How Congress failed america on Healthcare in 1990s (from Dean's Book)

[Cheswick2.0]

I am not reading this book in order, and tonight I happened on this part. I never was really that aware of how it went down about health care in the early 1990s. Seems to me there was no excuse for not getting something passed. I am typing the sections from the book, so forgive mistakes.

In Howard Dean's book, "You Have the Power", he talks about trying to get help from congressional Democrats in 1991 for the states to pass health care bills on their own. He and several governors went to talk to the House leadership. They asked for changes in federal laws that were keeping states from working out their own plans for universal health care. The leadership refused to help on the grounds, he says, that many had waited their whole careers to pass it, and they did not yet have the votes....and they did not want to states to do it. (Page 62)

And a paragraph from page 63 that just makes me furious. Again from 1991 and early 90s.
SNIP.."Many of the congressional Democrats wouldn't take a risk on anything that might be unpopular, be subject to attack, or allow other people to outshine them in getting some actual work done. So they wouldn't give a green light to the governors in 1991; and a few years later, they wouldn't hear the signals coming from Bob Dole that he was willing to compromise on Clinton's health-care plan. They were paralyzed between their fear of losing an election and their fear of change. In the end they lost and became the victims, in 1994, of the most sweeping congressional changes in sixty-two years. They set the table for Newt Gingrich. It was an awful irony: After decades of domination by the so-called party of the people, the party of FDR and Harry Truman, America continued, at the turn of the millennium, to be the only country in the industrialized world that didn't have health insurance for all its people. "

"The Democrats, who by the early 1990s had been in power in Congress without interruption for forty years, became so obsessed with keeping their seats and staving off challenges that they forgot why they were there."

I would call most of what he writes "constructive criticism", something that our party needs, calling attention to things we need to be on guard against.

*************************************************************
This post is by another DFAer, and not my words, though I agree with her.

[KlatooBNikto]

1. Shocked but not surprised.

[Cheswick2.0]

2. yup, me too

what is really shocking is that democrats in power still do not get it. They still think the politics of appeasement are going to win one day.
All the scaredy cats need to be challenged in the primaries. WE don't need democrats afraid to act like democrats.

[quaker bill]

3. Having watched it happen, it really irritated me at the time.

They did the same thing to Carter that they did to Clinton. Basically the Democrats failed to coalesce around their leader and govern.

(Note to other readers) Republicans have no problem with this. They coalesce and form a government. They actually work to get their President's policies enacted into law. This is why they are effective and part of why we don't like them very much.

[Cheswick2.0]

4. I was not that aware at the time

I was going through a very rough divorce and doing prof theater. I just wasn't paying attention.

[quaker bill]

10. It was the same divide you see here

Clinton was too "republican" for some of our leaders. Carter did not come the democratic mainstream at the time either.

In both cases the party factionalized along ideological lines. During the Carter Admin. it was a bit worse because we still had some diehard Dixiecrats that sided with the republicans as well as some liberals for whom Carter was too conservative.

During Clinton's first term the Dixiecrats had largely retired or switched to republican. However we had a liberal faction that did not support Clinton because he did not go far enough left, who ended up siding with the republicans and a couple of conservative dems to defeat Clinton's program.

We had a "majority" in name only in congress. Because they failed to unite, the republicans stalled a number of things including healthcare.

I had my rough divorce during Reagan. What can I say - she became a republican, sometimes you just have to do what you have to do... She became a great deficit spender though...

[Lydia Leftcoast]

11. That's not how I remember it

It was more that Clinton was a poor negotiator. One of the first principles of negotiation is "Don't start by conceding. Ask for more than what you really want."

Unfortunately, before Clinton presented his health care plan, he involved the insurance companies in the formulation of it. This had two disadvantages: 1) It lead to an overly complex plan that was hard to sell to the public, and 2) The Republicans sensed weakness.

It would have been better for him to present something really radical, even, say, something like the British National Health Service, where doctors are government employees (I don't think this would be the best plan, but it would be a radical starting point) so that what he really wanted, namely a mixed public-private plan that covered everyone, would seem like the "conservative" alternative.

The same with gays in the military. All he had to do was issue an executive order and state that any military personnel who objected would be court-martialed for insubordination. Period. Instead, he backpedaled when the Republicans started whining, and the result was "don't ask, don't tell." The fact that he was willing to backpedal on such a simple matter made him look wimpy.

This is where Clinton had his problem with the left. He seemed to worry more about what the Republicans thought of him than standing up for his own principles.

If Republicans see you as wimpy, you may just as well jump into a shark tank with a bleeding wound, because they will tear at you until nothing's left.

That's what happened to Clinton. The Republicans would not have dared to impeach someone who had stood up to them.

[Lost4words]

5. me to, democratic leaders need to grow spines and learn to

walk upright! DINOs democrats in name only IMO.

We may never have the chance again!

8643

[Cheswick2.0]

9. true enough, we are in bad shape

[DebJ]

6. great book. I got mine autographed!

[Q]

7. And now we have TWO parties dependent on lobbyists and...

...speical interests to keep their 'careers'. We've come a long way from the time when representatives were encouraged to 'serve the people' for a couple years and then go back home...giving another an opportunity to serve. But now it seems that every politician EXPECTS a lifetime career at the government teat.

Recently we saw Bush Operatives meet with energy industry CEOs to formulate a national energy policy. It's the same thing that happened in the 90s with the GOPers and their insurance, HMO buddies.

Follow the money.

[Cheswick2.0]

8. I have no problem with people who stay on office for a long time

if they do it for the right reasons. But I do know what you mean and I do think that ultimately even people with the right itentions get corrupted by money.