Don’t Compromise for Nothing
Is Mike Enzi (R-WY) negotiating in good faith?
Something that I think has tended to go missing in the controversy over the idea of a public health insurance option is that for all the rhetorical ammunition conservative politicians have fired at this idea, there’s no evidence that they support any of the rest of the health reform agenda either. For example, the AP wrote that “Enzi likes an idea proposed by Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., to set up nonprofit cooperatives that would enable groups to put together their own health care plans.” The implication here is that if liberals are willing to trim their sails, kill the public option, and use a co-opt model instead that Enzi—the top Republican on HELP and thus a crucial player—could support the bill. But as Brian Beutler points out it isn’t true:
Enzi is the ranking member of the Senate HELP committee, and he’s been a harsh critic of the health care bill that’s come out of that panel. I talked to his spokesman this evening, who said the AP didn’t get things exactly right. More accurately, Enzi supports the Finance Committee’s process, which he said has been more transparent and bipartisan in spirit. He says the co-op proposal sounds promising, but he needs to learn more about it before he offers his full support to the provision.
But, crucially, even if Enzi does decide that co-ops are a great policy idea, he in no uncertain terms, withholds judgment on the greater bill. This is a common position in the GOP, and, frankly, a common legislative tactic in general. It’s not necessarily a wink and a nod toward a ‘no’ vote, but it raises concerns among Democrats–or at least it should–that Republicans might try to weaken the bill only to turn around and vote against it.
Recall that the appeal of a robust public option is that it will allow us to cover more people at lower cost. If Republicans succeed in getting Democrats to ditch the public option, thus increasing costs and reducing coverage levels, then they’ll be in a perfect position to pull the football away a second time and complain that the bill is now too expensive and gets too little bang for the buck. When you’re legislating, compromise is necessary, but it’s extremely foolish to compromise without firm assurances of actually getting something. I think it’s also worth noting that the most moderate, most “gettable,” Republican Senators—Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe—have been pretty quiet on the whole subject. It makes a lot more sense to try to zero in on the specific concerns (generous coverage for lobster-related injuries?), if any, of the people who actually represent the marginal votes in the Senate than to focus on superficial rhetoric from people who aren’t committed to any kind of reform.
Note also that as Ezra Klein explains here there’s a related dodge around the Wyden-Bennett Healthy Americans Act which seven Republicans are co-sponsoring without actually committing to support. This lets certain people get duped into belief that there’s a bipartisan alternative in the Senate that Barack Obama and Democratic legislative leaders are unaccountably letting lie.
11 Responses to “Don’t Compromise for Nothing”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
June 25th, 2009 at 11:36 am
Matt, one thing I keep thinking about health care reform is that the so-called spirit of bipartismanship is absolutely killing it.
In my opinion, Democrats should just kill it and get back to it after the midterm elections, with the presumption that Republicans will lose more seats.
Is that crazy thinking? It seems so logical to me.
June 25th, 2009 at 11:45 am
Matt Yglesias, shill for Big Lobster.
Mmm…big lobster.
June 25th, 2009 at 11:58 am
The White House shifted two days ago.
In his press conference, President Obama called for a “public option that’s not profit driven.”
Linda Douglas, Communications Director for the Office of Health Care Reform spoke on MSNBC. Linda said “if you have a not for-profit alternative.”
June 25th, 2009 at 12:08 pm
I don’t expect much from the Queens of Maine.
Snowe and Collins represent a state with a virtual health insurance monopoly. Anthem/Blue Cross in one form or another writes +75% of the health insurance in the state.
And the local attempt at a public option, DirigoChoice, is captive, single-source (Harvard Pilgrim) subsidized insurance.
Even if you wanted to opt for DirigoChoice, you can’t — new enrollment is presently closed for both employers and individuals.
June 25th, 2009 at 12:10 pm
Princess Sparkle Pony: A law passed by 1 vote has the same authority as a law passed unanimously. It’s law. I’d bet very few can recall the vote differential of major pieces of legislation over the past century. Things that are passed are laws.
The term “bipartisan” should be replaced with “cover our asses”. The reason that democrats voted for the Iraq war resolution was not to support Bush; it was to cover their asses in the next election. The reason that some democrats want bipartisan legislation on health care is to cover their asses if, at the time of the next election, costs appear high and popularity is low.
Your desire to have an overwhelmingly democratic legislature to make passage of legislation easier is a nice fantasy. I hope it happens. But we can’t live on hope. We need reformed health care legislation now.
If the health care that is passed is imperfect, and, if we get a better congress in 2 years, things can be improved with new legislation. Legislative tinkering is likely. but we need dramatic movement on health care legislation now, while the democrats control both houses.
Finally, a comment on the republican plan. The republicans controlled congress and the white house for 6 years. Where was their plan then, when legislation could have been enacted? The lack of a republican plan during the Bush years (the years of the “permanent republican majority”) is a strong indication that current republican plan is fundamentally dishonest.
June 25th, 2009 at 12:11 pm
I’ve had the HELP meetings on CSPAN playing in the background while I work, and I have to say I’ve been impressed with Senator Enzi. I disagree with him most of the time, but he approaches issues with a degree of seriousness and knowledge that other members of his party oftentimes lack. While Sens. Coburn and McCain are busy with partisan political shows, Sen. Enzi has been a positive force in helping Sen Dodd (who IMHO has done an excellent job) move along several important aspects of the bill.
As for whether he’s bargaining in good faith, it doesn’t seem to matter, because two can play at that game. Sen Baucas recently expressed regret that he did not set in motion a single-player bill to serve as the “left-most flank.” If the HELP committee includes a strong public option (like the Houses’ version) while the finance committee presents some kind of CO-OP model, we can use the HELP and House bills to create a strong option that encompasses many of the positive aspects of the government plan (as recently described on Ezra Klein’s blog: for ex., having the government act on behalf of non-profit co-ops as a purchaser/negotiator, having the government appoint a monitoring board, etc.) while getting over the Republicans “government-run” hang-ups.
I think this would be the best possible outcome. I do support a bipartisan compromise because I don’t expect any bill to instantaneously fix everything that’s wrong with the American health care system, and we need a sustainable compromise that will be able to withstand political attacks to undo it before it has a chance to work.
June 25th, 2009 at 12:57 pm
Your desire to have an overwhelmingly democratic legislature to make passage of legislation easier is a nice fantasy. I hope it happens. But we can’t live on hope. We need reformed health care legislation now.
Thanks for the response. But is it honestly that pressing, like RIGHT NOW pressing?
I guess that was my real question.
June 25th, 2009 at 1:20 pm
Princess Sparkle Pony:
Yes.
The opportunity to change health care by legislation doesn’t come along very often. It’s difficult. There are very strong entrenched interests, such as the insurance industry, the pharm industry and others, that make money in the current system and are willing to spend a great amount of money to prevent change. We needed health care legislation in 1951 (date?) under Harry Truman, we needed it in 1993 under Clinton and we need it more urgently now. Health care costs are too high and health care is too poor. But the major point is that legislative opportunities are few and far between.
June 25th, 2009 at 2:25 pm
Thanks for the response. But is it honestly that pressing, like RIGHT NOW pressing?
It is a great deal more pressing than anything you want.
This is a deal breaker.
June 25th, 2009 at 3:42 pm
Given for a cooperative to be viable it needs to have 500,000+ members. I don’t understand why guys like Enzi and Conrad are all gung-ho on them. Neither comes from a state that has a population that could support one (ND has 640,000 people so technically they all could join one).
Since insurance regulation is generally a state matter, with some federal exceptions, the only way states like ND and WY could have cooperatives would be to create something akin to, ah, well, ah, … single payer. Who knows maybe they’ll come to their senses!
Setting up a private cooperative across state lines would be very difficult and complex and ultimately, would increase administrative costs to the point where I don’t see how you would get any savings. Sans a single payer system the only solution would be to set up a public option modeled on medicare. This is the only way, I think, that we can keep costs somewhat under control.
June 25th, 2009 at 6:55 pm
A truly bi-partisan bill (75% of Senators) is a total fantasy that enables “the best is the enemy of the good” strategy to torpedo any healthcare reform plan. The Republicans are happy with the status quo so they won’t cooperate.
The only viable strategy for obtaining a bipartisan consensus is to pass now some legislation that is acceptable to 53 Democratic Senators (the Blue Dogs can vote against the bill if they want to posture but must be required to vote for cloture). Once the status quo changes, the Republicans will then have to play nice in the next Congress (2011) to get a bi-partisan “Reform” or “Modification” bill.