The Right Prescription
Cohn Heads
Liberals who argue the masses would come to love the health care reform they currently hate.
In the hours after Scott Brown's victory -- despite his campaigning against Obama care -- liberal healthcare commentators were urging Congressional Democrats to push on with a healthcare bill that used deep cuts in Medicare and a presidentially-led effort to reduce patent protection for breakthrough medicines to pay for a $60 billion tax break for unions only. Ignoring Brown's huge upset victory and the fact that half of those who voted for him cited his stance on healthcare reform as the reason they did so, they are now arguing that the election results was not a referendum on health reform because, as one reporter told me, "those living in Massachusetts may already be enjoying the benefits that a universal health care bill could provide."
The strategy of pushing health care through even though people don't understand the proposal and are suspicious of its impact and government because of the way it was, uh, crafted, is a product of the dismissive arrogance of such commentators as the New Republic's Jonathan Cohn. He argues that once the benighted masses are forced to live under the new order, they will awake to celebrate the benefits they failed to perceive over the past two years of health care debate.
Cohn claims that reform "will make a huge difference in people's lives -- and, quite likely, the evolution of the American social welfare state. You'll be sparing financial or physical hardship for thousands of Americans every year, while delivering peace of mind -- and safer, higher quality medicine--to literally millions of others. You'll be saving the American economy and, along the way, helping people to stay healthy."
To support his thesis that people will like the product even if they don't understand it and hate how it was made, Cohn holds up Massachusetts as the model for that shining health clinic on the hill and claims massive support for the reforms in that state. He cites a September 2009 Boston Globe/Harvard School of Public Health poll, where 58 percent of respondents said they supported the state reforms while 28 percent said they opposed.
Cohn failed to note that in the same poll, most said they
didn't think the law has had much of a direct impact on their
lives. There are two reasons for that. First, before the
Massachusetts law was passed 90 percent of people in the state
had healthcare coverage. Second, unlike the congressional
proposals, no one was forced to give up their healthcare coverage
because of a state mandate.
Cohn also ignores another poll result: 43 percent said the state
could not afford to keep the law as it is today and 40 percent
said it could.
People have a reason to be concerned. Much like the congressional proposal 60 percent of the people covered under MassHealth were Medicaid eligible. Further, the state received additional federal money to cover the cost of subsidizing the cost of low-income people. As with the bills in Congress, the initial cost of the entitlement was hidden.
Further, the cost estimates of the proponents were wildly off. In 2006, MIT economics professor Jonathan Gruber predicted that the amount of money in the "free care pool" would be sufficient to pay for reform legislation without requiring additional funding or taxes. He was way wrong. By 2008 even after the federal government kicked in $1.5 billion the health care costs in the state were rising at an annual rate of 10 percent, and the state budget deficit was $1.3 billion in large part because of the added entitlement. Incidentally, Gruber is being paid hundreds of thousands of dollars by the Obama administration to make similar assurances about the federal health plan.
However, expanding coverage did not translate into increased access. Medicaid reimbursements are half of those in the private sector. Major nonprofit hospitals are shutting down across the state and primary care docs are not taking Medicaid patients because of the lousy reimbursement. According to the Boston Globe, "The wait to see primary care doctors in Massachusetts has grown to as long as 100 days, while the number of practices accepting new patients has dipped in the past four years, with care the scarcest in some rural areas."
Yet here is the lesson Cohn says Democrats should learn from Scott Brown's successful run: "…deliberating over health care reform is messy, unattractive, and unpopular. But health care reform itself is popular once the deliberations are finished." Right. And Curt Schilling is an Yankee fan.
Americans want affordable, understandable health care reform. To respond to that demand, legislators should stop listening to "experts" who shaped the health care bill and excuse the deals needed to ram it through.
The Massachusetts election was the liberals' Waterloo. If they listen to Cohn, government-run health care will become the liberals' domestic Vietnam.
About the Author
Robert M. Goldberg is vice president of the Center for Medicine in the Public Interest and founder of Hands Off My H ealth, a grass roots health care empowerment network. His is new book, Tabloid Medicine: How the Internet is Being Used To Hijack Medical Science For Fear and Profit, was published last month by Kaplan.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (55) | Leave a comment
Leave a Comment
Related Articles
More Articles by Robert M. Goldberg
More Articles From The Right Prescription
http://spectator.org/archives/2010/01/22/cohn-heads
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Current Wisdom
- The Continuing Crisis
- Useless Wonks
- Digital Subscription (Save 78%)
- Buy a single issue (Save 50%)
- Send Spectator as a gift
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Ret. Marine| 1.22.10 @ 6:40AM
In a recent poll, 85% of those who currently have H/C rated thiers as good. Why do those who advocate change disagree with the current polls, simple, they get paid to do it, noting else.
If the election of Mr. Brown was not a referendum against obozocare, what was it exactly, a sounding of "hell no" we won't go quietly into the abyss following a marxist fundamental changing our our Representative Republic. I don't care, nor should anyone else for that matter, what mr. cohen says. He does not speak for me and my family, I do.
S.L. Toddard| 1.22.10 @ 7:37AM
I don't know, RM. The argument that many liberals are putting forth ("the masses would come to love the health care reform they currently hate") would seem to be born out by history, no? Think of the massive entitlement programs that the left has enacted (social security, medicare, medicaid) - each was bitterly opposed by all good right-thinking Americans (which is to say "conservatives"). Each passed. Each came to be loved by the public to the point where there are few (if any) prominent conservative leaders calling for their revoking or federalization (back to the states), despite the fact that they hog the lion's share of the budget, that they are responsible (more than even our war budget) for our skyrocketing debt, that they are zillions in the red and that they will end up destroying our country.
These are programs that conservatives did - and still should - oppose (I believe they should be returned to the states and managed on that level, closer to the people), but don't. Which is to say that these programs, like Obamacare, were once hated by the right, but now (what now passes for) the right refuses to revoke and pledges to protect them, because the American people refuse to contemplate losing free gov't lunches.
Does it not make sense that this is exactly what will happen after Obamacare passes? They will be economically devastating, but that devastation will not be felt by the American people - Obama will shovel it off onto our descendants (as his predecessor did).
Indiana Alex| 1.22.10 @ 8:22AM
GW Bush came the closest with the partial privitization plan for SS, the recommendation of which came out of a bipartisan committe headed by that great conservative Daniel Patrick Moynihan.
Of course the left realized what the result would be of moving money (read power) out of Washington, and successfully demonized the plan with the help of the lap dog media.
Those who suggest there isn't much difference between democrat and republican (ahem) would have to see that where it comes to shifting power toward or away from Washington, there is a difference.
LQQKY| 1.22.10 @ 9:52AM
There is no love for these money guzzling programs, only a desire to get a return on the investment taken from us thrugh payroll taxes.
If the money collected had been put into a "lock box" as promised ;-{ , and then invested, there would be more than enough to pay for the programs. Instead, it was taken by politicians (of all stripes) to balance idiotic budgets and pay for their pork projects. I, for one, want what I was promised and what I paid for during my entire working life; thank you very much!
nick| 1.22.10 @ 9:56AM
S.L. - I am impressed with your comments - if you really believe that these "programs" should be returned to the states doesn't that beg the question as to why we even need such programs?
I do not disagree with your comment regarding people not wanting to lose the "free" government lunch, but its not free and someone has to pay for it.
Furthermore, once a program is in place I am not so sure that people love it but that they adjust their behavior and actions to minimize or optimize the impact on their financial well-being.
I think the bottom line is that the quality of medical care is what spooks so many folks when their experience with almost any federal (or even state program) is not very good.
Yes the current programs are economically unsustainable and they will destroy the budget. I agree that the stupid party has not and will not attack the problem as it is the "third" rail - but all the statist party has to offer is more of the same which in turn leads to more government control and corruption.
What is your proposed solution? Mine is junk it all and force responsibility back on the electorate.
Alan Brooks| 1.22.10 @ 12:21PM
Southern state govts. are too corrupt for devolution. They DO spend less, but their taxes are still too high.
(No, I am no Yankee).
Alan Brooks| 1.22.10 @ 12:25PM
... I don't dislike the South, however you don't want to romanticize the region do you? Do you think you can trust state bureaucrats much more than feds?
Commonsensedad| 1.22.10 @ 12:37PM
Not here in Massachusetts, that's for sure.
Alan Brooks| 1.22.10 @ 5:18PM
Well, then, which state do you recommend?
Tell us, and we'll pack our bags.
martin j smith| 1.22.10 @ 12:58PM
Would you buy healthcare without knowing what was in the package ? This is what is being asked of the American voter. Remember transparency ?--NOT !!!! So again I say this Everyone should be under the same plan, that means the Obamas, and every critter in government. Otherwise,FORGHETABAOUIT !!!!! This bill ( whatever is in it ) is beiong handled behind closed doors, special deals are being made etc etc. So this is OK ? Take a hike !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
jomo2009| 1.22.10 @ 3:33PM
Don't you two ever take a day off?
Osamas Pajamas| 1.24.10 @ 2:03AM
But Medicare and Medicaid are not "free" and "the government" does not pay for them. The taxpayers pay for them --- and these programs are a rip-off in terms of getting value for the taxpayer's dollar. There has to be some way to STOP the flow of tax money to these bloodsucking bxtxrds --- to starve every level of government. But probably they would just print some more counterfeit government money [not backed by gold and / or silver] and then go murder whoever would like to destroy them. That'd be me, for one.
Baloney Guy| 1.22.10 @ 7:31AM
There is a provision in the Senate bill that requires insurance providers to change their time honored ratios of premiums/payouts from 65% to 80%. The reason the 65% ratio was used was if the health care companies paid out over that ratio they would go bankrupt.
Just this one provision, if passed will ensure a quick death to health care companies, yet you never hear it discussed. It's the only provision that has to pass, and the public option will be here before you know it.
Alan Brooks| 1.22.10 @ 12:32PM
Sure it would go belly up with that ratio. Healthare is to stir up debate at this time; nothing more.
And you know it. Obama is less slippery than the Bush dynasty, and if you don't come up with another Reagan, I will vote for him in '12.
But what matters next (and thus this) year is another Gingrich will be Speaker after the midterms. And then the same old blarney about private healthcare accounts-- in banks that might eventually be bailed out.
It is almost comforting in the seasonal circularity.
Fed up in "mASSachusettes"| 1.22.10 @ 8:00AM
The 'geniuses' in the MIT economics department are STILL insisting the healthcare program is misrepresented. An associates nephew getting an PhD in Economics there - insisted the media was misreporting the costs and that the program was saving money. All the time he was working on his PhD at MIT - he paid no tuition and was getting paid by the school to attend - all this was tax-free income - it is only since graduating and taking a job that he has started to pay any taxes on his income, FICA, etc. He remains a big believer that if we would only let the government run things we would have a smoothly running economy. At least MIT turned out good engineers (except for the ones that believe the internal combustion engine was the most evil invention of the last 200 years!)
Deborah D| 1.22.10 @ 11:46AM
Higher learning -- just another institution in America liberalism has turned into a shadow of its former self. Tear down the institutions -- that's part of the plan, and it seems to be working.
Pingback| 1.22.10 @ 8:39AM
Twitter Trackbacks for The American Spectator : Cohn Heads [spectator.org] on Topsy. links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Bill| 1.22.10 @ 9:23AM
I agree with Ret Marine. Not buying what they are trying to sell (jam) down our throats. Time for some change.. time to keep the change moving forward. Term limits to help cut down on corruption, they all move to the same social security we the citizens are on and they buy their own health care. No reason for the special deals cut under the table.
We have more to vote out of office, both Reps and Dems. They work for us a little item they seem to have forgotten. I would love to see a requirement that they return to their districts every quarter for a performance review by a citizen personal group. By the way does anyone know what their job description is? I have asked my senator to respond to that question and get no answer.. wonder why that is?
Ken (Old Texican)| 1.22.10 @ 10:15AM
Hi, Bill.
Sir, we already have term limits. Reps, every two years. Senators Six years.
With the Supreme court decision this week, the incumbency, news media stranglehold is finally broken.
Picture it: A Rep votes for a law that bites his local companies on the rear.
Those companies can now run all the adds they want to point the scumbag out to his/her own constituents. OOPS!
Osamas Pajamas| 1.24.10 @ 1:57AM
Exactly so! These bloodsucking Democrats prefer their victims to be UNARMED and SILENCED --- an attitude which the Democrats share with Hitler's Nazis, Stalin's communists and socialists, and Mussolini's fascists.
Sue| 1.24.10 @ 2:17AM
We have "voting" limits. With jerrymandering, the politicians have figured out how to "protect" their seats with their constitutents. Under the "power" sharing agreement the two parties have had the last 100 years, it wouldn't matter a "hill of beans" if we tried to throw each and every one out. They know exactly which seats to "protect" and which ones become "competitive" and how to obtain and keep the power.
The Supreme Court (a couple of the justices) were speechifying about limiting campaign contributions within your own state - in other words, the powers can "nationalize" our healthcare, education, energy regulation, etc. but we cannot contribute to other states' political campaigns. It hasn't happened yet, but the very fact they are talking about it scares me.
If Mr. Ben Nelson and Ms. Landreiu are selling their votes to obtain "dollars from other states" then I say we have a "voting right" to select them no matter which state we live in. I will support ALL candidates who I feel can unseat a "constitutional violator." It doesn't matter if the candidate is from Minnesota (Coleman against "Frankfurter," or Carly Fiorina against "Don't address me as "mam" Boxer."
martha| 1.22.10 @ 7:39PM
The line that jumped out at me most in this essay was the "Presidential-led effort to reduce patent protection for breakthrough drugs"
I guess he wants Hank Rearden to sign over that metal at the point of gun huh?
Osamas Pajamas| 1.24.10 @ 1:53AM
Hi, Martha. Not enough people know who is Hank Rearden, but if a scorched-earth policy of revenge follows the enactment of OhBummer's Healthcare Hijacking, I predict that he and his creator soon will enjoy greater publicity and a more radical following.
Yi Ha ***
Minister of Information
Peoples' Capitalist Republic of Whizbangistan
*** Pronounced "YEEEEEEEEEE HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!"
Pingback| 1.22.10 @ 9:49PM
Friday: January 22, 2010 : DBKP REPORT links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Yosemeti Sam| 1.23.10 @ 12:27AM
" ... The Massachusetts election was the liberals' Waterloo. If they listen to Cohn, government-run health care will become the liberals' domestic Vietnam...."
New generation - the 'best and brightest' wits -
vaunting their sophistic stewardship of 300 million legal Americans.
Time to spank these self-indulgent nincompoops.
jeaneeinabottle| 1.23.10 @ 4:36AM
Who are these people?!!! How in the world did these morons get to where their at without anyone saying wait a minute this guy is nuts! It's like we went through a black hole. I want my country back and I want to feel safe again. All of this administration needs to be drug tested, soon. They all have to still be on acid! Thank God for Scott Brown and the state of MA. Who are these stupid trolls that defend these losers?? They have to be getting paid to say the dumbest most vile crap I've ever heard, screw you. Have you heard of KARMA? Oh it's real!
martin j smith| 1.23.10 @ 6:58AM
in response to neaneeinabottle
two reasons: The republican party messed up badlyAnd People were fooled drinking the FDemocrat Left lies. And a third( i cheated ) George W Bush did not help matters at all. Finally Maccaine -a bad choice
Margie| 1.23.10 @ 3:11PM
"They all have to still be on acid!"
~You got it!
Osamas Pajamas| 1.24.10 @ 1:22AM
If OhBummer's Healthcare Hijacking is enacted, sooner or later armed agents of the United States government will be pointing guns at American citizens who refuse to obey the commands contained in the legislation. In that event, I will advocate that the intended victims of OhBummer's "Plan" take the guns away from the enforcers who are threatening them, and then kill the enforcers. OhBummer's enforcers --- like Hitler's enforcers --- cannot be allowed to escape personal responsibility for their actions by saying such things as ---- I was just following orders, I was just doing my job, I was just enforcing the law, I don't make the law --- I just enforce it, blah, blah, etc, etc, etc. My greatest fear is that conservatives will suddenly say, "Oh heck, I have to obey OhBummer --- now that it is 'the law' " and so forth. THE LAW CANNOT POSSIBLY BE MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE PEOPLE WHOM OSTENSIBLY IT SERVES. If I could smash the entire OhBummer Wrecking Crew across the forehead with an iron crowbar, I would do it, forthwith, joyfully --- CLANG! --- and in a blinding flash of speed and light. Destroy these Democrats, they are a bloodsucking cancer.
Pingback| 1.24.10 @ 7:07AM
Nurse practitioner remains committed to women's health – Wilkes … | Women's Health Wi links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Blackwatch| 1.24.10 @ 8:24PM
Hey O.P.--watch yourself. No violence on the blogosphere.
Remember when "they" come for you they'll have a couple of local uniforms along to keep you quiet and to make you BELIEVE that the rule of law is still in effect. And the uniforms will also cow the neighbors into submission. The uniforms are just local cops--they are not the enforcers--aim for the dude in civilian clothes--that's your Gestapo officer.
dvdtowalkman| 4.6.10 @ 4:08AM
Americans every year, while delivering peace of mind -- and safer, higher quality medicine--to literally millions of others. You'll be saving the American economy and, along the way, helping people to stay healthy."
DVD To Walkman
Best DVD Burner
Converse| 8.11.11 @ 10:42PM
is good