Healthy delay - encouraging signs that the Clinton health reform plan may not pass in Congress - Editorial

WHEN Hillary Clinton and Ira Magaziner closeted themselves with their task force to commence re-making one-seventh of the American economy, health-care reform at least seemed to have an element of idealism. Now, a political and intellectual failure, reform limps onto the floors of the House and Senate sustained almost solely by Democratic cynicism and deceit.

For deceit, look at the characterization of the Mitchell bill as a compromise. President Clinton went so far as to say that it (along with the even more liberal Gephardt bill in the House) represents a "conservative approach." The Washington Post says the Mitchell bill is "halfway between President Clinton's original plan and the Republicans' less broad approach." But if the Mitchell bill represents any middle ground, it's between Bill and Hillary.

All that's toned down is the employer mandate, which will come after six years and hit employers for 50 instead of 80 per cent of the cost of their employees' insurance. Otherwise, all the essential regulation is in place: a standard benefits package, which means Congress determining what insurance Americans carry; a system of strict community rating, which means Congress determining the cost of insurance (and a doubling or tripling of rates for the young and healthy--see New York State), and a national commission recommending ways to control costs, which could mean Congress rationing care. Throw in subsidies for up to a 100 million people, and this is what is meant by the phrase "government-run health care."

For cynicism, look at the way Democrats plan to slam this or something similar through congress. In the Senate, they'll take whatever they can get. In the House, the leadership is likely to allow a bipartisan bill to come to the floor; such a bill, if it eschews new taxes, could pass with as many as 300 votes. Then they'll trot out the Gephardt bill, which, even if it gets a bare 218 votes, wins under the so-called "King of the Hill" rule (last bill to get a majority takes precedence). The House and Senate versions then go to a conference dominated by the leftmost members of Congress (John Dingell, Henry Waxman, Pete Stark, Ted Kennedy, Jay Rockefeller, etc.), bent on producing the leftmost plausible bill.

And so, late this fall, with precious campaign time ticking away, a bill to the left even of Mitchell will be presented to both houses of Congress with the admonition, "Take 'health-care reform' or leave it." At that point, there won't be many leavers.

The time to stop this runaway train is before it starts. Republicans can bring down the Mitchell bill the same way they did the Clinton bill--if they're willing to withstand a furious Democratic assault (obstructionism, gridlock, mean-spiritedness) and stick to their message that governmental health care will be a disaster. Bob Dole so far is hanging tough, and he has been joined even by GOP moderates. But at some point he will have to cut himself off from the possibility of a deal entirely, and say straightforwardly: This is the wrong plan, and the wrong way to reform health care. Let's wait till next year.

Given a choice between a massive, Democratic-sponsored expansion of government regulation now, and something sensible from Republicans later, most Americans would assuredly take the latter. Still in doubt is whether they'll get to choose.

COPYRIGHT 1994 National Review, Inc.
COPYRIGHT 2004 Gale Group