You know all that backing and forthing between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton over the differences in their healthy care proposals? Ever think it might be worth the effort of trying to weigh the merits of their respective proposals, or do you just tell yourself it doesn’t much matter anyway?
The second option may not appear the more civic minded, but it may be the more savvy.
Congressional Democrats weigh in on the prospect of changing the health care system if Dems control both houses of Congress and the White House in The Hill today:
“We all know there is not enough money to do all this stuff,” said Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.), a Finance Committee member and an Obama supporter, referring to the presidential candidates’ healthcare plans. “What they are doing is … laying out their ambitions.”
Sen. Charles Schumer (N.Y.), a member of Senate Democratic leadership and a key Hillary Clinton ally who also sits on the Finance Committee, said he is “not sure we have the big plan on healthcare.”
“Healthcare I feel strongly about, but I am not sure that we’re ready for a major national healthcare plan,” Schumer said.
We? What do you mean we, Senator? I’m ready, even though I’m lucky to have insurance — with a deductible that rose 60% this year.
The Hill goes on to point out that quality legislation takes time.
For instance, a bill to create a drug benefit under Medicare passed the House in 2000 and 2002, but didn’t land on Bush’s desk until late 2003.
“You don’t want to rush and do something and do it incorrectly,” said former Sen. John Breaux (D-La.), who helped negotiate the Medicare law.
Nice job of aging that one, Senator. Everybody loves the robust pungency that is Medicare Part D. Yet there is, in case they haven’t noticed inside the beltway, a difference between aged cheese and aged milk.
And putting off overhauling the health insurance system is aged milk.