Daily Archives: June 16, 2009

Obama’s hands-off approach to health care reform looks ever more questionable. I’m getting tired of listening to speeches that state uncontroversial goals–widen coverage, curb costs, free doctors from useless paperwork, improve medical outcomes–but have little or nothing to say on how these things might actually be done. It’s one thing to refrain from ramming a fully worked-out blueprint down the throat of a sceptical Congress, another entirely to step back altogether from fundamental questions of design and cost recovery.

Obama is failing even to express preferences. Aren’t hard choices supposed to be his specialty? To listen to the administration, one would suppose that there are no hard choices in health care, only easy ones: for example, to curb costs, simply widen coverage. Who really believes that? It is a dream world.

Yes, he has backed the public plan option, which seems to imply a view of some kind–but what does that proposal actually mean? As this new FT column of mine argues, it is surely disingenuous to say that a public plan can be just another competitior. How can just another competitor “keep them [the private insurers] honest”? If the public plan makes a difference it will be because of its market and political power, and because of its ablity to attract subsidy–in short, because it is not just another competitor. If in turn it exerts those pressures, Obama’s pledge that nothing will change for Americans who have private health insurance they like will be impossible to honour. Not even Obama can reform a system without changing it.

Incidentally, the headline on that column–”Medicare for all may be the best cure for the US”–was a little over-exuberant. The piece says that Medicare for all might be better than the current system, but that isn’t saying much. In fact I think a system based on well-regulated private insurers is still the best bet. That is unlikely to be where we end up if a public option is included and empowered to make a difference. The momentum in that case would indeed be toward Medicare for all. The main point of the article is that if Obama does want to shove the US in that direction–as many other Democrats plainly do–then he, and they, should say so and start making the case.

For more on the hard choices in health care reform, here’s another recent column I did on the subject for National Journal.

Clive Crook’s blog

This blog is no longer updated but it remains open as an archive.

I have been the FT's Washington columnist since April 2007. I moved from Britain to the US in 2005 to write for the Atlantic Monthly and the National Journal after 20 years working at the Economist, most recently as deputy editor. I write mainly about the intersection of politics and economics.

Clive Crook’s blog: A guide

Comment: To comment, please register with FT.com. Register for free here. Please also read the FT's comments policy here.
Time: UK time is shown on Clive's posts.
Follow the blog: Links to the Twitter and RSS feeds are at the top of the blog.
Schedule: Clive's column appears in the FT on Mondays and you can read an excerpt of it on this blog.
FT blogs: See the full range of the FT's blogs here.

Archive

« May Jul »June 2009
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
2930