Tuesday, August 18, 2009

Health Care Tuesday: Just Read Benen Edition

Rachel Maddow often notes that she read's Steve Benen's blog, The Political Animal, every day. There is a good reason for that - he is astonishingly prolific and accurate in fact and analysis.
Benen: A NEWS NETWORK OF THEIR OWN....

A new Research 2000 poll for Daily Kos asked respondents about their thoughts and viewing habits relating to the three major cable news networks. The results weren't altogether surprising, but the breakdowns offered some interesting insights.

The poll asked, "How often do you watch Fox News Channel; daily, at least once a week, a few times a month, rarely, or never?" One in four Republicans watches the network daily, and another 27% watch it weekly. The GOP network's numbers were strongest in the South, and among whites.

Numbers for CNN and MSNBC were, predictably, far different. CNN's numbers were stronger across the board, but weaker among self-identified Republicans and respondents in the South. MSNBC produced better numbers among self-identified Democrats.

The same poll also asked, "When it comes to accuracy and trustworthiness as a source of news would you say that Fox News Channel is extremely reliable, reliable, unreliable, or extremely unreliable?" Once again, the GOP network did very well among self-identified Republicans (a combined 65% of whom find Fox News reliable or extremely reliable) and among Southerners. CNN did far better with the overall national audience on the question of reliability, and did better with a more ethnically diverse audience, but struggled, again, with Republicans and in the South. MSNBC, in general, isn't watched by a large enough national audience to register clear numbers.

David Weigel picked up on the regional trend.

The biggest swing region in the poll? The South. In Southern states, 46 percent of viewers say that Fox News is "extremely reliable" or "reliable." Only 6 percent of them say that of MSNBC, compared to 26 percent who say it of CNN, a huge shift from the days when CNN was derided as the "Communist/Clinton News Network."

The partisan breakdown is about as stark -- 74% of Republicans "never" watch CNN; 89% of Republicans "never" watch MSNBC; but 59% watch Fox News at least once a month.

There's a very good reason for widespread confusion about current events.

  • Benen: AN AWFULLY BIG 'FRINGE'...
    There have always been at least two key angles to the right-wing attacks against health care reform: 1) the willingness of conservatives to lie; and 2) the willingness of the public to believe the lies. It's one thing for prominent far-right voices to talk up imaginary "death panels," for example, but who's going to believe such garbage? We're talking about a radical, isolated fringe, right?

    Wrong. A Research 2000 poll for Daily Kos, in what I believe is the first national poll on the question, gauged public opinion on this. Respondents were asked whether the reform proposals under consideration would create "death panels" that would dictate medical care based on Americans' "productivity in society." Nearly three-fourths of the public (72%) said no, 11% said yes, and 17% weren't sure. But of greater interest were the partisan numbers.

    Democrats and independents rejected the claim in large numbers, but here were the results for self-identified Republicans:

    Yes: 26%
    No: 43%
    Not sure: 31%

    There were similar results on related questions. Republicans, unlike Democrats and independents, also believe reform would "require elderly patients to meet with government officials to discuss 'end of life' options including euthanasia," and consider reform to be a government "takeover" of the health care system. Neither claim is true.

    On a more comical note, Republicans were also far more likely to believe that Medicare is not a government program than anyone else. While only 7% of Democrats were confused about Medicare, the number of Republicans who believe Medicare isn't a government program was twice as high (14%).

    But specifically on the "death panel" confusion, we're in the midst of a national debate in which a clear majority of rank-and-file Republicans either believe "death panels" are a serious proposal or aren't sure.

    Greg Sargent, who called his "astonishing," added, "The key here is that the question was specifically worded to mirror Palin's assertion that Obama's death panel will evaluate a person's right to medical care based on whether they're productive in society. More than a quarter of Republicans believe this, and nearly a third are not sure."

    It does offer some context for the angry right-wing protestors. Why would they fight so hard against a reform plan that would help their families? Because they've been lied to so often, they actually think Democrats literally might start killing people.

  • Benen: MCCARTHY VS. HIS EMPLOYER...
    National Review editor Rich Lowry recently had an item that argued, "The birthers have been denounced by every reputable conservative." That raised a few eyebrows because one of Lowry's employees, right-wing writer, Andy McCarthy, has used his National Review perch to argue the opposite.

    This week, McCarthy and his employer are at it again.

    The latest National Review editorial gently chides Sarah Palin and other far-right Republicans pushing the "death panel" nonsense. The magazine's editorial board concludes that the conservative accusation is a "leap across a logical canyon." The piece goes on to warn against "hysteria."

    This prompted McCarthy to once again take issue with his own magazine's argument.

    I happen to think that something like death panels is exactly what is desired by Obama -- who is an abortion extremist, who supported a form of infanticide when he was an Illinois state legislator, and who has wondered aloud about the value of end-of-life care provided for his own grandmother. [...]

    The whole point of health-care "reform" is to enable something other than the combination of individual liberty and market forces -- namely, government bureaucrats -- to do the inevitable rationing.

    McCarthy concludes that Palin was right, and that the common sense, bipartisan measure about reimbursing voluntary end-of-life counseling was "horrible."

    I found A.L.'s response quite compelling.

    So to sum up, McCarthy is livid about the (imaginary) evil death panels that Sarah Palin managed to save us from and believes that Obama wants to create such panels in order to cut off care for the elderly, thereby allowing them to "wither away prematurely" (which, apparently, Obama wanted to happen to his own grandmother). McCarthy, on the other hand, believes we should let "liberty and the market" take care of our elderly people, a suggestion that would demonstrably result in most elderly people not having access to health care.

    This man -- this lunatic -- is writing for THE flagship conservative publication in this country.

Benen: LOOKING FOR LEVERAGE....
There's been a widely held assumption that, when push comes to shove, liberal Democratic lawmakers want health care reform too much to balk -- whether the bill is as strong as it should be or not. That assumption is being tested in new ways.

Atrios noted today the extent to which the left is willing to show some muscle on this.

I don't know if the progressive House Dems will hold firm, but it's certainly a more plausible story than "Max Baucus creates compromise bill that Republicans will vote for." Yet it's the latter story which gets all the attention. Dem pundits should understand that there's pretty good chance that absent good public option, there will be no health care bill.

This came after Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.) told CNBC that a health care bill lacking a public option could lose 100 of the 256 votes in the House Democratic caucus. Since House Republicans are likely to balk at any kind of reform, this would be more than enough to kill reform altogether.

Even if we take Republicans out of the equation, there's the question of Democrats like Ben Nelson. The crude overview is that center-right Dems won't support a plan with a public option, while progressive Dems won't support a plan without one. For the past couple of months, all the talk has been about how center-right Dems will kill reform unless the bill is moved to the right. Weiner & Co., especially today, are saying that they'll kill reform unless it starts moving back towards the left.

It's easy to imagine a game of chicken unfolding on the Hill in September.

I still think there's a leverage problem for the left. Reform advocates can call Ben Nelson & Co. and say, "Look, if you don't support the reform package, with a public option, reform will die; it'll be a generation before anyone tries again; the system will keep getting worse; it'll crush Obama's presidency; the progressive agenda will be devastated; and Republicans will probably win back Congress. Is the public option really that offensive?" It's not unrealistic to think the answer to that question, for center-right Dems, is "yes." They may not think that broader scenario sounds especially awful.

On the other hand, reform advocates can call progressives and say, "Look, if you don't support the reform package, even one without a public option, reform will die; it'll be a generation before anyone tries again; the system will keep getting worse; it'll crush Obama's presidency; the progressive agenda will be devastated; and Republicans will probably win back Congress. There's all kinds of good stuff still in the bill. Support this now, and we'll try to add on a public option in 2011." Will liberals respond, "No, I'd rather it let it die"? Maybe, maybe not.

Or put another way, which side -- center-right Dems or progressive Dems -- is more invested in seeing reform pass this year, and which wouldn't really care if the whole effort collapsed? The answer probably seems obvious, which is exactly why center-right Dems feel like they have the upper hand as the process continues. Too many conservatives would be satisfied with complete failure, and too many liberals are committed to making sure failure is not an option.

Benen: IT NEVER ENDS...

The right said a bipartisan, common-sense measure on end-of-life care was scandalous. It wasn't, but reality didn't matter -- conservatives believed it was true, and now it's apparently gone from the bill. The right said a public option would represent a Soviet-style takeover of the health care system. . It wasn't, but reality didn't matter -- conservatives believed it was true, and now the idea is in trouble.

Ideally, reform advocates would be able to see around the curve, predicting what the next ridiculous right-wing attack might be, and preparing a response in advance. But that's not easy; the Republican Attack Machine features a painful combination of creativity, paranoia, and pathological dishonesty.

For example, Amy Sullivan reports on the next conservative temper tantrum.

Now conservative opponents of health reform have found a new threat: home nurse visits to low-income parents. "We are setting up a situation where Obama will be invading parent's [sic] homes and taking away their children," one columnist warned on RightWingNews.com. That something as harmless as home nurse visits has become a target of conservative ire is surprising because of its longstanding popularity with both Republican and Democratic lawmakers. But health reform advocates are scratching their heads at the attacks for another reason: funding for home nurse visits was largely included in health reform legislation to accommodate social conservatives. [...]

[H]ome nurse visits are exactly the kind of pro-family policy that social conservatives would embrace. And they have. The home visitation provision in health reform legislation was modeled on a bill authored by Republican Senator Kit Bond of Missouri. Bond went through a parenting education program in Missouri when his son was born three decades ago and has been a fan of the idea ever since. [...]

Home visits have been so popular with conservatives that the idea kept coming up during conversations White House aides hosted with pro-life advocates earlier this year in an effort to find common ground on abortion. And when Democratic Reps. Tim Ryan and Rosa DeLauro drafted the abortion reduction bill they introduced last month, they specifically included funding for home nurse visits as a way of accommodating pro-life preferences for policies that support women who decide to give birth instead of having abortions.

But that was before conservative anxiety over health reform reached its boiling point.

Now, prenatal counseling, according to the Heritage Foundation, Chuck Norris, and assorted right-wing voices, are "mandatory home inspections."

Will it matter that the idea was sought by the right? Almost certainly not, because intellectual consistency, honesty, and seriousness have had absolutely no role in the policy debate whatsoever.

Kevin Drum added, "It hasn't gotten a ton of attention yet, but that's only because the loonies have been obsessed with death panels instead. If that weren't in the bill, Sarah Palin would have dubbed the home nurse program as the Baby Brainwashing Brigades and everyone would be going nuts over that instead."

We know the drill. The right makes something up ... Fox News and Limbaugh say it's true ... Republican lawmakers start condemning the imaginary threat ... major mainstream news outlets report that "some say" the imaginary threat is real ... millions of Americans believe it ... Democrats point to reality, but it's too late ... and the worthwhile idea is dropped from the legislation.

The challenge in overcoming this is more than just overwhelming; it's also endless and unpredictable. Our political system just doesn't work the way it should.

Benen: THEY'RE AGAINST CO-OPS, TOO....

The NYT reports today, "The White House has indicated that it could accept a nonprofit health care cooperative as an alternative to a new government insurance plan, originally favored by President Obama. But the co-op idea is so ill defined that no one knows exactly what it would look like or how effectively it would compete with commercial insurers."

It's going to be tough to rally support for an idea when it's not altogether clear what it is, or how it would work. Ezra Klein had an item noting the differences between a co-op and a public option, and concluded, "As the situation stands, there's no existing model for co-ops to follow and no policy specifics on Conrad's idea, so it's impossible to say whether, or how, they will work. I could imagine very good co-ops or totally useless ones."

But let's focus, for now, on the political side of this. After all, the very idea of a nonprofit cooperative was itself a political invention -- adding palatable competition to the system without creating a public option. Indeed, for months, Republicans said a public option would mark the fall of civilization, but a co-op alternative is entirely palatable.

But in light of signals that a genuine public option is in trouble, the Republican Party that found co-ops reasonable has decided to change course. Now, they're against co-ops, too.

The very basic logic of the public option is this: Most Democrats support a strong public option, most Republicans oppose Democratic health care reform period, so perhaps Democrats can win over a few Republicans if they keep government out of the insurance industry and create a system of privately-held health-care co-operatives instead. Simple right?

Not if the RNC has anything to say about it.

They're out today with a new release, attacking the co-op idea.... As the RNC makes clear, in their eyes, "Public option by any other name is still government-run health care."

Last night, right-wing talk-show host Mark Steyn said on Fox News that co-ops aren't different enough from the public option, adding, "[T]he whole system is in fact a kind of death panel."

The death of American political discourse notwithstanding, let's be clear about the larger debate: no matter what Democrats propose, Republicans are going to reject it, even if they've already signaled support for the same idea. Consistency and honesty are irrelevant -- the goal is to defeat health care reform, no matter what's in the bill.

As John Cole explained last night, "At some point, these folks are going to learn that no matter what happens, the Republicans are not going to vote for anything. As soon as they kill off the public option, they will pick off co-ops. Think I'm kidding? They managed to convince people that voluntarily talks with your doctor about a living will was a death panel killing grandma."

John Harwood noted on MSNBC the other day, "I gotta tell you what a White House official told me today: 'Our problem right now is, if we tell some of the Republican opponents in the Senate, 'You can have everything you want in the bill,' they still won't vote for it.'"

Yep. Republicans don't support health care reform. Weakening the bill and scuttling good ideas to garner their support doesn't make sense, since they fully intend to vote against literally any bill. Yesterday, Chuck Grassley said he's likely to vote against his own compromise package.

Shouldn't this tell Democrats something about the utility of negotiations, and the futility of finding a bipartisan compromise?

Benen: GRASSLEY'S NOT EVEN TRYING....

On MSNBC's "Morning Meeting" earlier, Dylan Ratigan asked Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) about "death panels" as part of reform. "I see that as nothing more than a distortion coming from far-left with bringing up these end-of-life concerns," Grassley said, "which are not the issue that we ought to be talking about."

I have no idea what that means. The "far-left" is responsible for a bogus claim Grassley was touting as recently as last week?

Ezra Klein was on the same program, and noticed Grassley's striking approach to reform.

First, Grassley did not speak like Lindsey Graham or Olympia Snowe. He did not come onto the program determined to present a reasonable face and comfort liberals, conservatives and independents alike. Instead, he railed against "government-run health care" and the "Pelosi health-care bill." He talked about bureaucrats and exploding deficits. He sounded like a House conservative giving a stump speech. Grassley presumably leaves his stemwinders behind when he's with the Gang of Six. But this was not a comforting sign. This was not a unifying performance.

Second, Chuck Todd asked Grassley whether he'd vote for the bill if it was a good piece of policy that he'd crafted but that couldn't attract more than a handful of Republican votes. "Certainly not," replied Grassley. Todd tried again, clarifying that this was legislation Grassley liked, and thought would move the ball forward, but was getting bogged down due to partisanship. Grassley held firm. If a good bill cannot attract Republican support, then it is not a good bill, he argued.

Grassley, in other words, is working backward from the votes. If the Gang of Six reaches a compromise that the Senate Republicans don't support, Grassley will abandon that compromise, regardless of the fact that he's the guy who built it.

If President Obama pursues reform with Democratic votes, he's being "partisan." Grassley, meanwhile, will vote against his own compromise bill unless it has lots of Republican votes, but that's not "partisan" at all.

In order for negotiations to make sense, parties have to be willing to show some good faith, and a willingness to work towards a constructive goal. With this in mind, seeking a reasonable compromise with Chuck Grassley isn't just wrong, it's crazy.

Grassley has never demonstrated any sincere interest in genuine reform, but it seems over the last couple of weeks, the conservative Iowan has simply given up even trying to appear reasonable. He's talking up "death panel" nonsense. He's touting Glenn Beck's book. He's pulling common-sense measures with bipartisan support from the negotiating table. He's taking cheap and unnecessary shots at the president. He's making cheap and unnecessary arguments about "rationing" by exploiting Ted Kennedy's cancer.

The list is much longer, but these are just some of the developments from the last two weeks.

Perhaps, in private, Grassley is a different pol. Maybe, in one-on-one chats with the president or Max Baucus, he comes across as sincere and committed to reform. But out here in the public sphere, Grassley is acting like a man who wants to kill health care reform. Basing the entire initiative on satisfying his partisan, ever-changing demands is a recipe for abject failure.

Indeed, as I argued over the weekend, I can only assume that Grassley doesn't want to be part of reform negotiations anymore, and is working on getting himself kicked out of the talks. If he keeps moving further to the right, and Dems eventually decide to cut their losses with this guy, Grassley gets to have it both ways -- he'll tell moderates, "I invested months of time and energy in bipartisan reform negotiations," and he'll tell the right, "I stuck up for conservative principles and Democrats refused to listen."



No comments:

Post a Comment