The point is that Clinton had an easy opportunity to pass some kind of "universal" health plan (in late 1993 the Republican consensus was that some kind of major change was coming--the moderates would have taken Starks plan and the 100+ Democrats who supported single payer were happier with Stark's plan as well. I have had personal conversations with a health aide to a key Senate Democrat since then and she confirmed that she percieved several windows for victory in which disunity was the key reason for failure (there was also conservative Democrats backing a Cooper's weak reforms which is what the Republicans dreamed they would end up at--and they won an even bigger victory--nothing!).
It is one thing to say that vague poll questions about "national health plans" have had majority and strong majority support since national polls were started (over 80 years), it is another to completely bungle and lose focus when a rare opportunity to realize this democratic desire is within easy reach. This is precisely why any debate on "lesser evilism"/"ideological purity" are so wrongly constructed. It is not an either/or dichotomy, the sad fact is there is just way too many huge examples of Democrats failing so fundamentally to deliver something they nominally pretend to believe in. It is too easy to quickly hide behind "pragmatic" excuses and too many Democratic "abuse victims" pine furtively for their "good men" (who do show fidelity at times). I am not preaching any purity in this case (I supported single payer at the time but also saw that there were other opportunities to improve the lives of millions).
From the Boston Globe, March 8th, 1994 Author: Peter G. Gosselin, Globe Staff
WASHINGTON -- The first congressional subcommittee to take up health care reform legislation this year will begin with a plan that retains President Clinton's goal of insuring all Americans, but jettisons many of the president's methods in favor of a new program modeled on Medicare, the health insurance program for the elderly. Rep. Pete Stark, Democrat of California and chairman of the House Ways and Means health subcommittee, acknowledged yesterday that he does not have a majority of his 11-member panel behind the alternative proposal. But he said he expects to win the needed votes during subcommittee consideration of the bill, which is expected to begin today.
This would be important because so far no congressional committee has been able to agree on any health legislation. The chairman of another House subcommittee gave up last week after concluding he could not find a compromise version of the Clinton plan that would satisfy panel members.
Stark, who has been a caustic critic of the president's plan, would retain many elements of the White House proposal, including a modified version of an employer mandate -- the requirement that employers help pay for their employees' health benefits -- and stringent cost-control measures.
But Stark would drop such contentious elements as regional health alliances -- purchasing groups through which most people would buy their insurance under the Clinton plan -- and deep cuts in the expected growth of the Medicare and Medicaid programs, which the president has proposed in order to fund part of his plan.
Despite such differences, Stark said that he and most other Democratic panel members with whom he has been meeting privately in recent weeks have agreed to try to achieve Clinton's goal of universal coverage.
"We've sliced our wrists and become blood brothers over the idea that we'll have uniform benefits" for all Americans "by the end of the decade," Stark said. Clinton has said he will veto health legislation that does not provide universal coverage, but has left open exactly what he means by the term.
In many ways, Stark's proposal represents a coming of full circle for the health care debate. It is a variant on "play-or-pay" proposals Clinton and others advanced several years ago before dropping them in favor of "managed competition" and other health overhaul models.
Under it, employers of more than 100 workers would be required to provide a standard package of benefits and contribute 80 percent of the cost. Employers of 100 or fewer could either do the same or contribute toward their employees' being covered by a proposed public program that Stark called Medicare "Part C." The current Medicare program has two parts, A and B, which cover hospital and doctor costs of the elderly.
Stark acknowledged that, besides employer contributions under the pay-or- play portion of the plan, the new "Part C" program will require additional tax revenues. He said he would include a proposal for a 0.8 percent payroll tax, but added that this could be replaced by other kinds of taxes. An aide said the payroll tax would raise about $24 billion annually.
An estimated 60 million people would be covered by the proposed "Part C" program, including about 30 million who are now served by Medicaid, the government health insurance program for the poor.
To try to assuage small-business fears of the employer mandate, Stark said he would delay the date the mandate took effect. Under his proposal, employers of more than 100 would have to begin contributing toward their employees' coverage next January, while those of 100 or fewer would not have to begin until January 1997.
To answer criticisms that Clinton's benefits package is overly generous, Stark has proposed a somewhat less generous package. The lawmaker would provide fewer mental health benefits and higher annual deductibles for drugs and medical services.
Copyright 1994, 1998 Globe Newspaper Company
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Pollak [mailto:mpollak at panix.com]
Sent: Sun 11/23/2003 7:44 PM
Cc:
Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] A Lying Loser and his Health Care Plan
On Sun, 23 Nov 2003, Jim Westrich wrote:
> Third, and this is the part that nearly always gets left out by the
> revisionists, Pete Stark had a national health plan on the table that
> enough Republicans supported that met all of President Clinton's goals
> and did it with better cost control.
Jim, do you have a URL handy where I could read more about this aspect of
the affair?
Michael
___________________________________
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
-------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/ms-tnef Size: 8866 bytes Desc: not available URL: <../attachments/20031124/ec3f01c7/attachment.bin>