How awful to be a liberal Democrat these days!
You give money, volunteer time, work through the primaries. You win the first big Democratic presidential victory since 1964, you gain seats in both houses of Congress—including, ultimately, a 60-seat filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. Everything seems set for the achievement of the great policy ambition of your life: universal health care.
The Week
Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.
Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
In fairness, the Senate is producing two bills. The Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, chaired by the ailing Ted Kennedy, produced a bill earlier in July that bore a strong similarity to the liberal House bill: tight regulation of insurers, a mandate on employers, higher taxes, etc. But everybody knows the action is at the Senate Finance Committee, which is chaired by Max Baucus from the more conservative state of Montana.
If reports on the committee's negotiations are reliable, then Baucus and his colleagues are tossing aside one Democratic aspiration after another. No government-run public plan to compete with private insurers. No national health exchange to allow the self-employed to buy insurance with before-tax dollars. No employer mandate to provide insurance. No tax on most businesses. Reduced subsidies to middle-income families.
Instead of a grand new program, the Senate Finance Committee is designing a modest incremental step.
Maybe that is the way it should be. The health-care system is a very complicated mechanism, and grand, sudden reinventions are likely to yield large, unintended consequences.
And yet, what the Senate Finance Committee is really proposing is caution in lieu of action. Many of the reforms it is discarding are precisely those most urgently needed and pragmatically engineered, including shifting Medicare reimbursement from payment per service to payment by the case. Health -are exchanges are an idea that the Heritage Foundation helped then-Gov. Mitt Romney test in Massachusetts, which resulted in an increase in the (already high) number of residents insured to 97 percent.
The Finance plan seems to respond to three supreme imperatives: spend less money (good); protect the existing system of employer-provided coverage (not so good); and leave Medicare alone (bad). While the plan that follows from those imperatives is gratifyingly minimal from a Republican point of view (and appealingly protective of the powerful senior citizen constituency), it does not actually accomplish very much that even conservatives would want. Above all, it offers no hope for a surcease of the health-care cost inflation that is breaking small businesses across the country.
The single strongest advocate I know of a single-payer, government-run health-care plan is a small-business-owner friend. She runs a company in a knowledge industry, and her employees are her greatest asset. She must provide health-insurance coverage, or they will quit. But the cost of her coverage has more than doubled since 2001. If she were offered an escape from this crushing burden, she'd gladly pay a tax of 6 percent, even 8 percent, of payroll. And she's a Republican.
But who is listening to her? Henry Waxman's overly ideological opening bid in the House, the Republican senators' eagerness to inflict a "Waterloo" on a powerful president, and the accident that the most powerful Democrat on the issue represents a red state—all have combined to produce a gigantic and expensive whiffle.
And from a Democratic point of view—yikes!—what a crushing disappointment. As the punch line of the old Soviet joke posed: "For this you made a revolution?"
-
Truck drivers are questioning the Trump administration's English mandateTalking Points Some have praised the rules, others are concerned they could lead to profiling
-
DC prosecutors lose bid to indict sandwich throwerSpeed Read Prosecutors sought to charge Sean Dunn with assaulting a federal officer
-
2 kids killed in shooting at Catholic school massSpeed Read 17 others were wounded during a morning mass at the Annunciation Catholic School in Minneapolis
-
The trillion-dollar tedium of health reformfeature
-
Give health insurers more cloutopinion Health-insurance companies may be widely detested by the public, but the trouble with American health care is not that these insurers are too strong. It's that they are too weak.
-
Why health-care reform failed last time
feature There were 80 votes available for health-care reform in the Senate in 1994, but securing them required the endorsement of one man. When Bob Dole turned his back on reform, he doomed it. He also doomed himself.
-
Smear Britannia: Conservatives open a new front on health care
opinion In their effort to destroy health-care reform in the U.S., conservatives have been heaping lies upon government-run health care in the U.K. Britons would never surrender their National Health System. Once Democrats pass reform here, Americans won
-
The lies of August
opinion The stakes are high and Republicans are stooping low. But if health reform falters as a result of GOP demagoguery, Democrats may face a reconstituted Gingrich coalition in 2010.
-
Race-baiting the President
opinion Rubert Murdoch, Matt Drudge, and their followers sought to use the Gates imbroglio as a racial rallying cry against Obama. With health-care reform on the line, defusing the hysteria was worth a beer.
-
On health-care, GOP faces risk, too
opinion Obama's overreaching health-care reform is in trouble. But are Republicans, too?
