Salon's Joan Walsh: How Obama Can Turn It Around

[flpoljunkie]

So what should Democrats do? I'm sure I wasn't the only one who enjoyed watching James Carville insist, on CNN's "State of the Union" on Sunday, that Obama should "put a bill out there, make filibuster it. Make them be what they are — the party of no….Let them kill it. Let them kill it with the interest group money, then run against them. That's what we ought to do." Sixty House Democrats are telling Sebelius more or less the same thing – that they won't support any compromise that doesn't contain a public option. And reports in the New York Times and Politico that leading Dems and the White House are finally grappling with the reality that they may have to go it alone on health are encouraging.

A few smart pro-Obama bloggers, most notably Ezra Klein and Nate Silver, have tried to make the case that losing the public option shouldn't lead Democrats to block the bill, but I'm not sure I can agree right now. Sure, it would be great to cover the uninsured and abolish discrimination based on pre-existing conditions, as well as get Obama a big legislative victory his first year in office. But I think a bill that lacks a mechanism to reduce health care/insurance costs, as the public option would -- the Congressional Budget office estimates it would save about $150 billion over the next ten years, or roughly $1,100 for every taxpayer, according to Silver – sets up the Democrats for political losses down the road.

Klein makes his best point – that public option folks should relax until the conference committee reconciles the House and Senate health care bills – highlighting what Obama told progressive bloggers July 20:

Conference is where these differences will get ironed out. And that's where my bottom lines will remain: Does this bill cover all Americans? Does it drive down costs both in the public sector and the private sector over the long term? Does it improve quality? Does it emphasize prevention and wellness? Does it have a serious package of insurance reforms so people aren't losing health care over a preexisting condition? Does it have a serious public option in place? Those are the kind of benchmarks I'll be using. But I'm not assuming either the House and Senate bills will match up perfectly with where I want to end up.

I think Klein makes an interesting argument; the problem is it's hard for many progressives to trust Obama after multiple disappointments: on the Wall Street/bank bailouts; on the stimulus, where he compromised to get GOP support rather than hold out for what the economy really needed; on his state secrets and torture decisions, and now on healthcare. I would prefer that, instead of granting Obama so far unearned trust, progressive Democrats continue to push him.

It seems to me it's time for Obama and his Democratic allies to define and back the bill they know will expand healthcare coverage and bring down costs most effectively, not merely the bill they think they can get through Congress. If they push it, and they lose, they can regroup and figure out what to do next. Maybe they save the big push for the House-Senate conference committee. But if they back the cowardly, insurance-company-funded Democrat/GOP compromise right now, they will lose even if they win – and taxpayers and health care recipients will lose the most. Obama may not share all of my political priorities and values, but I know he's at least as smart as I am. What am I missing here?

-- Joan Walsh

http://www.salon.com/opinion/walsh/politics/2009/08/19/obama_healthcare_reform/

[OHdem10]

1. Even David Gergen has said Obama has looked to give in to the otherside

[polichick]

2. Nice summary of the situation. nt

[ProSense]

3. I don't agree

It seems to me it's time for Obama and his Democratic allies to define and back the bill they know will expand healthcare coverage and bring down costs most effectively, not merely the bill they think they can get through Congress. If they push it, and they lose, they can regroup and figure out what to do next. Maybe they save the big push for the House-Senate conference committee.

Sorry, not only is losing is not an option, but there is absolutely no reason for them to define anything beyond the two solid bills: House and HELP.

They have already defined and backed the bill. We know that the majority of Democrats support it, and we know who the holdouts are.

Besides, Carville had a lousy idea.

I'd rather the Dems debate and use reconciliation to pass a bill if necessary.