by Nicholas Beaudrot of Electoral Math
Ezra's right, Jonathan Cohn's interview with Hillary Clinton on health care is well worth reading. Cohn really does have a knack for asking the right questions about the political realities of health care. For the most part, Clinton has good answers. There's a certain amount of handwaving, though. Take the answer to the question of "socialized medicine" attacks:
Some Republican presidentialcontenders are already characterizing your plan as socialized medicine.And while they're clearly wrong, it's also clear that they'll keepdoing so--and probably get a lot of people's attention. How do youfight back?
Well, I think we educate people about the plan, because what they'resaying is not true. There is no new government bureaucracy, it's notgovernment-run health care, and they can no longer make those claimsonce people look at it.
"When we get attacked, we'll just educate the public". This feels like classic knife-to-a-gunfight rhetoric. Passing universal health care will probably be the last big downward redistribution of wealth in the U.S. It will be a tooth-and-nail fight every step of the way. The idea that a series of calm, collected, even-handed town hall meetings will counter Harry and Louise II seems ... optimistic, to say the least.
This feels a bit like Hillary Clinton's attempts to hand wave over such minor problems as the skepticism of George Mitchell or John Breaux during the '93-'94 effort. Many moons ago, Brad DeLong wrote a few paragraphs about the view from inside that reform effort. DeLong's observations seem appropraite for today; while Clinton does seem to have learned that it's important to involve Congress in writing the bill, Clinton does seem to gloss over key issues. Even her effort to explain why businesses will support universal health care seems overly reliant on the assumption that more businesses are out of options for containing costs and will turn to the government for help.
