I think Robert Frost's poem, Not To Keep, captures this burden painfully well.  On the eve of Memorial Day weekend, with so many soldiers today serving multiple tours in Iraq and Afghanistan, many losing their lives and still others experiencing lasting psychological trauma, we should all keep in mind those on the front lines and their loved ones at home who share these remarkable people with us.

They sent him back to her. The letter came
Saying... And she could have him. And before
She could be sure there was no hidden ill
Under the formal writing, he was in her sight,
Living. They gave him back to her alive-
How else? They are not known to send the dead-
And not disfigured visibly. His face?
His hands? She had to look, and ask,
"What was it, dear?" And she had given all
And still she had all-they had-they the lucky!
Wasn't she glad now? Everything seemed won,
And all the rest for them permissible ease.
She had to ask, "What was it, dear?"

"Enough,
Yet not enough. A bullet through and through,
High in the breast. Nothing but what good care
And medicine and rest, and you a week,
Can cure me of to go again." The same
Grim giving to do over for them both.
She dared no more than ask him with her eyes
How was it with him for a second trial.
And with his eyes he asked her not to ask.
They had given him back to her, but not to keep.

While I don’t dispute that a pay freeze is in order for NJ teachers (although the net-effect on budgets is much less than many assume--the benefits are the more impactful, and thornier, issue), comparing the Governor’s salary to that of a public school teacher completely ignores the cost of living. The average teacher in NJ makes about $57,000 per year (of course, this number is inflated by a small portion of teachers making close to and over $100,000). That equates to roughly 1.5 times the poverty line for a family of four. The Governor’s salary of $175,000 per year is equal to almost 7 times the poverty line. Taking away 4% of the Governor’s salary still leaves him and his family with an income of almost 6 times above the poverty level.

I’d say the relative impact on one’s quality of life—and, therefore, the amount of pain they are sharing—is largely dependent on what salary you are starting from.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has led the oppositions framing charge by claiming that the bill amounts to 'a permanent bail out of Wall Street'.  Emphasizing government mismanagement, largess, and lack of concern for the everyday tax payer, the framing strategy is well developed (and it should be as it is largely the product of Frank Luntz, a Conservative master at language and messaging).  Opponents to the bill are attempting to link the reform bill to the controversial and publicly unpopular 'bail outs' that occurred during the height of the economic crisis.  Additionally, McConnell and others claim that the preferred policy should be to simply let large financial institutions fail--let the free market work its magic.

What the Democrats should be doing is vigorously and publicly defending the mechanisms in the bill (even those like the $50 billion resolution fund, which was actually inserted by Republicans and community banks), and doing so with particular frames in mind.

What the bill actually does

First, the bill does not provide for a sort of permanent moral hazard, whereby large banks would always benefit (and know up front they would benefit) from government intervention.  In fact, what the bill seeks to establish is a process similar to what the FDIC has in place ("resolution authority") that allows for the government to seize a faltering institution and safely wind it down without benefiting the senior management and stockholders at the expense of tax payers.  The simple fact is that when the major, complex financial institutions in this country began to falter in 2008 we simply did not have the mechanisms in place to deal with their collapse--Lehman Brothers is not the same as a run-of-the-mill community bank.  Reading the history of the crisis one sees over and over again that players in both the Bush and Obama administrations largely muddled through--to some extent making up their response to runs on investment banks and other financial institutions as they went along.

The fact of the matter is that in a free-market there will, at some point, be a financial institution that is "too interconnected to fail"--size matters less than how interdependent an institution is with other major institutions in the global economy.  (It isn't the size of a domino that matters so much as how many dominoes that single domino can eventually knock down.)  In that case, the orderly winding down of the operation is preferable to simply letting it fail, since letting it fail will trigger failures throughout the economic system.  The point here is not to scrap the free-market system, but rather to protect it and ensure it not only functions properly, but endures and flourishes.  One accomplishes this through orderly wind downs, not simply letting the institution crash and burn.  When we simply allow these firms to crash and burn we place at risk thousands (and, in the case of 2008, millions) of jobs.  Protecting the economy equates to protecting the jobs of US citizens.

Second, when it comes to winding down an operation that is as interconnected with the global financial system as a Lehman, funding is critical.  When major financial institutions began to collapse the only place one could find adequate funding was the US government--i.e. the American tax payers.  This was the essential logic behind the TARP program.  The problem with TARP is that American tax payers, not the troubled institutions, were taking on all the risk attached to the bail outs.  The current bill provides for an industry-funded resource of $50 billion dollars that can be used to wind down interconnected institutions.  The banking industry, not the tax payer, foots the bill.  (My own feeling is that the $50 billion fund is likely less than what may be required, but it is $50 billion more than the government had this past go around.  The House version of the bill boosts this number to $150 billion.  The resolution fund, as it is called, was actually inserted into the Senate version of the bill by Republicans and community banks.)

How you say something is just as important as what you say

Political communication isn't simply a matter of who has the more logical, well-reasoned argument.  It is not Socratic.  It is about how your argument is communicated to the public.  Ideas do not speak for themselves.  Republicans have known this for quite some time and, frankly, have become masters at manipulating language in such a way as to advantageously sway public opinion.  The framing of a policy is just as (if not more) important as the policy's actual substance.  Whether you are trying to defeat a bill or sheppard it along to victory how you talk about the bill is of paramount importance.  The Democrats should be countering Republican opposition with their own frame:  "This bill will protect tax payers, ensure that reckless businesses do not benefit from their actions, and safe guard the economy so that millions of Americans will not lose their jobs as they did during the previous crisis."

Protecting tax payers, punishing reckless actors, and safeguarding jobs--that's as American as apple pie.

As you move downward, into categories of spending that are increasingly popular, you get to the largest federal programs, particularly entitlement spending. Really, there is only one area of federal spending — national defense — that is sizable and that even a modest fraction (22%) is willing to cut.

In fact, there is a negative relationship between the budgetary share allocated to a policy area and the fraction who want to cut it. The correlation coefficient between the poll percentages and the budget percentages is -.33 (with or without the obvious potential outlier, foreign aid, included).

The programs that make up the largest percentage of the federal government's budget are, in most cases, the programs that voters least want to cut funding for. This means that those programs whose trimming would enjoy broad support aren't large enough to move the needle in any meaningful way.  (I still never cease to be amazed at these polling results when it comes to foreign aid.)  Political pressure to continue funding the largest programs makes it all but impossible that we'll see the biggest programs

I would imagine we would see a similar pattern emerge in businesses (or any other organization for that matter) as certain highly funded programs gather a large number of benefactors and, therefore, supporters.

The argument to allow off-shore drilling is that there are valuable crude deposits that the US can tap into and refine, lessening our dependence on foreign oil, particular from authoritarian and unstable regimes. However, the President is only allowing a relatively small amount of drilling, which is likely to net the US only a very modest amount of oil. (The amount that may be extracted This will in no significant way lessen our dependence on imports. Additionally, we won’t see this oil for years—so there is still the short term issue of foreign imports.

So if the policy is essentially ineffective, why implement it? Maybe it’s politics.

Unfortunately, the decision fails there as well. In order to ensure passage of any one of the President’s remaining legislative goals (e.g. Cap-and-trade, financial regulatory reform, etc), the Democrats must persuade at least one Republican to break ranks in the Senate. Particularly with regards to Cap-and-trade, one could see the move to allow off-shore drilling as part of a political bargain to gain Republican votes. However, the restrictions that were lifted did not include the most promising areas of exploration--this has already angered many Republicans. Additionally, the President now faces heat from his left as the environmental lobby, and those members of the Senate that need their support, has made it clear that if one were to lift the 20-year ban on exploration it would have been nice to get something in return that would have an impact on climate change. So far, the President has nothing to show for the move.

It would have made more sense for the President to have secured a vote or two from the Republicans in exchange for the partial lifting of the ban.  It is unclear what he can now bring to the table in order to persuade members of the opposition to support the bill.  Since allowing additional drilling is unlikely, why would Republicans offer up their vote since they've theoretically gotten all they could hope for in terms of off-shore drilling without having to give up anything? Moreover, the Republicans can't claim to have secured the drilling rights in exchange for their vote since the President voluntarily lifted the restrictions. That makes it even harder for Republicans to explain their support for a bill with powerful constituents.

A curious move indeed.

Policy

On the one hand, few would argue that our current health care system is not in need of reform, particularly when it comes to access and cost.  Polls strongly reflect this across the ideological spectrum.  However, while the current bill will seek to cover millions of Americans that, for whatever reason, do not have access to health care (as well as ensure that in the future citizens cannot be denied coverage due to pre-existing conditions) it remains to be seen if this is the most effective way to guarantee such coverage.  However, in order to achieve this the bill leverages a number of provisions that are both controversial politically and not guaranteed to be effective in practice.

For example, let's take a look at pre-existing conditions.  While the bill would ensure that people cannot be denied coverage due to pre-existing conditions it will require an insurance purchase mandate in order to keep premiums from skyrocketing. This is one reason why many (including myself) were calling for a public option or single payer. A public option provides people denied coverage elsewhere a safe haven. However, with a public option you still require a mandate since both the government plan and private insurers run the risk of having their risk pool skewed significantly in the wrong direction (since more sick people would be opting in than healthy individuals). Single payer goes even further, since it would remove the problem in its entirety of mandates and pre-existing conditions. Covering everyone by law eliminates mandates and ensures the widest possible and least-skewed risk pool. A compromise could have been to at least include a public option trigger. This would have created some additional pressure on insurance companies to lower their prices and extend coverage without directly increasing the deficit. This bill simply doesn't bring any such pressure. The bill also lacks any market-based mechanisms to increase competition which, in theory, may also expand coverage and lower costs.

An additional problem is that while the CBO has scored the bill as a deficit reducing measure 10 years out one major cost issue related to health care is not addressed in this bill: the so-called "Doc-Fix". While the bill does include ~$500B in Medicare savings and cuts, it does not deal with the massive financial issue of the looming rate increase to doctors who treat individuals under Medicare. It is a complex matter, but at the end of the day this could require an additional $250B dollars over ten years to cover costs.

One argument for passing the current bill is that it is a start--get a foundation in place and then tweak and add provisions as necessary. The argument against this approach is that it assumes that current conditions and incentives continue past November. From a Democratic perspective, it assumes that the Democrats will be in a position to get additional health care measures passed. Both history and current poll numbers indicate that the make up of both the House and Senate will look very different than today. Additionally, and related to politics, it is hard to imagine surviving Democrats sticking their necks out to pass further health care measures after witnessing the fallout from the November vote.

Politics

Politically, the President and congressional Democrats have effectively trapped themselves with this bill. While it clearly appears to be a bill that various factions within the party do not like, they've sunk so many costs into its crafting and passage that it is hard to imagine a scenario where they decide not to proceed and instead offer a different bill up for debate. The cost/benefit analysis here is inconclusive: passing a flawed bill could be viewed as a major legislative victory leading up to the midterm elections. And while many of the party faithful will not be overjoyed with its provisions, it may be seen as an improvement over what previously existed. Not passing health care reform could be viewed as a betrayal. This will not only have a negative impact on individual members of Congress, but on President Obama's ability to move other parts of his agenda forward over the next few years.

However, it could just as easily trigger disappointment from many in the base, demobilizing those who would be key to what is sure to be a tough November election. Additionally, Republicans will certainly run against the bill and given how independents have polled on this issue are likely to make significant congressional gains as a result. Moreover, the vast majority of Americans will not experience any direct benefit from the bill early on, which is likely to trigger disappointment and anger--at the very least, they won't be very impressed by its passage, making it harder for Democrats to secure reelection in contentious areas and for Obama to utilize public approval to move additional pieces of legislation forward.

Moreover, by using self-executing rules and reconciliation in order to gain passage, the view is developing that this will make the bill less legitimate in the eyes of voters.  Rightly or wrongly, the fact is that process here is having a negative impact on public opinion.  And when you combine that view with the fact that most will not experience direct benefits for some time it creates an even more hostile election environment for Democrats going forward.

Finally, as mentioned above, passing the current bill and hoping for incremental improvements is unlikely given the likely altered composition of Congress after November and the fear that many remaining Democrats will have in taking up such measures after many of their colleagues are shown the door. Furthermore, President Obama is not likely to keep health care reform at the top of his legislative agenda after this current battle concludes. In order to win reelection, the President will need to run on the strength of a diversified portfolio of political accomplishments. This likely means he will take on new issues, such as financial regulation, economics and job creation, etc. After the current battle over health care I cannot imagine he and his advisers would choose to revisit the issue two years out from the general election.

My personal view is that from a policy perspective the bill should not pass. I would much rather see a bill with a public option or, at the least, a public option trigger. However, politically this would leave the Democrats and President Obama with little to run on come November. I would argue, however, that other Presidents have recovered from failed major policy initiatives prior to midterms--midterms where their parties lost majorities. One recent example is President Clinton who was able to recover and have a productive presidency that spanned two terms. While it will be a roll of the dice either way, the country and the Democrats may be better off taking their chances with another bill.

Really?

Mr. Durham, let me introduce you to Google.  It takes all of .25 seconds (I know this because Google tells you how fast your search took) to locate quotes from President Bush and members of his administration that implicitly and explicitly lay blame for a bad economy at the feet of President Clinton.  Here are a few examples:

"I tell you what the numbers are showing. They're showing that we've inherited an economic slowdown and the country is in an economic slowdown." President George W. Bush, 8/23/01

"When I took office, our economy was beginning a recession. That's what the facts have shown." President George W. Bush, 8/7/02

"By the time we took office, the economy was sliding into recession." Vice President Dick Cheney, 10/24/03

"The president inherited a Clinton recession and turned it into the early stages of Bush prosperity." Commerce Secretary Donald Evans, 9/2/04

What’s more interesting is that Mr. Durham doesn’t seem to find fault with the logic that early in a Presidency an administration may be dealing with issues not of their making, as he explicitly notes that President Bush “entered office with a recession and a previous president who was afraid to take on the terrorists.”  So is his actual quibble with the use of people's names versus vague, PR-friendly language that simply implies someone else left behind a mess to be handled?  This seems like the silliest of issues to be debating considering the challenges the country faces.

We are all entitled to our own opinions, but we are not entitled to our own facts.

Investors are sometimes accused of treating the stock market like a casino. Now, one Wall Street firm wants to treat casinos like the stock market.

Bond-trading specialist Cantor Fitzgerald in March took over the management of sports betting at the M Resort, a new 390-room hotel and casino on the Strip's southern edge.

"We wanted to turn gamblers into traders," says Lee Amaitis, the 60-year-old Cantor executive who runs the gambling division, Cantor Gaming.

To do that, the company has transformed Las Vegas sports betting into something it thinks is akin to derivatives trading. By using financial-markets technology, Cantor allows bettors to wager not only on who might win the game or by how much, but also on whether a team can complete its next pass or make a field goal.

Essentially, in-game betting of this nature is not new. However, it is not a robust practice here in the United States. In fact, Cantor is seemingly the only firm that allows for such bets at this time (the practice is apparently common in Europe). What is interesting is that such an approach allows gamblers (or what are essentially traders) to effectively hedge their bets (investments):

As the teams jockeyed for the lead, the betting line, which had started out favoring the Jets, shifted to Miami and back again many times. "The market keeps going up and down, like bonds trading," Mr. Perry said during a Jets drive in the fourth quarter.

With his pick, Miami, in the lead, Mr. Perry decided it would be a good time to hedge his bet slightly. He tapped a screen for a $50 bet that the Jets would score during the drive—at about four-to-one odds. Not long after, a Braylon Edwards reception set up a touchdown.

"I was looking for a miracle and I got lucky," Mr. Perry said, a small gold boxing glove strung around his neck. "I have $800 to $900 on Miami so now I'm almost $200 into that margin."

This seems to me a natural progression. The financial world has made significant strides in its analytical and risk mitigation strategies. (In fact, modern risk mitigation strategies evolved from gaming in the ancient world.) From an analytical perspective, we've seen major advancements in sports like baseball, basketball, and football. Given the plethora of data, and the fact that players in sports compete in a more closed-system than firms in a market (making predictions based on past performance more reliable), sophisticated gamblers should certainly benefit from Cantor's system.

It does beg the question whether gambling on sports should be as restricted as it is considering that the difference between gambling and investing in securities is somewhat superficial. In both realms there will be winners and losers. There will be those that take a systematic approach and those that will get in over their heads. There is nothing to stop an amateur trader from opening an internet-based trading account and losing their savings in short order if they make bad bets in the market. Additionally, the incentives for corruption appears equally as strong in the corporate world as the sports world. Both should of course be regulated, but the rationale for treating sports betting differently than investing is getting harder to sustain.

Senator Joe Lieberman (the former Democrat, now Independent, from Connecticut) has been repeating his own talking point that the insertion of a public option into the health reform debate amounts to "bait-and-switch" tactics by the Democrats. His reasoning: "[...] if you look at the campaign last year, the presidential, you can't find a mention of the public option."

Now there is much we can disagree on as a public regarding the proper role of government and what a sensible health care reform bill would include. But Senator Lieberman's claim flies in the face of, well, facts:

• The Democratic National Platform for 2008 notes that, while the candidates' plans differ, the party was dedicated to providing citizens "...the option of keeping the coverage they have or choosing from a wide array of health insurance plans, including many private health insurance options and a public plan. Coverage should be made affordable for all Americans with subsidies provided through tax credits and other means." (my emphasis)
• Both the Obama and Clinton campaigns included a public option as part of their proposals for universal health care coverage. The major difference between the two leading candidates had more to do with whether to require all Americans to purchase insurance (Clinton said yes, Obama said no), not whether to include a public option.
• As late as October 2008 (and as early September of 2007), then-candidate Barack Obama's health care plan included a proposal for insurance exchanges and a public option for those that did not have access to other private or public insurance options. Additionally, during the Presidential debates of 2008, Barck Obama repeatedly made the claim that under his plan Americans that did not currently have insurance would have access to expanded government coverage. Obama and McCain differed greatly on this point and it was pronounced during their debates.

If Senator Lieberman has specific philosophical, ideological, or well-reasoned objections to a public option he is more than welcome to air those. But complaining that the Democrats withheld their desire to increase the government's role in providing health insurance coverage neither furthers the debate nor makes him look all that, well, "Senatorial".

Did the precise legislation before the Senate appear during the presidential election last year? No. The current legislation is the result of horse trading, compromise, and muddling through (as all legislation is). Politics (and legislation) is the art of the possible, a concept I am sure the Senator is familiar with. Did the campaign and debate leading up to the election include precise discussion of additional government-backed insurance options in order to cover all Americans? Yes. If Lieberman missed this he ignored all coverage of the presidential election as well as the general Democratic campaign platform.

I would suggest the good Senator familiarize himself with Google and catch up on what he apparently missed.

• The USPSTF was founded in 1984, so this is not a new body formed with the intent of helping government ration health care
• The USPSTF's recommendations are not binding on either health care providers, or public/private insurance organizations.  In many cases they do help guide clinical standards for many professional care groups, but already relevant groups have said they will not follow the current recommendation on mammography
• The USPSTF did not take cost into account in their analysis.  They publish all of their studies on their website, and that includes their data and methodology
• The evaluation and voting on the recommendation was actually completed prior to the latest Presidential election (June 2008)
• The USPSTF did not recommend that women not receive mammograms between the ages of 40-49; they did recommend individual and additional factors be taken into consideration to determine whether the procedure should be offered or recommended on a case-by-case basis.  The recommendation was actually meant to provide women with greater individual choice over whether to receive the procedure, rather than have it be automatic.

This is not meant to defend their recommendation or the way it was conveyed (which was sloppy at best).  One can and should quibble with the rationale used by the USPSTF to recommend that mammograms only be issued on a case by case basis for women ages 40-49 versus offering the service to all women in that age range automatically.

The current antitrust exemption has nothing to do with coverage and cost when talking about health insurance.  The exemption has its biggest effect on property/causality insurance, which is meaningless for the current debate.  In fact, the exemption allows for greater competition by lowering the barriers to entry for smaller insurers in the p/c markets.  Additionally, while it also included provisions regarding medical malpractice liability coverage there is no evidence that removing the exemption would have a positive effect on those rates.  The kind of competition that would have an appreciable affect on health insurance costs (i.e. competition across state lines, etc.) are not connected to the antitrust exemption.

There are some Senators (e.g. Ben Nelson) who may withhold their vote to allow debate if the bill is used to strip insurers of the antitrust exemption.  It would seem exceeding foolish to stall much needed debate simply for a provision that will have no positive impact on the major issue at hand.

In the case of the recently announced trials for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM) and other suspected 9-11 plotters, we've seen lots of objections from members of the Community Editorial Board.  The reasons range from security concerns, to costs, and most prominently to the emotional view that these murderers do not deserve a trial.  All of these are legitimate objections that deserve a reasoned airing.  Keeping these concerns in mind, however, I would argue that, as a country, we are better served putting these men on trial rather than summarily executing them.

First, the argument that as mass murders and war criminals they don't deserve a trial runs counter to US law, culture, and the history of international conflict in the modern age.  We provide trials for numerous individuals everyday who are suspected of horrendous and despicable acts.  We may not like it (I certainly don't in many cases), but that is the cost of doing business, so to speak, for living in a liberal democracy.  The trials are more about who we are as a society than who the perpetrators are or what they deserve.  A reading of the history of the Nuremberg Trials drives this point home.  Certainly, there were similar concerns at the time about whether the Nazis and members of the Japanese military deserved a trial.  In the end, the decision was made that not only could we make these individuals stand trial, but that we would be all the stronger for it.  Moreover, we have tried numerous terrorists in civilian court in the United States, so this is far from a novel endeavor.

Second, for the Attorney General to make the decision to try these individuals in open court means that, more than likely, he has a preponderance of evidence that will prove beyond a reasonable doubt that these men are guilty.  More to the point, it is highly probable that the Attorney General has enough 'untainted' evidence to go to trial, ensuring that counsel for the defendants cannot rely on a strategy that makes an issue of the various acts of torture and 'enhanced' interrogation techniques applied in this case.  This minimizes the risk that defendants in this case would be set free due to evidence being thrown out by a judge.

Third, while most Americans would like nothing more than to see those responsible pay for the crimes with their lives (and I would be in this camp) we must be careful how that justice is meted out. There are larger concerns than our emotional satisfaction--namely, the larger battle being waged internationally. From a foreign policy perspective, we get more mileage from providing these individuals with a fair, open trial at the end of which a jury decides their fate. It provides greater leverage in the war for hearts and minds as well as provides greater cover for leaders of states that have to worry about to what extent their domestic populations will allow them to work with the United States. (Even authoritarian regimes have to worry about domestic support.) No one thinks we will turn other terrorists' hearts by holding a trail--it is the rest of the world we are interested in gaining leverage with. Additionally, the most skeptical of people will likely view the trial as nothing more than a show whose ending was orchestrated by the government. However, in much the same way that politicians win elections by winning the support of centrist voters, the United States has a better chance of winning battles internationally by winning the support (or at least benign indifference) of many communities around the world from which terrorists often draw support (tacit or otherwise).  We don't need to convince them all.

(On a related note, there is another line of argument that we may be better off punishing these suspects with life in prison rather than the death penalty. Death to these individuals (and to their fervent supporters) is not something to loathe, but rather confers upon them the desired status of martyr. I am not sure I agree with the argument, but it is a valid one nonetheless and one that intelligence and military experts continue to ponder.)

In sum, while the notion of providing the suspected 9-11 conspirators a trial may seem repugnant to many, there are many reasons to believe that it serves the national interest to do so.  It is certainly not an easy thing to do, but it may just be the right thing.

A recent study by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (the non-partisan organization that administers Medicare and Medicaid) questions whether the $500 billion dollars in proposed spending reductions in Medicare may restrict access to providers for those dependent on the program.  The reason is economics 101: reimbursement by the government would significantly decrease, leading many providers to chase those patients with private insurance plans that would presumably pay more.  The potential implication is that those relying on Medicare may find it harder to gain access to providers.

The report also notes that reform will increase access to health care for those who currently lack insurance.  Additionally, the report notes that out-of-pocket spending and total expenditures on health care would decrease, and infusions for Medicare would be put off until at least 2022.

What it is unclear (since I can't seem to find a copy of the actual report--if you find it, please email me) is to what extent the analysis takes into account the inevitable decline in reimbursement by private insurers. Private insurers stand to be the biggest losers, regardless of what form the final bill takes. As a result, they will likely do two things to ensure their revenue and profits are protected: raise premiums and cut expenditures in the form of payments to health care and drug providers. So while government funding will decrease you will likely have a similar decrease from private insurers, possibly keeping incentives to accept Medicare the same as before the reform.

The question of whether or not the reform eventually passed provides the proper incentives to ensure continued access to care for those that need it most is a critical question. Unfortunately, it is also a difficult one to answer, especially when you are talking about forecasts years down the road. Regardless, this is an issue that citizens should expect to hear debated and the logic for claims by Republicans and Democrats needs to be clearly stated so that it can be scrutinized. Because at the end of the day, if we get the incentives wrong health care will certainly not improve.

• Medicare has actually been more efficient than private insurers in terms of cost per beneficiary, so when you say it is broken you have to say in comparison to what.  That being said, there are many areas where the program can be more cost-efficient and the bill attempts to leverage many of those areas to help pay for overall reform.
• Funding in terms of tax increases depends on which version of the bill you are looking at.  The House version does include a 5.4% tax on couples with an adjusted gross income (AGI) over $1M and individuals with AGI over $500,000.  The Senate versions of the bill include a number of other revenue generating options and in general the reform will create cost savings through various reform measures.  Small business owner or not, we are talking about an increase in the personal income tax of someone earning an adjusted gross income of over half a million dollars a year.  (I think Don may be mixing taxes on businesses with payrolls over $500K and taxes on personal income above $500k.)
• Penalties for not buying insurance vary by bill, but I have yet to see any language that proposes a prison term or the amounts Don lists.  Both Senate version include a fine that eventually reaches $750 and the House version includes a provision for 2.5% of adjusted gross income above a certain level.  Perhaps Don is referring to the discussion on whether it is a 'fee' versus a 'tax'--if the latter, technically the fine for a misdemeanor would be up to a year in jail and $25,000 in fines.  It is only if the refusal is considered a felony, and prospectors chose both to pursue the case and seek the maximum penalty, that an individual would risk that kind of punishment.  Saying that the bill would require you to go to jail or pay $250,000 is playing it fast and loose with the actual text of the bill and the likely implementation of penalites.  Additionally, President Obama has already stated that he will accept mandates as long as the bill provides for exceptions for those that cannot afford it.
• Tort reform has been a red herring for decades. Every analysis that has been done concludes that such reform would have a minimal impact on costs. The biggest impact may be on the possible deterrent for individual doctors to enter or continue practice, but in aggregate this is not significantly impacting health care costs.
• Sections 242 and 246 of the House bill specifically excludes those individuals in the United States illegally. (e.g. "Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States." Section 246).
• While increasing competition may certainly help, the version of the Republican reform bill allows numerous backdoors for insurance companies looking to deny coverage to those that need it most. Insurance companies would still be able to deny insurance to high-risk individuals. Additionally, the plan lacks any kind of uniform, federal regulation for the industry, allowing for insurance firms to shop around--state by state--for the one with the least strenuous regulations. How is this an improvement over the current situation?

None of this takes into account that the final bill has not been written--that will happen during conference and will involve input from leadership of the House, Senate, and of course the President. Considering that the chances for reform were nowhere to be found 12 months ago, current proposals (flawed, though they may be) represent a significant step in the right direction.

A great illustration of this is Health Care reform.  By all indications, Republicans in Congress have no intention of supporting any of the current versions of Health Care legislation in the House or Senate.  And any savvy political observer would have known this from the start (as it was stated explicitly in memos and more than hinted at in public statements).  This makes the Administration's decision to doggedly pursue Republican support of a Health Care bill, even if it just one legislator, a major strategic error.

At best, the Administration may believe that by getting even one powerful legislator from the Republican party to support a bill it will provide cover for others to similarly jump on the bandwagon.  Currently, there appears only one Republican willing to publicly back an Obama-backed Health Care reform bill--Senator Olympia Snowe.  So far, there is no indication that her support will provide additional Republican votes.

Assuming only Snowe will vote yeah, will her lone vote signal bipartisan support for this legislation?  No.  No rational (or pseudo-rational, for that matter) observer would come to the conclusion that consensus had been reached because Senator Snowe sided with the Democrats.

If that is the case, why waste time, energy, and political capital chasing a single vote that provides zero political leverage?  Like the stimulus bill earlier in his Presidency, President Obama and the Democrats will 'own' this bill.  If you are going to own it, why not pass the bill that you think has the best chance of succeeding as policy, rather than watering it down in the hopes that one or two members of the opposition decides to break ranks?  Successful policy will create much greater political capital than merely appearing to be bipartisan.