My Letter to The New Yorker Concerning Legislative Management of Health Care Reform

Hendrik Herzberg's comments on opposition to the Obama health insurance reform plans (September 21st New Yorker) was classic, well crafted Hertzberg angst, but misses the core issue surrounding the opposition's (thus far) success. The President has chosen to preside over a mischief laden congressional effort to draft health insurance reform. The thousand page flagship bill in that effort is nearly incomprehensible, as a whole, to any ordinary person. I'm sure that every legislative aid who has inserted a particular pet rock into the bill understands the language of his or her particular pet, but making the overall bill as abstruse as it is leaves its interpretation to the high priests of politics, whether they be Glen Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Al Franken, or Nancy Pelosi. If the President had been both serious about achieving reform, and as good a leader as he is a speaker, he might have pushed legislative leaders to craft a crisp bill, of a few hundred pages, free of mischief, and readily understandable. This would have taken the interpretive role away from those who are so anxious to “shape the debate.” That doesn't seem to be the way we do it anymore. The segment of society that chooses to participate in the political process is so polarized, that placing highly controversial provisions into massive bills, where they can slip in under the radar, has become the norm. Avoiding this, in order to achieve something so important, presented an opportunity for extraordinary leadership to the President. Sadly, he has chosen to play it using conventional political methods. Perhaps Hillary Clinton was right when she alluded to Mr. Obama's lack of experience, or perhaps only the train wreck that is the current future of the U.S. Health care system will be sufficient to bring change.