(Emphasis added)

"

The problem with the Gang of Six

Matthew Yglesias misunderstands my argument on the mistake that was the Gang of Six. In the context of the health-care process we actually had -- where conservative Democrats believed that Republicans would sign onto the bill, and members of both parties thought it important to go slowly -- Max Baucus's Gang of Six probably strengthened Democratic unity by convincing the caucus that the maximum possible effort had been made to bring Republicans onto the bill. That's the argument of the first post he quotes.

The argument of the second post he quotes is that Democrats began the process based on mistaken premises. First, Republicans were never going to come onto this bill, just like they abandoned the Clinton reforms in 1994, and just like Democrats refused to compromise with George W. Bush on Social Security in 2005. Electoral incentives point against cooperation. Second, their main priority should have been speed. Letting the legislation rot in the belly of Congress for a year was a recipe for disaster. It gave the opposition a long time to attack, and the media a long time to cover the conflict, and it created space for the unknown unknowns -- like Scott Brown's election, the unexpectedly sharp worsening of the economy, and the tea parties -- to darken the political context.

Max Baucus's Gang of Six made some sense in the context of the Democratic approach to the health-care reform process, even if I was harshly critical of it at the time. But the mistake was the Democratic approach to the health-care reform process. Put slightly differently, the problem wasn't the Gang of Six but the misguided beliefs on bipartisanship and process that made the Gang of Six possible.

More . . .

"

=============================

Speed requires leadership and a sense of direction that representatives can coalesce around.   The sense of urgency was not there.  The more they let it slip into argumentrivia (my coinage of the day!) - the less likely it became that things will converge.

The House and the Senate had full knowledge of the the divergence between the two.

What Obama tried to do was accomplish BOTH cap and trade and health insurance reform (HIR) in the same year. The HIR talk was the cover and they simply wanted to horse trade on cap and trade and push it through at the last minute with very little time left before Copenhagen. Unfortunately that let things slide, and slide, and slide... until Christmas came around.  Republicans played politics first ahead of the country's best interest -- in holding their proposals until it was too late to be included for the most part - and yes, this is true - I was watching all the proposals that were put through - what came earlier were tiny slivers that were relatively meaningless.

Frankly, if you watched Rasmussen or other polls, it is the unfavorability rating on the reform that went up drastically as days went by, with economy tanking, tea parties rising and the same old, same old coverage on health care becoming a bit too blah and suspiciously content-less as days went by. People needed to hear more meaty stuff on the plan and direction early on, and in the absence of that, support began to sag just a bit, but mostly the anger rose. 

The blame goes on both parties for failing to work together.   But it is mostly the audacity and stupidity of the Dems that health care/insurance reform is where it is at today.

Support for the reform is still there. If as the economy recovers, if the anger subsides, there may still be that support, but the likelihood of passing something is all but gone at this stage because of the loss of 60th vote in the Senate. It is really incredible that the Dems failed so miserably on health care / insurance reform - they have squandered a year away.

-- Edited by Sanders on Sunday 7th of February 2010 12:14:34 AM