Democrats in Disarray 2

The sad state of the President Obama's healthcare reform project is illustrated neatly by two stories about Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. First from the Politico:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Friday that he was not bound by a controversial deal negotiated between the White House and pharmaceutical companies, telling thousands of Nevada voters on a conference call that "I have not agreed with anybody to do that."

The drug industry told the White House this summer that it would cut future drug costs by $80 billion in exchange for assurances that any health care legislation would prevent the government from negotiating for lower drug prices. As a result of the deal, the industry is bankrolling an ad campaign touting Barack Obama's health care overhaul.

Now this is clearly a case of strategic disarray. President Obama brought the pharmacy industry on board the healthcare reform ambulance by promising them that under any plan the government wouldn't use its clout to bargain down drug prices. You can think what you want about that compromise, and about whether the President would have kept this word. But Reid disavowing the deal now means that Congressional Democrats and the President can't make a united effort on the legislation.

A second indication of disarray is Senator Reid's equivocation regarding the "public option." From Steven Benin at the Washington Monthly:

"I've told people, whoever will listen, that I am in favor of the public option," Reid said in answer to a participant who asked why he hasn't been more vocal on his position. "We're working now to try to come up with a program that would allow that to take place." Reid said a public option is essential to provide competition to private insurance companies that enjoy an exemption from federal anti-trust laws.

He added that "a lot of people misunderstand" the public option as "some government run program… But there are many ways we can do it," he said. "One would be to have an entity like Medicare. I really don't favor that. I think what we should have is a private entity that has direction from the federal government."

Okay, so Reid is in favor of "a public option," but he doesn't want it to be really public, exactly, like Medicare. As Benin points out, a Medicare-like program is sort of the whole point of a public option. Reid seems to want an option that is privately run but controlled by the Government. That was Ms. Clinton's big idea. But "seems" is the operative word in that sentence. No one can guess what Reid really means, and I am guessing he can't either.

Both of these quotes come from a single conference call by Reid. If the Senate Majority leader is throwing two wrenches at the same time into the gears of the healthcare reform machinery, I think that probably means it isn't going anywhere. Why this much disarray?

One reason, of course, is that Reid is himself in big trouble. If things don't change by November of next year, a second Democratic Party leader will be defeated for reelection. That speaks to the weak foundations of Obama's ambition. But the bigger problem is that the President simply hasn't met the challenge he faced. He hasn't proposed a coherent solution to problems that the American healthcare system faces. The problem with this round of healthcare reform legislation isn't the lipstick, it's the pig.

Comments

[caheidelberger]

And of course, if Senator Reid were marching in lockstep with the President and reading exactly from the script, the Republican spin would be, "President Obama controls the Democrats with an iron fist, crushing voices within his own party who might dare to represent the differing views of their local constituents."

[A.I.]

I find myself essentially in agreement with what both of you say--unfortunately. Republicans have been fairly successful at scaring a lot of people regarding reform. Polls show few have bought into the whole death panel canard, but even a small erosion of support hurts. A worse canard is saying Democrats are going to reduce medicare benefits to fund reform which probably has garnered more believers. Republicans should know it's not nice to scare old people with lies, but... And Democrats should not be afraid of Republican spin, but...

So in the face of a Republican/insurance industry B.S. storm, we've got our Senate majority leader demonstrating an inability to express a coherent thought on what a public option is. Meanwhile, the administration is waffling on support for a public option and Kent Conrad says there never were enough votes in the Senate to pass one anyway.

At this point, Democrats shouldn't care how Republicans might spin Obama getting tough with the Senate. Paraphrasing what someone on one of the talk shows said of Obama this morning, we've seen the hope, now show us some audacity. Conrad's statement is asinine. So what if the votes aren't there yet, go get them. Change some minds. If that means making deals and/or twisting arms, do it. That is how meaningful legislation gets passed. That's how LBJ got Medicare.

[Miranda]

A.I.: You have criticized (in some cases rightly) several of my arguments as poorly supported. Do you have strong support for your argument that the insurance industry is behind this "storm" as you call it?

[KB]

Cory: I doubt that Republicans would make the argument you suggest. Obama isn't unpopular enough. Yet. But as A.I. offers, what does it matter what the Republicans are saying? It's one thing that Reid is not walking in lockstep withj Obama, its that Reid is not walking in lockstep with himself! He is for the public option as long as its private. At this stage of the game the proposal should be narrowing and a consensus forming, if you are going to get something at all. Instead, we still don't have anything resembling a coherent proposal, and what the Democrats are talking about is all over the board. This just doesn't look very good, from the point of view of policy making.

[A.I.]

"Insurance industry" may have been too narrow an accusation. I should have said elements of corporate America or some such as there are documented sources of funding for groups working against reform. The insurance companies are not among those sources so far as I can find. Thus, the best support I've found linking the insurance to the movement does not track specific funding. Rather, it's an "if it walks like a duck" argument from ex Cigna PR manager Wendell Potter: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/12/ex-insurance-exec-industr_n_258095.html