Paul Starr: Why I support the health care reform bill

The health-care reform legislation pending in Congress would be the largest program on behalf of low- to moderate-income people in the United States since the 1960s.

Besides subsidizing coverage, it would create a new mechanism for purchasing insurance that would give greater buying power to people who now purchase policies individually and through small employers.

It would eliminate pre-existing condition exclusions.

It would enable people to buy policies at the same price regardless of their health (albeit with some allowance for differences in age).

It would raise the standards of coverage for millions of people who are underinsured.

It would represent a commitment by the federal government to make health insurance affordable to every American. And by making that commitment, the government would effectively commit itself to controlling both public and private health-care costs.

Oh, and by the way, according to the Congressional Budget Office, it would reduce the deficit and, according to the Medicare actuary, it would extend the life of the Medicare trust fund.

The full statement by Starr is here. Paul Starr is the author of the landmark The Social Transformation of American Medicine. He teaches at Princeton.

One year to the Mid-Term Elections

It is time to look forward to the mid-term elections. My first was 1982 (before that I was too much the anti-war activist to be involved in electoral politics). I was on Bob Torricelli's issues committee. Unemployment was surging and in working class south Bergen County all we really had to say (and did on thousands of leaflets) was "If you don't vote Democratic they won't get the message". They did and it was a good year for Democrats.

The problem for Democrats now is unnervingly familiar. As a lawyer I remember most fondly my occasional smashing victories. But the reality is that most of the time we were building toward the best available compromise. It was always a hard sell. Politics is that art.

The gap between the message of `Yes we can!' HOPE and the slow slog of Obama's centrism and the persistence of high unemployment feeds skepticism about politics; and anti-tax sentiment (`I need cash') moves back toward ascendancy.

The danger of the current moment for progressives is this: the party in the White House and the majority in Congress ALWAYS loses strength in mid-term elections. 60 votes in the Senate are not really there (making Lieberman and the Blue Dogs king makers). With the bitter pill of compromise on the table progressives will be less motivated. The Right - buoyed by the inevitable loss of air in the 2008 election balloon - will be motivated because their oppositionist stance has freed them from the need to compromise. They can run totally negative, as the infelicitous Chris Christie showed in his New Jersey victory over the competent but hamstrung Jon Corzine.

So I come out for more boldness on the part of the President and the Democratic Party. The success of his Presidency depends on it. And requires a focus on things that can be felt sooner rather than later. For that I turn it over to Paul Starr, the groundbreaking author of The Social Transformation of American Medicine.

The founder and Co-Editor of the American Prospect concludes his December column Faster Please:

According to research by the political scientist Larry Bartels, presidents running for re-election have benefited when economic growth occurred late in their terms rather than at the start.

Democrats running in 2010 have no such consolation, however, and if they lose effective control of Congress, much of the promise of Obama’s presidency may be lost too. A little presidential impatience now would be a good stimulus in itself.