In discussing the DLC's healthcare proposal, Drum states he's "a pragmatic kind of guy" but that "the DLC is trying to give pragmatism a bad name." Similar to "Hillarycare," Drum feels this plan never had a chance of becoming law, seemingly being too much too soon:
[The DLC plan] has no chance of becoming law. The big argument against fighting for universal healthcare is that it's politically infeasible, but the DLC's plan is dead on arrival too. What's the point of compromising if the compromise itself is just as big a nonstarter as the original goal?So it would appear that when it comes to national changes in healthcare policy that the pragmatic tactic is incrementalism. And yet in another post, Drum states, "incrementalism has failed."
Well, which is it? Stop the piecemeal, bit-by-bit moves toward UHC, or instead offer up the whole enchilada (e.g. DLC plan, Hillarycare) that likely "has no chance of becoming law"?
It's no wonder there's massive confusion and disagreement on this subject among those who know a thing or two about it -- not to mention the befuddled and distracted American public.