The Right Prescription
A Late Shift
A new strategy could make the Blair House health care summit more than a PR event.
History is replete with examples, both great and small, in which a sudden shift in strategy has borne great dividends. In the 1934 NFL Championship Game, the so-called Sneakers Game, the trailing Giants attempted to cope with an icy field by switching from cleats to sneakers in the second half. Trailing 13-3 in the 3rd quarter, the Giants subsequently scored 27 unanswered points and beat the Bears 30-13. The lesson: Unanticipated conditions often require unexpected tactics.
Another example, which might resonate with President Obama and congressional Democrats, took place in 1996. A fresh-faced young Democratic president, Bill Clinton, ran as the man from Hope. But his attempt to facilitate a government takeover of the American health-care system led to his running into serious political difficulties with the American people. In the election of 1994, his party lost both the House and the Senate.
Subsequent to the takeover, Republicans and a minority of congressional Democrats advanced “workfare,” a long-overdue welfare-reform effort. But Clinton had twice vetoed such legislation. Just months before the 1996 election, however, Clinton signed the bill with relatively minor changes. The move angered liberals in his own party. But this bipartisan legislation became one of his administration’s signature achievements and contributed greatly to his being reelected. A sudden shift toward genuine bipartisanship paid great dividends.
Alas, President Obama’s recently announced health-care summit is not such a shift. Within hours of the announcement, a White House official, no doubt nervous about complaints from the Left, told the Washington Post that the Blair House summit on health care “is not starting over.… Don’t make any mistake about that.” The official added that “We are coming with our plan.”
In truth, if the president wants his latest unorthodox maneuver (announced in an unorthodox manner) to look like more than a publicity stunt — or like more than a way to tempt Republicans into another moment like Rep. Joe Wilson’s outburst — then he must embrace a new and genuinely bipartisan path. He needs to embrace an approach that would lower health costs, rather than raise them; give Americans more, rather than less, control over their health-care dollars; and decrease the number of uninsured much more efficiently — in a manner that wouldn’t break the bank or rob from already nearly-fiscally insolvent Medicare.
In other words, a true shift in strategy, and serious bipartisanship, would require first scrapping his failed government-centric overhaul that Americans have so resoundingly rejected.
If the Democrats were to embrace this course, they would soon become aware of a wide variety of simpler options that could garner bipartisan support and accomplish their professed goal of lowering health costs and increasing the number of Americans with insurance coverage.
We have advanced a small-bill proposal (www.smallbill.org) that offers seven real reforms (the last a combination of smaller reforms), which together would lower health costs, significantly increase the number of insured, and be deficit-neutral. The small bill would meet the American people’s goals for health-care reform — which the current Democratic bills would not — while costing only about 7 percent as much as the Democratic plans. (If this seems too good to be true, it merely shows how bad the Democratic plans really are.)
Liberals would likely resist such a targeted, affordable approach. Republican Scott Brown won Ted Kennedy’s Massachusetts Senate seat largely on the strength of his message that we scrap the current bills and start over with an honest attempt at real reform. In the days before Brown’s win, the New Republic’s Jonathan Chait presented four options for the Democrats should the Democrats lose the election. He called starting over — which would entail heeding Brown’s advice — “option 4: Crawl into a hole and die.”
Nevertheless, there are a lot of very vulnerable congressional Democrats who would relish the chance to back something like the small bill, which most congressional Republicans, and most Americans, would enthusiastically support.
Progressives might think that starting over with a genuinely bipartisan approach is akin to crawling into a hole and dying, but the Democrats do need to recognize that they are already in a hole. If President Obama and congressional Democrats were to borrow from historical examples and employ a sudden shift in strategy, they could get a big win and achieve meaningful reform in the process.
If they really want a government takeover, they will never pursue such a strategy. But if they really want to lower health costs and increase insurance coverage — as the President claims — then now is the time for a sudden shift toward a truly bipartisan, sensible, small-bill approach.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (46) | Leave a comment
Related Articles
More Articles From The Right Prescription
http://spectator.org/archives/2010/02/11/a-late-shift
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Self-Righteous Republic
- The Demise of Money and Credit
- Hannah and Her Friends
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
H/T to National Review Online
ADVERTISEMENT
Bill C.| 2.11.10 @ 6:46AM
Obama's attempted take over of health care is about controlling people and making them more dependent on government for ...everything. It has nothing to do with actually improving the health of our citizens.
When more people start to realize control, not improved healthcare , as many on the right and independents are coming to see, is the issue, then Obama will be defeated on this and many more issues. Obama has lost the trust of the folks and won't be getting it back.
JJC| 2.11.10 @ 6:58AM
I agree, but I think it unlikely. He is inexperienced and an ideologue, surrounded by others who have exactly the same worldview.
His statement that he failed to properly explain the bill as the primary reason for failure is terribly thin on substance.
I hold little hope that anything constructive will come from this.
LQQKY| 2.11.10 @ 7:52AM
Enough with the Kennedy seat already! IT'S THE SCOTT BROWN SEAT -- get it?
One of the main reasons for the messiah's failure is that he has surrounded himself with "yes men/women." Smacks of "The Emporer's New Clothes," everyone is afraid to tell him the truth about anything.
Deborah D | 2.11.10 @ 8:01AM
Obama sees himself as the photo negative of Ronald Reagan. Reagan, who stuck to his guns on what he knew was right for the country -- lower taxes, a tough stance with the USSR, "Tear down this wall." -- He trusted his instincts and listened to the American people.
Obama willl trust his own instincts no matter how out of line they are with the American people because he sees himself as a great man. He wants to fundamentally change the country. He can't do that by just a fix to the health care problem. He wants to control health care. That's his "tear down this wall" moment. His narcisissm won't allow him to be any less of a stalwart on this than Reagan was on that.
Reagan was for America and Americans. Obama is against America and Americans. The exact opposite. He's trying to tear down Reagan's wall.
Ken (Old Texican)| 2.11.10 @ 8:08AM
Deborah,
In a perverse way, I hope you are right.
In the words of a brave American, "let's roll!
Let's go on and get it on!
Let's send these liars packing in November.
Finally, let's not be fooled again!
Deborah D | 2.11.10 @ 9:03AM
Let's roll!!
Yeah, let's face the truth about what's going on here. He's not your everyday president who loves the country and wants to do right by it. If that hurts someone's feelings, boo hoo. The truth sometimes hurts.
I like this quote, ironically by James Baldwin "Not everything that is faced can be changed. But nothing can be changed until it is faced." Americans are starting to face the truth and headed for their kind of change.
Jon B| 3.10.10 @ 3:04PM
"Let's Roll!" is more like you smoking a joint before you dream up the non-stop BS you post here.
danny| 2.11.10 @ 8:26AM
ken, let's not be fooled again. does that imply you were fooled? i wasn't.
Ken (Old Texican)| 2.11.10 @ 8:46AM
Hi danny.
Heh! I suppose I was in one respect. Eighteen months ago, I felt like a lone voice in the wilderness.
I guess above, I was speaking of the broad base of Americans who were fooled, or merely not up to speed yet due to the pressures of every day living.
It is extremely gratifying to see "the sleeping giant awake".
saleboter| 2.11.10 @ 9:38AM
Starting over isn't the Chicago way.
Copyleft| 2.11.10 @ 9:39AM
Surely that's a typo in the fifth paragraph.
"...increase the number of uninsured much more efficiently...." You did mean DECREASE, didn't you?
Troll Watch| 2.11.10 @ 10:56AM
What an ID!
Copyleft| 2.11.10 @ 2:42PM
Comment: "What an ID!"
Thank you!
GA Patriot| 2.11.10 @ 12:50PM
I believe the correct quote from the article is "significantly increase the number of insured."
Shamus| 2.11.10 @ 9:49AM
Obama's is working a sleight of hand. While he puts on a show for the public, Nancy Pelosi is working to convince House Democrats to pass the Senate bill. A reconciliation bill could be used for corrections after the Senate bill is signed into law.
Time is limited for this scheme, as the Senate can no longer pass reconciliation measures after the budget is finalized.
The advantage of this strategy is that Obama has a chance to publicly humiliate Republicans while the real effort takes place in private.
stephanie| 2.11.10 @ 3:27PM
This all makes me nauseous. agghhhh..............
martin j smith| 2.11.10 @ 4:12PM
Rush Limbaugh reported today that someone in the Democrat cirlces allegedly "let the cat out of the bag".
This means that the Democrat Party intends to use reconciliation to pass health care legislation and this " health care summit is a trick. Well this is no surprise anyway but here is the point:Republican will be tested as to how the address Obama and his merry gang. Ideally they should politely tell them that as of this moment the Republican Party will lable the Democrat Party and the Party of Liars--to the American people. They should campaign as the party of the voters and join the Tea Party movement. But not co-opt it, But they would have to prove that they are better than the Democrat Party. Otherswise--Lets have a Tea Party !!!!!!!!!!!!
stmichrick| 2.11.10 @ 6:27PM
Obama and his comrades are not capable of compromise (triangulation) like Clinton. They would not have poured heart and soul into any program that does not institute the kind of central planning (read: freedom reduction) that the House and Senate bills impose.
I disagree however with the premise that welfare reform contributed to Clinton's reelection. His popularity was due to the reflected glory of a good (Republican congress) economy and balanced budget as well as successful portrayal of the Lewinsky problem as a bluenose Republican plot to get him.
If reforming welfare was so valuble, why is there no problem today with Obama reversing it?
Trude| 2.11.10 @ 10:32PM
The current government has no moral base. So forget them understanding anything. It intends to do it's worst case scenario no matter who it destroys; including it's own supporter. Unprincipled is an apt discription.
"Beware of throwing pearls before swine." Start the RECALL process NOW. http://www.recallcongressnow.org/index.php -- so Nov. double the number of Dems. can get what they've earned.
Osamas Pajamas| 2.11.10 @ 11:45PM
OhBummer just wants to be The Candy Man --- and Santa Claus --- and the Mahdi or Messiah --- using other peoples' money --- to make a "gift" to the American people, much as Typhoid Mary made a gift to those unfortunate enough to have made her close acquaintance.
Jeff Perren | 2.12.10 @ 12:32AM
The idea of bipartisanship is a serious error, tactically, strategically, and morally. You can't compromise with thugs who want to complete the destruction of the Constitution and hope to come out with a positive result.
The Federal government has no business 'reforming' anything to do with health care - apart from phasing out Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security, the two chief reasons costs have risen.
The only moral and practical reform consists of repeal. Get the Feds out of the way of all voluntary trade. Shave the Leviathan down to bare Constitutional bones.
explosion proof light | 11.4.10 @ 12:54PM
Just agree with you, man
Chalkdust| 2.12.10 @ 3:09AM
Let us not forget the Republican Party earned the "stupid party" nickname and will snatch victory from the jaws of defeat without a moments hesitation.
Obama's hatchet-faced buddy and assassin-in-chief from chicago will do his best to weed out any Dick Morris wanna-be trying to triangulate Obama into some form of sanity and who will whisper in the "Corpseman" ear to drop Bernie"s dead body of a healthcare plan and start thinking about the peeps.
Charles Stevens| 2.12.10 @ 7:00PM
Obama... a disingenuous, sanctimonious ideologue masquerading as President.
Watch how long it takes for various Repubs such as McCain to fall all over themselves "reaching across the aisle". I think we've all seen this movie before. This standard ploy will give progressives the perfect excuse to castigate reluctant Repubs in the Old Left Media, and then pass something that allows them to get their tyrannical foot in the door. Ten years after that, we will have a full government-run healthcare system.
God forbid, these people just never give up.
Neo| 2.14.10 @ 10:35AM
Apparently, the Democrats have convinced Boehner that it is “reconciliation” …
A productive bipartisan discussion should begin with a clean sheet of paper. We now know that instead of starting the ‘bipartisan’ health care ’summit’ on Feb. 25 with a clean sheet of paper, the president and his party intend to arrive with a new bill written behind closed doors exclusively by Democrats — a backroom deal that will transform one-sixth of our nation’s economy and affect every family and small business in America. They will then engage a largely handpicked audience in a televised ‘dialogue’ according to a script they have largely pre-determined. They will do this as a precursor to embarking on a legislative course that Democratic congressional aides acknowledge has also been pre-determined — a partisan course that relies on parliamentary tricks to circumvent the will of the American people and engineer a pre-determined outcome. It doesn’t sound much like bipartisanship to me.
For the weak minded, that’s a NO to the health care summit.
Alicevivi | 3.1.10 @ 10:38PM
Here are many Chinese special products sold online, you can choose them for your friend as the Birthday present or send to your parents. They must feel very surprise.
Puma x Alexander McQueen | 8.12.11 @ 11:13PM
is good