Gail Collins, "Frankenstein Goes to Congress": Is Obamacare a Zero-Sum Game?

Expect more partisan drivel from Gail Collins in her latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Frankenstein Goes to Congress" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/05/opinion/collins-frankenstein-goes-to-congress.html?_r=0), in which she again goes to bat for President Obama, with whom she and other Times editorial and op-ed staff held a recent "off-the-record" meeting (see:(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/18/new-york-times-obama-syria_n_3949419.html?utm_hp_ref=media). Concerning the shutdown and Republican efforts to defund Obamacare, Collins begins and ends:

"Our question for today is: Why don’t the Republicans just throw in the towel? Really, this is not going well for anybody.

. . . .

They’ve created a monster. And now the rest of the country is turning into peasants with torches, storming their castle."

The "peasants" are storming the castle? Hmm, let's think about this.

A few ground rules:

• I support universal health care.
• I am worried by America's national debt, which is now just a tad under $17 trillion.
• I don't like Republicans or Democrats.

Okay, now let's talk.

The computer glitches involving Obamacare enrollment? Insatiable demand which caused the system to buckle, or, faulty software that was not properly tested? Amost certainly the latter - the website has been taken down over the weekend for repairs (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57606175/obamacare-website-goes-down-for-repairs/) - but surely the software ultimately can be patched.

Software, however, is not my concern. Rather, as even Paul Krugman asked yesterday (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2013/10/paul-krugman-reform-turns-real-welcome.html):

"What we still don’t know, and is crucial for the program’s longer-term success, is who will sign up. Will there be enough young, healthy enrollees to provide a favorable risk pool and keep premiums relatively low?"

Or stated otherwise: Are there enough healthy youngsters willing to pay more in order to subsidize the unfavorable risk pool, thereby preventing a fiscal disaster, i.e. Democratic Senator Max Baucus's "train wreck"?

Or taken a step further, can payments from healthy youngsters ensure that Obamacare is fiscally neutral, i.e. a zero-sum game that does not contribute to further expansion of America's national debt, which is already unsustainable?

As recently observed by Kathleen Parker, in a recent Washington Post opinion piece entitled "Waiting for Obamacare" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/kathleen-parker-waiting-for-obamacare/2013/09/20/1eae4f96-2232-11e3-966c-9c4293c47ebe_story.html?hpid=z2):

"[T]he Affordable Care Act (ACA) is becoming increasingly unpopular. Only 39 percent of Americans currently favor the health-care program, compared with 51 percent in January, according to a recent CNN/ORC International poll."

Could it be that Collins's "peasants" are not so stupid after all, and cognizant of America's debt problems, they have no intention of "storming the castle"?

Could it also be that these "peasants" are smart enough to realize that the likelihood of Obamacare becoming a zero-sum game is almost non-existent, and that the program, which requires more thought as evidenced by its troublesome inauguration, is indeed apt to become Max Baucus's "train wreck"?

Who was it who once said, "You can fool some of the peasants all of the time, and all of the peasants some of the time, but you can not fool all of the peasants all of the time"?

Sorry, Gail, they're not "peasants," they're people, and they're much smarter than you think.

David Ignatius, "Obama’s Diplomatic Opportunity": Ignoble, Ignorant, Ignominious

In a Washington Post opinion piece entitled "Obama’s diplomatic opportunity" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/david-ignatius-obamas-diplomatic-opportunity/2013/10/04/787a6240-2d17-11e3-8ade-a1f23cda135e_story.html?hpid=z3), David Ignatius proclaims:

"What was unthinkable only a few months ago with Iran and Syria now appears to be in motion. On Iran, Obama has talked directly with President Hassan Rouhani about quickly negotiating a deal to limit the Iranian nuclear program. On Syria, the United States and Russia have agreed on a U.N. plan to destroy President Bashar al-Assad’s stockpile of chemical weapons.

. . . .

It’s a truly big deal, but it will require constant, skillful diplomatic guidance."

Hmm, let's think a moment about this. Iran's new president, Hassan Rouhani, who is subordinate to Iran's hardline Supreme Leader, Ali Hosseini Khamenei, refused to shake Obama's hand at the UN, but was finally persuaded to accept a 15-minute call from Obama on his way to the airport.

This is the big breakthough?

As reported by the Tehran Times (http://www.tehrantimes.com/politics/111233-irans-right-to-enrichment-non-negotiable-rouhani-) this past week:

"'The people should be assured that the right to nuclear technology and the right to enrichment in Iran are not negotiable,' Rouhani told reporters after a cabinet meeting on Wednesday when asked about U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry’s recent remarks in which he said the sanctions could be eased if Iran took certain measures, including signing the additional protocol to the NPT and reducing the level of its uranium enrichment.

'We hold negotiations on details, but we never regard our principles as negotiable,' Rouhani stated."

Sounds like a non-starter to me.

Or does the big breakthough consist of the deal to purportedly destroy Assad's chemical weapons stockpile, although there are no sanctions if this mass murderer of civilians reneges?

As reported by The Jerusalem Post (http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Defected-Syrian-general-Assad-will-never-cede-chemical-arsenal-327626):

"President Bashar Assad will never cede his chemical arsenal, a defected Syrian general said on Tuesday.

'The locations of most of the scientific research centers in Syria and the storage facilities are known and under surveillance.

Thus, he will give up those centers and facilities for sure without lying,' Syrian Brig.-Gen. Zaher al-Sakat told CNN’s Christiane Amanpour. 'That said, however, Bashar Assad will not give up the chemical stockpile.'

. . . .

According to Sakat, the regime has four secret storage locations in the country for its chemical weapons and has also been transferring chemical arms to Iraq and Hezbollah in Lebanon."

"What was unthinkable only a few months ago with Iran and Syria now appears to be in motion"? "A truly big deal" to be managed by America's astute secretary of state, John Kerry, who once called Assad his "dear friend"? Keep dreaming . . .

Paul Krugman, "Reform Turns Real": Welcome to Krugman's Alternate Reality

"Occupy Wall Street is starting to look like an important event that might even eventually be seen as a turning point.

. . . .

It’s clear what kinds of things the Occupy Wall Street demonstrators want, and it’s really the job of policy intellectuals and politicians to fill in the details."

- Paul Krugman, "Confronting the Malefactors" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/07/opinion/krugman-confronting-the-malefactors.html), October 2011

Do you remember "Occupy Wall Street"? Do you remember how Krugman suggested that OWS would prove a "turning point" in a populist war against American financial institutions? Is there anyone more delusional than this Nobelist? Well, today Krugman, in a New York Times op-ed entitled "Reform Turns Real" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/04/opinion/krugman-reform-turns-real.html?_r=0), is now telling us:

"But Obamacare isn’t up for a popular referendum, or a revote of any kind. It’s the law, and it’s going into effect. Its future will depend on how it works over the next few years, not the next few weeks.

. . . .

So Obamacare is off to a good start, with even the bad news being really good news for the program’s future. We’re not quite there yet, but more and more, it looks as if health reform is here to stay."

"Obamacare is off to a good start"? Kathleen Parker, in a recent Washington Post opinion piece entitled "Waiting for Obamacare" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/kathleen-parker-waiting-for-obamacare/2013/09/20/1eae4f96-2232-11e3-966c-9c4293c47ebe_story.html?hpid=z2), made the case that Obamacare needs to be delayed and not defunded. Parker observed in no-nonsense fashion:

"[T]he Affordable Care Act (ACA) is becoming increasingly unpopular. Only 39 percent of Americans currently favor the health-care program, compared with 51 percent in January, according to a recent CNN/ORC International poll.

Some of the reasons:

●Many companies are cutting worker hours to below the threshold (30 hours) at which they're required to comply with Obamacare. (SeaWorld is cutting hours for thousands of workers.)

●Others are cutting workers completely to avoid compliance or to reduce costs associated with the expanded coverage. (The Cleveland Clinic cited Obamacare as one reason for offering early retirement to 3,000 workers and hinting at future layoffs.)

●Many young people, unemployed or earning little, will have trouble paying premiums once open enrollment for health insurance exchanges begins Oct. 1. Even discounts won’t be enough for some, who then will face fines or have to turn to parents who face their own insurance challenges. List-price premiums for a 40-year-old buying a mid-range plan will average close to $330 per month, according to a recent Avalere Health study. For someone who is 60, premiums will run about $615 a month. Forget retirement."

Obamacare is "the law, and it's going into effect"? This purported concern for the rule of law was also voiced in a prior Krugman's op-ed entitled "One Reform, Indivisible" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/19/opinion/krugman-one-reform-indivisible.html?_r=0), in which he declared:

"On the unstoppability of Obamacare: We have this system in which Congress passes laws, the president signs them, and then they go into effect. The Affordable Care Act went through this process, and there is no legitimate way for Republicans to stop it."

In fact, it has been the Obama administration which has delayed implementation of the Affordable Health Care Act (see: http://www.forbes.com/sites/sallypipes/2013/08/05/delay-of-obamacares-employer-mandate-exacerbates-an-already-bad-situation/ and http://www.cnbc.com/id/100959960). And as was pointed out by George Will in a Washington Post opinion piece entitled "Obama’s unconstitutional steps worse than Nixon’s" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/george-will-obamas-unconstitutional-steps-worse-than-nixons/2013/08/14/e0bd6cb2-044a-11e3-9259-e2aafe5a5f84_story.html?hpid=z2):

"President Obama’s increasingly grandiose claims for presidential power are inversely proportional to his shriveling presidency. Desperation fuels arrogance as, barely 200 days into the 1,462 days of his second term, his pantry of excuses for failure is bare, his domestic agenda is nonexistent and his foreign policy of empty rhetorical deadlines and red lines is floundering. And at last week’s news conference he offered inconvenience as a justification for illegality.

Explaining his decision to unilaterally rewrite the Affordable Care Act (ACA), he said: 'I didn’t simply choose to' ignore the statutory requirement for beginning in 2014 the employer mandate to provide employees with health care. No, 'this was in consultation with businesses.'

. . . .

Serving as props in the scripted charade of White House news conferences, journalists did not ask the pertinent question: 'Where does the Constitution confer upon presidents the ‘executive authority’ to ignore the separation of powers by revising laws?' The question could have elicited an Obama rarity: brevity. Because there is no such authority."

Or in other words, Obama can sponsor and sign into law the Affordable Care Act and then delay implementation of its unpopular provisions, until after the 2014 midterm elections.

And then there is the $64,000 question which even Krugman acknowledges in his opinion piece:

"What we still don’t know, and is crucial for the program’s longer-term success, is who will sign up. Will there be enough young, healthy enrollees to provide a favorable risk pool and keep premiums relatively low?"

Or stated otherwise: Are there enough healthy youngsters willing to pay more in order to subsidize the unfavorable risk pool, thereby preventing a fiscal disaster, i.e. Democratic Senator Max Baucus's "train wreck"? I also don't know the answer.

Roger Cohen, "Bibi’s Tired Iranian Lines": Again, "Iran Is Not Totalitarian"

After telling us throughout the first six months of 2009 that Iran is not totalitarian, i.e., until his bubble was burst when Supreme Leader Khamenei savagely quashed Iran's Green Revolution, Roger Cohen is again seeking to spread his delusional hogwash. In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Bibi’s Tired Iranian Lines" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/04/opinion/cohen-bibis-tired-iranian-lines.html?_r=0), Cohen, who doesn't speak Farsi, would have us know:

"It is not just that the world has now heard from Netanyahu of the imminent danger of a nuclear-armed Iran for a very long time. It is not just that Israel has set countless 'red lines' that proved permeable. It is not just that the Islamic Republic has been an island of stability compared to its neighbors Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan. It is not just that, as Rouhani’s election shows, Iran is no Nazi-like totalitarian state with a single authority but an authoritarian regime subject to liberalizing and repressive waves."

Iran is an "island of stability"? And just what was the Green Revolution all about? Has Cohen already forgotten the death of Neda, who was shot dead by a Basij militia member?

Have the conditions of Iran's Kurds, Baha'is and Sunnis improved?

Has Iran stopped hanging homosexuals?

Has Iran stopped stoning to death women accused of adultery?

I suggest that Cohen read a September 23, 2013 letter written by Ayatollah Hossein Bourojerdi from Iran's notorious Evin Prison to the General Assembly of the UN (http://www.bamazadi.org/2013/09/letter-mr-kazemeini-boroujerdi-to-67th.html) (my emphasis in red):

"Please accept the greetings of this humble imprisoned cleric, who writes to convey himself to you from within a prison cell which is surrounded by a cruelty and brutality called religion and faith. It is many years that the hands of the claimants of Islam have captured me and held me hostage. They have wasted my youth, my life and health, and now, as you come together for this global event, in order to inform each other of the hidden pains and concerns of each others communities, it is apt that you should focus on the ills that invade the contemporary world and the abused rights of the innocent and helpless.

I sit here, at the start of my eighth year of captivity; jailed by a religious dictatorship and charged with defending the freedom of though, speech and expression and refusing to align with tyrants who forcibly lord over Iran. I am under severe psychological and fatal physical pressures, while millions of my fellow compatriots live in the most horrific conditions, oppressed and violated, throughout Iran.
 

I have been honored to act as an advocate who echoes the public protests against the ruling phalanx of autocrats. Has the time not come, for your assembly to demand that these brutal totalitarians respond to how they dare to speak of Bahrain, Syria and Palestine, under the guise of sympathy, when they have plundered and stolen the wealth and national income of every Iranian, rendering them impoverished and putting them in the ultimate financial and economic crisis?

If the humanitarian authorities of other countries are truly sensitive and serious about affording people around the world, their civil rights, and they really listened and heard the cries emanating from our country, these dictators would never dare to continue their shameless violations and their blatant rampage to destroy Iran and Iranians to the alter of their despotism. This regime’s steely guards do not permit one iota of criticism and protest by the average person who is in desperate need.
 

The Iran that has been endowed with the greatest natural and national wealth has been fleeced and is now wanting for even a normal life. If you were really aware of the statistics of our destitute and deprived, you would not hesitate to intervene. It has been thirty five years that this so-called revolution, was established in this strip of Asia and despite all the grand vows that were made by its founder, nothing but pain, chaos, crisis and suffering has become the daily norm of our people’s lives.

I plead with all my being, from each and every one of you to focus your gaze on that which goes on inside Iran and scrutinize the actions and blatant human and civil rights violations of this regime."

So, Roger Cohen is again telling us from New York that Iran is not totalitarian, whereas Hossein Bourojerdi is telling us from Evin Prison, where he recently suffered a heart attack and went untreated (http://www.bamazadi.org/2013/10/kazemeini-boroujerdi-suffers-heart.html), that Iran is indeed totalitarian.

Is it any wonder that I trust Hossein Bourojerdi more than Cohen?

Gail Collins, "Congress Breaks Bad": Bill Clinton "Has a Winning Way of Not Being Barack Obama"

In her latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Congress Breaks Bad" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/03/opinion/collins-congress-breaks-bad.html), Gail Collins writes with regard to the shutdown:

"'Even Bill Clinton, after I voted to impeach him, would work with you to get things done,' said Representative John Mica of Florida. That seemed like a high bar. But then there’s nobody Republicans love more than the former president, who has a winning way of not being Barack Obama. If only Clinton would come back! Then none of this would have happened, except the shutting down the government part."

A "winning way" about Bill Clinton? When not preoccupied with Monica, he was certainly a charmer, something that goes lacking in Obama. And there were the shutdowns of 1995 and 1996, lasting a total of 28 days. But more to the point, Bill's deficits did not compare with those of Barack.

Yes, there is a difference. Of course, we need to be fair: Obama inherited an economic mess from George W. Bush, and there are few who would deny that the American economy was desperately in need of stimulus.

However, as observed in past blog items, the non-partisan CBO declared in September with regard to America's financial future (http://www.cbo.gov/publication/44521):

"Between 2009 and 2012, the federal government recorded the largest budget deficits relative to the size of the economy since 1946, causing federal debt to soar. Federal debt held by the public is now about 73 percent of the economy’s annual output, or gross domestic product (GDP). That percentage is higher than at any point in U.S. history except a brief period around World War II, and it is twice the percentage at the end of 2007. If current laws generally remained in place, federal debt held by the public would decline slightly relative to GDP over the next several years, CBO projects. After that, however, growing deficits would ultimately push debt back above its current high level. CBO projects that federal debt held by the public would reach 100 percent of GDP in 2038, 25 years from now, even without accounting for the harmful effects that growing debt would have on the economy (see the figure below). Moreover, debt would be on an upward path relative to the size of the economy, a trend that could not be sustained indefinitely."

In a nutshell, there is a problem and it's time for Obama and House Republicans to set aside their bloated egos and settle this matter, before it truly gets out of hand.

Maureen Dowd, "That’s Not Amore": Actually, It's a Perverse Kind of Love Known As Narcissism

"Narcissistic Personality Disorder involves arrogant behavior, a lack of empathy for other people, and a need for admiration-all of which must be consistently evident at work and in relationships. People who are narcissistic are frequently described as cocky, self-centered, manipulative, and demanding. Narcissists may concentrate on unlikely personal outcomes (e.g., fame) and may be convinced that they deserve special treatment."

- Psychology Today (http://www.psychologytoday.com/conditions/narcissistic-personality-disorder)

In her latest New York Times op-ed entitled "That’s Not Amore" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/02/opinion/dowd-thats-not-amore.html), Maureen Dowd describes an imaginary morning experienced by the Speaker of the US House of Representatives, John Boehner. Dowd writes:

"'I’m so tired of Obama,' he keens to himself. 'The president says he wishes he had Kevin Spacey to deal with. Well, so do I. I’ve been here for 22 years and that cat acts like I don’t know what I’m doing. He wafted through Congress like a cool breeze, while I spent years sweating out big deals with Democrats.

. . . .

'Washington used to be an adult place where you could slug it out during the day and have a few slugs at night, making deals in rooms that I personally filled with smoke. Now Congress is a crap sandwich. We used to pretend to hate each other. Now we really do.

. . . .

In 2011, I kept these looney-tunes at bay. But maybe I don’t have any more tricks up my sleeve. Now the kooks have overpowered me, made me look like one of the weakest speakers ever. Not exactly the legacy I was shooting for.

'I knew this shutdown was trouble. I’ve gotta decide if this job is even worth it if I have to be Cruz’s sock puppet.'"

Regarding the government shutdown, there's enough blame to go around involving both sides of the aisle in Congress and also the White House. How did the government shutdown come about? At least part of it has to do with the fact that Washington probably has a higher concentration of narcissists than any other city in the United States.

"That's not amore"? Well, narcissism is in fact a perverse kind of love.

How to solve this mess? Simple. Bring in a skilled negotiator, who can talk these monkeys down from their trees (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2013/10/thomas-friedman-our-democracy-is-at.html). The alternative? A financial disaster, which a shaky American economy cannot afford.

Thomas Friedman, "Our Democracy Is at Stake": In Hostage Situations, You Need a Skilled Negotiator

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Our Democracy Is at Stake" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/02/opinion/friedman-our-democracy-is-at-stake.html?_r=0), Thomas Friedman would have us know that the US government shutdown is a hostage situation. Friedman writes:

"This time is different. What is at stake in this government shutdown forced by a radical Tea Party minority is nothing less than the principle upon which our democracy is based: majority rule. President Obama must not give into this hostage taking — not just because Obamacare is at stake, but because the future of how we govern ourselves is at stake.

. . . .

President Obama is not defending health care. He’s defending the health of our democracy. Every American who cherishes that should stand with him."

Okay, suppose we are dealing with a hostage situation. In such situations, in order to avoid great damage, a skilled negotiator is brought in to to reach a desired outcome, which does not endanger the hostages and cause unanticipated damage.

The health of America's democracy? As a skilled negotiator, I don't even want to go there. Given the severity of the crisis, it's irrelevant to me.

How we got into this hostage situation? Who is to blame? Again, as a skilled negotiator, I want to put this to the side. We can discuss it at a later date, when the crisis has been defused.

The two sides are unwilling to talk and the potential for damage is mounting? Let me step in and start to talk, calmly and objectively, so that egos don't get in the way of a solution.

Where to begin? Let me find where there is any meeting of the minds, no matter how small. How about the welfare of the United States? Are there even minor concessions that both sides can make?

Obama is defending the health of America's democracy? Every American should stand with him? Sorry, but these are platitudes, which will drive the two sides even further apart. To avoid a looming disaster, bring in a skilled negotiator, capable of reaching a compromise, with a history of deal making, and let him/her get to work.