Morning Must Reads

The New York Times story on the press conference passes along the assertion from the White House that the president will use the chance to sell health care but also as a “six-month report card” on their success in “rescu[ing] the economy.” Not likely. This is all about the medicines.

The Journal’s more lucid verdict: the White House is consciously staking the president’s political future on his ability to wheedle a win on health; passage by August is critical to that goal; and the unfocused effort and dismal economy so far has left Americans worried.
But those around Obama, drawn to him by his abilities as a conciliator, now believe he can lay his hands on the legislation and heal its many infirmities.

But it’s nothing like anything he’s had to do before. Convincing Democrats to give away free money with no tax increases was easy in February. Even a weak cap and trade was a brutal struggle for the lopsided House in June.

But there is some truth to the White House line that Washington is closer to reform now than in 40 years.

“Indeed, the overall effort is well ahead of past attempts. Some key interest groups that opposed past efforts have campaigned for action this year and remain on board today. And perhaps most critically, unlike in 1993-94, Democrats are unified on a basic approach to covering uninsured Americans: expand Medicaid, the joint state-federal program for the poor, and create health-insurance exchanges where private plans and possibly a government-run option sell coverage to individuals and small businesses.

New regulations would require insurers to sell to all who seek coverage and bar them from charging sick people extra. All Americans would be required to have insurance, with income-based subsidies available to many. Finally, new rules would attempt to control the costs of care.

All the bills working their way through Congress share those features, a notable change in itself given the much wider range of views on the best way to retool the system.
 
New York Times — Challenge to Health Bill: Selling Reform
 
Writer David Leonhardt explains the biggest question facing the presidents vaguely defined but forcefully expressed desire for health care reform: Who benefits?

Previous presidents have sold big domestic programs on the basis of specific benefits – free drugs for a growing elderly population, a tax cut for everyone, security in retirement.

But as the president has refused to get behind any health plan, he has lacked any specific benefits to sell.

Leonhardt argues that the president should sell Americans on his ability to control the rising cost of health care, but there’s no evidence that any of the three parallel-track plans in Congress would bring costs down.

But controlling costs is about all the president has. With voters overwhelmingly satisfied with their own care, the current suggestions from Obama and his party about how to hold down costs all deal with les access. The one systemic answer that works – taxing all health benefits and subjecting health spending to regular market forces – is politically unviable with two core groups of the presidents’ health posse: Big Labor and big insurance companies. 

But Obama, having fallen into the same lobbyist trap as Hillary Clinton did in 1993, is not in a position to be the champion of the little guy or to explain to average Americans how they benefit.

“So far, no one has grabbed the mantle as the defender of the typical household — the opponent of spending that creates profits for drug companies and hospitals at no benefit to people’s health and at significant cost to their finances.

Republicans have actually come out against doing research into which procedures improve health. Blue Dog Democrats oppose wasteful spending but until recently have not been specific. Liberals rely on the wishful idea — yet to be supported by evidence — that more preventive care will reduce spending. The American Medical Association, not surprisingly, endorses this notion of doing more care in the name of less care.

Mr. Obama says many of the right things. Yet the White House has not yet shown that it’s willing to fight the necessary fights.”
 
Washington Post — Like Car Insurance, Health Coverage May Be Mandated
 
The expectation among many is that the White House, desperate for a win on health care, will lower its definition of reform in order to get something done now.

The Washington Post, which has been the biggest booster of a health overhaul, makes its play for which of which of Sophie’s children should be spared – an individual mandate for coverage like the one in Massachusetts.

Writer Ceci Connolly makes the case with characteristic gusto.

Insurance companies love the individual mandate because everyone has to buy their product and the government takes on the worst risks through expanded Mediciad coverage. And liberals tolerate it because it gets to universal coverage and is highly regulated. Bean counters approve because it Conservatives have misgivings because it expands the risk pool. Conservatives have misgivings because it creates a new government fee for existing — everyone who draws breath must buy insurance or pay a hefty fee – rather than auto insurance that is predicated on the choice of driving a car.

The Massachusetts plan that Connolly touts has serious problems, particularly runaway costs for the government component now resulting in a discussion about how to limit treatments. Despite having a friend in the governor’s mansion there, the White House has assiduously avoided any connection to the experiment in Massachusetts.

But the problem of costs is little discussed in the Post piece.

“Stuart Butler, a vice president at the conservative Heritage Foundation, agrees that bringing everyone — especially young, healthy patients — into the risk pool would be advantageous.

But he advocates beginning with a voluntary “opt out” approach similar to automatic enrollment programs for retirement accounts. If policies are reasonably priced, he expects that few will turn down the coverage.

The challenge, said Butler and experts in Massachusetts, is designing a basic benefits package that is affordable.”
 
Wall Street Journal — Iraq’s Reluctant Leader Emerges as Unlikely Force
 
But what does Nouri al-Maliki think about Obamacare? The Iraqi leader has bigger fish to fry on his visit to the White House today, even if President Obama may be a little distracted.

Writer Gina Chon looks at what’s at stake for the first Iraqi national leader since Saddam while in Washington in a great profile of the prime minister.

“Looking ahead to January’s national parliamentary elections, Iraq’s first since 2005, Mr. Maliki says he believes he has Iraqis’ support. But there’s no guarantee he can assemble a slate of candidates to take on a political system still dominated by sects and ethnic identities.

Mr. Maliki says that even now, he doesn’t have enough authority to overhaul basic services, blaming the open hostility of ministers from rival factions. Still, he has come to embrace his role.

‘I was forced to be prime minister,’ Mr. Maliki says. ‘But now, at least I can say I’ve done something for my country.’
 
New York Times — For Holder, Tough Choice on Interrogation Inquiry
 
Eric Holder is a media darling of the first water, and in each successive puff piece that blows his way he is described as more haunted, more conflicted and more conscience-burdened by what he has learned about the way the CIA treated terrorists.
David Johnston’s analysis piece sums up the establishment liberal line of all the recent pieces pretty neatly: Will Holder jeopardize Barack Obama’s presidency by doing the right thing? Johnston seems to suggest that the conscientious AG will have no choice.
Liberals are rooting for him to launch a prosecution when he releases a report on the interrogation process next month. So are many conservatives who believe that such a reckless display will show the administration’s true colors on national security.

“Mr. Holder has told associates he is weighing a narrow investigation, focusing only on C.I.A. interrogators and contract employees who clearly crossed the line and violated the Bush administration’s guidelines and engaged in flagrantly abusive acts.
But in taking that route, Mr. Holder would run two risks. One is the political fallout if only a handful of low-level agents are prosecuted for what many critics see as a pattern of excess condoned at the top of the government. The other is that an aggressive prosecutor would not stop at the bottom, but would work up the chain of command, and end up with a full-blown criminal inquiry into the intelligence agencies — just the kind of broad, open-ended criminal investigation the Obama administration says it wants to avoid.”