What Obama did, and didn't do, on health-care reform
Mark Schmitt is tired of reading columns about how Obama should have done this or that differently. Those things may be true, he says, but they are also, quite frequently, a cop-out:
The work underlying the current health-reform effort began years before Obama even announced his campaign for the White House. Drawing on the lessons of past failures, when reform had no organized constituency, advocates and funders put massive resources into groups such as Health Care for America Now. They picked up political scientist Jacob Hacker's idea of a public plan within a structured insurance marketplace and developed it to give progressive advocates of a single-payer system something politically realistic that they could get behind. And they worked to ensure that all the Democratic candidates for president (with the exception of single-payer stalwart Rep. Dennis Kucinich) converged around roughly the same basic model. Years of health-reform-policy development, projects to improve public awareness of health reform, and advocacy campaigns were able to lay the groundwork for health reform well in advance. It was never going to be easy, but the best possible mechanism for achieving the long-thwarted goal was constructed for the president to flip the switch.
Compare that with the slow and meandering path to financial-regulatory reform. Yes, it's possible Obama doesn't see the urgency of it, or maybe his economic advisers are too cautious or subservient to Goldman Sachs. But it also matters that few liberals were working on this cause before the Wall Street collapse. No coherent alternative model had been developed, and no effort had been made to build a constituency for financial reform. While we had think tanks keeping tabs on various aspects of the economy, from the federal budget to the labor market, no one was systematically watching the development of super-complicated financial institutions, noting the risk posed by financial derivatives and promoting alternatives. A counterpart to the health-reform effort, Americans for Financial Reform, was launched this year but obviously it has a lot of catching up to do.
Another way of saying this is that president is a follower who leads. Take health-care reform. Marcy Wheeler doesn't agree with me that the reform bill we're likely to pass is similar to the reform proposal that Obama campaigned on. She emphasizes the differences between the two, but consider for a second the size of those differences. Obama proposed, at least on the coverage side, a Massachusetts-style structure. So too did John Edwards and Hillary Clinton. The difference was that Obama initially fought the individual mandate.
In the end, he ended up supporting a ... Massachusetts-style structure with an individual mandate. In other words, he moved from the Massachusetts-plan with one real variation to the Massachusetts-plan -- towards the consensus, not away from it. The move wasn't to Medicare for All, or a Clintonian managed care within managed competition, or Wyden-Bennett, or some approach that Obama dreamed up in consultation with Peter Orszag and Tom Daschle. It was just the consensus campaign approach with some concessions to the realities of the policy and the demands of Congress. Wheeler may think that's a lot of movement. I'm surprised by how little of a stamp Obama chose to put on this policy, particularly given the work that past presidents, like Clinton, have put into developing an approach that is uniquely theirs.
Is that because Obama himself assessed the relevant options and judged this approach superior? Probably not. Same goes for Hillary Clinton and John Edwards, both of whom had similar plans. This was the plan that Democratic experts and legislators were uniting behind. It was the plan that Henry Waxman was willing to support and Max Baucus put into his white paper and Ted Kennedy was advocating and that the unions had agreed to. So Obama followed along. He might have been the leader, but his first decision was to accept the path that had been chosen for him. When people write the story of health-care reform, a lot more of it will take place in the years preceding Obama's nomination then I think people currently realize. The trick of health-care reform has been the underlying level of political consensus among congressional Democrats, and Obama does not deserve the credit for that.
Photo credit: By Susan Walsh/Associated Press
Posted by: Jasper99 | December 21, 2009 4:44 PM | Report abuse
Posted by: matthat121 | December 21, 2009 5:00 PM | Report abuse
Posted by: BigTunaTim | December 21, 2009 5:12 PM | Report abuse
Posted by: extensive_vamping | December 21, 2009 6:13 PM | Report abuse
Posted by: RS22 | December 21, 2009 7:12 PM | Report abuse
Posted by: bmull | December 21, 2009 8:21 PM | Report abuse
Posted by: CarlaKakutaniMD | December 21, 2009 10:53 PM | Report abuse
The comments to this entry are closed.