Rational Arguments

Speaker Pelosi weighs in.  And she doesn’t like the idea:

“There are some things that sound easy, but you might as well send somebody a get well card, because they don’t have any more impact, except maybe they make you feel good for the moment,” said Pelosi, who paused and rethought her comparison.

“Maybe a get well card might be more effective, as a matter of fact, because it’s sincere,” she said.

Strong words.  But she backed up the rhetoric with a rationale:

“Some people have suggested that we should do [insurance reforms] freestanding, but it’s important to note the following: You can’t do that freestanding unless you have the basic underpinnings of a bill, because otherwise you’re making a statement, but you’re not making a difference in anyone’s life, because it’s not tied to the accountability of the insurance companies,” she said. “You could get all of those things–insurance companies will price it out of everybody’s range. So they would be factors for increased costs and premiums, rather than reforms of the insurance industry, unless they go along with a bill that is underlying, that we hope that we will be able to pass before too long.”

Yep.

Ugh.  The NYT Prescriptions blog has the latest on the Democrats’ bad idea of breaking health care reform into parts:

If Democrats break down their major health care legislation into components that could be approved separately, the first bill up for consideration could be a proposal to end the exemption from federal antitrust laws that insurers have enjoyed since 1945.

Austin Frakt has already pointed out why this isn’t necessarily a great idea.

It’s bad enough that passing health care reform in bits may do no good.  If it causes harm, that would be unspeakably bad.

(h/t Ezra Klein)