1. Not going for single payer, i.e., "Medicare for All" -- or, as a fallback, maybe a phase-in, such as Ted Kennedy's proposal of Medicare for children, or lower the Medicare eligibility age on a fixed schedule until everyone is covered. Even if this effort failed (as it probably would have), just making the effort would have moved the debate to the left. For example, getting the public option (see #2) would have become more likely.
2. Not insisting on a robust public option. I never really expected him to endorse single payer but he himself set "robust public option" as a minimum standard and then caved on it without a fight.
3. Cutting the deal with Big Pharma to protect the drug companies from bargaining over prices.
4. Proposing a RW-devised plan that (a) perpetuated the basic scheme of most people relying on their employment for their health insurance, which makes it harder for them to quit crummy jobs, and (b) entrenched the role of big, for-profit, private insurance companies, which means that much of our total spending on "health care" will continue to be diverted to advertising, other marketing crapola, bloated CEO salaries, and dividends to shareholders, instead of providing actual health care.
Note that these first four decisions could all be defended as necessary compromises to create a bipartisan plan -- except that he made all these compromises and STILL didn't get any Republican votes.
5. The cumulative effect is that, if this plan fails, it will be taken as evidence that government should stay out of health care; and if it succeeds, with the private companies still involved and creating all the resulting inefficiency, and some people still not having insurance because they choose the penalty, and some with insurance still not getting all the care they need because of co-pays and deductibles, it will nevertheless be taken as evidence that government should stay out of health care except for continuing to act as the handmaiden of the private companies.
6. The nonideological screwup of the botched rollout, as Obama himself has (with admirable candor) admitted. I think that, by the 2014 elections, the whole system will have largely recovered from these unhappy early days, but these problems should never have arisen. Yes, it's not all Obama's doing -- the Supreme Court's ruling changed part of the structure that had been set up, and the Republicans have been their usual totally unhelpful selves -- but the man who oversaw an information technology marvel when it came to the software for his re-election effort should have been riding closer herd on the preparations for October 1.
As for that table leg thing, I'm as mystified as you are. Perhaps someone else will enlighten both of us.
?1385049459
= new reply since forum marked as read
