7/17: Good News & Bad News

Since both liberal and conservative bloggers think it's a near certainty that SCOTUS nominee Sonia Sotomayor will be confirmed, they're focusing most of their attention on the health care reform debate. Yesterday provided good news for both supporters and opponents of reform. To the delight of conservative bloggers, CBO dir. Douglas Elmendorf "delivered a devastating assessment yesterday of the health-care proposals drafted by congressional Democrats," warning that these proposals would substantially grow the deficit. Righty bloggers are wondering if Elmendorf's comments will "further embolden the Blue Dogs to torpedo the House bill." On the other hand, liberal bloggers were surprised and pleased to learn that the AMA endorsed the House Dems' health reform bill, which includes a public option (a provision which the AMA opposed last month).

What else is happening in the blogosphere?

• Conservative bloggers (Reynolds, Jessup, Morrissey, Malkin, Perrin) -- along with Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) -- are buzzing about an Investor's Business Daily editorial alleging that the House Dem health care bill contains "a provision making individual private medical insurance illegal." Liberal blogger hilzoy argues that the editorial is wrong and that every conservative blogger who promoted it is "intellectually irresponsible."
• Conservative bloggers (Streiff, Hengler, Allahpundit, Geraghty) are accusing VP Biden of making a gaffe after he told AARP members, "We have to go spend money to keep from going bankrupt."
• Liberal bloggers (Carlile, Morrill, Willis) are calling TX Gov. Rick Perry (R) a hypocrite now that the vociferous stimulus opponent is asking the federal gov't for a $170M loan in order to replenish the state's unemployment benefits fund.

Finally, please check back later today for our interview with Right Wing News' John Hawkins!

HEALTH CARE REFORM: The CBO Strikes Again

Conservative bloggers are delighted that Elmendorf warned that the Dem health care proposals "could make the nation's bleak budget outlook even worse":

• NRO's Yuval Levin: "Not a great day for Obamacare, but a good one for CBO, and for honesty in Washington."
• Commentary's Jennifer Rubin: "[R]eally, what did [Speaker Nancy] Pelosi and the Obama team expect? They have become so allergic to serious policy-making that they apparently thought the mere magnificence of Obama's persona would cast a spell over moderate lawmakers, CBO, and the public. What, they thought no one would spot the trillion dollar gambit to take over health care? The problem with believing your own press-clippings is that it does not prepare you to deal with reality. Today, reality showed up in the health-care debate."
• Hot Air's Allahpundit: "The cat's all the way out of the bag now. [...] It's a month to the day since the first time Elmendorf kneecapped Hopenchange by announcing that not only would an early iteration of ObamaCare cost a trillion dollars over the next decade, it would still leave millions uninsured. The money question now: Will this further embolden the Blue Dogs to torpedo the House bill? [...] If fiscal conservatives can't stop ObamaCare now -- or at least vastly improve it -- then we never will."

Liberal blogger Ezra Klein pushes back: "Politicians who are going to use this CBO report against the existing health-care reform proposals must do some combination of the following: (a) Support, as the CBO says you should, the eradication of the tax exclusion that protects employer-based health-care insurance; (b) Support, as Lewin and Commonwealth say you should, a public insurance option that can bargain at Medicare's rates; (c) Support, as the Office of Management and Budget and every health-care wonk in town says you should, one of the various policies floating around to give MedPAC authority to continually reform and modernize Medicare; (d) Support some form of aggressive cost-sharing that would make people extremely angry because it will save money by reducing their access to health-care services; (e) Support comparative effectiveness review that can judge not only the effectiveness but also the cost-effectiveness of various treatments, and give the federal government authority to use that data when deciding reimbursement rates. [...] I would also like to propose a related rule: any reporters who receive a quote from a politician referencing this CBO score should be required to ask the politician which of these policies -- or which alternative cost-saving policies -- they support."

Many liberal bloggers (Benen, Yglesias, digby) are endorsing Klein's argument.

HEALTH CARE REFORM II: The AMA Comes Around

Liberal bloggers attacked the AMA when the organization came out against a public health insurance option back in June. Yesterday, lefty bloggers were pleasantly surprised when the AMA endorsed the House Dems' health reform bill:

• Mother Jones' Kevin Drum: "Here's a pleasant surprise: the AMA has decided to endorse healthcare reform. And not just any healthcare reform. Jon Cohn reports that they've endorsed the House Tri-Committee plan, one of the better proposals out there. [...] I'm not sure what all is going on behind the scenes (Jon thinks this might be a quid pro quo for higher Medicare reimbursements), but it's good news. Max Baucus, please take note."
• AMERICAblog's Joe Sudbay: "Wow. I have to say, I didn't expect this from the American Medical Association. Could it be that doctors have finally figured out just how much they get screwed by insurance companies? I hope so."
• The New Republic's Cohn: "This is unexpected. Or, at least, I wasn't expecting it. Recent signals from the AMA suggested they were reluctant to embrace reform, in no small part because they believed a public insurance option would underpay them. But the AMA letter contains no caveats. It is a straightforward endorsement. And that makes it a pretty big deal. No, the AMA is not as powerful, nor as representative of the medical community, as it once was. But an unqualified endorsement for the most liberal plan out there has large symbolic value, given the role AMA played in killing health care reform for most of the 20th Century."
• The Washington Monthly's Steve Benen: "[I]n terms of political salience, it's bound to help proponents of reform note that in successive days, the Democratic plan has been endorsed by the American Nurses Association and the American Medical Association. That the AMA was expected to be an opponent -- and has always resisted reform efforts -- makes this all the more significant."

Conservative blogger Philip Klein thinks this endorsement is significant: "As liberals always remind us when the AMA is opposing their agenda, the AMA does not represent most doctors. However, politically speaking, this will provide a strong boost to proponents of government-run health care. The AMA has just thrown its weight behind the most liberal health care legislation that could conceivably pass into law, and so Democrats will now be able to say that it has the backing of the nation's largest group of physicians, and argue that it can't really be that radical."

RedState's Brian Faughnan speculates about the AMA's motives: "[I]s the AMA really representing the views of its members, or are they playing a Washington game: currying favor with the Democrat majority, in the hopes that when negotiators decide who'll pay for national health care, they're not left holding the bill? [..] Given the threats Democrats have been leveling against groups that refuse to cooperate with their agenda, it would be no surprise if the AMA's leadership simply calculated that it would be more dangerous to fight than to give in."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: But Could Daniels Win A GOP Primary?

TAPPED's Tim Fernholz responds to Soren Dayton's post praising IN Gov. Mitch Daniels (R):

"...I went looking for some kind of evidence that Indiana state government is actually performing effectively, and, what do you know, Daniels was selected by Governing magazine as one of their top public officials of the year. Among their reasons: privatizing some transportation infrastructure, pushing a public-private corporation for job creation, putting together a subsidized health care plan for the uninsured and -- possibly my favorite thing -- ramming through an initiative to have Indiana adopt daylight savings time. (Hoosiers, enlighten me: Why is this controversial? Some kind of agricultural objection?) He's also done some things that seem, from my liberal perspective, to be awful ideas: privatizing welfare, for one, and using health savings accounts to achieve his health reform aims.

Nonetheless, it's an impressive and ambitious governing record that would serve him well if he seeks higher office. (Apparently, he's not interested). But despite his conservative bona fides (he's been an adviser to [IN Sen.] Dick Lugar and Ronald Reagan and was, before running for governor, George W. Bush's OMB director), part of Daniels' plans have involved raising taxes. He raised cigarette taxes to pay for health care, raised sales taxes while capping property taxes (a regressive trade-off that might have Proposition 13 style consequences in the future), and proposed a surtax on the top 1 percent of earners to balance the budget, leading [conservative activist] Grover Norquist to apoplexy.

Dayton observes, 'No wonder people are talking about this guy for President. He has actually run something successfully.' But in so doing, he violated one of today's key conservative tenets. I wonder if Dayton thinks Daniels' pragmatic record would survive a GOP primary?"

LEST WE FORGET: Researchers Quietly Chuckling At Placebo Group

From The Onion:

"NEW YORK -- Researchers at the Mount Sinai School of Medicine were hardly able to stifle their laughter Tuesday while administering a placebo to 25 patients participating in a single-blind trial of an experimental new emphysema drug. 'Did you see Participant No. 425? He was like, "I think it's really working, Doc,"' Dr. Lewis Rodriguez said to a team of snickering pulmonary specialists. 'How gullible can you get? I can't believe those guys think they're actually getting CDDO-Im.' Although the trial is expected to run for two more months, Rodriguez told reporters that he almost could not wait to analyze the data, compile the results, publish the findings, and see the looks on their stupid faces."