Got Reform?
What many people fail to understand, even otherwise intelligent people and, indeed, even people whose distinguished careers span decades in government, is that for every major policy there are only a limited number of inflection points. We failed, for example, to get health care reform in 1993-1994; fifteen long years later, if we fail again, we may not get another bite at the apple until after 2012 or, if we're unlucky, 2016 or 2020. We failed in 1964 to de-escalate in Vietnam; we then failed to fully extricate ourselves until our inglorious defeat in 1975, after over 50,000 U.S. military service personnel had been killed in action. We failed during the 1974 oil crisis to take the opportunity to raise taxes on petroleum products; thirty five years later we still have no coherent energy policy. More generally, the Democrats failed to block a series of tax cuts during the Reagan administration, perhaps the largest tax cuts in history; we're still paying the price and nobody dares talk anymore about raising taxes despite the fact that arguments for higher taxes have considerable merit. We failed miserably in 1989 to realize a peace dividend following the end of the Cold War; today Pentagon spending has gotten out of control, the military procurement process having utterly captured the Washington establishment. The list goes on and on.
But to turn back to health care reform. The Democratic leadership implicitly suggests that if we don't get the Pelosi bill we lose our chance at reform. What if the truth were the exact opposite? At this point the Pelosi bill — all 1,990 pages of it — has become so hopelessly compromised that its preponderate effect is to prop up the health insurance/medical/pharmaceutical industrial complex. The vampire sector. Assuming the Senate produces a bill, whatever emerges from the conference committee will bear the House's stamp. And assuming that Mr. Obama signs the final bill, the status quo will become harder to change than ever. We'll have dodged real reform, the American public will be hit hard by higher medical costs — particularly the middle class — and the inevitable political backlash (because American voters are so stupid) will reinforce politicians from the center to the far right. On just about every count one can imagine the Pelosi bill is self-destructive. Why is that?
When people spend a lot of their time plotting to deceive other people, when they work their hardest to project a fake version of themselves to gain others' confidence, at the end of the day not much remains. The scams inevitably fail but, worse, those who sought to deceive are left with a horrifying version of themselves, a doppelganger of who they had once been, yet unrecognizable. The tragedy is that often there's no going back.
I would vote "NO" on the Pelosi bill.
Posted by George Kenney on November 6, 2009 3:34 PM 
« What the Ants are Saying | Main | Three Votes »
Comments
You follow a common line of thinking in this post. That it has to be perfect or you want much more.
This is not a static event and that if you don't get everything you want, game over.
No this is the start of a process. Healthcare reform will take many years to develop. There will be plenty of opportunity over the coming years to add and subtract things we like and dis-like.
They key is to get the reform started. And this bill will do that.
For example, like in Massachusetts, once the new system was put in place it has started to create all kinds of new pressures to get costs down. Before reform there was not the same kinds of pressures or intensity of pressures.
To say all or nothing upfront is the wrong approach.
One key element was the public option. Once that has been put in, there is no telling where that could go (single-payer). That is why the Republicans and the insurance companies are freaking out so much about the public option. Why would they be so worried about a public insurance option that is likely only going to insure a few million people at the beginning?
[I'm more than happy to be proved wrong here. g.]
Posted by: Phillip | November 7, 2009 2:42 PM
One source Sunday showed a letter by Kucinich and Conyers as to why the call for floor vote to discuss single payer (the Anthony Weiner amendment) should be approached cautiously. The Weiner amendment was withdrawn at the last moment. I wrote the congressman for the 8th district as fax and called Washington to vote for the Weiner amendment and against the bill number on Thursday.
Our 8th District congressman and all the rest were allowed to dodge the bullet for being on the record for or against single payer. Regardless of the position papers, I think this was a big opportunity missed for Progressives to know where their representative(s) stand.
Posted by: Lon C Ponschock | November 9, 2009 1:47 PM