The news of Tom Daschle's withdrawal from consideration for the HHS and health-reform-czar is deeply unfortunate. It would be hard to say that the chance of health care reform didn't take a hit.
I am forced to wonder that having scruples in one area can prevent one from actually exercising one's scruples in another area. Let's stipulate that Daschle's non-payment of taxes was deeply irresponsible, unseemly, even inexcusable; and that his work as a “strategic advisor” is only technically different from lobbying. But, let's also say, for the sake of argument, that Daschle was indispensible to universal health care passing. Are Tom Daschle's missed tax payments and corporate-shilling background a reason to sacrifice health care for 47 million Americans? I think few people would say so. For many folks in Congress and the administration, the eventual legislation will be their raison d'etre in public service, their life's work, their legacy, their epitaph. Daschle's tax problems will be an asterisk of history.
So, if one has the courage of several convictions (people should pay their taxes/people should have health care) … maybe at some point one has to choose between them. I wonder if the answer is not always as obvious as it seems. Reforming health care is big time stuff; lives are in the balance. Is that worth looking the other way on a tax dodge? Isn't a kind of political ruthlessness and unswerving focus necessary? Do I need Tom Daschle to pay his freakin' taxes more than I need health care?
I know this flirts with cynicism, and the slope is slippery indeed. I'm not even sure I believe what I'm saying myself. But I find myself feeling some rueful, if incomplete, sympathy with this sentiment, regarding another flawed political player.
Fortunately, I don't necessarily think that Daschle and only Daschle could get the deal done. There's still commitment from the Democrats to get it done this year. Pelosi, Reid, Obama, and perhaps most importantly, Sen. Finance chair Max Baucus have said they will go to the mat for health care, this year. Baucus today described the Daschle business as “a blip” on the movement for legislation. Most Republicans will have nothing to offer but obstruction, but Sen. Baucus has signaled a willingness to take the bill to budget reconciliation, which bypasses the GOP's filibuster option.
And in any event, it's still really in the hands of the public. The public will have to exert absolutely crushing pressure on congress to get a good deal done — particularly one with a public insurance option. This is where the ruthlessness may come in.
Time for Obama, and all of us, to get back on offense, to take the battle to the opposition, if a battle there must be. Bipartisanship is fine, but we should feel free to play hardball when we have to. We won.
In fact, I agree with you that that wasn’t the case. Health care reform has millions of supporters, and many more than just one key proponent.
<
p>The real pity about Daschle that I can see is that Obama didn’t pull his nomination immediately — something he seems implicitly to have admitted with his “I screwed up” mea culpa TV appearances — and that he doesn’t have a better vetting team.
<
p>No one is irreplaceable: don’t feel so bad 馃槈
<
p>It does seem rather unfair — problematic? — that Geitner got confirmed even though he had a similar ethics problem.
For HHS/health care reform czar?
He certainly knows a lot about health care.
<
p>I don’t really know. I think the quality of the person is important, but not determinative. Far more important is the ability of the President and his entire team to rally the country and a variety of circumstances outside of anyone’s control, like how intense the current economic crisis is etc.
<
p>Just look at our own experience in Massachusetts. Was there any one individual without whom reforms would definitely not have advanced? No: there were many people without whom reform would not have advanced. Everyone played a part, and the circumstances were favorable.
<
p>They’ll find someone. There are a lot of good people.
He certainly knows a lot about health care.
<
p>I don’t really know. I think the quality of the person is important, but not determinative. Far more important is the ability of the President and his entire team to rally the country and a variety of circumstances outside of anyone’s control, like how intense the current economic crisis is etc.
<
p>Just look at our own experience in Massachusetts. Was there any one individual without whom reforms would definitely not have advanced? No: there were many people without whom reform would not have advanced. Everyone played a part, and the circumstances were favorable.
<
p>They’ll find someone. There are a lot of good people.
<
p>I’m not as sanguine about this as you, Bob. While it’s true that health care reform has millions of supporters, reform has to get through the 535 Members of Congress. The myriad failures of previous universal health care efforts (despite popular support) starting with Truman reminds us of this. Daschle was the perfect person to spearhead this effort, and unfortunately I’m not sure who can replace him.
Yes, well said. The truly unfortunate thing about this is that in many ways Daschle was just a victim of timing. I would bet that if he was the only (or first) nominee with tax issues, he would have been approved.
<
p>The other unfortunate thing is that Daschle was the only one offering anything close to the skill set he possesses. There’s a reason the Obama Administration is “at a loss” (at the Times said today, I believe) about who will now be HHS chief. Daschle was perfect. Nobody else will be able to bring his knowledge and political connections to the fore like him. (By the way, I generally like Howard Dean, who has been floated in liberal circles as HHS replacement — but the idea that he could effectively shepherd health care reform through the legislature, which was to be Daschle’s role, is a joke).
<
p>This was important enough that I hoped that Obama use some of his political capital to suck it up and stand behind Daschle. With his withdrawal, comprehensive universal health care became much less likely.
If Daschle’s political connections were that good, he would have been confirmed. There’s got to be other people that understand health insurance and know their way around Congress.
<
p>What’s going to be key in passing universal health insurance is grassroots support and pressure. That’s where the Obama campaign organization as well as more standard interest groups can make a big difference.
had he not been a shill for the healthcare industry and had bothered to pay the portion of his tax bill that is far greater than the median US household income.
<
p>I don’t believe waiting for a (hopefully better) head of HHS makes or breaks healthcare reform, there are other more qualified people out there, Howard Dean for one, who have demonstrated they are real public servants, care deeply about real healthcare reform and have a bunch of democrats who owe him big (especially the conservative dems who wouldn’t have won without the DNC and are going to be a problem on even Obama’s tepid healthcare plan).
<
p>
Well, it’s great you’re all about Dean, but here’s the problem…I can guarantee you “conservative Dems” don’t allocate their victories to Howard Dean. In fact, most elected Dems don’t care two figs about Dean.
<
p>Daschle, on the other hand, was well respected throughout the Congress, and could have effectively pushed for health care reform, probably better than anyone. So his loss means a big loss for health care reform.
The biggest obstacle to TRUE reform in our health care delivery system is the power (a/k/a money given to politicians) wielded by health care industry interests which are, quite naturally, focused on preserving the status quo.
<
p>I don’t think Tom Daschle is a bad man. And I’m sure he is an effective legislator. But his willingness to operate as an undeclared lobbyist and dodge taxes convinces me that he is NOT the best person to spearhead the type of dramatic health care reform this country desperately needs. I’m not talking about band-aids, I’m talking about revolution.
<
p>I think the American public is finally coming to the conclusion that, when it comes to health care, we are (as they used to say in my neighborhood) getting porked. We need leaders who are willing to “fight the power”.
When I saw the word “convictions” in the diary title, my mind went to the kind that you get from a guilty verdict!
<
p>As for HHS, I wouldn’t mind bringing back Donna Shalela, who was pro-single payer if I remember correctly. I’d prefer NOT to have someone who has lobbied for the health delivery industry in its current form.
I recall reading on Ezra Klein or a similar health policy-oriented blog in the past few days about pile of a Shalala-UnitedHealth doo-doo so I did a quick Google search on “shalala unitedhealth” to get it and the first item was this
<
p>I guess we’d better brace ourselves for whatever other disgusting and depressing things are gonna surface during the search for a person of integrity to head up Obama’s health care reform and Sec of HHS. This stuff is depressing as hell–and infuriating too–but important to know.