Obama should adopt tort reform

Republicans, while opposed to the Affordable Care Act (affectionately known as Obamacare), have spent a lot of time trying to devise and alternative plan. The problem is so much of what makes up the ACA was originated by conservatives and Republicans that they are struggling to come up with a plan that they like that also is significantly different from the ACA.

Having said that, there are a few ideas that don't have Obama-cooties which Republicans continue to offer as the health care catholicon.

The most prominent of these ideas is tort reform. The argument goes that the price of health care is so high because doctors practice "defensive medicine" by ordering unnecessary tests and procedures to avoid litigation. Given their recent history we can assume that as soon as Democrats, and in particular Barack Obama, embrace tort reform, Republicans will turn against it.

The first problem with tort reform that will cause Republicans to turn against it is the fact that it is just more job killing regulations. How many lawyers have to lose their jobs before we stop the madness? Not only does tort reform mean more regulations but it also interferes in the natural order of things - also known as the free market. If there are doctors who are bad at their jobs they should be sued and hospitals should fire them. Free market style natural selection. Do we really want the government telling us what we can and cannot sue for? Every Republican knows that this will cost us our freedom on the eventual path to complete and total socialism.

Beyond that, tort reform removes the personal responsibility of Doctors. If they aren't held accountable for their actions what incentive will they have to improve their performance. Just imagine if car companies had negotiated a tort reform deal with the government. Consider the case of the Ford Pinto. In the 70's the car had a defect that caused it to burst into flames in a rear collision due to poor placement of the gas tank. Ford did the math and decided that around 180 people might die and another 180 would have serious burns. They calculated the cost of settling these suits to be less than half of the cost of fixing the problem. To no one's surprise Ford chose to save money over saving lives. It wasn't until the court system awarded a victim of a Pinto fire more than 10 times what Ford had anticipated that they were really compelled to act. Losing millions is a powerful motivator to improve your product or service.

If we just look the other way and don't require Doctors to be responsible for their own actions doesn't that essentially make us just like Nazi Germany? - is what Ted Cruz would probably say after Democrats adopt tort reform.

Of course holding doctors responsible means some are going to be fired. The good news is this will help stamp out another couple systems that Republicans hate - unions and quotas. The American Medical Association union of doctors convinced congress to set a quota for the number of residents that are created each year. By artificially lowering the number of individuals in these programs the AMA is able to manipulate the supply and demand curve which nets their members a premium for their services. This "doctor quota" will certainly lead to health care rationing and no one wants that. What will these lazy union workers demand next - end of life counseling, so they can kill grandma and save a few bucks?

Having the Democrat stamp of approval will also help Republicans find data that shows tort reform doesn't work and perhaps most damning the courts have determined it to be unconstitutional. Many Republicans believe the ACA is unconstitutional even though the Supreme Court said otherwise. Just imagine how mad they will be to find out that tort reform actually is unconstitutional?

It is also important to remember that ACORN has most likely been linked to tort reform as evidenced by the photo below.



So Mr. President I urge you to come out in support of tort reform as soon as possible. Conservatives already have plenty of reasons to hate this government overreach but much like immigration reform, cap and trade, the NSA spying program and the START treaty your approval will be the light they need to see the error of their ways.

Help Wanted: Republicans required to fix Obamacare

As the Affordable Care Act (affectionately known as Obamacare) struggles to get off the ground, conservative's are showing that their devotion to making the president look bad far exceeds their interest in cutting deficits, curbing out of control spending, and eliminating the moochers. At this point they have become the ultimate Monday morning quarterbacks - in the past they clamored for market competition, an individual mandate, cuts to Medicare payments and an Independent Payment Advisory Board and now that their vision has become reality they hate it.

The problem is that as much as Republicans dislike the ACA, complain about where it falls short, and disavow any association with it - it can't be fixed, improved or changed in any fashion without Republican support. Even if every Democrat across the nation coalesced around a set of solutions absolutely nothing will happen if Republicans only participation involves "I told you so".

The ACA website has been a huge disappointment so far, and perhaps contractors need to be held accountable, or Kathleen Sebelius needs to be fired or the President needs to accept that getting elected trumped a successful launch, but none of that improves the functionality of the website. Watching the ACA flounder doesn't get it repealed, reduce premiums or get more people insured so rather than whining, now is the perfect time to step up and offer support in exchange for improvements - you know compromise.

At some point many of our nation’s critical systems are going to meet a similar fate as our health care system and need to be brought into the 21st century. The ACA provides politicians with a chance to learn from their mistakes so we don't repeat them when we attempt to modernize our electrical grid, the Federal Aviation Administration, or other public services.

The United Kingdom went through a similar transformation recently and found that with the proper investment not only do services improve but costs come down as well. The focus by conservatives on scoring political points in the short term puts us at odds with creating a government structure that not only helps us succeed with future IT projects but reestablishes the US as the technological leader in the long run.

Of course beyond the troubles with the ACA website there are far more important issues that the right is ignoring. For example the ACA doesn't cover all Americans. This means there are still people who will be forced to use the emergency room as their only doctors visits - a plan that has been shown to be costly for both the insured and uninsured as well as bad for individuals overall health. Who thinks this is a good idea? There are also a number of people who are being kicked off Medicaid because of the ACA's state Medicaid expansion. Unfortunately a number of states have decided to not participate, leaving millions of previously insured Americans uninsured. Are there no solutions better than punishing hard working people in favor of partisan posturing?

So while Republican leaders like John Boehner have spent much of the past few years suggesting that we need to have an "adult conversation", the conservative "I'm taking my ball and going home" attitude of obstruct and complain hardly seems to exemplify the type of leadership they believe is missing in today's discourse. How many Republican votes the ACA received initially, doesn't absolve Republicans of their ongoing responsibility for this legislation. They won the House and should be expected to participate in democracy not retard it.

In the end, all of the complaints won't change the past. The ACA was passed and Barack Obama was reelected. Even our nation's most sacred document has been updated 27 times. Are we really supposed to believe that the ACA is an all or nothing proposition?

The reality is that for the entire 2012 election cycle Republicans begged for the power to change the ACA. Now that they have it they don't get to pretend there is nothing they can do.

Conservative's contribute to fallacy about union power

The recent strike by the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) has again put public sector unions squarely in the crosshairs of conservatives. While there is plenty of good debates to be had regarding these unions one of the weirdest talking points suggests that public sector unions have an unfair advantage since they negotiate with officials they may have helped get elected. The idea being that the money spent on these officials earns them political favors or better contracts in return.

If we are to assume that these elected officials are providing a return on investment for the unions, which certainly may be true, it is odd that conservatives main concern is how money from unions affects outcomes rather than questioning the entire system.

For example Businesses outspend labor unions by an astonishing 15 to 1 margin. Are we to believe that when a union helps get a person elected they receive favors while the same help from the business community is completely altruistic? Does anyone really think that the nearly $110 million in contributions the Pharmaceutical industry made over the last three election cycles had no impact on the Affordable Care Act? Would we really be as focused on the events in Israel were it not for the $67 million in contributions from Pro-Israeli groups?

If money in politics is a problem, then it is a system wide problem with the heaviest hitters coming from the business community.

Of course the complaint is that contributions from these industry sources have less impact since they aren't directly dealing with the decision makers. Yet it could easily be argued that the $209 million that lawyers and law firms contributed in the 2012 election cycle, of which it seems a significant portion went to getting local judges elected, would have a direct impact on the outcome of cases these lawyers bring before the judges they helped get elected.

It also wouldn't be a stretch to think that the $73 million in contributions from the oil industry in the last election cycle has something to do with the $4 billion in subsidies they receive even though they had around $120 billion in profits.

And who would be surprised to find out that some of the nearly $30 million in contributions from the Defense Industry influenced the outcomes of the government contracts that were awarded?

But even beyond that what proof do these conservatives offer that public sector unions are getting sweetheart deals in exchange for their contributions? Census data shows that between 2009 and 2011 in the 25 states controlled by Republicans, public sector jobs increased in 15 states. Conversely only 5 of the 18 states controlled by Democrats added public sector jobs. This means Republican held states were twice as likely to add public sector jobs as Democrat held states.

Additionally the states with the lowest percentage of union members happened to add more public sector jobs than the states with the highest union membership levels. If public unions were getting such a great deal on their contributions one would expect this data to skew in the opposite direction.

Political parties and their corporate sponsors have made unsubstantiated hysteria the new norm in political discourse. Unfortunately this means that we get entire groups of people devoted to a narrative that is not supported by data. The reality is that the election buying freedom killing power of unions pales considerably in comparison with their corporate counterparts and while money in politics is probably a bad thing, making unions the basis for this argument shows just how disingenuous some conservatives are in their supposed concern.

When it comes to Michigan job creation, Rick Snyder is “One Lucky Nerd”.

Rick Snyder recently released is first re-election ad touting him as "One Successful Nerd" after just 33 months on the job. Additionally his most recent email blast cleverly implies that he has added 220,000 jobs in Michigan. Unfortunately for the governor, a portion of that job growth happened before he ever took office. According to the Bureau of Labor and Statistics there has only been 132,000 jobs created since the governors first day on the job. The reality is that Michigan's economy was improving long before the governor arrived.

Of course if we are to believe that the governor is responsible for this job creation he should be able to identify specific legislative actions taken that resulted in this improvement, otherwise the governor is just taking credit for the work of his predecessor.

When discussing the number of jobs that would be created from his tax cut plan the governor stated “Can we quantify all the numbers? No. But we know it’s going to happen.” If the governor had looked into the real world results he would see that the corporate taxes cuts he championed have at best a questionable impact. Ironically, while the governor was uncomfortable making any predictions about the potential success of his tax cuts on job growth, he seems more than happy to attribute any and all job growth to his policies.

It should also be noted that the tax cuts that the governor is claiming helped create jobs didn't even take effect until 2012 so even if this legislation started generating jobs on day one, the governor would only be able to attribute around 64,000 jobs to this tax cut with Michigan actually losing jobs for five straight months after the implementation of these cuts.

The governor also felt that changing Michigan to a "right to work" state would be good for jobs, yet according to the Christian Science Monitor seven of the nine states with zero or negative growth rates are "right to work" states, while three of the top five highest growth states are pro union states. If "right to work" was the panacea of job creation one would expect much different results.

But even if you are so generous as to attribute every job created since January 1st 2011 to Rick Snyder, there are no indications that Michigan is outpacing other states in job creation.

Since 2011 every state has created jobs so the fact that Rick Snyder hasn't made things worse, as every other state improves, is not a glowing endorsement. It seems more likely that the governor is just the beneficiary of a general economic improvement. For instance automobile sales are set to increase for the fifth straight year - a feet only done once since WWII - and Michigan has by far the most automotive jobs of any state in the US.

As a matter of fact when discussing the reasons they are adding jobs Ford suggested it had to do with increased demand for products, higher costs of outsourcing work to foreign countries, and higher quality workers in the US. Tax cuts and "right to work" were not part of their rationale.

So while Rick Snyder will spend the next thirteen months using donations from many of the big corporations that he just gave $1.7 billion in tax cuts, claiming to be Michigan's magic job creator what he won't do is supply any proof that his key legislative actions are even remotely correlated with the growth Michigan has experienced. Perhaps the governor would be better served admitting that when it comes to job creation in Michigan he is just "One Lucky Nerd".

Conservative media's Obamacare glitch

Since its launch much has been written about the problems with the Affordable Care Act (ACA - affectionately known as Obamacare). Even the staunchest supporters would admit that they have been disappointed with the problems many have experienced as this system opened to the public. Of course never missing a chance to pounce, the conservative media have taken to pretending that these failures and glitches are reason to eliminate the ACA altogether.

And while a majority of Americans would like to see changes made to the ACA - few would argue against creating a system that provides coverage for as many Americans as possible and reduces costs in the mean time. Perhaps the ACA is this system or perhaps it's not but conservatives had plenty of chances to make suggestions for how to improve the system. Unfortunately rather than making any attempt to pull in the same direction, for the good of the country, conservatives have used nearly 100% of their political capital to divide the country and undermine the program.

The good news is that one the biggest reasons that the US is the envy of the world is our stubborn persistence. For example the Wright Brothers failed nearly a thousand times before eventually achieving flight. They didn't run at the first sign of trouble. Instead they learned for their failures and improved their next design until they finally succeeded.

If Americans simply folded up their tents and went home at the first sign of trouble the House of Representatives wouldn't have managed to vote to repeal the ACA 42 separate times without actually offering a single improvement. Regardless of their repeated and unquestioned failure they were steadfast in their resolve.

And while the ACA exchange system costs something like $500 million dollars and barely works, that is nothing compared to the $472 billion we have spend on the Lockheed Martin F-35 or the $54 billion we have spent on the V-22 Osprey. Neither of which represent the blueprint for how to launch a new product.

Also consider the Iraq War where the president declared "Mission Accomplished" less than two months into what would become a nearly decade long conflict. Things went so well in fact that four years in it was decided that we needed to double down on our initial investment with "the surge".

Of course this sort of success out of the box is not isolated to the public sector. No, Apple, Microsoft and Intel also introduced products that failed initially.

Even entities like the Dow Jones and NASDAQ have proven to be prone to software failure that ends up costs millions and most every automotive company has had to issue a recall due to unexpected problems with a new model.

The reality is that the public and private sectors are riddled with failed launches many of which conservatives were more than happy to stand by at the time. Suggesting that this one poor performance is grounds for dismissal ignores the vast number of government websites that function perfectly fine as well as all of the instances where products rolled up unprepared only to be improved upon later.

As of today we have a law on the books that expands health care and attempts to address the out of control health care costs - costs that easily rank us number one in the world, while only returning middling results in most instances.

As a country 18% of our spending goes towards healthcare which is twice as much as is spent on all government food assistance programs, six times as much as we spend on social security, and over four times as much as we spend on defense. If conservatives are truly concerned about "out of control spending" then fixing health care should be a top priority. So to paraphrase George W. Bush "You're either with us, or you're against us". Standing on the sideline yelling "you suck" may win political points but it doesn't address a single problem. As glitchy and unpalatable as the ACA may be its' the only game in town. Perhaps instead of finding every possible way to tear the system down conservatives can offer some solutions - any solutions - that could make the ACA a law that at least 51% of Americans could be proud of.

President's voting record has nothing to do with debt ceiling debate

As we approach the debate over the debt ceiling and continue discussions about the Affordable Care Act both sides are trying to set a narrative for the public to follow. My colleague Jason Vines offers an example of the type of posturing we can expect, with his recent gotcha post pointing out that as a Senator, Barack Obama voted against raising the debt ceiling, thus exposing his hypocrisy.

Of course there is certainly more to the then Senators words and subsequent vote than Jason would have you believe. The point Barack Obama was making was that our increasing national debt is a serious problem that needs to be addressed. Not acting on this problem was a "failure of leadership" according to Mr. Obama.

And true to his word the president has overseen the first decrease in government spending since 1961. Additionally Barack Obama has the second lowest increase in the national debt of any president over the past 30 years. Were it not for the nihilism of congressional Republicans that number too could have been much lower as the president offered many opportunities to increase government revenue. Instead this president has been saddled with the four lowest government revenue producing years out of the past sixty-two years.

It should also be noted that there was no meat to the Senator's opposition. The bill passed when it could have been easily filibustered. A rookie Senator grandstanding is hardly comparable to actually shutting down the government.

Having said that, it was a silly vote to cast. A mistake he has clearly learned from.

Of course if we really want to set hypocrisy as the measuring stick for how these debates are to be judged there is plenty of incongruent rhetoric coming from the right as well.

- Republicans have blocked nearly every offer from the president to increase revenue - revenue which could have made a vote over raising the debt ceiling non-existent.

- 104 of the current Republicans threatening to vote against raising the debt ceiling now previously voted to raise the debt ceiling under George W. Bush.

- Conservative media celebrates the shutdown as a way to shrink the government yet they complain about every government function that has been shuttered.

- Republicans claim the Affordable Care Act (ACA) is too expensive yet the only solution they have offered would be more costly.

- Conservative media is up in arms when it is suggested that the tactics of the current Republicans controlled house are tantamount to terrorism yet when conservative media icons like Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, and Glenn Beck suggest Barack Obama and other democrats are terrorists they are silent.

- Republicans say the ACA is unpopular yet they passed on background checks, increasing taxes on the rich, and immigration reform all of which have much higher support than their only legislative priority - repealing the ACA.

- Conservatives media touts the shutdown as a "slim down" yet in the end all Republicans have done is created a jobs bank for government employees while simultaneously increasing the bill for taxpayers.

- Republican legislators have consistently voted for less funding for programs they are now arguing that we must fully pay for via piecemeal funding.

- Republican legislators say we need to cut the budget yet they have supported bills that increase spending without any corresponding budget cuts.

It's fine to say that Barack Obama doesn't have a leg to stand on when it comes to raising the debt ceiling however that doesn't mean Republican legislators or their supporters do either.

But in the end the decision to raise the debt ceiling should be about what is best for the country. Pretending that the presidents voting record is a valuable part of that discussion is partisan hackery that shows just how serious Republicans are about addressing the countries
problems.

Republican's kill compromise - continue to offer nothing.

Republicans are adamant - the shutdown is all the Democrats fault. The only reason the government is shut down - which Republicans love, except when it politically convenient to hate it - is because the Democrats won't negotiate or compromise.

This is a great talking point except that it isn’t true. John Boehner and Harry Reid agreed to a compromise weeks ago to keep the government open and reduce spending. Republican Rep. Doug Lamborn - who govtrack.us ranks as "a far-right Republican" based on the bills he has sponsored - said "It is a concession, I acknowledge that." and "I was glad to see that lower number".

And what did John Boehner do with this compromise - the compromise that far right Republicans acknowledge is democrats reaching across the aisle? They said "I know we agreed to not shut down the government in exchange for cuts to spending but we've changed our minds". "Now you must repeal the ACA if you want to keep the government open".

It's hard to compromise with someone who won't honor his commitment. So the whining from John Boehner claiming that Democrats are saying it's "my way or the highway" seems brazenly hypocritical given John Boehner's "I'm taking my ball and going home if Democrats don't play by my ever changing rules" attitude.

The problem for Democrats like the president and Harry Reid is that they continue to be Charlie Brown to the Republicans Lucy. At some point you just can't work with someone who continues to yank the ball away after promising this time will be different.

But even if Democrats were to fall for the Republicans guerrilla tactics again, what compromise are the Republicans actually offering? They claim it is unfair that certain groups get to avoid the ACA for a year while others do not. They are asking that the law be delayed for everyone for that same time period.

Which sounds perfectly reasonable until you consider that Republicans will not be offering anything in return. Will they agree to stop their feeble attempts to repeal and defund the ACA as a condition for this delay? No. Will they agree to abide by a super-committee decision for how to improve the ACA? No. Will they agree to raise taxes or close tax loopholes to help some of the people who will struggle to pay for health care? No.

No, the Republicans only offer is to reopen the government and debate this topic again next year. And who doesn't want the threat of another government shutdown hanging over our fragile economic recovery for yet another year? Will Republicans suddenly like the ACA in a year? Beyond that, since when did funding a functioning government become a Democrat only principle? Having a working government that protects the people is not something you win in negotiations. It is a baseline expectation. Acting like each side is getting something with this offer is asinine and insulting.

We have the most expensive health care system in the world and we cover less of the population than any other industrialized nation. Are we really supposed to believe that between the 279 Republicans in congress they can't offer one improvement? They can't provide even one tweak to the ACA that keeps all of the things people like but makes it better? The only possible option is a complete repeal? Talk about uncompromising.

But if John Boehner really wants a compromise how about we just agree that the Senate votes on the House's funding bill and the House votes and the Senate's funding bill. Best man wins. Deal?

Republicans say they're not to blame for shutdown - except they really are.

The Republican opposition to the Affordable Care Act (ACA - affectionately known as Obamacare) is starting to look at lot like the Occupy Wall Street movement. They have a whole bunch of complaints but no one idea that really resonates with people and no suggestions for fixing the problem.

They say it kills jobs - except it really doesn't.

They say it was rammed through with no discussion - except it really wasn't.

They say the president won't compromise - except he definitely has.

They say American's don't like it - except they sort of do.

They say it costs too much - except it doesn't.

They say it has death panels - except that's not true.

They say unions want it repealed - except they actually don't.

They say it increases premiums - except it really doesn't.

They say it compares to Nazi Germany - except it most certainly does not.

They say the shutdown is Obama's fault - except that it isn't.

They say they want a compromise - except they don't even know what that is.

They say Obama will negotiate with Iran but not Republicans - except we don't negotiate with terrorist.

So the reason that the government shutdown and Republicans are taking the blame for it doesn't have to do with some mythological liberal media bias or how the ACA was passed or any of the other non-stories Republicans are throwing at the wall like spaghetti hoping that something - anything - will stick. No, the reason Republicans are taking the blame is that they say they want to compromise yet the only compromise they offered before the 11th hour was 42 separate votes to repeal the ACA.

Suggesting we are in a shutdown because the Democrats won't compromise ignores the rhetoric from Republicans over the past few years threatening to shut down the government, it ignores that complete lack of ideas coming from the Republican party to fix an imperfect law, and it ignores the reality that American's don't like to be held hostage by the people elected to solve problems - not create them.

There are not two equal sides to this debate. Republicans have been hell bent on eliminating the ACA since before it was enacted. If they had fully participated in a compromise before the bill became law instead of waiting three years, we could have easily avoided all of this silly political posturing - posturing that they say affects millions of Americans - except those that were elected to Congress.