Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
Podesta and Greenstein on Health Care Reform.
Reporters just had a chance to quiz CAP's John Podesta and CBPP's Robert Greenstein at their joint conference on progressives and the debt. Both said some interesting things about health care.
Greenstein said that health care reform efforts currently in Congress stand as a test case for whether real budget reform is possible; noting that past attempts to do the hard work of budget reform in 1990 and 1993 both blew back in the faces of the reformers (George H.W. Bush in the first case, and the Democratic Congress in the second). Greenstein and Podesta agreed that that landmark crime bill passed by the Democrats in August of 1994, including the right-wing angering assault weapons ban, and the failure of health care reform were the major causes of Democratic defeat, which is a theory that ties in well with my column today. Greenstein says that health care reform, a complex bill that accomplishes major goals while remaining deficit neutral, is an ideal opportunity for an object lesson in political courage.
"The first test is the health care bill," Greenstein said. "It's a lot easier to have a big signature initiatives and not pay for it," he said, referring to the Bush administration practice of passing deficit-expanding legislation. "If we can get health care and people don't get punished for it," then political incentives in favor of reform will be much easier to identify.
Podesta, in a more concrete item, suggested that there will be some "vestige" of a public insurance option in the final health care reform bill, saying that "bumpers" have been set up between Snowe's trigger option on the bottom and the House proposal's public option. He expects the final public option to end up landing somewhere between the two.
Both men argued that even the Finance Committee's legislation is a good framework that achieves many of the goals the administration set out with eight months ago, and that it is key for disappointed supporters to understand that reform comes in increments, over years, and not necessarily all in one fell swoop.
-- Tim Fernholz
COMMENTS (3)
...and that it is key for disappointed supporters to understand that reform comes in increments, over years, and not necessarily all in one fell swoop.
That last sentence is a doozy. "Over Years" could mean another 50 after all.
Posted by: Anonymous | September 30, 2009 2:19 PM
I agree with ya Tim, on the failure of the democrat party to represent constituent wishes, both on the crime bill and on health reform. The bill you refer to as the 'crime bill' that outlawed certain types of firearms based on cosmetic features was a shamble of a bill that barely passed the Congress...passed out of emotion rather than logic.
The narrowly passed bill was supported by a number of republicans and democrats, many of whom had been elected with center-right votes. If ya don't do what your people want, you get ousted...
Perhaps we agree on this element of your article...
But the health reform bill...???
The more likely reason for the mid-90s exodus away from the democrat party was not inability to pass a health bill, but the idea that government was attempting to run yet another private sector.
These same center-right voters that elected the democrats to power out of want for something better than what republicans were offering were finding themselves dissatisfied with the concept of deep government intrusion.
The democrats didn't lose power because they FAILED to get a Health Bill passed, they lost power because they ATTEMPTED to get a health bill passed...
NONE of the states/regions that lost democrat seats in the mid-90s were heavily liberal areas, they were ALL center to center-right areas.
The message: If you don't listen to your constituency, you get the boot, simple as that...and the constituency did not want government health care...AND THEY STILL DON'T!!!!! I might vote Obama back into office in 2012, but i will not be voting for my Democrat Reps and Senators. I would rather vote Republican than have the government attempt to run another Medicare/Social Security/Amtrak/ETC.. program!
Posted by: karlthomas | September 30, 2009 4:25 PM
The final reason why you should buy genuine, Aussie Uggs is that they will last longer. The merino sheepskin used is of a very high quality that will last you a long time and because the material allows your feet to breathe, they won't get sweaty causing the fabric to decay.
Posted by: ugg uk | October 14, 2009 4:48 AM