By Evan Falchuk
That thoughtful debate on health care continues.
Today, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid had this to say on the floor of the U.S. Senate:
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid . . .compar[ed] Republicans who oppose health care reform to lawmakers who clung to the institution of slavery more than a century ago. . . “Instead of joining us on the right side of history, all the Republicans can come up with is, ‘slow down, stop everything, let’s start over.’ If you think you’ve heard these same excuses before, you’re right,” Reid said. “When this country belatedly recognized the wrongs of slavery, there were those who dug in their heels and said ‘slow down, it’s too early, things aren’t bad enough.’”
He continued: “When women spoke up for the right to speak up, they wanted to vote, some insisted they simply, slow down, there will be a better day to do that, today isn’t quite right.
“When this body was on the verge of guaranteeing equal civil rights to everyone regardless of the color of their skin, some senators resorted to the same filibuster threats that we hear today.”
Seriously, Senator? Slavery? Suffrage? Civil rights?
Reid must know that there are valid reasons to question the legislation in the Senate and House. And he certainly knows that there are politics in the Senate. But shouldn’t we expect the Senate Majority Leader to be experienced enough at this game to handle it without resorting to such bizarre comparisons? (UPDATE 7:16am 12/9/09: Harry Reid confirms that he meant what he said).
So in the spirit of rational discussion, let me offer a reasonable rebuttal to a reasonable critique of the legislation in Congress.
Many reform opponents deride the bills in Congress as a “government takeover” of health care. Today, for example, Philip Klein of the American Spectator said that as Governor, Mitt Romney engineered the “state takover” of the Massachusetts health care system. Klein says the Senate bill represents a similar “takeover” at the federal level. What’s more, according to Klein, the Massachusetts experiment has worked out so badly that “the only people left defending the Massachusetts health care reform are liberals who want to see Obamacare passed … and Mitt Romney.”
It’s a curious comment.
The Massachusetts reforms of 2006 were dramatic, but fairly simple. The state made it mandatory, with some exceptions, for individuals to own health insurance, and for businesses to provide it. There was no government takeover of anything – the government didn’t even focus on a “public option.” Instead, it set up programs to make it easier for people without insurance to find affordable private insurance options, or to help them get on existing government programs for which they were eligible.
Some aspects of the program has been a great success.
Less than 3% of people in Massachusetts are uninsured. Doctors overwhelmingly support it. In fact, many worry that the current national reform efforts will undermine what has been accomplished in Massachusetts.
On the other hand, the public at large is skeptical.
Only 26% of Massachusetts voters think the program has been a success. Thirty seven percent think it’s been a failure, and another 37% aren’t sure. It’s probably because Massachusetts has some of the highest health insurance costs in the country. Not coincidentally, it also has one of the most concentrated insurance markets in the country, too. Meanwhile, the increase in costs to the state budget because of an underestimate of the cost of subsidies and other expenses is hitting hard in this difficult recession. It’s not a recipe for good polling.
Still, if the reforms solved the problem of the uninsured without having the government take over the health care system, why isn’t that a success? Yes, the cost problem hasn’t gone away. But isn’t this a lesson we should all learn? Cost is not caused by a lack of coverage.
And this is the larger point.
Does anyone debating health care really know what they are talking about, or is this all politics?
