It's finally happened: After months of waiting and assuring voters that they had a plan, despite having no single proposal supported by their leadership, House Republicans have released a draft (PDF here) of their very own healthcare reform bill.
Naturally, the legislation is significantly different from the Democrats' proposals. There is, of course, no public option -- there's also no health insurance exchange, which would allow small businesses and individuals to pool together to buy coverage, no ban on insurance companies rejecting people because of pre-existing conditions, no individual mandate.
There is, however, a short list of ideas that have been bouncing around the right for some time, like tort reform that would cap the punitive awards in malpractice cases at $250,000, like allowing insurers to sell across state lines and like an expansion of the high-risk pools offered by states.
There will, no doubt, be some analysis of the bill down the line, though perhaps not all that much. That's because the most important thing to remember abut this bill is that the GOP knows it will never pass. Writing a bill you know has not a snowball's chance in hell is a very different process than one that might actually become law. In this case, the Republicans had very different objectives for this bill than the Democrats did. The Republicans wanted to keep the bill short -- they've been attacking their opponents for writing bills that top out at around 1,500 pages -- they wanted to keep the cost low, and they wanted to have something they could hang their hat on. Whether it would work, or even make sense, is at best a secondary priority.
Need proof? Look at the goals laid out at the beginning of the bill:
(b) PURPOSE.—The purpose of this Act is to take meaningful steps to lower health care costs and increase access to health insurance coverage (especially for individuals with preexisting conditions) without—
(1) raising taxes;
(2) cutting Medicare benefits for seniors;
(3) adding to the national deficit;
(4) intervening in the doctor-patient relationship; or
(5) instituting a government takeover of health care.
For another good example of how this dynamic plays out, take a look at the first major provision in the bill, one which mandates that states set up pools to provide coverage for high-risk individuals. As Time's Karen Tumulty points out, "These pools already exist in more than 30 states, but they tend to be too expensive for those with limited means to buy into. And often, people cannot get into them for as long as a year after they apply." The GOP bill would bring the cost for those pools down to 150 percent of "the average premium for applicable standard risk rates in that State," and force the states to end those waiting periods. That would still be prohibitively expensive for many, though, especially because the only option the states would have to offer -- they're forced to provide two, but the other is up to them -- is a high-deductible plan. That is, high premium and high deductible.
Where you really see the problems that come in when the bill doesn't have to work, though, is in the funding provided for these pools. The bill appropriates just $15 billion over 10 years, to be divided up among all 50 states. That works out to about $30 million per state, per year. Just the administrative costs can be expected to take a sizable chunk out of that money, which really amounts to pocket change anyway.
But as part of the same provision about high-risk pools, the GOP did include language that would specifically exclude anyone who's not a U.S. citizen or national -- if you'll remember from the infamous "You lie!" incident involving President Obama and Rep. Joe Wilson, R-S.C., that's been a political issue already.
Update: One more point worth making, along the lines of what I've been saying. The GOP bill does not include something other Republican proposals had featured, and that you'd normally expect from the party: Tax cuts. Why? Well, reportedly because House Minority Leader John Boehner determined they'd be too expensive. That's a pretty good reason, especially when what you're proposing is essentially a show bill. Tax cuts woudl drive up the cost of the bill pretty fast, thus diminishing the effectiveness of a key Republican talking point.
Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb., isn't up for reelection until 2012. And it's a good thing for him, too. A new Rasmussen poll shows him almost 30 percentage points behind one potential Republican challenger, Gov. Dave Heineman.
The survey shows 61 percent of respondents going for Heineman in a hypothetical matchup; by comparison, only 30 percent said they'd vote for Nelson.
Rasmussen attributes Nelson's precarious position to his reluctant support for his fellow Democrats' healthcare reform legislation.
"Just 17% of Nebraska voters approve of the deal their senator made on Medicaid in exchange for his vote in support of the plan. Overall, 64% oppose the health care legislation, including 53% who are Strongly Opposed," the polling firm says.
It also appears Nelson would get at least a small boost if he shifted positions on the issue -- if he votes to block reform, the number of respondents who say they'd vote for Heineman drops to 47 percent, with 20 percent of those supporters now going to Nelson, who'd be at 37 percent.
It's not all bad news for Nelson, though: 2012 is a long way off, and there's still plenty of time for public opinion in Nebraska to swing away from the GOP. Plus, in three years, reform legislation is likely to be less of a front-burner issue.
Karl Rove's marriage to his wife, Darby, lasted almost 24 years. The pair wed in January 1986 and were granted a divorce last week.
In a statement announcing the divorce, spokeswoman Dana Perino said, "The couple came to the decision mutually and amicably, and they maintain a close relationship and a strong friendship. There will be no further comment, and the family requests that its privacy be respected."
Additionally, Politico quotes an unnamed "family friend" as saying, "They did spend Christmas together with their son, and they plan to spend time together in the future. They maintain a strong friendship and they both feel that that friendship is a source of comfort and inspiration for their friends and family."
As detailed in this space Monday, there's a reason that the Transportation Security Administration is without a permanent head, and that reason's name is Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C. DeMint has a hold on the nomination of Erroll Southers, one he put on because he's concerned that the administration will allow security screeners to use collective bargaining procedures.
These kinds of holds are often the sort of thing that senators like kept quiet -- hence the anonymous nature of many of them. DeMint's not one to do anything quietly, and he'd gotten coverage for this hold previously. But in the wake of the attempted bombing of Northwest Flight 253, he's getting some attention for the hold, and it's not a good kind of press for him or his fellow Senate Republicans.
Many major outlets have stories on DeMint's hold Tuesday -- the Washington Post has one, as does the Los Angeles Times. McClatchy has one, too, headlined, "Who's running the TSA? No one, thanks to Sen. Jim DeMint." Not the kind of headline anyone wants about themselves.
For now, DeMint's office says the senator won't drop the hold. But don't be surprised if you see some pressure from other Senate Republicans leading to Southers' confirmation soon enough.
Sometimes, it seems you could set your watch by Michael Goldfarb. The Weekly Standard writer — who served in the McCain press shop last year — can always be counted on to come forward to express concerns about nearly everything the Obama administration does, especially if it relates to terrorism. He didn't miss his cue following the attempted bombing of Northwest Flight 253, either.
In a post on the Standard's blog Monday, Goldfarb expressed his displeasure at the fact that Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab has been charged in civilian court.
"Of course, we ... don't get to interrogate him to find out who he was working with and what other plots are out there," Goldfarb wrote, continuing:
If he were treated as an enemy combatant and transferred to military commission system, we could use Army Field Manual techniques without Miranda (not as effective as enhanced techniques, of course, but much better than standard police practice). We could use his non-Mirandized statements against him in military commissions, so long as the statements were not forcibly coerced and were otherwise reliable.
This isn't the first time conservatives have expressed concern over the possibility of Miranda rights for accused terrorists. After the Obama administration announced that some detainees from Guantánamo Bay would be brought to the U.S. to stand trial, Rush Limbaugh seized on that theme. He even played civil libertarian, saying:
Now, think about something here. There are going to be a lot of precedents set in this trial. For example, let's just look at Miranda. Right now, every suspect has to be read his rights and is told he doesn't have to say a word, that he can get a lawyer.
But if he says something, it can be used against him. Now, if these clowns, if these terrorists are convicted without having been Mirandized, what does that precedent set? If he can be convicted without being Mirandized, if he didn't get his habeas corpus rights, can't they then be denied to us in the future, under this precedent? Well, but they're being given every constitutional protection as though they were citizens. See, this is the point. They get Mirandized, or they don't get Mirandized, and they get convicted. So a precedent is set that suspects do not need to be Mirandized and they can still be found guilty. Okay, so then you end up in the court system, and they don't Mirandize you, and you say, "Wait a minute, I wasn't Mirandized!"
This whole worry is rather silly; it stems from a misunderstanding of the basic principles underlying the Miranda warnings. The part of those warnings that's relevant here deals purely with the right against self-incrimination; it stems from the portion of the Fifth Amendment that reads, "No person shall ... be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself." The typical Miranda warning similarly specifies, "You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say or do can and will be used against you in a court of law." (My emphasis.)
All this is intended to prevent people from involuntarily testifying against themselves in a criminal trial. If law enforcement doesn't care about using a suspect's statements in court, they can interrogate that person without ever reading them their rights; they just can't use any incriminating information at that person's trial. Moreover, again, it's a right against self-incrimination — if a suspected terrorist gives up information about fellow conspirators before being properly Mirandized, that information is admissible.
So what does this mean for Abdulmutallab? Well, it means that — assuming prosecutors are satisfied with the array of charges currently available — law enforcement would technically never even have to Mirandize him. They don't need a confession in order to convict him; he already pretty well incriminated himself by trying to blow up his crotch in front of a bunch of witnesses.
There's another flaw in the logic used by Goldfarb, Limbaugh and others. The Miranda warnings inform someone of his or her rights, no more — interrogation doesn't magically stop at that point. The person in custody still has to exercise those rights. And in this case, it appears that Abdulmutallab has already started talking about some associates.
Details are sketchy, but something has apparently happened to interrupt President Obama's vacation in Hawaii. According to the latest pool report, the president left the golf course "sudden[ly]." The same report says the reason for Obama's departure "is not a matter of national security or because of the president's safety. It is a personal matter."
There is reportedly an ambulance near the Obamas' vacation home, and the president returned there in a "very high-speed and dramatic motorcade," the pool report says.
Update: CNN's reporting that a friend of the Obama family sustained a minor injury.
Update 2: The New York Times' Peter Baker reports that the son of a friend of Obama's, Eric Whitaker, was hurt and needed stitches. "A White House official said the president and his family were fine and not involved," Baker writes.
Ever since the attempted terror attack on Northwest Flight 253 on Christmas Day, political observers have been waiting for President Obama to speak about the incident. On Monday afternoon -- though still morning where he's vacationing in Hawaii -- the president did that.
In a few minutes of remarks, Obama went back over the details of what his administration is doing in response to the attempted bombing, including steps officials will be taking in order to hopefully prevent future incidents like this one. He also discussed planned reviews of the terror watch lists, along with the "no-fly" list; the efficiency of those systems have been thrown into question by revelations that the alleged terrorist's father warned the U.S. about his son.
Though this wasn't an occasion for the grand speechmaking the president's known for, his did go past the mere outlining of the administration's response. Obama also emphasized messages that have been a constant of his rhetoric about terrorism.
"As Americans, we will never give in to fear or division," Obama said. "We will be guided by our hopes, our unity, and our deeply held values."
Finally, Obama addressed recent events in Iran, saying, "The United States joins with the international community in strongly condemning the violent and unjust suppression of innocent Iranian citizens, which has apparently resulted in detentions, injuries, and even death."
More of the president's comments:
I wanted to take just a few minutes to update the American people on the attempted terrorist attack that occurred on Christmas Day and the steps we're taking to ensure the safety and security of the country ....
Here's what we know so far: On Christmas Day, Northwest Airlines Flight 253 was en route from Amsterdam, Netherlands, to Detroit. As the plane made its final approach to Detroit Metropolitan Airport, a passenger allegedly tried to ignite an explosive device on his body, setting off a fire.
Thanks to the quick and heroic actions of passengers and crew, the suspect was immediately subdued, the fire was put out, and the plane landed safely. The suspect is now in custody and has been charged with attempting to destroy an aircraft.
A full investigation has been launched into this attempted act of terrorism, and we will not rest until we find all who were involved and hold them accountable.
Now, this was a serious reminder of the dangers that we face and the nature of those who threaten our homeland. Had the suspect succeeded in bringing down that plane, it could have killed nearly 300 passengers and crew, innocent civilians preparing to celebrate the holidays with their families and friends.
The American people should be assured that we are doing everything in our power to keep you and your family safe and secure during this busy holiday season.
Since I was first notified of this incident, I've ordered the following actions to be taken to protect the American people and to secure air travel.
First, I directed that we take immediate steps to ensure the safety of the traveling public. We made sure that all flights still in the air were secure and could land safely. We immediately enhanced screening and security procedures for all flights, domestic and international. We added federal air marshals to flights entering and leaving the United States. And we're working closely in this country, federal, state and local law enforcement, with our international partners.
Second, I've ordered two important reviews, because it's absolutely critical that we learn from this incident and take the necessary measures to prevent future acts of terrorism.
The first review involves our watch list system, which our government has had in place for many years to identify known and suspected terrorists so that we can prevent their entry into the United States. Apparently the suspect in the Christmas incident was in this system, but not on a watch list, such as the so-called no-fly list. So I have ordered a thorough review, not only of how information related to the subject was handled, but of the overall watch list system and how it can be strengthened.
The second review will examine all screening policies, technologies and procedures related to air travel. We need to determine just how the suspect was able to bring dangerous explosives aboard an aircraft and what additional steps we can take to thwart future attacks.
Third, I've directed my national security team to keep up the pressure on those who would attack our country. We do not yet have all the answers about this latest attempt, but those who would slaughter innocent men, women and children must know that the United States will more -- do more than simply strengthen our defenses. We will continue to use every element of our national power to disrupt, to dismantle and defeat the violent extremists who threaten us, whether they are from Afghanistan or Pakistan, Yemen or Somalia, or anywhere where they are plotting attacks against the U.S. homeland.
Finally, the American people should remain vigilant, but also be confident. Those plotting against us seek not only to undermine our security, but also the open society and the values that we cherish as Americans. This incident, like several that have preceded it, demonstrates that an alert and courageous citizenry are far more resilient than an isolated extremist.
As a nation, we will do everything in our power to protect our country. As Americans, we will never give in to fear or division. We will be guided by our hopes, our unity, and our deeply held values. That's who we are as Americans; that's what our brave men and women in uniform are standing up for as they spend the holidays in harm's way. And we will continue to do everything that we can to keep America safe in the new year and beyond.
War Room is written and edited by Alex Koppelman, with contributions from Salon reporters around the country.
It's a historic day, indeed
Bernanke's Boffo Week
Catholic Charities...Nothings For Free?
