark Halperin's asinine gushing saying that Mr. Christie is 'magical.' The fiscal conservative/ social liberal (what most Americans want) is the result of a dynamic that consists of a Democratic congress and a Republican as the executive. As Ms. Kearns-Goodwin noted, American politics today consists of simply rooting for the other side to fail. But if the other side fails, it's common knowledge that we all fail... or is it?
Presidential Historian and author of the new book “The Bully Pulpit,” Doris Kearns Goodwin; Congresswoman Donna Edwards (D-MD); co-author of the new book “Double Down,” Time Magazine’s Mark Halperin; and host of MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” and author of the new book “The Right Path,” Joe Scarborough.
It's a bit of a jab we will admit, not to be confused with a criticism, as Mr. Kerry has overall acted on and defended the Obama Administration's foreign policy effectively, doing what he can where he can, a solid fill-in for Mrs. Clinton, but we do have questions about some of the policy. He didn't have the knowledge of the Iranian statement, but that didn't render the interview an entire loss.
A criticism would be that the program is meeting the standard of its heritage right now and doesn't have the clout to get a live interview with the Secretary. We understand that there may have been scheduling problems; however, they should have had a more in-depth interview on multiple topics.
Basically, the deal is that there is no deal between Iran and the West. If Iran is not going to stop enriching, a decision by the way that Rouhani certainly does not make, then the sanctions will remain in place. As Senator Bob Corker (R-TN) noted, meetings about reviewing sanctions have been cancelled. There's the question of whether the sanctions should be ramped up even more, in light of the Iranians' decision, but if you have them at the table, punitive at this moment is not the way to go. We agree, in sentiment but not in tone, with the Tennessee Senator that the Administration should not deal away its leverage. Right now, you stay at the table, but stay Gibraltar firm. Mr. Corker referred to North Korea diplomacy where the Bush Administration got burned in an attempt to increase normalization of relations. It looked bad politically but you have to at least make an attempt, however with that said, the Obama Administration should heed that lesson amongst their attempts to increase overall communication.
We've been hard on President Obama lately with regard to his foreign policy because we see it as a blown opportunity entirely if he achieves no dramatic effect. On domestic policy, there is no confidence in Congress and the Administration to collaborate on anything, obviously, so where the Administration can more effectively chart its own course. Success is fleeting more quickly for Mr. Obama on this front because of daily N.S.A. revelations causing the slow death of credibility by a thousand cuts.
Secretary Kerry did say that 'no deal is better than a bad deal,' which echoes previous statements by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu... purposefully and prudently. He contested Mr. Gregory's question about broader criticism on the Administration not exercising power in the region. But that's not what we're referring to. Exercising power for the sake of it is short term thinking. We're talking about influence and the long term.
[Note: The format for the program has been all over the place lately so we're reserving the right to not include a comment about every aspect of the program. To this point, it seems as though the producers have lost a little confidence in their moderator using special reports (Harry Smith), book promotions (Joe Scarborough), and various news segments with Chuck Todd to fill up time. Case in point is Mr. Gregory focusing on Mr. Kerry's Kennedy comment more than focusing on his answers about Iran. And why not ask about Syria? We were almost going to fire missiles into this country, as the Secretary noted. It feels like "Meet The Press" loses its concentration from week to week.]
On Governor Chris Christie...
There is no doubt that the citizens of New Jersey like the way Mr. Christie (R-NJ) runs the state. It would seem that Mr. Christie is a moderate conservative because fiscally he is very much a Republican and on social issues, he's liberal. However, that is not entirely accurate. Mr. Christie is conservative on social issues, but a Democratic state congress is responsible for that perception because they push a more tolerant, open social policy that overrides a veto. This dynamic creates a political center with which most Americans are comfortable. Mr. Christie doesn't share the attitude of an extreme ideologues in his party that the opposition party is not to be collaborated with or that it's the 'enemy.' Mr. Christie's success is the result of his pragmatism, unlike Mark Halperin's asinine gushing saying that Mr. Christie is 'magical.' The fiscal conservative/ social liberal (what most Americans want) is the result of a dynamic that consists of a Democratic congress and a Republican as the executive. As Ms. Kearns-Goodwin noted, American politics today consists of simply rooting for the other side to fail. But if the other side fails, it's common knowledge that we all fail... or is it?
Presidential Historian and author of the new book “The Bully Pulpit,” Doris Kearns Goodwin; Congresswoman Donna Edwards (D-MD); co-author of the new book “Double Down,” Time Magazine’s Mark Halperin; and host of MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” and author of the new book “The Right Path,” Joe Scarborough.
Sunday, November 03, 2013
11.3.13: The Mitt Romney Interview
The former governor of Massachusetts and Republican presidential nominee, Mitt Romney, had some harsh words for President Obama today, with a sort of 'I told you so' temperment to his answers, which in some cases was justified. It was a quality that Mr. Romney was taking comfort in during his talk with Mr. Gregory on today's "Meet The Press." He repeated that the president had been dishonest all along in his promises about the Affordable Healthcare Act in that people who already have insurance will not have their policy affected by the new law in anyway. That is turning out to not be the case because what the law demands is that there is a baseline of what must be covered, and in many cases, the policies that people already have do not cover those minimum requirements. The consequence is that people's policies are being cancelled and they have to buy a new policy that meets those requirements.
However, another quality that came through during the interview is that Mr. Romney, while correctly pointing out a negative effect of the Obamacare law, is that Mr. Romney would have not been the right choice to be the President of the United States. Nevermind that Mr. Romney can not rise above the pettiness in his attempt to discredit Mr. Obama's entire second term as illegitimate because of this 'dishonesty' (a sure sign he is still bitter about the lose), but more telling is that he has never once touted the accomplishment of what he did as Governor of Massachusetts, getting 97% of the state's population insured.
Instead, he only stated that the president had failed to learn the [harmful] lessons of the Massachusetts healthcare law, yet never explained what those were. One of those lessons could be that the law actually worked, and as he had previously said that it could be a model for the country as the current Governor of Massachusetts, Deval Patrick (D-MA) said later in the program.
What we're trying to reconcile from the interview is something in particular that Mr. Romney said. He explained that there isn't a one-size-fits-all approach that can work in the U.S., and that each state has to come up with a system that best works for them. However, he went on to explain that if he had been elected president, he would have left it to the states but with the requirement that they had to find a way to insure all their citizens and not reject someone based on a preexisting condition. By saying that, he's put a bottom line federal mandate in place for the states to follow. What seemed lie a reasonable state is essentially rendered baseless because it runs directly counter to what his party, the Republican party, believes in. As we said many times before, simply letting the states individually figure what to do with healthcare is not a plan, and is not the answer. In the "Meet The Press" clip from 2007, Mr. Romney says in it that he thought the Massachusetts model - the individual mandate model (same as the ACA) - was the best one for the country.
[As an aside, we detest the whole political rhetorical game of repeatedly calling someone dishonest while at the same time refusing to say the person lied. It's a semantic game that no politician wants to get trapped in, but it's also a clear illustration of not having any political backbone and no genuine leadership quality. If you state that the president 'destroyed the foundation of truth' or that there is a 'fundamental dishonesty' with the American people, then just say he lied. Those are very strong disparaging remarks, 'charges' if you will, which also speak to a person's character. Mr. Obama hammered on Mr. Bush's political record, but neither man has ever said anything negative about each other personal character. It's worth considering.]
With all that said, we're not absolving the Obama Administration of fault. There are too many 'should-have-knowns' about the healthcare law. For example, touching on something Washington Post Associate Editor Bob Woodard said about any big piece of legislation, which was 'follow the money,' the Administration should have had a better idea of how the insurance companies would exploit loopholes in the law to charge people more money. In this case, covering mental illness treatment is a minimum requirement so instead of adding to people's policies and doing the due diligence to review individual cases as to weather there is a history that would dictate an increase in monthly costs or not, the insurance companies in a blanketed way cancel policies and require people to buy a new one. It's not the 'right' thing to do, that we all know. We also all know that the insurance companies probably won't do the 'right' thing. The Obama Administration should have known this.
Another quick example that would run counter to what Governor Patrick said, which was that the Healthcare web site was a 'convenience.' We disagree completely, the web site is essential. It's the face of the entire program and the biggest driver of its success. If you want the young and healthy to sign up, then you have to make the main method of this generation's communication, work well. Period. The Obama Administration should have known.
Editor of the Weekly Standard Bill Kristol said that the president's signature piece of legislation - Obamacare - is failing and that it will fail while also looking forward to the day that he returns to "Meet The Press" to say 'I told you so.' Despite the most probably truth of David Axelrod's rebuttal that Mr. Kristol speaks like a man who has already had good health insurance, that's not why we disagree with his statement. We disagree with him because he roots for failure. Remember when in Abu Ghraib United States soldiers humiliated, abused, and tortured prisoners? People blamed the Bush Administration, but that was a failure on all America. When the president's administration fails, that means that the law failed which translates to Congress failing as well. And that means we all have. Why ever be on the side of that.
Roundtable: former Senior Adviser to the president when health care reform became law, David Axelrod; Washington Post Associate Editor Bob Woodard; editor of the Weekly Standard Bill Kristol; and anchor of BBC World News America, Katty Kay.
Postscript: Why the United States has 5% percent of the world's population, but 25% of the world's prison population is because this country has instilled a profit motivation to the prison system. When private companies own the prisons and are driven by increasing profits for shareholders, the number of individuals incarcerated will only increase. More prisoners means more profit - follow the money.
However, another quality that came through during the interview is that Mr. Romney, while correctly pointing out a negative effect of the Obamacare law, is that Mr. Romney would have not been the right choice to be the President of the United States. Nevermind that Mr. Romney can not rise above the pettiness in his attempt to discredit Mr. Obama's entire second term as illegitimate because of this 'dishonesty' (a sure sign he is still bitter about the lose), but more telling is that he has never once touted the accomplishment of what he did as Governor of Massachusetts, getting 97% of the state's population insured.
Instead, he only stated that the president had failed to learn the [harmful] lessons of the Massachusetts healthcare law, yet never explained what those were. One of those lessons could be that the law actually worked, and as he had previously said that it could be a model for the country as the current Governor of Massachusetts, Deval Patrick (D-MA) said later in the program.
What we're trying to reconcile from the interview is something in particular that Mr. Romney said. He explained that there isn't a one-size-fits-all approach that can work in the U.S., and that each state has to come up with a system that best works for them. However, he went on to explain that if he had been elected president, he would have left it to the states but with the requirement that they had to find a way to insure all their citizens and not reject someone based on a preexisting condition. By saying that, he's put a bottom line federal mandate in place for the states to follow. What seemed lie a reasonable state is essentially rendered baseless because it runs directly counter to what his party, the Republican party, believes in. As we said many times before, simply letting the states individually figure what to do with healthcare is not a plan, and is not the answer. In the "Meet The Press" clip from 2007, Mr. Romney says in it that he thought the Massachusetts model - the individual mandate model (same as the ACA) - was the best one for the country.
[As an aside, we detest the whole political rhetorical game of repeatedly calling someone dishonest while at the same time refusing to say the person lied. It's a semantic game that no politician wants to get trapped in, but it's also a clear illustration of not having any political backbone and no genuine leadership quality. If you state that the president 'destroyed the foundation of truth' or that there is a 'fundamental dishonesty' with the American people, then just say he lied. Those are very strong disparaging remarks, 'charges' if you will, which also speak to a person's character. Mr. Obama hammered on Mr. Bush's political record, but neither man has ever said anything negative about each other personal character. It's worth considering.]
With all that said, we're not absolving the Obama Administration of fault. There are too many 'should-have-knowns' about the healthcare law. For example, touching on something Washington Post Associate Editor Bob Woodard said about any big piece of legislation, which was 'follow the money,' the Administration should have had a better idea of how the insurance companies would exploit loopholes in the law to charge people more money. In this case, covering mental illness treatment is a minimum requirement so instead of adding to people's policies and doing the due diligence to review individual cases as to weather there is a history that would dictate an increase in monthly costs or not, the insurance companies in a blanketed way cancel policies and require people to buy a new one. It's not the 'right' thing to do, that we all know. We also all know that the insurance companies probably won't do the 'right' thing. The Obama Administration should have known this.
Another quick example that would run counter to what Governor Patrick said, which was that the Healthcare web site was a 'convenience.' We disagree completely, the web site is essential. It's the face of the entire program and the biggest driver of its success. If you want the young and healthy to sign up, then you have to make the main method of this generation's communication, work well. Period. The Obama Administration should have known.
Editor of the Weekly Standard Bill Kristol said that the president's signature piece of legislation - Obamacare - is failing and that it will fail while also looking forward to the day that he returns to "Meet The Press" to say 'I told you so.' Despite the most probably truth of David Axelrod's rebuttal that Mr. Kristol speaks like a man who has already had good health insurance, that's not why we disagree with his statement. We disagree with him because he roots for failure. Remember when in Abu Ghraib United States soldiers humiliated, abused, and tortured prisoners? People blamed the Bush Administration, but that was a failure on all America. When the president's administration fails, that means that the law failed which translates to Congress failing as well. And that means we all have. Why ever be on the side of that.
Roundtable: former Senior Adviser to the president when health care reform became law, David Axelrod; Washington Post Associate Editor Bob Woodard; editor of the Weekly Standard Bill Kristol; and anchor of BBC World News America, Katty Kay.
Postscript: Why the United States has 5% percent of the world's population, but 25% of the world's prison population is because this country has instilled a profit motivation to the prison system. When private companies own the prisons and are driven by increasing profits for shareholders, the number of individuals incarcerated will only increase. More prisoners means more profit - follow the money.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)