…..but the polls do suggest that President Obama's plan -- and it is now his plan -- is out of favor with the public. This is what now passes for a compelling argument against the bill. It is, instead, almost entirely beside the point. (Richard Cohen, Washington Post, 3/9/2010)
So just to be clear, Mr. Cohen, the fact that the majority of the American people are against Obama’s health care plan is “almost entirely beside the point.” This is what passes for liberal analysis. There are some people that you just can’t have a discussion with.
What they should have done
And there is a step-by-step approach that would make sense. Going one round at a time in health care reform, hand in hand with economic recovery, would be a strategic win for the administration. After Massachusetts, it would have made sense to pick out and pass those measures that help control costs and strengthen coverage while building up to the major expansion of coverage as the fiscal situation improved. There are lots of changes that have garnered support through this process. The polls show Americans would embrace a bill banning discrimination based on pre-existing conditions, overwhelmingly support a move to standardized electronic medical records and 66% favor some kind of caps on malpractice awards. Reduce costs, improve the system, and then expand coverage -- that is the way to run this out strategically and bring along full public support. (Mark Penn, Realclearpolitics.com, 3/8/2010)
Penn is – among other things – the former chief strategist for Hillary Clinton! So there are some reasonable voices on the left after all! Well put, Mr. Penn.
Sorry Redstate, but Penn's comments miss the point completely IMO. When you try to include a provision "banning discrimination based on pre-existing conditions" the resulting bill inevitably becomes Obamacare.
ReplyDeleteHe says that Americans support the provision. Mr Penn is clearly on to something here. He has discovered that free lunches poll well...fantastic insight!
If you ban "discrimination" based on pre-existing conditions, you violate the actuarial laws that allow there to be health insurance in the first place. The result would be that no sane person buy an insurance policy until they developed a pre-existing condition. Therefore you need to include a provision that mandates people to buy it...and subsidies for people that can't afford it...and higher taxes and/or Medicare cuts to pay for it...voila - Obamacare.