He probably tilts toward the Republican view, but he gives some good insights into the process that went on and the missed opportunities from both sides to actually get some bipartisan agreements.
For example, he faults the Democrats for holding out for the public option and then dropping it completely when it had too much opposition, as opposed to adopting the "fallback" public option plan that Sen. Snowe supported. Another Democratic mistake, he says, was their killing a measure that had bipartisan support to establish an FDA regulated system for importing prescription drugs that would have saved $100 billion. That measure was killed, Pewen says, by the secret deal that the Democrats had made with the drug industry.
Pewen has plenty to say about Republicans' part in the failure of bipartisanship, noting the policy decided even before Inauguration Day to block reform.
Here's the final paragraph in his article:
Three in four Americans say the health care system needs to be overhauled, and many provisions in the pending legislation have strong support. What's more, the core of the Senate's legislation closely resembles the very bill the Republicans offered in 1993 as an alternative to the Clinton plan. This makes clear that bipartisan reform is achievable, and indicts Congress for its failure to realize that goal with broad public support.From his vantage point inside the negotiating teams, Pewen implicitly answers the question of what went wrong:
I saw first hand how a failure to recognize the magnitude of the task, and a toxic political environment undermined the effort to achieve reform.Ah, what might have been . . .
Ralph
A minor point, but I believe it was Obama, in his meeting with Big Pharma, who made the secret deal, not 'the Democrats'.
ReplyDeleteIf you believe Pewen's assessment is accurate, that this deal is similar to the 1993 Republican proposal, is there a reason why Progressives and Liberals should get behind it?
richard
You're right about who made the deal with Big Pharma.
ReplyDeleteThe reason to get behind this bill is that, if it is not passed, there will be no health care reform for another decade. It's been 17 years since the Clinton bill failed.
So what if it is no better than what the Republicans wanted in 1993 (or at least put forth as an alternative)? It's far better than what we have now or will have anytime soon. To vote against it because Republicans once favored a similar bill, when there is no likely alternative any time soon, is very short-sighted and not in the best interests of the American people -- in my opinion.
As summed up in a NYT editorial today: it will cover 31 million of the uninsured by 2019 (that's a long way off but whatwill it be if we keep the status quo?). It will force insurance companies to stop refusing coverage or charging high rates based on pre-existing conditions, reduce deficits over the next two decades, and make a start at controlling the costs of both insurance and health care.