Why, on an issue that is plainly so important, can’t our nation’s elected leaders check their politics at the door and work out an agreement that elicits broad-based support instead of war-room like campaigns to prevail over their opponents?
The answer is that the disagreement over what must be done to improve American health-care is profound and largely irreconcilable. This isn’t your usual, run-of-the-mill political fight. The two sides hold diametrically opposed views that simply do not easily allow for compromise. Moreover, the outcome of the battle will be highly consequential, not just for our system of financing and delivering health-care, but also for our economy and democratic processes. In short, the stakes are very, very high, and both sides know it.
It seems we are getting different signals nearly every day with respect to what the national Democrats plan to do next. Reconciliation appears to be among the menu options being considered. I heard one theory that a reconciliation bill will be introduced in the Senate to fix the already-passed Senate bill; and then both the reconciliation bill and the Senate bill will go over to the House for passage. One big question is whether the Democrats will adhere to congressional rules.
Other signals being emitted, however, give a different impression. It sometimes appears they are intending to back off, and wait on health care for a number of months while working on economic issues.
But I think Capretta is right. The positions taken by the two sides are irreconcilable.
And Republicans ought not make any special efforts to compromise their position.
"It sometimes appears they are intending to back off, and wait on health care for a number of months while working on economic issues."
That assumes they are just not paying lip service to messages the voting public in New Jersey, Virginia, and Massachusetts have clearly sent them.
Does anyone really think the Dems will actually let a workable and efficient common sense solution to health care reform be passed without all the paybacks to special interests (some of which would qualify as graft in earlier times) and other services to affinity groups?
Posted by: Bubba | January 30, 2010 at 06:58 PM
I don't think they would let that happen, Bubba. And with respect to the message from those three states, I think it really depends on how determined they are, how willing they are to sacrifice a certain number of congressional seats, how willing they are to bend the rules on reconciliation, and how successful they are in getting senators and representatives to walk the plank.
Posted by: Joe Guarino | January 30, 2010 at 07:22 PM
Joe and Bubba,
We should not underestimate how much Obama and the Dems would be willing to sacrifice to get socialized medicine. Once you have gotten a nation's health care under government control, total control is just a few steps away. I think history shows that this is the first step taken by progressives. Control a people's health care, and you control their lives. So what if some moderate Dems are thrown overboard? I submit that Obama would trade a second term to get our health care socialized ( A successful one-term president getting socialized health care?). That is the holy grail achieved. Reconciliation? Yes, that is still on the table, if they see that they could actually achieve their goals. If they can get the votes counted in their favor beforehand, they'll do it in a minute. If they can't get the votes, they will back off. Everyone needs to understand that the far left controls the Dem Party. The Democrats ceased to exist when George Soros conducted a hostile takeover of the Dem Party. Soros, a man who admittedly was a Nazi collaborator, will do whatever necessary to control this country. He made the deal with Obama before the 2008 election. Soros got Obama elected.
Posted by: Stormy | January 31, 2010 at 10:20 AM
Stormy, I don't disagree with much of what you have said. I suppose the question, if reconciliation is attempted, is whether ten Democratic Senators are going to stray from the party line.
One other possibility is that they will simply break up what they are trying to do into much smaller pieces of legislation. In that event, we may get more incrementalism toward a more socialized health care system.
Posted by: Joe Guarino | January 31, 2010 at 10:47 AM
Joe, as I understand it, if they proceed with reconciliation, they will have to take an incremental approach. They won't be able to pass the entire bill via reconciliation, just the budget piece. But, once that is in place, they can work on the details as they go along.
What the Repubs need to be careful of is falling in the trap of being co-opted. If they are seen to be compromising on key principles, the Tea Part people will turn of them in a minute. The Repubs need to be sure to show the flag that they are willing to fight against giving away the American people's liberties. Of course, there are a fair number of progressive Republicans as well, who wil be tempted to cross over, if they think that it is safe to do so. The Repubs can;t be seen as the Party of No all of the time, they must reject progressive takeovers and present workable solutions to the country's problems, even though the Dems won't let them pass.
Posted by: Stormy | January 31, 2010 at 11:10 AM
My understanding of the reconciliation process is consistent with yours, Stormy. Of course, we do not know if the Washington Democrats are going to follow the House and Senate rules. That is another potential issue.
But otherwise I agree.
Posted by: Joe Guarino | January 31, 2010 at 11:20 AM
Back in the late 60's I had BC & BS of CT. I had my tonsils removed, not a great procedure to go thru at age 29, and I don't recall a deductable or even paying for an aspirin so what has happened from then to now as to make it so expensively lopsided in the other direction. I know TORT is a part of the equation along with pushing profits and the healthcare system being a non competitive industry, is more expensive equipment a significant factor. Doctors always seemed to make a fair income (though I know liability costs are thru the roof), I do think today nurses and nursing care are more costly, is this what's driving high health care up or are there some other dark areas, as there is with home lenders. Beau
Posted by: Beau D. Jackson | January 31, 2010 at 12:15 PM
Much legislation has already been passed towards government take over of health care. The Stimulus Bill as I recall set up the so-called Death Panels and the centralized bank of individuals medical history (I remember Joe mentioning he had been offered a subsidy for implementation of the system in his office). So since this peace meal method has worked it is easy to see the Dems going back to it even if it is slower. Pelosi did say that any way at all would be used to get a health care bill passed. Bb
Posted by: Brenda Bowers | January 31, 2010 at 12:51 PM
Beau, I think a lot of factors are driving up costs. You mention some of them. But the existence of third party insurance and first dollar coverage are a couple of the fundamental factors.
Precisely, Brenda. They will fall back to incrementalism, at whatever rate, if they cannot get the whole kit and kaboodle.
Posted by: Joe Guarino | January 31, 2010 at 12:54 PM