Last week, I posted an essay, which in effect argued that the centrist healthcare reform plan by a coalition of moderate Democratic and Republican senators deserved support. My main points were that:
- This bipartisan proposal stands a good chance of passage (if President Obama publicly supports it and the more leftist congressional Democrats can agree to settle for it). The other proposals’ prospects of passing look doubtful.
- While it may not be ideal, especially to those who are determined to have a more radical overhaul, this would go most of the way toward meeting the goals of universal coverage and eliminating discrimination based on personal health issues.
- Much more than the pending bills in the House, the Senate proposal would credibly address the valid concerns about unsustainable costs, and would therefore be more sustainable for the long term.
- Do not confuse ends with means. Single payer and public option are possible means toward achieving certain admirable goals, but they are not the ends themselves.
- Do not let the supposed perfect become the enemy of the good. Failure to support a good, if more limited than desirable, healthcare reform bill now could set back any meaningful reform for many years, as we already should know from the experience of 1993-94.
- Healthcare reform is the intended crowning achievement for the first year of Barack Obama’s presidency. Failure to pass such a reform – which is a serious possibility – would seriously undermine Obama’s political standing.
I did not note it at the time, but I also do believe that there is genuine value to passing healthcare reform on a bipartisan basis. It is possible that nearly all congressional Republicans will refuse to support any reform at all, making bipartisanship impossible, but I believe it is worth the effort. If a good effort at bipartisanship fails, it will be the Republicans, not the Democrats, who will be generally perceived to be at fault.
Some of my fellow bloggers reacted as if I was auditioning for a show on Fox News, and of course, they are correct. My job is to make Glenn Beck look like a reasonable and thoughtful intellectual by comparison to my own idiotic rants. Nonetheless, I want to note that Paul Begala, whose liberal credentials are impeccable, is making a similar case for the compromise Senate proposal. He notes that the original Social Security Act of 1935 was very limited in scope, compared to what it became later on, but it was a critical beginning. Here is a link to his article in the August 13 Washington Post:
