Just in case you have any illusions that the health care reform Obama's pushing is meant to be constructed with anything other than reckless abandon and just enough haste and favors to get the government-run plan running for the "greater good," enjoy these tidbits from last night's conference call with liberal bloggers. First, as the boss pointed out this morning (in a blog post that may soon be making its appearance in a White House press briefing), Obama thinks the " time for talk is through." It's not the first time he's acknowledged that the best way to get his health care reform passed is if we talk about the details as little as possible, and pass it as fast as possible. At a health care townhall-style meeting arranged by the White House in Virginia, he offered unprompted that it is his greatest desire to rush the process:
And for those who say, well, you know what, this is something that is very complicated so we shouldn't rush into it -- that's what happens in Congress all the time. They have hearings, they write white papers, and then suddenly the lobbyists and the special interests start going at it, and the next thing you know, another 10 years has gone by and we still haven't done anything. That's not what's going to happen this time. I am going to keep on pressing until we get it done this year. All right.
Indeed, lobbyists and special interests can have influence if the process is delayed, just as the liberal special interests who wish the legislation passed can do their part to push it through without delay. But what Obama and the rest of the liberals who insist on rushing never mention is that the delay also offers voters a chance to weigh in, perhaps in person over August recess when representatives are at home. That is powerful input, and dangerous for Obama whose extremely expensive approach with dubious results is running into increasing public opposition. When I objected to rushing the process on Twitter today, liberal blogger Bill Scher replied glibly: "did you miss the last six months of open debate on health care? I can catch you up!" He followed up with a blog post claiming that those who want debate only want the bill killed. I'm certainly no fan of the very expensive plan with very dubious results, preferring much more simple tweaks to the system bitten off one-by-one instead. Though Scher insists on assigning bad faith to my concerns, I actually oppose the current plan outline because it would damage the health care of Americans. I'm with Obama's personal favorite Mayo Clinic on that point. But it's not at all unreasonable to request (even in opposition) that Congress take the time to read the bill, understand its full impact, and even allow time for constituents to weigh those impacts and whether they're worth the steep price. Bill Scher and I have been weighing the options over the last six months, and tuned into the debate, but I'd like for the folks who haven't been reading every emanation from the HELP committee to get a feel for what's on the table, too. It'd also be nice if Obama himself had the first clue what's in the bill:
During the call, a blogger from Maine said he kept running into an Investors Business Daily article that claimed Section 102 of the House health legislation would outlaw private insurance. He asked: "Is this true? Will people be able to keep their insurance and will insurers be able to write new policies even though H.R. 3200 is passed?" President Obama replied: "You know, I have to say that I am not familiar with the provision you are talking about." (quote begins at 17:10)
Hey, Obama, did you miss the last six months of open debate on health care? Bill Scher can catch you up! This is the man for whom health care reform is the most urgent need of our country. He has a greater personal stake in the legislation than any other person in the country, and he has no idea what's in it. Whether private, individual health insurance would be outlawed under the legislation is a rather important point- one with which you might wish the bill's chief proponent to be familiar, and one the American public might want to know about. It's hard to argue that this is a responsible way to solve the health care system's problems, even if liberal bloggers think it's fine and dandy.