Paging Ezra Klein

Back on Tuesday, Chris Matthews offered the following thoughts on the politics of health care:

Now, if a Democrat were smart, who gets elected president, they wouldn't go back to the old Canadian model, where they're all—you know, single-payer model. They'd say, “Wait a minute. Why don't I take something that looks practical out of Massachusetts with Mitt Romney, something practical that Schwarzenegger's trying to do, and put my name on it and say, 'Let's try that. Let's try some kind of mandated benefit. Let's try some kind of effort where businesses and young people have to pay their way. Let's do something that sounds vaguely Republican and self-reliant' "—if you're a Democrat. You know why? Because it would pass! And you'd have national health insurance! But if you keep pushing from your ideological end, you never get there.

It's a good thing Matthews has no familiarity whatsoever with the health care proposals of the major Democratic Party presidential candidates. What he's advising Democrats to do is exactly what Hillary Clinton and John Edwards have proposed, it's similar to what Barack Obama's put forward, and it's identical to what Ron Wyden is working on legislatively. Indeed, there's a prohibitive (and, I think, wrong) consensus in left-of-center health policy circles that abandoning single-payer in favor of something like what Matthews is proposing is the way to go. Most interestingly of all, Matthews goes on television to talk about politics for a living.

Comments

I think it's a bad mischaracterization to equate even Wyden with Massachusetts, let alone the omnibus Dem Presidential Candidate Plan(s) with it.

Obama is even explicitly running *against* the Mass plan, so, I can't even really grant this on the branding level.

Posted by josh bivens | March 14, 2008 2:53 PM

I think Matthews is losing it (not that he ever had "it")

Still, I think the Dems should stop using terms like "Universal" healthcare, which do at least "sound like" the Canadian version. Just a PR problem.

More to the point...although the Dems aren't advocating a single-payer system, some are advocating mandates that create some of the same dynamics as a single-payer system.

I'm all for finding ways to reduce costs, control reimburesement rates, etc., which will do more to fix the OTHER big problem with healthcare, which is underinsurance.

Posted by AKBY | March 14, 2008 2:58 PM

"Indeed, there's a prohibitive (and, I think, wrong) consensus in left-of-center health policy circles that abandoning single-payer in favor of something like what Matthews is proposing is the way to go."

Gives you a sense of just how terrible democratic policy wonks are at selling their ideas, doesn't it?

I don't know why they're so terrible at it. Maybe it's because the right wing is better working with scare tactics and democrats talk as though they're holding a seminar. It's a PR issue you wonks need to get your pointy heads together to resolve. Possibly in some kind of conference where everyone can discuss the final episode of The Wire during the breaks.

Posted by Helter | March 14, 2008 2:59 PM

Actually his television gig is just for pocket change. His main avocation is breeding pigs. Inseminating them. Personally. Himself.

Posted by steve duncan | March 14, 2008 3:00 PM

"Most interestingly of all, Matthews goes on television to talk about politics for a living."

Matthews is an employee of General Electric, a corporation which makes more money off of healthcare than off of television.

Matthews earns his living doing the bidding of General Electric.

That's why he's not going to go on television and talk about healthcare in a coherent manner.

That's why he's not going to go on television and talk about unions or Social Security in a coherent manner.

And that's he daily goes on television to enthusiastically push forward Barack Obama, the Democrat who's signaled his willingness to do General Electric's bidding on entitlements.

Posted by Petey | March 14, 2008 3:04 PM

I myself am interested in the alternate universe where passing a law that requires everyone to spend $10,000/year for crappy coverage is easy and doable. Yes, that will definitely make everyone forget single-payer.

Posted by Tim H. | March 14, 2008 3:04 PM

"Matthews is an employee of General Electric, a corporation which makes more money off of healthcare than off of television."

And wasn't the last Democratic debate, hosted by General Electric, fascinating?

Brian Williams and Tim Russert spent 15 solid minutes relentlessly trying to get the candidates to stop talking about healthcare reform. Nothing to see here, folks.

Posted by Petey | March 14, 2008 3:08 PM

You're laboring under the delusion that US politics has some close relationship to policy. In fact it's approximately at the same level of significance as the relationship between American Idol and academic musicology. Matthews' mistake in this case is not in talking about policy ignorantly, but in talking about policy at all: he should stick to his job, enthusing about the manly bulge in Commander Codpiece's flightsuit and searching through old tapes for gotcha moments where a candidate told one audience he's a Yankees fan and another he's rooting for the Red Sox.

Posted by Richard Cownie | March 14, 2008 3:14 PM

Isn't it fascinating how Disney, Viacom, and Time-Warner, three companies that make their money primarily off of media, aren't interested in stopping universal healthcare and undermining Social Security, but General Electric, which makes its money off of healthcare and financial services, is virulently opposed to those programs?

Isn't it fascinating how Disney, Viacom, and Time-Warner are neutral in the nomination race while General Electric is pushing hard for Obama ?

Posted by Petey | March 14, 2008 3:15 PM

"You're laboring under the delusion that US politics has some close relationship to policy."

General Electric is all about policy. They pump money into their news operation specifically to dominate the policy discussion.

And policy is why they're pushing hard for Obama. He's earned General Electric's support on policy.

Posted by Petey | March 14, 2008 3:18 PM

Have a beer, Petey.

Posted by JH | March 14, 2008 3:22 PM

Gives you a sense of just how terrible democratic policy wonks are at selling their ideas, doesn't it?

No, it gives me a sense of how completely uninterested the MSM is in covering politics as anything other than a sporting event. Or it would give me such a sense if I didn't already have one.

Posted by James Gary | March 14, 2008 3:22 PM

"And policy is why they're pushing hard for Obama. He's earned General Electric's support on policy."

Of course they are. What wealthy CEO doesn't want to see a president in the white house who is pushing for higher taxes on the wealthy? Who wants to see bigger taxes on capital gains?

Up at GE headquarters, GE execs are sitting around telling each other, "You know what this country needs? A liberal running it."

Very plausible.

Posted by Rid | March 14, 2008 3:24 PM

I like how this election cycle has brought out the progressive in you, Petey.

Not that it wasn't there before, but it didn't come out like it does now.

Posted by Neil the Ethical Werewolf | March 14, 2008 3:29 PM

Part of the original corrected, for great justice.

"Now, if a Democrat were smart, who gets elected president, they wouldn't go back to the old Canadian model, where they're all—you know, single-payer model. Not that I have anything to say about the merits of the model, but the esthetics are vaguely commie and all, and that's icky and weak and not self reliant.

Posted by yabonn | March 14, 2008 3:32 PM

I like how this election cycle has brought out the progressive in you, Petey.

Only if by "progressive", you mean "nutso conspiracy theorist."

Posted by right | March 14, 2008 3:33 PM

Whew! that was a close one. until I read down to MY's scathing commentary on this idiot Chris Matthews I thought, 'Oh no, MY is giving this turkey blog space! Say it ain't so.' I don't want to have to boycott MY too.

Posted by lefty | March 14, 2008 3:38 PM

"Up at GE headquarters, GE execs are sitting around telling each other, "You know what this country needs? A liberal running it."

General Electric has never been a strictly partisan operation like Fox. They understand that if they were perceived to be like Fox, they'd lose their policy influence.

And given that Democratic economic policy has always been what GE is fighting, their smart response has been to try to influence the internal Democratic debate. This is why stopping Clinton is so important to them. This is why they've always hired Democrats who are willing to oppose Democratic economic policy, from Reagan to Russert to Matthews.

General Electric doesn't care very much whether a Democrat or Republican is running the country. They just want to make sure that they keep Democratic economic policy marginalized.

And that's why they're willing to go so far out on a limb for Obama this cycle. They know full well that a Clinton Presidency would result in a universal healthcare program that would prove popular and would be extraordinarily difficult to displace in the future. That's why they fight.

Posted by Petey | March 14, 2008 3:40 PM

Petey is an example of something I've observed among a number of friends and acquaintances: Passionate Edwards supporters who have responded to his defeat by channeling all that energy and excitement into .... pissing on Obama.

Weird, it is.

Posted by lemuel pitkin | March 14, 2008 3:42 PM

"This is why stopping Clinton is so important to them."

Oh, naturally. They're terribly frightened of the big bad ex-corporate lawyer and board sitting queen. The one the guys at Wal Mart and Tyson Foods loved for all those years.

Yeah, Petey, they totally don't want her to be in the White House over the guy who gave up the big law career to go work as a community organizer.

Again, very plausible. Got any other whoppers?

Posted by Rid | March 14, 2008 3:50 PM

Petey:
Do you really think Clinton would enact UHC? What ever gives you that idea? Besides, doesn't her plan let the insurance companies still be involved?

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | March 14, 2008 3:53 PM

Petey's GE theory is amusing, but GE is a very large conglomerate and I'm sure that. e.g., their defense contracting branches would prefer to have hawkish Democrats like HRC continue in office. For that matter, their media branches probably don't like Obama's media reform proposals.

Chris Matthews and Tim Russert are both idiots, but deciding to vote for the less electable, less progress Democrat in order to spite them is also idiotic.

Posted by Matthew Yglesias | March 14, 2008 3:57 PM

You guys are unfair. Petey is not against Obama because of GE. He is against Obama because unlike Clinton he did not praise and adopt the J*O*H*N E*D*W*A*R*D*S health care plan. The GE part is just meant to annoy everyone.

Posted by Gary Sugar | March 14, 2008 4:12 PM

"And policy is why they're pushing hard for Obama. He's earned General Electric's support on policy"

Well maybe. And for the most part I like Obama's policies as well; but I don't delude myself that US elections are reported, nor won or lost, on the strength of policy proposals. Bush's tax cuts were always incoherent and mathematically challenged *as a policy proposal*; but as political theater, they did their job. And so did "compassionate conservatism" etc.

This is seen most strongly in the Republican party, where espousing a policy is seen mostly as a way of expressing your tribal loyalty. But it's somewhat true of the Democrats as well: Edwards had the best set of policies, but his campaign never went anywhere. It's about money and name recognition and giving people some kind of warm glow inside.

And I'm sure GE has a perfectly cynical view on this: let's face it, a set of policies that are good for GE is probably not going to be especially good for the average worker. So while GE has a strong interest in getting their favorite candidate elected, they're not so naive as to think that talking about policy is the way to do it. If the voters get knowledgeable about policy, then it's going to be harder for corporate interests to get what they want.

Posted by Richard Cownie | March 14, 2008 4:14 PM

I don't deny for a second that MSM corporate owners have vested interests in how their TV networks cover politics. But Petey, you make it seem like there is a secret evil boardroom where GE executives sit down Russert and Matthews and tell them how to think. The world is a lot more subtle and complicated than that. It's more like they tend to favor, promote, and feature pundits and reporters who share their same views. No one sends out a Faux-News style memo telling them to obscure the discussion of health care. They simply rely on the laziness and hackishness of their chosen employees to achieve that goal for them.

Posted by Philly | March 14, 2008 4:16 PM

For what it's worth, Lemuel, I volunteered for Edwards for a year and a half before caucusing for Obama and becoming one of his delegates to the county convention.

Posted by Neil the Ethical Werewolf | March 14, 2008 4:22 PM

That's weird, lemuel, because I've never met a "passionate Edwards supporter" in real life. Yeah, I've met some people who voted for him in 04 or 08, but Petey is the only person I've ever encountered -- online or in real life -- who's a "passionate Edwards supporter." I've met Obama supporters and Hillary supporters and McCain supporters and Giuliani supporters and Ron Paul supporters even a Fred Thompson supporter, but never anyone who was crazy for Edwards. For all of the talk about Edwards' supposed political gifts, I think that's telling.

Sorry, Petey. I don't want to kick you when you're down.

Re: Obama's "media reform proposals." Anybody know what those are? I haven't heard anything about them. If a candidate doesn't get the 1st Amendment -- and I've never seen a "media reform" idea that didn't piss on the 1st Amendment -- that's a deal-breaker. Crap, I was starting to be OK with Obama.

Posted by too many steves | March 14, 2008 4:29 PM

OK, never mind, Neil steps up and makes it 2.

Posted by too many steves | March 14, 2008 4:32 PM

Interesting that MY choose to jump into a comment thread, something not unusual, but not altogether common, to defend GE.

And they are for Obama because they hate the Clinton's. Come the fall, there's one straight-talker they'll be pushing.

And Jack Welch hired/summers with them all.

Posted by Andruw | March 14, 2008 4:41 PM

Interesting that MY choose to jump into a comment thread, something not unusual, but not altogether common, to defend GE.

Well, he's clearly a robot created and programmed by GE to do their bidding. Only such a simple, paranoid monocausal explanation could explain his actions.

Posted by Philly | March 14, 2008 4:47 PM

It's a good thing Matthews has no familiarity whatsoever with the health care proposals of the major Democratic Party presidential candidates. What he's advising Democrats to do is exactly what Hillary Clinton and John Edwards have proposed, it's similar to what Barack Obama's put forward, and it's identical to what Ron Wyden is working on legislatively.

Since Matthews doesn't identify the pieces of the Massachusetts and California plans that he considers "practical" and that he thinks the Democratic candidates should therefore adopt, your claim that they are following his advice makes no sense. Does Matthews' consider Clinton's individual mandate to be practical? Or Obama's assumptions about the lack of need for a mandate? How about their cost estimates? He doesn't say, at least in the text you quote.

I suspect Matthews thinks, as I do, that Clinton's and Obama's plans are full of highly dubious assumptions about various political, economic and behavioral practicalities. They really have NO IDEA how much their plans will ultimately cost, NO IDEA of whether they'll be able to pay for them through tax increases, NO IDEA of how effective their cost-saving ideas will be, NO IDEA of how the public will respond to their legal or economic incentives, and so on. It's all just, at best, an educated guess, and there are plenty of reasons to think both Obama's and Clinton's guesses are wildly optimistic.

Posted by Mixner | March 14, 2008 4:57 PM

Well, he's clearly a robot created and programmed by GE to do their bidding. Only such a simple, paranoid monocausal explanation could explain his actions.

No guarantee that it was actually MY himself who posted that comment. One can type anything one wants into the "Name" field.

Posted by Matthew Yglesias | March 14, 2008 4:59 PM

Spoken like a true all-knowing GE Punditron 3000.

Posted by Matthew Yglesias | March 14, 2008 5:03 PM

Not at all surprising Matthews has no idea what the health care policies are of the Presidential candidates. None of the MSM seems to know because they're too busy talking about Hillary crying or Obama's support from Farrakkhan, or McCain getting snippy with a reporter - you know, the issues that voters are interested in.

Anyway, it strikes me as mandates being the exact wrong way to go about health care in this country for Democrats. I think we have the potential to grab a younger generation and persuade them to become Democrats. But this generation has a bit of a libertarian streak about them. I don't think they like the government telling them what to do. I also think they don't find higher taxes nearly as objectionable as the Reagan generation, particularly when pointed at upper income earners and capital gains. So nix the mandates, raise taxes on capital gains and upper income, and propose a simple government system that supplements the current system, and work our way from there.

Posted by Jayhawk Max | March 14, 2008 5:09 PM

Note: the 4:59 comment under the name "Matthew Yglesias" was by me. I was curious if it would work.

Posted by James Gary | March 14, 2008 5:09 PM

And I'll also point out that Hillary's mandates and her position on Iraq are the two big policy reasons I support Obama. I think the Massachusetts plan is awful and simply a handout to insurance companies.

Posted by Jayhawk Max | March 14, 2008 5:11 PM

"So nix the mandates, raise taxes on capital gains and upper income, and propose a simple government system that supplements the current system, and work our way from there."

I agree with Jayhawk Max. This approach is both doable and the most direct and positive way to get where we're going.

Posted by Gary Sugar | March 14, 2008 6:08 PM

Re: They know full well that a Clinton Presidency would result in a universal healthcare program that would prove popular and would be extraordinarily difficult to displace in the future.

Why would GE have a dog in this fight. Or rather, they do have a diog in it and it's called the cost of employee benefits. That should be motivating them to support a serious overhaul of healthcare-- especially the creation of a public porgram that would relieve the pressure on corporate budgets. I can see why insurance companies will fight these proposals tooth and nail, and maybe the pharmaceutical industry as well. But most businesses should be cautiously interested.

Re: And they are for Obama because they hate the Clinton's.

Um, most big business types actually liked Bill Clinton. His administration was better for them than George Bush's has been (with obvious exceptions like Halliburton).

Posted by JonF | March 14, 2008 6:10 PM

"Petey is an example of something I've observed among a number of friends and acquaintances: Passionate Edwards supporters who have responded to his defeat by channeling all that energy and excitement into .... pissing on Obama."

Given that Obama has decided to seek the WH by pissing all over Democratic policy to gain the support of folks like Chris Matthews and Tim Russert, do you really find it so surprising that folks who care about Democratic policy wouldn't be particularly fond of Obama?

-----

"Chris Matthews and Tim Russert are both idiots"

Russert and Matthews are not acting randomly. They're both intentionally fronting a well defined and well thought out corporate ideology.

And they're both quite effective at their jobs.

More broadly, General Electric has inflicted more damage on the left over the past half century than any other actor on the American political scene. That you try to dismiss what Matthews and Russert are up to as bumbling gives a pretty good example of where you're coming from here.

Posted by Petey | March 15, 2008 1:33 AM

Quit talking about the current proposals in terms of health CARE...they are about health INSURANCE.

That's the difference between single payer, Medicare for all and what's being proposed today.

Mandates will work for single payer contributions aka Medicare on steroids. They will NOT work to force people to buy INSURANCE from a for-profit company.

Posted by G Davis | March 15, 2008 1:46 AM

Petey -- how specifically does GE Healthcare benefit more from Clinton's plan than Obama's? Cost control measures and the medicare-like competitive public insurance option are both bad for GE, I'd think, and are included in both Clinton's and Obama's plan. Subsidies for insurance are good for GE, and they're in both Clinton's and Obama's plan. The main difference is that Clinton's plan includes mandates -- which seems, overall, to be a benefit to GE Health. I understand and largely agree with the case that mandates are good policy, but I really don't see how GE's interests are harmed by them.

Also, given that Obama's only proposal with regard to Social Security so far has been to propose uncapping FICA taxes, I don't see how that would fit with undermining Social Security as a program currently constituted.

Thanks for the explanations. (If this has already been explained a lot elsewhere, feel free to send me to some already-written page that explains it via a link.)

Posted by Julian Elson | March 15, 2008 2:17 AM

"The main difference is that Clinton's plan includes mandates -- which seems, overall, to be a benefit to GE Health."

The main difference between the two plans is that the Edwards/Clinton plan is actually legislatable, while the Obama plan isn't. Without mandates, the adverse selection problems mean that Obama's plan will never make it out of subcommittee. In Goolsbee-land, this is considered a feature, not a bug.

An Obama administration would produce no comprehensive healthcare legislation, which is exactly where GE sees its interests as lying.

"Also, given that Obama's only proposal with regard to Social Security so far..."

Obama's concession to GE last year was to pronounce SS's finances as being in crisis, which is how GE has traditionally striven to paint the issue. The attempt during the 90's to depict the trust fund as meaningless was spearheaded by GE precisely to further that idea.

This is obviously less of a big deal than smothering universal healthcare in the crib, but it's still noteworthy that only Obama among the major Democratic candidates was willing to throw that particular sop to GE.

"If this has already been explained a lot elsewhere, feel free to send me to some already-written page that explains it via a link."

If you're new to the topic, I'd advise beginning by reading about Lemeul Boulware. Here's a quite readable excerpt of a book about Boulware's education of Ronald Reagan. GE's basic ideology and methods of influencing the policy debate have remained remarkably consistent over the past 50 years. After that, you should start reading about Jack Welch, a more recent practitioner of Boulwarism who is responsible for the shape of GE's current news operation.

GE's broadest policy goals have always been to cripple unions and eliminate universal government programs.

Posted by Petey | March 15, 2008 3:18 AM

I pay very little attention to Chris Matthews in general, so I don't know what his politics tend to be, but my first thought when I read Matt's quote wasn't that he didn't know what he was talking about (which may be true) but rather "he's rebranding a very popular Democratic initiative -- health care -- as Republican." It's a pretty simple step, should Obama or Clinton pass their proposed solutions, for Matthews to say "look at how closely these resemeble MA and CA, these guys are just cribbing from the smart Republicans, the party of ideas."

Again, that's just initial reaction.

Posted by Sam Hutcheson | March 15, 2008 3:59 AM

Thanks for the link, Petey. Definitely very interesting about Boulware, and Reagan's transformation from a spokesman for the Eureka student strike and Democrat to anti-union Republican. I still think that you're blowing what Obama has actually said about Social Security out of proportion, considering that he opposes privatization, although I admit it's a bit of a misplaced focus considering how small whatever problems SS has -- if there turn out to be any -- in comparison to medicare cost growth.

Posted by Julian Elson | March 15, 2008 5:24 PM