3 arguments against the GOP's ObamaCare strategy

Following on from yesterday's post, here are my thoughts on why the new GOP strategy on ObamaCare doesn't make sense.

1) It forces the GOP into a political corner. The President is never going to relinquish his keystone political achievement (failure?). He just isn't. Additionally, after Syria, the White House will be desperate for an opportunity to burnish the President's resolve credentials. 

Let's be clear, this GOP strategy provides that opportunity on a silver platter. 

Finally, with the midterms next year (see also), this fight will allow Democrats to galvanize their liberal base in the best way - in an emotive battle that they're almost certain to win.

2) By tying ObamaCare's demise to the survival of all other spending, the GOP won't simply play to Democratic propaganda (which paints the GOP as a bastion of intransigent ideologues), they'll also de-legitimize conservative standing on the broader issue of spending/debt. If conservatives believe that spending reforms are the key national priority (I certainly do), this strategy must be considered as fundamentally illogical. 

It will afford Democrats the political cover they need to avoid negotiations on critical concerns.

3) It fails to address the key problem with the GOP's health care policy. The party (rightly) opposes the President's law, but it fails to offer an alternative (here's mine). In turn, as was the case with immigration reform, the GOP allows Democrats to take ownership of the issue.

           Conservatives risk becoming the policy equivalent of Code Pink- shouting and generating some fleeting attention/sympathy but then, inevitably, being escorted from the metaphorical room. If we were sensible, we'd instead present our own proposals and then wait for Obamacare to implode.

Ultimately, this strategy's defining weakness is rooted in its false understanding of popular antipathy towards ObamaCare. Yes, many Americans are unhappy with the looming law. Yes, the law is likely to be a disaster. Nevertheless, just as Americans were opposed to an intervention in Syria for which they could see no justification (although IMO intervention was justified!), so too will they oppose a political battle that damages other interests without apparent purpose. In the end, Americans want results.

This strategy may well become the Republican opposite to the President's debacle on Syria.

Unhealthy logic - 3 conservative misconceptions regarding health care

Some domestic policy...

The GOP appears to have finalized its strategy to shut down ObamaCare. I'll comment on this plan in due course. 

In the interim, here are three thoughts on the anti-competitive character of America's health care system. Please note - I'm not writing this piece in defense of ObamaCare (which I believe will be a disaster), but rather as a challenge to those conservatives who insinuate that our current medical system is fit for purpose.

1) The Health Care Marketplace is fundamentally dysfunctional. 

For almost every treatment - from a scan to surgery, health care is far more expensive in America than in other western nations. In large part, this discrepancy is the consequence of absent consumer knowledge. More specifically, most Americans don't have a clue as to what a particular treatment should cost. In turn, this knowledge gap allows different hospitals to charge absurdly variable prices for the same procedures.

          This dynamic enables monopoly providers (see below) and it encourages an over-saturation of specialists. The marketplace dysfunction is topped off by the AMA's unscrutinized power to set treatment-value points.

2) Excessive Barriers to Entry

To practice in the US, a foreign trained doctor must navigate a bureaucratic minefield of epic proportions. This minefield obstructs the flow of otherwise available human capital. In shielding the US medical training industry from competition, it's also deeply counter-productive. Across America, there's a great need for rural doctors - foreign practitioners could fill these coverage gaps.

            Regrettably, our current health care system disincentivizes the very essence of good medical care - reliable access to affordable and effective care. At a further level, Doctor shortages contribute to local monopolies - forcing patients to pay excessive prices or travel excessive distances for alternate treatment. This is outrageous. The Federal Trade Commission should investigate the AMA for its evident restraint of trade.

3) Absent Personal Responsibility

With many Americans receiving their health care coverage from employer based plans, cost burdens are shifted onto society instead of individuals. As a result, there's little incentive for personal responsibility/cost awareness*. Until individuals are made to bear scrutiny to the health care choices that they make, health care costs will continue to grow.

           As I've argued before, conservatives must present a serious alternative to the looming debacle of ObamaCare.  Yet, we also need to re-consider whether our current health care system is as great as some of us assume.

*Albeit in an unintentional way, ObamaCare's corporate/personal mandates may actually help bring down health care costs over the long term. As companies offer grants instead of fixed insurance (to avoid carrying the weight of health care inflation), individuals will have to shop around more - eventually leading to greater consumer pressure for more affordable options.

Brazil, the NSA and a Snowdened State Visit...

The Snowden induced diplomatic fallout continues...

Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff has decided to cancel a looming state visit to the United States. In short, Rousseff is angry that the NSA has been spying on her government. 

Although the cancellation is obviously a major embarrassment for the US (state visits are regarded as the highest form of diplomatic honor), President Obama has agreed with this decision (or so his Press Secretary claims). Anyway, from my perspective this is all a bit overblown. Sure, the Brazilians are pissed off. That's understandable. Nevertheless, as I've argued before, robust and wide ranging US intelligence operations are both lawful and necessary. The US Government is certainly far from unique in its pursuit of information. 

To be clear, the Brazilian government is fully aware as to why espionage occurs. Behind closed doors, they probably aren't that bothered about this scandal (positive US-Brazilian relations are simply too important for both nations). 

            That being said, President Rousseff has to balance practical reality with domestic political reality (placating Brazilian nationalism)... Brazil's next election takes place in a little over a year.

Incidentally, new reports suggest that the NSA may have also operated a major proxy-station intercept program in Belgium. Again, this would make sense... Belgium is home to a significant number of Islamist extremists. The US has a compelling state interest in monitoring these individuals.

The ultimate truth behind NSA activities? 

9/11 taught the US Government that it cannot rely upon others to defend the American people.

 In the end, it's really that simple.

Massacre at the Navy Yard - 5 Thoughts

I have a few thoughts on yesterday's incident at the Washington Navy Yard.

1) Investigation

The first investigative priority for the FBI/partners is to ascertain why and how this attack occurred. Did Aaron Alexis act alone? What were his motivations? What degree of premeditation was involved? Why did Alexis travel from Texas to DC? Specifically, why did he attack the Navy Yard? How was Alexis able to do this and this and nevertheless also attain a security clearance? On this last point, precluding some special skill that necessitated his hiring, this warrant of trust was (even without hindsight) obviously undeserved.

2) 'Control' Arguments

In the context of today's release of Grand Theft Auto 5 and Alexis's apparent interest in violent video games, some commentators will probably call for tougher controls on video games (as I've argued before, this censorship argument is both constitutionally and logically absurd). 

However, regarding the Navy Yard, the gun control argument deserves a deeper rebuttal. 

Anti-gun activists like to claim that firearms should be left to trained officials - police officers etc. But if they're truly honest in that opinion, why won't they allow military personnel to be armed on facility? 

Unfortunately, we're always going to have murderers like Alexis and morons like the firecracker thrower. This sad reality is not unique to America; evil bears no attention to borders. Yet, by explicitly ignoring the fact that highly restrictive gun laws in DC/the Navy Yard did nothing to prevent this attack, gun control activists are implicitly ignoring reality. Those of us who support the 2nd Amendment have logical, deeply felt reasons for doing so. We deserve more than the scornful disdain of casual authoritarians.

3) Motivations for Evil

This was a terrible tragedy. Yet, we have to be honest... it was also limited. Thanks to the skill of DC first responders, a relatively small number of people were killed. 

Still, the public reaction to this outrage has been huge. We've seen an outpouring of grief across America; reflecting this truth, all the major news networks have relocated their senior anchors to the scene of the attack. They know Americans want answers.

This unified national sympathy represents the best of America - our concern for the innocent stranger. But it also hints at something else - an explanation as to why individuals like Alexis and terrorists like the Woolwich killers, or ISIS, do what they do. In short, because they realize that one atrocity can create waves of mass attention, evil individuals are emboldened to malevolent actions. 

In turn, this is why our anguish must always be matched by abiding resolve. We must not buckle in face of terror.

4) Partisanship v Leadership

The President should be ashamed of himself. Yesterday was not time for partisanship. After their Syria debacle, you'd think that the White House communications team would proceed with caution.

5) Global Honor

Finally, just as we rightly pay homage to the men and women who wear America's uniform (and to the emergency services who risk their lives to save others), we must also remember that the cause of honor is a global one.

My other relevant writings can be found under the 'Other' heading of this link.

Is the US-Russia deal on Syria's chemical weapons the right move?

A Head to Head at The Guardian. My take- Putin's Victory is a Catastrophe for Syria and the US. 

On the other side, Michael Cohen argues that this is 'A big win for the idea coercive diplomacy.'

My other relevant writings.

Zawahiri and AQ Core's evolving strategy

The leader of Al Qa'ida, Ayman al-Zawahiri, has released another audiotape.

Much of the recording follows Zawahiri's traditional form - calling for resistance to western civilization, ridiculing American culture, claiming AQ/affiliates have driven the US out of the Middle East etc.

Still, there are two interesting elements to this latest message.

First, when Zawahiri calls for attacks ''by one brother or a few of the brothers [followers of AQ ideology]", he's speaking to an evolving attack strategy on the part of AQ core. Astute to western capabilities in the field of communications intelligence (specifically signal intercepts), for a number of years now, AQ has sought to reduce its electronic footprint. Indeed, this renewed focus on improved operational security is further evidenced by Zawahiri's decision to release an audio rather than video tape (video tapes obviously providing more analytic utility to US Intelligence). Ultimately, Zawahiri is aware that every time his operatives communicate across the internet etc. they run the risk of detection. Combined with the fact that US Intelligence/allied services adopt a range of other actions to identify and disrupt AQ agents, the group has been forced to embrace a diversified attack strategy. By inspiring acts of violence (note his praise of the Boston bombers), Zawahiri hopes to hurt the United States without jeopardizing his assets (if interested, see my thoughts on the Tsarnaevs). 

          Nevertheless, in contrast to the former FBI agent who speaks in the video below, I believe that it would be a serious mistake to underestimate AQ Core's desire and capacity to employ their own operatives where possible. The apparent operational synergy between the suspects in Operation Pathway and the Zazi plotters, illustrates that AQ Core remains active beyond simple influence messaging.

Second interest element- Zawahiri's statement: “I warn my brothers in Syria against any compromise with those factions. They have to learn the lesson of Egypt... [Zawahiri then condemns Morsi for maintaining the peace treaty with Israel].” From my perspective, Zawahiri is pursuing two objectives with this message. 

            First, he's encouraging affiliates like ISIS to continue their campaign of destruction in the region (see point 2 here). Zawahiri believes that political instability and escalating sectarian tensions will provide a foundation for AQ's broader empowerment.* 

              Second, regarding his condemnation of Morsi, I suspect that Zawahiri is attempting to create fissures in the Muslim Brotherhood - seeking to attract disaffected MB supporters towards AQ linked extremism. A few weeks back, I expressed my concern that the Egyptian Army's crackdown would spark a 'Salafist Spring' (see point 5 here). Zawahiri might be a fanatic, but as he proved in his dealings with al-Zarqawi, he's also a semi-astute political actor - he senses an opportunity in the chaos.

* - AQ's obsession with violence says much about the group's organizing identity. They are extremist totalitarians - individuals who pursue catastrophic violence as their primary mechanism of action.

My other relevant writings.

Why I love America

E Pluribus Unum

Bigotry is fundamentally un-American. The soldier below embodies his uniform.

A key difference between Bush and Obama

A key difference between President GW Bush and President Obama?

When Bush said this, people believed him. 

When Obama says this, people ignore him.

Power cannot exist without a shared perception of resolute intent. And without American leadership, the world is pretty much screwed. Anyway, I've argued before that the President could learn a few things from his predecessor.

North Korea - Yongbyon restart

The North Koreans are back to their usual games. Unfortunately, this time we can expect their nuclear brinkmanship to reach new levels. They'll regard President Obama as having folded on Syria. As an extension to that understanding, they'll also believe that American resolve is pliable. 

As I've argued before, when it comes to our engagement with North Korea - confident resolve is critical.

Thoughts on Geneva

My latest discussion with Mark Davis (Host of 660 AM The Answer). We consider the Syria summit in Geneva.