The American Spectator

home
ADVERTISEMENT
Print Email
Text Size

The Spectacle Blog

In today's New York Times, Paul Krugman has an op-ed criticizing moderate Democrats for wanting health care reform to be bipartisan. In the past week, I've been increasingly convinced that the prospects for passing health care legislation will largely hinge on how uncompromising liberal Democrats are, most significantly, when it comes to the inclusion of a government-run plan. Right now, it looks like the Democrats simply do not have the votes to pass a very liberal bill, but they might be able to pass scaled-down legislation without a government-run plan that offers lower subsidies, less intrusive regulation, and requires less tax increases. Of course, that's only if Democrats can pare down the legislation without eroding liberal support. From the liberal mindset, reform without a government plan is not actual reform, because then you'd be left with a system in which government is merely providing subsidies for people to purchase private insurance -- and to liberals for-profit insurance is at the root of the problems with our health care system. Rep. Lynn Woolsey, who chairs the 80-member House Progressive Caucus, has said repeatedly that a majority of the caucus would not vote for a bill that did not include a strong government plan. If Republican opposition to health care legislation holds, then just 40 Democratic defections would be enough to stop legislation from getting out of the House. If the progressives are as serious about drawing a line in the sand as Woolsey suggests, the bill would die even if Republicans lose some votes. Or, alternatively, we could end up with a situation in which the House passed a bill which includes a government plan, but it can't be reconciled with a Senate bill that does not. Either way, it seems that for legislation to get passed, there will be a point at which pragmatic Democrats will have to be able to convince liberals that even if they don't get exactly what they want, moving the ball down field is still worthwhile. That could be a tall order.

View all comments (2) | Leave a comment

JJC| 6.22.09 @ 3:47PM

In life there are two sure things:

1) Death
2) Taxes

With nationalized/socialized medicine, you get more...of both.

Old Texican| 6.22.09 @ 3:58PM

WHY IN THE HELL ARE AMERICANS AT A POINT WHERE SOME FACELESS BUREAUCRAT DETERMINES OUR HEALTH CARE OPTIONS?
Honestly, folks, I am so sickened by ignorance and graft here I could puke.

It is so very simple...give "health stamps" to the poor...and leave the rest of us to hell alone!

Leave a Comment

N.B. We encourage readers to share and discuss their thoughtful and relevant comments about this Spectator article. Comments are routinely monitored and will be deleted if profane, bigoted, or grossly impolite. Please be respectful. (And don't feed the trolls!) Thank you.

More Blog Posts by Philip Klein

http://spectator.org/blog/2009/06/22/will-the-left-kill-health-care

ADVERTISEMENT

The Spectacle Blog

Illusionist

Yogi Love | 10:06AM

At Least He Apologized

Ross Kaminsky | 8:34AM

Gallup: Veterans Prefer Romney

W. James Antle, III | 5.28.12

Markos Moulitsas is Scum

Quin Hillyer | 5.28.12

Weekend Political Wrap-Up, Memorial Day Edition

W. James Antle, III | 5.27.12

An Honor Flight Story

TAS Staff | 5.26.12

WaPost Criticizes Romney's Lack of Rhythm

Aaron Goldstein | 5.25.12

SPONSORED LINKS

Special Feature

Better that we become a nation of choosers rather than beggars. Our symposium on choice from the May, 2012 issue:

A Time for Choosing

James Piereson

The Road from Serfdom

Stephen Moore and Peter Ferrara

FLASHBACK TO: 1984

Clip of the Day

Most Popular Articles

Meet the Flukes!

F. H. Buckley | 5.25.12

In Search of Muhammad

Aymenn Jawad Al-Tamimi | 5.25.12

The Wisconsin Turning Point

Peter Ferrara | 5.23.12

Age and Kyl

Quin Hillyer | 5.25.12

Follow Me

Jay D. Homnick | 5.25.12

Terror by Any Other Name

Robert Stacy McCain | 5.29.12

How About the Record of DOE Capital?

William Tucker | 5.25.12

ADVERTISEMENT