Conservatives on Healthcare Reform
| Sun Sep. 20, 2009 8:59 AM PDT
If you want to get a taste of the almost total conservative dysfunction over healthcare reform, the LA Times is your one-stop shop this morning. They asked four well-known conservatives to go beyond just complaining about Obamacare and instead "propose ways to make the American healthcare system better." Game on! Let's see what they have to offer:
Bill Frist says we should encourage employers to offer wellness programs. (Also: more PE in schools, better preventive care, and community planning to "include 
places to exercise and sources of healthy foods.") And if you get sick anyway? Frist doesn't bother saying anything about that.
Mickey Edwards says the government should (a) "authorize" a private insurance pool that the uninsured and self-insured could join and (b) ban insurance companies from turning down applicants with preexisting conditions. But (a) could exist today if anyone wanted to create such a pool and (b) would destroy the health insurance industry unless it's paired with an individual mandate. Edwards seems unaware of either of these things.
David Frum says we should allow insurers to sell their policies nationwide. End of proposal. This is like being asked how GM can revitalize itself and suggesting they should put better tires on their cars.
And finally, there's Richard Viguerie, who even most conservatives shun as a crank. Basically, he thinks we should make people pay for their own coverage (i.e., give them more "skin in the game"), we should encourage higher industry profits, and we should by God not create a government database of medical records. Or something. To be honest, I'm not sure.
This is pathetic. Nationwide insurance companies might be a good idea. Wellness programs are certainly a good idea. (Though not an especially conservative one.) And community rating is a good idea too. But they do virtually nothing to extend healthcare to the uninsured, nothing significant to drive down costs, and nothing to reform the insurance industry unless they're embedded in a broader plan. They're flea specks on a problem the size of an elephant.
Granted, these guys were writing op-eds, not white papers, but none of them made so much as a passing mention of anything more than these few disconnected talking points. Our country's 47 million uninsured weren't even on their radar screen. The problem isn't that the Times didn't give them enough space, the problem is they flatly don't have any idea how to make American healthcare more broadly accessible or how to arrest its steady and relentless deterioration. No wonder conservatives have decided to just say No instead. When you've got nothing serious to offer, what choice do you have?
Advertisement
Advertisement
Comments
More profits!
Submitted by Go, Sestak! (not verified) on Sun Sep. 20, 2009 9:39 AM PDT.
Screw the poor and the sick!
The GOP prayer book is empty
Submitted by g. powell on Sun Sep. 20, 2009 9:55 AM PDT.
If you follow market-centric approach on healthcare to its logical conclusion, you would deregulate it like the airlines or the finance industry. So just imagine what delivery of healthcare would be like under that scenario, or even trying to sell that idea. If it doesn't involve the market entirely determining what the price of a good is and who gets it, the GOP doesn't have a clue.
I also like Bill Frist's ideas, but perhaps it's a little too Hugo Chavez.
Nationwide Insurance Companies
Submitted by Joe S. (not verified) on Sun Sep. 20, 2009 10:50 AM PDT.
Nationwide insurance companies already exist, so it seems that David Frum's request is already answered. But Frum's a smart guy, and he knows that nationwide insurance exists. The problem is that Frum is speaking wingnut and Kevin assumes that he is speaking English. Let me translate for you.
When Frum says "nationwide insurance," he means that he wants an insurance company to pick its state regulator, and then go nationwide with that regulator. Right now, it doesn't work that way. An insurer must acquiesce to the market regulation of the state in which it is doing business, even if it is headquartered elsewhere. (Safety-and-soundness regulation is different; that is already centered in the home state.)
I must say that Frum's request is not unprecedented. The banks have something like this already: they can export usury limits from their home state to the rest of the nation. Wondering why all credit card banks seem to be in South Dakota or Delaware? They don't have usury limits.
In other words, Frum wants a race to the bottom on health insurance regulation.
The beginnings of a good idea or two...
Submitted by MarkH on Mon Sep. 21, 2009 9:35 AM PDT.
If they would not only say that selling insurance nationwide would improve competition, but go one step further and suggest the federal government be the regulator of such companies, then they'd have something. But they very likely wouldn't want federal government involvement. So, their idea falls flat.
If they would make a leap of imagination, as one poster did, and suggest that there's a similarity to banks which now work nationwide and how they have already gone to the easiest regulator, then they might also see we need federal regulation of interest rates too. Of course, the Republicans (again) don't want federal government involvement. So, they don't even suggest the idea.
The idea of financial firms (whether Wall St. banks, AIG or healthcare insurers) getting to pick their regulator is ridiculous and unnecessarily complicated and wasteful. A conservative person should see the overlapping government jurisdictions and horrible waste and ineffectiveness and say..."Teh Enough Already".
They just don't get it.
Submitted by nerd on Sun Sep. 20, 2009 11:13 AM PDT.
...the problem is they just flatly don't have any idea how to make American healthcare more broadly accessible...
Nor do they care to make healthcare more broadly accessible in America. The attitude seems like: We've got insurance, what is the matter with the people that don't have it? Why don't they get better paying jobs? Seems to be their problem, not ours."
The only way they will care is if insurance gets too expensive for them.
Quite honestly, I think the Democrats should push through a law that Representatives, Senators, and the President will not be provided with health benefits like other federal employees until such time as there is a public option available, and then those folks can participate in that.
Those who proclaim the loudest that there is no need to provide a public option should be forced to go out and get insurance for themselves in the current private insurer based market. Then we might see some opinions change. Maybe.
I don't think they accept
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sun Sep. 20, 2009 11:45 AM PDT.
I don't think they accept that there is a problem, really. After all they all probably have health insurance, and if they have it, everything must be OK. Remember, these people do not accept that they have any interest in or need to help anyone other than their family and friends.
Perhaps the people you describe were the ones Obama was talking to when I heard a blurb from an Obama speech that described the healthcare reform effort as a means to make "everyone" responsible for having healthcare insurance and not be a drag on the system. I really hate that framing. It's not a lack of responsibility by the vast majority of those who don't have health insurance, it's a lack of money.
conservative "solutions"
Submitted by dalloway (not verified) on Sun Sep. 20, 2009 11:50 AM PDT.
Republicans/conservatives have no real suggestions for reforming the health care industry because they are amply rewarded by that industry for representing its interests, not ours, in Congress. They and Democrats like Max Baucus are delighted to see the current debacle unfolding because it will end in one of two ways. Either the whole reform idea goes down in flames when progressive Democrats block it or some version of the Baucus bill passes, which will mandate millions of new customers for health insurers with no mechanism to control their greed. This will turn Obama out of office in 2012, along with numerous Democrats from red and purple states. From the Republican vantage point, Bill Clinton's dictum holds: when your enemy is destroying himself, keep a low profile.
Reihan Salam has some good stuff
Submitted by kth on Sun Sep. 20, 2009 12:57 PM PDT.
here. It's basically about the government providing stop-loss coverage for insurers as an alternative to the public option. Unfortunately, it contains the following passage:
First, conservatives will have to accept the principle of an individual mandate and guaranteed-issue and -renewal clauses, measures designed to achieve near-universal coverage. This is a deeply unattractive step, particularly for those who believe that individuals ought to have the right to remain uninsured. But it will help reduce overall costs by bringing the young and the healthy into the system.
so I don't know if his recommendation can be counted as conservative.
If thoughtful Republicans
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sun Sep. 20, 2009 1:19 PM PDT.
If thoughtful Republicans offered truly insightful ideas into the health care debate, then thoughtful Democrats would likely take them up on them. And that would mean a bill that could be passed and implemented. Which would mean a major victory for Obama.
So why are we surprised by the paltry offerings?
this is exactly right.
there are actual smart people in the GOP, but they know that they cannot say anything that in any way backs up what the Dems are trying to do. it has to be heads-in-the-sand, fingers-in-ears, hands-over-eyes, 24/7 - until this bill is done.
"conservatives" are disciplined, if nothing else. they know how to follow a lead.
You're assuming too much.
Submitted by jrw on Sun Sep. 20, 2009 1:26 PM PDT.
"...the problem is they just flatly don't have any idea how to make American healthcare more broadly accessible or how to arrest its steady and relentless deterioration."
Given what we've seen and heard, I don't know why anyone thinks they see those two issues as important to Republicans. Have we heard any Republican worry about accessibility and cost? Don't make the assumption that all the players in this fight care about the same things. The Republicans are in this only for political points, not problem solving.
Even if they did care about making lower-cost care available to more Americans, I don't think there is a conservative way to do that. Health care is simply not a market like the idealized vision conservatives have of markets. Therefore, their toolbox just doesn't have the right tools to fix this problem.
"ban insurance companies
Submitted by tomtom (not verified) on Sun Sep. 20, 2009 1:33 PM PDT.
- "ban insurance companies from turning down applicants with preexisting conditions... would destroy the health insurance industry unless it's paired with an individual mandate."
Kevin, that's not a bug, its a feature. First go with a simple bill to ban consideration of preexisting conditions. Hard to oppose, considering the horror stories. No tax money involved.
Then the game is different. An entire industry (and plenty of Republicans) will be BEGGING for a mandate. Give it to them, along with a public option in a comprehensive package. They won't be in a good position to vote no.
Conservatives on health care reform
Submitted by Dan W (not verified) on Sun Sep. 20, 2009 5:17 PM PDT.
Before we ask them their solutions, we need to ask them to identify the problems. Any solution they offer needs to address some problem.
EXACTLY. I was going to
Submitted by JS (not verified) on Sun Sep. 20, 2009 6:27 PM PDT.
EXACTLY. I was going to write this exact thing but Dan W beat me to it.
If the press is going to ask Republican politicians anything about health care, they should ask about what the problems and goals are -- not about suggestions for tactical solutions. Unless there is agreement on the goals and problems, a discussion of solutions is pointless. It's like arguing with a friend about which train to take without having discussed where you are going.
Q. And what does Obama care
Submitted by Luther on Sun Sep. 20, 2009 9:36 PM PDT.
Q. And what does Obama care consist of?
!. Lying about costs.
2. Taking $500 billion in Medicare from old Republican white people and giving it to illegal aliens, and lying about it. "You lie!" as Joe Wilson dramatically pointed out.
I thought the Republican proposals were quite good. To be fair, they weren't asked for a comprehensive solution, and the people don't want massive, experimental programs that are bound to triple and quadruple healthcare costs at this time of economic woe.
Is there any tea in this brew?
Submitted by SRW1 (not verified) on Mon Sep. 21, 2009 2:13 AM PDT.
Taking $500 billion in Medicare from old Republican white people and giving it to illegal aliens, and lying about it.
Well, with that kind of analytical ability it's no wonder you were impressed by the Republican proposals.
Frist
Submitted by bob h (not verified) on Mon Sep. 21, 2009 4:09 AM PDT.
is now a visiting professor of healthcare policy at Princeton. And this is all he has to say?
Health Care Reform a la Mao
Submitted by avannavon on Mon Sep. 21, 2009 10:52 AM PDT.
Has everyone gone brain dead? Why are you just accepting the idea that government should have anything whatsoever to do with your health care, my health care, or anyone else's health care? When did that become a government function---to interfere with and dictate whether I buy insurance or not and what kind and how much? Are you nuts? It is offensive to even consider letting the federal government into our bedrooms, medicine cabinets and personal records. See the Fourth Amendment ---Unreasonable Search and Seizure of individual medical, employment, and financial history. See the Fifth Amendment---Denial of Due Process ---e.g., imposition of an arbitrary penalty "tax" for not participating in the government program denies individuals of their property without the right to contest of appeal it. See the 16th Amendment ---do you see ANY mention of the government having the right to impost a direct per capita penalty tax, much less a health tax, mentioned ANYWHERE in the 16th Amendment? No? Then on the face of it, this entire "Health Care Reform" is an assault on civil rights and on the Constitution of the United States of America and you dumb bunnies are too ignorant, stupid, or co-opted to even realize it. Go soak your heads!
And that rant is ...
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon Sep. 21, 2009 11:03 AM PDT.
glibertarian bullshit
Not Glibertarian, AMERICAN
Submitted by avannavon on Mon Sep. 21, 2009 11:44 AM PDT.
The government will sack you up like the Pigs in an Orwellian Nightmare. The function of government is government. Repeat that over and over and over until you understand. The function of government is not even remotely related to charity or "mandating" individual choice.
you are wrong we need health
Submitted by Freword on Mon Sep. 21, 2009 1:06 PM PDT.
you are wrong we need health care reformed
you are wrong we need health
Submitted by Freword on Mon Sep. 21, 2009 1:06 PM PDT.
you are wrong we need health care reformed
you are wrong we need health
Submitted by Freword on Mon Sep. 21, 2009 1:06 PM PDT.
you are wrong we need health care reformed
This is pathetic.
Submitted by Campesino (not verified) on Mon Sep. 21, 2009 2:10 PM PDT.
This is pathetic. Nationwide insurance companies might be a good idea. Wellness programs are certainly a good idea. (Though not an especially conservative one.) And community rating is a good idea too. But they do virtually nothing to extend healthcare to the uninsured, nothing significant to drive down costs, and nothing to reform the insurance industry unless they're embedded in a broader plan. They're flea specks on a problem the size of an elephant.
===========================================
What's pathetic is that you show a picture of Republicans holding up copies of bills they've written and that have been ignored by the Democrats. And pretend they have nothing to offer. What a strawman
Here's a list of Republican health care bills:
H.R. 77; H.R. 109; H.R. 198; H.R. 270; H.R. 321; H.R. 464; H.R. 502; H.R. 544; H.R. 917; H.R. 1086; H.R. 1118; H.R. 1441; H.R. 1458; H.R. 1468; H.R. 1658; H.R. 1891; H.R. 2520; H.R. 2607; H.R. 2692; H.R. 2784; H.R. 2785; H.R. 2786; H.R. 2787; H.R. 3141; H.R. 3217; H.R. 3218; H.R. 3356; H.R. 3372; H.R. 3400; H.R. 3438; H.R. 3454; and H.R. 3478.
There are real plans offered by Republicans
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue Sep. 22, 2009 11:44 AM PDT.
There are more than 30 GOP offered bills just in the House!
Also what about solutions coming from groups like http://www.healthtransformation.net/ ? Here are comprehensive and common sense approaches to the most immediate problems in US Health Care today.
Government is horrible at running health care
Submitted by Former Democrat (not verified) on Fri Sep. 25, 2009 1:23 PM PDT.
Much in this opinion piece is simply wrong. Opening up competition to insurance companies nationwide would do alot to drive down costs, while Democrats have offered nothing more than raising taxes and claiming to be able find $500 Billion in waste and fraud over 10 years, while they don't tell us how they are going to do that, when Congress has never, ever been able to cut waste and fraud in the history of American politics, while they are still spending like drunken sailors.
The current Congress is an absolutely joke!
Congress has shown they are not even capable of running Cash 4 Clunkers or the Veterans Education bill, let alone run a government health care plan. Why couldn't the current powers in Congress(Democrat Majority) the last three years fix the problems of Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, the Post Office and Amtrak----which are ALL broke? And you expect this same government to be efficient at running your health care? What, for God's sake are you people smoking?
Post new comment
MoJo Comments: Send Us Your Feedback
We changed our spam software to better filter comments. Should you encounter any issues, please let us know.
