<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"?><oembed><version><![CDATA[1.0]]></version><provider_name><![CDATA[The Dish]]></provider_name><provider_url><![CDATA[http://dish.andrewsullivan.com]]></provider_url><author_name><![CDATA[Andrew Sullivan]]></author_name><author_url><![CDATA[https://dish.andrewsullivan.com/author/sullydish/]]></author_url><title><![CDATA[If Not Now,&nbsp;When?]]></title><type><![CDATA[link]]></type><html><![CDATA[
<p>Ezra <a href="http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/03/why_health-care_reform_gets_ha.html">makes</a> an essential point:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Over the past hundred or so years, the health-care system has gone from a very small portion of our economy to about a fifth of it. That&#39;s a remarkable rise. And it has been accompanied by a similar rise in the political power of the health-care industry. I&#39;ve previously argued that the history of health-care reform is a history of decreasing ambition: FDR and Harry Truman propose something like single-payer, John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson ratchet back to single-payer for seniors and poor people, Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton offer national systems that rely on private providers, and now President Obama is building a private system that&#39;s initially limited to small businesses and individuals. </p>
<p>There are a lot of reasons for that. One is that political defeat engenders future timidity. But another is that the gaps between proposals give the health-care industry time to grow even larger and more politically powerful, which means that the next president who takes up the issue is faced with a more daunting task and pulls back his ambitions accordingly. </p></blockquote>
]]></html></oembed>