Politics, Compassion, and Justice

This stuff on the ports is nuts:

Issues:

• When and how did the President find out?
• From the newspaper. Scott wouldn’t comment if this delay in information flow in Katrina, the VP shootout, and this issue was evidence of a problem within the administration
• When and how did Congress find out?
• From the paper. Scott says they should have been briefed.
• What is the “management” job of the British and UAE comapnies?
• Unclear. But we know they don’t control the security
• Was the UAE company held to a different standard than the British company and in what way?
• There is increased security under the UAE deal, but Scott will not concede that they are held to a different standard of review, dodging the security issue.
• Why are people upset? Do they think the deal is dangerous or do they “just not understand the facts”?
• Scott seems to think that anyone who truly understood the issue would agree with him, as he repeats over and over that it was thoroughly reviewed. Basically, because as Scott asserts there is no security issue, the Republicans and Democrats who are upset simply don’t undestand who’s in charge of security.
• Is this controversy political in nature?
• Scott says it isn’t.
• How does this affect our relationship with the Arab world?
• Scott says Dubai has been good to us. We should return the favor. He won’t comment on the effect rejecting this deal would have on Dubai’s good will and general Arab good will and how that affected the review.

“Will the UAE control or manage the ports?” [ View | Vote ] from daily kos

Now, on to the quotes:

Q So he found out through the news coverage, is that what you’re saying? How did he find out about it?

MR. McCLELLAN: Yes, I think, initially, Steve, when this was becoming more — it was getting more press coverage, that’s how he found out about it.

Q Scott, top Republicans turned on the administration faster than Nancy Pelosi. What do you make of that?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I think you have to ask people their reason for opposing this transaction. It’s up to them to explain their reason for it. The President does not think we should be holding this company to a different standard from the British company that currently manages these terminals.

Q Politically, your own party turned on this White House aggressively –

MR. McCLELLAN: I wouldn’t look at it that way. You’re looking at it in the political context. The President is not looking at it in the political context. I understand and appreciate you looking at it in that context, but the President is looking at this as what I said it is — this was the right principle, and it’s the right policy.

Q Scott, it sounds like the President has lost control of the party on the Hill. It sounds like they’re campaigning against George Bush.

MR. McCLELLAN: No, I don’t think that’s accurate. You’re talking about this specific issue? This specific issue — let’s clarify that — no, I think — the President just came back from a House Republican conference just a short time ago, and they talked about important national security priorities, and they talked about the tools we’re using to protect the American people like the terrorist surveillance program. And at the end of that comment — end of those remarks, he received a standing ovation. So I think there is strong, united support for the policies that we are putting in place and that we are pursuing to make America more prosperous and to make America safer.

This President has made his number one priority winning the war on terrorism. And so let’s keep in mind that the United Arab Emirates is a key partner and ally in the global war on terrorism. They work very closely with us. Partnerships are key to winning the war on terrorism. And they have followed the rules. They went through this review process, a thorough review process, that involved national security experts, that involved counterterrorism experts. They looked at all these issues and they said they were comfortable with this transaction going forward.

And we shouldn’t be creating a different standard here. But if you’re going to try to block something like this, you also need to look at it in the context of those broader foreign policy concerns. It could have a real negative impact on our relations with countries like the UAE, and other allies who are following this issue very closely — allies who have helped us to save lives and prevent attacks.

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, as I said, I mean, we’re looking back in hindsight on this issue. And there are some mischaracterizations of what this transaction is about. There is a false impression left with people. All you have to do is look at their comments to know that there were false impressions left. I mean, we had one in here earlier, we had a reporter earlier in the day suggesting that this company would be in control of the ports. [Scott clarified that they would manage the ports, but wouldn’t clarify if this includes hiring and firing] That’s just not the case. And that’s why it’s important to understand the facts. And that’s why I said that we probably should have briefed members of Congress sooner, but that’s looking at it in hindsight, given the attention it has received.

Q Scott, going back on the issue of the mixed message that the President is concerned about, is that mixed message bigotry or racism coming from both sides of the aisle from U.S. leaders?

MR. McCLELLAN: April, you’d have to ask those who oppose this transaction what their reason is for opposing this. I’m not going to try to question motives.

Q Well, but, Scott, the President said it sends a terrible signal to friends around the world that it’s okay for a company from one country to manage the port, but not a country that plays by the rules and has got a good track record from another part of the world. And, I mean, reading between the lines, it sounds like that’s what he’s saying. And I’m trying to hear from you, what is this mixed message and what does this signal?

MR. McCLELLAN: No, he’s stating a fact. I mean, he’s stating that this is a principled position on his part. It is the right policy, it is the right principle to stand on. We shouldn’t be creating a different standard for a country from the Middle East, or a company from the Middle East, than a company from Great Britain. And that’s what –

Q Okay, what about discrimination?

MR. McCLELLAN: — some are suggesting here. This transaction was very closely scrutinized to make sure that all national security concerns were met. The company agreed to additional security measures that they would take beyond what some others have had to in the past. And I spelled out a couple of areas that they would be addressing as part of those –

Q — discrimination, then, beyond bigotry and racism? Is one country being discriminated against over another?

MR. McCLELLAN: I’m sorry?

Q Is it an issue of discrimination? Is one country being discriminated over another?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, the President said he doesn’t believe we should be setting a different standard, and that’s the principle that he was talking about yesterday. You would have to ask others their reason for opposing this transaction going forward. And as the President said yesterday, they should explain their reason why they believe this transaction should not go forward, given the facts that I have just provided to you all in this room, and given the facts we’ve been providing to the American people over the last few days about how carefully scrutinized this transaction was.

The top and only concern when it came to this transaction was the safety and security of the American people. Are there any national security threats for this transaction going forward? And every department that looked at this and had their experts look at it determined that there was not.

Q But Democrats are very familiar with national security, saying this sends a very, very bad signal, as far as heightening the anti-American sentiment in the Arab and the Muslim world. Do you agree with that statement?

MR. McCLELLAN: I’m not sure who you’re referring to and what they said.

Q I just told you what they said.

MR. McCLELLAN: Who is it?

Q I don’t want to tell you who it is, I cannot do that. But this person — believe me, is very familiar with these issues — and they said, this sends a very bad sentiment right now at this time when you have the Muslim world dealing with the issue of the cartoon of Allah, which is blasphemous to them, and this is sending — there’s this heightened anti-American –

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, as the President said yesterday, what it does is send a terrible signal to a good ally in the war on terrorism, and to others who are allies in the war on terrorism.

Q For the first time in his five-year presidency, the President has now threatened to veto what is strongly supported by his own party’s Speaker of the House, Senate Majority Leader, Governor of New York and Governor of Maryland, among many others — Republicans and Democrats. Can you tell us of any such major split before in American history?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, Les, I don’t know if those individuals you mention have had an opportunity to learn all the facts relating to –

Q They speak out without learning –

MR. McCLELLAN: Now, don’t put words in my mouth –

Q — are you contending that they just shoot their mouths off?

MR. McCLELLAN: — you’re putting words in my mouth. Well, there have been individuals who have spoken out and expressed things that simply aren’t correct about this transaction. And so that’s why we want to make sure that they have the facts. We want to make sure that they know the safeguards that are in place. We want to make sure they understand how carefully reviewed this transaction was to make sure that there are no national security threats with it going forward.

Go ahead, Sarah.

Q Thank you. Scott, my question is, was it really necessary or wise to issue the ports contract to a UAE company? Isn’t it risky and taking a chance since many terrorists are believed to be in the UAE?

MR. McCLELLAN: I’m sorry. I didn’t hear the first part of your question. Isn’t it risky for this transaction to go forward, is that what your question is?

Q Yes, is it wise?

MR. McCLELLAN: Yes, for the reasons that I’ve stated throughout this very briefing. The President believes it should go forward because all the security issues were looked at. There are additional security measures that this company is going to put in place. This is not voluntary additional security measures, this is mandatory additional security measures. I’ve touched on what those were. Let me go back through them. They are going to have to enforce security standards under the Container Security Initiative and enforce security standards under the Customs Trade Partnership Against Terrorism. And they’re also committed to cooperating and disclosing of documents, procedures, security measures and employee backgrounds, as well. That was part of the additional security measures that they agreed to.

Q When the President yesterday described what Dubai Ports World would be doing he used the phrase several times “manage our ports.” Is that the wrong impression? If he used that, would that incorrectly be describing their duties –

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, let me tell you what he’s referring to, that they would be involved in managing the terminals at the ports. I think you know very clearly what he is referring to in those comments and what this transaction is about. There’s a clearer understanding now that we’ve had an opportunity to explain it in more detail and talk about the facts surrounding this.

In terms of the ports, this company won’t control our ports. It won’t control security at the ports. The security is under the control of the Coast Guard and under control of the Customs and Border Patrol, and it will remain that way. As I indicated, if this transaction were blocked, it would not change security at our ports one iota.

Q Scott, are there any American companies managing port operations in any Arab countries?

MR. McCLELLAN: I haven’t taken a full look at that. You can probably go and get that information from various companies or departments involved in that. I’m sure — I hesitate to speculate about it, but –

Q You can’t name one, can you? Isn’t that true?

MR. McCLELLAN: Les, I haven’t looked into it. I haven’t look into that matter. But I would point out that Dubai is involved in a number of countries in terms of operations of ports, whether they be airports or ports. Australia, China, Hong Kong, the Dominican Republic, Romania, Germany, India, Venezuela, Djibouti, Saudi Arabia. So this is a company that we’re very familiar with.

Q Scott, why was an American company not chosen for this job?

MR. McCLELLAN: This was a transaction involving a British company and a company from the UAE. And this company wanted to purchase this British-owned company, or purchase the terminal — management of the terminals at these sites. And now they made a number of agreements in this process, too, as I pointed out. But you’d have to ask those American companies if they didn’t want to purchase it. It doesn’t change — it doesn’t change who controls the ports or who’s in charge of security. So let’s be clear on that.

Q I want to get back where we started and the question asked by Kerry, who, unfortunately, in his advancing years continues to have trouble making himself clear, apparently. (Laughter.) The question, very simply, was –

MR. McCLELLAN: Happy birthday. It was yesterday. (Laughter.)

Q But the question very simply was, do you now think the President should have known about this sooner? I ask this in the light of the many times you’ve just told us the extraordinary was this was handled, the extraordinary –

MR. McCLELLAN: You’re asking in — you’re asking to look back in hindsight, Ken. And looking back in hindsight, we believe members of Congress should have been briefed on it sooner. But the President is confident in the process that has been put in place to review these matters. He’s confident in those who are charged with looking at these issues and looking at the national security concerns in this. And that process was carefully followed. This was thoroughly reviewed. And that — but, with that said, the President went back and made sure every single Cabinet Secretary that is involved in this process was comfortable with this transaction going forward. I’m not going to try to play too much Monday morning quarterbacking from this podium.

Q But in hindsight, Congress should have known, but the President shouldn’t?

MR. McCLELLAN: No, let’s point out that — I said they should have been briefed sooner, is what I said.

Q And the President shouldn’t have been?

MR. McCLELLAN: And — well, I think we can look at it in hindsight, Ken, and I’m sure you will look at that. But there’s some 65 transactions — you’re not letting me have a chance to respond here — some 65 transactions over the last year that went through this process. Not one person involved in this transaction objected to it going forward. If there had been an objection, then I’m sure it would have risen to the President’s level. Let me point out to you that once this has gone through the process and the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States has received a complete notification, it goes through that thorough review of the notified transaction, and in some cases it is necessary to undertake an extended review or investigation. An investigation, if necessary, has to begin no later than 30 days after receipt of a notice. Any investigation is required to end within 45 days. And then the President would have to make a determination on that transaction. So that’s the process that was put in place by Congress, by statute, back in 1988 was when it was passed.

Q Just to clear up — back on the ports again — you said at one point, these additional measures that the company will take, security measures. Are they doing exactly the same thing at the British company did? Are these actually additional measures? Were they looked at in a different way?

MR. McCLELLAN: I understand in their agreement there were additional security measures that were reached with Dubai.

Q That the British didn’t have to. Then why should you hold a company from the Middle East to a different standard?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, you’re talking about the transaction proceeding forward. The top priority of this administration is the safety and security of the American people, and that was a top priority when it went through this review process. But as we move forward, we look at these issues and look at these transactions, and there was an agreement reached with this company to provide those additional security — those additional security — those additional security assurances.

Q That went above and beyond what the British company had to do.

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I’ll let the Department of Homeland Security or Treasury can probably talk more about specifics. Some of this, as I said, is proprietary information so I don’t want to get further into it, but I don’t think you can leap to that same conclusion. This transaction is going forward. They went through the process. Part of the process is that if you come to an agreement like this, you can put additional security measures in place.

Q So they were under greater scrutiny than the British company? They were held to a different standard?

MR. McCLELLAN: They were closely scrutinized –

Q They were held to a different standard than the British?

MR. McCLELLAN: — through this review process. This review process provides for us to be able to reach agreements like this for transactions to move forward.

Q But, Scott, back again on — so they were held to a different standard? The President is saying we should not hold a company from the Middle East to a different standard — they, in fact, were?

MR. McCLELLAN: He’s talking about the review process. If you go through the review process and all these issues are thoroughly addressed and thoroughly reviewed, and it poses no national security threat, we shouldn’t be holding them to a different standard. So I think you’re taking it to a different step than what I was suggesting.

Q The point about — you’re kind of dismissive of this — the question about information flow. When — this is obviously a big deal. You’re conceding that now when you talk about you should have briefed Congress and so forth. The President says publicly when he goes around the country, look, after 9/11 it’s okay get back to your lives, let me worry about your safety. And yet on an issue of this significance, he finds out in the newspapers. Shouldn’t people be worried about that?

MR. McCLELLAN: As I said there was not a single objection raised by the experts and by those who are charged with protecting the American people. This is the President’s administration. The people that are responsible for this did look at this matter. If there had been objections raised, and there had been an extended review process, then it would have gone to the President. This went through the normal review process. It is a thorough process. It checks all these issues thoroughly to make sure there is no national security threat with this transaction proceeding forward. So I think it’s important to look at it in that context, rather than just simplify the notion there.

This article should get more press. I first heard of it on the Al Franken show, published in the American Conservative as Philip Giraldi writes:

The United States invaded Iraq with a high-minded mission: destroy dangerous weapons, bring democracy, and trigger a wave of reform across the Middle East. None of these have happened.

…The American-dominated Coalition Provisional Authority could well prove to be the most corrupt administration in history, almost certainly surpassing the widespread fraud of the much-maligned UN Oil for Food Program. At least $20 billion that belonged to the Iraqi people has been wasted, together with hundreds of millions of U.S. taxpayer dollars. Exactly how many billions of additional dollars were squandered, stolen, given away, or simply lost will never be known because the deliberate decision by the CPA not to meter oil exports means that no one will ever know how much revenue was generated during 2003 and 2004.

Some of the corruption grew out of the misguided neoconservative agenda for Iraq, which meant that a serious reconstruction effort came second to doling out the spoils to the war’s most fervent supporters. The CPA brought in scores of bright, young true believers who were nearly universally unqualified. Many were recruited through the Heritage Foundation website, where they had posted their résumés. They were paid six-figure salaries out of Iraqi funds, and most served in 90-day rotations before returning home with their war stories. One such volunteer was Simone Ledeen, daughter of leading neoconservative Michael Ledeen. Unable to communicate in Arabic and with no relevant experience or appropriate educational training, she nevertheless became a senior advisor for northern Iraq at the Ministry of Finance in Baghdad. Another was former White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer’s older brother Michael who, though utterly unqualified, was named director of private-sector development for all of Iraq.

The only certified public-accounting firm used by the CPA to monitor its spending was a company called North Star Consultants, located in San Diego, which was so small that it operated out of a private home. It was subsequently determined that North Star did not, in fact, perform any review of the CPA’s internal spending controls. Today, no one can account for billions of those dollars or even suggest how the money was spent. And as the CPA no longer exists, there is also little interest in re-examining its transparency or accountability.

Halliburton, Vice President Dick Cheney’s former company, has a no-bid monopoly contract with the Army Corps of Engineers that is now estimated to be worth $10 billion. In June 2005, Pentagon contracting officer Bunny Greenhouse told a congressional committee that the agreement was the “most blatant and improper contracting abuse” that she had ever witnessed, a frank assessment that subsequently earned her a demotion.

Halliburton has frequently been questioned over its poor record keeping, and critics claim that it has a history of overcharging for its services. In May 1967, a company called RMK/BRJ could not account for $120 million in materiel sent to Vietnam and was investigated several times for overcharging on fuel. RMK/BRJ is now known as KBR or Kellogg, Brown and Root, the Halliburton subsidiary that has been the focus of congressional, Department of Defense, and General Accountability Office investigations. Defense Contract Audit Agency auditors have questioned Halliburton’s charges on a $1.6 billion fuel contract, claiming that the overcharges on the contract exceed $200 million. In one instance, the company charged the Army more than $27 million to transport $82,000 worth of fuel from Kuwait to Iraq. Halliburton has also been accused of billing the Army for 42,000 daily meals for soldiers, though it was only actually serving 14,000. In another operation, KBR purchased fleets of Mercedes trucks at $85,000 each to re-supply U.S. troops. The trucks carried no spare parts or even extra tires for the grueling high-speed run across the Kuwaiti and Iraqi deserts. When the trucks broke down on the highway, they were abandoned and destroyed rather than repaired.

Responding to complaints, Halliburton refused to permit independent auditing and inspected itself using so-called “Tiger Teams.” One such team stayed at the five-star Kuwait Kempinski Hotel while it was doing its audit, running up a bill of more than $1 million that was passed on to U.S. taxpayers.

Unfortunately, the corruption of the occupation outlived the departure of Paul Bremer and the demise of the CPA. A recent high-level investigation of the Iraqi interim government concluded that the corruption is now so pervasive as to be irreversible. One prominent businessman estimates that 95 percent of all business activity involves some form of bribery or kickback. The bureaucrats and fixers who live off of bribery are referred to by ordinary Iraqis as “Ali Babas,” named after the character in The Thousand and One Nights who was able to access riches from a treasure cave by saying “open sesame.” For the average Iraqi businessman, there was formerly only one hand out, that of Saddam’s designated minion. Now every hand is out. The educated and entrepreneurial are leaving the country in droves, as is most of the beleaguered Christian minority. Huge government appropriations are approved by Iraqi lawmakers and then simply disappear. Meanwhile, life for the average Iraqi does not improve, and oil production, water supplies, and electricity generation are all at lower levels than they were when the U.S. took control in 2003. The only thing that everyone knows is that all the money is gone and daily life in Iraq is worse than it was under Saddam Hussein.

The undocumented cash flow continued long after the CPA folded. Over $1.5 billion was disbursed to interim Iraqi ministries without any accounting, and more than $1 billion designated for provincial treasuries never made it out of Baghdad. More than $430 million in contracts issued by the Petroleum Ministry were unsupported by any documentation, and $8 billion were given to government ministries that had no financial controls in place. Nearly all of it disappeared, spent on “payroll,” wages for “ghost employees” in the Ministries of the Interior and Defense. In one case, an Army brigade receiving money to support 2,200 men was found to have fewer than 300 effectives. 602 actual guards at the Ministry of the Interior were billed as more than 8,200 for payroll purposes.

Even the “coalition of the willing” partners have been quick to cash in. Polish helicopters purchased as part of a $300 million deal with arms maker Bumar Ltd. were found to be obsolete, largely unflyable, and were actually rejected by the Iraqis. Bullets purchased from Poland by the Defense Ministry cost three times the normal international price. Five Polish peacekeepers have been arrested for demanding $90,000 in bribes. Both British and American soldiers have also demanded bribes from shopkeepers and travelers.
…
Countless billions will never be accounted for, and the full cost of corruption has yet to be tallied. Sources report that much of the money that was designated for the development of a national army and police force is actually going to units that are exclusively Kurd or Shi’ite in expectation of a day of reckoning over the country’s oil supplies. The Kurds have made no secret of their desire to continue their autonomy-bordering-on-independence and have stated that they regard Kirkuk as their own. The Shi’ites have possession of the oil-producing region to the south and are using their control of the Interior Ministry to fill police ranks with their own pro-Iranian Badr Brigade members as well as militiamen drawn from radical cleric Moqtada al-Sadr’s Mehdi Army. The Sunnis are the odd men out, virtually guaranteeing that, far from becoming the model democracy the U.S. set out to build, Iraq will descend deeper into chaos—aided in no small part by the culture of corruption we helped to fortify.

Port Scandal: Defending it

The ‘trust us on this port deal’ meme was never directed at those of us who don’t trust Bush and Company to run a Dairy Queen, it was a plea to the Bush-base. That in itself is more evidence of a White House disconnected from reality. The negative reaction among the right-wing faithful was an all too predictable, classic example of the monster turning on its creator: After years of pumping their fawning admirers full of terror and working as hard as they can to blur the distinction between regimes in the Middle East that had nothing to do with 9/11 and the people who did, the Bush Administration shouldn’t be surprised that their supporters are unwilling or unable to objectively whip out the analytical razor-blade and expertly split hairs between a nation with direct links to 9/11 and Al Qaeda, and a company owned by that nation’s government.

Port Scandal: Who reviewed the decision to give UAE control of American ports?

Of course, the big question is who reviewed and approved the deal, since we now find that a decision with major national security ramifications was made without input from either the president (supposedly) or the Secretary of Defense. Or perhaps the better question is whether the administration has decided to hang Chertoff off to dry. The dude is on his way out anyway, might as well tar him with this disaster as well. Because as far as we can tell, we have no proof the committee that McClellan assured us yesterday had unanimously approved the deal has even met.
Furthermore, while the administration was required under law to conduct a 45-day investigation into the deal, none took place. Of course, “laws” are those pesky words on paper that King George and his infallible administration are allowed to ignore and discard at their own perogative.
Yet this is a case with national security ramifications so obvious that even Republicans can’t sit on the sidelines. I mean, we’re talking about a nation that impeded our ability to take out Osama Bin Laden because half its royal family was chillin’ with the terrorist mastemind himself. We attacked Iraq because one of the 9/11 terrorists allegedly met with an Iraqi security official in Prague, yet we give control of our ports to a nation whose leadership is on a first-name basis with Osama himself and got together for tea and crumpets.

More

• Second Opinion: It might be a GOOD thing
• PortGate–the annihilation of Bush’s purpose.
• Little Green Footballs, and Xenophobia [Updated]
• Our Report from the House - America for Sale: The Cost of Republican Corruption,
• UAE royal family met with Bin Laden, saved him from CIA hit! Updated,
• UPDATE: Kerry to Snow - Provide full disclosure on ties to DP World
• Lieberman on the Port scandal

Interesting post on push polling.

The plot thickens. The automated calls we noted Friday received in the New York Congressional District of Republican Congressman John Sweeney (as reported by the Glen Falls, NY Post Star and the Albany Times Union) do not appear to be an isolated incident. Very similar calls have been received in Iowa and at least three other congressional districts held by Democrats that match the pattern of a classic “push poll” dirty trick. Why such calls were also made about a Republican remain unclear, but the answer may be a new high tech development in the inglorious history of political dirty tricks. Details will follow, but for now, let’s call it “robo-scam.”

We can usually identify a true push poll by a few characteristics that serve as evidence of that intent. “Push pollsters” (and MP hates that term) aim to reach as many voters as possible, so they typically make tens or even hundreds of thousands of calls. Real surveys usually attempt to interview only a few hundred or perhaps a few thousand respondents (though not always). Push polls typically ask just a question or two, while real surveys are almost always much longer and typically conclude with demographic questions about the respondent (such as age, race, education, income). The information presented in a true push poll is usually false or highly distorted, but not always. A call made for the purposes of disseminating information under the guise of survey is still a fraud - and thus still a “push poll” - even if the facts of the “questions” are technically true or defensible.

So again my speculation: Someone out there would like to see Rove’s hoped for “debate” occur in as many Congressional races as possible. So they are making thousands of calls into Districts held by moderate Democrats spreading the rumor that those officeholders support Bush on wiretapping. They know that Democratic partisans (like this one) will be outraged and put pressure on their representatives to harshly criticize Bush on wiretapping. If the members respond to the pressure, the dirty tricksters get the debate they hoped for. If not, the Democrats are forced to put out fires ignited by the push poll in their base.

Survey researchers have a name for this particular fraud when used to sell products: “sugging,” an acronym for “selling under the guise” of research. Sugging not only violates the codes of organizations like AAPOR and CASRO, it is also now prohibited by federal law.

The telemarketing laws that outlaw “sugging” do not apply to explicitly political activity such as push polls or canvassing, in part because of the constitutional protections of political speech. But legal or not, canvassing under the guise of a survey is an ethical breach that exploits the credibility of legitimate polls that protect respondent confidentiality. Pollsters may disagree among themselves about methodology, but nearly all agree that protecting respondent confidentiality is sacrosanct. Canvassing under the guise of a survey makes a mockery of that principle.

Unfortunately, the latest technical innovations in automated polling make canvassing under the guise of polling even cheaper and easier than in the past. Now campaigns can call every voter in a district or state in a matter of days. And in a climate where the use of “high tech micro-targeting” based on commercial data appended to voter files is all the rage, such activity may be proliferating.

MP’s theory is that some or perhaps all of the “USA Polling” calls discussed in this post may be part of a such a “data harvesting” scheme. Again, this is pure speculation, but more specifically:

• In some districts, such as the John Sweeney’s in New York, the calls are intended only to identify individual voters who approve of his presumed support for the wiretapping program.

• In other districts the sponsors get a two-fer: They can identify voters who approve of the Bush wiretapping plan while also using the classic “push poll” tactic to sow discord in the Democratic base.

Either way, these calls look like a sleazy, unethical program of unusual scope. Calling it a mere “push poll” seems inadequate. So henceforth, let’s give it a name more fitting of its high tech origins:

Roboscam.

Here are some links to aritcles I found today in response to a discussion I had with a non-Arab Muslim about the relationship between Islam and violence. To see summaries of the articles, go here.

• This Is a Religious War
• The Core Of Muslim Rage
• War Of Ideas, Part 6
• Muslim Scholars Increasingly Debate Unholy War
• Muslim Approval of Terrorism Declines, a Global Poll Finds
• All Suicide Bombers Are Not Alike
• Political Islam: Global Warning
• THE WAR ON TERROR: FOUR YEARS ON; Taking Stock Of the Forever War
• Patterns of Global Terrorism -2001

On Cheney, the reason for Scott to avoid the questions, “Most Americans agree with him”.

2/16/06: 10 Times
2/15/06: 2 Times Gaggle
2/14/06: 7 Times
2/13/06: 0 Times Economic Report
2/13/06: 1 Time Economic Report
2/13/06: 0 Times
2/09/06: 0 Times
2/09/06: 0 Times Plot
2/08/06: 2 Times Gaggle
2/07/06: 1 Times Gaggle
2/06/06: 0 Times Budget
2/06/06: 2 Times
2/06/06: 0 Times Budget

As you can see, starting last Tuesday, Scott adopted the “American People agree with X” strategy on a grand scale. He had used it occasionally in the previous week and only slightly on the 2/15 Gaggle, but comparing the Briefings makes the trends clear. We cannot question the Vice President, because “American People agree with him.”

See below for quotes from today’s briefing.

The American people saw yesterday that the Vice President is very concerned about his friend Harry Whittington. They saw his concern and compassion for a friend of his who he shot in a hunting accident. As he said, it was one of the worst days of his life.

See the poll at Daily Kos View | Vote

I think the American people are looking at this and saying, enough already; let’s focus on the priorities that are most important to this nation. We’re all focused on the well being of Mr. Whittington. We’re all concerned about his health and well being.

But we are continuing to focus on the priorities that the American people are most concerned about, like the ones I talked about at the beginning of this briefing. The views have been expressed thoroughly from me at this podium.

(i.e. I know the priorities and wishes of the American people, not you, the media)

I think that just shows that the only ones who are making such allegations like that are the most partisan of people or the conspiracy theorists that live out there, and they try to take this matter and paint with a broader brush. I think most Americans reject that wholeheartedly.

And I would say, too, that I think some want to use this to distract from the real issues, because they don’t want to talk about the agenda, they don’t want to talk about their ideas for America, they don’t want us to engage in a debate on the substantive issues that matter most to the American people.

And I think most Americans believe that this issue has been covered thoroughly, and most Americans recognize that the Vice President is first and foremost concerned about his friend. So I reject this characterization. I think this room and this town sometimes gets overly caught up in this. But the American people appreciate the answers to the questions that have already been asked.

April, if you want to continue to pursue this, you can do that. I think most Americans recognize this is what it is, which is a hunting accident, a terrible hunting accident, where someone was injured –

If you want to over interpret things, that’s your business. The American people have heard the answers

Again, if you want to continue to pursue this, that’s your business. We’re going to continue to focus on the priorities of the American people.

But I think the American people look at this and appreciate the fact that the Vice President went out there and thoroughly responded to all the questions relating to this issue.

Interesting strategy, no?

From the President’s speech in Dublin, Ohio yesterday on HSA’s reforming the healthcare system I’ll write my explanations later, but I chose these quote to illustrate Bush’s reasoning and how similar it is to the reasoning for universal healthcare, the difference being that he thinks people want to pay attention to health care costs more than they just want to be covered.

And so I laid out an initiative — I spent some time talking about it last week, I’m going to continue talking about it. I’m looking forward to working with — this is an issue, by the way, where we can put aside needless politics, which tends to dominate Washington, D.C., and focus on the good for the future of this country. I’m confident we can get something done on this very important education, as well as research and technology issue.

Note

Small businesses, in particular, are struggling to pay health care for their employees.

And if you fear about losing health care when you change work, it creates even more uncertainty.

Note

More than 45 million Americans have no health insurance at all, and this is unacceptable for our country.

(from here: By design, health insurance is intended to spread the risk of high health costs across a wide pool of people. However, people who are already chronically ill and who are not part of an employer or public pool must bear the full burden of their expensive health care by paying high premiums (or, in some cases, must go without insurance). Proposal: The President proposes providing $500 million per year to encourage up to 10 states to test innovative methods for covering their chronically ill residents.States could build on their existing high-risk pools or test other innovative approaches such as risk-adjusted subsidies or plans designed to manage chronic illnesses like diabetes.)

Note

On the one hand, there’s some folks who — good-hearted folks, good, decent folks, who believe that government ought to be making the decisions for the health care industry. And there are some of us who believe that the health care industry ought to be centered on the consumer.

Note

Other nations have adopted government control of health care for centralized decision-making when it comes to health care, which has created long waiting lines and quality of care not as good as the American system, and a significant lag in technological development.

Note

I’m going to lead the Congress to make sure that our health care system preserves America’s system of private medicine, that we strengthen the relationship between doctors and patients, and that we make the benefits of private medicine more affordable and accessible for our citizens. That’s our strategy.

(see Read More for more, and CBPP for an alternative view

The House-passed bill (H.R. 2596) establishing Health Savings Security Accounts constitutes an additional costly tax cut — with a total cost of $174 billion over 10 years — at a time when the federal budget outlook continues to deteriorate.

HSSAs also pose considerable health policy risks. HSSAs
could lead to the restructuring of the existing employer-based health insurance system through which the vast majority of Americans obtain their health insurance coverage. By encouraging employers to move away from traditional health insurance to less comprehensive high-deductible plans, HSSAs could shift a greater proportion of the costs of health care from firms to employees, with particularly adverse consequences for the low-income, older and sicker workers most in need of traditional health insurance coverage.)

2/16/06Administration Defense of Health Savings Accounts Rests on Misleading Use of Statistics

Claim #2: HSAs help reduce the number of uninsured Americans.
Moreover, even if as many people gained coverage as lost coverage as a result of the Administration’s proposals, the overall effect would be negative, because the people who would gain coverage would tend to need it less than the people who would lose coverage. The people most likely to gain coverage as a result of the Administration’s proposals are healthy people who would be able, with the help of the new tax breaks, to obtain affordable coverage in the individual market. In contrast, the people most likely to become uninsured as a result of the proposals would be less-healthy employees in small businesses that dropped coverage, since less-healthy people have the most difficult time obtaining affordable coverage in the individual market.

2/15/06The Cost and Coverage Impact of The President’s Health Insurance Budget Proposals

More Center on Budget and Policy Priorities Analyses

Obviously, government has a role to play. We have made a commitment to the poor and the elderly in the United States, and it’s a commitment we’re going to keep. When I got to Washington, I took a look at the Medicare system. It’s a very important part of our nation’s health care system, and that is Medicare, except it was old and tired, and hadn’t been changed. It was a centrally-controlled system. I’ll give you an example of what I meant by old and tired. This is a system that would pay $28,000 for ulcer surgery — when you’ve got an ulcer, you check in the hospital, Medicare would write you a $28,000 check. It wouldn’t pay the $500 necessary to prevent the ulcer from happening in the first place. In other words, medicine had begun to change, and Medicare didn’t change with it. One reason why is because it’s centrally controlled; all decisions had to be made by people out of Washington, D.C.

Note

We added the prescription drug benefit to Medicare that modernizes the system. And at the same time, we gave seniors more options from which to choose. See, part of making sure a health care system works, seems like to me, the consumers ought to have more choice. In a centralized system, the government makes the choice. In a private system that focuses on kind of the market, people ought to have a choice. People ought to be able to be given different options from which to choose.

Note

Competition — in other words, if they have choices it creates a sense of competition in the marketplace — is lowering costs for American seniors.

Note

I mentioned to you we have the goal of making sure that our budgets are responsible. One of — the budget I just signed — the bill I just signed and the budget I proposed is finally beginning to do something about the growth in Medicare and Medicaid.

Note

You hear rhetoric, of course, that we’re “starving the poor.” The car is going the speed limit — it’s not going backwards.

Note

… I understand a solution to Social Security and Medicare in terms of dealing with a bulge of retirees is going to require a bipartisan solution. And I mean it to members of Congress. I expect there to be a bipartisan effort to come up with a solution. Nothing will pass the House or the Senate unless there’s agreement. And now is the time to put aside the politics that have stopped rational people from coming up with a rational answer to a very serious problem — to set it aside, sit down at the table, and solve this problem once and for all, so we can travel the country looking at young workers and saying, you’re not going to pay payroll taxes into a bust system anymore. You’re going to pay payroll taxes into a system which will be around not only for baby boomers like me, but for a young generation of Americans coming up. Now is the time for us to get something done. (Applause.)

Note

You know, every title on a bill sounds just fantastic, you know. (Laughter.) The problem is, is that every bill doesn’t deliver the results it’s supposed to.

Note

One of the real strains on local hospitals and local health providers is the fact that the poor and the indigent use emergency rooms for primary care — an incredibly inefficient use of assets. It’s an important use of assets if somebody can’t find care and they need help — I’m not denigrating the people going to the emergency rooms, but I am saying there’s a better way to be wise about how we spend your money and to solve a very important problem, and that is have the emergency rooms be there for emergencies, and have primary care facilities like community health centers being there for primary care for the indigent and the poor.

Note

What should the role of the government be? And I believe the role of the government ought to be to empower consumers to make choices.

Note

I call them HSAs. When you hear me say HSA, that’s kind of government-speak for health savings account.

Note

It means most Americans have no idea what their actual cost of treatment is. You show up, you got a traditional plan, you got your down payment, you pay a little co-pay, but you have no idea what the cost is. Somebody else pays it for you. And so there’s no reason at all to kind of worry about price. If somebody else is paying the bill, you just kind of — hey, it seems like a pretty good deal. There’s no pressure for an industry to lower price. And so what you’re seeing is price going up. If you don’t care what you’re paying, and the provider doesn’t have any incentive to lower, the natural inclination is for the cost to go up and the insurance companies, sure enough, pass on the costs — the increase in cost to you and your employer. That’s what’s happening.

Note

The fundamental problem with traditional coverage is that there’s no incentive to control how their health care dollars are spent.

Note

If patients controlled how their health care dollars are spent, the result is better treatment at lower cost.

Note

And so, how to affect those kinds of cost changes in the health care industry — that’s what we’re really here to discuss. And one way to do so is to — to make health care more responsive is through health savings accounts.

Note

The health savings account portion of this product allows you and your employer to contribute tax-free to pay for routine medical costs

Note

It means that if you don’t spend money in your savings account on health care, you can roll it over to the next year, tax-free. You have money growing for health care to pay incidental expenses; it’s growing at a reasonable interest rate; it’s yours you call your own, and if you don’t spend it in a year you can put it into the next year, and the next year, and the next year.

Note

And all of a sudden, when you inject this type of thinking in the system, price starts to matter. You’re aware of price. You begin to say, well, maybe there’s a better way to do this, and more cost-effective way.

Note

The combined cost of catastrophic insurance coverage and HSA contributions are usually less expensive than traditional coverage. That’s important to know. In other words, HSAs are making health care more affordable.

Note

Forty percent of those who own HSAs have family incomes below $50,000 a year. In other words, if people are having trouble affording traditional insurance, all of a sudden the HSA becomes a more affordable product.

Note

A lot of young folks are saying, wait a minute, this is a pretty good deal. If I’m going to stay healthy and can save a portion of that money, tax-free, and I’m not going to spend money on health care for a while, all of a sudden a nest egg really begins to build.

Note

You know, I can remember the debate in Washington — I’m sure you can, as well — I remember one person who said, health savings accounts are not a solution for the uninsured, they’re regressive, they favor the wealthy. It’s just not the facts. They’ve helped the uninsured and a lot of folks with incomes under $50,000 are buying these plans. It’s kind of basically saying, if you’re not making a lot of money you can’t make decisions for yourself. That’s kind of a Washington attitude, isn’t it — we’ll decide for you, you can’t figure it out yourself. I think a lot of folks here at Wendy’s would argue that point of view is just simply backwards and not true.

Note

The company wanted to reduce projected health care increases. You didn’t want to keep passing on the high costs of — increasing costs to your employees. So they adopted HSAs

Note

The company helped pay the premium for the catastrophic care. They shared the money that goes in to help pay for incidental or routine expenses.

Medical claims through this company have decreased by 17 percent since they’ve implemented HSAs

Note

By saving money on health insurance, it enables them to put more money into your account, which has got to be a heck of a good benefit, working for this company. It’s your money now, it grows tax-free. It goes in tax-free, it grows tax-free, and you take it out tax-free.

Note

But sometimes your out-of-pocket expenses are greater than your deductible. That’s because on some catastrophic plans, there is an additional co-pay and, therefore, when you — you’re paying after-tax dollars under the current law if you exceed the amount of money you spend beyond your deductible. We can change that. We can raise the cap on the amount of money you put into your HSA so it remains tax-free, so that all out-of-pocket expenses can be covered. (Applause.)

Note

And one of the problems is, a lot of folks fear that when they choose jobs, they’re going to lose their health care. And that means — people feel like they’ve got to get locked into a job because of health care. And that’s not right. They need to be more thoughtful to our workers, and recognize that this is a changing world in which we live. And so we ought to make sure people can take their own health savings account with them job to job.

Note

But the health insurance that comes with the account you can’t take with you, because of outdated laws and practices that prevent insurers from offering portable policies. So I believe that health insurers should be allowed to sell portable HSA policies nationwide.

Note

To be smart consumers, you need to be informed consumers. It’s hard to make wise choices unless you have information available. In order to spend your HSA dollars wisely, you need to know in advance what your options are. You need to know the quality of doctors and hospitals in your area; you need to know the full extent of procedures that someone recommends to you. You know, like when you buy a new car, you have access to consumer research on safety, you have access to information on reliability, you can compare price. There’s performance data. You can become an informed consumer before you purchase your automobile. And that same sense of transparency and information ought to be available in health care. A modern health care system recognizes that people ought to be encouraged to shop for quality and price. And so the health care industry, and the insurance industry, needs to provide reliable information about prices and quality on most common medical procedures.

Note

And so I set a goal in 2004 that most Americans would have an electronic health record within 10 years. You’d have your own health record on a chip.

Note

I also love the thought of America being a great place for entrepreneurship.

From someone who’s never succeeded at it…
Note

In other words, the more people that are in the risk pool, the lower the cost of traditional insurance is for a small business. And so I look forward to working with the Congress to expand what we call associated health plans. That’s kind of Washington-speak for allowing small firms to band together to buy insurance at the same discounts that big companies get. (Applause.)

Note

But we can write laws that make sure that you get you due claims without encouraging a plethora of junk lawsuits that is costing you a lot of money.

plethora

And we need to do something about it, you know. I thought when I got to Washington it was a state issue, Governor. Now when I see the effect on the federal budget of $28 billion a year, it’s a national issue. It requires a national response.

on defensive medicine, frivolous lawsuits
Note

Free markets and competition transform our world.

Note

The agenda I just talked about, one I’m looking forward to working with both Democrats and Republicans in Congress, builds on the strengths of the private sector, recognizes what’s good and let’s continue to build on that. It focuses on practical, market-based solutions.

Note

. But I meant what I said. I fully understand that an economy that requires oil from parts of the world that — where some countries may not like us puts our economic security at risk and puts our national security at risk. And I’m serious about working with members of both parties to advance technological research that will enable us to drive cars by using switch grass, a base stock of ethanol, or wood chips, as well as the corn and soybeans we use today. I can’t wait for the day, and I know future Presidents can’t wait for the day, when somebody walks in with the farm report, and says, Mr. President, the crops are up, and we’re less dependent on Middle Eastern oil. And it’s coming, it’s coming. (Applause.)

Note

From yesterday’s White House Press Briefing, a non-answer answer.

MR. McCLELLAN: If you want to continue to spend time on that, that’s fine. We’re moving on to the priorities of the American people. That’s where our focus is.

Q That’s fair, and that’s your prerogative, and I’ve got my job to do, which is, try to get you to answer that question. Does the President think it’s appropriate for the Vice President to essentially make decisions at odds with the public disclosure process of this White House?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I think that I’ve expressed my views, and we went through this yesterday.

Q But that’s a non-answer.

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, that’s what I was trying to indicate to you –

Q Does the President have a view about how the Vice President has conducted himself?

MR. McCLELLAN: Again, that’s what I — I indicated to you yesterday what our views were.

Q No, I don’t recall you sharing the President’s view.

MR. McCLELLAN: Yes, but can I finish responding? I’m glad to answer your questions.

Q You didn’t answer that question. It was very respectful –

MR. McCLELLAN: I was very respectful and responsive to you all –

Q The Vice President basically decided on his own to not disclose this, which is at odds with how you do business and how the President does business, right?

MR. McCLELLAN: I don’t want to make this about anything other than what it is. It is what it is, David. I was very respectful and responsive to your questions yesterday. I provided you the information I knew based on the facts that were available, and we’ve been through this pretty thoroughly.

Q You don’t have an answer to this question. All right, one final question.

Damn, he just accused Scott of not answering the question a couple of times in a row and then made a snide remark about it. If he’s that frustrated, you must imagine what Scott’s holding back.

MR. McCLELLAN: Wait, wait, I’m just not going to go back through it again. I’d appreciate it if you’d let me respond fully before you jump in.

Q All right, but — well, hold on one second. I’ve got one final question.

MR. McCLELLAN: Other people in this room have questions, and we’ve got an event coming up.

Q I understand that, but I’m not getting answers here, Scott, and I’m trying to be forthright with you, but don’t tell me that you’re giving us complete answers when you’re not actually answering the question, because everybody knows what is an answer and what is not an answer.

MR. McCLELLAN: David, now you want to make this about you, and it’s not about you, it’s about what happened. And that’s what I’m trying to –

Q I’m sorry that you feel that way, but that’s not what I’m trying to do.

MR. McCLELLAN: And I’m trying to provide answers to the questions.

Q I have one final question, since that one wasn’t answered. Is it appropriate for the Vice President to have waited 14 hours after the incident before he spoke with local law enforcement officials? And do you think that an average citizen would have been accorded that same amount of time before having to answer questions about a shooting incident?

MR. McCLELLAN: That was what was arranged with the local law enforcement authorities. You ought to ask them that question.

And then a catswipe, partly in a response that he has spent almost the entire previous press briefing and much of this one discussing the timeline of Saturday’s shooting. Scott has been very difficult in verifying who told whom when and then what the President and Vice President think about the efficiency or propriety of what happened.

Q You said you found out, like 6:00 a.m. the next morning. Are you suggesting that he had plenty of ability to contact Washington and didn’t use it?

MR. McCLELLAN: I’m suggesting that it’s time to focus on the priorities of the American people, and that’s what we’re going to do. You’re welcome to continue focusing on that.

And knocks democrats

Q Al Gore made several provocative statements before a Saudi audience. Does the White House have a position on anything he said?

MR. McCLELLAN: I think we’ll leave the political comments to the RNC to respond to. I think the Democrats need to first come up with what their ideas are before they start getting into attacking others.

Amazing Daily Show Monday night. I spent the entire time laughing with my girlfriend. Anyone can make a joke out of the VP shooting a guy in the face. Only the Daily Show can make it a 20 minute uproarously funny sketch that compares quail to alternately Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden. Also, kudos to the Daily Show for pointing out that Cheney wasn’t actually hunting wild quail, he was doing the equivalent of live skeet shooting; they release the caged, pen-raised birds and then massacre them.

Jon Stewart: “I’m joined now by our own vice-presidential firearms mishap analyst, Rob Corddry. Rob, obviously a very unfortunate situation. How is the vice president handling it?

Rob Corddry: “Jon, tonight the vice president is standing by his decision to shoot Harry Wittington. According to the best intelligence available, there were quail hidden in the brush. Everyone believed at the time there were quail in the brush.

“And while the quail turned out to be a 78-year-old man, even knowing that today, Mr. Cheney insists he still would have shot Mr. Whittington in the face. He believes the world is a better place for his spreading buckshot throughout the entire region of Mr. Whittington’s face.”

Jon Stewart: “But why, Rob? If he had known Mr. Whittington was not a bird, why would he still have shot him?”

Rob Corddry: “Jon, in a post-9-11 world, the American people expect their leaders to be decisive. To not have shot his friend in the face would have sent a message to the quail that America is weak.”

Jon Stewart: “That’s horrible.”

Rob Corddry: “Look, the mere fact that we’re even talking about how the vice president drives up with his rich friends in cars to shoot farm-raised wingless quail-tards is letting the quail know ‘how’ we’re hunting them. I’m sure right now those birds are laughing at us in that little ‘covey’ of theirs.

Jon Stewart: “I’m not sure birds can laugh, Rob.”

Rob Corddry: “Well, whatever it is they do … coo .. they’re cooing at us right now, Jon, because here we are talking openly about our plans to hunt them. Jig is up. Quails one, America zero.

Jon Stewart: “Okay, well, on a purely human level, is the vice president at least sorry?”

Rob Corddry: “Jon, what difference does it make? The bullets are already in this man’s face. Let’s move forward across party lines as a people … to get him some sort of mask.”

Jon Stewart: “Yes, as you’ve just heard, a near-tragedy over the weekend in south Texas. Vice President Dick Cheney accidentally shot a man during a quail hunt at a political supporter’s ranch. Making 78-year-old Harry Whittington the first person shot by a sitting VP since Alexander Hamilton.

“Hamilton, of course, shot in a duel with Aaron Burr over issues of honor, integrity and political maneuvering. Whittington? Mistaken for a bird.
* * *

The other player in the drama? Ranch owner and eyewitness Katharine Armstrong.

Katharine Armstrong: “We were shooting a covey of quail. The vice president and two others got out of the car to walk up the covey.”

Jon Stewart: “What kind of hunting story begins with getting out of your car? As I sighted the great beast before us, my shaking hands could barely engage the parking brake. Slowly, I turned off the A/C and silenced my sub-woofers…”
* * *

Katharine Armstrong: “A bird flushed. The vice president took aim at the bird and shot and unfortunately, Mr. Whittington was in the line of fire and got peppered pretty well.”

Jon Stewart: “Peppered. There you have it. Harry Whittington, seasoned to within an inch of his life.

And from Crooks and Liars

“Whittington was mistaken for a bird.”

“Harry Whittington, seasoned to an inch of his life.”

“Don’t let your kids go hunting with the Vice President. I don’t care what kind of lucrative contracts they’re trying to land or-energy regulations they’re trying to get lifted. He’ll shoot them in the face.”

See coverage at Newsweek and MSNBC

WH: Setting Mallaby Straight
Ownership Society Redux

A rerun of last year’s debate would show that health savings accounts are harder to defend than personal retirement ones. They are shockingly regressive: Furman’s study shows how a poor family might get a subsidy of $150 while a rich one might get more than $4,000. They have not just a transition cost but a real cost: The tax breaks could widen the deficit by at least $132 billion over 10 years and a lot more after that. And health savings accounts pose a more formidable threat to traditional corporate health plans than personal accounts posed to Social Security. Market forces are already dislodging company health plans; an extra shove could cause an avalanche.

The limited consumer discipline that would come from health savings accounts could not justify these disadvantages. But when you talk to administration officials, they express remarkably few doubts. They believed in the ownership society last year; they still believe in it this year. They believe in individual choice; they distrust collective programs. They don’t worry too much about the risks to the budget. Or to distributional justice. Or to existing safety nets.

Simple administration. Straightforward administration. The Clinton team would never have proposed such a clunker of a policy.

Setting the Record Straight: The Washington Post’s Sebastian Mallaby on Health Savings Accounts
Mallaby Claims That HSAs Are For “Rich People” And “Healthy People.” “The administration is proposing a new kind of 401(k), and using it as an inducement to quit low-deductible insurance. Rich people, who gain most from the tax breaks on saving, will be first to sign on; healthy people, who subsidize sicker people in company health plans, will be right behind them.” (Sebastian Mallaby, Op-Ed, “Ownership Society Redux,” The Washington Post, 2/13/06)

But Studies Have Shown That HSAs Have Broad Appeal.

• Enrollment In HSAs Has Tripled Since March 2005.
• Studies Show That Low-Income And Previously Uninsured Americans Are Signing Up For HSAs.
• Survey Finds More Previously Uninsured Americans Enrolled In HSA Programs Than Traditional Health Plans.
• Nearly Half Of HSA Enrollees Are At Least 40 Years Old.
• The President Proposes Extra Financial Help For The Poor And The Sick.
• The President’s Budget Proposes Allowing Employers To Contribute More To The HSAs Of Chronically-Ill Employees Or Their Dependents.

Mallaby Claims That HSA High-Deductible Insurance Policies Do Not Provide Comprehensive Care. “In practice, probably less than half of all health spending outside Medicaid and Medicare would be affected by the new consumer-driven discipline. Many hospital stays cost more than any deductible, so consumers would have no incentive to bargain; emergency-room patients aren’t in a fit state to negotiate prices with their doctors.” (Sebastian Mallaby, Op-Ed, “Ownership Society Redux,” The Washington Post, 2/13/06)

But Studies Have Shown That HSAs Provide Comprehensive Care At Lower Premiums.

• HSA Plans Provide Comprehensive Care At Reasonable Prices.
• HSA Plans Include Coverage For Prescription Drugs, Hospitalization, And Visits To The Doctor’s Office.
• Many HSA Plans Will Provide Plenty Of Reason To Find Bargains On Health Care.

Mallaby Says Americans Would Be Better Off In Traditional Corporate Health Plans. “And health savings accounts pose a more formidable threat to traditional corporate health plans than personal accounts posed to Social Security. Market forces are already dislodging company health plans; an extra shove could cause an avalanche.” (Sebastian Mallaby, Op-Ed, “Ownership Society Redux,” The Washington Post, 2/13/06)

But Studies Provide No Evidence That Employers Are Dropping Coverage.

• HSAs Make Coverage More Affordable For Business.
• HSAs Are Part Of A Health Care System In Which Patients Are In Control.

I will update my argument about why the White House is distorting the issue later.