The consensus on the Tom Daschle debacle is that his withdrawal as nominee for U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services is a major setback for healthcare reform.
I agree for two reasons: one is logical; the other is grounded in nothing but my own idiosyncratic view of how policy is made in Washington.
First the logic. If you’ve read Daschle’s book Critical: What We Can Do About the Health-Care Crisis (Thomas Dunne Books, 2008), you’d know that his prescription for healthcare reform is essentially the same as Obama’s. Both seek universal healthcare coverage, in part through a new public health plan similar to what is offered to Federal employees.
Whatever the merits of the proposal, Obama will be hard pressed to find someone so in sync with his own healthcare policy platform and with Daschle’s knowledge of the subject, experience and political clout. Momentum on the issue will slow, and as Daschle has noted, momentum is key to pushing through any meaningful reform.
Now the idiosyncratic musings. My gut feeling toward Washington policy makers is that we and the powers that be get what we want. So if we really want the type reform advocated by Daschle (read Obama), we probably would have found a way to approve his nomination, as egregious as his missteps may have been. If we aren’t quite sure we’re up for this type of change….well, you get the idea.
I don’t want to take this notion too far, and I urge you to take it with a sizable grain of salt. But I do get the feeling sometimes that our reactions to malfeasance and moral failings in our political leaders are a proxy for how we feel about their policies.
If that’s true, then healthcare reform as envisioned by the Obama Administration is in for a long and uncertain fight. The tragedy is that the Daschle plan, though far from perfect, is a step in the right direction. It also represents a reasonable political compromise. The question is, can we be reasonable?
Subscribe in RSS Reader
Perhaps we did not get Daschle because he is a tax cheat who got caught. Ever since we got done explaining so ardently that character didn’t matter with Clinton we have consistently rejected those whose character is shown to be distasteful. It does matter. It always did. When people think about something as close tot he bone as their healthcare (life, death, family, privacy, life-quality, money) they do not lightly put a man at the head of it who is a serial thief from the bankrupt funding source he proposes as their new safety net. Especially when he is nearly the first official proposed by the candidate who ran on “Change” and promised the most ethical and well vetted appointments of any Administration. To look for subtle motives in the back rooms of our hearts is unnecessary. He is dishonest and we don’t want him anywhere near our lifelines.
Bill,
Thanks for your thoughtful comments. I sincerely hope you are correct because that would mean we remain serious about the type of healthcare reform (i.e., universal healthcare) that has eluded us for generations.