[Guest post by DRJ]

Now that passage of government health care seems possible, the AP has decided to point out some minor problems:

“It took lawmakers a year to shape President Barack Obama’s health care bill. If it finally passes Congress, it’ll take the better part of a decade to write the user manual for consumers and doctors, employers and insurance companies.

Some health insurance consumer protections would go into place immediately, significant but limited in scope. The big expansion in coverage comes in four years. More than 30 million people would sign up, with most getting tax credits to help pay premiums. Ripple effects continue well after Obama has to leave office in 2017, if he’s re-elected.

But even if the 2,700-plus-page bill passes, it’s only the end of the beginning. The Obama blueprint will be carried out under less-than-ideal circumstances. Rising medical costs and an aging population will keep squeezing the federal budget. Lawmakers will have to revisit hard choices they sidestepped.

“This is going to play out over a generation,” said Andrew Hyman, who oversees health insurance research for the nonpartisan Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. “It will address how people get coverage, how health care is delivered, and how health care is paid for.”

It’s like a really expensive health care supermarket for middle class American workers:

“Starting in 2014, self-employed people and those whose employers don’t offer coverage would be able to pick a plan through a health insurance exchange, like a supermarket. It’s modeled on the federal employee health program available to members of Congress, with a range of private plans. Small businesses could also join.

More than 30 million people would buy coverage through state exchanges, and nearly 6 in 10 would be eligible for help with their premiums. The new tax credits would be computed according to income and other household characteristics. The money would go straight to the insurer. To consumers it would look like a discount — generous for lower-income families, less so for those solidly in the middle class.

For example, a family of four making $44,000 would pay $2,763 in premiums _about 6 percent of its income_ for a policy worth $9,435.

But a similar family making $66,000 would have to pay $6,257 in premiums, close to 10 percent of its income. That may be less than a mortgage, but it’s more than a car payment.

Once the exchanges open, most Americans would be required to carry health insurance or pay a fine. Medicaid would be expanded to cover childless adults living near poverty.”

It’s the Obama campaign all over again. The media only does its job after the decision is made.

– DRJ

[Guest post by DRJ]

How does a major newspaper decide whether to report wartime news whose release may jeopardize American interests or lives? New York Times‘ Editor Bill Keller says it depends on many factors, apparently including whether the newspaper has a friendly or acrimonious relationship with the President:

KELLER: No, we get asked to withhold information, not often but from time to time. Sometimes it’s a no-brainer, you know we have reporters embedded in military operations – obviously they don’t file information that would put troops at risk. We’ve had other stories that were much more controversial where we decided that we would publish. This one was not, honestly, a very hard call. Obviously we were eager to break the story, it represented a lot of resourceful reporting by Mark and Dexter, but there was no obvious public interest reason to rush the story into print and you know we are responsible people; we didn’t want to compromise what sounded like a possible intelligence coup.

HEADLEE: And certainly, the story retains just as much power more than a week later as it would have had you broken it right at the time, is that kind of your thought process?

KELLER: Yeah, I think that’s kind of the thought process. What actually happened, was yesterday our stringers in Pakistan and Afghanistan started calling our bureaus there and saying, we’re hearing reports that Mullah Baladar is in Pakistani custody, we took that to the White House and they said, yeah we understand it’s not holdable anymore.

HEADLEE: Right, so you published it. Now you visited the White House in 2006 while President Bush was in office and you were getting ready to publish a story about domestic wire tapping and very famously you were told if you published that story you’d have blood on your hands. Is that the kind of dire warning you got from the Obama White House?

KELLER: No, first of all this didn’t even get to my level, they dealt with Dean Baquet, the Washington bureau chief, I mean obviously if they felt they needed to call me, I’m always willing to take a call, but it didn’t even rise to that level. Back in 2006 the conversations were professional and civil, but in the end when we didn’t agree to hold the story as they wanted us to, it was a kind of firestorm of criticism from the White House aimed at the Times. So far anyway we haven’t had that acrimony with this administration, nor as far as I know have other news organisations.”

It sounds like the New York Times‘ editors didn’t [like and/or] trust Bush and that contributed to why they refused his requests, but they [like and/or] trust Obama so they are more willing to accommodate his requests. I don’t know if that’s consistent with journalistic standards but it’s understandable. We are more likely to believe people we trust.

It’s also useful because it explains why subscriptions are dropping at newspapers like the New York Times but not at sources like the Wall Street Journal. It’s about trust.

– DRJ

[Guest post by DRJ]

The Dallas Tea Party organizers invite Keith Olbermann to their one-year anniversary celebration on February 27, 2010:

– DRJ

[Guest post by DRJ]

Time’s Joe Klein says there are a lot of Tea Party nuts and they’re Know-Nothings, too:

“The Know-Nothing Party Redux

The Tea Party movement, as we know, is mostly comprised of patriotic Americans who are concerned about the drift of the country away from prosperity and, they believe, freedom. It is also has more nuts than a forest of almond trees.”

That’s Klein’s entire report on the Tea Party Nation convention, so far. I guess Time isn’t paying him by the word.

– DRJ

[Guest post by DRJ]

Like commenter Dana in the Tea Party Nation post below, the equally clever Ann Althouse notices a shift in the way the New York Times looks at Sarah Palin:

“Sarah Palin was a blithering idiot until she became a devious genius.”

Althouse concludes Palin’s political career is “so not toast.”

– DRJ

[Guest post by DRJ]

How do you get the media’s goat if you’re a Tea Partier? Apart from just being a Tea Partier, deny them credentials:

“Organizers of the National Tea Party Convention here were not happy about the media coverage leading up to their event – the stories about how convention sponsors and participants were pulling out and accusing the convention of “profiteering,” and about one organizer’s past bankruptcy.

So it was perhaps not surprising that despite saying they wanted to run a “transparent” operation, they turned down many of the 120 requests they said they received from news organizations seeking to send journalists here. Even the local paper, The Tennessean, said it was refused a credential.”

Credentials were issued to foreign journalists:

“But the convention organizers did extend permission to cover the event to several international journalists, from, according to their list, Spain, France ,Germany, Switzerland, Italy, Croatia and Japan. For those reporters, it is not easy translating the sentiments of the tea partiers to their audiences back home.
***
Europe in particular swooned for President Obama, and journalists said it was hard to explain to people back home why not everyone in the United States did too – convention participants, in particular.”

The New York Times didn’t have a problem “translating the sentiments” for their audience:

“We are,” [Tea Party Nation organizer Mark Skoda] said, repeating the vague but determined refrain of many tea partiers, “taking our government back.”

This might be a counterproductive decision by the Tea Party Nation but it’s also humorous. For months, the media wasn’t interested in covering Tea Party stories until now, when they’ve been denied access.

– DRJ

UPDATE: Daleyrocks notes in the comments that the limit on credentials was short-lived, according to imdw favorite Dave Weigel:

“The National Tea Party Convention’s early reluctance to give credentials to reporters — a decision that came after some negative commentary on the event’s cost and critics — was short-lived. Reporters are swarming the Gaylord Opryland Hotel and, with little exception, getting press passes. When I checked it around 11 a.m., more than 150 reporters had been credentialed. While there are around 600 paying attendees, the scene in the hall outside of the banquet and meeting rooms is basically one-to-one reporter-to-attendee. Inside the breakout sessions, at least three cameras are filming at any one time.”

At the link, Weigel also notes credentials were issued to one of the Landrieu defendants.

UPDATE 2: Also in the comments, Dana adds a link to the New York Times’ recap of Palin’s speech. Dana calls it “even-handed” and I agree, plus it’s good to know the Times’ reporter managed to get in.