The American Spectator

home
ADVERTISEMENT
Print Email
Text Size

Feature

Daschle Care

Where Hillary Clinton failed, the team of President Barack Obama and HHS Secretary Tom Daschle is determined to succeed—and the political momentum is all on their side.

(Page 2 of 4)

WHILE THE DETAILS OF ANY plan would take months to hash out, Daschle’s writings, along with Obama’s campaign proposal, provide a good idea of the broad outlines. Both Obama and Daschle have touted the benefits of a single-payer health care model, which is a more academic way of describing a socialized system in which government is the sole purchaser of health care.

“I happen to be a proponent of a single-payer universal health care plan,” Obama declared in a 2003 speech to the AFL-CIO. “[W]e may not get there immediately. Because first we have to take back the White House, we have to take back the Senate, we have to take back the House.”

During the presidential campaign, Obama refined the statement to mean that he would set up a single-payer system if he were “designing a system from scratch,” but said he supported working within the existing system because it was more politically feasible right now.

In order to stave off Republican charges that they want to bring European-style socialized medicine to America, Obama and Daschle have preemptively appropriated rhetoric from conservatives. They speak of “choice” and “competition” and emphasize that they don’t want a government-run system, but merely one that is made up of “public-private” partnerships.

However, once you look behind the veneer it becomes obvious that the aim is to craft a plan that maintains the current mixed public-private structure while making it function more like a government-run system. Over time, this can seamlessly evolve into the single-payer model that both Daschle and Obama clearly prefer.

“Supporters say single-payer is brilliantly simple, ensures equity by providing all people with the same benefits, and saves billions of dollars by creating economies of scale and streamlining administration,” Daschle writes in his book. “But a pure single-payer system is politically problematic in the United States, at least right now.”

Daschle goes on to ask, “If passage of a single-payer system isn’t realistic, what should we do?”

His answer, which has been echoed by Obama, would be a system in which individuals would be given subsidies to purchase insurance in a government-run exchange, choosing either a government plan modeled after Medicare, or among private plans that would have to meet certain government standards. Large employers would likely be required to either provide health insurance to their employees or pay into a government pool to purchase coverage for the uninsured. Such a plan would also require insurance companies to cover anybody who applies for insurance without taking into account pre-existing conditions, and insurers would have to charge rates that the government deemed affordable.

The new government-run option didn’t get much attention during the election, but it was a key element of Obama’s campaign proposal, and any piece of legislation that does not include it would be a non-starter for progressive activists and liberal members of Congress. Their hope is that they can design a public plan more generous than any of the private options offered by insurers in the exchange (a task made easier when government is setting the rules of the game and doesn’t have to worry about making a profit because it can always raise taxes or issue more debt). Thus, liberals can gradually shift more Americans toward government health care while arguing that it was an aggregation of individual choices.

THE CENTRAL PILLAR OF Daschle’s health care vision is a Federal Health Board. “Like the Federal Reserve, the Federal Health Board would be composed of highly independent experts insulated from politics,” Daschle explains in his book. “Congress and the White House would relinquish some of their health-policy decisions to it. For example, a shift to a more effective drug service would be accomplished without an act of Congress or the White House.”

Daschle has argued that the Federal Health Board will manage health care just as the Federal Reserve “skillfully managed monetary policy for decades…” (That is not a joke.)

Through the Board, government could control health care costs by rationing treatment based on what its experts consider effective or good value. While the Board wouldn’t technically be a regulatory body, Daschle writes that “its recommendations would have teeth because all federal health programs would have to abide by them, and those programs account for 32 percent of all health spending and insure roughly 100 million Americans.”

Furthermore, any private insurer that wants a piece of all the money the federal government will be throwing around in the new insurance exchange would have to abide by their recommendations. And, Daschle writes that “Congress could opt to go further with the Board’s recommendations” by passing legislation that would coerce more insurers into abiding by them.

Conveniently enough, the entity would be composed of a Board of Governors that would be appointed to 10-year terms, subject to Senate confirmation. In other words, any Obama appointments would be allowed to serve until at least 2019.

It’s uncertain whether the Federal Health Board concept will be part of any final Obama proposal, but in a blurb on the back of Daschle’s book, Obama praises the idea. “[Daschle’s] Federal Reserve for Health concept holds great promise for bridging this intellectual chasm and, at long last, giving this nation the health care it deserves,” Obama writes. Furthermore, Daschle’s Board is not just part of his vision for the future of health care—it plays a central role in his strategy for getting any proposal passed in the first place. The idea, as he presents it, is that having “independent experts” make difficult technical decisions down the road—rather than members of Congress during a heated legislative battle—will reassure interest groups while allowing lawmakers to vote on a much simpler health care proposal than the Clinton-Magaziner leviathan.

Page:   12 3 4  

About the Author

Philip Klein is The American Spectator’s Washington correspondent. You can follow him on Twitter at: http://twitter.com/Philipaklein

Letter to the Editor View all comments (38) |

Michele San Pietro| 2.1.09 @ 1:32PM

If in a democratic country like America there is no universal healthcare coverage, it's because most Americans don't want it, it's that simple. You have no idea with how paranoia America haters mention alleged lack of free healthcare for everybody in the United States in order to justify that America is an absurd country that should not exist. Next time I go to America, I won't take out any traveling insurance policy about healthcare: I prefer to run the risk of having to pay a high sum for being treated medically rather than siding with the scoundrels from whom I have always been discriminated against and insulted.

Jim O'Brien| 3.10.09 @ 8:56PM

Obama's plan for socialized medicine will result in poor quality care, fewer doctors and hospitals, more fraud, fewer new drugs and innovative procedures which come from private competition, long waits for treatment, billions more in non-productive bureaucratic expenses, and most importantly, lack of individual choice - Freedom. It seems that Obama and many Congressmen have learned absolutely nothing from the collapse of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Socialism doesn't work.

Pingback| 4.30.09 @ 7:53AM

The Facts on Fascism links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…of freedom. It’s a question of free enterprise, free markets, and free minds. When an administration takes over banks and car companies, and makes moves to force through a takeover of the entire health care industry without the ordinary procedural safeguards, and (even under Bush) forces banks to buy other banks against their will, then this isn’t the America we know and love. This is instead a country…

Pingback| 4.30.09 @ 6:08PM

Capital Research Center: links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…of freedom. It’s a question of free enterprise, free markets, and free minds. When an administration takes over banks and car companies, and makes moves to force through a takeover of the entire health care industry without the ordinary procedural safeguards, and (even under Bush) forces banks to buy other banks against their will, then this isn’t the America we know and love. This is instead a country…

Pingback| 5.9.09 @ 12:05PM

The Facts on Fascism - Curiosity Blog links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…of freedom. It's a question of free enterprise, free markets, and free minds. When an administration takes over banks and car companies, and makes moves to force through a takeover of the entire health care industry without the ordinary procedural safeguards , and (even under Bush) forces banks to buy other banks against their will , then this isn't the America we know and love. This is instead a country…

yuy| 11.23.09 @ 8:16PM

TOD Converter Mac,
TOD File Converter Mac

fgdsg| 1.7.10 @ 9:26PM

SWF Converter Mac is excellent SWF conveting software for Mac users. This versatile Mac SWF converter can convert between SWF and all the popular video. In addition, the best swf file converter for Mac can also extract audio from video file and convert video to MP3, AC3, and AAC…as you want.
DVD Converter for Mac

fdg| 2.21.10 @ 10:18PM

CDG Converter

guo | 7.1.10 @ 5:07AM

www.wmvconverterformac.com

Sophie | 11.30.11 @ 2:57AM

How to convert flv to swf on mac? FLV to SWF Mac program is a real FlV to SWF converting program for Mac users. It provides the best and easiest way to convert between flash files, convert FLV to SWF on Mac and also MOV(QuickTime), M4V, 3GP, MP4, AVI, WMV, MPG, FLV, HD video, AVCHD, Flip video, Camcorder video, etc. Besides, Embedding SWF in HTML webpage is also supported.
FLV to SWF Mac

More Articles by Philip Klein

More Articles From Feature

http://spectator.org/archives/2009/02/01/daschle-care

ADVERTISEMENT

SPONSORED LINKS

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Clip of the Day

Most Popular Articles

The IRS Immigration Fraud Scandal

Jeffrey Lord | 6.18.13

Foreign Policy as Farce

Jed Babbin | 6.17.13

The Biggest Fool of All

Doug Bandow | 6.17.13

Can Liturgical Music Be Saved?

Patrick O'Hannigan | 6.17.13

Revenge of the Fruitcakes

Peter Hitchens | 6.17.13

Obama's Climate of Intimidation

Matthew Sheffield | 6.18.13

Obama's Unaffordable Act

Peter Ferrara | 6.19.13

Whither Suburbia?

Steven Greenhut | 6.18.13

ADVERTISEMENT