Dems' Health Care Battle

by John M. Curtis
(310) 204-8700

Copyright Jan..25, 2010
All Rights Reserved.                    

                 When Massachusetts’ Republican state Sen. Scott Brown beat Democrat Atty. Gen  Martha Coakley Jan. 19 for the late Sen. Ted Kennedy’s senate seat, the GOP broke the Dem’s supermajority to defeat President Barack Obama’s health care reform plan.  Barack acknowledged to ABC’s Diane Sawyer Jan. 25 that pushing health care reform was a political liability.   Since taking office Jan. 20, 2009, Barack watched his approval ratings drop from 68% to just under 50%, partly due to pushing his unpopular health care reform plan.  Republicans beat Democrats to the punch, defining health care reform as “socialized medicine,” a costly boondoggle to the U.S. economy still reeling from a punishing recession.  Brown’s defeat in the heart of liberal Massachusetts was a rude awakening for Democrats in Congress facing tough reelection battles heading into midterm elections.

            Opinion polls clearly showed White House strategists that nearly 60% of voters—from all sides of the political spectrum—opposed Barack’s health plan, fearing it would replace their familiar employer-based plans.  Preaching to the uninsured, Obama couldn’t sell his health care overhaul to the middle class, skeptical of a government-sponsored plan.  “We’ve put so much effort into this, so much hard work, and we were so close to doing some significant things.  Now we have to find the political path that brings us out.  And it’s not easy,” said Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.).  What Durbin and other Dems don’t get is that a purely Democratic plan isn’t right for the country.  No matter how embarrassing the defeat, it’s worth going back to the drawing board and cobbling together a bipartisan alternative.  Worried that it would dilute the bill, Dems need to calculate the political risks.

            Forcing a Democratic plan on the country won’t stem the political fallout from not passing the original bill with a supermajority.  Losing the supermajority was a blessing for Democrats, unable to get a single GOP vote from the House or the Senate. Obama needs to make good on his campaign promise of creating a new bipartisan era in Washington.  Railroading a major piece of legislation with lasting economic and political consequences on the American people is not consistent with bipartisanship.  Calling for a special procedural budget tactic in which the Senate would reconcile its version with the House’s, could circumvent the need for a 60-member Senate vote.  “I think the president believes that the circumstances that led him to undertake greater security for people in their health care—existed last year, last week and this week,” said White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs 

            Obama's presidential campaign manager David Plouffe, now returning as a special advisor, favors pushing the bill forward with the Senate’s special procedural tactic.  “I know that short-term political tactics are bad,” Plouffe stated in a Washington Post op-ed.  “But politically speaking, if we do not pass it, the GOP will continue attacking the plan as if we did anyway, and voters will have no ability to measure the upside,” looking to win the battle but lose the political war.  If Barack wins the health care battle with an underhanded tactic, he risks losing independents and cross over Repupblicans that got him elected.  While Plouffe crafted a brilliant primary strategy to beat former Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), Barack won the general election because voters wanted a change.  It didn’t hurt that his rival Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) picked ultraconservative former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin.

            Instead risking worse political fallout, Barack should abandon the current bill, go back to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and ask for a new bipartisan compromise.  Barack should end the rush for health care reform, appoint a bipartisan blue ribbon panel and set a deadline for a new health reform bill.  That’s precisely what he promised to do as president before Pelosi and Reid hijacked the president’s bipartisan spirit.  “To put up the white flag of surrender on bipartisanship when the country really wants that, I think is a mistake,” said Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), opposed to Reid’s plan to “reconcile” the two bills and force a majority-only vote.  “I think it’s important no to rush something through right now,” said Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), assessing correctly the potentially disastrous political fallout from forcing the issue.  

            Getting back on the right track requires Obama to fulfill his promise of working for economic and health care reform in a bipartisan manner.  With his State of the Union address next Wed., Jan. 27, Barack needs to outclass the opposition by throwing an olive branch, committing himself to bipartisan cooperation.  As he pivots back to fixing the economy and creating jobs, he’ll renew the public’s faith that he’s the one in charge, not Reid and Pelosi.  Letting go of health care for the time being would be the best strategy, while he directs the White House energy toward fixing the economy.  With his approval ratings still around 50%, Barack stands to benefit from any positive change in the economy.  Looking toward November, voters want more leadership, less partisan rancor and better cooperation.  Pushing for health care now only reinforces more gridlock and a bitter partisan divide. 

John M. Curtis writes politically neutral commentary analyzing spin in national and global news.  He’s editor of OnlineColumnist.com and author of Dodging The Bullet and Operation Charisma.