The idea of postponing health care reform--until, say, the economy improves-- doesn't seem appealing to many Democrats now.** But it might soon. The problem, as Michael Goodwin's recent column points out, is that the issues waiting in the wings--should health care leave the stage--are even worse, from the Democrats' political perspective . Cap and trade, immigration legalization, "card check"--these are not what you'd call confidence building appetizers leading up to the main course of Obama's presidency. Plus the Afghan War! At least a clear majority of the public wants something done about health care....

It's easy to forget that, even if Obama's health care effort is bogging down, the effort itself  still serves his presidency as a crucial time-waster , tying up Congress and giving him a reason to postpone (or the public a reason to ignore) those other divisive, presidency-killers. Obama needs some excuse for putting off unpopular Democratic demands; health care's a good one. If he keeps failing to pass health care until spring, that might not be such a bad outcome. In fact, even quick passage was maybe never in his interest. There are things more unpopular than struggling. ...

P.S.:  Clinton recovered after his health care failure by turning to welfare reform and deficit reduction. You'd think a focus on the deficit (apart from health care) might perform the same centering, rehabilitative function for Obama. .... Orszag types will point out that you can't solve the long-term deficit without taking measures to bend the health-care cost curve. That may be true. But it may also be true that you can't pass measures to bend the health care cost curve (or raise taxes) until you've assured seniors that you've taken the fat out of everyplace else in the budget. Today, after the stimulus bill, Obama can't provide that assurance. ...

__________

**--That is not quite what Senator Lieberman proposed yesterday on CNN . He apparently wants to pass "health delivery reform and insurance market reforms" while postponing expensive coverage extensions. It's not clear to me that this makes any sense at all. a) Won't insurance market reforms, in themselves, raise the price of coverage (by eliminating "preexisting condition" exclusion, for example)? Without expensive subsidies, won't that just mean millions more uninsured? b) Isn't "health delivery reform" exactly what's frightening seniors with fears of rationing? Why would passing just the scariest part of the bill be easier? Better to follow Uwe Reinhardt's advice and pass insurance market reforms, plus subsidies, and leave the long term "delivery reform" for the long term. ... 2:05 A.M. 

___________________________