HEALTH CARE REFORM SUMMIT 2/26/10

In today’s NY Times, two columnists whose opinions appear regularly on the OP-ED page commented about the Summit chaired by President Obama yesterday to discuss Health Care reform with leaders from both the Republican and the Democratic parties. Columnist Paul Krugman called the opening statement by the Republican spokesperson, Senator Lamar Alexander, a “whopper,” for claiming that under the Democratic plan, “millions of Americans premiums will go up.” Krugman pointed out that under the plan prices of a given amount of insurance will go down, not up, explaining that there will be those who choose more and better insurance which, in that case, would result in an increase of premiums. Krugman added that the Republicans chose to attend the meeting with no intention of making a case for their health care plan.
The other NY Times columnist, David Brooks, commented that Senator Lamar Alexander led the way for the Republicans, “which he did genially and intelligently.” Obviously there is a degree of personal take on the Senator’s conduct between the two columnists. But after a year of work on the reform bill by numerous congressional committees, one would think that the two parties had at least gotten their facts straight. To say that Senator Alexander is genial is an honest characterization, but to say he presented his party’s opinion intelligently is beyond comprehension.
Both columnists are highly intelligent. Krugman is an economic Nobelist and David Brooks has a real grasp of history and politics. How could two brilliant men come to such divergent opinions about a senator’s testimony? Is history just illusory opinion? Do French and German textbooks project a different bent about the cause and effect of WW II? Consider the take on any event by the Israelis and the Palestinians. Or the claims by the Turks and the Armenians about their history. Perhaps Mr. Brooks has a tendency to inject some kindness towards conservative perspectives, while Mr. Krugman seems to be inclined to vituperate regarding the conservative mind.
At any rate, during the summit meeting, President Obama took exception to Senator Alexander’s interpretative comments about the impact of the Democrat’s plan on insurance rates. Strangely, Mr. Brooks praised Obama’s conduct, while Krugman appeared to feel that the president was wasting time with the summit and urged him to be more forceful. Krugman expressed hope that a health reform bill still has a chance of coming to life, whereas Brooks made it clear that in his opinion the bill was dead in the water. If great minds can’t agree on what are facts, how on earth are me and Joe Six-pack going to understand the issue?
There is no way that the bill, if passed, will affect me since nobody has better health insurance than I do. But, it would be nice if the din about millions without it and why could be put to rest. The passage of the reform measure will restore my faith in mankind. Here in San Francisco, the city ensures that the unemployed and all poor people have health insurance. If this City by the Bay can do that, what’s holding up the rest of the country?