The Right Prescription
Republicans Botched Health Care First
Fifteen lost years, and now we’re paying the price.
If you want to understand how the Democrats have been able to push through a gargantuan overhaul of the nation’s health care system that the public overwhelmingly opposes, a good place to look is the Republican Party.
It’s not that Republicans didn’t do anything; in fact they passed a lot of legislation on health care. They enacted the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, Medicare prescription drugs, Medicare Advantage, and new waivers for state Medicaid programs.
But they didn’t have any coherent analysis of the real problems in the U.S. health care system. Republicans have never seemed truly interested in the issue, and they enacted these bills in the hopes of deterring Democrat initiatives, not actually improving a dysfunctional system.
It’s a pity because each of those efforts could have made a big difference if they had been done right.
The first problem in American health care is excess reliance on “third-party payment,” which divorces patients from any knowledge of or concern for the cost of the care they receive. This inevitably puts a bureaucrat in a position of power between the doctor and the patient. It is the bureaucrat, either public or private, who decides what is worth paying for and how much should be paid.
The second problem is that health insurance is likewise provided by a third party, either an employer or a government agency. The individual consumer does not choose the policy, has little information about what it costs, and has little power to insist on changes if the insurer performs badly.
Both of these circumstances reduce the consumer/patient to a childlike dependent status, with little knowledge of or power over the health care decisions made on his or her behalf. That is bitterly ironic since every penny spent on health care actually comes directly from that same consumer/patient in the form of taxes, premiums, or lost wages. It is the consumer’s money and the consumer’s health at stake, but the consumer is the least-influential person in the transaction.
If the Congressional Republicans had bothered to understand these issues, or had bothered to listen to those who do, they could have tailored their health care initiatives to make a big difference over the past 15 years.
Take HIPAA, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996. Despite its name, HIPAA does absolutely nothing to encourage portability of health insurance. Quite the opposite, in fact. It simply restricts consideration of preexisting conditions in the small group insurance market.
Under HIPAA, a person moving between jobs cannot be considered a new applicant in her new coverage if she was previously covered, so any waiting period for benefits is waived. But it is still the employer who chooses the coverage, so the worker doesn’t keep her old coverage. She has to learn how to use a whole new policy, with a different network of providers, different claims-filing procedures, different benefits, and so on.
The Republicans could have written this bill to allow workers to own their coverage and take it with them from job to job. The employer’s role would be to help fund the premium, not to dictate the kind of coverage the worker must have.
Similarly with SCHIP, the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, enacted in 1997. SCHIP was aimed at helping children in families that were low income but not poor enough to qualify for Medicaid. The federal government on average pays 70 percent of the costs, and the states pay 30 percent. Though there was some state flexibility in how to set up these programs, most states simply expanded their Medicaid programs to cover the new kids.
There are big problems with this approach. Very often the parents are covered by insurance provided by an employer, but the employer pays only for covering the worker, not dependents. To cover the children required employees to pay a pretty hefty premium. The Republicans could have simply provided help to parents to pay that premium so the whole family would be on the same insurance plan.
Instead, they arranged it so the children would be on an entirely separate health care program provided by the state. This divorces the kids from the family and makes the parents learn how to use two entirely separate and unrelated benefit programs. It is an anti-family program, and it was enacted by a Republican Congress.
The Medicare prescription drug program was another botched job, designed for political reasons, not rational policy. The program pays 75 percent of the cost of drugs up to $2,700 in spending per year. Then it pays nothing. Then when spending reaches $6,154, it starts in again, paying 95 percent of the costs. This makes no sense whatsoever. It would have been far better to have a uniform deductible of perhaps $1,000 or $1,500, after which the program’s benefits kick in. Lower-income people could have been given a funded account to pay for expenses below the deductible.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (153) | Leave a comment
Related Articles
More Articles by Greg Scandlen
More Articles From The Right Prescription
http://spectator.org/archives/2010/01/05/republicans-botched-health-car
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Self-Righteous Republic
- Consternated Conferences
- A President Loses His Power
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Lawrence Boccardi| 1.5.10 @ 6:22AM
You lost me when you coined the term "private bureaucrat"!
Faffnir| 1.5.10 @ 1:01PM
A "private bureaucrat" would be a low-level administrative functionary paid by a corporation to perform paper-shuffling duties.
Eric R| 1.5.10 @ 6:36AM
Your analysis is quite wrong on one point. Medicare Advantage is not a "botched" political job devoid of market forces for this reason: what is covered may flex with market forces. Therefore it pays for customers to shop for plans that deliver more value per dollar (though a pure health savings account model would have been preferable, it was politically not possible).
And, unlike Democrat socialist programs whose costs explode exponentially above projections, the Republican programs came in near cost projections. It is absolutely essential to demonstrate and prove that even partially market-based solutions can improve on socialism, or people will have no reason to leave socialism.
Contrary to your view, Republicans should have driven, improved, and trumpeted the Medicare Advantage program. Even though it was a government program, it was a chance to do the impossible: build a bridge back from pure socialism toward market solutions.
The real "botched" work is when shallow-thinking purists fail to understand that promoting a program that begins to unwind socialism is a necessary step to walk back to market freedom.
Greg Scandlen| 1.5.10 @ 5:06PM
It sounds like you are thinking of the Medicare Prescription Drug program, not Medicare Advantage. The Rx program did indeed come in under cost projections. It did that because it used private companies competing for the best deals rather than price controls. In that sense it was a success. However, it also put us in the hook for several trillion in unfunded liabilities.
Big J| 1.5.10 @ 6:37AM
What do we have here, a guest writer from the Daily Kos?
Sorry, but I just cannot wrap my mind around the premise of this article. Maybe someone can help.
Republicans over a decade ago are to blame for the socialist takeover of the world's greatest health care system? The most massive government intrusion into the private sector in my entire life? The creation of over 56 new bureaucracies? The largest tax increase on the middle class in the last 20+ years?
Like I said, I just can't wrap my mind around that one.
Horse hockey!
Faffnir| 1.5.10 @ 1:06PM
I wonder if you actually read the article? Republicans had the chance to fundamentally reform the entire system on conservative principles, but chose instead to tinker with bureaucratic nonsense to preclude a more socialistic approach that would have been written by the late, unlamented Edward M. Kennedy.
Big J| 1.5.10 @ 2:22PM
As a matter of fact, yes I did read the entire article Faffnir.
The point is, you can go to maost mainstream media outlets and all of the left wing blogs to get this sort of drivel. That's why I spend my valuable time reading THIS publication.
You see, I am sick and tired of "the Republicans did THIS and the Republicans did THAT when they were in power", and "Bush did THIS and Bush did THAT when he was in power" - so sick in fact, it makes me want to scream!
My Mom had a saying that I remember well for this moronic argument: "If Tommy jumped off a bridge, would that make it right for you to do the same?"
How about this, Faffnir: How about we all try to figure out a way to stop this country from taking the same route as Venezuela, instead of wasting our time on the mistakes of the past?
I doubt you will look back on this time as a "preclusion to a more socialistic approach" ten years down the road.
Bram| 1.5.10 @ 7:07AM
Yes our system "divorces patients from any knowledge of or concern for the cost of the care they receive." The rest of the article doesn't touch this problem.
Americans shop for everything but healthcare. Hospitals and most doctors simply refuse to give prices ahead of time. We all suspect that the civilian price is far higher than the insurance companies pay. I want to see a Chinese menu when I walk into a hospital.
Mad As Hell| 1.5.10 @ 7:25AM
I'm tired of hearing about how the Republicans blew it on healthcare. Obama and Soros and Piglosi and Harry the Red wouldn't let them in the door.
The Democrat Party, made up of hard core Communists, Marxists, Fascists, Socialists, whatever you want to call them, have gotten this far by pandering to the Commie-in-Chief and George Soros.
The bribes, threats (probably with a gun held to their heads AKA Chicago politics and Mao), all mixed together and you think the Republicans could have fought this?
I will stick with the Republican Party because it's our only chance of fighting against this Red Tide at our door.
Whoever this writer is, HEALTHCARE PROVIDED BY THE STATE IS NOT A RIGHT!!!!!!!!
Greg Scandlen| 1.5.10 @ 5:00PM
Hi, Mad.
Whatever gave you the idea that I think "Health care provided by the state is a right?" Quite the opposite. I think we need to reclaim OUR money and spend it on the health care services WE value.
Roy| 1.5.10 @ 8:03PM
All right - suppose the Republicans had attempted to do this(to the extent that they didn't).
1994-2000: Bill Clinton vetoes it to the roaring cheers of the media. Public bows to the media just as they did during the 1995 gov't shutdown.
2000-2002: Measure dies in the Senate where Democrats are in charge.
2002-2004: There was kind of a war on.
2004-2006: Bush tries, starting with Social Security. This should in theory be easier to reform than Medicare, since it does not scare people as badly with respect to their healthcare. He gets his butt kicked so badly that most people have now totally forgotten about this.
2006-2008: Right. I'm sure Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid were going to introduce this measure.
In other words: Yes I wish Republicans had done more, but mostly what they did wrong is to cave in to Democrats belonging to the Democrat party who engaged in Democrat obstructionism to further the goal of Democrat socialism with lavish Democrat handouts to Democrat constituencies. In no way, shape or form have Democrats ever been better on this.
To make it less tempting to cave in to Democrats: Reduce Democrat power.
martin j smith| 1.5.10 @ 7:44AM
Any more articles by writers like this and I will decide this site is not worth my bother.
Ret. Marine| 1.5.10 @ 7:44AM
Why yes if the purpose was to claim the Republicans did it first, then you too have fallen on your face to reslove the fundamental problem, there is no problem, other than the fact the Democrats have created a crises and are hell- bent upon destroying the Capitalist form of a medical safety net. The pain will be right up there in your face soon enough if the demonrats get their way. All will recieve a taste of foul mouth in the future of this Nation. I still can't get past the part where the pol's have a waver, who in the *uck do they think they are anyway? Jesus H. Christ, himself? That one issue alone is enough to send warning signals like a jet liner falling from the sky. Now I might be old, but I'm not used up just yet. And I was not born this morning.
I am getting the impression that a peaceful solution is beyond pale here, the fight has just started and many of young and invinceable adults are going to rebel in a fashion never before witnessed in this Nation. I, for one hope they rebel all the way to the opposite of Hopey and Changy Ln., called screw you very much very soon St. Maybe this way they can atone for their idiot feel good part of history, white guilt, holier than thou art mental ilness, moment of voting for the 'won". Remember what Ramn it up your's said, never let a crises go to waste, created or not, my emphasis, of course.
Alan Brooks| 1.5.10 @ 8:26AM
Also, Bush was opposed to fed funding of stem cell research, a position based on politics, not ethics.
Ryan| 1.5.10 @ 8:35AM
Make a clarification. He was opposed to EMBRYONIC stem cell research, which kills unborn children. It's a perfectly ethical standpoint.
Alan Brooks| 1.5.10 @ 11:49AM
If you are going to nit-pick, I'll do the same: an embryo is not an unborn child. We can argue about it, but such is technically nit picking.
Leon Kass said he wants everyone to quote unquote die on schedule, but tell that to YOUR grandparents.
Margie| 1.5.10 @ 1:47PM
"an embryo is not an unborn child."
~Try telling that to God.
By the way, Alan.. weren't you an embryo at one time?
Alan Brooks| 1.5.10 @ 1:55PM
Then you cannot be pro-capital punishment because you are playing God as much as an abortionist is.
Guilt and innocence aren't what counts; playing God is what matters. Vengeance is the Lord's-- and not Margie's.
Alan Brooks| 1.5.10 @ 1:58PM
My mistake,
I thought you were conservatives, but you are, in reality, rightwing paranoids.
Sincere apologies for the mistake.
Alan Brooks| 1.5.10 @ 2:01PM
Guvmint medical death squads.
Black helicopters.
FEMA camps.
Margie| 1.5.10 @ 2:12PM
Alan, stop acting like you're new around here. Hey~ you never answered the question.. weren't you an embryo at one time?
Rhetorical question, then.
Margie| 1.5.10 @ 2:02PM
Yes vengeance is the Lord's, not mine. I agree. Because I speak truthfully you say I'm trying to be vengeful? No, I'm presenting reality.
As for being pro life and pro capital punishment, a life is a life in God's eyes. If you take a life, you will have to pay with your own. Either here or in Hell for eternity. But that isn't my will that I speak from, but His. I could quote Scripture to prove that but I don't think you'd want me to?
Ryan| 1.5.10 @ 2:21PM
That's the leftist pseudo-argument that also leaves out certain bits of information. Support for the death penalty is against the guilty. A life lived and committing crimes against humanity is starkly different from an unborn child who has not committed anything.
Guilt and innocence, Biblically speaking, are ALL that counts. Paul specifically states that the government has a right to pass laws to see justice done. He never fought against the right for the state to take his own life, because he broke its laws. He stated that authorities are placed over man by God for reasons of justice.
Guilt and innocence are ALL that counts in God's eyes.
John Navratil| 1.5.10 @ 4:04PM
Mr. Brooks,
Do you really think "Then you cannot be pro-capital punishment because you are playing God as much as an abortionist is" is a logical proposition?
Capital punishment is a response by the state to the actions of the individual. Regardless of your opinion on either topic, it can in no way be compared by the volitional actions of individuals against the unborn.
The only common thread is death. You might be as well conflate accidents into this non sequitor.
Roy| 1.5.10 @ 8:08PM
Or you could say "If you're against arbitrary murder, logically you should also be against capital punishment". Leftists often do say this, but it is, to put it mildly, unpersuasive.
I don't really know what is up with Alan Brooks, who often serves up incoherent, truncated non-sequiturs, but this doesn't really sound like him. If it is..well..that's too bad.
Ryan| 1.5.10 @ 2:24PM
How is an embryo not an unborn child?
Dean| 1.5.10 @ 8:47AM
This is a common misperception amongst many, thanks to the media's inability to understand the difference between adult stem cells and embryonic stem cells.
Bush banned the federal funding of research on any new embryonic stem cells. He did allow research on existing embryonic stem cells and there was no ban on private research. Also, he was very supportive of research on adult stem cells.
Recently, scientists announced they were close to being able to use adult stem cells to reverse the damage of heart disease. This was research that was started while Bush was in office, so to say he was opposed to stem cell research is absolutely inaccurate.
Harvesting embryos for research, which is what many want to do, is the ethical issue that many of us who are pro-life believe is wrong. It's not about politics, it's about life.
Margie| 1.5.10 @ 2:19PM
In fact adult stem cell are now being used to cure many diseases. But you won't find out about it in the Lame Stream Media. Check out Christian Wilde's website as well about his wonderful research into using it for the heart. he is an amazing man who helps people with heart disease to get stem cell treatment that is life saving.
http://www.abigon.com/page/page/448087.htm
Ryan| 1.5.10 @ 8:38AM
It's possible that the conservative principles to leave businesses the heck alone may have been part of our undoing. The system GENERALLY works, but not as well as it could, and there were greater issues on the plate that didn't include government intervention.
Health care is one of the things that conservatives should have been dealing with, but I suspect that the Dems would still have tried to get the government back involved if we had actually done something realistic in overhauling health care.
explosion proof flood light | 11.25.10 @ 1:32AM
That's the way it went in the U.S. for decades. People in poor communities were convinced that the police and justice system didn't give a hang about crime in their neighborhoods.
Larry C. Roberts, MD, MA| 1.5.10 @ 9:08AM
This article presupposes that providing health care is a constitutionally valid function of the federal government, which it clearly is not. The Republicans failed, and continue to fail, by abandoning the Constitution just like the Democrats.
Melvin| 1.5.10 @ 10:40AM
So in order to fit this, "It's my right" mentality the Constitution has been quasi expanded. This may set a legal precedent if this Government Run Health Care is brought before the Supreme Court to stand Constitutionally and upheld will open a
Pandora's Box of, "It's my Right" legislation for anything and everything.
In short, the Government Run Health Care circumvents our Constitution.
Margie| 1.5.10 @ 2:22PM
It does circumvent the Constitution. I suspect this could or would be taken to the Supreme Court, but what then? Since the Obummer has installed his latest Leftist there, do we have a chance?
Bud| 1.5.10 @ 12:06PM
Nicely summarized, Dr. Roberts. Nowhere in the Constitution will one find any provision for disbursing funds to any individual, nor is there any basis for requiring any individual to purchase anything. For my part, I would be delighted to see the entire entitlement structure of the Federal government dismantled before it collapses the nation. States, at the discretion of their citizens, could see to such issues and deal with the fiscal consequences within their respective borders.
Liberty or Death| 1.5.10 @ 4:11PM
Gotta agree with the good doctor also.
The argument is really simple when you take this "complex," current debate and look at it through the lense of a Constitutional magnifying glass.
There should be absolutely no mandate that employers provide insurance to their employees.
There should be no automatic deductions from our paychecks for Medicare and Medicaid. Or SSN etc...
We need to approach this debate with a larger one: Constitutionality.
If Americans had to pay out a lump-sum of cash each April 15th, for the entire year, instead of everything being automatically deducted, this would be a different country. I imagine there would be rioting over the Federal raping they receive annually!
We need to starve Washington DC of our dollars until they start to listen to us. Cut off the teat!
How? By electing fiscal conservatives to office.
Liberty or Death| 1.5.10 @ 4:24PM
As for healthcare... the solution is more privatization. We need to allow PEOPLE to shop for the coverage that suits them. Not their employer. We need a hands-off approach to government solutions to these personal problems. Remove restrictions. Sunset the bankrupt Medicare/Medicaid entitlements and let our children invest in HSA's for their needs. The REAL issue facing MOST people (and it has and always will be) is PERSONAL ACCOUNTABILITY.
The government should only be involved in limited programs, which target the extreme poor, widow, and disabled who cannot do for themselves. And even in those cases, non-profits, Religious organizations and States' rights first. The Federal government's priority is defense. Not wealware; Not entitlements; Not retirement; Not health; Not the banking industry; Not in car companies; Not CEO pay!
This has got to stop. Agreed?
Liberty or Death| 1.5.10 @ 4:27PM
spelling correction:
welfare
Margie| 1.5.10 @ 4:44PM
"fiscal conservative?"
You wouldn't happen to be thinking Ron Paul, would you?
Liberty or Death| 1.5.10 @ 5:02PM
Hell no. That guy is a nutjob. I'm with you Margie. I think we need more Rubios out there. It starts locally, as you wrote below.
We have to fight them at every level. I have plenty of liberals where I live. They are like a cancer. And their major weakness is ideas. They have really, really bad ones. We cannot lose when battle them with our ideas
I believe they can be beat- even in the most liberal enclaves. Heck, look at what is happening in this Massachusetts.
Margie| 1.5.10 @ 5:16PM
Good.
Sean Hannity has an honest to goodness conservative on his show right now from MA who's running... I just turned it on as my hubby told me. didn't get his name yet.
Margie| 1.5.10 @ 5:19PM
Brownforussenate.com
He's great!
Scott Brown. He said voting is in 2 weeks.
Thanks to Sean!
John Navratil| 1.5.10 @ 4:36PM
Dr. Roberts,
While I agree with your sentiments and most certainly agree that almost none of that "gang of 535" know what the Constitution is, I take modest issue with your facts.
While the Reid debacle hoped, but failed, to achieve the goal of a single payer system, and arguably this will lead to it, this is still an issue of government regulation of the health insurance industry. I am, believe me, a laisez faire conservative and believe that generally the less government, the better. I also believe that the insurance industry requires a degree of regulation not necessary elsewhere because it provides a future promise for todays payment. The incentive to deny coverage is undeniable and an insurance company failing to maintain actuarially responsible reserves cannot deliver on the promise. Such broken promises have been the stuff of jokes for a century.
The irony is that this bill is a short-term boon for the industry. It is being gifted with the conscripted pool of premium payers it could not attract on its own.
So while I think the author misses the mark, he makes a valid point. Because most use of the health care system is routine, the insurance industry is an unnecessary inefficiency in most cases. The solution is to reduce the role of insurance to handle catastrophic needs and revert to a "fee for service" norm. The Republicans missed the opportunity while they were in power to make the kinds of reforms they are now proposing, but did not. Blaming them is a bit of a stretch because, as polls show, 85% of Americans are happy with their own plan. It never was a hot issue unless it was because the Dems were holding those "heartless" Republicans feet to the fire over things like the expansion of SCHIP.
Bob| 1.5.10 @ 10:20AM
Greg, you are directly on target and your comments are factual. Politics has become so partisan that people refuse to look at the truth.
Ryan, the health care system DOES NOT WORK because it costs too much. From a macroeconomic perspective, that costs us manufacturing capacity and jobs. We must reduce the cost of health care if we want to have a future for our children.
Ryan| 1.5.10 @ 12:27PM
Doctors do their jobs well in the USA. Sick people get better, we have good cancer treatments and GREAT hospitals. Health care in America WORKS. Saying otherwise disparages the best doctors in the world.
It's the beaureaucratic system of health care that is grossly ineffecient...yet still gets the job done. Yes, the costs are FAR too high and we bear too big a burden per person because of the insurance and government idiocy.
We need to open it up to free market solutions.
Bob| 1.5.10 @ 12:57PM
Ryan, I could not agree more... Free market solutions, tort reform, etc., but we will have to live with people buying policies that don't cover all of their needs (i.e., self-rationing). I can live with that because people need to take responsibility for their own lives.
Faffnir| 1.5.10 @ 1:18PM
Please define "costs too much"? Compared to what, exactly? Does a Cadillac "Cost too much"? Compared to a Rolls Royce? or a Yugo?
Costs or prices are indicatives. How much you value some item is reflected in its' price. Since you pay none of the price of an insurance policy obtained by your employer or some other party, how can you complain about it or the costs of what it buys for you? You are not paying. (Well, you are, actually, in a lower cash wage. There's no such thing a a free lunch, after all.) I have no insurance, but when I walk into a doctors office with checkbook in hand and ask "how much for this service or procedure" I am quoted a price MUCH lower than what the insurance company would be billed. Because the cost is borne by ME, not some insurance company. So, if you want to lower prices, get employers and government out of the picture and let each of us, as individuals, get what we need for ourselves.
martin j smith| 1.5.10 @ 10:39AM
Reforming the system is one thing,government takeover is another. I oppose government take over.
As to the consitution--this election coming up in 2010 should be based on this question: Do you want one party rule --and this party will make among other things decisions for you in areas such as health care or do you want Reform, guided by Constitutional principles, allowing you freedom and representative democracy ? That is the choice to be made.
draintheswawmp| 1.5.10 @ 10:47AM
"Under HIPAA, a person moving between jobs cannot be considered a new applicant in her new coverage if she was previously covered, so any waiting period for benefits is waived. "
Politically Correct - gramatically incorrect as employees are both men and women. Please grow up.
Pingback| 1.5.10 @ 10:53AM
The American Spectator : Republicans Botched Health Care First | Vwfaq Site-Welcome t links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 1.5.10 @ 11:17AM
The American Spectator : Republicans Botched Health Care First | Health Blog links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 1.5.10 @ 11:17AM
The American Spectator : Republicans Botched Health Care First | health links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 1.5.10 @ 11:41AM
The American Spectator : Republicans Botched Health Care First « Internet Cafe Soluti links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 1.5.10 @ 11:43AM
The American Spectator : Republicans Botched Health Care First | Ffici Health links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 1.5.10 @ 11:52AM
Twitter Trackbacks for The American Spectator : Republicans Botched Health Care Firs links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 1.5.10 @ 11:55AM
The American Spectator : Republicans Botched Health Care First | liliveev-Health|Beau links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
DTCOFAZ| 1.5.10 @ 12:03PM
This article is nothing but bashing the Republican party. This is the only purpose of this article before the Tuesday debate. This author is working with the Democrat party t0 keep the Republican and the American people in the dark. What a scheme!
Pingback| 1.5.10 @ 12:06PM
The American Spectator : Republicans Botched Health Care First Cash on me links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
David| 1.5.10 @ 12:07PM
The subject is how the Republicans botched NATIONAL HEALTHCARE first. When did NATIONAL HEALTHCARE become the consensus goal of government?
Next article will be: Republicans botched CAP AND TRADE first. Can't wail to read how Republicans botched CARD CHECK first.
Pingback| 1.5.10 @ 12:16PM
The American Spectator : Republicans Botched Health Care First | Health Blog links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 1.5.10 @ 12:24PM
The American Spectator : Republicans Botched Health Care First Cable Body links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 1.5.10 @ 12:32PM
The American Spectator : Republicans Botched Health Care First | Step In Online links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Marcell| 1.5.10 @ 12:41PM
I feel like saying, " I told you so," because the typical conservative have sold out on the thought that government should actually NOT work on our behalf.
Who Needs Big Government?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHDVCZp83pY
Ps. You would be better off purchasing a real strategy, fit for your side; instead of trying to co-opt ideas.
Pingback| 1.5.10 @ 12:49PM
The American Spectator : Republicans Botched Health Care First Health just to Me links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
JP| 1.5.10 @ 12:50PM
The author of this piece failed to represent recent history correctly. In 1995, the newly minted House Speaker, Newt Gingrich, attempted to reform Medicare. He knew it was in the long haul unsustainable (as we shall quickly find out). He failed in part to his own incompetence; but, he was also outmanuevered by Bill Clinton and Dick Morris. Clinton used this issue to rebuild his administration, and Dick Morris brilliantly ran ads telling seniors that the GOP was going to cut Medicare payments (which is only partly true -the GOP wanted to slow the rate of increase). Gingrich had no idea on how to respond, and he blew whatever political capital he had with the government shutdown fiasco. Niether Gingrich nor the GOP majorities ever recovered thier momentum. And before long they were on the permanent defensive as far as entitlement spending was concerned. It was during this period that Clinton, Daschle, and Gephardt were able to get an entire slew of Medicaid and Medicare bills passed. This is what the author of this piece totally misses. You cannot discount the political situation from the actual laws and programs being passed.
It didn't take long before the GOP discovered that the best way to remain in power was to go along with Boy Clinton. Clinton did offer them a huge gift in MonicaGate (at least they thought); but, as usual they over played thier hand. They totally misread the public. The voters punished the GOP in 1998, and they lost seats. By 2001 the Dems recaptued the Senate when Jim Jeffords jumped ship.
The Republican Party was never formally for Universal Health Care. The Republicans did however, implement many of the 1993-94 HillaryCare programs - but they did it from a position of political weakness. They were terrified of losing thier majorities, and they hadn't a clue on how to handle Bill Clinton. They just went along.
Greg Scandlen| 1.5.10 @ 4:56PM
Hey, JP. You have that about right. The worst thing Clinton did was kill the "Breaux-Thomas" Medicare reforms. That was an excellent start.
I also left out getting HSAs enacted. HSAs have proven that regular working people spending their own money can transform health care in ways that the elite bureaucracy can't imagine. They are a proven success.
Bob| 1.5.10 @ 1:02PM
Actually, JP, it isn't the rhetoric that is important, it is the results. We elect politicians whose primary job is to get reelected -- not to govern. Because of this, pandering is part of their job and they will not cut any programs. There is little difference in action between elected Republicans or Dems. Republicans will not cut Medicare or Social Security because they will lose the vote of seniors -- and that was the only segment that the Republicans won in the last election. "Kill Grandma" and see where that gets you....
For that reason, I don't buy your argument. Which road is paved with "good intentions"?
Pingback| 1.5.10 @ 1:29PM
The American Spectator : Republicans Botched Health Care First | Health Blog links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 1.5.10 @ 1:33PM
The American Spectator : Republicans Botched Health Care First | My Health and Lifest links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 1.5.10 @ 1:40PM
The American Spectator : Republicans Botched Health Care First « Just Health links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 1.5.10 @ 1:51PM
The American Spectator : Republicans Botched Health Care First | Health blog links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 1.5.10 @ 2:02PM
The American Spectator : Republicans Botched Health Care First American Me links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 1.5.10 @ 2:13PM
The American Spectator : Republicans Botched Health Care First | Health Blog links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Marcell| 1.5.10 @ 2:19PM
Hi Bob
Might I add.
Republicans have cornered themselves, because they call practically anything that the gov. does to help the average person socialism, & they radically despise environmentalist as well, so they line themselves on the side of the polluters & do what ever they can to undermine things like our schools. Their position on tax cuts is an exception.
The end result, from their bases style of politicking, has forced them to buy into all sorts of ideas that undermine their own prosperity, unless their agenda is to profit from undermining others.
The only group that they really represent is the elderly, so they, the politicians guarantee the elderly what they, themselves supposedly despise, so called socialism.
The Repubs play a game that is filled with hypocrisy & double standards; its a game that we Americans play, practically, every day.
Here is an example:
If a person likes you, then that person would find it in their hearts to be generous to you, as well as, treat you with the kind of respect that he or she want themselves.
If a person despises you, then he or she will do the opposite & could care less what you or others think about him or her. We usually make up all sorts of logical excuses for our irrational behaviors, especially if we are with a crowd that agrees with us.
Margie| 1.5.10 @ 2:31PM
Mr. Scandlen.
"It is a national tragedy that 15 years of governance were squandered by the Republican Party."
~So.. what now? Shall we vote for the Deomcrat Party? Or worse yet, a Third Party?
How about conservatives back conservatives that are running in the Republican party in their individual states for the upcoming elections. We know what to do. Like we did for NJ and VA and are now doing in FL. Send contributions to the individuals and NOT the Party.
In with the new out with the old.
Greg Scandlen| 1.5.10 @ 4:52PM
Thanks, Margie. I agree. We have to re-empower the people and take decisions away from an elite few who want to tell us all what to do.
Pingback| 1.5.10 @ 2:40PM
The American Spectator : Republicans Botched Health Care First | Health Blog links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Marcell| 1.5.10 @ 3:15PM
How about conservatives back conservatives that are running in the Republican party in their individual states for the upcoming elections.We know what to do. Like we did for NJ and VA and are now doing in FL. Send contributions to the individuals and NOT the Party.
In with the new out with the old.
----------------------
I don't believe that they ever been real conservatives.
The problem is that their machine (media) do a great job of disguising the politicians liberal tendencies, & most of the conservatives voters ignore the liberal media to the point that they miss seeing, reading or hearing their favorite politician marketing moderate policies.
I personally believe that conservatism does not make sense in reality, because people have already accepted the federal government new deal society roll, & to call that roll a failure is just as foolish as thinking that social security will go away.
Ron Paul is one of the only real conservatives; he routinely voted against the Conservatives agenda during the Bu$h era. One day they asked him why & he said that he believed that most of the bills that the colleges on his side were promoting was unconstitutional.
Paul is on a few true conservatives & I respect him (Them) for being true to his personal values.
Ryan| 1.5.10 @ 3:54PM
Paul is a Paleocon.
Not that it's a TOTALLY bad thing, but paleocons don't have a monopoly on the term "true conservative;" not with the gold standard and isolationism (though I am sympathetic to tax ideas and auditing the fed and reducing government).
Margie| 1.5.10 @ 4:05PM
Ron Paul who just the other day said "The terrorists are terrorists because of us!"
Ron Paul is a leftist liar who registered Republican so he could get elected.
He is actually a Libertarian in his beliefs.
That one statement alone should be enough to wake his followers up to reality.
Libertarian Paulites are nothing more than Leftists who want to do away with the rule of law "because they impose on their "freedoms"".
Leave the Constitution alone. This is why the "Bob's" who claim they are conservatives vote for Obama. Bob who is a Paulite and constantly preaches about how conservatives want to take away his "freedoms."
The truth is when you are for government controlling everything in your life, you are AGAINST freedom.
Ryan| 1.6.10 @ 7:58AM
"Leftist" is an exaggeration. Paul is anything but left-of-center in his politics. Simply because he's a paleoconservative doesn't mean he's a liberal.
Margie| 1.6.10 @ 12:33PM
He's a blame America first, America hating, anti-Semitic Leftist, just like Toddard and his pals.
Unless you agree with his sick mind when he states that "The terrorists are terrorists because of us!"
Ryan| 1.6.10 @ 4:16PM
You don't understand paleoconservatism. It's FAR from liberalism.
No, I DON'T agree with Paul on his stance that we are at fault for their terrorism; but simply because he's an isolationist doesn't make him a leftist. Look at the rest of his votes and stances.
Margie| 1.6.10 @ 5:47PM
Ryan,
Isolationism is exactly Leftist. How do they differ from the Left? They blame America first.. are anti-war, hate Israel. That is not conservative, it is the opposite. They vote either Democrat or for Ron Paul (who is a Libertarian who registered Republican in order to get elected). They claim to be Republican but do nothing but bash Republicans and conservatives. They are fake phony frauds. I simply don't understand the logic of anyone who doesn't automatically discredit Ron Paul (and his followers) for that one statement alone. "The terrorists are terrorists because of us!" If you think that is not Leftist you have some waking up to do.
Ryan| 1.7.10 @ 8:29AM
Go study paleoconservatism. Isolationism is NOT a strictly leftist ideal - and, in fact, was an idea held by most of the right in the US up until WWI.
I DO denounce Paul taking the radical muslims at their word on why they are attacking us. He's VERY wrong, but his stance comes primarily from his isolationist viewpoints, not because he's a leftist. It doesn't make him leftist.
Simply because one comes to the same conclusion about something doesn't mean they have the same ideological basis.
Paul isn't anti-semetic, either (or at least hasn't said anything to that affect). That was Ben Stein WAY overreaching.
Margie| 1.7.10 @ 9:36PM
FYI Ryan~ Ben Stein didn't SAY R. Paul was anti-Semitic, what he said was that R. Paul's line about "the terrorists are terrorists because of us" is something like the tired old anti-Semitic line.
Which is true. Mr. Paul and his followers refer to America as being "Occupiers" of Muslim lands, etc. and that turns into "it's because we help Israel." And on and on.
I'm just repeating myself to no avail. My posts before this one precisely stated what I had to say.
I have studied Paleoism and it fits the mindset of Leftists just perfectly. Blame America first, baby! Toddard is the perfect example.
I'd suggest to you Ryan that you study American history, study the Founders, but not junk written by Liberals. I know there's no convincing you, most likely anyway.
Duke of Hurl| 1.6.10 @ 2:31AM
Did he have any universities on his side, or just colleges?
CJohnson| 1.5.10 @ 3:20PM
No, Republicans could not go back and UNDO all the failed progressive policies and programs of the 30's. Tell me WHY smarty pants. I live the who, what, when, where and how part while I pay 60% tax. Just tell us WHY.
Pingback| 1.5.10 @ 3:25PM
Escape First Life | Skateboarding Leisure Knowledge links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 1.5.10 @ 3:31PM
The American Spectator : Republicans Botched Health Care First | Health Blog links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
DTCOAZ| 1.5.10 @ 3:33PM
Democrats are so good at taking credits for the good results and pointing fingers to blame the Republicans when things aren't so good looking. Democrats should man up and act honestly to the People that they begged for the votes. The Obama administration has given the American people the sick feeling from their devious agenda. The People had casted their votes for the very wrong party.
Ret. Marine| 1.5.10 @ 9:19PM
Can you say Cloward-Piven strategy?
Pingback| 1.5.10 @ 3:35PM
The American Spectator : Republicans Botched Health Care First links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
mart6in j smith| 1.5.10 @ 3:41PM
Who is Greg Scandlen anyway ? Does anyone know who he is politically speaking. Who or what faction or party does he represent ? I looked at some of articles critcial of Obama on health care but I do not get the value of wringing his hands at this particular time against the Republican Party. Oh yeah, I know the Repubs have done poorly --no news there in 06 & 08. But now is now and the question is where Repubs going if anywhere.
I think becuase of the Tea Party Movement and many other conservative types there is an opportunity to turn things around. Time will tell. I would say this if the goal is the repubs to change their ways be more . The reason for the problems in the past is poor leadership. And, if it were not for the Tea Party Movement ( which wags the dog)
there probably would be poor leadership. The objective I think should be to stick a pin in the b-hinds of some of the key Repub leaders and get them off the pot and do something useful. Not woe is me look what happened to the spilt milk--that is useless.
Pingback| 1.5.10 @ 4:00PM
The American Spectator : Republicans Botched Health Care First capital university links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 1.5.10 @ 4:05PM
The Big Hollywood Act-Off!: Matt Damon vs. Henry Fonda | Liberal … | Matt Damon Celeb links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Osamas Pajamas| 1.5.10 @ 4:32PM
One problem with employer-provided [or government-provided] medical insurance is that it promotes the idea that "someone else" must pay for one's insurance. The Demos love to foster this kind of crap and it is disconcerting when Republicans join them in any such way. It is a shame that Republicans for the most part appear to have conceded the issue to those least likely to return the matter to market forces.
Pingback| 1.5.10 @ 4:37PM
The American Spectator : Republicans Botched Health Care First links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 1.5.10 @ 4:37PM
The American Spectator : Republicans Botched Health Care First links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 1.5.10 @ 4:40PM
The American Spectator : Republicans Botched Health Care First links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 1.5.10 @ 4:40PM
The American Spectator : Republicans Botched Health Care First links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 1.5.10 @ 5:03PM
The American Spectator : Republicans Botched Health Care First links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
jr| 1.5.10 @ 5:11PM
Picking on the author: "But here too, the Congressional Republicans were tone-deaf regarding the real problems in health care." Republicans are that way concerning most things. They think they are for private business but now you the businesses that are supporting socialism. Private business wants the goobermint to stay away from it, including application of legislation and regulations that might be good for me and you. It is about making money and businesses will follow politicians who will give them what they want, irrespective of party. During the 8 years leading up to the anointing of the new Messiah, the Republicans were huge spenders and threw away opportunities that might have avoided the current recession, along with the dumb wars. The Iraq war should have been done from the air, not the ground. Same for Afghanistan, that is a 20 year war.
Ret. Marine| 1.5.10 @ 9:23PM
Jr. not trying to be a smart-*ss, but you really ought to do some research on the Cloward-Piven Strategy. Look back to the 60's to get a few clues. They believe the only way to fundamentally change this Nation and Hope no one notices it to bankrupt the entire system by over loading the systemas to start a new one, say anti-capitalist-marxist/socialist
Dave M.| 1.5.10 @ 5:35PM
The Republicans are the primary reason we are in this mess. If they had not squandered the opportunity they had to govern sensibly, we would not have the POR regime. But, as Dennis Prager correctly states, the Republican Party is the stupid party
Margie| 1.5.10 @ 6:20PM
Dave,
The If the Republican Party is the stupid Party, the Democrat Party is the insane Party.
That line is spouted by Libertarian Ron Paulites or Third Partiers.
~The answer is not to vote for a Third Party because if you do you'll only help to cause Obama to get re elected. Why not look to vote for a conservative in the Republican Party?
christian liberal| 1.5.10 @ 6:18PM
Speaking as a noncombatant in the partisan wars, I found this unusually informative and temperate in tone. I would add that doctors, nurses and other health professionals are big losers in the current system (along with consumers) and more so in the upcoming messes (whatever they are). Doesn't matter much if you're a slave to stupid, callous insurers or the stupid, corrupt government.
Pingback| 1.5.10 @ 6:25PM
A Bandage of Love : African Voices in African American Art and Life | The African Art links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 1.5.10 @ 6:58PM
The American Spectator : Republicans Botched Health Care First Federal Me links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
SHOCKED READER| 1.5.10 @ 7:47PM
Rational arguments on AS?
Glad i logged on. ;-]
The author points out the fatal flaw in our current system-Flat fee for all you use.
Imagine if the supermarket charged a flat fee for every familys' weekly food bill. You'd see fat people really live large, & no incentive for healthy family diets .
So what has the flat fee of "Health Insurance" wrought? Death by curable illness in underserved areas of the country & over charged/over served
customers/patients in the well insured populations.Too, insurance executives (w/ the highest incomes in the corporate world) have that income based on denial of coverage-the more you deny the more you make-There is a name for this business model, "unsustainable".The Democrats could do alot better than the current bill BUT,
with no changes in less than 8 years, 20-25% of US avg take home pay will be required for basic health insurance. Not an option for me.
darcy| 1.6.10 @ 1:36AM
Suppose the Repubs knew during the past 16 years that the Dem/socialists were going to damn the torpedoes and full-steam ahead to implement nationalization of our health care system -- over the objections of the majority of Americans. (After the Hillary-care scare they would have had to be ostriches not to know -- oh, and not to mention the last 60 years, when the New Deal and the Great Society did their ugly work of making more and more Americans into government dependents.)
Suppose in knowing this they had taken a pro-active approach this past decade-and-a-half and had done the research necessary to identify and isolate the several factors that were driving up costs and thereby giving to the dems the ammunition for arguing for a government-led overhaul of the entire system?
Well, unless the Repubs are in on the swindle, this is what the intelligent and forward-thinking -- liberty-loving pols should have been organizing and delivering to the American people: Identification of whatever demerits are in the system and policy changes to fix them.
The demerits were easy enough to identify: Excessive and unfair litigation (thank you democrats, who count among their highest campaign contributors the trial lawyers); the restriction of health care insurance providers placed on consumers -- who cannot buy insurance from companies in other states, thereby giving a near-monopoly to insurance companies in a given state -- who then can price-fix with their few competitors within that state; and the state-imposed mandates whereby lobbies, e.g., plastic surgeons, can exert pressure on state legislatures to require that all health insurance plans must cover, let's say, breast enlargements.
But did they do this? Did the Repubs make the case for and put the energy into making the fixes happen? NO.
I contend that the Repubs are little better than the Dems; that once they get to D.C., their goal switches from watching out for folks back home to watching out for the best avenue to getting re-elected and maximizing the power, prestige, and money they can make in the process.
How many PRINCIPLED Repubs can you name?
Margie| 1.6.10 @ 12:37PM
I could get you a list but I doubt that that is what you're truly interested in. Is it?
I'd venture to say you're for a Third Party.
darcy| 1.6.10 @ 2:48PM
What I want is a Republican Party that understands its mission is to be a foil to Democrats, not a "friend" or fellow traveler. What I want are Republicans whose agenda is to restore founding principles to our government, to fight for us, not against us as when they "walk across the aisle" to make nice with the socialists whose goal is to destroy this republic.
Senator Jeff Sessions (AL). Congressman Steve King (IA). Congresswoman Michelle Bachman (MN). Congressman Tom Price (GA). And others.
Please feel free to add to the list.
Margie| 1.6.10 @ 7:00PM
Better yet. How many Socialist Republicans can you name? How many Communist Republicans can you name? Maoist Republicans?
None.
Are you looking to back conservative Republicans that are running in your state?
I am. If so, great.
Currently here are some more:
Jim DeMint (S.C.)
John Boehner (Ohio),
Eric Cantor (Va.),
Mike Pence (Ind.)
Paul Ryan (Wis.),
Thaddeus McCotter (MI)
Louis Gohmert (Tx)
dhart1949| 1.6.10 @ 5:47PM
I agree with the author's premise. All of these feeble Republican government originated "reforms" to America's healthcare system prepared the ground for the Dems "final solution". How? By getting the public used to expecting government sponsored "incremental"progress". The Dems just spend up that process to its obvious conclusion.
Republicans were pandering to the so called "independent" voter trying to out liberal liberals in a vain attempt to buy some votes (and perhaps better press coverage). It did not work and the benefactors of this government largesse began to immediately complain about that surprise, not even money was being allocated for the programs.
I loved the "Whole Foods" approach to health care "reform" but alias, the board of directors put a bullet behind the ear of the architect. I given up on this whole complicated mess that really makes my head hurt. Next stop government bankruptcy court.
Pingback| 1.12.10 @ 1:19PM
The American Spectator : Republicans Botched Health Care First | Click for Quote links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 1.13.10 @ 7:54PM
Your Hockey Site » Blog Archive » The American Spectator : Republicans Botched Health links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
norris hall| 1.24.10 @ 10:26AM
Here's what Republicans think about health care
1. We have the most wonderful free market health care system on earth. Why change it.
2. Sure there are people who can't afford it, sure there are those who can't get healthcare due to pre existing conditions but not 40 million. Maybe 10 million
3. Health care is not a right. You have to pay for it and if you can't afford it, tough luck. We don't buy cars for everyone, do we.
somnolence| 1.25.10 @ 10:56PM
To Alan Brooks: I am indeed pro-life and also pro-capital punishment, because those perpetrators of heinous crimes have already been given the chance at life, and they forfeited it. It is all about being given the chance at life once conception is defined. An embryo has a soulful source of heart and brain cells, therefore it is a life.
Hannahmom| 3.20.10 @ 11:05PM
Please see You Tube video titled: “Severely Autistic Boy Beaten by Big Government”
It’s an eye opener. Mom takes you inside the crazy system serving autistic children/teen/adults/ and exposes some of the apathetic people we have working in our agencies. Amazing. Shocking. Sad. We need big change with less government right now. Screw finding cures! What’s needed is practical right now helps and supports for families who are trying to protect their autistic children from a very mixed up Godless American run down by dems and republican health care system.
d | 4.2.10 @ 3:25AM
d
Converse | 8.11.11 @ 9:37PM
is good