Health care reform is wildly popular. Three separate polls show over 70% of Americans favor a public insurance plan. Remarkably, the majority of us are even willing to pay higher taxes to provide health insurance for our uninsured compatriots. (see here, here, and here).But elder statesmen and the Washington commentariat warn that it would be a grave political mistake to include a public option in health care reform. Why? Because it doesn't have bipartisan support.
When the ever elusive bipartisanship becomes a more important goal then, say, the well-being of nearly 50 million uninsured Americans, it's time to examine our priorities.
She goes on to debunk the myths about bipartisanship: that it implies consensus, when it does not; that it ensures proper compromises, which it doesn't; and that without it people will eventually turn against health care reform.
In truth, we will turn against health care reform if it doesn't work. And gutting the plan is the sure-fire way to guarantee that it won't work.
The worst problem, I think, in compromise on an issue like this is that in order get votes you gut the bill of what could make real substantive differences; as a result critics will "prove" that it didn't work, and we may be worse off than before.
Some compromise may be necessary in order to get enough votes to pass reform legislation, especially with centrists Democrats not on board. What we need is a Sam Rayburn or a Lyndon Johnson who knew how to knock heads and twist arms to get support for his bills. Unfortunately, those days may be gone along with those master legislative tacticians. Lobbyists and their money seem to rule the day in our time.
The art of pursuasion seems to have been replaced by the dollar sign.
When we can't get passed legislation of such importance with 70+% of the public supporting a public plan, I despair of our political process.
Ralph
No comments:
Post a Comment