Although current legislation does not have a public option or other provisions progressives had hoped for, we are now at the verge of passing a truly meaningful and sweeping health reform. There is, however, a chorus from the left making the curious argument that scrapping the Senate bill and starting over is the best strategy for strengthening our nation's health care system. For one thing, starting over and passing reform using reconciliation is practically impossible -- and you simply cannot pass any of the regulations using reconciliation anyways. But there's a larger historical trend that does not bode well for waiting for better health reform in the future:
1948: President Truman proposes a universal single payer program for health care. Republicans and conservative Democrats, with help from the AMA, kill the legislation.
1971: Sen. Ted Kennedy helps to kill Nixon's health reform bill for being a boon to private insurance and not covering enough people, fights instead for single payer.
1974: Sen. Ted Kennedy reaches a compromise with Nixon to provide private health insurance to all employed Americans, and a public option-type plan to the rest of the uninsured. Unions and liberal groups, hoping for a "veto-proof" majority after the midterms, kill the compromise. Rising inflation and an economic downturn make reform politically impossible.
1993: President Clinton proposes universal, private coverage. Liberals do not trust the plan, while Republicans and industry work furiously to kill it.
2009: Current reform bill in Congress severely curbs insurance industry abuses, provides thirty-one million previously uninsured Americans with coverage, and lowers premiums for almost everyone.
Every time reform is punted, for whatever reason, the next chance at reform not only takes a long time, but gets watered down. Many, like Howard Dean, have even stated that waiting until after the 2010 midterms would be advantageous for progressives. That's a reckless argument, especially considering the history of reform.
--Lee Fang