The politics of universal health care

Ezra asks an important question:

Ron Wyden's health care bill, which is solid, impressively comprehensive, reform legislation, now has 11 Senate cosponsors, including six Republicans. And these are powerful, conservative, Republicans -- Grassley, Judd, Gregg, Alexander, Coleman, Crapo, and Bennett (not to mention Lieberman). Grassley, for one, is actually the ranking Republican on the Finance Committee, which is the relevant committee. Crapo's on the committee as well.

So, assuming three more Republicans could be persuaded to eschew a filibuster -- say. Warner, McCain, and Graham -- couldn't this bill be passed, like, tomorrow?

There's a lot to consider here, but I think in the end the answer is no. And the problem is not just that it's impossible to know how sincere these Republicans are. It's also that Democrats first need to be willing to fight for something--and I think Ezra's too bullish when, in this post, he writes "the Democrats in Congress [are] fiercely interested in passing health care reform."

After all, if they were fiercely interested in getting this done, they could call Grassley et al on their bluff by running the Edwards gambit on their own through the appropriations process. And if Bush vetoed that, it would demonstrate to voters just how hollow his anti-socialist objections to SCHIP really are: government provided health care for us, but not for the kids. It would make for some fantastic TV ads--uniquely powerful stuff. But it would also require Congress to put their benefits on the line as part of political showdown, and I don't believe they're willing to do that. Not now, and probably not under a President Edwards either.