FL Sen: Crist Remains Strong, Meek Remains… Meek

When governor Charlie Crist dropped out of the Republican primary, left his party and decided to run as an independent most people thought he did not stand much of a chance of winning. Yet since that time Crist has not only been able to consistently maintain a small lead and actually increase it slightly according to a new Quinnipiac poll.

Quinnipiac (7/22-27)
Kendrick Meek D 13
Marco Rubio R 33
Charlie Crist I 39
Someone else 1
Wouldn't vote 1
DK/NA 14

Jeff Greene 17
Marco Rubio R 32
Charlie Crist I 37
Someone else -
Wouldn't vote 1
DK/NA 12

While this is not a huge lead for Crist, one shouldn't really expect a huge leads in three way contests, in both possible match ups Crist lead of Rubio is well outside the polls margin of error. While the poll says it would be best for Crist if Kendrik Meek wins the Democratic primary I'm not sure that is the case. Billionaire Jeff Greene definitely has a lot of his own money to spend on campaign advertising but will get very little institutional backing and has tons of baggage. Markos Moulitsas is calling on all Democrats to back Crist if Greene wins the August 10th primary.

The fact that Greene is polling as technically the strong Democrat in the general election speaks very poorly of Meek's Campaign. With Meek currently trailing Greene in the Democratic primary and unable to make the case that he is actually electable in the general election, it is hard to see how he really rallies supporters for upcoming primary.

Arizonans, Stung by Unelected Gov, Will Vote to Change System

The state of Arizona doesn't currently have the position of lieutenant governor in its government, but that could change if voters approve a ballot measure this November. Right now, if the Governor prematurely vacates the office, the Secretary of State is the replacement. That is how Republican Secretary of State Jan Brewer ended up becoming Governor, by replacing Democratic Governor Janet Napolitano when she left to become Secretary of Homeland Security. From the “Arizona Republic” via Ballot Access News:

Lawmakers this year approved Senate Concurrent Resolution 1013, which asks voters to consider changing the secretary of state's title to lieutenant governor.

Arizona is one of only a handful of states that do not have a lieutenant governor. The question goes to the voters Nov. 2.

The move would require a party's nominee for lieutenant governor to run on a joint ticket with that party's nominee for governor. The goal, supporters say, is "truth in advertising" --to make clear to voters that the lieutenant governor would become the state's top executive should the governor leave office before the end of his or her term.

Arizona is experiencing firsthand the importance of a line of succession for Governor. They’ll get the chance this November to change the state's constitution if they don't like the current process. This reform would create a single joint general-election ticket for Governor and Lieutenant Governor, so they are always of the same political party, creating consistency in government. It does mean the party in the Governor's mansion will also always have control of the traditional functions of the Secretary of State. In addition, it will slightly shorten the general ballot by eliminating the separate statewide vote for Arizona’s second in command.

CA Gov, Sen: Republicans Whitman, Fiorina Leading

Both top Republican candidates in California--gubernatorial hopeful Meg Whitman and Senate nominee Carly Fiorina--are leading in their respective races, according to a new SurveyUSA poll of likely voters.

SurveyUSA (7/8-11)
Governor
Meg Whitman 46
Jerry Brown 39
Others 7
Undecided 8

Senate
Carly Fiorina 47
Barbara Boxer 45
Other 3
Undecided 5

The poll is bad news for Brown, who has been struggling to generate excitement for his campaign. Whitman's lead is well above the poll’s four percent margin of error. Having spent roughly $80 million so far on a very sophisticated campaign, she has been able to flood the zone. Looking at the internals, Brown appears to have yet to rally his base. Democratic voters support him only by 64 percent to 20. As the November election nears, most Democrats will likely come home to Brown and improve his numbers.

This is just the latest poll to show the California Senate race effectively dead even. This poll has Fiorina beating incumbent Democrat Barbara Boxer, but her two-point lead is within the margin of error. The GOP has a very narrow path to gaining control of the US Senate. It requires Republicans to sweep all the contests, including Fiorina winning in California.

President Obama's job-approval numbers are dragging down both Democrats. Among likely voters, 41 percent have a favorable view of his job performance, 43 percent have an unfavorable view and 14 percent have a neutral view.

FL Sen: Rubio Raises Millions; Crist Strikes Back with Anti-Drilling Ballot Measure

The competitive three-way race for the open Florida Senate seat has some interesting new developments. Republican Marco Rubio is boasting impressive fund-raising numbers, pulling in more than $4.5 million in the second quarter, and Florida Gov. Charlie Crist is pushing to place an offshore-drilling ban on the ballot.

While still leading in the polls, Crist needs to thread the needle carefully to win in November. It seems the best strategy is to paint Rubio as an extremist. This has two goals. First, it helps Crist, running as an independent, win votes from moderate Republicans and right-leaning independents. It also helps Crist to shore up the left-of- center vote. If Crist can keep the future Democratic nominee's poll numbers in the teens, he can peel off left-leaning voters by depicting the actual Democrat as a spoiler. Voting for the Dem will only throw the election to the right-wing boogeyman, Rubio.

I suspect the goal of painting Rubio as a radical played a role in Crist using his gubernatorial power to call a special legislative session to put a constitutional ban on offshore drilling on the November ballot. Due to the BP oil disaster, support for offshore drilling has collapsed in Florida, shoving Rubio’s pro-drilling stance far outside the mainstream. Sticking the measure on the ballot will keep the issue front and center until the election.

Rubio mainly needs just to run a good enough campaign to make voters think he is not crazy. Because of the three-way split, Rubio doesn't even need to appeal to the true center. He needs only to win heavily with Republicans and take the bulk of the right- leaning independents to piece together a sufficiently big plurality. Rubio will have ample resources to run an impressive statewide campaign if he can fine-tune his appeal to the voters.

Portland, Maine to Vote on Instant Runoff; New York May Follow

This November, voters in Portland, Maine will decide whether to adopt instant runoff voting, sometimes called ranked voting or alternative voting, for the mayoral race. From “The Portland Press Herald”:

Commissioner Nathan Smith, who chaired a subcommittee that researched the issue, said he has become convinced that the system is better than a primary or a runoff election because there is typically a sharp drop-off in voter turnout in a second election.

Also, holding a second election would be more costly for the city and the candidates, he said.

In a single plurality election with multiple candidates, a well-organized minority faction could elect a mayor with only narrow public support. Under ranked-choice voting, that would not happen, he said.

Portland is the largest city in Maine, making it a potential model for adopting instant runoff voting elsewhere in the state. Currently, the mayor of Portland is not an elected position, but if the ballot measure reforming the city's charter passes, the office of mayor would become a citywide elected position, selected by instant runoff voting.

Portland is not the only major city where voters may soon decide if they want to adopt instant runoff voting. New York City's Charter Revision Commission is also looking closely at adopting it. From “TheWall Street Journal” (behind paywall):

The proposal, known as instant runoff voting, would allow voters to rank candidates in order of preference. If a candidate fails to reach 40%, the threshold in New York City for winning a party's nomination in citywide races, the ballots would be counted again, with voters' rankings used to simulate a runoff. [...]

The Charter Revision Commission plans to release Friday a report that explores the possibility of instant runoff voting. The 15-member commission intends to solicit public input on the concept and decide by early September whether to place the proposal on the Nov. 2 ballot.

New York currently has traditional top-two runoff elections, which tend to see large dropoffs in voter participation for the second round of voting. If the city adopts instant runoff voting, it would be the largest political entity in the United States to use it. Currently, a few Americans cities like Minneapolis use the system, which the United Kingdom will possibly adopt for its House of Commons election. Australia uses it extensively at all levels of politics, include the national House of Representatives.

If New York City implements instant runoff voting, it would be a large step forward for those hoping to end the zero-sum politics produced by our first-past-the-post election system. A significant portion of New York State residents live in the city, giving instant runoffs real potential to spread to statewide elections. New York's tradition of fusion ballots and important minor parties makes it potentially more receptive to this kind of reform.

It's the Economy, Stupid Democrats

Growth in real disposable income leading up to an election is a near-perfect predictor of how the incumbent party will do, says Ezra Klein in a perceptive article. This close correlation should not be surprising. People judge the majority party based on how much their personal economic standing has improved or deteriorated, as well as their friends’ and family’s.

It is always the economy.

With this in mind, we can zero in on the true failure of the Obama Administration and Congressional Democrats from a political standpoint. The data Klein points to show how modest the impact of the actual campaign is on the election. The court intrigue of the Washington bubble, arguments about procedure, CBO price tags and tallies of highly compromised legislative “wins” will have a negligible impact on voters’ decisions.

Yet, despite how unimportant these things are to electoral outcomes, somehow they have become all-consuming priorities for the Administration and Congressional Democrats. Take, for example, the health care bill, which became dominated by one feature -- the CBO price tag -- at the expense of good policy or politics.

Democrats missed a perfect opportunity to focus on health care reform as a way to inject additional stimulus. Though the Affordable Care Act waits till 2014 to start many of the benefits, it delays implementing taxes or cuts to pay for them until several years beyond that. Without changing the general policy of what is now law, through a combination of Medicaid expansion, temporary COBRA subsidies, better funding of high-risk pools, dental care rebates, voluntary money to states that set up exchanges early and more, the health care bill could have been a way to inject roughly $100 billion of spending into the economy this year, helping people and encouraging start-up businesses. Instead, the new benefits won't really kick in until 2014.

The most egregious problem for Democrats is they have allowed Senate Republicans to destroy their election hopes in November. Democrats like Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) openly acknowledge that Senate Republicans are using the filibuster to block pro-growth legislation in order to keep the economy weak. As we can see from the data, it is a brilliant political strategy and is likely to pay off for the GOP in November. Yet, with their jobs on the line, Democrats have chosen to defend arcane Senate rules instead of playing procedural hardball to advance good policy and even better politics. The vast majority of Americans don't even understand the Senate rules that Democrats are defending at the cost of their majority. By not eliminating the filibuster, or at least threatening to as the GOP did to force compromise, Democrats have effectively committed political assisted suicide and taken the economy down with them.

Inside-the-Beltway arguments and deficit self-talk have doomed Democrats in November because they fail to see how important it is to address the immediate needs of regular Americans. Democrats have given up on even trying to improve voters’ economic well being before Election Day.

It brings to mind the probably false legend of Nero fiddling while Rome burned, but even that comparison is unfair. The story claims Nero at least purposely burned the city so he could build a new palace. Democrats are instead arguing about rules, Beltway squabbles and deficits while their own majority goes up in smoke around them.

When Geithner Talks About Reducing the Deficit, He Means Steal from the Poor and Give to the Rich

I have long held the belief that when Republican deficit hypocrites talk about “reducing the deficit,” they are simply using it as secret code for “exploiting regular Americans.” They almost never have plans that would actually reduce the deficit. Their "deficit reduction" plans are mainly schemes like taking Medicare and Social Security from middle-class people, not raising taxes on the rich or implementing policies like direct drug-price negotiations, which would reduce government cost but hurt the profit of large corporations.

Sadly, it appears the Obama Administration now falls firmly in the same camp of having “deficit reduction” just mean stealing from the poor to give to the rich. While he talks about how we need to reduce the deficit, on the other hand he fights diligently to increase the deficit by making sure hedge-fund managers and wealthy Wall Street investors pay a lower tax rate than teachers and police officers. From “The Wall Street Journal”:

In a CNBC interview late Wednesday, [Treasury Secretary Tim] Geithner said the Obama administration still hopes to hold the top tax rate on both capital gains and dividends to 20% next year – the level the White House has been proposing since taking office.

Of course, a 20% rate would represent a big increase over the current 15%. But it’s a lot better than the 39.6% top rate for dividends that congressional Democrats have signaled they were planning next year for higher earners.

This shows what a complete farce Obama’s Cat Food Commission really is. It might force hard-working janitors to labor two years longer by raising the Social Security retirement age, but what it really cares about is assuring extremely low taxes for wealthy people on Wall Street. The people who helped ruin the economy have the Obama Administration fighting to protect their low taxes, while the people they hurt are losing their retirement money. So much for shared sacrifice.

Until we adopt a more cost-effective health care system like single payer (which would completely eliminate the long-term deficit), end our wars, make real cuts to our bloated Pentagon budget, end corporate welfare programs and make Wall Street millionaires pay at least as much taxes as a school principal, no one in Washington, Republican or Democrat, should dare even think about cutting Social Security or Medicare to reduce the deficit.

Obama's talk about wanting to reduce the deficit was just talk. His Administration thinks helping Wall Street is far more important. Good to know where we rank: Wall Street Millionaires > Corporate Welfare (PhRMA, for- profit hospitals, too-big-to-fail banks, military contractors and more) > Deficit Reduction > Regular People.

New Campaign Will Spend up to $15 Million to Push Public Financing of Elections

Common Cause and Public Campaign have launched a multimillion-dollar campaign to push for the adoption of voluntary public financing of federal elections. Their goal is to spur Congress to pass the Fair Elections Now Act. From Huffington Post:

Common Cause and Public Campaign, two organizations known for exposing the murkier influences on legislative and electoral processes, are staking $8 million to try and burnish Congress with the willpower to pass the Fair Elections Now Act. And they're willing to spend as much as $15 million on their campaign-season gambit.

"We'll draw it out until we win," said David Donnelly, the campaign manager for the Campaign for Fair Elections. "We will continue the advertising, continue the grassroots organizing, continue the targeting and creative action.”

The bill would provide public campaign money to candidates who proved they had a broad base of support by raising a set threshold of small-dollar donations. The program would be completely voluntary but would at least give candidates a way to run a viable campaign without needing to beg rich donors and powerful corporations for money.

The corrupting influence of big-money donations on our politicians is one of the biggest problems with our country. It is effectively a form of legalized bribery, and the result is felt well outside issues related to good government. Why do we pay nearly twice as much as the rest of the world for health care? Why can't Congress approve the highly popular deficit-reducing policy or drug re-importation? Why can't we deal properly with the concept of “too big to fail”? The answer almost always tracks back to the fact that those reforms would hurt corporations with deep pockets. Corporations that are prepared to spend huge amounts on political campaigns.

While the corrupting influence of money is not the only problem with our government, helping to fix it through voluntary public financing would at least move us toward a government more representative of regular people. You can't expect members of Congress to stand up to corporations when their jobs depend heavily on getting "gifts" from those same groups. It is like having the guards of the hen house paid for with gifts directly from the foxes.

Our system of money in politics is rotten to its core. If we ever adopt viable, voluntary public financing for all federal elections, I suspect in a few decades people will look back and be shocked that regular Americans ever tolerated the current system.

CA Props: Marijuana Legalization Losing Narrowly, Anti-Gridlock Measure Winning with Voters

Californians want to fight it out on marijuana legalization, ease up on budgeting procedure and stay strong on resisting climate change, according to Field Poll (PDF) results on some of the state’s ballot initiatives. Field surveyed on four of the 10 Propositions that will be on the ballot this November.

Prop. 19: Marijuana Legalization

The poll shows Prop. 19 losing narrowly, 48-44, with eight percent undecided. Of all four ballot initiatives polled, it had the most voter recognition. A full 77 percent of those polled had heard of it. This continues the pattern we have seen in other polls, with almost all voters having an opinion of Prop. 19 and very few undecided.

Men slightly favor Prop. 19, 48-47, but women disapprove, 50-41. The Field Poll also confirms the pattern of young voters under the age of 30 heavily supporting marijuana legalization, 52-39, but those over 65 opposing it strongly, 57-33. Support divides fairly evenly for voters between 30 and 65. The success or failure of Prop. 19 will probably depend on whether marijuana legalization being on the ballot motivates young supporters to turn out in unusually high numbers.

Prop. 25: Majority Vote for State Budget

This measure to eliminate the super-majority requirement of a two-thirds vote in the state legislature to pass a budget has super-majority support among voters. Among California voters, 65 percent support the measure while only 20 percent oppose it, and only 15 percent are undecided. It even has majority support among Republican voters, 58-25. While it’s still early, Prop. 25 looks likely to pass in November.

The two-thirds requirement to pass a budget, along with the two-thirds requirement to pass tax increases, has caused nearly endless gridlock in Sacramento, perennially late budgets and unpopular horse trading to get the last few votes. It has created huge dysfunction in the state government, and it looks like the voters have finally had enough. For non-California readers, think about how extremely dysfunctional the US Senate is with its 60-vote super-majority requirement to end a filibuster.

Prop. 25 will restore a simple majority vote to pass the budget but leave in place the two-thirds requirement for tax increases. Prop. 26, which would impose a two-thirds requirement on new fees or levies, was not polled

Prop. 23: Suspension of State’s Climate-Change Law

Prop. 23 is on the ballot because two big oil companies spent millions to put it there. It is another disgusting display of corporations literally trying to buy favorable laws by using the ballot initiative system. If passed, Prop. 23 would suspend AB32, the state’s greenhouse-gas reduction law.

The poll finds California voters rejecting this attempt to gut climate-change legislation. It is currently losing, 48 percent opposed to 36 supporting, with 16 percent undecided. Democrats and nonpartisans strongly oppose the measure, but Republicans support it.

The strong opposition to Prop. 23 should send a signal to politicians in Washington, DC, where climate-change legislation is all but dead. Even while experiencing one of the worst economic downturns in decades, voters in California are still committed to regulations meant to reduce global warming.

Prop. 18: Water Bonds

The state legislature put the proposition on the ballot to approve a $11.1 billion bond measure related to water development. It is currently winning 42-32 but has a very high undecided rate of 26 percent. Only about one-quarter of voters had heard of Prop. 18 before the poll, so opinions are definitely not firm. Of all the ballot measures polled, this one is likely to see a significant change in the level of support going forward.

Communication First: Making Media to Move the Mainstream - Lessons from the Nonpartisan League, Part One

Large corporations with a huge corrupting political influence are exploiting regular people. Bankers and traders on an exchange are selling phantom commodities to make huge profits to the detriment of the working class. A left-leaning group turns to politics to address these grievances, and the Chamber of Commerce and the mainstream attack it as “socialist,” unpatriotic and the tool of big labor. This is not modern times but the 1910s in the rise of the Nonpartisan League in North Dakota.

The NPL was one of the most powerful political organizations in American history and the speed of its rise to power was unprecedented. The organization was formed in 1915 by two men sitting around a kitchen table. By 1918, it had taken complete control of the government of North Dakota and enacted much of its platform. Its success and failures hold a wealth of lessons for anyone interested in political organizations.

Arthur Townley was the founder and driving force behind the NPL. He understood that the establishment media at the time were favorable to the status quo. Townley knew that to maintain a strong political organization, he had to speak directly to his members. An effective political organization needs to counteract the inevitable spin and propaganda from political forces aligned against it. That is why establishing its own newspaper was one of the NPL’s first actions. From “Political Prairie Fire” by Robert Morlan:

In laying the plans for the Nonpartisan League, the power of the press had not been overlooked, for Townley knew full well that the organization could be held together only if continuous information and stimulation reached the members through a publication devoted solely to that purpose. It had originally been planned to start the Nonpartisan Leader in December of 1915, and the members had been so informed. In August, however, it had become obvious that the opposition press was succeeding in causing doubts in the minds of many members; also it dawned on the leaders that most of the postdated checks were dated in October and that if the members heard no more of the organization before then, payment would be stopped on a great many. They therefore decided to start the paper as soon as possible. [...]

The Leader, in general a moderately well-edited paper with a breezy conversational style, served three principal purposes—it provided a channel of direct news and information, a means by which the leaders might guide the actions of the members, and a method of combating the tide of bitter opposition which almost instantly arose.

The need for a political movement to have its own independent news source and a way to speak directly to its supporters is a lesson modern progressives have learned and are relearning. Progressive blogs and e-mail lists can do this even better than any independent paper could do at the turn of the last century. The Internet has allowed contemporary progressive bloggers and organizations to work around the mainstream media. It’s not a new phenomenon, but the Internet has made the task much easier. No doubt Townley would have easily grasped the political potential of digital communication.

It is a good thing that the NPL quickly set up its own paper, because the establishment media almost instantly attacked the new group. Without the “Leader” it is likely the continued smears and distortions would have eroded the organization’s support.

[A]lmost at once the great majority of both city dailies and rural weeklies, led by the Grand Forks Herald and the Fargo Courier-News, commenced a campaign of violent opposition. It was based principally on the grounds that the League was promoting socialism and that the leaders were "carpetbaggers" bent on driving the state into financial ruin and filling their own pockets with the farmers' money.

KY Sen: To Know Him is Not to Love Him: Paul Drops to Even with Conway

Republican Rand Paul and Democrat Jack Conway are tied in their Kentucky Senate race, 43-43, according to a new PPP poll. Kentucky is currently held by retiring Republican Jim Bunning, making this Senate race, along with Missouri, New Hampshire and North Carolina, one of the Democrats’ best hopes for going on the offensive in 2010.

PPP 6/28-30
Conway 43
Paul 43
Undecided 14

It appears Conway's best hope is to turn the spotlight on Paul and depict him as a man with extreme views, far outside the mainstream. The increased media attention on Paul’s more controversial statements has hurt his favorability numbers. From the PPP blog:

The more Kentucky voters get to know Rand Paul, the less they like him. When PPP first polled the race in December Paul's favorability was a +3 spread at 26/23. By May it was a -7 spread at 28/35. Now it's a -8 spread at 34/42. The national media attention Paul has received has hurt his cause with voters in the state--38% say it has made them less likely to support Paul while 29% say it has made them more inclined to vote for him and 33% say it hasn't had an impact on their attitude toward Paul one way or the other.

The fact that Democrat Conway is doing well in a Republican-leaning state in what is shaping up to be a good year for the GOP is a reminder that there is some truth to the old line, "All politics is local."

Cook Predicts GOP Wave in November; I Predict a Wave of Misdirected Dem Panic

Charlie Cook, founder of The Cook Political Report, sees a Republican wave coming in November. While not always right, Cook has been at this for a long time and is a respected name in political forecasting.

Among all voters, there has been a significant swing since 2008 when Democrats took their new majority won in 2006 to an even higher level. But when you home in on those people in this survey who are most likely to vote, the numbers are devastating. The NBC/WSJ survey, when combined with a previously released NPR study of likely voters in 70 competitive House districts by Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg and Republican Glen Bolger, point to an outcome for Democrats that is as serious as a heart attack. Make no mistake about it: There is a wave out there, and for Democrats, the House is, at best, teetering on the edge.

Anyway you slice it, the numbers are bad news for Democrats. Cook points out that Democratic voters are less enthusiastic about voting, and the generic ballot has swung in the Republican direction. This dire warning from Cook will send Washington Democrats into a further panic, which will probably result in them doing even more things that will crush enthusiasm among their base. They’ll ramp up their misguided faux deficit fear-mongering while millions struggle without a lifeline in the recession.

I want to make a small point about the generic ballot. Democrats currently hold an unusually large majority in the House. In 2008, Democrats won about 53 percent of all votes cast for Congress. To keep all their House seats, Democrats don't need to win just the majority of votes cast for Congress but need to receive a similarly big majority of them. Even if Democratic candidates manage to get a majority of votes for Congress in November, if it’s only a small majority, say 50.5 percent, the result will be a large loss of seats.

This November, especially because of how districts are gerrymandered, Republicans could win what is declared an overwhelming victory, a net gain of 30 or more seats, even though Democrats receive more total votes for Congress than Republicans.

WA Sen: Top Two Big Name Pols Murray and Rossi Set to Win Top-Two Primary

The state of Washington used a “top two” election format for the first time in 2008, and California will switch to the same system in 2010. In a top-two primary, all candidates from all parties run in the same “primary,” and the top-two vote getters, regardless of party, advance to the general election. A new SurveyUSA poll for KING-TV Seattle tested the top-two ballot for the Washington Senate seat. Not surprisingly, incumbent Democrat Patty Murray is expected to advance to the general, along with Republican Dino Rossi.

SurveyUSA (6/25-28)
Patty Murray (D) 37
Dino Rossi (R) 33
Clint Didier (R) 5
Paul Akers (R) 3
Others 3
Undecided 19

While the Washington primary isn't until August 17, Rossi is firmly in second place, making it pretty hard for Didier to overtake him. Didier does have the endorsement of Sarah Palin, but her opinion probably carries less weight in a top-two primary system than in a traditional Republican primary.

Since this is only the second time Washington has used this novel system, that could slightly throw off SurveyUSA’s likely voter model. But, given the size of Murray's and Rossi's leads, any minor effect from that shouldn't change the basic result. It now looks like the general election will feature Murray vs. Rossi in November. I would also caution against reading too much into this primary poll about the results for the general. Using the 2008 election for comparison, the primary voters in Washington are a noticeably smaller and more politically engaged group than the general-election voters.

Note: The top-two primary system mandates that independent or third-party candidates who are not one of the top-two vote getters in the primary can't win a slot on the ballot in the general. The November ballot will have only two choices for voters.

Fed Health Site Opens Pools to the Uninsured, for Now

The government website for the new health-care law, HealthCare.gov, is now up. Overall it is a slick and user-friendly site. Clearly, a lot of work went into the web design. It’s just another sign of how the Obama Administration is determined to sell the new law, although it won’t serve many people at this point.

The important thing is that the site contains a link to the application process for the new “pre-existing conditions insurance plan.” This is the so-called temporary high-risk-pool system that the new law will soon create.

To qualify, you will need to have been uninsured for at least six months and had trouble getting health insurance because of a pre-existing condition. Premiums for this program are still expected to be fairly high. Since Congress did not properly fund the program I can't guarantee that it will not undergo serious modifications, such as freezing or eliminating enrollment before 2014. But if you meet the qualifications and have struggled to find health insurance by any other means, it’s an option worth pursuing, and you should try to apply as soon as possible.

I think it is important to note again that if Congress had just expanded the successful public Medicare health-insurance program, like it did in Libby, Montana, the people most in need of health insurance could have started getting coverage in much less time than it took to put up this website.