I have read many diaries and comments to the tune of
Killing this bill takes health care reform off the table for at least another 15-20 years.
and
Watch when this bill fails. Then you will see a death spiral [for Democrats]. You may be too young but 1994 was beyond comprehension.
(For the record, I'm 50.)
Since these claims are being used as a club to beat into submission those who believe the flaws in the current bill outweigh its benefits (which may be 2/3 of the American public if the polls are correct), they deserve careful scrutiny.
I believe they represent a serious misreading of history, and I will try to explain why.
Consider first the notion that the 1994 Democratic rout was caused by the health-care bill debacle. Nothing could be further from the truth. Any American born after 1980 knows, or should know, about the Contract with America, a document almost as important to American history as "Four score and seven years ago" and "I have a dream".
The Contract was a mixture of some good ideas, some bad ideas that appeared good to many (their goodness was difficult to refute without complex arguments), and others that, like most ideas, can lead to good or bad results depending on implementation.
Above all, it was a list of soundbites, and they were very effective in persuading Americans that Democrats, who had controlled both houses of Congress for a long time, were ineffective, largely corrupt, and were leading the country in the wrong direction.
And the truth is, to a large extent they were. The Democratic Congress did nothing to stem Reagan's ballooning deficits. The crime wave was at its peak. Drug hysteria was abetted by Democrats as much as by Republicans. Abroad, Republicans could point to the collapse of Communism and the Gulf War as vindications of their policies. Remember also that Clinton only got 43% of the vote in 1992; he might well have lost if it weren't for the independent candidate, Ross Perot. Clinton came into the Presidency already hobbled by scandals.
The relative lack of transparency with which the health-care issue was approached in 1993, together with the involvement of Hillary Clinton (who was mistrusted and even hated by many, however irrationally) made it easy for even liberals to remain indifferent, and for many senators and congressmen to vote No in order to show independence from the White House. No wonder the bill was defeated.
But the failure to achieve a health-care bill in the first two years of the Clinton administration was a symptom of the Democrats' weakness--the same weakness that led to their losses in 1994. It was not the cause of anything, and certainly not of the long time it took until the cause was picked up again, which can be explained very simply: Republican politicians are against health care reforms.
So as long as Congress (1995-2006) and the White House (2001-2008) were in Republican hands, no progress could be made.
But in 2009 the case is fundamentally altered. Obama was elected by a sizable majority; his approval rating in February was over 80%, and he's squeaky clean, an inspiration to millions. Congress is solidly Democratic; don't talk about not having 60 Senators unless you can explain how Republicans could ram their agenda through with far less than that (and in 2001-2002, with 49).
Even more importantly, the public is clamoring for change. Republicans started this year exactly in the position Democrats were in in 1994. They've had a long turn at the steering wheel, with dreadful results. And the public wants government-guaranteed health care, like other civilized countries have.
So why shouldn't Democrats be able to come up with a very good health-care bill, instead of one that gets worse day after day -- and isn't done getting worse yet? In February 2009, it would have been very easy to pass a good bill. Instead, Democrats allowed the right-wing to hijack the people's discontentment. The current Senate bill, not the failure to pass a bill, will lead to carnage against Democrats in the next election cycle.
There is still time to start over. We need to learn to speak in soundbites. We can have a functional Medicare Option For All as a big victory for the 2010 election, if a couple of key players (primarily Obama and Reid) decide to go for it.
Here is how it would work: one member in each house introduces The Medicare Option. The leaders send it to the CBO, they score it in a month. It will save hundreds of billions over ten years. Bill passes both houses in April at the latest, with almost all Democrats voting for it. Let's see Lieberman and the Republicans filibuster it. (Again, check the polls.) Implementation starts immediately, full features go into effect with the new fiscal year, October 1, 2010. Democrats sweep to victory in the midterm elections.
The real parallel between the 1993-1994 health-care reform effort and this year's is this: important options were taken off the table before the process even started. Whether because of dishonesty or timidity is hard to say, but the result was a mess. There is still time to start over.
Silvio Levy