Archive for the ‘Health Care’ Category

Health Care Vote: A Day of Infamy

Monday, March 22nd, 2010

A time of record deficits, rising debt, and recession seems like the last time you should create a new $2.5 trillion entitlement program and yet today that is exactly what the U.S. House of Representatives did. The only thing that could possibly make such fiscal insanity worse is the wildly absurd claim that this massive new government program will reduce the deficit by more than $100 billion over the next decade. Add to that are other knee-slappers, like how government is creating a new health insurance market or how government intrusion will give consumers more freedom. One after another Democrats pontificated about how this new historic bill will help working Americans who have lost their health insurance access affordable care, how it will help businesses struggling to keep up with health insurances costs, how it will help people hold onto their insurance even if they lose their job—exploding deficits and the crashing economy be damned.

Republicans all voted no—which leads me to wonder where these erstwhile champions of small government were when the GOP rammed through what is now a $1.2 trillion Medicare drug benefit. We’ll see just how much testicular fortitude they have when they return to power and have the chance to annul this bill. Also, as big and as bad as this bill was, Republican claims about it were a bit exaggerated. What we got tonight was very much watered down from what we started out with. The public option, for one, has been stripped from the bill. The government will be providing health insurance, but this will be through an expansion of Medicaid. So, the government is not taking over the health care industry, it’s just tightening its choke hold. And if you think this is socialism, what about Medicaid and Medicare?—sorry, but that ship sailed decades ago. The bottom line? This bill probably won’t cover nearly as many Americans as the Democrats say it will, nor will it wreak as much havoc as Republicans say it will. But it most certainly will succeed in inflating the deficit and imposing ever higher taxes on the rest of us.

Posted in Health Care | 2 Comments »

Conservatives Flip Flopped on Health Care

Thursday, January 21st, 2010

The National Review has not explicitly contradicted itself on health care, but there is a glaring inconsistency between how it talks about health care reform, depending upon whom is in power. As I mentioned below, when National Review endorsed Mitt Romney in 2007, the fact that he had backed a government overhaul of health care in Massachusetts did not seem to bother the editors. Here is how they talk about the issue in 2007:

His conservative accomplishments as governor showed that he can work with, and resist, a Demo­crat­ic legislature. He knows that not every feature of the health-care plan he enacted in Massachusetts should be replicated nationally, but he can also speak with more authority than any of the other Republican candidates about this pressing issue.

And here is just a sample of the typical way National Review now talks about health care reform under Obama in a not-so-subtly titled article, ‘Give Me Liberty, or Give Me Obamacare’:

At its core, what Obamacare really means is a loss of freedom. …

The motivation is to replace millions of private choices with a command-and-control model in which health-care decisions and health-care resources are centrally administered and allocated by the federal government — under the ultimate command, at least initially, of Barack Obama. The motivation is simple and can be reduced to one word: power. And it doubtless has the American Founders, who dedicated their lives to securing liberty, spinning in their graves.

Both plans increased costs, reduced freedom, and resulted in higher taxes (click here and here for more). And yet, there is a striking disparity in how National Review talks about them. The difference of course is that one was enacted under a Republican administration and the other is being advocated by a Democrat. It just goes to show how conservatives lost their critical distance from political power. For the record, I oppose both health care reform plans—and I wish National Review conservatives would too.

Posted in Conservatism, Health Care | 3 Comments »

Both Parties the Same on Health Care?

Thursday, January 21st, 2010

Here is a dirty little secret of this whole health care debacle: the latest version of the health care bill in the U.S. Senate closely resembles—brace yourself—the plan that Republican Mitt Romney signed into law as Massachusetts governor in 2006, according to The American Spectator. Both reforms did not include a government-run insurance program or an expansion of Medicare. Both did expand Medicaid and have an individual mandate to purchase insurance—with penalties attached. And yet Romney was the conservative standard bearer in the race, having received the official stamp of approval from National Review. How can this be? And then, when the same plan comes in Democratic packaging conservatives and Republicans shriek in horror.

Which brings me to the Scott Brown victory in Massachusetts last night. Yes, it was immensely gratifying to see liberal Democrats suffer such an crippling defeat on their home turf. And yet… Brown supports the Romney health care reform in 2006, which makes me wonder what he finds so disagreeable in the current proposal. The cynic in me can’t help but think this is all about politics, not principle, and that at precisely the moment when the differences between the two parties seem so pronounced, there are in fact none. Any Romney supporter who berates Obama voters for making nationalized health care possible should take a look in the mirror.

Posted in Health Care, Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

Obama Not So Hip When It Comes to Health Care

Wednesday, November 11th, 2009

When it comes to health care reform, President Obama is more old hat than hip, according to this Wall Street Journal columnist:

In a world defined by nearly 100,000 iPhone apps, a world of seemingly limitless, self-defined choice, the Democrats are pushing the biggest, fattest, one-size-fits all legislation since 1965. And they brag this will complete the dream Franklin D. Roosevelt had in 1939.

The culture still believes the U.S. has a hipster for president. But the Obama health-care bill, and maybe this whole administration, is starting to look totally out of sync with the new zeitgeist, the spirit of the age.

Everything about the health-care exercise is looking very old hat, starting with the old guys working on it. Max Baucus, Patrick Leahy, Pete Stark—all were elected to Congress in the 1970s, and live on as the immortals in Washington’s Forever Land. But it’s more than the fact that Congress looks old. The health-care bill is big, complex, incomprehensible and coercive—all the things people hate nowadays.

Fareed Zakaria—hardly a bullhorn for the right—sounds a similar theme in a recent Washington Post column.

Posted in Health Care, Obama | No Comments »

Vote First, Ask Questions Later

Monday, November 9th, 2009

How do you vote on a bill that hasn’t even been written yet? Apparently, the Senate Finance Committee found a way. For more, click here.

Posted in Health Care | No Comments »

Health Care: When Conservatives Don’t Like Markets

Tuesday, October 20th, 2009

One of the overlooked aspects of health care reform is the proposal for a national health insurance exchange, where small businesses and individuals could choose from a broader selection of plans than is normally available in their states. Conservatives, especially those with libertarian leanings, are always talking about how much they love market competition and consumer choice. So they should be all over this proposal for a national health insurance market? Right?

Nope. In fact, their response mostly has been one of silence. In a search through the Web sites for National Review and The Weekly Standard—easily the two most influential conservative magazines—the exchanges were mentioned only in connection with worries that illegal immigrants would be able to participate in them. Of course, most conservative criticism has understandably harped on the projected $1 trillion cost and $400 billion in new taxes associated with health care reform. But one wishes conservatives would stop their sky-is-falling mantras long enough to admit there might be a few things in health care reform that they don’t find totally repugnant.

So far, however, only The Heritage Foundation seems to be taking this idea of health insurance exchanges seriously. This Heritage policy expert is correct in warning that the combination of a national insurance exchange and a heavily subsidized public option could be a scheme to drive out private insurance. But, until the details of how this exchange would work are hashed out, it is easy to imagine other scenarios as does this Washington Post writer and this study by the Urban Institute.

Posted in Conservatism, Free Market, Health Care | No Comments »