The University of Maine student newspaper since 1875
About Us
Contact Us
Staff
E-mail Edition
home
News
Opinion
Style
Sports
Archives
Print Edition
Last updated: Thursday, Feb. 9, 1:34 a.m.
Opinion

Op-Ed: Democrats must push reform, even without Republicans

By Derek Dobachesky
Posted on Sept. 21, 2009, at 12:43 a.m.

Anyone with a pulse is aware of the heated debate surrounding health care in the U.S. Congress. The whole matter is a muddle right now, and certainly many peoples’ opinions on the matter are tentative. Complicating matters is Obama’s tactic of letting Congress draft differing versions of the legislation, giving critics ample opportunities to attack any aspect of any proposal they dislike — even though no one knows what the final product will look like.

President Obama attempted to impose some clarity on the matter by delivering a prime-time speech explaining the issue, making clear the imperative for action on the matter and touching on a variety of proposals while giving a general outline of his goals. The most contentious aspect that’s been proposed is the Democratic idea of a public option — a government-run insurance program like Medicare to provide coverage for those who cannot afford it.

By now, President Obama has made it clear to progressives and Americans who are on the fence about health care reform that he is distancing himself from the public option. Around the same time Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., declared the public option was a nonstarter in any bipartisan health care bill, Obama began systematically downplaying it. He first declared it was only a “sliver” of any health care bill, then buried his brief talk of the public option well over halfway into his health care speech.

Yet when Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., chair of the influential Senate Finance Committee, presented the bipartisan bill he drafted with three Republican and two Democratic senators last week, not a single Republican voiced support for this bill. This was the first bill proposed in any committee that did not include a public option whatsoever.

Baucus’ bill was clearly dead on arrival. Obama’s attempts to reach out to the opposition to draft an acceptable, bipartisan bill have clearly fallen on deaf ears. At this point, it appears clear not only is a bipartisan bill not feasible, but any such bill would cut out essential aspects of any health care reform worthy of the name.

Public backlash in the form of shouting-match town hall meetings and Obama’s flagging poll numbers illustrate that Obama and the Democratic Congress are suffering political consequences — even before any bill has been passed. Despite this chaos and Obama constantly ceding ground on the issue, the fact that a significant majority of Americans — 68 percent — still support a public option remains unchanged, according to the latest CBS poll. What has changed is that more and more Americans don’t trust Obama’s handling of health care, which data from that poll also corroborates.

Although Bill Clinton and the Democratic Congress were savaged on health care while failing to pass any bill, the real political consequences occurred after they failed to pass any sort of reform. Obama has said he is determined to be the last president to deal with this issue. Given he will not receive any Republican support, he and the Democratic leadership in Congress should pass a bill with a strong public option through the reconciliation process, which allows senate to pass legislation with a simple majority vote, rather than the 60 votes needed to break a filibuster. This tactic drew the ire of Republicans when Democrats included a provision to allow for it in this year’s budget, yet it is quite apparent that such a provision is needed.

Clearly, Obama and congressional Democrats are bound to suffer political consequences when dealing with health care, whichever route they go. At this point, the best course of action is to push a strong bill through Congress quickly, ignoring any and all Republican opposition.

There is no better political talking point than results. If Democrats truly have the courage of their convictions, as I do, then they know this policy will work well. The fruits borne will disprove all the right-wing, sky-is-falling demagoguery.

Derek Dobachesky is a journalism graduate student.

Campus Currents: , ,

This entry was posted on Monday, September 21st, 2009, 12:43 am. You can follow any responses to this article through the RSS feed.

«
»
  • spinnikerca

    When President Obama was campaigning, how many of his supporters do you think would have been surprised by his saying ‘universal health coverage’ means he would legally require them to buy health insurance, like it or not?

    That is a much bigger problem than who administers the precisely three forms of policies government has drafted while closeted behind closed doors with special interests to make sure special interests are fully on board. The Constitution gives the federal government no power to require 300 million people to buy lousy insurance product they don’t want. Car insurance ignores the constitutional issue since, first, it is not required if you don’t choose to drive a care, and, second, it is a requirement imposed by the states, not the federal government. The states have all ‘remaining’ powers, along with the people, that are not enumerated in the Constitution. This is why states regulate insurance. This is why states license doctors and health practitioners.

    The form of health reform being sought by Democrats in congress is unconstitutional. Moreover, it isn’t a step to a better plan.

  • Derek Dobachesky

    It’s legitimate and fair enough that you believe the federal government regulating health care in this manner and enacting an entitlement program like this is unconstitutional. However, the simple fact is that the Supreme Court currently disagrees with you, and they decide which interpretation of the Constitution wins, agree with them or not.

    The federal government has been able to enact programs of this sort since the New Deal, during which the SCOTUS established as good law the precedent of a very broad interpretation of the interstate commerce clause. If you want that precedent overturned, then you need a radically different Supreme Court and political culture in the U.S. as a whole.

    The real substance of this debate is over the merits of the proposed health care reform legislation (and, for some, the budgetary implications thereof). The matter of Constitutionality is and will continue to be a moot point into the foreseeable future.

  • Fran B

    How about that – the farther North you go the more brain-dead the libs are. TO REVIEW: The democrats have (or will as soon as MA jokers change their law again) SIXTY (As in 60) votes in the Senate and they can completely ignore the republicans. Now this is not even counting the two Maine republicans who are about as republican as a Kennedy is.

    Why not tell the truth here? Obama can’t get his party in order. What a disgrace of an article, get back to class and learn math!

  • Derek Dobachesky

    1. I realize Obama can’t get his party in order — and that’s exactly what I take umbrage with in this article.

    2. Collins has not voiced any support for a public option, and Snowe has pushed back against it was well, instead saying she might be open to a “trigger option” — some bureaucratic nightmare involving a minimum level of competition in the private insurance market, or else a public option may be allowed to kick in.

    Kennedy, on the other hand, would undoubtedly not only support a public option, but a single-payer system. Your ad-hominem attack does not address the issue, and your cynicism is not grounded in fact.

  • http://indyfromaz.wordpress.com S Glitz

    So, the republicans are the sky is falling demagogues eh. So these came from republicans then:
    It will be a catastophe if we don’t pass the stimulus, it will be a catastophe is we don’t pass Universal Health care, It will be a catastrophe if we don’t pass Cap and Trade,etc. ad nauseum.
    Gallup data show that 57 percent of Americans say the government is trying to do too many things that should be left to individuals. Forty-five percent say there is too much government regulation, and only 27 percent say the amount of regulation is about right.