Obama's Uphill Battle on Health Care

President Obama welcomed members of Congress back from the most tumultuous August recess many of them had ever faced with an address to a joint session in the House chamber in which he hoped to regain control of a debate that got away from him in August as public opinion soured drastically on his health care reform proposals, dragging the President's own approval down. Analysts called his speech a make or break moment for his signature legislative initiative as everyone hoped he would be more definitive and specific about what exactly he supports in health care reform and what he doesn't. The President offered a few more specifics, but left some of the most contentious questions, such as his bottom line on the public option, unanswered. Fact checkers, including the AP, found "a variety of oversimplifications and omissions" as well as "spurious" claims.

After a post-speech bounce in public support for Obamacare, opinions on the reform proposals have fallen back to August levels as voters still aren't convinced the changes will help them. This is bad news for Obama and his allies and indicates that even after employing his inspirational rhetoric and unquestioned speech making talent, the President faces a major uphill battle, with 23 Democrats vowing to vote no, to see anything close to his original ideas for reform make it to his desk. Worse for the President, 54% of voters say the more they hear about his plan, the less they like it. With public opinion mirroring that of Clinton's failed effort in 1994, perhaps it would be wise for Obama to step back and start over.

It has indeed been a rocky road for the President as he has "turned mortal" right before our eyes and even his strongest supporters are beginning to call he and the Democratic Party out. Camille Paglia, called one of the left's sharpest minds and someone who is as liberal as it gets, has taken Obama to task and even called for Pelosi, presiding over the most unpopular Congress in decades, to step aside. She writes about "Obama's healthcare horror," the administration's "grotesque mishandling of healthcare reform" and the President's "vague and slippery promises" which she exposes as nonsensical and false; others have called them fantasies. "It isn't conservative rumors or lies that are stopping healthcare legislation; it's the justifiable alarm of the electorate." She wonders "who is naive enough to believe that Obama's plan would be deficit-neutral? Or that major cuts could be achieved without drastic rationing?" Paglia concludes that "after a summer of grisly hemorrhaging, too much damage has been done" as "liberals have drifted into a strange servility toward big government." Read her pieces, brilliantly written, to see that she has no tolerance for Republicans either, but as a prominent liberal, I believe her reasoned and objective criticisms of Obama and his health care proposals carry a particular weight and credibility.

Nothing more needs to be said in this space about the public option, which as I've laid out before is by design intended to be a gateway to a single payer system of health care which voters firmly reject as contrary to American liberty and capitalism. Given that, to Obama's surprise, the public option has become a flash point in the debate and deeply unpopular and is thus likely dead, other watered down proposals, such as "triggers" to activate the public option at some later date, have been put forward to accomplish some of its same ends.

One idea is to use co-ops to provide competition to private insurers and help cover those who are currently unable to get health insurance. Co-0ps have a rich tradition in the US, but they can come in two very different varieties which would make all the difference as it concerns the health care debate. A co-op run by the government and funded by the government which offers health plans chosen by the government would simply be one step back from the public option- a trojan horse for the trojan horse for single payer. On the other hand, a co-op run by its members, funded by its members and controlled by its members could be a successful mechanism to reach some of our mutually agreed upon goals in the health care system. As you might expect, the Democrats warming to the co-op idea have in mind the former variety. Also troubling are proposals for individual and employer mandates to purchase health care, a specific, highly regulated service, or face stiff penalties, something that the CBO says would be unprecedented in this country.

One of the best opinion pieces written on health care recently caused one of the most absurd reactions from the left I have ever seen. John Mackey, CEO of Whole Foods, a favorite of progressives, wrote a piece in the WSJ in which he argues against a government takeover of the health care system and deficits that will bankrupt our country by presenting eight quality reform ideas geared towards "less government control and more individual empowerment."

From the incredible reaction by his liberal patrons, you would have thought he was promoting terrorism; he was indeed called evil and worse. They absolutely vilified a CEO who, in 2007, gave up his salary for charity. His exercising of his right to free speech, typically sacred to liberals, presenting well-reasoned alternative ideas to the liberal solution incited a massive boycott and caused his company's brand perception to drop. It is truly pathetic and a sad commentary on the state of our political discourse that civility, tolerance and respect have given way to vitriol over policy disagreements. It it not only those on the left who are guilty, but this episode was telling. Americans supportive of his ideas and disgusted by the reaction responded with "buycotts" around the country.

One of the points Mackey made is fundamental to the health care policy issue. He observes,

Many promoters of health-care reform believe that people have an intrinsic ethical right to health care. Health care is a service that we all need, but just like food and shelter it is best provided through voluntary and mutually beneficial market exchanges. A careful reading of both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution will not reveal any intrinsic right to health care, food or shelter. That's because there isn't any. This "right" has never existed in America.

A Duke professor, after analyzing exactly what is in the House's reform bill, recently wrote on the same issue, pointing out that "There was no right to such care before doctors, hospitals, and pharmaceutical companies produced it." While Obama has favored addressing the issue as one of choice and competition rather than as the moral imperative many liberals see for the government to provide health care to all, it is an interesting point to consider. There is no fundamental right to healthcare. We, as a compassionate nation, should see to it that policies are in place to allow all of our fellow citizens to reap the benefits of one of the very best health care systems in the world. There are strong proposals for doing just that without putting the government in between patients and doctors, artificially rationing new procedures and technologies and bankrupting the country with new entitlements. Government exists to preserve our natural, inalienable rights; it does not exist to control our access to critical and personal services.

Check out the comment Danny Mammo of Duke left on my last post critical of some of my evidence. I responded, defending the validity of the Lewin study and shedding light on the discrepancy with the CBO. We dove deeper into the specifics of the bill, including some of the more inflammatory charges made by conservatives: death panels, abortion funding and health care for illegals. Please share your thoughts as well!

Note: Thank you so much for a great first year for the PG Blog with more than 3,500 views and over 200 Facebook fans!!