The Healthcare Reform Lesson From Bill Clinton That President Obama Ignored - Don't Do It

[TomCADem]

This is not question of tactics or even substance. Rather, the question is whether from a purely political point of view did it make sense to pursue any form of healthcare reform?

The slump in the economy, the ongoing wars, and the remaining baggage of the Bush administration gave President Obama ample reason to defer healthcare reform or just drop it entirely, and most Americans would give him a free pass. Heck, look at the media talking point that President Obama is trying to do too much. Indeed, many in the media have attacked President Obama for devoting time on healthcare reform, rather than the economy, as though the two were not related.

There is a reason why true healthcare reform has not taken place for decades. Indeed, tackling healthcare reform gave Republicans the opportunity to create a Waterloo for President Obama and give them a focal point for their opposition as noted by Senator DeMint. Worse, the media has once again
taken to the sport of reporting on healthcare reform as political bloodsport, rather than a true public policy debate.

The results of President stubborn insistance on pursuing healthcare reform are evident in his falling poll numbers. Yes, his poll numbers are not as bad as Bill Clinton's in the aftermath of Bill Clinton's healthcare reform effort, but they are down by nearly 10 percent from their high.

Thus, if the sole and only goal is to get re-elected, then President Obama should have simply kicked the healthcare reform can down the street, and take heed of the lessons of history that healthcare reform would consume all of President Obama's political capital. The smart political move would have been for President Obama to declare that the nation is at war, and that it is economy is in a shambles, thus he will pick up healthcare reform at some later date after we reached a peaceful prosperous state of utopia.

Personally, I am glad that President Obama has stubbornly chosen to confront healthcare reform, and is devoting so much time and political capital on the issue. It is just a shame that like Bill Clinton, he had to sacrifice so much of political standing even to get to this point, as the forces against reform have mobilized against him.

[ProSense]

1. I don't agree

"Thus, if the sole and only goal is to get re-elected, then President Obama should have simply kicked the healthcare reform can down the street...It is just a shame that like Bill Clinton, he had to sacrifice so much of political standing even to get to this point"

This isn't 1994. Americans learned that we have to make good use of a prime opportunity. Obama will get health care reform, and those who stand in opposition are going to have to answer to the American people (their constituents)>

[DJ13]

2. Not dont do it

Dont attempt to do the wrong kind of reform.

Clinton's was overly complicated, Obama needed a simple single payer proposal as his starting position.

Then it could have been negotiated down to a public option without half as much problem.

[TomCADem]

3. So, Getting Single Payer Adopted Is Easy? Then Why Hasn't It Happened?

There are members of Congress who have been trying to push single payer for years, even decades. Likewise, given President Obama's willingness to let Congress take an initial crack at reform, these same members could have consolidated support in Congress, and push through a single payer bill.

Indeed, I fail to see how Republican and industry opposition would be any less fierce. Also, do you see the so-called blue dogs and Max Bachus being any more willing to go along with single payer, than they are with President Obama's proposal? Do you see the media being any less willing to spread talking points about a "government takeover" when single payer is even more of a takeover than President Obama's public option proposals?

In other words, I don't see how single payer is an easy sell. If it was, it would have been done already. Personally, I think opposition would be even greater with the AMA and the healthcare industry being fully mobilized against it.

[DJ13]

7. No, re-read my post

I was saying that good negotiating would have been to start off pushing a very simple single payer as hard as possible (to draw the heat from the insurance companies) then negotiate it down in Congress to a strong single payer.

You never (NEVER) start a negotiation with your true goal.

Thats what tripped up Clinton, and it may trip up Obama.

[TomCADem]

9. I See Your Point, But Disagree Because...

If President Obama started out with single payer, started to try to push it through Congress, then he would be attacked not only by the current crack pots, but the AMA and insurance companies would have simply declared war on him, rather than even raising the pretence of cooperating. President Clinton was being attacked even before Hillary revealed the outlines of her proposal or her 1000 page bill. With President Obama's approach, everyone got a bit invested in the bill, albeit for different reasons. Continuing with the scenario, if President Obama then started backsliding into the current proposal, which is very different from Single Payer, then the route would be on. Look at media reports, which focus on momentum, rather than substance.

In other words, I am not so sure that President Obama would have been able to fall back into a public option proposal after opening with single payer, because then they would pretty much have to scrap any legislative work done on single payer, start from scratch, then get the AMA and insurance companies to then back off a bit after alienating them with the original single payer proposal.

In the end, what do I know except that its been decades, and our healthcare system is an expensive mess has grown steadily worse. If someone has a better idea for getting reform through Congress and the healthcare industry, I am all for it.

[PhilosopherKing]

8. I thought about that idea of

starting with single payer would make it easier to settle for the public option. But when I think of Republicans, they would still oppose any federal involvement in the health care system as vehemently as they are now.

[Laelth]

4. You make an excellent point, and it pains me to say that.

Most likely, we would have all been better off if he had waited until 2011 to tackle this issue.

I am not happy with the legislation being offered. It's a lose-lose for me. Even if Obama passes the thing, I don't think it will do any good. Instead, all he did was to burn up a lot of popularity.

:dem:

-Laelth

[TomCADem]

5. Well, I Actually Disagree With 2011 As Being A Better Date...

Because as Bill Clinton showed, you can recover from a big giant failure on healthcare reform early in your Presidency, so if you are going to do it, then do it early.

I think President Obama will get healthcare reform, and it will be the best possible bill that he could get politically. I am not saying it is the best bill, but in the system of government that we have with the media we are stuck with, I do think it is the best bill he could get.

Still, President Obama has definitely put his political capital on the line, so is it worth losing congressional seats in 2010? Of course, if we get no healthcare reform at all, then we will lose even more seats.

[Laelth]

6. Interesting.

We will have to agree to disagree on this one. I don't think Bill Clinton did anything good after 1994 (except for a successful Supreme Court appointment). Instead, he caved to Republicans on Telecom 1996 and the repeal of Glass-Steagal.

I expect that we'll have 63 Dems. in the Senate and that we'll pick up between 3 to 6 seats in the House in 2010. I think 2011 will be a much better climate for reform.

Besides, the "insurance reform" bills being considered now are merely gifts to the insurance industry. Passing one of the proposals currently on the table would be worse than doing nothing, imho.

:dem:

-Laelth