Obamacare is not Entitlement Reform

by David Frum

James Capretta explains why Obamacare won't bend the cost curve:

American health care has many virtues, but it is highly inefficient because it is so fragmented. Physicians, hospitals, clinics, labs, and pharmacies are all financially independent of one another. They all send separate bills when they render services; what’s worse, there’s very little coordination among them when they are taking care of patients, which leads to a disastrous level of duplicative services and low-quality care.

At the heart of this dysfunction is Medicare — and, more precisely, Medicare’s dominant fee-for-service (FFS) insurance structure.

For FFS insurance to make economic sense, the patients must pay some of the cost when they receive care. In the vast majority of cases, though, FFS enrollees face no additional cost when they use more services — and health-care providers earn more by providing more services and billing the program. Not surprisingly, Medicare has suffered for years from an explosion in the volume of services used by FFS participants.

FFS compounds this by stifling much-needed service-delivery innovation through its use of outdated and inefficient payment rules. The result is that today’s fragmented and dysfunctional system is virtually frozen in place — for everyone, not just Medicare beneficiaries.

The new health law attempts to address these problems through a top-down payment-reform program, with the federal government using the leverage of Medicare reimbursements to essentially build new, provider-run, managed-care entities.

But the federal government has never shown any capacity to build such a network, despite many attempts in the past. Politicians and regulators have found it impossible to withstand the political pressure that comes when they try to make distinctions among hospitals and physician groups based on quality measures that are themselves subject to dispute.

Instead, Congress and Medicare’s regulators have cut costs in the past with payment-rate reductions that apply to every licensed provider, without regard to any measures of quality or efficient performance. Tellingly, that’s exactly how the recent health law achieves most of its Medicare budget cuts.

Why the RNC blank check to the Tea Party?

by David Frum

On the FrumForum site, Dr Jean Howard-Hill of the National African American Republican Caucus points out the dysfunctional asymmetry of the Republican Party's relationship to the Tea Party. Yesterday the RNC issued a statement absolving the Tea Party of racism and praising them as wishing nothing more than a return to the principles of the Constitution.

Recent statements claiming the Tea Party movement is racist are not only destructive, they are not true. Tea Party activists are your mom or dad, your local grocer, banker, hairdresser or doctor. They are a diverse group of passionate Americans who want to ensure that our nation returns to founding principles that honor the Constitution, limit government’s role in our lives, and support policies that empower free markets and freeenterprise. Enough with the name-calling.

Howard-Hill replies:

If indeed the Tea Party Movement is truly nonpartisan and is not a Republican movement as it has often been contended, then the question is: why is the RNC or any other Republican organization, weighing in on this matter in defense of the movement? This was not a Republican matter which required an RNC response or involvement.  It is a Tea Party matter which needs to be resolved between the Tea party and the NAACP.

The GOP is not in a position to take on a movement which has no leadership which — when issues such as this arise — can be held accountable. Nor can it control what happens at events or who appears and participates. Why then issue a blank check?

And after all – it's not as if the Tea Party activists return the favor.

Is New Black Panther panic the right’s answer to militia panic on the left?

by Dave Weigel

Jesse Walker, keying off my argument about Fox News and the Panthers, thinks that's the case.

The New Black Panther Party plays the same role for the right that Hutaree-style militants play for the left: They're a tiny, uninfluential group whose importance is magnified to keep the base excited. Left and right wind up worrying more about each other than they care about the institutions that actually govern the country. It's great if your goal is maintaining movement identity, but not if you're more interested in changing policy than collecting scalps.

I like this comparison and think it's 99% true. The 1% where it's not true — the left gets attention when warning about militia dangers because of Oklahoma City. Unfair, probably, but militia members who mean well know how damaging the legacy of Timothy McVeigh has been. The left knows this, and that's why you see a rush to paint conservatives with the "militia" brush — Americans hear it and think "like those terrorists who blew up the Murrah building!" By contrast, the fringe New Black Panthers are more silly than violent. The only "violence" I can think of them being involved came when they stupidly charged into volatile situations in racial hotspots, in order to get media attention. But I can't think of anyone who's charged them with violence.

That's not to defend the Panthers. It's just to point out the ridiculousness of this story. The Hutaree cult didn't pose a threat to anyone. These idiots don't pose a threat to anyone. It's easy, and lazy, to see a 30-second clip of scary guys in military garb and yell "Open-shut case! Voter intimidation! We have video!" But when you stop and realize that 1) no one has claimed the NBPP stopped them from voting, 2) the Philadelphia precinct was the only one where this tiny group pulled this stunt, and 3) they're about as threatening as any other group of racist newsletter editors, you realize the game being played.

Bristol’s Fairy Tale

US-cover

by Chris Bodenner

Chris Rovzar gets in the mindset of the millions of teen girls for whom Bristol is trying to be a role model:

Thought: What if I can't raise this baby alone?
Well, What Happened to Bristol? Apparently, having a baby out of wedlock can make you famous, and give you a contract with Candie's. And apparently your family, because of public scrutiny, will back you up to the hilt, helping you care for your baby as if it is everyone's child. And your previously cash-strapped mom might also become a singular national industry and make like $12 million the year after your baby is born! So no worries there, certainly.

Thought: But what if I still love my bad-boy boyfriend, after all that?
Well, What Happened to Bristol? Well, Bristol still loved Levi. And lo and behold, Wasilla's resident brainless thug came around! After a year of trash-talking her family and doing everything he could to destroy Bristol's mother, Levi texted one day to say he loved her! And just like that, they got back together. Before they even talked it over with their parents, they were on the cover of a magazine. Posing like the beautiful family they were always meant to be! She landed the bad boy!

Gawker chases rumors of a reality show in the works. Lord let it be true.

An Arms Race On The Right

 by Patrick Appel

This Noah Millman post is excellent:

I don’t actually expect revival of full-throated anti-interventionism on the American right, something like the pre-World War II America Firsters. I don’t think even Daniel Larison expects that. But some kind of tendency to counter militarism is necessary, and right now, with Sarah Palin and Mitt Romney trying to outdo each other in their appeals to the militarist tendency on the right, I kind of despair of any counter-dynamic getting traction.

Cool Ad Watch

2010_07_calvin

by Chris Bodenner

Lauren Indvik explains:

Passersby can use their smartphones to snap a picture, which will pull up an exclusive, 40-second commercial featuring models Lara Stone, “A.J.,” Sid Ellisdon, Grayson Vaughan and Eric Anderson. After the spot plays, viewers can then share the code with their Facebook and Twitter networks. The billboard marks the official premiere of Calvin Klein Jeans’s Fall 2010 advertising campaign.

Free Birth Control For All?

by Chris Bodenner

Dana Goldstein looks at the possibility:

Experts expect the Department of Health and Human Services, led by pro-choice Obama appointee Kathleen Sebelius, to spend the next six to 18 months researching women's health before releasing new guidelines for women's "preventive health care." Under the new law, services and medications defined as "preventive" must be offered to customers of new insurance plans free of co-pays—whether that insurance is employer-provided or purchased on the individual marketplace, whether inside or outside of the new, subsidized health insurance exchanges.

So does Tracy Clark-Flory:

It's yet to be decided whether birth control will be one of those services — even though the so-called Mikulski amendment was intended for that very purpose — and experts say it's unlikely a decision will be reached by late September when the rule goes into effect. (No rush — I mean, the outcome only potentially impacts the estimated 3 million unplanned pregnancies each year.) … Not only do planned pregnancies tend to result in healthier children, but fewer unplanned pregnancies mean fewer abortions. That's something everyone can get behind, right?

Of course not.

As you might recall, roughly a year ago, abortion became the focus of the Senate debate over the Mikulski amendment. Despite the fact that the amendment focused specifically on contraception, conversation nonetheless turned to Planned Parenthood and the possibility of required coverage for abortions. Normally, I would flippantly point out the inappropriateness of treating Planned Parenthood as a synonym for abortion, seeing as the vast majority of the care the organization provides is preventive — but it's exactly that disagreement over the definition of preventive care that is at issue here. It might appear that birth control is obviously preventive — it prevents pregnancies, end of discussion — but many anti-abortion activists believe that contraceptives that can prevent a fertilized egg from implanting are actually abortifacients.

Ten Nations

ArgentinaMarriageGetty

by Patrick Appel

Argentina became the first Latin American nation to legalize same-sex marriage at about 4 am this morning. The list:

2001 Netherlands
2003 Belgium
2005 Spain
2005 Canada
2006 South Africa
2008 Norway
2009 Sweden
2010 Portugal
2010 Iceland
2010 Argentina

(Image: A girl spray paints figures of male and female couples in front of the Congress building during a demonstration supporting the gay marriage bill, while Senators discuss said bill on July 14, 2010. By Juan Mabromata/AFP/Getty Images)