4. Despite the lessons of recent history, Romney would double down on the disastrous tax policies that handed windfalls to the wealthy, but stacked the deck against the middle class. Under Romney, millionaires and billionaires would get a $250,000 tax cut, while families with kids making less than $40,000 a year would, on average, actually see their taxes go up. To the surprise of no one, Romney also opposes the Buffett Rule. He would allow millionaires to continue to take advantage of loopholes and special deals that often allow them to pay a lower tax rate than the middle class. And he supports tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas.

5. Romney would end Medicare as we know it — replacing it with a voucher scheme that would drive profits for insurance companies by forcing seniors to purchase private insurance, paying whatever costs a voucher wouldn’t cover out of their own limited budgets.

Romney and his special-interest allies are going to spend the next seven months trying to deny, downplay, or hide these facts from voters. It’s on us to speak the truth.

So print these out, post them on your fridge, and share them on Facebook. Send this list around to friends who are on the fence.

When and if your mother-in-law, or cousin, or best friend claims that Romney is “moderate,” you need to know what to say.

You are the President’s voice out there, and I can’t stress enough how you will be the difference between voters hearing our message or not. The more Americans learn about Mitt Romney, the less they like him, and the less they trust him.

I think this is a pretty telling indication of where the Obama campaign sees the 2012 fight. The fact the gender gap appears so prominently reinforces the idea that a lot of this campaign will be about women’s issues — and thank goodness for that, because usually they’re not even mentioned. I’m still not entirely convinced that the whole contraception debate wasn’t an incredibly clever ploy on the Obama administration’s behalf to bait Republicans. It’s cynical, sure, but also damn smart.

I’m also wondering if maybe the Obama campaign thinks Paul Ryan is going to be the VP — or that he’s a likely choice and they’re getting in a preemptive strike. Points 2, 4 and 5 link pretty closely to the Ryan budget.

Also, I think it’s great that Obama is running on Obamacare. It’s good that it’s stopped being the electoral poison it was in 2010. It’s about time they said “dammit, this is a good thing, and we’re going to stop defending it and start celebrating it.”

I mean, it was really over after Florida, but now the media will have to stop pretending it's a contest and Republicans will have to start acting like he's the presumptive nominee. Though Gingrich and Santorum may — and Paul will certainly — struggle on for a while, Romney can now pivot to the general.

Romney got Virginia and Vermont by reasonable margins — he got over 50 per cent in Virginia, which is impressive and will net him a lot of delegates, and beat Paul by a 14 per cent margin in Vermont, as well as completely destroying the competition in his home state — 70+ per cent there.

Gingrich got his home state of Georgia, but fell short of the 50 per cent he needed to lock in the delegates, so that won't hurt Romney in the long run. Santorum is continuing to do well in deep red states — they've called Tennessee for him, and he's looking good in Oklahoma too.

The only interesting contest left is in Ohio, where Santorum and Romney are neck-and-neck. Because Ohio borders Pennsylvania, there's something of a home state advantage for Santorum, but because of the importance of Ohio in the general, there could be some questions about Romney's electability if he doesn't manage to win there. But those questions won't actually mean anything, because with the number of delegates he'll net today, Romney's lead is unassailable.

No real results from Alaska, Idaho, and North Dakota yet. I suspect Romney will do very, very well in Idaho, but it'll be interesting to see the influence of the libertarian vote in Alaska and Idaho.

By representing the debate as being about whether something is good, rather than whether or not the US federal government should be the ones doing it, much of the important nuance in the debate is lost.

3) They assume that foreign policy is important to voters

While as non-Americans, its easy to get caught up in foreign policy issues, the truth is that elections aren’t usually won or lost on the power of foreign policy. The economy matters more. Cultural issues matter more. A small subset of Americans vote on foreign policy, but most don’t. in 2012, it will be the economy that matters most.

4) They overestimate the power of the Presidency

Oh, this is a big one. It’s amazing how often Australians talk about the President as though they operate as the Prime Minister. The role is very different. Separation of powers — which we talk about in the Australian system but don’t really experience in the same way — is key. Congress makes the law; the President does not. Saying “the President will do this” or “Obama should have done that” displays a very naive understanding of what the Presidency actually can and can’t do.

I don’t want to get all primary-source on you, but it’s worth looking at the Constitution at this point. Here are the powers of the Presidency:

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

Compare that to the powers of Congress:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;–And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Congress is far more powerful, and the President far less, than many understand.

5) They think Evangelical Christians are very influential

Yes, they’re there. Yes, they vote. Yes, they vote in large numbers. But if you want to look at voting blocks that really influence elections, the age and wealth of voters is far more significant. Conservative Christians do not rule the United States with an iron fist, and there are plenty of people in both parties who identify as Christian yet don’t support traditional “culture war” issues.

6) They assume it’s a story of good guys vs. bad guys

This is more of a summary of many of the points above, but given the Democrats’ pretty significant popularity in Australia, often there’s a tendency to treat Republicans as the bad guys. In reality, their policy positions are far more varied and nuanced than once might assume, and the vocal, tea party type is just one of many kinds of Republicans. Portraying all Republicans as hard-right, super conservative Evangelicals is lazy, and it doesn’t at all serve to help us understand the US more comprehensively. It does, however, feed into anti-American stereotypes which abound.

7) They think the US would be better off with a Parliamentary system

People often talk about the problems in the US Political system as though they are fundamental- it’s either the existence of a powerful extreme conservatism or the lack of a parliamentary system that causes most of the problems. They’re not. The separation of powers, the incredible diversity of US political parties and the centrality and importance of individual rights is part of what has made the US the great modern democracy. Yes, it is flawed. Yes, it needs some tweaking. But these are not fundamental problems.

Rather, there are some pretty significant structural issues that have caused a lot of the US’s current political problems. You could significantly reform the US system not through huge, fundamental system change, but a couple of minor adjustments:

• National popular vote for the President. Get rid of the electoral college
• Change the Senate representation rule to reduce the massive disparity. Introduce a tiered system where the largest states get 6 Senators, the mid-sized states get 4 and the small states get 2. That way, you preserve the state-based nature of the Senate, but understand the interests of a citizen of Montana should not be weighted at 66x those of a citizen of California.
• Get rid of the filibuster. Allow the Senate to pass legislation by a simple majority. The supermajority plus the current Senate representation method means that Senators representing just over 14% of the population can prevent something from passing. That’s hardly what the framers of the Constitution could have had in mind. Yes, that tyranny of the majority is a real and important thing to consider, but that’s what the Bill of Rights is for.
• Eliminate anonymous holds on nominations. They’re just undemocratic.

This post was originally published at ErinRiley.com.au. 

President Obama is still incredibly popular in Australia.  There can be little doubt that a visit from him would have boosted Kevin Rudd's poll numbers, however minorly, and stemmed the tide of the leadership challenge.  While a leadership challenge mere days after showing off Australia's wonders to the leader of the free world would have been unthinkable, one days after a snub was both realistic and almost to be expected. And so Julia Gillard challenged Kevin Rudd for the Federal Labor leadership. And won.  If Obama had visited last weekend, such a challenge was unfathomable.

However indirectly, the Oil Spill claimed its first world leader today.  Kevin Rudd could no longer be Prime Minister of Australia.  If BP's oil spill hadn't have happened, I sincerely doubt that Kevin Rudd could have lost the leadership.  Barack Obama canceling his trip had far greater consequences than anyone could imagine.

It will be interesting to see how family leave activists in the US respond to this, and whether it changes the debate at all.  By removing the only other country to hold-out, the narrative could easily shift to one of American exceptionalism.  The debate over health care reform doesn't bode well for any other extension of "the welfare state", even if it's merely a requirement on businesses.

But with women making up more than 50% of the American workforce for the first time in history, as pointed out by Hanna Rosin in her dreadful-for-entirely-different-reasons Atlantic Monthly cover story, The End of Men, perhaps this can't last.  Unsteady income streams threaten family security, and as more women become the primary breadwinner, the case for mandatory paid parental leave could easily become more compelling and attract greater support.  

The very night of that ceremony, which was the 14^th of April, they held a banquet of a sort in a building that had a roof on it, back in Charleston, and that was the very night, of course, that Lincoln was assassinated at Ford's Theater in Washington. But the black folks of Charleston had planned one more ceremony. That ceremony was a burial ceremony. It turns out that during the last months of the war the Confederate Army turned the planter's horse track, a racecourse--it was called the Washington Racecourse--into an open air cemetery--excuse me, prison. And in that open air prison, in the infield of the horse track--about 260-odd Union soldiers had died of disease and exposure--and they were buried in unmarked graves in a mass gravesite out behind the grandstand of the racetrack. And by the way, there was no more important and symbolic site in low country planter/slaveholding life then their racetrack.

Well, the black folks at Charleston got organized, they knew about all this. They went to the site. They re-interred all the graves, the men. They couldn't mark them with names, they didn't have any names. Then they made them proper graves and they built a fence all the way around this cemetery, about 100 yards long and fity, sixty yards deep, and they whitewashed the fence and over an archway they painted the inscription "Martyrs of the Racecourse." And then on May 1^st 1865 they held a parade of 10,000 people, on the racetrack, led by 3000 black children carrying armloads of roses and singing John Brown's Body, followed then by black women, then by black men--it was regimented this way--then by contingents of Union infantry. Everybody marched all the way around the racetrack; as many as could fit got into the gravesite. Five black preachers read from scripture. A children's choir sang the national anthem, America the Beautiful, and several spirituals, and then they broke from that and went back into the infield of the racetrack and did essentially what you and I do on Memorial Day, they ran races, they listened to sixteen speeches, by one count, and the troops marched back and forth and they held picnics. This was the first Memorial Day.

Transcript available here.

It's easy to forget Memorial Day originated in the Civil War.  The way that war was remembered is both fascinating, and an interesting insight into American culture and history.  Blight's book, Race and Reunion, looks at the way the Civil War was remembered during the first 50 years after it was fought.  

November this year marks 150 years since Lincoln's election.  December marks 150 years since South Carolina seceded. In the coming five years, as the 150th anniversaries of battles and moments of the war are remembered, the battle for the way its remembered will no doubt resurface. 

Happy Memorial Day, everyone!

But this is what the visa lottery really is: it's a chance- truly, just a chance- for people to immigrate to the United States, and to be put on a path toward citizenship.  Even as a native English-speaker with a Masters degree in US Studies, it's still my best chance to get a greencard. 

Immigration to the United States is very difficult, and I don't think many of those speaking out against immigration reform realise just how hard it is for someone to legally enter the United States for any significant period of time.  

1.     The economy is recovering.

Every month, things get a little bit better.  Jobs are created.   TARP worked.  There’s been a little bit of spin around this fact, but expect Democrats to step it up as November gets closer.  “The Republicans caused the problem. We solved it.” will be a powerful narrative.

2.     The deficit isn’t as bad as expected

Not much has been made of this yet, but the deficit isn’t actually as big as it was projected to be, and not by an insignificant margin.  The economy is recovering, tax revenues are higher than expected, and banks are paying back the bailout ahead of schedulure. Again, expect the Dems to start making noise about this fact.

3.  The Gulf of Mexico oil spill isn’t so good for Republicans

Yes, yes, I know Obama endorsed offshore drilling in the State of the Union, but “Drill, Baby, Drill”  is far more engrained in the collective memory.  Images of the gulf coast, of dead turtles, of oil-covered birds, and the cost of the clean up, will be contrasted against Republicans singing the praises of offshore drilling.  Clean energy takes on a whole new meaning, and the Dems are certainly the party of clean energy.

4.  Several positive parts of the health care bill will kick in soon

A family with kids in their early -20s will soon be able to add them back on to their health insurance plan.  Patients with pre-existing conditions will shortly have new options with the health insurance exchanges due to launch in the Summer.  Kids with pre-existing conditions will be covered . Lifetime coverage limits will be lifted.  Insurance rescission will be banned.  And all these things will happen with time to spare before November- and all of these improvements can be wholly owned by Democrats.

5.  Immigration Reform will mobilize voters

There's a bit of back-and-forth about which party would really be helped my immigration reform, but my suspicion is that it will be advantageous to the Democrats.  After reading far too many anti-immigration letters during my time in DC, it certainly seems to me that many of those who are likely to vote based on their anti-immigration views are both already very mobilized and unlikely to ever vote Democrats.  The voters who are more likely to be newly mobilized by immigration reform would be more likely to vote Democrat.  Of course, this is only a gut feeling, but I'd be surprised if the results didn't show this to be the case... 

6. The Tea Party movement is nominating candidates that are unpalatable in a general election

The Tea Party movement has had only moderate success in the primaries thus far, but as Ezra Klein pointed out yesterday, they don’t need to win to push candidates to the right. Consequently, there's a strong chance that candidates who have stronger right-wing views will be the Republican nominees across the country in November.  These views may not be as palatable to the independent voter as the mean Republican's was, say, six years ago.

7.  The Democrats, and Obama’s team in particular, are good at organizing

Organizing for America is just about to step up its effort for the 2010 campaign.  They are incredibly good at using data to target voters.  Their recently-announced plan to target the 3 million first-time voters from 2008 could prove an incredibly effective strategy.  Beyond that, though, their use of technologies to support organising is just exceptional.  With six months of lead time, they could very easily devise a very successful strategy to change the demographics of the mid-term voters.  

Expect to see them very strategically using the significant accomplishments of the 111th Congress to highlight the fact that Democrats do good things for the country, but expect to see them do it when it matters.  Elections are a marathon.  Remember, McCain took the lead in early September 2008, but the Obama campaign ran when it mattered and conserved energy when it didn't.

The fact is, it’s only May.  There is a LOT of time between now and November.  1994 looms large in the Democrats’ imagination, but there’s every reason to have hope.  The Obama campaign was nothing if not savvy in elections, and it shouldn’t be expected that they’d waste time now, in May, when there’s still six months until the election.  As long as they pick the right narratives- and there are plenty there for the picking- and get their incredibly organizing apparatus moving again, there are plenty of reasons to think November won’t be anywhere near as disastrous as many fear.

And you know what? There is SO MUCH MORE to US Foreign policy than Iraq and Afghanistan, and the questions about Iraq and Afghanistan have been asked a thousand times.  What about focusing on the US's role in the Pacific region- NO, not just China, the Pacific- since we are actively involved in that?  What about asking about the role of the G20, since we're not involved?  Why not ask questions about the continuing nature of US-Australian relations?  

You have a genuinely once-in-a-lifetime experience, to sit down with the sitting President of the United States, and that is really the best you can come up with?

I, for one, would have asked him about the United States' position on Mandatory Internet Filtering.  I know, I know, it's my question, but still, it's easily the biggest story in Australian-US relations in the last month or so, so why not ask about that.

In trying to produce an epic, sweeping interview, you've instead produced one that says absolutely nothing new, Kerry.  It was not impressive.

Oh, and one more thing.  At the end, you said "Barack Obama, Thank You."  It's PRESIDENT Barack Obama, thank you. To not use his title was exceptionally disrespectful.

So, anyone have any BETTER questions O'Brien could have asked President Obama?

Last week, I read that State Department officials had expressed concern over the filter, so figured I'd take the opportunity to submit a question on it's implications for Australian- US relations.  I asked:

"Given the United States' commitment to internet freedom, articulated by Hilary Clinton in January, does Australia's proposed internet filter threaten our relationship in any way? Can the US continue to pressure Iran and China about internet freedom if they don't similarly pressure Australia?"

The Ambassador replied:

I didn’t think I could - you know, I went to the dentist today, so I thought I had already done this but my - well, look, on the issue of the internet, we have been very clear. The internet needs to be free. It needs to be free of the way the way we have said skies have to be free, outer space has to be free, the polar caps have to be free, the oceans have to be free. They have to be shared. They’re shared resources of all of the people of the world. To the extent that there are disagreements and trying to find the right balance between law enforcement and respecting that general principle, we work with our friends and so we’ve been working with Australia on this issue. We’ve had healthy discussions and we’re - I’m sure we’ll be able to find a path forward.

The discussion then followed, with a number of Australian political figures who were on the panel weighing in their their views.  The video and the transcript are available here.  The Ambassador's response generated a bit of press coverage, with the Sydney Morning Herald/The Age and The Australian both reporting on his answer.

After I got home, in my own vanity, I read a lot of the reactions people had to the conversation, and I found it fascinating that many kept suggesting that the United States should mind its own business.  Aside from being a really naive approach to international relations, such suggestions ignored the second part of my questions as, I should point out, did the panel.

With the US's commitment to encouraging democracy around the world, the powers of the internet as a means to politically organise can't be overlooked.  During the Iranian elections last year, the internet was a key means by which information was spread.  Protecting free internet is an important political task, and one that fits very well with the United States' foreign policy.

In order to ensure the US had the moral authority to encourage internet freedom, it must do so consistently.  It cannot ignore internet censorship in Australia- and make no mistake, that is what a filter is- while putting pressure on other countries to ensure their internet is free.  The United States needs to be consistent in this.

I think the Democrats best hope is to use the Citizens United decision to sell the need for a liberal justice.  The simple fact is that that decision is woefully unpopular, and the court was split between conservative and liberal justices.  Use Citizens United. Warn the public that the Republicans have picked justices who are beholden to big business, and that we need liberal justices to fight this.  Yes, the balance of the court won't shift, but we need to hold the left flank to ever have any hope of preventing more decisions like Citizens United.

The balance of the court has undoubtedly shifted to the right over the last 30 years, and the court has lacked for a new, truly liberal fighter for a long while.  After Bush's very conservative nominations, a strong liberal voice is all the more necessary.  The questions remains, though, that after a frustrating, though ultimately successful, battle over health care, does the Obama administration have another fight like that in them?

I hope so.

Should the President decide to go with a truly liberal justice, there are plenty of amply suitable candidates.  We at the USSC will undoubtedly offer our own analysis and opinions as the nomination battle continues.  But as to my personal preferred pick?  I'm very fond of Harold Koh, and would love to see him nominated.

Rudd should apologise, and think twice before acting the fool and insulting Americans.

And seriously, ROBIN WILLIAMS?!

“I love him, not because he was perfect, but because he was not perfect, yet triumphed. There was something left so that at the crisis, he was big enough to be inconsistent.”

To which Blight added:

“I’d argue that the most important thing you can understand about Abraham Lincoln is tat he had the capacity for growth.” 

Big enough to be inconsistent. A leader who owned his mistakes, who bided his time, who changed his mind.  A leader who acted on principle, but could be convinced.  A leader who put his conviction about what was the right thing to do ahead of his own political fate.

Later in the lecture series, Blight tells the story of when Abraham Lincoln called Frederick Douglass to the White House, a few months ahead of the 1864 election.  With the war dragging on, and that summer’s crucial victories yet to swing the momentum, Lincoln was genuinely concerned- in fact, genuinely believed- he would lose the presidency, and that his successor would make a treaty with the Confederacy.  So he called Douglass to the White House, and asked him if he would lead an effort to smuggle as many enslaved persons from the South to protection behind Union lines, ahead of the election. Douglass returned to his home, flabbergasted, and began to make plans and ask advice on how he might begin such an endeavour. 

Union victories soon rendered the plans redundant, but the story illustrates the greatness of Lincoln.  When his defeat seemed likely, he wanted not to protect act in a manner that would sure up electoral success, but to ensure that what he had fought for would be preserved. He was a pragmatist, a realist, yet at the same time one who pursued high ideals.  He was a real politician who governed in the real world he faced, at the same time he sought to change it.

On Saturday, Barack Obama addressed the House Democratic caucus, and he quoted Lincoln:

"I am not bound to win, but I'm bound to be true. I'm not bound to succeed, but I'm bound to live up to what light I have."

How very appropriate for that sentiment to have echoed with the Obama, for the nature of his approach to leadership, more closely than any President since, resembles Lincoln’s own.  He too demonstrates an understanding for the need to carefully balance one’s sense of duty with political realities. Obama’s patience- his powerful patience- is much like Lincoln’s own.  Both waited to act, thought over what they were doing, and took the long, difficult road, rather than acting impulsively.

Obama’s thoughtfulness is also much like Lincoln’s.  Unlike so many other leaders, he is both open to being convinced by good ideas, and willing to admit his own error.  There was a powerful moment, during the health care summit, when John McCain brought up the Florida Medicare Advantage deal, claiming it was unfair.  Yes, Obama admitted, it was, and he’d prefer to see it gone.  There was no attempt to justify it, or deny that McCain had a point.  For Obama, the right thing was to simply acknowledge the truth.

And it is, in part, by emulating the best of Lincoln that Obama was able, with obvious help, to usher this health care bill through.  After 100 years of trying, the United States has universal health care.  And it took a leader with statesmanship much like Lincoln’s to get it done.

And Obama’s own oratory sometimes even broaches the soaring height’s of Lincoln’s own. I am certain some of yesterday’s remarks after the bill passed will be quoted for generations:

In the end, what this day represents is another stone firmly laid in the foundation of the American Dream. Tonight, we answered the call of history as so many generations of Americans have before us. When faced with crisis, we did not shrink from our challenge -- we overcame it. We did not avoid our responsibility -- we embraced it. We did not fear our future -- we shaped it.

*Again, I cannot recommend this lecture series more highly.  It has enhanced my understanding of the United States in a way I can hardly articulate.  Understanding the American Civil War only serves to enhance your understanding of every aspect of American life: politics, culture, inequality, religion. And beyond that, Blight, who visited the USSC last year, is simply a phenomenal lecturer.  The entire series- 26 hour-long lectures- is available entirely free of charge online at the Open Yale site or through iTunes U.  Download a few and take a listen. I challenge you not to be blown away.

And yes, I may have made a celebratory YouTube video...

This is the vote that had the potential to change everything.  It will change the narrative on Obama's first term: he'll go from being presented as moderately successful, with one major failure, to having one of the most successful first two years of any Presidency.  The momentum is very likely to shift as we start to reflect on all that Obama has achieved in the last 14 months.

And the bill's passage will have a significant influence on the Democratic base. It'll placate, excite and mobilize the base ahead of the 2010 election.  Add in comprehensive immigration reform, which is looking increasingly likely as the next major move the Democrats will make, and a repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, and you have a seriously impressive array of legislative tasks that will help get out the vote in the midterms.

But beyond the politics, this is a bill that will make really crucial and important changes to the way health insurance works. Young adults who don't yet have a job that provides insurance will be able to stay on their parents' plan. Insurance companies won't be able to discriminate against people with pre-existing conditions. Small businesses will be given tax credits for providing insurance. Lifetime caps will be removed- meaning that people who have lengthy, expensive treatments will no longer be denied access to care after a period of time.  The "donut hole"- a gap in coverage for medicine for seniors- will be closed. These are major, important changes.

And 35 million uninsured people will get access to affordable insurance coverage.  

You know what? That's change I can believe in.

When the bill is actually broken down into its component parts and explained to people who respond to surveys, it proves quite popular A Newsweek poll from late February actually broke down individual components of the bill and polled voters on each of them.  The poll found:

The NEWSWEEK Poll asked respondents about eight health-care-reform provisions that Obama and many Democrats in Congress have generally supported. It found that the majority of Americans supported five of those provisions, three by particularly large margins. Eighty-one percent agreed with the creation of a new insurance marketplace, the exchange, for individual subscribers to compare plans and buy insurance at a competitive rate. Seventy-six percent thought health insurers should be required to cover anyone who applies, including those with preexisting conditions; and 75 percent agreed with requiring most businesses to offer health insurance to their employees, with incentives for small-business owners to do so.

It's a credit to the Republican messaging strategy that they've managed to make popular reforms so unpopular.  Unfortunately, though, it might be difficult to maintain the "socialist takeover of medicine" when middle Americans start receiving the considerable real benefits of the bill.

One point in my original post certainly warrants clarification: when I say Republicans are afraid of the bill, I mean Republican legislators. Because the if the bill passes and those popular components of the bill come into effect, the Democrats could well be the beneficiaries of a substantial momentum shift. 

Without going into the Parliamentary mechanics of it, the House is looking to “deem” the Senate version of the bill as “passed” -- without the straight up-and-down vote on the legislation that the President promised and that sticklers for the Constitution (especially Article I, Section 7) insist upon.

Actually, a bit of Parliamentary mechanics is rather important to understand why this is an option, and the fact there will, in fact, still be an up-or-down vote.  Byron Tau in The New Republic has a good article explaining "deem and pass" that is well worth checking out.

There will absolutely still be a vote on the bill.  Nancy Pelosi will still need to find the votes. The difference is that the House will pass the Senate bill and the sidecar bill with the fixes at the same time.  It will vote to deem the Senate bill passed at the same time it votes on the rule.  It's not a way to avoid a vote- not by any means.  Instead, it's a way to try to avoid passing the Senate bill without the fixes, largely because the house doesn't trust the Senate to pass the sidecar legislation.

As for Morrow's absurd rumour about the bill costing a trillion dollars, he'd be well advised to check out current CBO estimates that have the Senate bill reducing the deficit within a decade.  REDUCING the deficit. And that's even without the sidecar bill, which will strip out costly provisions (Nebraska, anyone?).  There's a reason Republicans are so scared about this bill passing: because as soon as it does and the advantages start to be felt by middle class Americans, they'll realise Republican fear-mongering was all just a ploy to get more votes.

The Lessons of '94, Ezra Klein, The American Prospect, January 22, 2008

The Cost Conundrum, Atul Gawande, The New Yorker, June 1, 2009.

How American Health Care Killed My Father, David Goldhill, The Atlantic, September 2009

Why Reform Survived August, Jon Cohn, The New Republic, September 9, 2009

The Bipartisan Trap and How the Democrats Fell Into It, Jon Cohn, The New Republic, January 27, 2010.

The Cost of Failure, Norm Ornstein and Thomas Mann, The New Republic, March 15, 2010.

I think one of the big problems in the way the US Congress works is the conflation of the two. Certainly, in the Republicans' case, it makes political sense to be obstructionist. If the Democrats pass health care reform, in the long run it will be a good thing for the Dems, and it may even stop the 2010 election from being TOTAL bloodshed.  

But left wing Dems, who are voting against health care because it's not progressive enough, make no sense. There is a time for advocating a certain policy position. That is not now. Because the votes aren't there for a public option, and killing a good bill because it's not a great bill achieves nothing. And doing it to make a point achieves nothing.

And that's the thing. Government needs people in different roles in order to function. It needs advocates and lobbyists to push certain points of view. It needs people to brief and to inform and to pressure. But it also needs people to govern. It needs people to make a decision that is both in the interest of their constituents and politically feasible. Sure, what is politically feasible changes with the briefing and the informing and the pressure. But at a certain point, it becomes necessary to face reality.

So liberals need to give up on the Public Option. It's not going to happen right now. It might happen in the future, but it's not going to happen right now. And they need to remember that August, during the break, was when the educating and the convincing needed to happen. It's too late now. Effective government is about knowing when is the time to try to convince, and when is the time to examine the situation and act according to the reality of the electorate.

Governing can only be partially ideological. Pragmatism must have a place. The Democrats need every vote they can get on Health Care reform, and ideologues like Dennis Kucinich are showing a remarkable lack of responsibility by acting as though voting no is a way to change minds. The time for advocacy is over - it's now time to govern.

A lot of people are saying government is broken. They’re mainly saying it because the Democratic health care bill isn’t going to pass in a form that gives most Democrats what they wanted. The argument, in its general form, goes like this: There is this huge problem! My team’s favored solution to the problem is politically infeasible. So, politics is broken! When you put it like that, it’s evidently a pretty silly argument.

I'm not entirely sure that is right.  Certainly, over the past few years, the way Congress has operated has changed.  Parties are acting far more like their parliamentary counterparts- voting in unison with the party, sometimes rather than with the will of their electorate.  One of the noticeable things before the 2006 election was that many of those who lost their seats were actively voting against the will of their electorate.  You could certainly make the case that some are doing the same thing now.

And there's nothing inherently wrong with that kind of party unity, and it certainly works in the parliamentary system, but can it work in the United States?  The system is designed to have so many veto points that unified obstructionism is almost certain to be successful.  With supermajorities and hold and filibusters, the US system is designed to require compromise.

So what, then, when a party identifies that its best chance of electoral success if to do anything but compromise?   How can a system designed to facilitate compromise survive when a party- either party- determines it is in its own best interest not to compromise?

Maybe the pendulum will swing back... candidates will become more closely connected to the districts they represent again, and once more there will be more ideological diversity in the parties.  Or perhaps, if the Republicans sweep the 2010 election as is being predicted, the party will find it is needing to protect more centrist seats in coming elections and finds a need to compromise.

The system may not be broken, but the system doesn't work the way it once did- necessarily, as the country and times and technology have changed.  So it's well worth considering how the system works well, and whether, perhaps, it can work better.

I don't mean to sound like a whinging Australian, complaining about tipping and the like, but knowing how much something costs before I get to the register would REALLY help me avoid the wallet full of coins with which I left the country.

In Texas, as in many US states, a board of education is directly elected.  This board has direct control over educational practises at a state level (some decisions, of course, remain at the school board level).  One of the decisions the Texas board gets to make, once every ten years, is to set standards to which textbook manufacturers must adhere in order to be used in the state.

This year, though, Texas' new standards are having nation-wide effects. The new Texan standards are likely to shape books sold across the country for at least the next four years.

A strange combination of factors has lead to the situation which has given this board so much power.  First of all, California went broke.  Suddenly, the nation's largest text book purchaser- and a liberal one at that- would not be able to buy books until at least 2014. So suddenly the second-largest market had more power than ever- without its liberal counterpart as a mediating force. 

A conservative block were elected, and now hold the balance of power, in the Texas school board.  They have overseen the process by which the standards are set, and have ensured they are largely quite conservative.  Included in the standards are a defense of Joseph McCarthy, and a requirement that Climate Change be taught as a theory.

It's a reminder of the limitations of democracy: though the Texas school board was elected only by the people of Texas, it effectively sets national standards.  This board, elected by a comparatively small percentage of the Texan people, has made decisions that will be felt throughout the United States.  Small elections are easy to influence via donation, and Get Out the Vote efforts have a noticeable effect, thus allowing this kind of takeover by certain factions...

What if Senators represented people based on race or income, not on state?

Voices of the Uninsured: "The Nation" publishes stories of Americans who don't have health insurance.

Americans, apparently, still want health care reform.

Sexism at the Superbowl

Can Republicans Win? Yes, but that doesn't mean they're ready to govern.

It was a long speech, as most State of the Unions are, and naturally there are many things to talk about, but what struck me most of all the Obama has said was his willingness to take the blame. It was his willingness to stand up and say “much of this was my fault.”

One of the most refreshing and interesting parts of the Obama campaign was the way he’d speak to his audience. He’d take the time to explain issues and lay out his logic. Just last weekend, we went to the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia, from which Obama gave his speech on race during the primary campaign. Reading some of the text of that speech again reminded me of just how good Obama had been at making things understandable, and taking the time to take people through his reasoning.

At some point, in the last year, that stopped happening so often. Others grabbed hold of the narrative, and told their own stories until their voices were a cacophony of lines and slogans. Death Panels! Single payer! Public option! Socialized medicine! Bank bailout! Wall Street! Main Street!

So rather than celebrating the achievements of the last year, President Obama used the opportunity of the State of the Union to get the messaging back on track. He reminded the country of how much there is left to do, but also explained why it needed to be done. Why health care was still a priority. Why the bailout had been a necessary evil. Why any way forward requires compromise.

Obama remembered to explain, and apologized for forgetting. And while polls have showed he didn’t change many minds, he at least more closely resembled the candidate voters had elected more than a year before.

And while the State of the Union was only somewhat effective, his Question and Answer session at the Republican issues conference was far more so…

On the other side of the aisle, Ross Douthat of the New York Times makes the case why health care reform probably won't pass now.

And Jonathan Chait analyses the panic.

The Sopranos may have been the first, but many other such shows followed.  The Wire, considered by many to be the greatest television program ever made, told stories of Baltimore, of police and drug dealers and communities.  Mad Men reconsidered the 60s in the United States, walking a fine line between fetishization and condemnation of a culture that was racist, sexist and classist.  Through the lives of the Mad Men characters, audiences could look at significant events in American history in a new context, culminating in a remarkable portrayal of the experience of JFK's death through the eyes of the characters.

Television producers became emboldened to tell different stories, stories of communities, of individuals, of moments, of experiences.  Options for repeat viewing, utilizing various digital technologies, enabled storytellers to arch storylines over longer periods and produce a kind of serialized television that fell largely out of favour in previous decades.

While some may think of the first decade of the 21^st century as one defined, as relates to television, by reality TV, the rise of premium cable television and digital technologies ensured that the last 10 years have produced some of the most amazing, and amazingly American, television programs.  It has been an era of remarkable storytelling, and the golden age of television thus far.

I think what made it so funny was the way the names people knew and knew well were taken and put into a context that made them funny. It hints at the significance of American political leaders in American popular culture. One can hardly imagine Sir Henry Parkes similarly popping up in an Australian comedy…

My favourite appearance of an American political leader is, by far, in a video I came across a few weeks ago, from the White House Evening of Poetry, Music, and the Spoken Word. It features Lin-Manuel Miranda, who wrote the Broadway musical In The Heights, performing a song he wrote about Alexander Hamilton. Check it out:

I’m sure the way American political leaders show up in popular culture demonstrates something about American politics. Does it inherently involve aspects of celebrity? And has it always? Or is this something that has evolved, and as American politicians have become more like celebrities, so too have historical political figures?

Why bring this up? Because it's bad all around when American press coverage makes people feel that perfectly predictable results constitute a shameful failure for the country and its leadership.

Fallows continued to compile the reactions of people familiar with China who believed that Obama's visit was misrepresented in the American press.  He amassed an impressive collection of quotes and links, all pointing to the fact the trip was vastly more successful than it was represented to be in the American press, and that illustrated the fact the trip has been largely misunderstood by the American public.

Then Fallow's coverage took a turn: instead of illustrating that the talks weren't unsuccessful, he started to point to examples of exactly why it was successful.  This was my particular favourite, posted on Thanksgiving, collecting headlines that demonstrated interesting developments regarding China.  The visit, it would seem, was anything but unsuccessful. 

In his most recent post on the subject, Fallows quoted a reader with valuable insight into Chinese political culture:

Those media people who portraited Obama's visit to China as a failure simply had little idea about Chinese political culture. The way the Chinese government does things is that they cannot give people the impression that they are yielding to other governments' pressure. So if you come to lecture the Chinese government, you'll be disappointed. But if you come and show your respect and humility, you may well get what you wanted. Last time the Renminbi was re-evaluated [allowed to float], it did not occur when American politicians were lecturing China to do so, but when the shouts from Washington were relatively mild. This time, China stressed that its announcement of carbon emission targets was a "voluntary" action, even though we all know it had something to do with Obama's visit"

The entire saga was notable for a couple of reasons.  Firstly, it demonstrated how important cultural awareness is in analyzing political events.  What to the outsider may have seemed like little-to-no progress appeared very differently within China.  In the years to come, as the US-China relationship grows even further in importance, a nuanced understanding of Chinese culture generally, and Chinese political culture more specifically, will be vital in order to properly understand and represent the nature of interactions between the two nations. 

Furthermore, though, it demonstrated the tendency in the American press toward a pack mentality.  Once a narrative of the trip had been determined, the American media largely stuck to it.  Even when the evidence pointed so clearly to the contrary, they stuck to the narrative of failure, and in doing so failed to assist the audience in understanding the complex nature of the relationship between the nations.

Though, as one of Fallows' readers suggested, perhaps the media portraying Obama's trip as a failure gave the Chinese government the political cover they needed in order to agree to some of the American government's requests...

Be sure to check out the Fallows' whole series on Manufactured Failure: Press Coverage of Obama in Asia.  It's fascinating reading, and well worth the time.

And how was this expensive reform financed?  Why, using the deficit, of course.

Unlike the current health care reforms, which are not only deficit-neutral, but actually will reduce the deficit within a ten-year window, the Medicare Part D reforms were financed entirely from the deficit.  And there is strong evidence that the true costs of the bill were obfuscated: Medicare's then-chief actuary, Richard Foster, concluded the bill would more like cost $534 billion.  He was silenced by his superiors, who warned that releasing the information was illegal.  (Read Foster's account of what happened here) And so the bill passed, grossly inflating an already-enormous budget.

Where was the populist outrage then?

Perhaps the most distasteful part of this affair is the way many Republicans who voted for this bill are now voting against health care reform, and framing their opposition in terms of the deficit.  Before them is a fiscally-responsible bill that will dramatically increase the number of Americans who will have access to affordable health care, yet they raise concerns about the deficit and the cost of the bill as justification for their opposition to it.

Republican lawmakers can by all means, oppose health care.  There are many fair and genuine reasons to do so: some have to do with the role of government, some with opposition to raising taxes.

But voting for the fiscally irresponsible Medicare Part D, then against the current health care reforms because of concerns about the deficit is hypocrisy, plain and simple.

Across the blogosphere, people are watching. This could be the first time, since the death penalty was re-introduced in the United States, that a state has admitted error in executing one of its citizens. Writers are divided over Willingham's guilt, over the quality of his trial, and over Gov. Perry's actions in the case.

Gov. Perry's decisions regarding Willingham could prove harmful to his reelection chances. Just 48 hours before the Texas Forensic Science Board was due to review the Willingham case in October this year, the Governor removed three members of the board and replaced them with hard line conservatives. The Willingham hearings were immediately postponed and may now not take place until 2011, long after Perry's reelection battle is over. 

One of the really interesting elements of this case is the way Hutchinson has framed her response. In accusing Perry of a cover-up, Hutchinson took the opportunity to attack him from the right. She has claimed that Perry's actions were irresponsible and could provide fodder for the anti-death penalty activists. The statement her office released stated:

"The only thing Rick Perry's actions have accomplished is giving liberals an argument to discredit the death penalty. Kay Bailey Hutchison is a steadfast supporter of the death penalty, voted to reinstate it when she served in the Texas House and believes we should never do anything to create a cloud of controversy over it with actions that look like a cover-up." (Source: Wonkette)

Hutchinson used the case to display her own pro-death-penalty bona fides. Texas conservatives are apparently so strongly in favour of the death penalty that a case of possible innocence is presented by Hutchinson not as a tragic miscarriage of justice, but a potential attack on the death penalty. It's a remarkably example of the fierce belief many hold in the necessity of the death penalty

Many questions remain regarding the Willingham case: Does the US Justice system work when the accused has arguably inadequate representation? Did Perry abuse his power? If Willingham was innocent, what would that mean for the death penalty?

The most fundamental question though, and one that deserves to be revisited in an official, rather than journalistic, capacity, is did Cameron Todd Willingham murder his children, or did the state of Texas execute an innocent man?

It was remarkably fun to follow the action live: watching the debate, and reading the responses people around the United States, and around the world, were having to the occasion.  Twitter went crazy, with comments from people on both sides of the aisle.  #HCR, the official health care reform hash tag, was one of the most popular topics of the day.

In the cacophony of voices discussing the bill, some stood out.  Pundits who knew the legislation inside and out were able to offer expert commentary, explaining developments as the debate progressed.  Personally, reading the insights of noted health care reform bloggers like Jon Cohn of The New Republic and Ezra Klein of the Washington Post was invaluable.  They made the experience both more understandable, and more enjoyable.

Plus some of the snarky comments were just plain funny.

It was a communal experience.  Across the globe, we were able to witness the debate, then the vote, and participate in a conversation about it.  We could share our thoughts, excitement, outrage, concerns.  When the final vote was cast, some of the Americans I follow on Twitter spoke of toasting with their drinks, late on a Saturday night.  I toasted with my early-afternoon coffee.

It was an historic day, not merely because this was the first major health care reform to pass in 40 years, but also because we could experience it in new, digital ways.

One of the candidates Scozzafava beat out in the nomination process was Doug Hoffman, a more conservative Republican. He then secured the nomination of the Conservative party. Early in the race, he was polling in third place, but as election day approached, he raced ahead, to be neck-and-neck with Owens. The race suddenly gained national attention. Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich and Rush Limbaugh publicly endorsed Hoffman over Scozzafava. He received widespread media coverage, especially from Fox News, and the conservative blogosphere erupted with enthusiasm. Volunteers streamed into the district. 95 percent of Hoffman's financial support came from outside his district.

Then, with just two days left before the election, the third-placed Scozzafava dropped out and endorsed Owens.

Owens won the seat, the first Democrat to do so since Reconstruction, with 49.3 percent of the vote.  Hoffman captured 45.2 percent, and Scozzafava, despite her withdrawal from the race, won 5.5 percent.

Beyond the peculiarities of the race itself, this one is pretty interesting in what it could tell us about the way the 2010 mid-term elections could play out. Will an energized Republican base turn out more candidates like Hoffman? Will it be more successful, especially if it occurs within the Republican Party rather than a third party? Will Democrats need to run centrists in order to compete?

Much as we try to read tea leaves, the simple fact is that the 2010 midterms are still a year away. The state of the economy (a key factor in the outcome of both Governor's races) clearly affects the way people vote.  Its recovery, or lack thereof, in the coming year will likely be a crucial factor in the 2010 election, in which 39 gubernatorial positions will be filled.  The recession has been felt more strongly at state-level, where most state prohibit defecits.  Unless something changes dramatically, it won't be a good time to be an incumbant.

Hoffman's 45% of the vote could certainly energize what some have termed the "Tea Party" wing of the Republican Party. And the 2010 elections will undoubtedly have serious consequences for the 2012 Presidential election.  Will the Republican Party nominate a centrist in the hope of winning modertates, or will they nominate a very conservative candidate, planning to energize the base and get impressive participation numbers?

With all those questions a good while away from answers, I feel confident making one prediction: the 2010 primary season will be interesting.

Ok, so strictly speaking, the word is accurate, if  and only if you take the meaning of "censor" to mean to admonish or criticise, a literal if rarely-used meaning. And I suppose, if you take that meaning, and that meaning alone, one could accuse the Obama administration of censoring Fox News.  But it's hard to imagine anyone seriously making the argument that when someone hears "Obama Administration censors Fox News", they think the administration simply criticised them. The problem, of course, is that few would understand the meaning of the word in that way, especially in the realm of politics.

"Censorship" isn't a word devoid of meaning or context.  Used the way it has been by much of the press in this situation, to "censor" is far more likely to mean to suppress or delete information.  This practice, of course, is one of the oldest forms of political oppression.  For many, censorship is associated with totalitarian rule, with the suppression of democracy, with silencing the minority, or just silencing unwanted voices.  And the Obama administration has not silenced Fox News

Yes, the Obama administration called Fox News a partisan organization.  Yes, they openly acknowledged they would not treat them the same way as a straightforward news network. That might not by wise, but it's not censorship

 The White House did not censor the Fox News Channel. They did not rob them of their first amendment protection.  They did not prevent the Fox News Channel from attending White House press conferences. They even promised to continue providing White House staff to be interviewed on the Fox News Channel, though possibly not as frequently as the network would prefer. 

And the Fox News Channel has certainly not been silent.  The ferocity with which they've condemned the White House is evidence enough of their continued freedom.  There's no talk, anywhere, of limiting the Fox News Channel's voice.  There is no ban.  There is no suppression.

There are certainly interesting issues to talk about around the so-called "war on Fox", but using the term "censor" in these discussions is both misleading and dangerous.  So lets call it what it is or, more accurately, what it isn't: the White House has not censored the Fox News Channel.

Toward the end of the course, Prof. Blight told the story of when Union troops finally entered Charleston, South Carolina, which had been bombarded and largely abandoned by its white residents.  After the city surrendered to the Union army, the thousands of freedmen in the city celebrated, with a series of ceremonies. In one of the lectures, Prof. Blight described the final ceremony:

The very night of that ceremony, which was the 14^th of April, they held a banquet of a sort in a building that had a roof on it, back in Charleston, and that was the very night, of course, that Lincoln was assassinated at Ford's Theater in Washington. But the black folks of Charleston had planned one more ceremony. That ceremony was a burial ceremony. It turns out that during the last months of the war the Confederate Army turned the planter's horse track, a racecourse--it was called the Washington Racecourse--into an open air cemetery--excuse me, prison. And in that open air prison, in the infield of the horse track--about 260-odd Union soldiers had died of disease and exposure--and they were buried in unmarked graves in a mass gravesite out behind the grandstand of the racetrack. And by the way, there was no more important and symbolic site in low country planter/slaveholding life then their racetrack.

Well, the black folks at Charleston got organized, they knew about all this. They went to the site. They re-interred all the graves, the men. They couldn't mark them with names, they didn't have any names. Then they made them proper graves and they built a fence all the way around this cemetery, about 100 yards long and fity, sixty yards deep, and they whitewashed the fence and over an archway they painted the inscription "Martyrs of the Racecourse." And then on May 1^st 1865 they held a parade of 10,000 people, on the racetrack, led by 3000 black children carrying armloads of roses and singing John Brown's Body, followed then by black women, then by black men--it was regimented this way--then by contingents of Union infantry. Everybody marched all the way around the racetrack; as many as could fit got into the gravesite. Five black preachers read from scripture. A children's choir sang the national anthem, America the Beautiful, and several spirituals, and then they broke from that and went back into the infield of the racetrack and did essentially what you and I do on Memorial Day, they ran races, they listened to sixteen speeches, by one count, and the troops marched back and forth and they held picnics. This was the first Memorial Day.

(Transcript from the course content download on the Open Yale website).

Prof Blight, it turns out, discovered this first memorial day in his research.  Listeners were able to hear him describe the event and how he came to make the discovery.  Despite the distance, it made the history feel personal.

It's strange to think what such widespread access to remarkable teaching will herald.  The Open Yale program, which now offers twenty-one full course lecture series online, has been popular beyond all expectations and was recently expanded.  A friend of mine, previously unconcerned with the United States, listened to the full series and has developed a very deep interest in American history.  Such digital programs provides the opportunity for academics to engage with broader audiences, and to vary the nature of the engagement.

I can't recommend enough that you listen to this series.  It profoundly changed my understanding of the United States.  Check it out on iTunes U or at the Open Yale website.

Thus, women are often forced into the private market, which charges higher fees for premiums for women, yet frequently doesn’t cover maternity care- in spite of the higher premiums.  Newsweek recently quoted a National Women's Law Center report demonstrating that a 25-year-old woman could pay anything between 6 and 45 percent more for her coverage than a man the same age with an identical health plan. And because American women, on average, are still paid less than America men, health care costs eat up a greater proportion of their income.

The problem is largely an inherited one: the employer-provided health care system evolved when the majority of families were supported by a male breadwinner working full time, under whose insurance the other members of the household could be covered. As fewer families conformed to traditional models, an increasing number were left outside the protection of the existing health insurance system. Some lost their access to their former-spouse’s coverage after divorce. Some were unable to take a single, full-time job that would guarantee health care coverage due to care-giving duties. Some were denied access to their partner’s health care because the system still discriminates against gay couples. The current arrangement is woeful in its attempts to accommodate and adapt to the modern family.

The Shriver Report is largely focused on the way families have changed in the last decade. Among other things, it seeks to raise awareness to the fact that an increasing number of Americans aren’t covered by a system that was designed before the tremendous cultural shifts of the last 40 years. It will be well worth looking closely at the final health reform bill to see whether it creates a system that is more flexible and makes it more difficult for health insurers to discriminate against women.