[lbo-talk] The possibilities of failing upwards with healthcare

SA s11131978 at gmail.com
Mon Oct 26 07:11:49 PDT 2009


Michael Pollak wrote:
>
> A couple of months ago I offered what I thought was the best liberal
> apologia for Obamacare:
>
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20090817/011390.html
>
>
> which is that it would fail financially, but that it had a decent
> chance of failing upwards, towards single payer, precisely because
> once people got used to thinking of health care as a right they'd
> never want to go back, and the only issue would be how to cut costs --
> which would lead inexorably towards single payers as the only
> wholesale way to do that.
>
> FWIW, in todays Krugman column is some polling data from Masscare,
> which is basically the same dog's breakfast kind of mess except that
> it's been operation a couple of years. It's serious financial
> problems are already becoming visible (and they ain't seen nothing
> yet). But the public attitude seems pretty much exactly what you'd
> hope for:

Unfortunately, Krugman's analysis is completely invalid here. The Massachusetts reform was a grand bipartisan compact, led by a Republican governor. As a result, both parties there continue to support the basic idea (I'm assuming). That makes literally all the difference in the world in determining public attitudes. I can only assume that in elite discourse in Massachusetts the idea of rolling back universal coverage is a marginal idea, and elite discourse largely determines public opinion on policy issues. That explains the poll numbers. Whereas today at the national level, the Republicans not only don't support reform, they will spend the next three years campaigning against it, using every one of its manifold horrors to argue against the whole idea of universal coverage.

I think the left (s.a.i.i.) at this point has no choice but to hope that the Pollak/Krugman dynamic will take hold and help push along the idea of single payer. But it should be kept in mind that from the moment the bill passes, Obama will be the major obstacle to that happening. Here are his words: "I am not the first president to take up this cause, but I am determined to be the last." Hmmm -- it's hard to envision single payer ever coming about if no subsequent president ever takes up the cause of health reform, isn't it?

Obama's interest from here on out is explicitly *not* to portray this bill as a flawed first step whose pitfalls should serve as opportunities to correct it later. (Which is ostensibly the position Clinton took about welfare reform - "fix it later" - based on the political alibi that he was forced to negotiate the original bill with a hostile Congress, an alibi unavailable to Obama.) Instead, Obama will have to campaign in 2010 and 2012 on the argument that piece of shit bill is the magnificent last word on health reform and he will have no choice but to depict anyone who makes fundamental criticisms of it -- including necessarily the single-payer movement -- as de facto enemies. I'm exaggerating here, but only slightly.

SA



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list