Hmm, enacting health reform early...sounds like a crazy idea

How fait accompli is some kind of health reform right now? Well, it's basically to the point where everyone glosses over tiny things like the White House opposing the public option in the Senate and Harry Reid having to lead the way on his own and just moves on to a debate about how soon to implement health reform proposals. Because how can you be expected to get re-elected or reap the popularity of health care reform in 2010 if it doesn't kick in until 2013? There's also something about helping people in need and providing much needed relief in what is actually a life or death situation for blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.

The most significant changes to the health care system wouldn’t kick in until 2013 – two election cycles away. With Republicans expected to make next year a referendum on health care reform, Democrats are quietly lobbying to push up the effective dates on popular programs, so they'll have something to run on in the congressional midterms.

Democrats are anxious to mix the good with the bad since some of the pain would be phased in early, including more than $100 billion in industry fees that critics say could be passed on to consumers.

“We want to be able, within the cost framework and the implementation framework, to have as much start as early as possible, even though we know all of it can’t,” said Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.), a Finance Committee member who is working with other senators on the effort. “And the White House wants to have as much as possible to start.”

Among the proposals: make prescription drug discounts available to seniors as well as start randomly adding poisons into those drugs as part of the "death panel" program, tax credits for small businesses, a high risk pool for filth with pre-existing conditions like rape, low birth-weight, or high birth-weight, and money to hire ILM to do enough CG and special effects work to make it look like the severely underwhelming minor tweaks to our system were a massive overhaul and top to bottom reforming of American health care.

Of course there is opposition to these efforts. Sen John Cornyn (R-TX) argues that this is just a seedy and transparent attempt to get people to see the benefit of the legislation by letting them, you know, enroll in programs and get coverage. Plus there's that unfair election advantage where people might be fit to reward Democrats and punish Republicans just because one made an attempt at reform while the other shrieked about grandma getting ganked. And really that's what this all comes down to: elections. Because isn't that the whole point of doing something like this: so one can get re-elected and look good politically? It's certainly not about providing the best and cheapest plan and reforms to cover the American people, so the process of elimination only really leaves politics.