Tag: Premium

Michael Totten wrote that “Foreign Policy 101 dictates that you reward your friends and punish your enemies.” It’s a spectacularly dumb statement, reflective of neoconservative tribalism rather than sensible foreign policy. You can tell it’s of neocon provenance because if its crudeness and simplicity. It’s the kind of idiotic thinking that Cheney holds to. Larison easily explains why:

Whatever one thinks of Obama’s foreign policy, it’s not true that the conduct of foreign policy should be guided by the principle of “reward your friends and punish your enemies.” The priority should always be to secure the country’s just interests first, and that may sometimes require reaching agreements with antagonistic states and being at odds with allies and clients on certain issues. It is tempting but misguided to think of international relationships in terms of friendship. States can have productive and cooperative relations, and they can even be allies for many decades, but they aren’t ever really “friends.”

The famous quote from Lord Palmerston, along with many others, is more stringent still: “England has no eternal friends, England has no perpetual enemies, England has only eternal and perpetual interests”. That’s why I object to notions of an “unbreakable bond” between the US and Israel. George Washington, in the most prescient and emphatic repudiation of AIPAC and the Cuban Lobby ever delivered, explained why a long, long time ago:

Nothing is more essential, than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular Nations, and passionate attachments for others, should be excluded; and that, in place of them, just and amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated. The Nation, which indulges towards another an habitual hatred, or an habitual fondness, is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest. Antipathy in one nation against another disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable, when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur. Hence frequent collisions, obstinate, envenomed, and bloody contests. The Nation, prompted by ill-will and resentment, sometimes impels to war the Government, contrary to the best calculations of policy. The Government sometimes participates in the national propensity, and adopts through passion what reason would reject; at other times, it makes the animosity of the nation subservient to projects of hostility instigated by pride, ambition, and other sinister and pernicious motives. The peace often, sometimes perhaps the liberty, of Nations has been the victim.

So likewise, a passionate attachment of one Nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite Nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest, in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter, without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite Nation of privileges denied to others, which is apt doubly to injure the Nation making the concessions; by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained; and by exciting jealousy, ill-will, and a disposition to retaliate, in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld. And it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens, (who devote themselves to the favorite nation,) facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity; gilding, with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation.

Millman agrees completely:

The whole paradigm of “reward and punish” is derived from the game theory strategy of “tit for tat” which, indeed, reliably produces the best results in simulations. But those simulations are one-dimensional. The real world isn’t.

India and the United States have common interests in fighting Islamist terrorism and in providing a strategic counterweight to China. But India has a fruitful relationship with Iran that they see no reason to sever. Should we “punish” them for that? How would we do that without also “punishing” them for being our allies against the Taliban? Should we have “punished” our ally, France, for not supporting our war in Iraq by not supporting their war in Libya? Or should we have supported our ally Britain for its staunch support in Iraq by joining the very same war against Libya? Should we have rewarded Russia for its support for our war in Afghanistan by dropping our support for Georgian membership in NATO? Or should we have rewarded Georgian support for the Iraq war by pushing harder for their membership in NATO?

Larison follows-up:

Offering reflexive support for clients and their goals may seem like the sort of thing that a reliable patron should do, but this requires one to forget that the relationship exists for the sake of advancing common interests rather than indulging clients in all of their preoccupations.

Katie Drummond reports that military-operated “burn pits” in Iraq and Afghanistan have put servicemembers’ health at risk:

[W]hen Le Roy [Torres] arrived at [Joint Base] Balad in the summer of 2007, the first thing he noticed was the smell. A noxious, overwhelming stench reminiscent of burning rubber. “I was like, ‘Wow, that is something really bad, really really bad,’” he recalls. Soon, he also noticed the smoke: plumes of it curling into the air at all hours of the day, sometimes lingering over the base as dark, foreboding clouds. That smoke, Le Roy soon learned, was coming from the same place as the stench that had first grabbed him: Balad’s open-air burn pit.

The pit, a shallow excavation measuring a gargantuan 10 acres, was used to incinerate every single piece of refuse generated by Balad’s thousands of residents. That meant seemingly innocuous items, like food scraps or paper. But it also meant plastic, styrofoam, electronics, metal cans, rubber tires, ammunition, explosives, human feces, animal carcasses, lithium batteries, asbestos insulation, and human body parts — all of it doused in jet fuel and lit on fire. The pit wasn’t unique to Balad: open-air burn pits, operated either by servicemembers or contractors, were used to dispose of trash at bases all across Iraq and Afghanistan.

It’s no secret that open-air burning poses health hazards. …

That’s because of both the size of the particulate matter emitted from the pits and its composition. Smoke from any combustion process fills the air with what are known as “fine particles” or PM2.5. Because they’re so small — measuring 2.5 microns in diameter or less — these particles burrow more deeply into the lungs than larger airborne pollutants, and from there can leach into the bloodstream and circulate through the body. The military’s burn pits emitted particulate matter laced with heavy metals and toxins — like sulfur dioxide, arsenic, dioxins, and hydrochloric acid — that are linked to serious health ailments. Among them are chronic respiratory and cardiovascular problems, allergies, neurological conditions, several kinds of cancer, and weakened immune systems.

Update from a reader:

On the subject of the dangers of burn pits in Iraq, you and your readers might be interested in the story of Joshua Casteel. As a military interrogator in Iraq he apparently conducted over 100 interrogations at Abu Ghraib in the aftermath of the allegations of abuses there in 2004, only to decide that his role was incompatible with his Christian faith. His application for conscientious objector status was approved by the Army and he went on to work with Iraq Veterans Against the War and speak out against what he saw as his abuses in numerous public forums. As a graduate student in the Divinity School at the University of Chicago (I am a student in the English Department there; I didn’t know him, but I know people who did), he was diagnosed with lung cancer and died relatively soon thereafter, in August 2012. His friends and family strongly believe that his quarters in Iraq had something to do with it; he slept near an active burn pit for almost six months while serving there. Here and here are few links for background. Some of his writings also appeared in Harper’s, but I don’t have the link.

(Hat tip: Eric Levenson)

Perhaps the greatest highdea ever:

Sagan wrote eloquently – but pseudonymously – about the joys of weed. As his friend Lester Grinspoon recalls:

As much as [Sagan] loved marijuana, he was always very concerned about people finding out. For instance, one of the early pieces I wrote on the subject appeared in The New York Times Magazine, and in it I said something to the effect, “People have the idea that only these hirsute young hippie kids use marijuana, but in fact a lot of ordinary and even extraordinary people smoke it, including professionals.” Then I mentioned doctors, lawyers, etc. Well, in that list I included astronomers. And when that came out, it was the only time Carl ever expressed any anger towards me. Because he thought mentioning astronomers would give him away based on our friendship.

Grinspoon recounts the time the two got baked on a cruise to the South Pacific to see Halley’s Comet:

I smuggled about an ounce of marijuana on board, and we had a wonderful time. Carl had the top cabin on the ship, including a deck where we could sit and smoke and talk and eat—for hours on end—while watching the beautiful cloud formations over the Pacific. When the cruise was over, we still had some marijuana left. I didn’t want to go through Customs with it, so I told Carl that I was going to toss it down a companionway I had noticed was marked “Crew Only,” trusting that it would be enjoyed among the mates. But he asked me not to, because we might somehow be found out. So we weighed the baggie down with one of those old glass ashtrays, and tossed it overboard. I hated to let this precious stuff go down to the bottom of the sea, and didn’t really see how we could ever have gotten caught passing it along, but I had to respect Carl’s objection. Really, it was very important that he not get in trouble. He was testifying before NASA and Congressional committees all the time.

Previous Dish on Sagan and marijuana here.

Willa Paskin sees mixed results in the portrayal of gays and lesbians on the box:

The preponderance of lesbians on TV [is] progressive—representation is a good thing—but not nearly as progressive as it first appears. While the characters on Orange [is the New Black], The Fosters, and The Killing are fully developed, on shows likes The Crazy Ones, Dracula, Rookie Blue, and Mistresses, girl-on-girl dabbling is often presented as just another quirk of a sexually adventurous young woman, proof that she is fit to star in a straight dude’s fantasy, even if it’s also simultaneous proof of her emotional depth. (On Mistresses, Josslyn’s relationship with a woman was the most serious she’d ever had, while also being a kinky phase she could tease future boy-toys with.) Shows like Mistresses, Rookie Blue, Betrayal, and Once Upon a Time put lesbians or bisexual women in supporting roles to signify their adult aesthetic.

Lesbian story lines are to network television what nudity is to premium cable: a turn-on masquerading as proof of seriousness. There is at least an upside to this: Lesbians have become shorthand for sophisticated, steamy, romantic, intriguing. In the interest of titillation, television has banished the stereotype of the sexless lesbian.

But while “women longing for other women may be hot, [men] longing for other men is still decidedly not”:

Other than the sweet first-love story between Kurt and Blaine on Glee, most gay men on television are non-sexual. (HBO’s Looking, about three gay men in San Francisco, will presumably do what it can to address this shortfall when it arrives early next year.) Modern Family’s Cam and Mitchell still don’t kiss much. Andre Braugher’s character on Brooklyn Nine-Nine is remarkable for being so stoically butch. Thomas on Downton Abbey is heartbreakingly isolated. And Sean Hayes’ character on Sean Saves the World gets less play than Will and Grace’s Jack did. It’s a great time for lesbians on television, but I eagerly await the romantic, sexy storyline about Prince Charming falling for Hercules.

Me too. But I’d give Downton Abbey a pass, for Pete’s sake. It’s a period drama. Daniel D’Addario also isn’t satisfied with how gay characters are depicted:

Call it the Smithers Test: Does a gay television character serve a purpose other than engaging with outdated stereotypes? Many straight characters across the dial live, love and laugh about all manner of things; they’re not the sum of their dating lives and aren’t governed by stereotypes about how straight men or straight women should act. But from Smithers — who exists to play out a mocking image of gay men — to the hirsute, messy Max on the departed “Happy Endings” — who was a waddling gay joke for the constantly-remarked-upon reason that he wasn’t like other gay guys — television is very good at commenting upon how gay people are perceived in our culture and less good at portraying gay people. It’s an endless feedback loop: Television has the power to create or reinforce stereotypes, and then it slyly comments upon them, as well.

Casey Quinlan focuses on the portrayals of bisexuality:

[D]espite some improvements in quantity and quality of bisexual male characters on TV, it still seems far more shocking for a man to be bisexual than for a man to be gay. Bisexual women may be portrayed more often, but their sexual preferences have been frequently portrayed merely as an aphrodisiac for men.

Why? In 2013, a straight male audience is more likely to understand that gay men don’t choose to be gay, but still can’t seem to grapple with why a bisexual man would choose to sleep with another man rather than a woman. Perhaps that’s because a straight male audience or an audience informed by the straight male perspective tends to believe the female body is innately more appealing than the male body. Seeing the world from this point of view, it’s easier to understand why a woman would stray from the acceptable heterosexual path, lured by the female form’s beauty. Thus, the bisexual woman’s preferences are more socially acceptable and are often seen as more natural than the bisexual man’s. A 2002 paper in the Journal of Sex Research titled “Heterosexuals’ attitudes toward bisexual men and women in the United States” reflects this: It showed that heterosexual men rated male homosexuals and bisexuals less favorably than female homosexuals and bisexuals.

Update from a reader:

ABC deserves some credit in this realm for Revenge.  Despite its flaws, the show has presented the character of Nolan Ross as a computer genius/billionaire/eccentric who just happens to be bisexual.  He’s been shown in relationships with both men and women, yet these don’t especially come off as any different from the other relationships depicted throughout the show’s run.

Another has some food for thought:

Smithers certainly does not exist “to play out a mocking image of gay men.” He exists to play out a mocking image of craven Capitalists. We know that Burns is in love with him, but are we sure Smithers is even gay?

From Smithers’ Wiki page:

Smithers was partly based on how numerous Fox executives and staff members acted towards Barry Diller. In many ways, Smithers represents the stereotype of the closeted gay man, and numerous overt allusions and double entendres concerning his homosexuality are made, though some of the show’s producers instead refer to him as a “Burns-sexual”.

The obvious answer is that Obama created it – and they’re that petty. But it is based in many parts on a moderate Republican idea – the kind of market-friendly, private-sector-based reforms that George H W Bush and Mitt Romney backed (not to speak of Heritage, which has gone from providing some of the core features of the ACA to screaming like a rabid wolf at the moon). The ACA is much more conservative than Nixon’s healthcare vision or Clinton’s. Beutler notes the many ways the GOP could usefully fix some of the inevitable problems that will emerge:

We could reduce the impact of cross-subsidization on young, healthy people by making subsidies more generous or stretching the age band or loosening minimum essential coverage standards or some combination of the three.

Barro is on the same page:

Adrianna McIntyre calculates that there are about 7 million Americans aged 18-64 who have incomes over 400% of [Federal Poverty Level (FPL)] and who are uninsured or insured through the individual market. That’s less than 3% of the population. Of these, just 1.5 million are 35 or younger; the older members of the group are not as likely to be made worse off by new insurance rules.

If Republicans were interested in working with Democrats to improve Obamacare and reduce the economic distortions it creates, they could fix this group’s problem.

For example, they could restrict the value of the tax exclusion for employer-provided coverage (shrinking a needless tax benefit for rich people like Sen. Ted Cruz) and use the savings to extend the subsidy range above the 400% of FPL mark.Reforms like this, needless to say, are not high on the Republican policy agenda.

Jonathan Bernstein calls the GOP a “post-policy” party:

It’s not just failure to, say, draft an alternative to the Affordable Care Act. It’s also about refusing to distinguish between aspects of the Affordable Care Act they really hate and those which they only mildly dislike (or, if they were really honest, those they actually support). Even if you want to compromise, it’s almost impossible for negotiations to work (what Greg called “the normal give and take of governing”) if you can’t make those kind of decisions.

They’re just increasingly uninterested in governing. But the GOP’s golden era under Reagan followed a burst of intellectual, wonkish energy at the granular level. Just think of what Policy Review used to put out. There was so much interest in policy you were almost overwhelmed by rightwing wonkishness. Now? Pure rhetorical vacuity. The decline and fall of Heritage is a micro-cosm of a macro-implosion of constructive, reformist conservative thought and analysis.

A reader responds to a recent post:

I was one of your dawdling freeloaders. But I finally caved, and it wasn’t your coverage of the debt-crisis that did it. While politics are somewhat similar around the world, as a Canadian, I have been simply shocked by Congress and the insane behaviour on display. Riveting reading, and I could not get enough. But in the middle of it all, with pending economic annihilation, you added to your delightful octopus post. Sweet relief – a sign of intelligent life! I raised my debt-ceiling and subscribed.

You can join her [tinypass_offer text=”here”] for just $1.99/month. Previous Dish on the wonders of the octopus here, here, here, and here. Below is more coverage for our new subscriber and others:

This time last year, one unlucky Seattle octopus was reportedly beaten to death by a local diver and then brought home to be eaten for dinner. The story riled cephalopod fans near and far and has been covered extensively in the press, including a feature story this past weekend in The New York Times Magazine.

The diver, a teenager who was collecting his first octopus for part of a school project as well as for dinner, had been made the villain of the infamous encounter. He was, however, abiding by the law and had a fishing license to collect marine life in the area. And accounts of the incident do suggest he was following the rules prohibiting instruments that would “penetrate or mutilate the body,” such as a spear or knife. In fact he appears to have gotten the octopus very much by hand; he was described as “punching” the octopus repeatedly—for nearly half an hour—before overpowering it and carrying it to his truck.

From this, I can only think of the words of fictional film news anchorman Ron Burgundy, I’m not even mad; that’s amazing.

The octopus in question was a giant Pacific octopus (Enteroctopus dofleini) and this particular one was estimated to be about six feet long and weigh 80 pounds. The diver describes the initial encounter with the octopus in which he goaded it into attacking him. It then grabbed his body with its suckered arms and pulled out his regulator—a situation that seems like it could easily have turned deadly for the teen instead of the octopus. … Although octopuses usually go after prey smaller than themselves, they can use their strength to overpower substantial adversaries, including sharks. In fact, it was also in Seattle, at the Seattle Aquarium, that a giant Pacific octopus was filmed killing a shark a few years ago.

Seen here:

Lindsay Abrams looks for the larger lesson in the Seattle story:

Locals took up arms against Mayer’s actions — but at the same time lavished praise on a high-end restaurant renowned for its, yes, giant Pacific octopus. And so the foodie community was tasked with an uncomfortable dilemma: “Should it save the giant Pacific octopus or just eat it?”

“Mayer’s real offense,” writes [NYT magazine writer Marnie] Hanel, “may have been forcing a community to realize that just because they’ve embraced local fare doesn’t mean they’re necessarily ready to see, in gory detail, it slaughtered or hunted or punched out and dragged from the bay.” It’s a local lesson that we can all identify with — even ethically raised meat, animal rights activists will remind you, is eventually slaughtered, and slaughter is rarely not brutal. When we’re forced to truly consider just where our food comes from, things invariably get more complicated.

For more on that theme, check out our recent thread “The Abatement of Cruelty“. Update from a reader:

As a Seattle-area scuba diver, conflating the GPO [giant Pacific octopus]/Mayer story and the locavore movement is 100% BS. In all the conversations I’ve had with divers about this story (even all the way in Australia!), food sourcing came up precisely zero times. Never even heard of the restaurant in Pioneer Square mentioned. Plenty of scuba divers here will hunt locally for Dungeness crab and ling cod when they’re in season. I find crabbing lots of fun but avoid spearfishing myself.

What riled up people so much is that Cove 2 is probably the most popular dive site in Seattle. It’s one of several shore diving sites where you know exactly where to find the GPOs and have a good chance of spotting one. We all appreciate the intelligence, strength, and odd beauty of these magnificent animals. Then some schmuck gotta roll up and play Great White Hunter. It was an incredibly stupid and selfish thing to do, and he’s straight up lying if he says he had no idea how popular Cove 2 was. This was local democracy in action. Small but very concerned interest group lobbies for change and gets it.

And you know what? I prefer watching starfish eat a dead octopus. Or watching a live octopus grab at my camera. I can live entirely without ever eating one. If you have to spend several winters beating the meat to make it edible, it’s probably not worth the effort.

This stupid New York Times story has me honked off like a goose now. Thank you.

(Image of Alexis Diaz‘s graffiti via Colossal)

Putting aside Obama’s egregious bullshit about Americans being able to keep their current coverage, Jonathan Cohn argues that the non-group health insurance market is in great need of Obamacare’s reforms:

By nearly everybody’s reckoning, the ”non-group” market is the most dysfunctional part of the American health insurance system. The dysfunction takes two primary forms. First, insurers have been selective about whom they would cover and how—charging higher premiums, covering fewer services, or simply denying benefits outright to people with pre-existing medical conditions. About half of all Americans have at least one such condition, according to official estimates, so roughly speaking about half the population couldn’t reliably find comprehensive, affordable coverage if they had to buy it on their own.

The second big problem with the non-group market has been the lack of protection it provides even those people who think they have good insurance. At worst, plans in the non-group market border on fraud. They are “mini-med” plans that cover no more than a few hundred dollars of bills, which will last you about ten minutes if you visit the emergency room. But even the better, more respectable plans can exclude whole categories of services, like maternity care, rehabilitation, mental health, or prescription drugs. Typically they also have high deductibles and co-payments.

These policies may seem alluring, because they don’t cost much upfront. But these premiums are notoriously unstable. From time to time, insurers will “close” blocks—in other words, they stop letting new people into the plan—and then jack up rates once a few of the insured get sick.

Sarah Kliff also has a useful primer on the subject. The problem for the ACA, it seems to me, is that many Americans who have bought cheap and light insurance on the individual market are seeing their premiums go up to account for the minimal standards of the ACA, but have real difficulty now in finding out if ACA subsidies will make up some or most of the difference. That’s because of the website clusterfuck. What amazes me about the Obama administration’s gross incompetence on this is that it should have been their strong suit. Obama’s key demographics – young, minority – are precisely those the ACA needs to reach and enroll to work; and Obama’s own record in his campaign infrastructure was of innovative and flawless website management. He had all the advantages for making this work, and blew it.

Nonetheless, it’s obviously impossible for the government to be as flexible as campaigns in hiring talent and these large reforms are infinitely more complex than any campaign.

And as I noted last night, plenty of Republicans were once talking about inevitable glitches and the need for patience after their much more expensive Medicare D entitlement got off to a rocky, protracted start. Romneycare took months and months to enroll everyone. And since this is now the law – do Republicans fully grasp that fact? – it has every chance of getting on track eventually.

Today, we were told the following about the president’s management of this:

Aides said that Mr. Obama had been fixated on details of the law’s carrying out and that advisers did not withhold information but were likewise surprised by the scope of the problems. “From the moment the health care bill was signed into law the president was very focused on making sure it was implemented correctly,” said Dan Pfeiffer, a senior White House adviser. “In just about every meeting, he pushed the team on whether the website was going to work. Unfortunately, it did not, and he’s very frustrated.”

Mr. Pfeiffer insisted that the president wants to hear what he needs to hear and would not accept advisers’ keeping negative information from him. “He’ll know if you don’t tell him the bad news he needs to hear, and that’s the quickest way to be on the outside looking in,” Mr. Pfeiffer said.

So he was fixated on the details but unable to manage the critical website construction to avoid what Sebelius this morning called a debacle. I don’t think that’s more reassuring than the trope of a “bystander president.”

A reader writes:

I’d like to push back a bit on your harsh criticism of the president as being dishonest in his statements selling the ACA to the American public. For starters, the man is a politician and anybody who expects complete honesty from politicians is just setting themselves up for constant disappointment. Secondly, he was attempting to sell something that he honestly believed was going to help the vast majority of Americans. Does anybody really think that the best way to go about that sale was to wonkishly explain every in-and-out and why it was better than the status quo for a large majority of the population? The details were out there for those who were curious, but most people needed a sound-byte to help them understand the plan and the one he used happened to be true for all but a few percent of them.

And of course because of the increased competition of the marketplaces and generous subsidies, a lot of people who are forced to switch plans will actually end up saving money while getting more comprehensive coverage. As an example (which I originally found via The Dish): Eric Stern found that multiple Hannity guests complaining about losing their private insurance will actually likely save a crapload of money buying on the exchange.

I’d also like to address Ross’s point that the ACA “cancels plans, and raises rates, for people who were doing their part to keep all of our costs low.”

I think this is a misunderstanding about what drives healthcare costs. It’s probably true that a lot of healthy people buying bare bones plans are saving themselves a bit of money in the short run. But, because of their minimal coverage, they are also probably under-consuming certain types of healthcare. Now that 1) makes them less healthy in the short term which is bad for them and might be bad for their productivity and 2) makes them less healthy in the long term which will likely result in them consuming more high cost healthcare later in life. This will result in greater lifetime health costs (and more tax payer spending on Medicare).

Contrary to what the right may think, the people who wrote the law didn’t just add in the minimum requirements because they like bossing people around. The intent was to improve health outcomes and lower costs in the long run.

Another is more blunt:

This “Odd Lies of Barack Obama” stunt really pisses me off, using the same line you used for Sarah Palin. You know that’s a load of crap.

My family now has health insurance. But a few years ago we didn’t, because we simply could not afford it. At that time in New Jersey the cheapest plan I could find for a 3-person family was around $800 a month (now it’s over $1,000/month). And it was such a limited, crappy plan that it didn’t even include coverage for chemotherapy (if you read the fine print). NO CHEMO. Now, I don’t know about you but in my mind the main reason to have health insurance is for disasters and life-threatening or chronic illnesses. I mean really, I don’t need to pay $800 a month so I can save 50 bucks on maybe 10-15 doctor visits a year for all three of us, or save a couple hundred bucks on a year’s worth of prescriptions. That’s insane. Yet it’s the business model that insurance companies used freely for years.

But no one in the GOP, including Chris Christie, gave a rat’s ass. Not too many in the media cared either. But Obama did. And he changed the system so that insurance companies can’t sell crap plans anymore. They have to meet a reasonable standard. Or fold. Wow, what a liar that Obama was. He didn’t mention that some insurance companies chasing in on shitty, rip-off plans were going to choose “die” instead of meeting reasonable standards. Well I don’t give a damn.

Seriously. How about “The Odd Lies of America” instead? How about the absolute lie for decades that we had a great health care system in this country. Because no system that is unaffordable to tens of millions of its citizens is anything more than horrible and appalling. And no system that allows insurance companies to sell plans that won’t help the client with a cataclysmic disease – and hides that information in the weeds – is anything but disgusting.

Another spins:

Just one quick point, which may help put this in perspective.  People who don’t currently have insurance cannot “keep” their plan either.  They have to “upgrade,” too.  Is this so different from the small minority of people who have a plan with holes in their coverage, who are forced to upgrade to a basic level of comprehensive coverage?

Another dives into more detail:

I find it difficult to get too excited about this, though it does seem evident that he either spoke the line without thinking through the implications, or knowingly and grossly oversimplified. Here’s why I don’t find it scandalous (albeit optically terrible right now):

1. It seemed evident to me at the time that he was primarily addressing concerns about employer-provided coverage and about keeping a plan that includes your favored doctor. This may or may not actually be the case, but that’s how I heard it. Yeah, I get that the quote itself is considerably broader, and nobody ought to be surprised that it’s been understood as a universal statement.

2. Health plans, as Frakt notes, churn extensively. Obviously Obama meant “… to the extent that your insurer continues to offer your plan.” No, seriously: this needs to be really obvious. Just because everyone is now blaming every price increase and coverage change on the ACA doesn’t mean it’s true.

3. The minimum coverage requirement was always going to require some plans to end; the question was only how many. Always. This, again, was obvious from the beginning.

4. He didn’t say “If you like your premium, you can keep it.” But that is what the upset is about, isn’t it? The upset certainly isn’t about the improved coverage, the lifting of annual and lifetime caps, the bar to medical underwriting, or the requirement that plans actually cover the drugs we might need.

5. I fundamentally disagree with the notion that it’d be just hunky-dory to let people stay on crap plans with high out-of-pocket maximums, little or no drug coverage, huge exclusions (like maternity and mental health care), etc. There are two problems allowing these crap plans to continue:

First, they are precisely the sort of under-coverage that’s likely to leave people back on the mercy of the emergency room and the bankruptcy court in the event of major illness. (Or pregnancy.) The point of all this is to end that. We can only end that by mandating that everyone buy coverage that actually covers your potential medical conditions and treatments. (Suppose, for example, that someone with a crap, limited-formulary plan contracted HIV. They might as well just go pre-register at the bankruptcy court.) The individual mandate isn’t just a mandate that you buy anything called “health insurance,” it’s a mandate that you buy adequate health insurance.

Second, allowing crap plans to persist would leave open the door to market failure through adverse selection. Those most likely to choose crap plans with lousy coverage would be the young and healthy. Expanding the risk pool doesn’t just mean we get everyone into the pool of insureds – it means we get everyone paying in as well, on a comparable basis. So, yeah … it’s a tax on the healthy to support the sick. But that’s what all insurance is.

(Photo: Win McNamee/Getty)

Charlie Cook thinks it’s in the Senate – and could be permanent:

The reason next year is so make-or-break for Senate Republicans is because in 2016, when all of the seats they won in 2010 come up—they netted a six-seat net gain that year—there will be 24 GOP seats up, compared with only 10 for Democrats, leading to some serious Republican overexposure. Seven of the 24 GOP senators up are hailing from states that Obama carried in 2012. After having had plentiful Democratic targets in 2012 and 2014, it will be Republicans in 2016 who will have the most incumbents in the crosshairs.

Kilgore chimes in:

2016, moreover, being a presidential election year, is likely to produce the kind of relatively high turnout that tends to help Democrats disproportionately. So for those Republicans who did not consider 2012 a “now and never” opportunity after which conservatives would be submerged in a wave of dusky looters, 2014 is a very big deal. When one seeks a radical counter-revolution overturning decades of “socialist” policies, control of the entire federal government is a must. The Senate could be gone for a good while if GOPers don’t win it back next year.

Larison adds:

If Republicans do gain control of the Senate after the midterms, it’s also quite possible that their majority will be so small that it could quickly be wiped out when some of the class of 2010 has to run during a presidential election year. Republicans are running into a recurring problem where they have to run up huge wins in the midterms just to be able to absorb their failures in the presidential years, so that even an average midterm performance becomes inadequate.

Nate Cohn claims that the Virginia governor’s race has little bearing on national politics:

Over the last few weeks, it’s become fashionable to suggest that the shutdown dealt a significant blow to Cuccinelli. Nate Silver has already treaded this ground, but I’m going to retread it. I just don’t see the evidence. McAuliffe already built a modest but clear lead, founded on a massive favorability gap and a massive advertising advantage. He was going to win. Period.

Enten agrees:

Ken Cuccinelli was a sitting duck before any shutdown hit. His favorable ratings had been dropping since way back in July, and smart analysts like Sean Trende were predicting his defeat from May onwards. One could argue that the ideology that brought Republicans into a showdown with President Obama harmed them significantly in Virginia; the shutdown itself, however, shows no real effect.

Greg Sargent, who posts the chart above, differs:

Multiple observers — see Mark Murray and Taegan Goddard for examples — argue Virginia is increasingly resembling the country as a whole.

A detailed demographic case along these lines has been advanced by Ronald Brownstein, who has argued that McAuliffe’s probable success is being powered by the growth of an emerging Democratic coalition that will likely be crucial to Democrats in statewide and national races in the future. This “coalition of the ascendant,” as Browntsein calls them, includes minorities, young voters, and college educated whites, particularly women.

Brownstein argues that McAuliffe’s apparent success in riding this coalition — which entails staking out socially liberal stances that swing state Dems have historically downplayed out of fear of alienating culturally conservative downscale whites — could have major implications nationally.

Kilgore’s two cents:

Truth is, after 2010 confirmed the heavy shift to the GOP of the groups most likely to turn out in mid-terms and off-year elections, I figured it would be a good long while before a Democrat would win the governorship in a “purple” state with off-year elections like Virginia. There’s got to be a non-trivial reason for McAuliffe’s apparently easy win, and while it may perhaps be personal to Cuccinelli, there’s no reason to conclude that without post-election evidence.