The Senate has taken a big step by announcing that its health care reform bill will include a public option, the details of which we've yet to see. But if we hope to have a fighting chance to reform the system, the public option will have to be more than the weak thing this one likely is.

With Senator Reid's announcement, we appear to be putting the finishing touches on dividing the health insurance risk pool in two:

• The high-risk public pool of elderly, unemployed or underpaid, chronically ill and dying individuals, along with children of low-income families, and
• The low-risk private pool of relatively healthy, employed and decently paid individuals.

The health care costs of the high-risk public pool are paid for with public funds. The health care costs of the low-risk private pool are paid for with private funds.

Here's the makeup of the high-risk public pool, broadly speaking:

• Medicare covers everyone over 65 along with end-stage renal disease patients, totalling about 35-40 million.
• Medicaid covers about 50 million low-income individuals, mostly children, pregnant women, elderly (dual eligible) or disabled. Among those covered by Medicaid are people whose very expensive chronic illnesses have caused them to "spend down" their assets to the point where they no longer have the ability to pay for health care.
• The limited public option, restricted to those qualified to participate in the insurance exchange and estimated to cover about 10 million people. The exchange risk pool will be a grab bag, including some self-employed, some employed by small companies, some unemployed and underemployed, some chronically ill with assets too high to qualify for Medicaid, and so on.

The high-risk public pool will cover 90-100 million Americans. The low-risk private pool will cover 180-200 million Americans. 10 or 20 million will remain uninsured and continue to drain the public and charitable side of the system.

Private health plans will operate in both the low-risk and high-risk pools. Public plans are forbidden to operate in the low-risk pool.

What we have here is reverse cherry-picking. Private insurors may no longer be able to deny coverage for pre-existing conditions, or cancel coverage when you need it most, but they are rewarded by a system that provides no public-sector competition in the lucrative low-risk private pool, and will drive more and more of the highest cost patients into the high-risk public pool.

There is only one risk pool that makes any sense, and that is "everone." Absent a public option that is available to everyone (the "E" in Medicare E) there remain too many ways for private insurors to game the system, skimming the more profitable portions of the pie while avoiding competition where it could truly make a difference.

Rejoice that the Senate can say "public option." Now it's time to be sure the words mean something.

In my inbox yesterday, this CV summary:

Wall Street mover/shaker now accepting offers:

Creative financier. Talented rainmaker. Innovative lender.

Recent Achievement Example: accepted $1.2 trillion from Federal Reserve, non-recourse, at 0.0001% annual interest rate. Invested in T-bills at 4%. No risk, remarkable spread. Infinite ROI a/c zero capital requirement. Returns $48 billion annually. How's that for creative financing?

Reason for leaving present position? Kenneth Feinberg says I can't have my 10% of $48 billion earned commission. #@&*! government thinks it can do my job, just let them try it.

Currently vacationing in the Seychelles. Interested parties may apply by leaving a message on my cell phone. Phone messages that do not clearly specify the compensation package will not be returned. All offers will be considered on a first come, first served basis. Do not leave multiple messages, because that's needy.

The following is the text of Blanche Lincoln's online chat with her constituents on Sunday afternoon.

After you read it, you may be moved to help BlueAmerica encourage the good Senator from Arkansas, and others like her, to support real health care reform. Maybe we can remind her that the path she, Mark Pryor and Mike Ross are pursuing is pretty much responsible for Arkansas being ranked 48th among the states in health care.

--

Moderator: Hello and welcome to Senator Lincoln's Health Care chat. The Senator is looking through the initial submissions now and she'll post the first question and answer shortly.

In the meantime, you can use the chat box at the bottom of screen to submit your own question. Please be sure to include your first name and your city so we can identify you.

Thanks for being a part of this. We'll be underway shortly!

5:03
Moderator: First question was submitted in advance by email from Larry:

Given the very dismal records of the government in managing social security, medicare, medicaid, welfare, and just about every other government-run program, please explain to me why any of us should believe that the government is going to be any more effective at running health care?

5:06
Sen. Blanche Lincoln:
Larry, I understand there are many areas where government must perform better. However, at least three of the programs you mentioned, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are the most successful social programs in the world.

Without Social Security, millions of elderly Americans would have lacked the basic necessities in their later years. It covers virtually everyone and is fully portable from one job to another. And, it's remarkably efficient. Less than one percent of annual income is used for administration.

We need to build on the success of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid to ensure the fiscal solvency of these programs for generations.

5:09
Moderator: Next question was submitted by Blake over email in advance.

As a doc in the Delta area, hi unemployment, few industries, I am so tired of seeing patients who wait til the last minute to come for what turns out to be either a TERMINAL diagnosis, or ADVANCED disease diagnosis, with subsequent shortened life span. WE MUST HAVE reforms! Insurance for all so NO ONE is afraid they CAN'T afford to come to the doctor or get expensive tests or Xrays, or can't afford the drive to the specialists that in our case our greater than 1 hour away! The "Medicare" for all seems good, but the insurance industry also must change.

5:11
Sen. Blanche Lincoln:
You make a strong case for why we can't afford to do nothing about health care. Health care delivery in much of our rural state is challenging and expensive.

Consumer health care costs in Arkansas are rising five to six times faster than wages. I am supporting reforms that force the insurance industry to accept customers with pre-existing conditions and prevent those companies from dropping you when you get sick.

5:11
Sen. Blanche Lincoln:
I want medical decisions back in the hands of patients and doctors, not government bureaucrats and now insurance bureaucrats that routinely deny coverage for pre-existing conditions.

5:16
[Comment From Ray and Judy ]
We are terribly disappointed that you have caved in to the insurance industry and failed to support the public option for health care. It may very well affect our vote for you in the next election.

5:27
Sen. Blanche Lincoln:
Sorry for the delay. We had a little technical difficulty. This is the first time we've tried something like this.

Unfortunately the insurance companies opposed the bill I supported in the Finance Committee. There are many ways to provide greater options and choices to indivudals, including non-profits, a state plan, and a co-op plan.

5:28
[Comment From Nathan - Rogers ]
As long as hospitals and insurance company executive are paid based on the profits their comapnies make, how can we expect the focus to be on the patient without a public option?

5:29
Sen. Blanche Lincoln:
We're changing that by changing the rules for insurance.

They can no longer deny you based on pre-existing conditions. They can no longer drop you when you become ill. They can no longer charge you more based on your gender.

And thanks to my amendment in the Finance Committee, taxpayers will no longer subsidize enormous excutive compensation.

5:31
[Comment From David Loenneke ]
Senator, I know your schedule is terribly busy, but would you commit to holding several meetings in person around the state to discuss health care reform? It is obviously a topic of great importance to the American people.

5:34
Sen. Blanche Lincoln:
You are exactly right. It is critically important to the American people and our economy.

I have had legislation in Congress every year since 2004 to reform small business health care access. I held public hearings in April and again in early September around the state and through avenues like this online chat and our website.

I will continue to reach out to hear your concerns. I know how importan this is to all Arkansans.

5:35
[Comment From Jesse Barr, Winslow, AR ]
Changing the rules will not work! The insurance companies will stall and obfuscate and pay any fines as a cost of doing business! Competition is the ONLY way to make the insurance corporations change their behavior!

5:37
Sen. Blanche Lincoln:
I share your views. Providing competition and choice is the best way to make insurance companies change their behavior and be more competitive. It is also the best way to provide more affordable choices for people. Changing the rules is the first step towards forcing the competition.

5:39
[Comment From Shannon, Little Rock ]
Did the bill you supported in the Finance Committee have a public option?

5:40
Sen. Blanche Lincoln:
It had a co-op plan that was run by its members, was completely solvent, met all of the rating and minimum standard rules, and any profits made had to go back into the co-op to be applied toward bringing down costs of premiums.

5:41
[Comment From Matt - Springdale ]
How can a private business compete with the gov't on an even playing field? The gov't doesn't have to make a profit. The feds can keep racking up more debt while they put regular insurance companies out of business.

5:42
Sen. Blanche Lincoln:
You make a good point. So far the public options offered have put government in the role of either subsidizing plans or running them. And please note that the finance committee bill was deficit neutral.

5:44
[Comment From hershey from fayetteville ]
senator, please get this right - don't give our seat to the republicans

5:45
Sen. Blanche Lincoln:
My first concern is about how health insurance reform will affect the people of Arkansas. I know that I will be accountable at the next election, but this issue is not about politics. It's about people, it's about our country, and it's about our state.

5:47
[Comment From Judith and Les, Randolph ]
Under current rates....too many Arkansans will be left without insurance forever. There are too many low level minimum wage earners....where do they fit in without a Public Option?

5:49
Sen. Blanche Lincoln:
In the bill I supported last week, we worked hard to provide meaningful subsidies for low income families, to create exchange pools similar to federal employees like myself where small business and the self-employed can choose from multiple options just as I do.

We also provided meaningful tax credits for small business to help with their employees.

5:51
[Comment From Barbara, Heber Springs ]
Is there some way small companies can 'piggy back' on to large corportations insurance policies, or be 'adopted' by them. If a large corp. had 1,000 employees covered, could the small company 'join' it and make it a corporation with best prices that now has 1025 people?

5:52
Sen. Blanche Lincoln:
Under our bill there is no need to because we create an exchange pool that allows small businesses to combine themselves to have the same negotiating power that major corporations do.

5:54
[Comment From Kevin ]
Judith response ...put them on Medicaid -- most probably qualify, but the admin forms, and eligibility is horribly confusing!!!

5:56
Sen. Blanche Lincoln: Kevin is right. We have 500,000 Arkansans who are uninsured, approx 77,000 are children and 2/3rds of them are eligible for ARKids First.

A large portion of the uninsured in Arkansas are eligible for Medicade.

I advocate automatic enrollment and allowing them to opt-out if they choose to go to the exchange. It's crazy to try to create new programs for individuals who already fit into programs that work.

5:58
[Comment From "Doc" - Fayetteville ]
It seems to me that you are more inclined to keep insurance companies in the health care business than you are to see people provided health care... Please comment. Do insurance companies NEED to sell health care policies to survive?

5:59
Sen. Blanche Lincoln: We already have an employer based, private health care system. We are trying to make it more affordable for everyone. We can't just throw it all out and start over, but we can make it more efficient and more affordable for everyone.

6:05
[Comment From Stan Wilson ]
Again why are you opposed to a public option or everyone having the same health care options that you have?

6:05
Sen. Blanche Lincoln: That is exactly what I am for.

I am for expanding health care options for everyone just like the options that I and 8 million other federal employees have. Today the state of Arkansas has one or two options for customers. My goal is to expand that to dozens of choices.

6:06
Sen. Blanche Lincoln:
That's all the time we have for today. Thanks so much to everyone who participated. I'm so grateful to know that so many Arkansans are engaging in this critical national debate.
Talk to you all again real soon.

6:07
Moderator: We received hundreds of comments from folks across Arkansas, and the Senator couldn't answer each of you directly. We'll be doing events like this again in the near future. We'll be sure to let you know.

Thanks again.

In the comment thread on khin's excellent post, Refuting Myths on Health Care and Medicare for All, Fred Moolten argues that:

Most of the excess [in health care costs] resides within healthcare itself, in the form of duplicate or unnecessary facilities, test, procedures, and specialty referrals driven by a fee for service paradigm that rewards excess.

and PseudoCyAnts asks a very good question:

any decent study citations to go along with this? it has the feel of conventional wisdom, which far too often is in error.

Since Pseudo's question isn't answered, I thought it might be worth starting a new thread.

We can agree there is some level of waste, duplication and even fraud, and that it should be contained as much as possible. The question is whether waste and duplication on the part of providers actually do account, as Fred avers, for "most of the exceess" in health care costs.

The Christian Science Monitor recently ran an op/ed by Dr. Arthur Gerson, former dean of the University of Virginia School of Medicine. Here's a quote:

Our current healthcare spending is approximately $2.1 trillion (that's up from $1.3 trillion noninflation adjusted in 2000). We waste an estimated one-third – or about $700 billion – on unnecessary procedures, unnecessary visits to the doctor, overpriced pharmaceuticals, bloated insurance companies, and the most inefficient paper billing systems imaginable.

Dr. Gerson doesn't quote his source, unfortunately, but if it's a good source our search for waste and duplication must extend well beyond health care providers, to include "overpriced pharmaceuticals, bloated insurance companies" and more.

Information published by The Commonwealth Fund, one of the go-to NGOs when it comes to health care research and quality advocacy, provides some support for looking beyond just the providers. You may find this Web page interesting. It contains a series of charts entitled, "Universal Health Insurance: Why It Is Essential to Achieving a High Performance Health System and Why Design Matters Charts."

One chart here, entitled "Health Expenditure Growth 2000–2005 for Selected Categories of Expenditures," shows growth in the following cost categories [if I knew how to do it, I'd reproduce the chart]:

• 12.0% – Program administration and net cost of private health insurance
• 10.7% – Prescription drugs
• 8.6% – Hospital care
• 7.9% – Physician & clinical services
• 6.1% – Nursing home & home health
• 8.6% – Total

Another Commonwealth page of interest here is entitled "Overuse and Duplication/Waste Charts." (click for Web reference).

Beyond waste and duplication, and perhaps even more costly, is our inefficiency in treating chronic diseases. The fragmentation of our health care system, with it's competing interest groups and agendas, causes a lot of this inefficiency.

The CDC makes a very plain statement about this (click for Web reference):

Chronic diseases – such as heart disease, stroke, cancer, and diabetes – are among the most prevalent, costly, and preventable of all health problems.

According to the CDC (click for Web reference):

• Chronic diseases account for 70% of all deaths in the United States.
• The medical care costs of people with chronic diseases account for more than 75% of the nation’s $2 trillion medical care costs.
• Chronic diseases account for one-third of the years of potential life lost before age 65.

If chronic diseases account for 75% of health care costs, and attendent suffering, we might want to look at what's driving those costs and whether there's a way to bring them under control. We might especially want to know if there could be a connection between providing better care and controlling costs.

Insurance companies, acting rationally as we expect for-profit corporations to do, control their own costs of chronic disease by refusing coverage, refusing treatment, and recision. The diseases don't go away, though, and the costs get dumped on non-profit hospitals and Medicaid. In other words, the excess cost of refusing intelligent treatment for chronic diseases is passed on to you and me. Meanwhile, there is more suffering than there needs to be.

One of the Commonwealth charts (see links, above) is entitled "Adults Without Insurance Are Less Likely To Be Able To Manage Chronic Conditions." The chart illustrates the following:

• Uninsured patients are three times more likely to skip their medications due to cost than are insured patients.
• Uninsured patients are 2.2 times more likely to be hospitalized or visit the ER than are insured patients.

Another chart, with a very long name, shows that putting caps on drug reimbursements increases the number of more adverse consequences suffered by patients, off-setting the savings in prescription costs.

The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation is another NGO that focuses a good bit of attention on chronic care (click for Web reference). Here's a quote from RWJ:

[Deficiencies in current management of chronic diseases] include:

• Rushed practitioners not following established practice guidelines
• Lack of care coordination
• Lack of active follow-up to ensure the best outcomes
• Patients inadequately trained to manage their illnesses
  

Overcoming these deficiencies will require nothing less than a transformation of health care, from a system that is essentially reactive - responding mainly when a person is sick - to one that is proactive and focused on keeping a person as healthy as possible.

Transforming complex systems, like health care, is not easy to do. Organizing the energies and agendas of doctors, hospitals, nurses, technicians, patients, consultants private insurors, Medicare, Medicaid, and innumerable other interest groups requires more than just research and advocacy. It requires leadership than can transcend the inevitable internecine squabbling. That's why I believe that single-payer universal coverage is the best way to achieve the transformation RWJ advocates.

But back to our discussion. There's no doubt that controlling waste and duplication will help save costs and, done correctly, improve outcomes. But we need to keep our eye on the prize. Affordable, high-quality health care for everyone.

One of the pervasive themes I've followed in TPM blogs is that we must divide the campaign for better health care into two parts.

1. Regulating and supervising the insurance side, and
2. Reducing waste and duplication on the provider side.

Fred Moolten, for one, argues that we are about to make some progress on #1 and hopefully can get around to #2 at a later date. He presents the case well but I am not convinced. I think what we are doing now may change some of the rules of the game, but the game will still be afoot.

Private insurance creates a distortion field that inserts itself between patients and providers in ways that are inimical to the interests of both. The industry takes hundreds of billions of dollars out of health care but does not add commensurate value back. We only put up with this situation out of fear.

If we manage some incremental reform, even including a crippled public option, the insurance industry will not roll over just because we have passed new laws and written new regulations. While we are patting ourselves on the back because we finally made partial progress on part of the problem, they will be organizing board retreats and hiring consultants and ginning up work groups to figure out how to gain back any profitable ground they have lost, plus a little more. It is the nature of any for-profit organization to work that way.

If you and I have a vision of providing high quality health care, affordably, to every American, we must pursue a truly game-changing strategy. Patients, providers and our government all have positive contributions to make to this new game, but insurance companies can never be counted on to be part of the team. The incentives that help make them profitable are not the same incentives that help make health care better and more equitable, and vice-versa.

We can't do this piecemeal.

The American health insurance industry is inadvertently doing its best to promote single-payer universal health care. A report commissioned by America's Health Insurance Plans (AHIP) and released this weekend estimates the following:

• $12,300 is the cost of an average family health plan today. The same plan will cost:
• $15,500 in 2013
• $18,400 in 2016
• $21,900 in 2019

That's if we do nothing. Of course, the real value of these plans will also decrease as they become more expensive, because insurance companies will raise co-pays, lower caps and become even more creative about denying claims and canceling policies when people need them as time goes on.
I know AHIP is using this to argue against health care reform (see TPM article and Jonathan Cohn in TNR), but really, I can't imagine a better argument for universal, single-payer health care.
Can you?

Andrew Sullivan abhors torture. How do I know? His naive plea to George Bush in the current Atlantic magazine tells me so.
But he's pretty much unconcerned about the half-million or so Americans who have died from lack of health insurance since he published Betsy McCaughey's lying screed, "No Exit," in TNR 15 years ago. How do I know? The Daily Dish tells me so.
In "McCaughey and Me," on October 7, Sullivan blogs that "I take full responsibility for being the editor of the magazine that published the piece. I accepted an award for it. I stood behind it."
Then he goes on to say he knew McCaughey's article was bogus but he enjoyed "driving liberals a little bit crazy" in those days. Here's the bottom line for Sullivan, though. "There's one reason the Clinton health care bill failed," he asserts, " and it isn't Betsy McCaughey. It's Hillary Clinton."
I'm glad you had your opportunity to have a little fun with the liberals, Andrew, but let me get this straight. You want the-buck-stops-over-there George Bush to own up to his responsibility for torture, but you plan to wiggle out of your own culpability for denying health care to a half-generation of Americans.
Sorry. There's no exit from this one.

Here's the headline from today's Arkansas Democrat-Gazette:
U.S. Care Rankings Put Arkansas At 48
That's why we don't need no stinkin' health care reform down here. The article goes on to say:
"Arkansas' quality of health care, particularly for children, helped it edge up in a new state-by-state ranking of health systems.

"It climbed just one spot, and only because of a revision of the previous report by the Commonwealth Fund. Because of, in part, too many overweight children, cigarette smoking adults and people who avoid doctor visits for a variety of reasons, the state still ranks among the very worst, at 48th.

"The fund, a private foundation pushing for a national health-care overhaul, released the assessment today. Only Louisiana, Oklahoma and Mississippi fared worse thanArkansas among the states and Washington, D.C."

We "edged up!" Don't you love it? Here's the part I like best. The reason our quality of health care down here is so bad, is because our children are fat, we smoke too much and we don't like to go to the doctor. It's all our fault, don't you see. We, after all, are the "consumers" of health care and we choose not to consume as much as we need.

Wait a minute. Wait just a damned minute. That's what we're supposed to do, isn't it? Consume less health care? You bet. The health care system would be sound if only health care consumers would consume less health care. After all, that's the reasoning behind higher co-pays and lower caps and individual health savings accounts. Make consumers pay more so they'll use less and health care will improve.

So I say the Commonwealth Fund has it backwards and the Arkansas Dem-Gaz headline should read:

Arkansas and 3 Other States Lead In Health Care Improvement

"Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma and Mississippi lead the way in reducing the utilization of health care providers. 'Our citizens are doing their part to make the health care system healthier,' said Corporate Blanche Lincoln, announcing the latest findings from the Commonwealth Fund that show Arkansans among the leaders in avoiding health care.

"Linked arm-in-arm with the Board Chairman and CEO of Arkansas Blue Cross Blue Shield, Corporate Blanche went on to thank Walmart, another Arkansas-based corporation, for their sustained efforts in driving down health care costs by discouraging the use of health care. 'If we keep this up,' Lincoln said, 'our corporations will become more competitive on the global stage and our health care consumers will see that curbing consumption is good for the economy.'

"Mark Pryor was unavailable for comment, because they keep him in the back room with the bibles and away from modern technologies like recording devices."

The bottom line on healthcare reform is that it is not worth doing if it is not done right....Howard Dean (h/t Daily Kos)

Matthew Iglesias doesn't agree. In fact, he makes it plain in his blog entitled "Obama vs. MoveOn" for The Daily Beast that MoveOn is taking the wrong tack in attacking Republican-Lite Democrats for not supporting a strong public-sector health plan. It's irrational, Matthew complains:

A credible threat to do something irrational, in other words, can be a powerful force in politics. But actually following through can be a huge mistake...Matthew Iglesias

In the interest of bipartisanship, which is the most rational of all possible goals, perhaps we can meet in the middle. Let's write up any health care reform bill that will pass, and/or pass any bill that we write up, declare victory and "move on." It's the declaring victory part that will be bipartisan, don't you see. A win-win for everyone (everyone that counts, that is).
Oh and by the way, you still don't have real health care? Not worry, in another 35 years we'll get around to taking another look.
If that's not good enough for you, here's Howard Dean again:

The purpose of electing a Democratic president was not simply to elect a Democratic president. The purpose of electing a Democratic president was to have a president in office who cared about ordinary people, and who is willing to fight hard for principles against the well-heeled forces in our nation's capital that resist change at every turn.

This is your fight.

 

Re: Saddam's pistol, soon to be showcased in George Bush's "Gunfight At The OK Corral" museum.
After 4000 American deaths, uncounted Iraqi deaths and one trillion dollars borrowed from the Chinese (to be repayed by our grandchildren), whose gun is it, anyway? Georgie's?

Attempts to maintain daily blog are subverted by ... need ... to ... earn ... living...

Travel schedule intervenes. I like doing the research for [On This Day] but, after being on the road since January 8, find the need for sleep compelling.

Intensive travel continues through early February. Hopefully, by the time I'm back, Bush will have announced imminent withdrawal from reckless adventures in the land of the Musselmen.

Be nice. Try not to insult anyone. Especially the proudly ignorant, self-satisfied, reality-resistant, Christian dominionist freak show at the White House. But if you find you must, eschew the word "dumbass."

...

The Headlines, January 11, 2003

• Rumsfeld Orders 35,000 More Troops Deployed Near Iraq
• Cheney Returns Fire In Battle On Tax Cuts
• Allies Slow U.S. War Plans
• NSC Weighs Giving UN Inspectors More Sensitive Data On Iraq




The Stories




RUMSFELD ORDERS 35,000 MORE TROOPS DEPLOYED NEAR IRAQ

Rumsfeld ups the pressure on Saddam Hussein by signing a “mammoth deployment order” sending 35,000 additional troops to the Persian Gulf. Reported by Thom Shanker for the New York Times.

...

CHENEY RETURNS FIRE IN BATTLE ON TAX CUTS

According to Elisabeth Bumiller in the NYT, the Vice President used his speech to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to explain that Bush’s $674,000,000,000,000 tax cut plan “is not geared to the rich, would not hurt state budgets and would not increase the federal deficit over time.”

...

ALLIES SLOW U.S. WAR PLANS

“British & French urge time for inspector. Turkey delays [on letting troops enter Iraq through Turkey].” By Michael Dobbs for the WP.

...

NSC WEIGHS GIVING U.N. INSPECTORS MORE SENSITIVE DATA ON IRAQ ARMS

“Secretary of State Colin L. Powell said this week that the United States has begun delivering some intelligence to the inspectors and is reviewing other more sensitive material with an eye toward presenting it to the Security Council if inspections fail to uncover a smoking gun. One senior official familiar with U.S. intelligence said recently that the quality of U.S. data ‘is not that good,’ adding, ‘I don't expect anything dramatic before January 27’”

Walter Pincus and Karen DeYoung reported for the WP that this move is being taken because the U.S. realizes it needs actual proof in order to assemble a true coalition to invade Iraq.

(I’ve been trying to resist sarcastic remarks, but why didn’t we just tell the weapons inspectors what Don Rumsfeld already knew, that “We know where they are. They are in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad, and east, west, south and north...” It would have saved so much time and everyone would have been convinced when the inspectors walked right up to the WMD sites.}

...

...

The Headlines, January 10, 2003

• U.S. Asks Judge to Deny [Padilla] Access to Lawyer, Saying It Could Harm Interrogation
• [IAEA] Challenges Evidence Against Iraq Cited By Bush
• UN Inspectors Criticize Iraqis Over Arms List
• North Korea Says It Is Withdrawing From Arms Treaty
• U.S. Transportation Security Leader Acts To Stop Union Effort
• Deficit Predictions Soar




The Stories




U.S. ASKS JUDGE TO DENY [PADILLA] ACCESS TO LAWYER, SAYING IT COULD HARM INTERROGATION

Benjamin Weiser reported in the New York Times that “The Bush administration asked a federal judge in New York last night to reverse his decision allowing a Jose Padilla, the man suspected in a plot to detonate a radioactive bomb, access to a lawyer to challenge his detention as an enemy combatant.” The government claimed that if Padilla were allowed to have a lawyer, his questioning would be “set back, if not derailed.”

...

[IAEA] CHALLENGES EVIDENCE AGAINST IRAQ CITED BY BUSH

“The key piece of evidence that President Bush has cited as proof that Saddam Hussein has sought to revive his program to make nuclear weapons was challenged today by the International Atomic Energy Agency,” Michael R. Gordon reported in the NYT. The administration insists that the aluminum tubes Iraq attempted to buy are intended for use in centrifuges for the enrichment of uranium for nuclear weapons. Dr. Mohammed ElBaradei disagrees, saying the tubes were specified for building 81 mm rockets, as claimed by the Iraqis, and that the tubes were not suitable for use in centrifuges. British intelligence also questions the Bush administration’s position.

...

UN INSPECTORS CRITICIZE IRAQIS OVER ARMS LIST

“The chief United Nations weapons inspectors sharply criticized Iraq today for failing to come forward with new information to clarify its weapons programs, but said they had ''not found any smoking gun...'' Julia Preston wrote for the NYT that Hans Blix was critical of Iraq for “failing to come forward with new information to clarify its weapons program.” Blix also reported that inspectors had “not found any smoking gun.”

...

NORTH KOREA SAYS IT IS WITHDRAWING FROM ARMS TREATY

“North Korea said today it was withdrawing from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. The announcement means that, in 90 days, North Korea will no longer be bound by the treaty,” according to Seth Mydans in the NYT.

...

U.S. TRANSPORTATION SECURITY LEADER ACTS TO STOP UNION EFFORT

Admiral James Loy, head of the Transportation Security Administration stated that collective bargaining for 56,000 federal airport screeners was inappropriate, and he blocked their attempt to unionize. The “fight against terrorism” was cited as the reason.

The President of the American Federation of Government Employees responded that Adm. Loy’s action was further evidence of the administrations anti-union agenda and observed that the administration has the power to “suspend collective bargaining during a true national emergency.” Reported by Christopher Marquis in the NYT.

...

DEFICIT PREDICTIONS SOAR

Economists Say a Record Shortfall Is Likely

Jonathon Weisman, in the Washington Post, reported that the $674,000,000,000 Bush package of tax cuts and spending, along with a war with Iraq, would significantly increase the defecit. Here’s the best part [emphasis added]: “Assuming a relatively quick and inexpensive war and full implementation of the Bush tax cut, [David Wyss] said the deficit should reach $275 billion in 2003, compared with the $109 billion deficit projected by the White House in August. By 2004, that number would reach $350 billion.”

...

...

The Headlines, January 9, 2003

• Detention Upheld in Hamdi Case
• U.S. Begins Trade Talks With Central Americans
• Bush Goes With Bold Stroke - Outside Proposals Key To Strategy




The Stories




DETENTION UPHELD IN [HAMDI] COMBATANT CASE

A federal appeals court found for the Bush administration, that, because Bush is a wartime president,he can indefinitely detain a U.S. citizen. Yasser Esam Hamdi, a Saudi born in America, was captured in Afghanistan, declared an enemy combatant and denied access to a lawyer. John Ashcroft, the U.S. Attorney General, declared the decision an important victory for the President and the security of the American people. Reported by Neil A. Lewis for the New York Times.

...

U.S. BEGINS TRADE TALKS WITH CENTRAL AMERICANS

“The Bush administration officially opened negotiations today to create a free trade agreement with five Central American countries within a year, a big leap in its ambitious plans for a Nafta-like zone throughout the Western Hemisphere.”

...

BUSH GOES WITH BOLD STROKE - Outside Proposals Key To Strategy

Dana Milbank in the Washington Post. “Congress expected a modest economic stimulus plan for working- class Americans; [Bush] doubled the expected size and offered broad tax cuts that would heavily benefit the wealthy. Lawmakers in both parties said the Trent Lott imbroglio meant the Republican Party had to adopt a conciliatory civil rights agenda; Bush renominated a Lott judicial pick, Charles W. Pickering Sr., with controversial racial stands.”

...

The Headlines, January 8, 2003

• Britain Calls Up Reservists
• U.N. Inspectors Extend Reach With Aircraft – Element of Surprise
• After Calls On Turkey, U.S. Put On Hold
• A Day Of Firsts – Bill, or is it William?
• Call For Vast Changes in Focus Of Federal Agencies
• House GOP Softens Its Ethics Rules
• After The Storm - Friedman

...

The Stories




BRITAIN CALLS UP RESERVISTS FOR POSSIBLE IRAQ ACTION

Warren Hoge, in the New York Times, reports that Prime Minister Tony Blair told a group of diplomats that “standing by the US is ‘massively’ in British self-interest.” Blair also promised to convince Bush to broaden the agenda to include Mideast peace. At the same time, Britain called 1,500 reservists to active duty “for possible military action against Iraq” and reinforced its naval forces in the Persian Gulf.

...

U.N. INSPECTORS EXTEND REACH WITH AIRCRAFT

A piece by Rajiv Chandresekaran for the Washington Post, sub-headed: Mobility Enhances Element of Surprise at Iraqi Sites. “The start of air transport for the U.N. team, and eventually surveillance from the air, heightened the elements of drama, speed and intrusion in the U.N. inspections, which have shifted into high gear as the experts face a Jan. 27 deadline to deliver a progress report to the Security Council”

The weapons inspectors were rapidly building their capabilities in-country during this period.

...

AFTER CALLS ON TURKEY, U.S. PUT ON HOLD

“More than six months after the United States approached Turkey for permission to examine military bases here for possible use against Iraq, “ public opposition has influence the government to postpone a decision “on a U.S. request to station as many as 80,000 combat troops in Turkey as part of the regional buildup for a possible war” in Iraq. Reported by Karl Vick in the Washington Post.

...

A DAY OF FIRSTS – Bill, or is it William?

On his first day as Senate Majority Leader, Senator Frist contemplates the big question. Should the nameplate on the door to his new suite of offices read simply “Bill Frist,” or perhaps “William H. Frist, MD.” Reported by David Firestone for the NYT.

...

PANEL CALLS FOR VAST CHANGES IN FOCUS OF FEDERAL AGENCIES

A commission led by Paul Volker recommended Bush be given authority for a “sweeping reorganization of federal government, suggests that Congress “streamline presidential appointments” and “ease some Watergate-era ethics rules and financial disclosure requirements.”

...

HOUSE GOP SOFTENS ITS ETHICS RULES – Common Cause objects

Juliet Eilperin reported for the WP that Republicans proposed a so-called “pizza rule,” allowing lobbyists to pay for food and refreshments for Congressional staff. Another change would charitable organizations cover the costs incurred by Senators and Representative who travel to events that benefit the charities. Eilperin reported that “Common Cause's [Don Simon] said this would return Congress to an era where lawmakers traveled to lavish resorts, often to play golf for free.”

...

AFTER THE STORM - Friedman

“Here's a prediction: In the end, 9/11 will have a much bigger impact on the Arab and Muslim worlds than it does on America.” Tom Friedman, in the NYT, predicts 9/11 will lead to political and economic reform of the Middle East.

...