The reason Democrats are losing the health care debate is because they don't have facts or strategy on their side. For many, including President Obama, the public option was not their first choice. But, so as not to scare people into thinking their insurance would be taken from them, they chose the incremental approach - step 1, public option, step 2, single-payer system. As Jacob Hacker, the brains behind this approach boasted,
"Someone once said to me, “This is a Trojan horse for single payer,” and I said, “Well, it’s not a Trojan horse, right? It’s just right there...I’m telling you, we’re going to get there, over time, slowly.’”
Sure enough, that is the approach peddled by Democrats this summer. But, Americans never bought it. Did Democrats lose people because Americans didn't want the government involved in their health affairs? Because their general anti-government fears were awakened? Or because liberal politicians weren't successful at selling their second choice?
The answer as to why Democrats failed so enormously on their signature policy after an overwhelmingly successful election cycle: all of the above. It's clear that the facts weren't on their side; we've seen ObamaCare fail to stand up to substantive analyses time and time again. In short, you cannot provide more coverage at a lesser cost. And, you cannot create competition through government involvement because the government will always have an unfair advantage.
But, from a more superficial, strategic point of view, Democrats not only lost, but were knocked out of the park because they lacked a clear vision of what they wanted. We still don't know what their single, overarching priority was - to increase coverage? To control costs? To stick it to the evil insurance companies? To bring socialized medicine to America? Democrats thought they could rely on the trusty campaign slogans and idealistic rhetoric that won them the election to pass their agenda through. Ironically, Democrats and specifically the Obama administration, generally held in high esteem as being master communicators, failed to articulate their vision.
And now, the Democrats' Operation Health Care version 2.0 calls for:
"Convinc[ing] members that nothing is set in stone and that they are more than open to negotiations. And they’re engaging in a softer sell, prioritizing health insurance reforms while pitching the public option as something that’s way, way down the road...
Whatever course the negotiations take, Democrats say the key is convincing heartburn-ridden members that they are flexible."
Flexible? What does this mean? Does it meant they're prepared to lay the public option to rest? Putting a public option in place now that kicks in in 2013 is bad for everyone - health care opponents and supporters alike. Opponents want no part in a public option, and supporters want it now. What's the bottom line here? There can be no middle ground between government-run health care and a private system. What are Democrats willing to concede? What aren't they willing to concede? With Democrats having pursued universal health care for half a century, you'd think they'd have solidified a plan of action by now.
One possibility is that this new strategy is baloney, that Democrats have not learned anything from this summer and that they're just playing word games. Another is that they have determined that this is the only way for them to save face - to pass some kind of health care reform even if it means putting the public option off while they regroup.
House leaders, realizing the situation is volatile and could be the decisive factor in the 2010 election cycle, are reportedly going to wait until a Senate bill is on its way to the floor before voting on their own health care bill.
"We're not going to make our guys walk off the cliff without seeing what the hell the Senate does," said one House Democratic leadership aide."
Indeed. If 'walking off a cliff' is code for 'voting for a public option', that is exactly what they'd be doing.