Not to deliberately steal from the talented folks who write Update at SNL, but, really? Sen. Mark Warner said President Obama misplayed the health care debate because he didn't focus on cost containment. Really?
Well, yes, he really said that.
"I wish the president would have started the debate by explaining to the American people that our current health care system is not financially sustainable, for even another decade," Warner told the Washington Times. "Driving down health care costs should have been the focus of the debate."
This is unreality. The FIRST argument that the White House turned to about health care was about the cost of doing nothing. (It was Tom Daschle's formulation, actually, that Obama adopted during the campaign and the transition and the early part of this year.)
From December 22: ""Some may ask how at this moment of economic challenge we can afford to invest in reforming our health-care system. And I ask a different question. I ask how can we afford not to."
Progressive activists didn't like the obsessive focus on cost. And they believe that the president hemmed himself in by imposing a seemingly arbitrary $900 billion cap on costs over ten years.
The argument THEY wanted him to make--the liberal argument, if you will--is a moral argument. People are getting sick and dying because they can't afford health care in a country of plenty. But Obama subordinated that argument to focus on cost.
Whether he successfully set the frame for the debate is another question. Indeed, it has another answer: probably not. But maybe the argument isn't winnable.
Health care reform is going to be expensive; people sense this intuitively. A cost-containment argument plays well in polling, and focus groups like it, but the reality of the bill--the reality of reform that members of Congress put together--was messy and expensive. And the reality of politics is that Republicans were unlikely to support health reform as conceived of by Democrats.
Really.
Marc;
I see what you're saying, and remember his focus on controlling costs, distributing the Gawande article and Dartmouth Study, etc. So it's incorrect to say he didn't begin by focusing on controlling costs, but the current bill does nothing to address cost control. Even the criticisms of the Republican bill argues in terms of percentage of the public covered. That may have once been the Democrat's/Administration's focus, but it got lost somewhere. At best, actual reform with cost controls gets lip service, and everyone knows the true goal of the recently passed House Bill is to expand coverage.
But you are correct, at the outset cost controls did at least SEEM to be President Obama's focus. But it certainly isn't the primary goal any longer.
The criticisms of the Republican bill have been two-fold: That is covers only the people presently covered plus population growth, rather than helping with the current percentage of uninsured. And that it scores dramatically lower on cost savings compared to the Democratic version, per the CBO.
As for Warner: You're entitled to your own opinions, you're not entitled to your own facts. The desire to recast reality is worrying.
I'm afraid it's you, Deborah, who is living in an alternate reality - along with many other liberals, who think the government can continue to spend money it doesn't have and has no hope of getting. Mark Warner is 100% correct, and I wish that he would have spoken up sooner. Maybe electoral matters in Virginia got his attention though. So, better late than never. Keep it up, Mark!!
I haven't seen that anyone wants to have a real discussion on cost containment, otherwise known as "what health care are you and I willing to forego?" Do you see any democrats or republicans talking about this? If so, please post links!
MAreader:
It's neither a black and white nor a zero sum issue. Spending more does not equal better health care, as indicated by the Dartmouth study on Medicare, which revealed that (after controlling for geographical and population variables), some areas of the country spend as much as 30% more on health care than others with no significant discrepancy in health care outcome. This is a solvable problem, but continues to remain unaddressed except in the vaguest terms.
As far as Republicans talking about it:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/04/AR2009100402003.html
Deborah:
That is indeed a criticism, and it is part of my point. This country began this debate by calling it health care reform, with the idea that medical care costs were too high, and that changes needed to be made to control these costs. Covering more people does not have a part in this discussion. However, solving this problem has the added bonus of making coverage more available for everyone.
As far as cost savings, you're conflating issues. The Democratic bill costs more, but it raises taxes to pay for it. The deficit is not improved by the Republican health care bill because it does not include increased taxes.
One might imagine that Warner's feeling a little panicky right now, which could explain this ludicrous statement. He's learning the wrong lessons from his Republican colleagues who rarely ever get called on their many breaches of the reality sphere.
If something just south of the House bill gets signed into law, it'll cost plenty. I suspect that people will beg for "the good old days", you remember, back when insurance was affordable and you got good coverage.
Wasn't there some explanation given about "bringing into the fold" all the young, healthy folks that would be paying in but not consuming as much in benefits? Well, a provision in the house bill that allows your 26 year-old to fit nicely under your plan as your "dependent" waters down that possibility. Last I checked, a "family" plan premuim didn't vary because of number of kids or their ages. So there's no new money coming into the system, yet this 26 year-old kid is going to receive benefits (at some cost to policy holders or taxpayers).
Here's what I see, affordable health insurance premiums and unaffordable taxes.
What happens when taxes get to be unaffordable for people.
Mark Warner for President!!
"Progressive activists didn't like the obsessive focus on cost."
Really, Marc Ambinder? REALLY?
Which ones? When did they say that?
I think the story goes like this:
(1) The Democrats talked about cost containment and improved coverage.
(2) The Republicans talked about death panels and fascism.
(3) The media talked about death panels and fascism.
(4) The media blamed the Democrats for not talking about cost containment.