There is yet hope for health care
October 19th, 2009 by Dan RozensonI just got back from a talk by Washington Post blogger Ezra Klein sponsored by the GW Jewish Progressive Political Association. Klein’s main forte of late has been the health care debate, and he spoke both on that issue and its corollary — how cumbersome the U.S. Senate is.
I found Klein’s thoughts very insightful, especially as they related to what the final health bill will be sold as. There is a tremendous sense of frustration among liberal Democrats at the difficulty in putting through a bill to their liking, even with 60 Senate seats. What he warned against, though, was the urge among Democrats to demand a total victory the way Republicans seek the bill’s total defeat. This is Obama’s first major policy initiative, and if it was to fail it would be disastrous for him.
But failure isn’t certain. With Olympia Snowe’s backing, Democrats will probably be able to pass a deficit-neutral bill with Chuck Schumer’s creative “opt-out” compromise on the public option. And even though the new law wouldn’t guarantee insurance to everyone, it would probably hit in the range of 94%, according to recent estimates. Klein also pointed out that social welfare programs tend to grow overtime, not shrink; what might be an incomplete bill could be mended later.
Given the ridiculous number of structural obstacles to meaningful health care reform — “death panels,” town hall mobs, insurance industry lobbying, Republican filibuster threats, unions angry over excise taxes, liberal and conservative wings of the party fighting, five standing committees and two negotiating committees to get the bill through — we ought not to feel too badly about this fight.
Tags: health care
October 20th, 2009 at 12:01 am
Dan, you bring up a really good point about the cumbersome nature of the Senate and how that is negatively affecting the passage of the Obama’s health care plan, but I disagree with the idea that we can make small allowances now in hopes of making up those gains in the future. While I do believe that progress is progress– and when dealing with human lives, we’ll take anything we can get– it is wrong to go into this process with a plan to settle with or appease opponents. We should continue to demand health care as initially proposed. When it passes, it won’t be seen as a compromised mission to achieve sixty yes votes but rather a victory over our crumbling health care system and a demonstration of our President and the nation’s dedication to effectively resolving this major, time-sensitive issue.
October 20th, 2009 at 11:36 pm
It would be lovely to have everything we wanted in this bill, but settling for 80% is better than 0%. Klein made a great point yesterday: Usually when you negotiate, you start from a position where you demand the most and gradually increase the number of concessions until you and the other side find ground. This approach does not work with the Republican Party. They would be more than happy to scuttle any bill Obama throws out there. Ben Nelson’s much the same way sometimes. You therefore bargain from a position of weakness out of necessity.