Republicans Missed Their Chance On Health Reform
Now that Democrats in the House are nearing a vote on an historic health care reform bill, with the Senate not far behind, the Republican leadership is touting its own 11th hour alternative that will be more market-driven. What took them so long? What has House Minority Leader John Boehner been waiting for?
Up until now, all the Republicans have done is gripe about President Obama and his fellow “socialists” in Congress taking over our health care system (when, in fact, the government already pays a huge portion of the tab via Medicare, Medicaid and Veterans Administration hospitals–and thank goodness they do, because if they didn’t, who would?).
President Obama, perhaps naively, came into office pledging a bipartisan effort. Whether you agree that he was sincere, or fault him to even trying to accomplish such a Utopian goal in our poisoned political culture, I think we can agree that Republicans all along have wanted a radically different approach.
So, did the Republicans go off and craft their own preferred bill these past months? Nope. All they did is take pot shots at the President and anyone in Congress pushing for reform.
So NOW the Republicans are pledging to come up with their own bill? Really?
Great! Better late than never, right? But so far all we have are sketchy details, including one huge one–the Republicans are seriously thinking of excluding the one aspect of reform everyone in America seems to agree on–preventing insurers from rejecting or overcharging those with preexisting conditions? That’s what Rep. Boehner says he’s going to do. Unbelievable!
Instead, he promises to encourage the creation of insurance pools for high-risk individuals, and take other unspecified steps to ease their access to coverage.
Unless he’s willing to mandate that carriers cover such individuals at an affordable rate, taking all comers according to their state market share (an idea I pitched over the summer as Health Insurance Assigned Risk Pools), this idea is non-starter. And I doubt that is what Republicans have in mind, since they don’t like government mandating anything.
The Republicans do have a few good ideas that should be part of any health care reform package.
Medical malpractice reform is a must to cut down on the unnecessary tests being ordered as defensive medicine against lawsuits–and such claims should be judged by medical experts, not a jury of lay people.
In addition, buyers should be able to shop for health insurance across state lines. (Although that would require federal regulation, would it not?)
Had the Republicans been more serious about actually reforming the health care system, rather than obsessing about stopping President Obama from achieving a political victory, they would have crafted their own alternative bill weeks, if not months ago.
Then they would have had some leverage to negotiate with Democrats desperate to get at 60-vote Senate super-duper majority, to include some of their best ideas in a final reform bill in return for bipartisan support.
But Republicans wanted no part of health care reform, and now they are paying the price by being left out in the cold.
As a result, Republicans are reduced to relying on the Democrats to fight among themselves to derail the bill.
If such infighting is resolved, their only political hope would be that any bill passing without their support fails to do the trick, leaving millions uninsured and costs skyrocketing. That way, they can blame the Democrats and retake control of Washington–but at what cost to the country?
How much better would it have been for everyone had the two parties actually worked together to solve our health care crisis?
Is this any way to govern?
What do you folks think?
Entries (RSS)
From a practical political standpoint, all the Republicans could do was sit and watch. The Democrats had the numbers and essentially excluded them from negotiations.
The Republicans did offer a general outline at the beginning, but it was not given serious consideration.
The strategy, as I see it, was to allow the Democrats be Democrats and offer a bill that costs too much and is out of the mainstream from where Americans are at this point. Obama might have been elected with a majority, but that does not translate into a majority buying into all of the changes that he has proposed–especially since most of those changes are from the left as opposed to the moderate stances that he took in the general campaign.
Look where the numbers are now for him and, more particularly, on healthcare reform. They are sinking.
I read an interesting piece by Fred Barnes in today’s WSJ. The thesis is that dramatic change in the U.S. cannot be done unless it is bipartisan. We are not there now.
Perhaps after this monstrosity that Pelosi and Reid have thrown on the table gets defeated (or meets its fate via a death panel) we can have a bipartisan attempt at reform.
Ahhhh – who am I kidding? Add election results from today into the mix and then next year’s elections (which start tomorrow) and we have cynicism for another whole year!
You hit the nail on the head when you said, “Had the Republicans been more serious about actually reforming the health care system, rather than obsessing about stopping President Obama from achieving a political victory, they would have crafted their own alternative bill weeks, if not months ago.”
Given that they are more interested in achieving political victory then working toward a good compromise bill for the benefit of the electorate that they are supposed to serve, I say let’s move on without them.
They had their chances, many of them.
Selling across state lines is a scary proposition. It would be an invitation for bogus operators to prey on small businesses by selling them worthless paper.
There’s already a new wave of fake health plans cropping up across the country. The Republican proposal — without an extensive federal consumer protection system (as you point out)–would be a nightmare, and would impair the integrity of private health insurance.
“Given that they are more interested in achieving political victory then working toward a good compromise bill for the benefit of the electorate that they are supposed to serve, I say let’s move on without them.”
Well it seems that is exactly what the Democrats should be doing.
After all, the Democrats were more interested in having bipartisan votes, but not bipartisan input. As it stands now, Senator Majority Leader Harry Reid is hinting that there’s a good possibility that the bill won’t get passed this year, and whose fault is that?
Seems like it’s easy to ridicule the GOP for an 11th hour alternative, but I find it more telling that the huge Democrat majority in the House and Senate can’t seem to get their own act together and get this bill passed.
SAM RESPONDS:
Actually, the Senate Finance Committee worked for weeks with the few “moderate” Republicans left in the Senate on a compromise bill. The Republicans, on the whole, have done nothing to further this process at all.
As for why a vote this year is in jeopardy, that’s because of the ridiculous Senate rules requiring a super-majority of 60 votes to get anything done. It’s a stupid, undemocratic rule that should be changed–although I must concede that the Democrats abused the same rule when they were in the minority.
Better to miss a boat going in the wrong direction. The expanded socialization of medical service costs will just make them grow even faster. Expense account living, don’t you know.
Efforts to curb the growth will be blunt, coercive and counterproductive, like centralized directives generally–stupid at the ground level. This is what we want?
Sam, you might need to do a little more research before writing your columns.
The GOP has had a health care bill since May. I have mentioned it before in my responses to your blog. It was written by Reps. Ryan and Nunes, and Sens. Burr and Coburn. It has been referred to as the Patients’ Choice Act.
Unfortunately nobody gave this bill any consideration because the Democrats aren’t really interested in bi-partisan support. They only want bi-partisan support if it means Republicans voting for their bill as they want it written. They are not interested in considering or listening to any of the ideas or proposals from the GOP.
I have included a link to the summary of this bill:
http://coburn.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=HealthCareReform.Home&ContentRecord_id=5e3b30a4-802a-23ad-4b44-14f0219114c6
If I were a GOP senator or rep I would vote against any Democrat health plan. Why? Because it will be a complete and utter failure.
The Democrats don’t need one GOP vote in the House or Senate to pass this. It is members of their own party that are starting to realize that their political future could be over if they vote to pass this. Clearly the American people don’t want a plan that includes a public option.
SAM RESPONDS:
I stand corrected! But I am at a loss why the GOP didn’t do more to trumpet this alternative measure? Why wasn’t this bill touted in national ads? The sponsors sure flew under the radar on this.
The Democrats are in the majority. It’s up to the Republicans to fight to get their agenda out, instead of grousing about being left out of the party. Republicans were involved for months in the Senate Finance Committee deliberations–much to the chagrin of many Democrats, by the way. They should have fought harder for this measure if they truly believed it to be a viable alternative.
House Minority Leader John Boehner is talking like he’s coming up with an entirely new bill at the 11th hour. He should be pushing the bill from May….
The GOP wanted this effort to fail from the beginning, and this last-minute proposal is just a last-ditch effort to derail health care reform. Democrats should have not have even bothered trying to engage the GOP in any discussion.
1. Anyone who believed Obama was sincere about seeking bipartisan solutions on health reform also believes in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and global warming. Obama refused to meet with Republicans on this topic since April.
2. The feds should provide health care for veterans–no serious conservative believes otherwise. Many seniors would prefer to pay for their own health coverage yet are prohibited by law from doing so.
Anyone who believed the Republicans had any interest in this debate other than derailing the Democrats for their own political gain also believes in young Earth creationism, gets all their news from AM radio and does so while driving an F150 to their menial office job.
Find me an insurance company that would underwrite a 75-year-old for less than, say, $40,000 a year. I don’t know many seniors who would prefer that.
“Clearly the American people don’t want a plan that includes a public option.”
More proof that the right, with their disdain for science and newspapers, are increasingly functionally illiterate. This comment runs counter to every public opinion poll for the last 2 decades.
A handful of loud and silly people who don’t know what they are talking about and are given an absurdly disproportionate amount of coverage in the mainstream and especially rightwing press don’t want a public option.
Mr. Friedman, please forgive me for being so candid, but I believe your remarks are incredibly devoid of logic, understanding and common sense.
I would concur with your comments on the Republican inept leadership. That has been a problem for some time now as they have succumbed to the greed, arrogance and lust for power of the vast majority of politicians.
Your smug notation of Obama and his fellow “socialists” in Congress amazes me. It would appear you do not understand their agenda or you submit to it? Apparently you are unaware that Obama is a Marxist. Perhaps some intense study is in order.
“Government already pays a huge portion of the tab for Medicare…thank goodness they do that, because if they didn’t who would?” Has no one explained to you that the “so-called government money” is Tax Payer money!
No conscientious citizen would argue that help from the general public for Widows and Orphans (to use a trade term), handicapped, Veterans, temporarily unemployed need no assistance.
But history (you may wish to study) has proven whether it be LBJ’s “Great Society,” Stalin’s Communism, England’s Socialism etc. does not raise standards of living.
Equal opportunity (not equal attainment), free enterprise, generosity (Americans are the most generous nation in the world), Judeo-Christian values, strong protection from the military, medical advances etc., does.
America is the richest nation in history. When my wife takes her lunch break to race to the grocery store only to be delayed by an obese (but otherwise capable) woman with 4 small children purchasing a huge amount of junk food, fattening empty calorie provisions and handing the clerk food stamps, something is wrong.
The vast amount of health problems in America today are self-induced (that is junk food diets, alcohol and drug abuse, cigarette smoking, no exercise etc.) and the hard-working people are paying the tab! As Lincoln said, “You don’t bring up the downtrodden by bringing down the rich.”
You say, “Obama, perhaps naively…” Where have you been? He is a brilliant strategist, tireless tyrant, and smart organizer to say the least (he is anything but “naive”) albeit an empty suit, ego maniac, driven to rule, Monarch. All traits of a Hitler, Chavez, Mao, Castro etc.
“Medical malpractice reform…unnecessary tests…” Sidesteps the heart of the problem. Bottom dwelling trial lawyers on their feeding grounds (with no caps on awards) have caused this. Of course, so many lawyers are politicians…no correlation I’m sure.
Lastly, I have spent my career in business (as with most working people, I have little time to delegate to politics and protests as the liberals and non-working people do), including being an International Corporate President of 3 different Fortune 500 companies remaining politically neutral, as I thought that was appropriate.
Now, however I sincerely believe our country is at a crossroads. The extreme wealth here can carry a communist and/or socialist agenda for only so long….
I doubt you will (liberals never listen nor care about real history or alternate positions) but perhaps you may wish to read, “The 5,000 Year Leap, A Miracle that changed the World.”
I thank you for time, if you actually read this.
SAM RESPONDS:
Anyone who compares Barack Obama to Hitler, Mao and Castro cannot claim the high ground on the use of logic, I’m afraid. The guy is barely a liberal, let alone a communist, Marxist or fascist.
In any case, wasn’t it a Republican, free-market proponent, George W. Bush, who launched the TARP bailout program? Who began the bailout program of the auto industry? Who pushed through the Medicare prescription drug program (doughnut hole and all)???
I am not raising this to criticize former President Bush, but to point how how mainstream such notions are.
Indeed, had President Obama failed to prop up the banks and the auto industry, you’d probably have seen the total collapse of both sectors, taking the rest of the economy down with them, and putting millions more out of work. Then everyone would have blasted Obama for fiddliing while the economy burned to the ground!
As for living standards, programs like Social Security and Medicare kept millions of Americans out of poverty. And I seem to recall that in the most recent boom, it was the richest 1- or 2 percent of Americans who enjoyed the bulk of the income growth, while the middle class lagged.
Remember, Social Security taxes are regressive–the income ceiling prevents it from being otherwise. So I cannot fathom what in the world you are talking about when you claim American living standards are down?
John Gets The Last Word:
Your response has already made my day, thank you! With ideology so very far apart, I have often wondered how people really can ever have a true consensus. It seems it takes an emotionally charged event to transcend differences and bring people together.
Unfortunately that often is a negative event, such as a Pearl Harbor (Forgive me for once again digressing to the past, but I believe fundamental human nature has never changed. People in America have had extreme differences of opinion from day one. Even before independence was declared, there were many citizens who felt that revolution was insane and they supported George III; also feeling disloyalty to him almost blasphemy.)
Regarding Mr. Obama, only time and history can judge our assertions
either right or wrong. But to say he is “barely a liberal,” …my God man, you and I must read different dictionaries or this is the Twilight Zone? I have not known anyone who thinks that (including his supporters?).
As to GWB–I voted for him twice not because of great admiration for his agenda, but as the alternatives were unthinkable. It was in fact under his watch that blind government spending continued running amuck. He stood by while the likes of your man Barney Frank stood up in Congress and chastised those challenging the subprime loans and
Freddie Mac, only to latter declare the need for more “oversight.”
Not enough space here to debate the TARP or Medicare plan D but, again I do not follow a “simple party lines” message.
On the living standards part, definitely not enough space…but on “the richest 1 or 2 percent enjoyed…” I can never understand that liberal campaign slogan? I don’t know many of that group…politicians, lobbyists, trial lawyers, hollywood celebrities, professional athletes, Warren Buffet (who can’t wait to give away my money while he makes himself richer and richer, who now will control the coal industry through the backdoor of the railroad) etc.
But I do know a lot of people (again not even sure how you define rich…my grandfather never had much money, but he was happy, productive, giving; all the while hard working, resourceful and frugal) who have enough money to “enjoy” the fruits of their labor…Shame on them for working so hard, saving money, spending wisely and believing it important to give back on their own, not mandated by government.
I do concur firmly that the SS tax is regressive. But again this is such a big area of debate…Suffice to say I did not necessarily disagree with FDR’s original plan for a minimal contribution to an annuity program that would appreciate every year and be available to retirees to get back their money with interest, and not having to pay any tax on their money when they began receiving it back.
Further, the fund was not to be used for anything else, but as always with government the sharks saw surpluses and they raided the fund anyway.
By the way, the life expectancy changes could have been adjusted along the way and a minimal say 2% or 3% tax on all income would have alleviated the regressive nature of the current program.
One more quick point on that…percentages keep the regressive nature of taxes at bay, that is negated the other way when higher percentages are imposed on larger amounts of earnings.
Maybe we should declare agreement on a basic area, such as we all are for love, peace and happiness and then try to figure out a way to get there.
Thanks again for your response.
The Feds have done such a marvelous job with Medicare that it generates nearly $100 billion in fraud each year, and would be considered insovent if it were a regulated insurance enterprise.
As if that were not bad enough, it also has a claim delcination ratio which far exceeds those of most of the major private insurance carriers–see http://www.ama-assn.org/ama1/pub/upload/mm/368/reportcard.pdf.
As the recent “60 Minutes” program revealed, paying fraudulant claims has been a key ingredient in Medicare since it was established–why would the so-called public option be any different? Well, it wouldn’t.
To even suggest that Reid, Pelosi and Obama have been trying to work with the Republicans is utter nonsense. Even now the so-called healthcare reform bill is not being made available for public viewing, which is all one needs to know.
The so-called leaders of the Democratic party seem to think the 2008 election was some sort of mandate. I think they are wrong.
The same people who are complaining about the cost of a revamped health-care system were NOT complaining when the prior administration drove up the deficit to obscene levels on a ridiculous venture into Iraq (which had nothing to do with 9/11).
Nobody should go broke because they are sick. It’s that simple. The people against sound like to opponents to Medicare in the 1960s and Social Security in the 1930s. Read your history.
Very impressive replies to some extremely so-called elitist radicals who are playing the same game of Hate and Blame with no answer to the problem.
Why these people can hate and blame Obama in the last few months and forgot where the problems have came from in previous years is completely unbelievable !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
They seem content in their shallow mindset hating and blaming someone else when they cannot present any sort of remedy, but they feel better by blaming and hating someone else !!!!!!!
One more point—David said it very well. We have allowed ourselves to spend Multi-Trillions wasted away in foreign countries ( although never to be accounted for, many Millions to Cheneys companies) to accomplish aggravation to their governments and hate for us but we will not spend this money for our own here in the USA….
One more point: David said it very well. We have allowed ourselves to spend multi-trillions wasted away in foreign countries (although never to be accounted for, many millions to Cheney’s companies) to accomplish aggravation to their governments and hate for us, but we will not spend this money for our own here in the USA….