Time for some sharper interviewing on the News Hour

I never thought I’d say this but I think someone needs to take over from Judy Woodruff on the News Hour. Tonight she interviewed James Lankford, R-Okla. In discussing the “skinny” repeal of the ACA, he suggested that CBO scoring of those who would lose insurance assumed that all who were added to the rolls under the ACA mandate would leave once the mandate was removed adding nine million to the number of uninsured. He implied that some proportion of the 9m would not leave the market and thus the CBO estimate should not be taken as gospel. At which point Woodruff moved on.

This was an opportunity missed. She should not have taken the statement at face value; the follow up question she ought to have asked was: “So if some but not all people leave, and premiums rise, which they must do since an increasing proportion of the insured will be those with high medical bills for whom it’s cheaper to pay even the higher premiums than their medical bills, why any would those who are only buying because of the mandate continue to buy after the premiums rise”? This seemed to be a logical flaw in Langford’s argument. But it was allowed to stand, unchallenged. (Economists term this adverse selection – simply put, only those who expect to get more in payouts than they pay premiums will buy insurance, which means insurers are left with a pool who cost more than they take in – and the market fails). This is a case where the interview should perhaps have been conducted by someone who better understands the insurance marketplace.

As the show’s executive producer the decision not to bring in someone who could conduct a sharper line of questioning ( for example Stephen Saker on the BBC’s Hard Talk, a great example of someone who really gets to grips with the material and can ask the penetrating follow-up questions), is hers. Not doing so is a disservice to her audience and the profession.

Containing Kim Jong Un

North Korea's imminent acquisition of an intercontinental ballistic missile carrying a nuclear warhead is a serious threat to the current geopolitical system. However, asking China and  Russia to help is pointless.

First, both benefit from having North Korea behaving badly since it gives them a big bargaining tool over the US. Once the North Korean threat goes away, so does their leverage. So their best course is to make small gestures ostensively aimed at slowing North Korea's nuclear ambitions while at the same time extracting large concessions from the US.

Second, neither China nor Russia are threatened by North Korea so they have no intrinsic desire to curb Kim Jong-Un's military ambitions.

Third, China fears that exerting too much pressure may cause the North Korean regime to collapse which would have two possible outcomes, neither to its liking. The first would be a flood of refugees crossing into China. The second is a unified Korea, less sympathetic to China,  larger and ultimately more powerful than the the South was on its own, and with a significant US military presence.

So the problem that has bedevilled four US presidents remains as intractable as it ever was.

The only suggestion I've heard recently that might change this came from Charles Krauthammer, who suggested providing nuclear weapons to Japan and South Korea. Japan's recent move to amend its constitution signals a shift in its thinking regarding regarding the use of military force and may make it open to the idea. South Korea's new president seems less hawkish than his predecessor so the plan might not go over well there (the THUD system deployment has already caused a bit of a stir).

But this would certainly change the regional balance of power and not in a way that China would like so the such a threat might get China to do more to constrain Kim. But it does so with enormous risks of unintended consequences.