Jonathan Kantrowitz

See the video:

More on the story from Politico:

Republicans invited Obama to appear at their annual conference; the president accepted — and then surprised them by asking that cameras and reporters be allowed into the room.

Republicans immediately agreed to the request, but they may be regretting it now.

Again and again, Obama turned the Republicans questions against them — accusing them of obstructing legislation for political purposes and offering solutions that won’t work.

Will The Republicans Just Say No to Howard Baker and Bob Dole? Probably

In yesterday’s remarks at the House Republican Issues Conference, President Obama praised the Bipartisan Policy Center’s (BPC) plan for reforming health care, entitled: “Crossing Our Lines: Working Together to Reform the U.S. Health System,” as a bipartisan health care proposal that is worthy of consideration by both Republicans and Democrats. According to President Obama, the plan, which was developed by former U.S. Senate Majority Leaders Howard Baker, Tom Daschle and Bob Dole, members of the BPC’s Advisory Board and Leaders’ Project on the State of American Health Care, is “pretty similar” to the legislation currently being considered by Congress. The President urged bipartisan cooperation in reforming the U.S. health care system and said, “We’ve got to close the gap a little bit between the rhetoric and the reality.”

Quotes from President Obama’s remarks:

“The component parts of this thing are pretty similar to what Howard Baker, Bob Dole and Tom Daschle proposed at the beginning of this debate last year.

“Now, you may not agree with Bob Dole and Howard Baker and Tom — and certainly you don’t agree with Tom Daschle on much … but that’s not a radical bunch. But if you were to listen to the debate, and, frankly, how some of you went after this bill, you’d think that this thing was some Bolshevik plot.”

“And so I’m thinking to myself, ‘Well, how is it that a plan that is pretty centrist…’

“No, look, I mean, I’m just saying — I know you guys disagree, but if you look at the facts of this bill, most independent observers would say this is actually what many Republicans — is similar to what many Republicans proposed to Bill Clinton when he was doing his debate on health care. So all I’m saying is we’ve got to close the gap a little bit between the rhetoric and the reality.”

The policy to ban corporate contributions and expenditures in federal elections dates back to 1907.

In 1907, Congress enacted legislation to prohibit corporations from “directly or indirectly” making contributions in federal elections.

In 1947, Congress amended the statute to make clear that the “directly or indirectly” language in the 1907 statute had covered expenditures as well contributions.

The history shows why this is true.

In 1943, Congress extended the 1907 contribution ban on a temporary basis to cover labor unions as well as corporations. But the 1943 law was deemed ineffectual when reports surfaced that unions were circumventing the contribution restrictions in the 1944 elections by making expenditures to support their favored candidates. Thus, in 1947, Congress acted to reaffirm that the 1907 contribution ban had covered expenditures as well, and also to extend the ban to cover unions on a permanent basis.

Senator Robert Taft, aleading Republican conservative, was the principal sponsor of the 1947 law. He explained: “The previous law prohibited any contribution, direct or indirect, in connection with any election.” He said that his legislation “only make[s] it clear that an expenditure…is the same as an indirect contribution, which, in [his] opinion, has always been unlawful.” 93 CONG. REC. 6594 (1947) (statement of Sen. Taft)

A House Committee report at the time (H.R. REP. NO. 79-2739, at 40 (1946)) stated that House Special Committee was “firmly convinced” that the “act prohibiting any corporation or labor organization from making any contribution” “was intended to prohibit such expenditures.”

The Supreme Court recognized this point in the CIO case in 1948, when it said that the intent of the Taft-Hartley Act was not to “extend greatly the coverage” of existing law, but rather to restore the law to its original intent. 335 U.S. at 122.

Thus when Congress in 1907 decided to prevent the corrupting influence of direct or indirect corporate contributions in federal election by banning such contributions, it adopted a policy at that time to keep corporate wealth out of our elections, whether in the form of contributions or expenditures.

Rep. Mario Diaz Balart’s (R-FL) Spanish-language response to President Obama’s State of the Union address tried to sell Latinos a Republican Party without a record. But the Republican Party, be it in English or Spanish, is entrenched in trying to sell us nothing but out-of-context ideology and lies about Democratic accomplishments. For example:

Mario Diaz-Balart complained about unemployment, but criticizes the president’s initiative adding or saving two million jobs.
He touts the Republican health care plan, a laughable measure which would have barely covered one tenth as many people as the Democratic plan. He dislikes a growing deficit, but neglects to mention it was his party that drove us into the brink of another depression.

DNC Hispanic Caucus Chairwoman Iris Y. Martinez:

At every turn Republicans have turned their back on opening doors of opportunities for our community. It is clear by the lack of support they have shown to issues that matter to us and that have a deep impact on our families and community, that their support for us comes in the form of shallow words and ideology, not productive action.

What I saw tonight is a clear distinction between a president who is committed to doing everything within his power to make the economy work not only for Latino families, but for all Americans, and a Republican Party still desperate to make a comeback – so desperate that they continue to politicize and lie on a health reform bill that would bring 30 million Americans closer to health care and improve the lives of 80 percent of Latinos.

Tonight Diaz-Balart called for an end to ‘rhetoric,’ right before twisting the facts about the administration’s results in his out-of-context remarks. Instead of the post-partisanship he called for, what we got from the representative is a dose of that familiar rhetoric of fear and deception – the rhetoric that brought us to the mess we were in a year ago.

Leaders of the State Employee Bargaining Agent Coalition (SEBAC) met with representatives from Governor M. Jodi Rell’s Administration yesterday to once again offer assistance with the growing budget deficit. In response, her representatives agreed to continue meeting in order to identify creative programs and policies that could increase government efficiency, save taxpayer dollars, and help rebuild Connecticut’s economy.

“We came in with a lot of ideas — ideas that could help people across the state find good jobs and keep them. These are solutions that will work in the short term and will help strengthen our economy in the long term,” said Ron McLellan, President of CEUI/SEIU Local 511. “We are very pleased that the Governor has agreed to work with us and will engage public service workers in the process of rebuilding Connecticut.”

In their meeting yesterday, SEBAC leaders shared their “Jobs for All Working Families” plan with representatives of the Administration. Proposals from their 18-point plan include:
• Reinstituting the Innovations Review Panel to engage frontline workers in offering ideas for increased efficiencies and improved services;
• Expanding higher education opportunities to solidify Connecticut’s workforce and attract employers to the state; and
• Utilizing the energy and talents of unemployed workers to rebuild our economy while helping them find new permanent jobs.

Some of these ideas are longer-term solutions that will require action by the General Assembly and either the current governor or a new Administration. But some could be implemented immediately if Governor Rell is open to the ideas from the front-line workers who provide the vital services people need in hard times.

The coalition will also share its proposals with state legislative leaders as well as gubernatorial candidates who seek to replace Governor Rell. SEBAC remains committed to partner with elected officials and candidates in a comprehensive solution that will help put people back to work, which will lead to a stronger, better Connecticut for all of us.

In 2009, members SEBAC’s unions provided nearly a billion dollars in labor cost savings by agreeing to wage freezes, furlough days and other concessions that, to date, have been the most significant contribution of any group toward solving the state’s economic woes.

“Last year we were proud to be part of the solution and help get Connecticut back on the road to recovery,” said Jean Morningstar, president of University Health Professionals, Local 3837 of AFT Connecticut. “However, we were very clear with the Administration that we believed that the deficit would only continue to grow if elected leaders tried to cut their way out of this crisis, instead of focusing on rebuilding the economy and creating jobs.”

As a result of slashing public services over the past year, Connecticut lost another 50,000 private sector jobs, and the budget is once again facing a deep shortfall of approximately $500 million. In a letter to Governor Rell and legislative leaders in February 2009, SEBAC leaders warned:

“The supposedly easier alternative of cutting public services not only abandons Connecticut’s people just when they need services the most – thereby building up more costs that will need to be paid in the future – it makes the economy worse, which will only cause more suffering and future budget crises.”

“Government must be a key part of the solution to the crisis. We need big ideas to help build an economy that provides good, stable, jobs for working families,” said Jack Doyle, president of the Connecticut Association of Prosecutors.

CEUI, AFT Connecticut, and the Association of Prosecutors are three of the thirteen unions in the State Employee Bargaining Agent Coalition (SEBAC), which serves to unite approximately 45,000 Connecticut State Employees to address issues of common concern. To learn more about the coalition’s campaign for a fair budget and a livable state with great public services visit www.InThisTogetherCT.org.

I’ve know this for some time, but the Wall Street Journal editorial writer has outdone himself. He argues in today’s column that we can’t reform health care because it’s just too big. And we can’t pass climate legislation for the same reason?

These arguments are so stupid as to be beyond rebuttal. Health care and climate effects are too big a part of our economy to do anything about? What nonsense!

For years many health experts believed that increasing insurance co-payments for routine doctor visits helped control costs. Patients faced with the higher price tag, they theorized, would simply cut back unnecessary visits, saving themselves and insurers money.

Brown University researchers now believe that the practice of increasing co-payments for outpatient visits — at least for senior citizens — may actually make care far more expensive. They determined that patients faced with higher co-payments did cut back on their doctor visits. But those same elderly patients ultimately required expensive hospital care because their illnesses worsened.

The finding, to be detailed in the Jan. 28, 2010, edition of The New England Journal of Medicine, has implications for insurers and politicians seeking ways to control costs but also improve quality of care.

“It is a lose-lose proposition for most health plans,” said Dr. Amal Trivedi, the study’s lead author. “Our study suggests that when you raise co-payments for ambulatory care among elderly beneficiaries, particularly those with low incomes, lower education and chronic disease, they do cut back on their outpatient care but are more likely to need expensive hospital care.” Trivedi is assistant professor of medical science in the Department of Community Health at Alpert Medical School.

The research findings are surprising, Trivedi said, because they counter long-standing thinking about health insurance and the effects of co-payments on patients’ use of medical care and on their health. Studies from the early 1970s concluded that patients cut back on doctor visits when the cost of their insurance co-payments went up, but their health wasn’t affected. Trivedi said the studies at that time did not include elderly patients.

For this study, Trivedi looked at Medicare data involving nearly 900,000 beneficiaries across the country. All were over age 65.

Trivedi and his team compared 18 Medicare plans with increased co-payments for outpatient care and 18 that offered similar coverage but had kept co-payments steady. The more expensive plans saw co-payments double for primary care, from $7.38 on average to $14.38, and from $12.66 to $22.05 for specialty care. For the plans where co-payments remained constant, those co-payments remained at $8.33 for primary care and $11.38 for specialty care.

During the following year, patients in health plans that increased co-payments reduced their visits to the doctor’s office. But patients in these plans also had an increase in hospital admissions. By contrast, patients in health plans that maintained low co-payments had little change in hospital rates. Increased cost sharing led to nearly 20 fewer annual outpatient visits to the doctor’s office per 100 enrollees. But annual hospital admissions grew by 2.2 per 100 enrollees. The higher price for outpatient care also led to 13.4 annual days in the hospital per 100 enrollees.

Trivedi and the other researchers found the effects of higher co-payments for outpatient care were particularly magnified among lower income senior citizens and among patients who had hypertension, diabetes or a history of heart problems.

The study “answers important questions,” Trivedi said. “We have almost no data for elderly patients on the effect of increasing outpatient payments. Our study suggests that increasing these co-payments for the elderly is an ill-advised cost-containment strategy.”

Trivedi said he hopes insurers use the data to reduce or at least not increase the amount of money Medicare beneficiaries must pay to see their doctors.

From time to time I post on something I find fascinating, even if it doesn’t involve politics or health. Here goes another:

Four Harvard Business School professors offer their thoughts on this long-awaited and buzz-filled debut:

Bhaskar Chakravorti, Senior Lecturer of Business Administration:

The Apple tablet has already been declared the savior of many chronically – even terminally – ill industries: newspapers, television, movies, and computing, for instance. Enthusiasts believe that the tablet could be the magic pill that will do for all these industries what its predecessor, the iPod, did for the dying music industry in 2002. I’m not surprised that the media have created plenty of space for enthusiasts to write about the revolution ahead.

And why not? Apple has done it before, and the tablet is expected to be even more beautiful than its forerunners.

But can Steve Jobs upend the status quo once again? He can if the tablet fundamentally changes our behaviors. But that does not happen through phenomenal design alone. Design can capture our attention and spark excitement. But for a product to lead to sustained behavioral change, we also need an innovative business model that changes our incentives as consumers or content creators or distributors – and motivates the entire value chain to do things differently.

The iPod reinvented the way music was bought, collected, and shared, thanks to the powerful connections between a brilliantly designed device and a proprietary music store that allows consumers to buy songs unbundled from a variety of labels. The iPhone changed the game by being more than just an attractive instrument attached to the iTouch. Equally important, it offered a platform on which others – independent entrepreneurs, programmers, and designers – could show off their creativity and build profitable businesses. Consumers loved the dazzling array of apps. These forerunners of the tablet changed behaviors not only by capturing our hearts and minds through design but by giving many other players strong mutually reinforcing incentives to change the way they did things.

What is the revolutionary business model that will accompany the tablet? If Apple does not have one after it comes out today, the new device will certainly turn heads and make headlines, but it may not turn around the many ailing industries that are banking on its life-saving properties.

Karim R. Lakhani, Assistant Professor of Business Administration

Two elements of Apple’s strategy go a long way toward explaining Apple’s success: Controlling the user experience and creating a platform for external innovation. Both of these will have an impact on the hotly anticipated Apple iSlate tablet.

Many will agree that the turning point for Apple from a somewhat profitable niche player in the computer industry to the dominant creator of much loved mass-market consumer devices occurred with the introduction of the iPhone. Smart phones had been around for a decade, but it took Apple, with its singular focus on the user experience, to create the market. When I got mine, I wondered if emergency meetings were taking place at Nokia, Palm, Sony-Ericson, Samsung, and RIM to re-examine their innovation strategies.

Apple’s design of the iPhone was not just intuitive. It was inevitable. However, this experience was not limited to the device itself. Even the process of getting one’s wireless number transferred to the new AT&T network was done in a way that recognized the primacy of the user experience. Apple’s staff had clearly thought through the vagaries of dealing with phone companies and alleviated this problem for customers. This singular focus on owning the customer experience, end-to-end, has separated Apple from its rivals, first in computers and now in consumer electronics. The eager anticipation for the tablet is driven by the expectation that the user experience will be beyond what most firms have delivered.

The second component behind’s Apple’s resurgence has been its recognition that it no longer has a monopoly on good ideas for end-use applications of mobile computing and communication devices. Although the company reluctantly agreed to allow third-party developers to create applications for the iPhone, that decision is now viewed as the key to snatching the product from the proprietary clutches of the phone companies and turning it into a platform for innovation.

As Kevin Boudreau of London Business School and I have written , Apple has succeeded in building a competitive market for applications where the risk of development is externalized to thousands of external firms. At the same time, all these efforts increase the value of Apple’s platform. The tablet will now be part of this strategy as well.

Daniel C. Snow, Assistant Professor of Business Administration

Apple (and its competitors) would be wise to anticipate the iSlate tablet’s role in some important technology transitions. Here are a few that my research tells me to look out for.

First, new technologies often provide unexpected improvements to the technologies they are intended to replace. I call these technology “spillbacks.” Watch for the tablet to generate spillbacks that support smart phones, netbooks, and notebooks. For example, increasingly sophisticated App Store apps will take advantage of the iSlate’s screen size and computing power. But these new apps may also become a new type of software, complete with distribution channel, for use in old-fashioned MacBooks and desktop Macs. Similarly, the connectivity and bandwidth infrastructure needed to stream movies and other content to the tablet will spill back to old iPhones, increasing their performance and extending their usefulness.

Second, old technologies rarely abandon the entire market to a new technology. Expect to see some of the iSlate’s “victims” find profitable niches in which the tablet can’t compete. Is your company work so sensitive that your IT team won’t let you store and work on your documents in the Internet “cloud”? Are you crunching data in large Excel spreadsheets and working in locations without constant connectivity to Google Docs? If your answer to any of these questions is “yes,” you will be a tough sale for iSlate.

Finally, think about the swings of the technology pendulum. Twenty-five years ago, we moved from centralized, mainframe-based computing to localized, desktop computing as computing power became cheaper. But increased connectivity and economies of scale in storage have led to a return of centralized computing (the “cloud”) that addresses myriad storage and software update needs. As technological barriers continue to fall, I expect to see the emergence of a hybrid computing device – something with serious onboard computing and graphics power (always connected to the cloud) that represents the best of both worlds. The iSlate is a stop on the way to this hybrid destination.

Stefan H. Thomke, William Barclay Harding Professor of Business Administration

As an innovation researcher and Apple product user, I will be part of the large community of customers awaiting the launch of the Apple tablet with a combination of curiosity and enthusiasm. Can Apple do it again? Can they understand our needs better than others and deliver, in Steve Jobs’s words, another “insanely great product”? The company’s track record is impressive. Apple has created and transformed markets for music, movies, and mobile phones — industries where it had little experience, faced fierce competition, and where margins had been on the decline. At the same time, the company has gained market share in its core computing business.

The tablet is a logical extension that builds on its business, product, and service platforms. If executed well, the tablet could take Apple into entirely new businesses and an aggressive reuse strategy in software and hardware will keep their R&D and manufacturing costs in line. It has also has the potential to change how people work and play with their computers.

The publishing industry could certainly benefit from an alternative to reading devices such as the Amazon Kindle and more imagination about how its content is packaged, sold, and used. At the technology level, we have reached a perfect storm where components are so advanced that it takes a brilliant integrator to give customers a product that they want, use, and love. This is what Apple does best. It is rarely first to market when it comes to products or technology, but it is often first when it comes to deeply understanding the user.

Ultimately, success will depend on the user’s experience with the tablet, but Apple has learned from both its successes and failures. They know that customers want products like the iPhone and the iPod, not the Newton, which was ahead of its time.

With Apple’s obsession about secrecy, one can only guess the company’s next move, but recent history should be a good predictor. Their reuse strategy and experience will impose constraints on how far they can go. I will carefully study the product launched today, watch Apple’s next moves, and learn. As Yogi Berra once noted, “You can see a lot by just observing.”