as he writes in today's Washington Post, in an op ed titled Seizing the moment on health-care reform.
Consider how he begins:
When all is said and done -- and, yes, there is a bit more saying and doing to endure, which means that anything can happen -- the health-care reform legislation that President Obama now seems likely to sign into law, while an unlovely mess, will be remembered as a landmark accomplishment.
He fully recognizes the flaws of the Senate bill, but that asks that before we count its flaws, we consider that
For the first time, we will enshrine the principle that all Americans deserve access to medical care regardless of their ability to pay. No longer will it be the policy and practice of our nation to ration health according to wealth.
His is an increasingly influential voice, now amplified both by his Pulitzer and his appearances on MS-NBC.
And there is more.
He recognizes failings of both chambers - the abortion restrictions in the House version, the lack of public option in the Senate version, and fully accepts that the final bill may have BOTH of those failings. He then adds
But once the idea of universal health care is signed into law, it will be all but impossible to erase. Over time, that idea will be made into reality.
He knows we will have to revisit health care, sooner than later, to fix the problems the new law will have. He argues no matter how long it takes to get right that eventually is always better than never.
And then come perhaps the most key words in the entire piece:
History suggests that major new social initiatives have to be perfected over time -- and that basic entitlements, once established, are rarely taken away.
basic entitlements, once established, are rarely taken away
However flawed the product of the legislative sausage making, the key takeaway is that we are establishing a basic entitlement to affordable health care. And remember that
basic entitlements, once established, are rarely taken away
Robinson seriously questions whether starting over from scratch would produce a more progressive result. As a longtime close observer of Washington doings he says flatly that it won't, and then tells us
For anyone who believes it is shameful that the richest, most powerful nation in the world cares so little about the health and welfare of its citizens, this is the moment. It should be seized, not squandered.
He acknowledges that this is but a beginning, not the end of the process. We have heard similar words from the likes of Tom Harkin, Ted Kennedy's successor as chair of the committee with the greatest responsibility for the legislation, with Health as the first word of its title. Robinson thinks it now likely we will get a health care law and then
Obama and congressional leaders will have achieved a goal that progressives have sought for decades. They will have established that quality health care should be for all, not just for those who can afford it.
They will have established a basic entitlement for all, not just for those who can afford it, and remember,
basic entitlements, once established, are rarely taken away
Stop and think for a moment. Which would you rather be, someone running on a platform of having established a basic right for health care, or someone running to take away a basic right, an entitlement that affects vast numbers of people?
quality health care should be for all, not just for those who can afford it except that under this plan and with subsidies many more will be able to afford it.
Think of Ronald Reagan's words in 1980, and rephrase them for the American people - are you better off with respect to health care than you were before this bill became law? If the answer for most people is yes, then the politics favor achieving this goal. The pundits who say it is lose-lose for the Democrats would then be shown to be very wrong.
And to hell with pundits . . . there will be less need for free medical fairs in places like Wise and Grundy where I have volunteered, in the Staples Center in Los Angeles, in the events Keith Olbermann has helped sponsor, and in the forthcoming but still not yet officially scheduled event in Washington DC. That in itself, that decrease in need, should be considered a worthy accomplishment.
Like Robinson, I can find much wrong with the Senate bill, just as I can with the House bill (Stupak, anyone?). And forget the politics, although I fully recognize that failure to enact health care legislation will badly damage Democrats in 2010 and weaken the President in future contested issues. Think only of how many will benefit from some combination of House and Senate bills, even with all the weaknesses we can cite in the legislation, even though insurance companies will continue - for now - to make profits, although those will become somewhat less obscene than they are now.
I will push fair use and also quote Robinson's final paragraph:
We have a system now in which Americans go bankrupt trying to pay doctors and hospitals to keep them alive. When you have the opportunity to change this, you take it -- even if it means winning ugly.
I just returned from Fed Ex field, where I saw the Redskins lose badly. Trust me, the fans would have welcomed a win of any kind, no matter how ugly it was. A win is a win is a win. A moral victory is still a defeat. And for too many Americans, defeat of health care means an earlier death. For others it will mean lingering untreated illness. For still others it will mean bankruptcy.
We can address a great deal. It will not be pretty. It will be far from perfect. But it will also establish a basic entitlement to health care, for the first time.
And remember: basic entitlements, once established, are rarely taken away
Peace.