Showing some backbone on health reform: Hat's off to the New York Times

"A liberal," Robert Frost famously said, "is someone who refuses to take his own side in an argument." During the Bush years, many of us internalized that stereotype. Many progressives hated Karl Rove with a passion that, at least partly, seemed to arise out of fear that he was a bit more clever and ruthless than we are at the political game. The New York Times editorial page (and for that matter its cousin in Washington) exemplifies the dilemma. High-mindedly fastidious about political process, my favorite paper's editorial page is admirably principled, but is rarely a useful locale to find hard-knuckled tactical advice.

They're getting tougher. Senate Republicans are maintaining annoying party discipline in an effort to thwart or limit healthcare reform. These reforms are supported by large majorities of the American people, a dominant House majority, and a clear majority in the United States Senate. Democrats remain one or two votes shy of a filibuster-proof majority. The situation is especially galling when you consider that one of these votes rightfully belongs to Democrats. Minnesota Republican Norm Coleman stands virtually no chance of winning the election he rightfully lost way back in November. It's an open secret that he is basically running out the clock to deny Democrats this key Senate vote.

The Obama administration and various other Democrats are dancing around the possibility of using an arcane but important device known as the reconciliation process to force an up-down vote. Republicans are predictably crying foul-- and are equally predictable in their collective amnesia about how they used the identical maneuver to pass President Bush's deep tax cuts for the wealthy.

Under Senate rules, the reconciliation process is nominally intended for budget measures, not for other substantive legislation. When the Clinton health reform was on life support, Senator Robert Byrd hammered a big nail in the coffin by announcing that he would oppose passing the bill through this process. That great attempt to address our nation's healthcare crisis never received the courtesy of an actual vote.

There are many reasons to hope that health reform passes without resorting to this rather rinky-dink process. There is no legitimate reason for Democrats to throw away this bargaining chip right now. As the Times editors put things,

There are reasons to be wary about resorting to the expedited process, known as budget reconciliation. But it is a weapon that the Democrats would be foolish to give up without evidence that Republicans will truly cooperate in fashioning meaningful reform. Not one Republican in the House or the Senate voted for the budget resolutions, and only three supported the stimulus bill....

Republicans are also complaining that reconciliation limits the hours of debate and the opportunity for amendments. But Congress has already been wrestling with health care reform in multiple committees, so the need for more posturing in floor debate is not apparent. There are also dire warnings that resorting to reconciliation will poison the atmosphere for bipartisanship. That may well happen, but so far most Republicans have shown little appetite for cooperation on anything.

The Times concludes,

A bipartisan agreement would be nice, but what the country needs right now is effective health care reform.

Exactly right.

Comments

[sunny123]

We need to constantly remind the republican senators that they too will be up for re-election and if they have not been doing their jobs, we need to ensure they do not get re-elected. I live in Texas and will do everything in my power to ensure John Cornyn does not get re-elected. He is not working for the people of Texas he is working for himself and his future. My hope is that all of you will do the same to the republican senators in your states. I have federal insurance as a retiree with disability and I believe single payer heath care is imperative for the future health of our nation.

[Linda Bergthold - Huffpost Blogger]

It's never been entirely clear to me why the filibuster is such a fearsome thing. Wouldn't the spectacle of Republicans fighting against health reform and the American people make them look even worse than they do now? I think a filibuster probably works better when the party doing it is fighting against something that is not very popular. This time, health reform is on everyone's mind and I really do hope that a few Republicans in the Senate at least will join with the Democrats and pass something meaningful so we avoid the filibuster train wreck. There are many aspects of reform that we all can agree on -- and there are signs that even groups that have opposed reform in the past are willing to step up and make some accommodations.

[QualityCounts]

Maintaining one's principles in the face of unprincipled opposition is difficult. Ends generally don't justify means, but we are trying to pass legislation, not qualify for sainthood. This is a tough game against tough players. Let's play by the rules, but not hold ourself to unrealistic standards.

Health care is as broken as health care "insurance." The rich may have it much better than the poor, but I've watched with horror while people with plenty of health insurance and lots of money got fragmented, substandard health care and paid dearly for it. Fixing coverage is important, but PlaceboStudman, though a bit too histrionic for my blood, is correct in his/her fundamental tenets.

If health reform fails, much of the blame will fall on the left, not the right. "Special interests" on the right are working to preserve their piece of the pie. We may not like it, but it makes sense for them to do this. Critics of the current system who say they are working for the common good but insist on a perfect solution (i.e., their solution) or no solution make much less sense. There is nothing wrong with working for a single payer system (though it not the perfect solution its advocates claim it is), but when push comes to shove, if its vocal supporters make better the enemy of good, we again may end up with nothing. Moral purity about ends can be as self-defeating as moral purity about means.

[Harold Pollack - Huffpost Blogger]

Thanks for the comments everyone. If you favor an expanded public role--which may or may not be single-payer--you should fight for the public plan option.

[boomerbabe]

There is no question that the only way to rescue our "health care system" is to go to a government run health care agency. It just defies logic that anyone should imagine that private health care would do a good job of reining in health care costs.. In fact, their incentive is profit, period. They pay obscene dividends while at the same time deny coverage, treatment and medications as well as raising premiums. Is this so hard to comprehend.. Get rid of the private insurers. Let us all pay in for health care like we do for Social Security. That's it.. get it going , then let the free market see that the private companies are just a sham.
We elect these officials.. we need to organize and send a clear message to congress. Pass health care reform or all the contributions from these companies will not get you re elected.
J

[pontesisto]

Single payer is the only long term solution yet it is left out of the discussion in Washington about how to fix our health care crisis. Both parties are well funded by the insurance companies so it should come as no surprise but it amazes that it isn't even included in the debate even though a majority of the American people and doctors want it. As voters we have to force our decion makers to listen to us by holding them accountable on this issue during the next election. If you want to help pressure Congress for single payer health care please join our voting bloc at:
http://www.votingbloc.org/Health_Bloc.php

[FearlessFreep]

What the US needs is a single-payer health care system.

[PlaceboStudman]

The devil is in the details, and so far, I see no details, and the devil of health care reform is incalcuably enormous. Every and I do mean every single discussion so far has been about INSURANCE reform and lowering costs by removing the insurance companies. But, no one is talking about reducing costs by improving the product. You, Mr Pollack, wrote a post recently about the unnecessary redundancy in medicine, so you know where I come from. Surely, someone, somewhere on this site can understand that it doesn't matter how much or how little we pay for the services we receive, if the services we receive are substandard at best. Until there is real genuine discussion about how to improve the level of actual care and delivery of care, it won't matter one iota what it costs, via the government or private insurers, because we will all be dead...I REPEAT WE WIL ALL BE DEAD before any of this comes into place because our medicine and technology are at abysmally low levels compared to what they could be.

[BarryS]

I disagree. Unless we discuss how to include everyone in obtaining health care , we can't discuss how to improve it. the rich don't have any problem. the problem is that many can't or don't pay and the providers cannot budget rationally. fixing funding allows planning. i know that sound socialistic, but really, big corporations plan, even if it's only to be able to pay their CEOs 100's of millions of dollars.