Reich: "It's 'just' worth it"

Robert Reich, another progressive voice that I respect, seems to take a similar position to Paul Krugman. He concludes his article on the health care reform bill on HuffingtonPost:

Is the effort worth still worth it? Yes, but just. Private insurers will have to take anyone, regardless of preconditions. And some 30 million people who don't now have health insurance will get it. But because Big Insurance, Big Pharma, and the AMA will come out way ahead, the legislation will cost taxpayers and premium-payers far more than it would otherwise. Cost controls are inadequate; in fact, they barely exist. . . .

We are slouching toward health-care reform that's better than nothing but far worse than we had imagined it would be. Even those of us who have seen legislative sausage-making up close, even those of us who never make the perfect the enemy of the better, are concerned. That two or three senators are able to extort as much as they have is appalling. Why hasn't Reid forced much of the bill into reconciliation, requiring only 51 votes? Why has the President been so cowed? In all likelihood, the White House and the Dems eventually will get a bill they can call "reform," but they will not be able to say with straight faces that the reform is a significant improvement over the terrible system we already have.

Still, he says, it's worth it . . . but just barely.

Many progressives fault Obama for not fighting harder for the better bill. Perhaps he could have gotten more; I doubt it, given the state of senate politics and the influence of money. When it takes only one -- ONE -- senator who favors reform but decides he can hold it hostage to his individual desires, it's a minor miracle that Harry Reid was able to cobble this together. Whether it's better than no bill is debatable; whether Reid could have gotten more through reconciliation is debatable. But getting 60 votes is quite remarkable in this senate.

I forget who wrote this recently, but I agree. There are some moderate senators who have held out on principle; but HolyJoe Lieberman seems motivated by "pure spite" -- and I would add: "simply because he can command attention and obesience." Why else would he threaten to kill it over a measure (Medicare buy-in) he publicly support 3 months ago and never gave any coherent reason for turning against it?

I think Obama is a lot smarter than we're giving him credit for on this. One of his goals was to avoid the fate of the Clinton health care bill and the devastating effect of its failure. By his calculations, this determined that he should not get too far out in front of what could be passed.

No, he's not going to go down in history as the great progressive activist president; but he may go down as a president who accomplished more in the long run by his willingness to compromise and get the best he can in the circumstances. Look at all those who are regretting that Dems did not compromise with Nixon's health care initiative or that moderate Repubs did not compromise with Clinton's plan.

Ralph