What Health Reform Cure Will Dr. Obama Prescribe?

Hillary Clinton must be pulling her hair out and John McCain is probably banging his head against the wall after seeing their unpopular positions on health care reform co-opted by President Barack Obama, who scored big political points against both of them on this critical issue during last year's campaign, only to end up adopting their respective approaches.

If you recall, during the fierce, neck-and-neck primary battle, Ms. Clinton–then a U.S. Senator, and now Secretary of State–insisted that to achieve universal health insurance, coverage had to be mandatory. But then-Sen. Obama demurred, arguing that health care reform could not succeed if it was punitive, meaning adults should not be forced to buy coverage. (He did eventually agree that all parents should have to get coverage for their kids.)

Now that he's in the White House, however, he is changing his tune. The indications are that the President might in fact go along with some sort of health insurance requirement for all, as long as exemptions and/or subsidies are provided for those who cannot afford coverage. (Didn't Ms. Clinton suggest that as well?)

After winning the Democratic Party's nomination, health care reform was a key point of contention in the general election campaign as well. Sen. McCain indicated that to finance coverage, health insurance benefits might have to be taxed. Mr. Obama pounced on that, charging that to tax those with benefits might defeat the whole purpose of reform, which is to make coverage affordable for all.

Now, of course, under pressure from Congress to fund his grand plan for universal health coverage, it sounds as if the White House is open to the notion of taxing insurance benefits.

Critics will decry the hypocrisy of such shameless flip-flopping, while cynics might even accuse Mr. Obama of lying during the campaign to spare voters the harsh truth about what needs to be done (mandatory coverage, taxation of health benefits) to achieve universal coverage at last.

I see this as the way politics works. And not politics in the negative way it is usually characterized–as unprincipled crooks selling their souls to gain power. Instead, it is politics the way it should be defined–as the method by which legitimate compromises are made to govern our diverse society for the best interest of all.

I also tend to see this as a reality check. What is said during a campaign does not always hold up to scrutiny or political pragmatism. The President, after all, is not a dictator, but simply the head of the executive branch. He must deal with a contentious legislative branch to see his vision become reality.

In other words, the goal is to get something passed into law that everyone can live with, and that hopefully gets the job done.

That's why I'm willing to cut President Obama some slack here. While Hillary Clinton and John McCain might have been “right” during the campaign in their respective policy positions, and Obama might have been “wrong,” the fact is that Hillary Clinton and her husband had their shot to reform health care and blew it.  

As for Sen. McCain, his push for a voucher and letting the free market solve the healthcare crisis on its own, I believe, would have been a disaster. How can you trust a system that has already left over 45 million uninsured, and which plays a shell game even with those lucky enough to have coverage?

Besides, President Obama, with his keen political instincts and brilliant communication skills, will be far more effective in selling health insurance reform to Congress and the public than either of his opponents would have been had they been elected, IMHO.

What do you folks think?