Ruch Marcus's column, written, no doubt, from her cloud castle set miles above the tawdry pettiness that passes for politics amongst us bickering mortals, is some piece of work. It resignedly wonders whether "if Bush picked a plank right out of the Democratic platform -- if he introduced Hillarycare itself -- and stuck it in his State of the Union address, Democrats would churn out press releases denouncing it." Let him try, and we'll see. Marcus writes, without a whisper of self-awareness,:
And, yes, it's fair to argue that a more comprehensive approach -- Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) has proposed one -- is needed.
But Democrats -- if they care more about addressing health-care needs than scoring political points -- ought to be finding ways to improve and build on the Bush proposal, not condemning and mischaracterizing it.
Parse those two paragraphs again. Senator Ron Wyden has proposed a comprehensive, constructive approach to solving the health care crisis. So what Ruth marcus thinks Democrats should do is "improve and build on the Bush proposal," which she admits "should be more progressive, structured with refundable tax credits rather than a deduction, so that all can share equally in the benefit," and worries "that the already-teetering employer-based system will collapse as healthy individuals use their tax deduction to buy cheaper, private insurance, leaving employers with the older and the sicker." Focusing on a comprehensive, fully-realized solution as opposed to Bush's risky, inadequate proposal is, to Marcus, "scoring political points."
To the rest of us, rejecting an inadequate, perversely constructed tax change that would encourage the dissolution of the risk pool, effectively paying the young and well to purchase cheaper insurance that'll price the old and the ill out of care is exactly what we elected the Democratic majority to do. The question is, why doesn't Ruth Marcus write a column proposing that the President encourage the moderate, thoughtfully constructed Wyden proposal, and seek a comprehensive solution to the health crisis, rather than a change to deductibility?
From Marcus's comments on the absurdity of the system, you can tell her perfect solution would be much closer to Wyden's than Bush's. Yet what's important to her isn't the policy, it's the process. The rapidity of Democratic opposition to the Bush plan was unseemly, discomfiting. That Democrats have proposed better, stronger, smarter solutions that would not push "the already-teetering employer-based system to collapse" is immaterial. The cloud castle of the punditocracy is built upon a gossamer web of bipartisanship and compromise, and the structural integrity of its shimmering foundations is far more important than the quality of health care in this country.
Update: Kevin has more.
