Really, Mark Warner. REALLY?

Not to deliberately steal from the talented folks who write Update at SNL, but, really? Sen. Mark Warner said President Obama misplayed the health care debate because he didn't focus on cost containment. Really?

Well, yes, he really said that.

"I wish the president would have started the debate by explaining to the American people that our current health care system is not financially sustainable, for even another decade," Warner told the Washington Times. "Driving down health care costs should have been the focus of the debate."

This is unreality. The FIRST argument that the White House turned to about health care was about the cost of doing nothing. (It was Tom Daschle's formulation, actually, that Obama adopted during the campaign and the transition and the early part of this year.)

From December 22: ""Some may ask how at this moment of economic challenge we can afford to invest in reforming our health-care system. And I ask a different question. I ask how can we afford not to."

Progressive activists didn't like the obsessive focus on cost. And they believe that the president hemmed himself in by imposing a seemingly arbitrary $900 billion cap on costs over ten years.

The argument THEY wanted him to make--the liberal argument, if you will--is a moral argument. People are getting sick and dying because they can't afford health care in a country of plenty. But Obama subordinated that argument to focus on cost.

Whether he successfully set the frame for the debate is another question. Indeed, it has another answer: probably not. But maybe the argument isn't winnable.

Health care reform is going to be expensive; people sense this intuitively. A cost-containment argument plays well in polling, and focus groups like it, but the reality of the bill--the reality of reform that members of Congress put together--was messy and expensive. And the reality of politics is that Republicans were unlikely to support health reform as conceived of by Democrats.

Really.

Presented by

Marc Ambinder is an Atlantic contributing editor. He is also a senior contributor at Defense One, a contributing editor at GQ, and a regular contributor at The Week.

What Happened to the Milky Way?

Light pollution has taken away our ability to see the stars. Can we still save the night sky?

Join the Discussion

After you comment, click Post. If you’re not already logged in you will be asked to log in or register with Disqus.

Please note that The Atlantic's account system is separate from our commenting system. To log in or register with The Atlantic, use the Sign In button at the top of every page.

blog comments powered by Disqus

Video

What Happened to the Milky Way?

Light pollution has taken away our ability to see the stars. Can we still save the night sky?

Video

The Faces of #BlackLivesMatter

Scenes from a recent protest in New York City

Video

Desegregated, Yet Unequal

A short documentary about the legacy of Boston busing

Video

Ruth Bader Ginsburg on Life

The Supreme Court justice talks gender equality and marriage.

Video

Social Media: The Video Game

What if the validation of your peers could "level up" your life?

Video

The Pentagon's $1.5 Trillion Mistake

The F-35 fighter jet was supposed to do everything. Instead, it can barely do anything.

More in Politics

Just In