Andrew Varnon points to Nathan Newman’s discussion at TPM Cafe of our MA health care deal. Regular readers will be familiar with most of the content of Newman’s brief discussion. He concludes, “Health care advocates can be proud of a campaign in Massachusetts that is pushing the goal of universal coverage forward.”
The comments are also worth reading; like here, they show a tension between those who wish for an immediate, comprehensive solution and those who advocate for achievable short-term goals with a long-term vision in mind. From the comments, Newman neatly sums up my opinion:
If more people have health care and don’t die, that’s a win in my view even if it’s no the perfect theoretical model for delivering health care. Sometimes it’s reasonable to refuse any bill unless it’s better than that offered — and the MA advocates are prepared to go to the ballot if the final details aren’t good enough — but health care seems a poor candidate for that approach, given people die the longer we wait to get reform.
Yup. Keynes said, “In the long run, we’re all dead”; the problem with health care reform is that many of us die in the short run, too.
Now, as to the actual merit of the compromise, we’re still pretty much in the dark. My bottom line is expansion of access and comprehensive coverage, and I’m afraid that the bill will fall short of what could be considered “meaningful” reform.
But in the end, we’ve still got ballot; and perhaps even an amendment. Always good to have a little leverage.
