Forum non conviens

My friends in the legal community will note that this Latin phrase means "inconvenient" forum.

It has been a real joy writing on Buckeye Punditeers, and allowed me to give voice to a number of issues I hold dear (judicial and education reform among them). That said, my workload in private life and my new bloggging gig at OhioDaily have kept me from these pages, and it has become just that. It's time to declare an official break.

Thank you for reading my thoughts here, and if you're foolish enough to want to keep reading, you can find me at OhioDaily: Blue Collared Blog, Blue Colored State.

Fox News Pushing Cartoon Porn

I realize that picking on Fox News for their lack of journalistic integrity is like picking on the fat kid at camp because he takes a second helping at dinner, but this is just too much.

In reporting today that Marge Simpson will grace the cover of Playboy Magazine and feature in a pictoral in November (yes, really), Fox goes on to list a number of other cartoon ladies Playboy is "considering" for a similar treatment, including Wilma Flintstone, Scooby Doo's Daphne, and Betty Boop.

Two others that you might find interesting:

Aladdin's Princess Jasmine: "There is some question about Princess Jasmine's age, but once they find a valid birth certificate, this one is a go." Seriously? A birth certificate comment? Orly Taitz would be proud. This, to say nothing of the racial overtones.

Beauty and the Beast's Princess Belle: "Playboy has offered to let Belle move into the mansion with Hef, but it reminds her too much of her time trapped in the castle with "The Beast," and is hedging (sic)."

While this article is clearly meant as a spoof and a Friday puff piece, it's shocking on several levels. First, it glorifies Playboy's forray into cartoon porn, shameful in its own right.

But let's take this a step further. The Simpsons is a cartoon with an adult audience, and you can at least argue that featuring Marge Simpson plays to that audience. But focusing on the Disney princesses and characters from children's shows like The Flintstones and Scooby Doo?

In a world where sex slavery, human trafficking, and child pornography and sex abuse are very real, this sort of line blurring by a major American "news" organization simply cannot be permitted.

As if you needed another reason to change the channel.

Surprising No One, Ohio Supremes Say Husted is Montgomery Co. Resident

...Or, not.

To paraphrase one of cinema's all-time greatest lines, "I'm shocked, SHOCKED, to find partisanship at the Ohio Supreme Court."

In a move that thoroughly qualifies as "not news," the Ohio Supreme Court today unanimously overturned the ruling of Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner on the residency of the man who wishes to succeed her. The 7-0 opinion is available here.

The Supreme Court's opinion says that Brunner's reading of the relevant election law statutes is incorrect, and that the residency of the spouse is not a dispositive factor but merely one of many to be considered in determining residency. They also chided her for issuing this opinion on voting residency, saying that casting a tie-breaking vote on this issue (as she did) at the county Board of Elections level is not the appropriate means for challenging a voter's residency.

The opinion largely adopts the arguments posited by Husted's camp, and relied on Husted's "intent to return" to Kettering eventually as the dispositive fact in his favor.

Apparently, "intent to return" doesn't require any timetable. Husted would likely live the next 8 years in Franklin county if elected and then re-elected Secretary of State, to say nothing of his eventual and inevitable run for higher office in Columbus or Washington that could extend that period exponentially.

This, to say nothing of the suspicions raised by Husted's wife's employment in Franklin county, his children's schooling in Franklin county, and the "I Heart C-Bus" tattoo on his lower mid-back.

We're basically where we all thought we'd be here. This issue is neutral politically, as the right-wing angst generated against Jennifer "ACORN" Brunner and the left-wing upset over "Slick" Jonny's lasted slide past accountability will offset. It has no impact in the Secretary of State's race, and less in the Democratic Senate primary.

What today's decision may do, however, is illustrate again to the committed among us how important balance is to the administration of justice. We don't have the luxury we did in Bush v. Gore of railing against a partisan decision by appointed elites. The 7-0 hole we face on the current Court is the result of poor candidate recruitment, worse fundraising, apathy, and a system heavily slanted toward the status quo.

Fortunately, 2010 gives us an opportunity to move toward a more balanced and just high Court. There are 3 races out there for us, and a golden opportunity to pick up at least two of those seats. While 5-2 isn't something to write home about, it's a hell of a lot better than 7-0, and a hair's breadth away from a very competitive 4-3.

Until reform efforts (like those we discussed here) take effect, we're stuck with the broken system we've got. Let's hope this baldly partisan ruling moves the Party to work harder on recruiting serious candidates, and our activists to give Ohio's judicial races the attention and energy they've long neglected to.

To quote Aaron Sorkin (through Michael Douglas' The American President):

"America isn't easy. America is advanced citizenship. You've gotta want it bad, because it's gonna put up a fight."

Let us prepare for the fight, and next fall, let's win it.

Photo credit: www.progressohio.org

BREAKING: Ohio Supreme Court To Host Judicial Selection Forum

As long time readers of this blog realize, the cause of judicial reform in Ohio has long been a passion of mine. The rallying cry "Justice Requires Balance," and my assertions that a system of judicial appointment far better serves Ohio's citizens than our current elective model, apparently hasn't fallen on deaf ears.

According to a joint press release today from Chief Justice Thomas Moyer, the League of Women Voters of Ohio Education Fund, and the Ohio State Bar Association, the Ohio Supreme Court will play host on November 19th and 20th to "A Forum on Judicial Selection: A Time for Action."

The event, headlined by former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, will be moderated by former Ohio Attorney General (and Dean of the Ohio State Moritz College of Law) Nancy Hardin Rogers, and will make a vigorous case that utilizing the political process to elect judges unduly damages the cause of justice.

Choice quotes from the release:

“The time has come to do something to address the widespread perception that campaign contributions influence judicial decision making,” said Chief Justice Moyer. “Our goal is to determine whether to pursue a new selection method for Supreme Court Justices and to explore the various reforms that other states have implemented.”

“If the public believes that judges are not fair and impartial, then the integrity of the third branch is compromised, and this undermines the strength of our entire democratic system,” said Meg Flack, president of the League of Women Voters of Ohio Education Fund.

Among the leaders who have indicated that they will participate either in person or through a representative are Gov. Ted Strickland, Ohio Senate President Bill Harris, Ohio House Speaker Armond Budish, Ohio Senate Minority Leader Capri Cafaro, and Ohio House Minority Leader Bill Batchelder.

We'll have more on this event as it develops, and will make every effort to attend and bring you live coverage of what could be a paradigm shift in the judicial and political landscape in our state.

2010: Let's Go Horse Racing!

NOTE: A correction has been made in the piece below, as an astute reader points out that Republican Treasurer candidate Josh Mandel actually has a fundraising edge on incumbent Kevin Boyce. The projection has been altered to reflect that reality. -BLC

By most accounts (and judging by historical trends), the 2010 election may well be a bumpy one for Democrats. Current projections have Democrats losing around 20 seats in the House of Representatives, several governorships, and a Senate seat or two.

For Ohioans, the stakes couldn’t be higher. In addition to races for the Governor’s mansion and the first open Senate election in Ohio since John Glenn retired, our state will elect an entirely new slate of executive branch leadership (including Secretary of State, Attorney General, Treasurer and Auditor). Combined with the first House elections since Democrats retook the majority in 2008 (and the little matter of the Apportionment Board), these races make 2010 an unusually important mid-term election.

With that in mind (and putting on my lawyer hat), I’d like to make a few assumptions arguendoabout Democratic prospects and strategies in 2010. Let me make this clear: this in NO WAY means I have insider sources at ODP, and is not meant as reporting. This exercise is conjecture, and but one of many scenarios the party could face in building on the gains we made in 2006 and 2008 and move the progressive agenda in Ohio forward.

That said, let’s dig in…good news first.

Despite the hubbub within Democratic circles regarding whether Jennifer Brunner or Lee Fisher should be tabbed to take up the progressive mantel in the race to replace retiring Sen. George Voinovich, the most recent polling available has Fisher beating presumed Republican candidate Rob “T-1000” Portman by 8 points, with Brunner similarly positioned at a 6 point advantage. Though trends this early in a contest can be skewed by a great many factors (including the low-level expenditures each campaign has made and the correspondingly low level of public awareness of the campaign), these numbers bode well for a Democratic victory next November. Portman’s ties to the Bush Administration (his service as W.’s Budget Director chief among them) continue to prove a potent drag on his numbers in polling. Even given the negative overall climate, this seat looks to be one of our best bets for gains in 2010.

In the 2008 election cycle, Democrats picked up 3 Congressional seats in traditionally Republican districts (John Boccieri in Northeast Ohio, Mary Jo Kilroy in greater Columbus, and Steve Driehaus in Cincinnati). Two of those candidates (Kilroy and Driehaus) face rematches with their 2008 opponents (“Steves” Stivers and Chabot, respectively). While Kilroy faces a difficult reelection battle (her stances are marginally more liberal than those of her district generally, and the third party candidate whose presence wounded Stivers’ efforts is likely out for 2010), the relative conservative stances of Boccieri and Driehaus will hold them in good stead in their centrist districts (D+1 and R+4 in the Cook Partisan Voting Index). In a mid-term election, even a net loss of one seat (which is in no way guaranteed) in a state like Ohio bodes well for the party nationally, and could be considered a “win” in an expected adverse climate.

The governor’s race is a different matter. Despite enjoying a 25 point lead in polling as recently as February, Gov. Strickland now stands on precarious ground for an incumbent with an edge of only 6 points and an overall support figure under 45%. While it’s true that Strickland’s numbers may be artificially deflated by the stagnant economy and the present health care debate, it must be cause for concern for Democrats. That said, this race still leans Dem at this point (the incumbency advantage is a strong one, and one assumes with projected continued economic recovery and the end of the health care debate Gov. Strickland should be in a relatively stronger position to start the new year).

For the remainder of the races we’ll discuss here, polling at this point in the process is scarce, and making sound determinations based on hard statistics is for that reason nearly impossible. That said, it is possible to project the conventional wisdom as it stands today, and what that might mean for Democratic prospects down ticket.

The best opportunity for a pickup of a statewide office for Democrats in 2010 is (by default) the Auditor’s office. As the only current statewide Republican office holder, Mary Taylor should be benefiting from ruling party fatigue and her status as a relative outsider. Yet, the most currentpolls available show her with an approval rating of only 5% (17% disapprove, and a staggering 78% have no opinion). The likely Democratic nominee, Hamilton County Commissioner David Pepper, is also a relative unknown. That said, however, his prolific fundraising prowess on the local level, clear support from the Democratic establishment, and centrist stances on most issues position him well to unseat the divisive and very conservative Republican.

In the race for Attorney General, incumbent Democrat Richard Cordray should face a tough challenge from former Lt. Gov. and Senator Mike DeWine. DeWine is sure to make the Marc Dann corruption scandal a focus of his campaign, and tout his long record of public service. Cordray, for his part, should be able to do a serviceable job of distancing himself from Dann (thanks in large part to the deft handling of the situation by Gov. Strickland and the party when that story broke), and can focus his campaign on a “new era” of Ohio leadership (subtly turning DeWne’s long record into a liability rather than an asset). This will likely be the most closely matched race of 2010, but at the end of the day Cordray’ youth, enthusiasm, and predominately positive campaign style will likely hold sway.

The greatest unknown quantity for 2010 is likely the race for Treasurer, pitting Cordray’s replacement Kevin Boyce against State Rep. Josh Mandel of Lyndhurst. On paper, this race should favor the Republicans. Josh Mandel is a relatively young “rising star” in the Ohio GOP, and won his seat in a heavily Democratic district in Northeast Ohio. Mandel also boasts a sizable financial advantage right now, with approximately $1.3M in the bank to Boyce's $486,000. For his part, Kevin Boyce has never won or run for election outside his native Franklin County, and his brief tenure as a placeholder Treasurer confers little in the way of an incumbency advantage. Though Boyce has been present on the Fair circuit this summer, he has yet to establish a more permanent presence. Count this race as "Leans Republican” for now, with the possibility of moving into the "Toss Up" column with improved messaging and/or fundraising from Kevin Boyce.

Presently, the race causing the most consternation in Democratic circles is the race to replace Jennifer Brunner as Secretary of State. With each passing day, the likelihood increases that State Rep. Jennifer Garrison of Marietta will be the Democratic nominee for this office (her endorsement today by the Ohio Teamsters being only the latest in a string of power-solidifying endorsements). Garrison will face off against uncontested Republican candidate and former Speaker of the Ohio House Jon Husted. Husted’s fundraising prowess, charisma, connectedness, and Teflon-like ability to avoid controversy have earned him the title “Slick Jonny” in certain Democratic circles, and make him an incredibly formidable candidate. As has been discussed ad nauseam in this and other forums, Garrison’s campaign has faced a backlash from the progressive Left for her stances on gay marriage, DOMA, and women’s choice rights. Attempts have been made in recent days to whitewash those stances, and the ultimate success or failure of her candidacy depends on the success of those efforts. Facing a gap in base enthusiasm and massive fundraising deficit, Garrison’s campaign has far to go to reach viability, and as of this writing this race is the Republican Party’s best chance for a pick up.

If the above proves true (an admittedly big “if”), the outcomes of elections in the Ohio House become the single largest determining factor in who controls state government (and the all-important Apportionment Board, which determines where district lines are and has the potential to create institutionalized party control for the next decade). Democrats won 7 seats in the 2008 election, gaining a 53-46 edge. Many Dems heading into that election expected a pick up of only 3 seats, and hoped for the 4th needed to re-take the majority. The “bonus” 3 seats, many claim, resulted from the wave of support for now-President Barack Obama. Obama is not on the ballot in 2010, prompting questions about the sustainability of those gains in an off year. While facially this sounds like a problem, further examination proves it to be a false concern. Of the seats gained in 2008, 6 were in what most concede are strong Republican areas (Reps. Pryor, Phillips, Pillich, Moran, Schneider, and Garland). Democrats won those seats largely by running on centrist platforms and economic issues (rather than more divisive social concerns), and in many cases out-performed Obama locally. While replacing the abnormally conservative Garrison in Marietta will prove a daunting task, Democrats are well positioned to hold gains elsewhere. The Ohio House majority is relatively safe.

(The Ohio Senate, frankly, isn’t worth discussion. The Republican edge here is huge, and excluding a combination sex/finance scandal involving the entire Republican caucus is unlikely to change.)

So, to summarize:

Likely Pickups: Senate, Auditor
Likely Holds: Ohio House
Lean Hold: Governor, Attorney General, 2 Congressional Seats
Lean Loss: 1 Congressional Seat, Treasurer
Likely Losses: Secretary of State, State Senate

Though admittedly these projections are speculative, they are at very least based in the conventional wisdom as it stands today. This outcome is generally positive for Democrats. Despite the potential loss of two important statewide offices, this alignment would preserve continued control of the state agenda and the Apportionment Board. These results would give Democrats an opportunity to draw Congressional and Legislative districts for the first time in over 20 years.

Obviously, much can change between now and November 2010. Still, the overall political climate in Ohio and in the vast majority of individual races will likely buffer Democrats in our state from the losses expected by most observers nationwide. There remains much work to do, but at a moment when inside baseball dominates the news cycle, it is important to remember Democrats have real reason for optimism. If we keep our eyes on the ball, there is little reason the progressive agenda in Ohio won’t continue to move forward through the next election cycle and beyond.

Health Care: Why Tort Reform Isn't The Answer

What tort reform is really all about...

I’ve been avoiding writing this piece now for a while. As a law student (and future attorney), I’m reluctant to speak on the topic of tort reform because A) I feel my words will be perceived as biased by my future profession, and B) there are frankly a great many issues surrounding health care that deserve our attention more (the lies about government-funded abortions, which were never a part of the bill, and "death panels” chief among them).

That said, recent calls for tort reform from Sarah Palin and attendees at Sherrod Brown’s town hall on the issue (including one of the panelists) have forced my hand.

A brief primer: “tort law” is a body of law that addresses civil complaints not stemming from contractual disputes. If, for instance, I slip and fall outside of your business on ice you had a legal duty to clear, my suit would be a tort suit. This matters in the health care context because malpractice lawsuits against doctors also fall into this category.

Calls for tort reform as a solution to our health care troubles have been out there as long as the debate, and in fact have led to sweeping tort reforms in the past decade which include reducing maximum jury awards for a number of tort claims and reducing the amount of eventual awards attorneys can claim in legal fees.

Despite those victories (which have, in many cases, have discouraged worthy plaintiffs from bringing suit and created disincentives for seeking justice), the claim that reforming tort law will fix the problems in our health care system endures. The arguments are tried and successful: jury awards continue to rise, malpractice insurance costs are passed on to consumers, and very few patients with valid claims actually sue.

There’s only one problem: these arguments are, to quote my granddad, “absolute hooey.”

A great deal of scholarship has been devoted over the past 15 years or so to 1) identifying whether or not a tort crisis exists, and 2) discussing possible outcomes of reform or inaction. Scholars on this topic are in near universal agreement that there is no tort crisis, and that proposed reforms would not solve the problems that are inherent in the current system.

Briefly, why there is no crisis…

-The national average of tort complaints related to malpractice suits is around 4.8%. of all tort complaints.

-Defendant doctors win malpractice suits around 69.3% of the time.

-Commercial legal reporting services, where most data cited comes from, tend to report a higher percentage of those cases where plaintiffs win (particularly those with large jury verdicts). This skews the data commonly cited in favor of tort reform.

-The actual average plaintiff recovery in malpractice suits is 1/6 that of the average commonly cited in commercial reporters. 1/3 of all recoveries are less than $50,000, and ½ are less than $200,000.

-Plaintiff settlement demands (and jury awards) correlate strongly to the severity of the harm caused by the doctor’s malpractice.

-Punitive damages (those meant to “punish” the doctor for his actions) are exceptionally rare (and in the case study cited, none occurred over a 12-year period in Franklin County).

-Filings have not increased dramatically over time, and verdicts have actually decreased since their peak in 1992.

…and why proposed reforms won’t solve the problems that do exist:

-The current system heavily favors defendants, and most proposals for reform are meant to further insulate defendants from suit.

-Current proposals for reform are “as likely to depress verdicts and settlements for seriously injured negligence victims as to discourage frivolous nuisance suits.”

-Past tort reforms had the effect of making malpractice cheaper to defend, but do nothing to increase the safety and reliability of health care.

-Tort reforms “reduce incentives for providers to invest in measures that protect patients from harm” by making litigation rarer and less expensive.

-Proposals that do not create incentives for improving care and remove bad actors from the market will cause premiums to continue to rise, which in turn continues to elevate the cost of health care.

-The most effective proposals remove bad actors, discourage frivolous suits, and cause economically rational action. None of the empirical data on tort reform proposals indicates they would achieve any of those goals.

So, while Sarah Palin and others rail on about our “out of control tort system” and tout the “vast savings” legal reforms would mean to consumers, the numbers and nearly all serious scholarly opinion tell a different story. The tort system is not, in fact, out of control, and efforts at reform may actually impede legitimate malpractice claims.

Like “death panels” and “government funded abortions,” the calls for tort reform are just another misdirect by the opponents of reform on behalf of the real culprit in our national health care crisis: the insurance industry.

Insurers are presently making massive profits despite the economic climate, largely on the backs of exorbitant premiums charged to doctors and to patients. By exercising their currently legal prerogative to deny coverage and to increase premiums charged to doctors based on sketchy “trends” in malpractice litigation, those profit margins increase even more. To our great detriment, they are then used in highly effective lobbying, which killed the 1993 reform movement and threatens the current one.

Unless and until we as a society chose to stop using heuristics and mental shortcuts in place of real research and deep thought, we are doomed to repeat this debate (as we’ve done for nearly a century) a decade hence.

Does this mean that I believe the President should get a pass on this issue, or that legal reforms of some kind cannot be a part of the solution? Not at all. What it does mean, however, is that the time for allowing fear to guide our public discourse must come to its end, and in its place must rise an era of reasoned discussion and earnest hope. Without that reform, what change can we possibly believe in?

So Pelosi and Hoyer Walk into a Bar...

Dear Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Hoyer,

This letter is in response to your August 10th op-ed in the USA Today. I am shocked and dismayed by what you said, but I’ll defend your right to say it – and anything else you’d like to say – as a fundamental guarantee of our American society. Our nation is built upon the foundation of dissent, from the first cries for freedom from the tyranny of the crown from Boston and Williamsburg to the modern-day representation of folks like Fred Phelps by the ACLU. We may disagree about the best uses of our federal government or its resources, but I sincerely hope that we will never disagree about our democratic principles or our nation’s reliance on the rule of the majority and the right to public dissent.

That is why the sentence in your article that declared that those that opposed the healthcare plan introduced by President Obama and other democratic party leaders were being “un-American” because they were vocal in their opposition to the proposal was so offensive as to be comical, leading me to believe that you will be joining Tom Delay in the world of reality television as contestants on “Last Comic Standing.” In that context, it was hilarious! How cynical and biting, to say something that’s so reversed and dishonest that any 3rd grader after perusing his Weekly Reader would know is untrue about America! Everyone gets it – great work.

Wait…what? It wasn’t a joke? You really believe that there is something un-American about making sure your government knows how you feel about how it is spending your money and running your life? You really think there is a vast right-wing campaign that incites crowds to shout you down just because you’re a democrat? You really believe that anyone who is against the government taking over 17% of the economy and stands up to you is a plant? Seriously?

But wait, they have to shout you down because that’s the only way you’ll listen (or at least the media will listen). This “town hall” tour is a fraud – it’s not to see how America feels about the healthcare plan, it’s a way for you to tell America how they feel about the healthcare plan. How can I tell? Because your representatives lose their minds with rage when they are challenged and accuse those who oppose them of being insiders of the other team.

You see, most of us don’t have the sort of access to the media that you do. You get the microphone in the front of the room and the rest of us wait to be called on. The rest of us write populist blogs originating in our home states that only a few hundred people read while you can write an op-ed for one of the largest newspapers in the world whenever you want and call people names.

I agree with your conclusion – we need debate about this issue. There is no doubt that some people have gone too far (like those who have brought guns to the rallies, talk about a powder keg waiting for a match) and that’s unacceptable in every sense of the word. But most of the rage is real because the concern is real. Most of us feel like you and everyone else in Washington doesn’t listen. Some people like the healthcare plan and some people hate it, all for their own reasons, and they all deserve the right to be heard.

Please do your job as representatives of the people and listen to both sides. Not doing so is the un-American part of this equation.

Astroturf: Back In Style

I, like most of us, believed very firmly that astroturf stopped being cool during the reign of Gerald Ford, disco, and swingers clubs.

If you've been reading any political commentary or blogging on the health care debate, however, you have probably been witnessing the same renaissance I have.

In addition to the lovely electric green faux grass that adorns your grandmother's patio, astroturf also has a political slang meaning: "formal political, advertising, or public relations campaigns seeking to create the impression of being spontaneous or grassroots behavior." That is, faking it with the hope of one day making it.

Debating health care has revived the term in our political conversation, with references to right-wing groups spending into the tens of millions to create fake movements in McClatchy and accusations from certain right-wing blogs in Ohio that everyone from the White House to liberal bloggers are doing the same.

The accusation that one political party or other is manufacturing their support is as old as democracy, and has the virtue of being completely impossible to disprove. Unfortunately for our political discourse, is has the added trait of deepening the already gorge-like divisions within our society, and makes any substantive debate next to impossible.

For that reason, I'm calling for a moratorium on acussing either party of "astroturfing," or using any other term that similarly evokes drumming up false opposition (or support) of health care reform. While its certainly possible (and highly likely) that both sides are engaging in some political gamesmanship in the hope of controlling the media story, its equally possible that there are informed and intelligent people who simply disagree about what direction is best on this important issue on both sides.

So, please: let's encourage intelligent debate and thoughtful discourse, and leave the astroturf, like Steve McQueen and Shaft, to a bygone era.

Obama Admin: Public Option "Not The Essential Element" To Reform Efforts

So much for Dick Nixon's "silent majority" winning the day.

On the same day President Obama's op-ed in The New York Times spoke of the "millions upon millions who quietly struggle" under a health care system that strongly benefits insurers, his Administration took the rhetorical first steps in killing the only part of current reform plans that had any hope of combating their formidable power.

Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius (daughter of former Ohio Governor John Gilligan) uttered the phrase quoted in this piece's title today. These words, though obviously a trial balloon from a lower-ranking Administration official to test liberal reaction to talk of abandoning a public option, are likely the beginning of the end for the sort of sweeping reform many of us hope for.

The alternative now on the table? The health insurance "co-ops" proposed by Sen. Kent Conrad of North Dakota, which according to HuffPost are "consumer-owned non-profit cooperatives" that would sell health insurance in competition with private companies. The parallel apparently used in drafting that idea is to agricultural and electrical co-ops so prevalent in rural America.

As someone who grew up in rural Logan County, Ohio, let me tell you that while eletrical co-ops and agricultural co-ops have done a great deal for rural folks, they simply cannot compete with the likes of AEP or big agri-business in terms of lobbying prowess, advertising ability, and in many cases, price manipulation.

Think about it...do you really think that a large group of consumers paying into a car insurance cooperative could hope to compete with the clout of State Farm, Geico, and Progressive? Why, then, would we expect a similar group focused on health insurance to be able to compete with Aetna, Signa, Blue Cross, and the rest?

This piece from Business Week a few days ago is, I fear, too accurate: the health insurers have already won.

I am not sure if the Obama Administration is cowing to the literally tens of Americans disrupting town halls nationwide on this issue, to slopping accusations of socialism from the political Right, or to the pressure of an immensely powerful and well-funded lobbying interest. What I amcertain of is that this sort of language is cowing, and flies in the face of a central tenet of the Obama campaign's raison detre.

After all, didn't candidate Obama's much-maligned prime time infomercial during the campaign focus heavily on the plight of the un- and under-insured in our country?

Following the co-op model preferred by Conrad (a "Blue Dog" if ever there was one) rather than a true public option might provide a political win by convincing the few remaining moderate Republicans to support reform, but at what cost? Hasn't the Republican Party proved time and again in the first 200 days of this Administration that they are unwilling to provide any ideas of their own, and are content only to snipe at the suggestions of others?

While the Obama Administration continues to duck questions about how essential a public option is to reform efforts, the window for real reform continues to close (and in fact may already have slammed shut).

The answer seems clear enough. Any victory on health care reform that doesn't reform health insurance by 1) competing with private insurers to lower prices, and 2) ensuring that pre-existing conditions and preventative care are covered for all Americans is a pyrrhic one.

The public option is a "make or break" choice, and we can only hope and pray that the Obama Administration truly is as indecisive as they appear. It's only remaining hope we seem to have for real and lasting reform that benefits all Americans.

Want to see what I (and Nate Sliver of fivethirtyeight.com) believe is the clearest and best option for health care reform remaining in America? Visithttp://www.standtallforamerica.com/issue/health_care/, and sign up to show your support for true and lasting change. It's not perfect, but it's a lot better than co-ops.

Deep Thoughts At Midnight

Is it just me, or does this 1980s sitcom character...

...look an awful lot like this 1980s political figure?

Note the exaggerated wrinkles, prominent ears, and dark, deep set eyes. The clear acting ability. The reliance on suburban, middle-class families from California for survival. The fear of nuclear warfare. The bizarre eating habits (Jelly Bellys are bizarre...please don't write).

A question to ponder: if America only gave "ALF" four years on the air, why did it give The Gipper eight in the Oval Office?

This observer isn't sure, but somehow the aliens from "Cocoon" must be involved.

More on this breaking story as it develops.