Month: September 2009

College Republicans, Ctd

David Frum doesn't care for this reader e-mail:

Suppose some Republican members did act supremely badly yesterday. Saddling the nation with trillions of dollars of new debt seems a roundabout way to punish them for it. Too much writing about politics takes the form of movie reviews. The script failed, the part was poorly played, I didn’t like the show. But it’s not a show. Perhaps some of the Republican opposition has been hysterical or buffoonish or in some cases manipulative and deceptive. But it is the president’s plan and this party’s bills that will or will not become law, and their failings are not diminished one whit by the deficiencies of their opponents.

Trillions of dollars of new debt? It's a paid-for $900 billion over ten years. I agree we need to come back and grapple with healthcare costs in the context of overall budgetary reform. But not until the economy is healthier. And is someone who worked for George W. Bush honestly blaming Obama for trillions of dollars in new debt?

Lies, Damn Lies, And Politics

Springboarding off a post by Brendan Nyhan, Yglesias explains how Wilson's illegal immigrant lie could be twisted to be put in the highly misleading category:

[T]hough the bills would prevent undocumented immigrants from receiving any taxpayer assistance in purchasing health insurance, the proposals on the table don’t do anything special to prevent an undocumented immigrant from buying health insurance with his own money. To characterize this as “insur[ing] illegal immigrants” strikes me as about on a par with claiming that Obama’s health care plans give ibuprofen to illegal immigrants. After all, nothing in the bill stops illegal immigrants from buying ibuprofen in a store! And the very same FDA regulations that assure citizens and legal residents and tourists of the safety of ibuprofen will also benefit illegal immigrants.

Tort Reform At The National Level

A reader writes:

I am attorney who practices medical malpractice defense in Texas, a state which has received some attention for enacting tort reform, especially with regard to health care liability claims. The inclusion of tort reform in the debate over health care coverage reform is a red herring, unless one is talking about simultaneously enacting changes in the laws in the separate states, and in many cases (e.g., Texas), first amending the state constitution to allow for such changes in the first place. Simply put, the federal government has no jurisdiction over the vast, vast majority of medical malpractice actions, which are nearly always filed in state courts, pursuant to state statutory or common law.

Is this correct? If so, it's still not a reason to exclude it. Every little bit counts.

Quote For The Day II

"No doubt, right wing publishers like Regnery and Crown will be beating down Wilson's door today to sign a book deal that will put him at the top of the New York Times bestseller list along with drivel from the likes of Michelle Malkin, who has probably already started writing her biography of Wilson, titled, "The Man Who Spoke the Truth."  By the end of the day a Wilson for President web site will be fully functioning if it isn't already.  Watch for the announcement on Glenn Beck’s show this afternoon," – Bruce Bartlett.

The Democratic Compromise

Timothy Noah is okay with tort reform:

President Bush favored capping non-economic malpractice damages at $250,000. Obama stopped short of endorsing that. If $250,000 strikes him as too low, how about $750,000? That's a decent opening bid in a negotiation with the GOP. If some Republican senator agrees to haggle, Obama should be prepared to drop to $500,000. If several Republicans agree to haggle, Obama should consider dropping all the way down to $250,000. Under the health reform that Obama is trying to achieve, it should no longer be necessary to win a litigation lottery to get your medical bills paid.

A reader writes:

I know someone who had both her legs amputated unnecessarily as a teenager when she had meningitis. I dare someone to say that she didn't deserve a million-dollar settlement.

I favor a cap.