This week’s National Journal poll of political bloggers asked “What is the most likely outcome of President Obama’s health care reform initiative?” Ninety-three percent of the Left and 82 percent of the Right expected either “major” or “scaled back” legislation to be enacted in 2009. The Left was roughly split between major and scaled back. I was part of the only 12% on the Right who expect some major. I wrote: “‘Scaled back’ in the sense of no public option. The legislation will still impose huge, and mostly harmful, changes on American health care.”
The second question asked for a grade on President Obama’s foreign policy so far. The Left gave him a B, while the Right awarded a D-. I voted for D, and explained: “From Poland to Israel to Iran to Honduras, the President has made it clear that it is safer to be America’s enemy than its friend. His crackdown on the pro-democracy government in Honduras for obeying the Honduran Constitution, and his active support for Zelaya, who is trying to become another Castro/Chavez, is despicable. Obama is much more popular than Bush among Belgians and many other Western Europeans, but Obama has been unable to translate that popularity into any results for American diplomacy.”
[Note to commenters: It appears to me that comments have to be specifically approved before they become visible. There are several comments which I have "approved", but which are not displaying. I don't know what the problem is. Presumably we eventually figure out how to use WordPress. ]
Allan Walstad says:
Yeah, I’d give Obama a D on foreign policy too–up from Bush’s F. There is no mission in Afghanistan. There never was a mission in Iraq. He ought to butt out of Honduras as well.
On domestic policy an F, down from Bush’s D. Bush spent crazily, increased government meddling in medical care, and dumped a huge wad of cash on the banks on his way out the door. Obama is Bush on stilts, with the added disadvantages (for the country) of being a much slicker pol and having huge majorities in Congress.
September 27, 2009, 7:58 pmHadur says:
I don’t have much to say on this, other than to suggest that I think Obama and the House Dems will find some way to sneak public option into there.
Mostly, though, I want to test out the new comment system. :-)
September 27, 2009, 8:28 pm24AheadDotCom says:
Regarding BHOCare, let your imagination run wild and imagine what would have happened if BHO’s opponents weren’t incompetent and/or corrupt. What would a successful opposition to BHOCare have looked like? What if, instead of encouraging their charges to go to public meetings and act out and throw tantrums, the leaders of the supposed opposition to BHO had encouraged them to find one or two smart, experienced people to ask questions like these? If those leaders weren’t incompetent or corrupt, they could have blocked BHOCare completely.
September 27, 2009, 9:49 pmAnon21 says:
Why Belgians, just out of curiosity?
September 27, 2009, 9:52 pm[DK: Because Obama is extremely popular in Belgium. In Germany or France, Obama is more popular with the public than Bush was, but he does not seem to be particularly popular with his counterparts in those governments. In Belgium, however, the people and the government are united in their affection for Obama. Or so I am told by Belgian academics I've spoken with.]
rpt says:
“It is safer to be America’s enemy than its friend…”
“His crackdown on Honduras’ pro-democracy government…”
A different reality.
September 27, 2009, 9:55 pmMike C. says:
The new site, looks very, very sharp, even with the same layout, etc. Good choice.
September 28, 2009, 3:47 amSara says:
It will be tough to have conversations with a long load delay and moderation.
September 28, 2009, 4:06 am11-B/20.B4 says:
As far as foreign policy, I haven’t seen the president do anything an untrained chimp wouldn’t be capable of. Aside from the steady stream of diplomatic gaffes (“reset” buttons, DvDs that don’t work on european players etc.) he just hasn’t gotten the country anything we didn’t have already. His “soft power” approach is just soft, no power. The proof, as they say, is in the pudding, and we aren’t getting concessions from anyone, not the Russians, not the Israelis, not the Brits, and DEFINITELY not Nkorea and Iran. We can’t even keep our closest (theoretically) ally, Britain, from releasing a terrorist convicted of killing hundreds of American citizens. It’s kind of pathetic, really. You’d think Obama would want to shore up his foreign credentials to create more support for his domestic policy. His sole “FP” victory so far consists of signing off on sniping some Somali pirates, and let’s be honest, there really wasn’t an acceptable option there. That said, I’m just glad he didn’t have the SEALs tried for war crimes afterward.
September 28, 2009, 4:16 amCommentor says:
I’ve seen surveys of economists and have wondered at their value, but surveys of bloggers?
September 28, 2009, 4:29 amJames T. Carrington says:
Considering that the military ousted Zelaya before he announced anything, and also considering that same military just shut down opposition media stations, I am not seeing that wonderful democracy rearing its head in Honduras.
And considering that Gates supports stopping the current missile shield plan that is costing us billions of dollars to replace with a more mobile solution that in turn helps improve russian relations, I’m not seeing a disaster there either.
Iran? What do you think he should be doing? Promising more intervention ala Iraq? Promising bombings or worthless sanctions? What is the right-wing “right” answer here? I’m not hearing anything useful beyond the usual bellicose glass-parking-lot solutions…
Israel? I agree that he is not pushing policy in a favorable direction and agree with you here. He gets a solid B from me in total.
September 28, 2009, 11:25 amanomdebus says:
Re: comments (since this is the only post about them)
I posted two comments to the switchover post last night. The first comment showed up, apparently without needing approval. The second I decided to edit instead of going for a third comment. That one got held up for moderation.
Of course, maybe something changed since then. I wasn’t closely monitoring the site, so I don’t know if I hit some sort of window before moderation was enabled.
September 28, 2009, 11:36 amEinhverfr says:
A couple points….
I think there is likely to be major difficulties getting any health care reform bill through this year. The stark realities are that the Senate and House approaches have hopelessly diverged. This is because there are no safe seats in the Senate so a more moderate approach is required. The spotlight will be on the committee and the Senate, and this is where I predict legislation to die.
Now, as for foreign policy, I think it is unfair to credit Obama with a crackdown on Honduran pro-democracy movements. He has unfortunately supported such a crackdown but he has not been alone in misunderstanding the situation.
On the whole I think Obama deserves a B in foreign policy (up from a D under Bush) and an F in domestic policy down from a D under Bush. For transparency and good governance, thus far I haven’t seen much to differentiate them.
September 28, 2009, 11:56 amyankee says:
Is this supposed to be a serious claim? If Russia were friendlier than it is, we would have kept an anti-Russian missile defense system in place? We’d be supporting Micheletti and Mousavi if they were more hostile to America? We’d be more hostile to the Palestinians if they were more pro-American?
September 28, 2009, 12:31 pmHans Bader says:
David Kopel is right to criticize Obama for imposing sanctions on Honduras because it removed a president this summer in an action supported by the letter of its own constitution.
The country’s supreme court ordered the arrest of the ex-president, a power-hungry bully. His removal was perfectly legal, say many lawyers and foreign policy experts, including attorneys Octavio Sanchez, Miguel Estrada and Dan Miller, former Assistant Secretary of State Kim Holmes, and Stanford’s William Ratliff.
(Links to their articles can be found in my commentaries about Honduras at the Examiner).
The Obama administration is now saying it may refuse to honor the upcoming election results in Honduras, even though the candidates were chosen before the ex-president’s removal. The U.S. routinely honors election results, even when they are held under military regimes. Refusing to do the same for Honduras, which is run by a democratically elected Congress and a civilian president, is disgraceful.
September 28, 2009, 12:42 pmHans Bader says:
Obama has demanded that Honduras allow its anti-American would-be dictator, Mel Zelaya, to return to the Presidency, even though he was removed on orders of the Honduras Supreme Court, with the backing of his country’s Congress.
Obama has ignored the many legal and foreign-affairs commentators who have pointed out that Zelaya’s removal was a legal response to Zelaya’s flouting of the constitution, and not a “coup,” such as attorneys Octavio Sanchez, Miguel Estrada, and Dan Miller, former Assistant Secretary of State Kim Holmes, and the Wall Street Journal’s Mary Anastasia O’Grady. And he has imposed travel sanctions on Honduras’s people to punish its supreme court for a recent ruling blocking Zelaya’s return.
But Obama has shown no interest at all in criticizing the human rights violations, violent repression, and anti-democratic behavior of Venezuela’s anti-American strongman, as even the liberal Washington Post, which has not endorsed a Republican for president since 1952, noted today in an editorial by Deputy Editorial Page Editor Jackson Diehl, “Double Standards on Latin America.”
The Washington Post’s Diehl notes Obama’s “willful disregard of political oppression” by anti-American regimes in places like Venezuela, and the fact that his Administration “for months refused to publicly” criticize human-rights abuses in Venezuela.
Obama’s glaring double-standard in favor of despotic anti-American regimes is not new for him. In 1983, the left-wing populist ruler of the Caribbean island nation of Grenada, Maurice Bishop, was overthrown and murdered by hardline Communist thugs backed by Cuban dictator Fidel Castro. Caribbean nations led by Dominican Prime Minister Eugenia Charles beseeched the U.S. to intervene to fight off Cuban imperialism and restore human rights and democracy, which the U.S. did, with the backing of the Organization of Eastern Caribbean States, producing a jubilant response among Grenada’s oppressed people. (Disgracefully, the UN General Assembly, representing mostly countries run by dictators, voted to condemn the U.S. for liberating Grenada).
How does Obama view this act of liberation from oppression, which has brought Grenada 25 years of peace and democracy? In his 2006 book The Audacity of Hope, he derides it as “the invasion of tiny, hapless Grenada.” This is exactly how Cuban dictator Fidel Castro disparaged America’s liberation of Grenada.
Why does Obama think it is OK to meddle in foreign countries’ internal affairs to force them to accept the return of a would-be dictator — but not to liberate them from tyranny and oppression?
September 28, 2009, 1:15 pmDave N says:
I have my doubts as to whether health care will pass this year (remember, we are almost into October) but I am guessing something passes this Congress.
The way the issue has played, the Democrats will “own” it. If health care reform succeeds, they will get all the credit. If it fails, they will get all the blame.
September 28, 2009, 1:21 pmJames T. Carrington says:
Continuing with the Poland missle defense issue:If he dislikes it…
And with Zelaya, why are the military the ones blocking him from landing his plane? The police can’t handle one ex-president? If they are confident that they have done the ‘legal’ thing here, then they would not fear his return. That doesn’t sound like something a democracy would do.
Dave N is certainly right about the HC issues – whatever happens, it is the Dem’s and nobody else’s in terms of ownership. Although I don’t think there’s enough time elapsing before the midterm elections for any of the new provisions to really dig into Dem numbers, it will likely be a huge impact on Obama’s second-term chances.
September 28, 2009, 1:43 pmsecond history says:
Outside of the public option, what does Prof. Kopel consider “harmful”? Requiring insurers to rescind policies at the application stage but not when a claim is made (as is the current practice)? Allowing Americans who want health insurance to go without? Adopting state-of-the-art health information technology systems? Using comparative effectiveness research to identify ineffective treatments? Coverage for pre-existing conditions?
Are these alll harmful? And, if so, why?
September 28, 2009, 2:23 pmsecond history says:
Apparently Obama’s fate is directly linked to the health care debate. A Facebook poll asks if the President should be assassinated, and one of the choices is “if he cuts my health care.”
The Secret Service is investigating.
September 28, 2009, 2:30 pmbyomtov says:
Why does Obama think it is OK to meddle in foreign countries’ internal affairs to force them to accept the return of a would-be dictator — but not to liberate them from tyranny and oppression?
Obviously, Hans, because he’s a Stalinist Nazi terrorist sympathizer.
September 28, 2009, 5:31 pmPQuincy says:
As every lawyer knows, part of making a persuasive case is avoiding language that so transparently pre-judges things that listeners — whatever their own opinions — will dismiss a speaker’s views because they make no effort to persuade the uncertain.
In this light, Prof. Kopel’s evocation of “the pro-democracy government in Honduras” and “safer to be America’s enemy than its friend” make it hard to believe he’s trying to persuade anyone.
Mr. Bader makes a long case that the midnight arrest of Mr. Zelaya, followed my immediate expulsion from the country by the military, was all ‘perfectly legal’. Of course, those who decry it say that Mr. Zelaya’s efforts to set up a referendum that would overrule the current constitution and extend his term of office is also “perfectly legal”, I’m sure. Neither claim passes the smell test, frankly, and therefore the decision about what the United States should do in Honduras is not, as Kopel and Bader would have it, a open-and-shut-case of following the law.
Similarly, phrases such as “safer to be an enemy” cater to impassioned rhetoric, but hardly satisfy as effective persuasion. Again, it may be possible to make a coherent case that some of President Obama’s foreign policy choices have made the world less safe in broad ways. But where is there evidence that it is now “safer to be an enemy than a friend.” This is propaganda, not argument.
Serious voices exist, to be sure, that some of the President’s decisions are likely to lead to a weakening of the American diplomatic position, which, ultimately, might make US “friends” less safe (though I’m not persuaded). Other serious voices suggest, for example, that the President’s decision on missile positioning reflected the view of the Pentagon and the Secretary of Defense, as well as many experts, is likely to allow actual serious negotiation about how to cope with Iran’s evident nuclear ambitions to proceed in the real world we live in. The disagreement is real. Prof. Kopel’s statement here therefore fails not because there isn’t a serious argument to be made, but because it echoes a long tradition of right wing rhetoric suggesting that anyone who disagrees with them is either a fool or intentionally harming US interests abroad. Such a stance does not, in my humble opinion, either contribute to debate nor does it lead to making the US, or the world, any safer.
As suggested in a very thought-provoking comment just after this one on the main blog, we may all be convinced that things are more polarized now because it is so much easier to see people expressing things that appear (to us) not to be arguements, but ranting. Such ranting occurs on all fringes — left, right and other — and the relatively high visibility of such ranting (“safer to be an enemy”, etc.) may lead to its being incorporated, consciously or not, into the rhetoric of usually more thoughtful sites like this one. That’s a loss for blogging and for civil debate.
September 28, 2009, 6:58 pmMarc says:
What is with the US obsession with the presidents position. Congress is the one who is supposed to be responsible for US foreign policy. Also, this country is the sum of its parts. The president’s ability to get anything done is based on sooo many things. Thinking of our gov’t as a single organism with coordinated policy is absolutely absurd. The President isn’t getting much done abroad because the US gov’t isn’t getting anything done abroad. Stop writing about a single person, and actually dig into some real reasons this country is becoming dysfunctional.
September 28, 2009, 7:43 pmBruce Hayden says:
I would probably say yes to all of them.
Insurers give us notably cheaper insurance because they do not have to do as much underwriting by double checking things when claims are made, and not when the policy is put into effect. Most people are relatively honest when applying for insurance (esp. if their agents scare them, as they often do), and the cost of full underwriting would be very expensive, and a waste of money for most of us. Besides, many, if not most, policies have an uncontestable period – i.e. if you don’t make a claim for X time (often a year or two) on something that you didn’t tell them about, and they don’t find out about it during that time, you are usually home free.
And, yes, I think that it is just fine if 20 something guys go without health insurance if they would rather spend the money on beer and girls. They pretty much only need health insurance for accidents anyway. With only a 2x age rating differential, they are going to be paying a huge amount of money for almost no health care usage. Now, if they were forced to buy catastrophic coverage, then maybe I would be ok with it. But not the sort of low copay, high price policies that they will be forced to buy.
Comparative effectiveness research? The reason that this is in the proposals is for health care rationing. Currently, private insurance companies have a hard time denying claims if a good argument can be made for the treatments. My girlfriend is the recipient of probably a million+ in care for her back that would likely be denied if her insurance company had this as a cover for denying her coverage. They didn’t, so she can still walk, and isn’t addicted to the heavy narcotics that would have resulted if her insurer had had the cover of comparative effectiveness research.
Finally, preexisting conditions. The reason that they are typically excluded, at least for a year or two, is that without that, you have serious adverse selection problems. It is no longer health care insurance, but rather, a method of spreading the costs over more people. You only take the insurance when you get really sick. Of course, the proposed counter to that is to require that everyone pay for insurance, regardless of health, and to not pay that much more if you are sick. Oh, and that you can apparently go to jail if you don’t carry insurance. i.e. imposing health insurance on everyone at the point of a gun.
Another problem here is that non-governmental plans are going to figure out ways to dump their sick patients, one way or another. They will always be one or two steps ahead of Congress here, and, as a result, the sick will be the ones on the government plans. They have to, in order to make money, if they can’t exclude pre-existing conditions and cannot age rate (more than 2X) or significantly health rate their policies.
But, other than your proposals pretty much all violating the laws of economics, I can see your point.
September 28, 2009, 9:32 pmJohn Moore says:
Pre-existing conditions are a significant problem, especially if you cannot buy insurance at any price because of them.
However, it is manifestly unfair (and economically inefficient) for someone to pay insurance premiums all their lives, through their employers, and then be unable to buy insurance at all if they leave their employer.
I would suggest that the young who don’t want to pay for insurance are not looking at it right (which, given the situation I describe above, is not irrational). If they are fortunate enough to live long enough, they too will be expensive to insure. If the insurance payments are more like a pre-payment of their future costs, it makes a lot more sense.
This is the idea of HSA’s – you invest in them when young and well, and pay your medical costs when older. Unfortunately, I don’t know of any path to get there without coercion and/or adverse selection.
It is not an easy problem, and neither the libertarians nor the liberals seem to have “the answer.”
September 28, 2009, 9:51 pmJoan in Juneau says:
Health Care and Health Insurance are linked in some ways but many seem to feel health care is all about insurance and I don’t find that the case. I believe we all have health care now and can get care whether we have insurance or not. I don’t see the insurance companies as the bad guys here as so many are trying to make them out to be. There are things that can be changed there but not as many as in other areas of the debate that seem to be getting entirely overlooked. We have mismanaged medicare, out of control welfare and with it comes medicaid. We have the illegal aliens that stay and also those that just cross the border to reap the benefits. We have enormous malpractice lawsuits and drug companies that sell the same meds in other countries for a fraction of what they sell them here. We also have meds that were developed using federal grants (taxpayer money) that when they hit the market, we have to pay for them yet again. Fix these things and see where we are and then go from there. But as you see, not much of this is insurance company fault… it all goes back to the government and IMO they have made enough of a mess of things, give them a chance to straighten these out and then perhaps, just perhaps, I would trust them to meddle in my health care. Besides, if we are really in a crisis, why does so little of this plan go into effect before 2013 and beyond?
September 28, 2009, 11:51 pmSmith Joe says:
You guys do a great blog, and have some great contests. Keep up the good work. Thank you :)
September 29, 2009, 1:09 am11-B/20.B4 says:
Histrionics aside, can anyone point me to a diplomatic victory, where the Obama administration gained something from foreign countries for the good of America, which we were not previously capable of getting? Or a point at which he has shown strong leadership in favor of US interests? Yes, in his weeklong love-slog through Europe he managed to get a couple hundred non-combat troops for Afghanistan (symbolic largely) and SoS Clinton convinced the chinese to keep buying our debt (they have no choice at this point). If people are grading him a “B” for foreign policy is it just because he hasn’t launched any new wars? Really, I want to know. Speeches are cheap, I need to know if I missed anything substantive.
September 29, 2009, 5:39 amJMA says:
“…and neither the libertarians nor the liberals seem to have ‘the answer.’”
The bad thing about this question is that it assumes certain conditions which would not be part of all answers.
September 29, 2009, 8:17 amALPINE STEVE says:
People have a right to refuse medical treatment for any reason.
September 29, 2009, 9:36 amThey also have a right to take very good care of themselves
and used tried and proven homepathic treatments to cure thier
ailments. Most times these are effective and people get better.
A common cold will go away even if you don’t see MD. However some
things need professional care. However to force people who don’t
want to purchase insurance products is wrong and a crime in itself.
And they want to criminalize those who don’t. Will they make it
a Fellony? Will there be jail time for failure to comply? Don’t tell me or use as propaganda the theme that everyone has to buy car insurance required by law bs,to justify forced or coerced purchase of a service or product, because I can choose not to drive as many people do and don’t, like city dwellers. Also why not make small seperate bills in congress to improve and regulate the insurance industry. Pass bills on the things everyone agrees on. Why all this all or nothing sht. Also
don’t add porkfat and bs to bills because its always unhealthy and clogs the countries plans. The goverment is so disfunctional, that I’m embarrassed in front of my children when I try to explain it to them.
Thorley Winston says:
I think you’re right on both counts.
Even if we did away with the “public option,” that still leaves the “exchanges” which would essentially rewrite private health insurance plans based on whichever group has the best lobbyists in D.C. to demand the inclusion of their benefits, no purchasing of health insurance across State lines, reducing or eliminating health savings accounts, discouraging the purchase of high deductible/low premium catastrophic health insurance policies, a back door for price controls on new drugs and devices, and both an employer and individual mandate with fines and jail time.
September 29, 2009, 10:00 amJohn Moore says:
“Smith Joe” above is a spam comment (check the link) – the kind that shows up too often in my blog.
September 29, 2009, 9:40 pm