Health care effort an ongoing mess

The ongoing legislative wrangling over health care is not confidence inspiring.

Everyone knows that the legislative process is not for the squeamish. It's been compared to the making of sausage, and that may underestimate just how distasteful it can be.

Still, even by that low standard, the ongoing debate (if it can be called that) is not just unappetizing, but disturbing. Plans are flying all over Capitol Hill, various factions are trying to make deals, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid seems to come up with a new compromise plan every other day – all in the name of passing something – anything – as soon as possible.

Meanwhile, the cost estimates of up to $1 trillion over 10 years are as staggering as they are uncertain. How can cost estimates be expected to mean anything if various states, according to Reid's new opt-out provisions, choose not to be a part of whatever is passed? Even assuming the number is correct, it's a staggering sum to pile on top of the multitrillion-dollar deficits and national debt over which the Congress and President Barack Obama preside. New presidents always like to strike while the iron is hot, but the president's goal of quickly passing legislation remaking the nation's health care system and essentially putting the government in charge is not only breathtakingly audacious but remarkably reckless.

He first was intent on getting a bill passed this past summer. Now it's December. What's the rush? Under the various proposals, the dramatic changes he's seeking won't even take effect until after Obama's 2012 re-election, assuming he's re-elected. (That timing, by the way, is incredibly suspicious).

There's no question that Obama and his fellow Democrats have the numbers to pass whatever they wish. They have a filibuster-proof Senate and a huge majority in the House. But they give every impression of trying to slap something together as quickly as possible without even making the pretense of subjecting these proposals to the scrutiny of legislative hearings allowing supporters and critics to be heard. Why not, instead, spend the time necessary to build a consensus for change the public can support?

Obviously, Democrats differ significantly among themselves about what the bill should include and how much the country can afford to pay to implement it, and for good reason. How much confidence does it show in the substance of the bill for Reid to assure the states that they need not worry because they can opt out of whatever monstrosity the Congress passes.

Taking on an issue like this is a hugely complicated business that is certain to create some level of confusion. But what's the rush? Slow down and try to get it right. It's far too important to get wrong just because some people want to get it done.

Comments