This is made even better by the fact that he uses health care and Nixon at the end.  Someone else had that awesome idea at The Huffington Post as well.

And, as a bonus, since I’m breaking my rules, here is a clip from The Colbert Report.  It’s been almost a year, and I think this is still one of the most fun things I’ve ever done.

Rob’s a tireless advocate and an all around great guy.  Go post a comment and tell him what you think.

Pass the bill. There — I said it.

Before you start screaming at me from the Left, take a deep breath. My bonafides on robust reform are pretty solid. I’ve published research, more than once, on how physicians are pretty receptive to national health insurance. I’ve previously been on the board of Physicians for a National Health Program. I even appeared on the Colbert Report last summer to talk about single-payer health care. I’d rather have that; we’re not going to get it right now.

They should pass this bill.

Before you scream at me from the Right, I know this bill isn’t perfect. I agree that it doesn’t do enough for cost containment (although sometimes I think that I am much more sincere about really containing costs than you are). I agree that there are parts of it that aren’t entirely clear. But most of what you seem to hate about the bill isn’t actually true. So it’s hard to know what to tell you.

They should pass this bill.

Whenever you debate a medical treatment or procedure, you have to weigh the benefits versus the harms. If the harms outweigh the benefits, it’s probably not a good idea. If the opposite is true, it’s a path you likely should consider. And when it comes to this bill, I think that it does more good than harm, if only for the following reasons:

1. Severely increased expansion of Medicaid. Few people know how limited Medicaid coverage is. In most states, you can’t get Medicaid at all if you don’t have kids. And even if you do have kids, some states limits are so low that if you’re part of a couple with two children and make $2500 a year, you make too much to get Medicaid in Alabama. The Senate bill raises the limits for everyone in the country to 133% of the poverty line. That’s a big deal, and would do an amazing amount of good for millions of the least well off among us.
2. Increased regulations on insurance companies. They can’t deny you insurance for pre-existing conditions. They can’t stop paying the bills at some arbitrary limit. They can’t charge you more because you (or your child or your spouse) were unlucky to develop a chronic condition like diabetes, asthma, or cancer. They can’t drop your coverage when you get sick. They can’t spend more than a certain amount on things not actually relevant to health care.
3. Insurance exchanges. People who get their insurance through their jobs have absolutely no idea how difficult and expensive it is to get insurance in the open market. And know this – you’re one layoff from being in that position. Just ask the UAW member, the steel worker, or a local contractor. The exchanges will let everyone, absolutely everyone, be part of a large group to get insurance. I don’t know anyone who opposes this.

And there’s more. There’s money for federal Community Health Centers, which serve over 16 million people and likely more in the future. There’s money for increased training of primary care providers. And – it’s projected to decrease the deficit, unlike Medicare Part D, passed by many of the Republicans and Democrats who’ve now suddenly become averse to spending, which will add about $1 trillion to the deficit over the same time.

Yes, it’s not completely universal. I hate that. It still supports the massively fractured health care system we all seem to loathe. It won’t do much to change our culture of massive over-spending. It won’t do enough to truly rein in costs over time. It’s not as efficient as it could be and still tolerates an enormous amount of waste.

Still. They should pass the bill.

The good it will do is far better than the status quo. It improves the situation for millions of people without insurance. It helps everyone who doesn’t get insurance through their employer. It provides security even for those who do, and might someday join the ranks of those who don’t.

But there is one more reason to pass this bill. It’s an argument I use even when talking to my friends who vehemently oppose it.

If they don’t pass this thing, then no one – NO ONE – is going to attempt to fix this at all in the foreseeable future. And one thing you’re hearing as a scare tactic is true. We are spending almost $2.5 trillion a year on health care. It is 16% of our economy. And it’s growing too fast. If no one touches this, then we’re doomed, fiscally. Costs will continue to rise, politicians will put it off, and we will crash. Then, when we have to fix it, there will be nothing left to fix it with.

We need real cost control, and the only way to do that is to build on this. There needs to be a success to build on. We need to get everyone covered. We need to improve quality. We need to make it even more efficient. And all of those things require some momentum, or something to convince future politicians to act.

Moreover, to truly contain costs, we will need to take more drastic action someday soon. If you think this iteration of reform is unpopular, wait until you see someone honestly try and talk about reining in spending. That will work if – and only if – it applies to everyone equally; it will work only if everyone is covered.

And none of that will happen if they don’t pass the bill.

So pass the bill.

UPDATE: It’s important to note that in this piece I am speaking for myself, as a private citizen, and in no way representing my University or any other organization.

After the loss in the special election last week in Massachusetts, they hold the White House, the House of Representatives by a 78 vote majority, and the Senate by a 59-41 majority.

So obviously, it’s time to give up.

There’s Senator Snowe, the only Republican seemingly willing to negotiate at all, saying that, “said she tried to warn Democrats, including Mr. Obama, that they were pushing too hard too fast.”

Yeah… too fast. That’s the problem with health care reform. We’ve been moving too fast.

Way back in 1912, almost a century ago, Teddy Roosevelt ran for president on the Progressive Party ticket, pledging national health insurance for Americans. He lost to Woodrow Wilson, and so did the country’s chance for robust health care reform. I guess he moved too fast.

In 1932, the Committee on the Costs of Medical Care, headed by Secretary of the Interior Wilbur, recommended:

Socialization of medical care for the people of the United States, based on a system of group practice and group payment, with community medical centres to provide complete medical service, both preventive and therapeutic, in return for weekly or monthly fees, in the form of insurance, taxation, or both

This was, or course, called socialism. The opposition, of course, said the issue was one “between incitement to revolution and a desire for gradual evolution based upon analysis and study.” That’s high-faulting talk for “they’re moving too fast.”

In 1945, after becoming President, Harry Truman called for the creation of National Health Insurance. However, before he could get anything enacted, the Republicans won control of Congress in 1946, and his hopes for reform became unobtainable. In 1948, however, President Truman won re-election with a mandate for health care reform. The Democrats even retook control of Congress. But conservative Democrats wound up blocking his efforts.

Sound familiar?

President Kennedy tried again in the early 1960s, but was also blocked by conservative Southern Democrats. President Johnson failed similarly in his first term. After a landslide victory in 1964, though, with a 150+ vote majority in the House and a 26 vote majority in the Senate, they passed Medicare; even then they couldn’t get health care reform for everyone, just the elderly.

Or course, those opposed to reform claimed the process was socialism and the end of freedom. None of that turned out to be true, of course. You’d think that no one had heard those arguments before. Maybe, since things were moving so fast no one had paid close attention.

In the 1970′s Senator Ted Kennedy tried again for National Health Insurance. President Nixon, in an effort to cut him off, proposed his own brand of more conservative reform. Ironically, his proposal is arguably more liberal than the “socialism” working its way through Congress now. But, because there were too many different ideas (and some losses and gains in Congress), reform stalled.

Sound familiar?

I wont even go into President Clinton’s efforts. But let’s remember they occurred in the early 1990′s. That was a pretty long time ago.

How slow do we need to move? When will America be ready for health care reform?

Throughout much of the Democratic primary, Senators Clinton and Obama debated health care reform. That started in 2006. Throughout the entire general election in 2008, Senators Obama and McCain debated health care reform. About one year ago, President Obama asked Congress to work on health care reform.

Was no one paying attention? How long is it supposed to take?

Back to Senator Snowe. There she was days ago telling us we need to slow down. I’d give her more credit, but she’s said that before. In December:

“The more they try to, sort of, drive this process in an unrealistic timeframe, the more reluctant I become about whether or not this can be doable in this timeframe that we’re talking about,” Snowe told reporters today.

Throughout the health care debate, Snowe has often pushed the principals to slow things down. So what might make her less reluctant?

“There’s always January,” Snowe said. “Frankly, I understand the value of deadlines, but this is getting, I think, unrealistic in terms of where we stand today.”

Huh. That sounded familiar. Maybe because she’d said the same thing in October:

“Well, Christmas might be too soon,” Snowe told Bloomberg’s Al Hunt in an interview that will air throughout the weekend. “Well, you know, there’s always that possibility. I know that’s not what the president prefers.”

Snowe refused to say that such a delay was likely, but added that “nothing would surprise me because of the complexity [of the issue].” She said that a vote would likely not come much before Christmas should it be held before recess.

She stressed the need to give the bill “the time it deserves,” something she has routinely said during negotiations.

“[The American people] don’t want it put on a fast track. They want us to give it the thought it needs and requires, and that’s why I’ve tried to slow the process down,” she said.

Yeah. That might have carried more weight if she hadn’t also said it back in July:

The letter, obtained by the Huffington Post, was drafted by Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) and is also signed by Democratic Sens. Mary Landrieu (La.) and Ron Wyden (Ore.). Independent Joe Lieberman (Conn.), who caucuses with Democrats, signed on, as did Maine Republican Sens. Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins — moderates heavily courted by President Obama. The organized effort to slow down the process is a blow to the reform effort. Obama has pushed hard for a final vote before the August recess, arguing that delaying until September could slow momentum and risk missing a historic opportunity.

How slow is slow enough? The facts of the matter are that reform can’t realistically take more than two years, when the entire House is re-elected. The Congress who writes the law has to pass it. That’s pretty much the way it always works. You can’t ask Congresspeople to vote on legislation they didn’t debate or write.

Will no one ask the question? How much slower would be acceptable?

It’s not as if any of the arguments against health care reform are new. Socialism? Government takeover of health care? We’ve been there before.

Last July, I was sitting across from Stephen Colbert who said that health care was never going to work because they were giving the Republicans a timetable for withdrawal by demanding it be passed by August. “This was never going to be easy, ” I replied. “The longer they wait, the more it’s likely this could be unpopular.” That wasn’t any great insight. I just knew we’ve been here before. Over and over again.

If you believe the Republicans, or anyone else, has a valid and new argument against reform, then so be it. If you believe that watching more “debate” on C-Span will produce a better bill, then more power to you. But if you buy into the rhetoric that we’re moving too fast, you just haven’t been paying attention.

*This was also posted at HuffPo

Debate the Solution, But Don’t Deny the Problem

Enjoy!

Please go read it, share the link, and comment!

I’m especially excited because it’s allowed me to answer a lot of comments over at the Huffington Post.  Join the discussion.

Enjoy my latest at the Huffington Post.  Please do comment.

I really appreciate comments!

Read more.