@Stranahan

This is in response to a specific discussion that I was having with @Stranahan that the MA election outcome was a direct result of the lack of transparency during the HCR negotiations. The contention was that Candidate Obama promised public negotiations (on C-SPAN) for HCR and that the White House “backroom negotiations” with the pharmaceutical industry reneged that promise resulting in the loss of the Democratic seat in MA. I strongly disagree with that assertion as it was represented in the discussion.

The agreement, which was negotiated in the Roosevelt Room adjacent to the Oval Office, was that Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) pledged $80 billion dollars in cost savings over 10 years in exchange for the White House not pursuing a proposal to import cheaper drugs from Canada and Europe or a policy of government price setting for Medicare Part D (the drug program for seniors). PhRMA also agreed NOT to run any ad-campaigns in opposition to HCR and instead underwrote the multi-million (not taxpayer) dollar ad-campaign in support of HCR. Neither the White House or PhRMA shut the door on future negotiations to further reduce the price of prescription drugs. This negotiated agreement was completely appropriate to the scope of healthcare reform that the Democrats were attempting to get through Congress. It gave members of Congress a negotiated agreement in hand to take back to their constituents during the Summer recess and one less 700lbs-gorilla to fight. Even with it, many Democratic town hall gatherings were dominated by a boisterous, inflammatory minority organized by the GOP and Conservative extremist.

The possible demise of healthcare reform is not due to lack of transparency. In fact, it is the scope of the proposed reform and public visibility into the day-to-day procedural politics (specifically) in the Senate that will probably be its ultimate demise. To be clear, with a few exceptions, Progressives and moderates would most likely be satisfied with the provisions of the Affordable Health Care for America Act (H.R. 3962) that passed in the House of Representatives. Yet with a popularly elected 59 member majority in the Senate, the People watched as 41 corporate-owned Senators stripped a good bill of everything the public really wanted in it. It is clear to many of us why this is possible, but it had a devastating effect on the morale of many people who have been entertaining the thought of a “robust public option” since Spring of 2009. The Democratic Party and the White House allowed expectations to be set too high for a reform bill of this scope. This does not mean that the public should have been denied visibility into the process, it means that the scope of the bill should have been significantly reduced.

Candidate Obama promised healthcare reform from early in his campaign. But the housing-market meltdown was an opportunity to justify taking all big ticket bills off the agenda and to focus on the economy and helping the American people get through the financial crisis. The Administration could have offered 6-months of full Medicare benefits to the unemployed as a part of the extension of unemployment benefits. The tax-increase to fund it could have been passed by budgetary reconciliation. Over time, this benefit could have been amended to cover the working un-insured, or those with pre-existing conditions. As the recession continued, the White House could then turn its attention on the pharmaceutical industry to lower the cost of prescription drugs for all Medicare recipients.

All this is, of course, speculation after the fact and will do nothing to change the outcome of the special election in Massachusetts. For Progressives the outcome of that election does not change the political landscape. Progressive Democrats did not have a super-majority in the Senate before this election. Now that the illusion of this advantage has been vanquished, it is time for Progressives in Congress to seize the day and step up. To that end, here are three recommendations:

- Initiating Progressive policy should preclude the appearance of bipartisanism

- Realize that many of the people you are trying to help have a short attention span and are easily distracted

- Keep it simple, stupid. Get good, simple framework policy passed and amend it later