I was reading Conor Clarke's analysis of Paul Krugman's excellent column in the NY Times this morning. Krugman laments that Obama has a "trust problem" because of his perceived waffling on the so-called "public option" in his health-care package:
Until the idea of the public option came along, a significant faction within the party rejected anything short of true single-payer, Medicare-for-all reform, viewing anything less as perpetuating the flaws of our current system. The public option, which would force insurance companies to prove their usefulness or fade away, settled some of those qualms.Clarke makes the point that the president's never made the public option a deal breaker for his package, but has consistently stressed its importance. That he is now willing to compromise and carve it out (presumably to fight the battle another day after the rest of his proposals are actually in force and proving effective) actually adds to his trustworthiness. I do not want my political leaders to be monolithic or hardcore partisan. Since he became president, Obama has shown resolve to work with the Republicans to get things done. This often makes me cringe because I know that a compromise often means a watering down of the best of Obama's plans, but as long as things get done I am willing to suspend my displeasure. I don't believe that what ends up passing Congress with regard to healthcare will be worse without the public option.
In 1996, Congress passed the "Welfare Reform" act working with President Clinton. This was a perfect example of "que es mas macho." Clinton, working with one of the most partisan and intransigent Congresses (pre-Bush43), passed a historic piece of legislation. Should Obama be able to pass healthcare reform, it will be the single greatest piece of legislation since then. Mucho macho, indeed.
No comments:
Post a Comment