ThinkProgress Logo

Politics

Tom Tancredo storms off the set of MSNBC during debate with DailyKos’ Markos Moulitsas.

Today on the Ed Show, former Republican congressman Tom Tancredo tried to argue that all veterans are unhappy with their health care under the Veterans Administration — as proof of why government-run care doesn’t work:

Every veterans group I ever went and talked to complained about the Veterans Administration and the way it was a bureaucratically-run program that didn’t serve their needs. They would much rather have vouchers that would let them go out and buy their insurance in a private marketplace.

When the other guest on the program, DailyKos founder Markos Moulitsas, started laughing, Tancredo replied, “You’re laughing, but talk to the veterans. They talk to me, and that’s why they said.” Markos then informed Tancredo that he actually is a veteran, adding, “I did not get a deferment because I was too depressed to fight in a war that I supported in Vietnam. I’m a veteran, Tom.” Tancredo became incensed at Markos, calling his comment “stupid” and demanding that he apologize. When he didn’t, Tancredo stormed off the set. Watch it:

As Markos noted, Tancredo was eligible to serve in Vietnam and was a supporter of the war, but received a deferment after “he went for his physical, telling doctors he’d been treated for depression.” After Tancredo left, Markos went on to say that Republicans are “terrified of government programs that work” because it threatens the myths they have built up.

Climate Progress

Jon Stewart Joins Critics: The Science Of SuperFreakonomics Is ‘Not Good’

The Daily Show’s Jon Stewart has joined the critics who found that SuperFreakonomics got climate science wrong. When economist Steven Levitt came on the show to promote the book on October 27th, Stewart defended his work, wondering if critics were just part of a “secular religion.” Levitt had portrayed former Vice President Al Gore as the “patron saint” of the “religion” of global warming, who has chilled investigation into “cheap and simple” solutions because of his “moralism and angst.” However, two days later, Stewart interviewed Gore to discuss his own new book, Our Choice. In the mean time, Stewart belatedly did some reading up on this fundamental issue, and found that the “science was, according to actual people who know climate science, not good”:

We had on a guy on the show, Steve Levitt — Freakonomics — whose science was, according to actual people who know climate science, not good, but it seemed like the tone of the book was, “Why don’t we just think about these other things?” People came at him hard.

Watch it (Stewart mentions SuperFreakonomics at 4:20):

Levitt and Dubner have now admitted, begrudgingly, that they misportrayed climate scientist Ken Caldeira’s own views about his research. To be more precise, they have announced they will change the sentence that claimed Caldeira believes carbon dioxide “is not the right villain in this fight” to omit Caldeira’s name. Despite this one welcome change, the book continues to be a farrago of errors, personal attacks, and unfounded conclusions.

Stewart, however, continues to not understand why the book came under such withering criticism. In his interviews that touch upon global warming — with EPA administrator Lisa Jackson, global warming denier Chris Horner, journalist Bob Woodruff — Stewart has consistently acted bemused, which is often a good interview technique. But it also seems that Stewart’s bafflement is genuine, failing to understand that billions of dollars have been spent by polluters and their political allies for decades to distort the clear need for decisive action. He does not seem to know that greenhouse gases are already reshaping the world we live in, destroying ecosystems and economies.

At least Stewart is just a comic. Our nation’s journalists have no such excuse.

Politics

Rep. Foxx: ‘All of us want all Americans to have health insurance and access to good health care.’

During this afternoon’s Rules Committee hearing to determine which amendments would be introduced during floor debate of the House health care bill, Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC) announced that everyone can agree that Republicans want “all Americans to have affordable health insurance and good quality health care”:

FOXX: I think we should start with the premise that I have felt all along, despite being questioned on this by my colleagues, that all of us want all Americans to have health insurance and access to good health care. Again, despite accusations made against me, I think we would be all better off if we accepted that assumption. We want to go about it in different ways. But I think accusing each other of things that aren’t true isn’t a good way to start out this meeting. And so I want to say I believe everybody wants all Americans to have affordable health insurance and good quality health care. I just take that assumption.

Watch it:

But Americans shouldn’t “just take that assumption.” In fact, according to the Congressional Budget Office, under the Republican alternative, the number of uninsured Americans would increase to 52 million by 2019. The plan would provide coverage to only 3 million more uninsured Americans. Earlier in the hearing, Foxx suggested that it’s better to be uninsured than enrolled in the government’s Medicaid program. “I want to ask you if you know that Medicaid patients visit the emergency room at twice the rate of uninsured patients in this country,” she said. “More government paid insurance is going to increase the number of people going to the emergency rooms.”

Security

Joe Wilson And GOP Colleagues Lie About Immigrants And Health Care Reform

Today, Rep. Joe ‘You Lie’ Wilson (R-SC) staged a press conference with several other Republican congressmen during which Wilson and his colleagues repeatedly lied about taxpayers funding the health care coverage of 2.5 million additional undocumented immigrants under H.R. 3962.

WILSON: I am sorry to report that the Polosi take-over bill has loopholes in it which actually is even worse than H.R. 3200. In fact, according to the Congressional Budget Office [CBO], the number of illegal aliens who would benefit from receiving health care benefits in this country would increase by 2.5 million. From 6 million to 8.5 million people [undocumented immigrants] would be able to receive health care benefits. It would cost the American taxpayer 30.5 billion dollars for people who have illegally come to this country.

Watch it:

The CBO estimate actually doesn’t say anything about 2.5 million additional undocumented immigrants receiving health care benefits. What it does say is that about half of the 17 million non-elderly residents who would remain uninsured if H.R. 3200 passed would be “unauthorized immigrants” (8.5 million) and approximately one third of the 18 million who would remain uninsured under H.R. 3962 would be unauthorized (6 million). The CBO’s analysis does not reference the undocumented population other than to point out that the percentage of the uninsured population increases if undocumented immigrants are included in its estimates. There is no reference as to how many undocumented immigrants would be covered by the proposed health care bill because both CBO analyses were essentially written under the assumption that undocumented immigrants will not be eligible.

When it comes down to it, it’s hard to say how many undocumented immigrants would remain uninsured because there is so little information on the population. In a recent blog post, the CBO explained:

The use of the terms “about one-third” and “nearly half” was meant to convey the uncertainty and imprecision surrounding our estimates of the characteristics of the remaining uninsured population. Because of that uncertainty and imprecision, we cannot provide a specific figure for coverage of unauthorized immigrants under any of the proposals. Despite the difference in wording, we would not expect any significant differences between the two bills in the number of uninsured who are unauthorized immigrants, because the relevant features of the two proposals are similar.

The CBO does not discuss how many undocumented immigrants will be insured if health care reform passes, but it’s unlikely that their insurance will be tax-payer funded. Under both House bills, undocumented immigrants are permitted to participate in the health exchange and purchase insurance at full cost with their own money. They do not qualify for subsidies. Ultimately, most undocumented immigrants avoid interacting with the US government and it’s improbable that any large number will risk getting deported just to pay lower premiums. Wilson’s claim that undocumented immigrants will cost taxpayers $30.5 billion is either misinformed or downright deceitful.

The merged House bill requires US citizens to be verified against Social Security Administration data and non-citizens to be verified using the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) Program which was designed to help benefit-granting agencies ensure that only entitled applicants receive benefits.

Dan Stein, President of the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) joined Wilson. FAIR has been listed as an anti-immigrant hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center since 2007.

Politics

Jewish Organizations Condemn GOP For Standing By As Tea Party Protesters Waved ‘Vile’ Anti-Semitic Signs

One of the most disturbing images from yesterday’s Tea Party rally against health care reform on Capitol Hill was a protester’s gruesome sign showing a pile of dead Holocaust victims. The banner — captured by ThinkProgress here — read: “National Socialist Health Care: Dachau, Germany – 1945.” Another sign said that “Obama takes his orders from the Rothchilds [sic],” a reference to the famous Jewish banking family often implicated in conspiracy theories. Today, Nobel Prize winner and Holoacaust survivor Elie Wiesel strongly condemned the signs, calling them “indecent and disgusting.” From his foundation’s Twitter page:

Elie_Wiesel

The National Jewish Democratic Council also criticized the “vile invocations of Nazi and Holocaust rhetoric” and called out GOP leaders who stood in plain view of the signs but ignored them. The Simon Wiesenthal Center demanded that the rally organizers “publicly repudiate the use of Nazi and Holocaust imagery.” Rep. Steve Israel (D-NY) made similar comments in a video he posted on YouTube, singling out the rally’s organizer, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN):

I can’t believe that Congresswoman Bachmann would stand where she stood, and see those images, and not have the common decency to say, “I disagree with the use of those images.” I think that she owes the memory of those who perished in the Holocaust an apology. She owes us all an apology. And I’m waiting. We’re all waiting.

Watch it:

When Politico asked House Minority Leader John Boehner’s (R-OH) spokesman for comment on these signs, he simply replied, “Leader Boehner did not see any such sign. Obviously, it would be grossly inappropriate.” Today, Rep. Eric Cantor’s (R-VA) spokesman called the photograph “inappropriate.”

Yglesias

Endgame

We will soon forget our past:

— Ezra Klein featured in overheard in DC.

— The last-minute wrangling in the House.

— What specifically does David Brooks think Obama’s moved too fast on?

— HOPE comes to congress.

— Fox & Friends contemplating second class status for Muslim soldiers, sailors, and airmen.

— “Matthew” is a very popular name.

We’re very committed to bringing you the latest in Nordic rock here, so here’s Finland’s I Walk The Line with “Black Wave”.

Yglesias

Podcasting

You’ve probably been saying to yourself “sure this political blogging is great, but where can we hear Matt Yglesias talking about the NBA on a podcast?” Well, consider your prayers answered. I’m a guest on the latest edition of the Disciples of Clyde Podcast.

Health

Rep. Virginia Foxx Suggests It’s Better To Be Uninsured Than On Medicaid

During this afternoon’s Rules Committee hearing to determine which amendments would be introduced during floor debate of the House health care bill, Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC) suggested that it’s better to be uninsured than enrolled in the government’s Medicaid program. “I want to ask you if you know that Medicaid patients visit the emergency room at twice the rate of uninsured patients in this country,” she said. “More government paid insurance is going to increase the number of people going to the emergency rooms.”

Rep. Jim McGovern (D-MA) responded, “I thank the gentlelady for making the case for keeping more people in this country uninsured. And I guess if that’s the Republican position, then fine”:

MCGOVERN: If you don’t have insurance then you have no choice but to go to the emergency room. But what we’re also trying to do is to put in place kind of a system, as Mr. Rangel said, that encourage prevention, and preventative care, so that people can actually not get sick and not end up in emergency rooms. So if you want to make the case that more and more people in this country should be uninsured, fine. I just disagree with you.

Watch the exchange:

“I’m making the case that your bill doesn’t insure anywhere near what our bill does, and I think that is unacceptable and is wrong in this country,” McGovern said, hinting that under the Republican alternative, the number of uninsured Americans would increase to 52 million by 2019.

Rep. Frank Pallone (D-NJ) explained that “one of the things that this bill does is make major increase in the reimbursement rate so that it gets up to the Medicare level, and even beyond, and that means that doctors will now take these Medicaid patients, they’ll get primary care, they’ll get to see a doctor on a regular basis and they won’t go to the emergency room.”

Politics

Pence: ‘We Actually Do Deal With Pre-Existing Conditions’ In The GOP Health Bill

This week, House Republicans officially released their alternative health care legislation, which the Congressional Budget Offices estimates would still leave 52 million Americans uninsured by 2019. The plan has been met with widespread criticism, focusing around the fact that the plan doesn’t bar insurers from rejecting coverage for people with pre-existing conditions. Today on Fox News, however, Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) tried to whitewash this point and simply insisted, “We actually do deal with pre-existing conditions in our bill”:

PENCE: You know, the Speaker has said it was scandalous — some interpretation of the Republican plan, which I am happy to talk about. We actually do deal with pre-existing conditions in our bill. But what’s scandalous is the Democrats launching a massive $1.2 trillion government takeover of health care paid for with more than $700 billion in tax increases on individuals and small businesses at a time when unemployment may well today come close to 10 percent.

Watch it:

Yesterday on MSNBC, Rep. Peter King (R-NY) similarly said that they “address the pre-existing conditions.” Both statements are misleading, and Republicans clearly recognize that they’re in an uncomfortable position because their bill doesn’t address one of the public’s top priorities in health care reform. A recent Wall Street Journal/NBC poll found that the public overwhelmingly wants final legislation to require “that health insurance companies cover people with pre-existing medical conditions.” Sixty-three percent of the respondents said that it “must” be included, and another 26 percent said they would “prefer” that it were there.

As Roll Call reported, Republicans “deal” with Americans with pre-existing conditions by forcing them into expensive high-risk pools:

And states would be eligible for a total of $15 billion [in federal funds] over the next 10 years in aid for creating high-risk pools for people whom private insurance companies refuse to cover because of pre-existing health conditions.

People with pre-existing conditions would pay up to 50 percent more than average for insurance coverage under the plan. States would have to cover the rest of the tab with a “stable funding source,” although the modest federal subsidy would cover a portion of the cost.

Most states already have such plans, which typically are much more expensive than regular insurance and have not made much of a dent in the ranks of the uninsured.

Even worse, high-risk pools would be able to deny coverage for pre-existing conditions that made people eligible in the first place. So people would be forced into the pools because of their pre-existing conditions, but the pools wouldn’t pay for treatment of that condition. President Obama and the Senate Finance Committee have also supported increased funding for high-risk pools, but only as a stop gap until 2013, when insurers would be prohibited from denying people coverage based on pre-existing conditions.

The disappointing refusal to bar insurers from rejecting Americans with pre-existing conditions comes after numerous Republican officials promised to address this problem.

Yglesias

Frum on Nuclear Socialism

800px-Ikata_Nuclear_Powerplant 1

I was saying this morning that I thought conservative affection for nuclear power was a bit odd in light of the fact that only massive socialism seems capable of financing nuclear power plants. David Frum has a post in response that I don’t totally understand:

Nor is it true, as Matt contends, that only an active state can deliver nuclear power. The United States already draws 20% of its power from nuclear. Until recently, it’s true, the stock market has preferred utility companies that generate their power from coal. Coal is cheap and reliable. But if a carbon tax increased the price of coal, nuclear would come back into vogue – and the regulatory changes needed to facilitate that shift would not have to be very dramatic. Probably more important would be mergers in the utility industry. The rule of thumb in the industry is that a new nuclear plant would cost some $10 billion and start yielding revenue only after 5 to 7 years. That’s a big check to write when the largest utility in the United States, Exelon, has a market capitalization of only $35 billion. Electricite de France by contrast has a market cap of some $85 billion.

We seem to me to be in agreement here. Even though carbon pricing ought to make nuclear power profitable on an operating cost basis, it would be prohibitively expensive to raise the capital necessary to construct nuclear plants. I think you could resolve this by having the state step in and do the financing. He thinks, I guess, that some counterfactual private utility could do it if it were far larger than any existing utility. But how would you make these mergers happen? That sounds to me like you need an active state.

Note that many of these same considerations apply to windmills. They generate electricity quite cheaply on an operating cost basis, the problem is building the windmills. But the scale of the investment in a windmill is much smaller, so it’s easier for the private sector to mobilize the risk-bearing capacity necessary to build one. That said, obviously you need a certain amount electricity that can be relied upon irrespective of how windy it is or whether the sun is shining. So I’d happily see the nuclear share of the pie grow at the expense of coal and oil as the provider of that baseload electricity. But from where I sit, making it happen requires a pretty forceful state intervention. Or perhaps what I should say is that the cleanest way to make it happen would be to bite the bullet and engage in forceful state intervention. I’m afraid that what we’re going to do instead is try to subsidize the operating profits of nuclear power to such a sky-high level that the private sector can’t help but jump in with the financing even though the deadweight loss of doing it that way will wind up being a lot higher.

Older

Switch to Mobile
ThinkProgress Signup Overlay Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress

Sign Up