Obama, HCR, legacies, self-inflicted wounds

I am so tired of moderately-left-of-center columnists and commentators like Joan Walsh saying Democrats "Must" pass health care reform because Obama's legacy depends on it.

Dear Joan:

(And, I've always wanted to write a "Dear Joan" letter!)

I am "delighted" to see you are so concerned about President Obama's legacy. Quite possibly, you're more worried now than he was six months ago, when he was more concerned about "bipartisanship" than "legacies."

That said, talking about words that end in "-ship," there are political legacies and there are statesmanship legacies. Given the way healthcare reform has been handled to this date by The One himself and Rahm, Bam, Thank You Emanuel, the only legacy Obama will get out of a "win" here is political.

You yourself halfway seem to recognize this:

I've written extensively about my disappointment with Obama and the Democrats, particularly around the healthcare reform plan. He gave Republicans and conservative Democrats too much power for too long, and he sold out early to the insurance and pharmaceutical industry. I don't like the deals Obama made, but he did what he thought he had to do.

I thought Dennis Kucinich was smarter than that and did recognize that. I guess I was wrong. I'll still credit him with being principled enough to not have been bought off in a Ben Nelson sort of way, so I'm not sure why he did change his mind, other than support of the wrong "legacy."

It sounds like Kucinich is sincere in his belief that he's going to get a voice about what all gets put in the reconciliation bill. It also sounds like he believes Obama will try to come back with something more in the future.

Both are delusions. Obama's campaign-trail talk about a public option was never more than lip service and never will be. And, House leadership will smile and nod their heads when Kucinich presents his request list, then move on.

Anyway, back to you, Joan.

This bill will NOT restrain insurers' costs. It will do less, IMO, to bring down overall healthcare costs than a single-payer system, let alone a system with some elements of Ron Wyden's vouchers, like Germany has. Any sops to the GOP on malpractice reform will NOT get insurers to lower rates, especially since the antitrust exemption's junking will likely itself be junked, and we don't have Federal Bureau of Insurance Regulation anyway.

It likely won't even rein in costs on private insurance in the long term. And, while Big Pharma might jump in Dems' pockets' over this bill, especially if the Medicare Part D doughnut hole is closed, Dems will now be hostage to the drug makers. And, forbidding reimportation, etc? Additional strains on Medicare.

Since I'm not a registered Democrat, and didn't vote for The One, I don't give a fig about his political legacy.

But, if we want to talk about that "legacy," would that include deliberately negotiating away the public option in secret talks with Big Pharma? Would it include folks like Kos, aka Markos the Boy Wonder, aka Der Kossenfuehrer, after all his time berating Democratic sellouts, supporting the very idea of selling out?

Greenwald has a great wrap on all this and more. Although I think he, sadly, supports the current measure himself, at least he's not hypocritical or contortionist.

Meanwhile, doorknob bless Massachusetts Democratic Rep. Stephen Lynch. He gets it.

Sorry, Joan. And Dennis. Go legacy yourself.

-----

Meanwhile, per comments to my summary of my thoughts, and my link here, on Talking Points Memo, I will respond to criticism, namely, that Obama's political legacy tracks relatively closely with the country's needs and similar items.

"The country" can do better. And, if this is really about Obama's statesmanship legacy, he should have been ready to junk bipartisanship earlier, and not approached HCR from a neolib angle in the first place. We need a "New New Deal" approach instead.

This issue's being "about the country" is exactly why the current health reform bill may likely be the enemy of the better, IMO, let alone the enemy of the best.

It won't corral Medicare costs; it won't corral private insurers' costs; it won't corral Big Pharma costs. So, if it is about long-term cost containment, as well as health insurance coverage, I don't see it.

And one can be a social democrat as well as part of a "reality based community" on fiscal matters. And, I believe I am.