The American Spectator

home
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
The Largest Selection of Liberal-baiting Merchandise on the Net!
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
Print Email

AmSpecBlog

Daschle and the Health Care Fight

Barack Obama has now made official the appointment of Tom Daschle to Secretary of Health and Human Services. I'll have a lot more on this (including some more from Tom Daschle's book on health care, which I just finished) but just a few quick things to emphasize.

Daschle is not reentering the public sector to run the daily bureaucracy of HHS. He played a key role in Obama's campaign and was rumored to be a candidate for chief of staff. The only reason he would accept this position is if he received assurances from Obama that health care would be a major priority of the new administration, and that he would lead the reform effort.

In his book, Daschle discusses the unraveling of the Clinton health care push in 1993-94 in great detail, and will try to learn from the mistakes that were made at the time. By having him lead the health care effort (somebody with vast experience moving legislation through Congress) Democrats will already be a step ahead of where they were with Hillary Clinton in 1993. He realizes that he'll have to involve members of Congress in the process, rather than huddling in secrecy, coming out with a plan, and telling Congress how it's gonna be. He also recognizes that one of the major problems with the original bill was that it was so long and detailed, that it was too complicated to explain to the public, and easy to pick apart by opponents.

The Obama-Daschle proposal will likely include some of the following elements: a requirement that insurers cover those with preexisting conditions; subsidies for individuals to purchase insurance in a government-run exchange that will include a new Medicare-like government insurance program as well as a choice among private plans that would have to meet certain government standards as far as price and benefits; a requirement that large employers either provide health coverage or pay taxes into a pool that would be used to purchase health care for others; and cost saving measures involving the use of electronic record keeping. What's not yet clear is whether any plan would include Daschle's idea of a Federal Health Board, modeled after the Federal Reserve Board, comprised of "experts" who would supposedly be insulated from the political process, and able to make judgments as to what drugs and medical procedures were necessary, and which ones we could do without in order to save money.  The Health Board was also a key part of Daschle's vision for how to pass health care reform – by punting the complex medical questions down field, Congress could craft legislation that was less complicated.

Also, in 1993, there was a lot of opposition from insurers, but just last week, America's largest group of insurers agreed to accept a requirement that they accept enrollees with preexisting conditions as long as government mandates that individuals purchase health insurance. Many businesses, struggling with high health care costs, are also likely to welcome government action. And the American Medical Association is eager to see everybody covered, though their proposal achieves that in a different way than Obama would.

I asked Sen. Jim DeMint about the health care battle this morning, and he warned, "Because of down economic times and the promise of free health care, I think we're in real danger of losing this."

I'll reiterate that conservatives really need to get up to speed on this issue. If conservatives lose this fight, it's the end of the battle over the size of government.

Comments

Dave K. Smith| 12.11.08 @ 9:22PM

I completely agree that conservatives must gear up for a huge battle on this front. We must have a highly competent "ground team" established and in place, similar to the approach Regnery (in "Upstream") recounts from the period leading up to the Roberts and Alito confirmations.

Could we fight this in the courts starting now, using existing Federal government oversteps as a launching pad? Could we take preemptive action on a foundation of states' rights? Before disaster strikes, can we model conservative solutions in favorable regional health care markets (since showing the way sells better than whining)? How can we force the advocates of socialized medicine to first point to a model of success, rather than allow them to bury us in doomed-from-the-start approaches? What can we do to build on the Wyoming success described in your August article?

As you argued back then, conservatives must "offer a competing rationale for what caused those problems in the first place." Beyond that, we should act on better ideas, and use all available tools to keep good reforms on track. Every member of the "ground team" should be extremely wary of accepting the premise in liberal arguments that fault "the market" for our current mess. As you clearly illustrated in August, social control (and not The Evil Market) is already a primary cause of the failures in American health care. More of the same is certainly not the answer.

Complacency, exasperation, and defeatism creep into the conservative mind in response to such massive proposed expansions of government largely because of their very size and complexity. Liberals hide in their elitist clouds of self-proclaimed uber-intelligence, and can't be bothered with stooping to common sense "yeah, but is it gonna work?" discussions. We've got simplicity and time tested free markets on our side of the argument. Shame on us if we give up without a fight.

steven Price| 12.12.08 @ 8:58AM

fortunately for Obama, Lincoln didn’t say “well, it looks like we probably will lose the war, so I’d much rather have a place at the table than draw a line in the sand and get excluded from the process”

Paul Hsieh, MD| 12.14.08 @ 11:32AM

Thank you for this insightful analysis. The Democrats are poised to implement the failing "Massachusetts plan" for universal health care at a national level. This plan is kept afloat only by hundreds of millions of dollars of federal assistance (i.e., the taxpayers of the other 49 states). If we adopt this at a national level, I don't think China or Russia will want to bail us out!

For some additional intellectual ammunition in this fight, I'd like to offer my article from the Fall 2008 issue of the Objective Standard:

"Mandatory Health Insurance: Wrong for Massachusetts, Wrong for America"

http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2008-fall/mandatory-health-insurance.asp

Sharon Bach| 2.2.09 @ 12:24PM

How then can we end discrimination against the medically disenfranchised? This silent minority generally has no recourse but to keep going to the emergency room because they are not allowed to buy any type of insurance. Many end up "decreasing the surplus population." And leaving them out does not guarantee cheaper health care for others. In fact it ends up costing more. If conservatives don't come up with a humane but fiscally responsible alternative, liberals will have their way on this one.

Leave a Comment

ADVERTISEMENT

The Threat to Medical Innovation

Philip Klein

* * * *

Get That Hacker a Pimp Coat

Paul Chesser

* * * *

Justice Dep't Recusal List!

Quin Hillyer

* * * *

The Ben Nelson Shuffle

W. James Antle, III

* * * *

AHIP Opposes Senate Health Bill

Philip Klein

* * * *

Moment of Truth

W. James Antle, III

* * * *

No Sales Days in the Afghan War

George H. Wittman

* * * *

Bureaucrats With Badges

Mark Hyman

* * * *

Obama in Wonderland

Ken Blackwell

* * * *

A Writer Speaks

William Tucker

* * * *

What Has Changed?

Robert P. Kirchhoefer

* * * *

High Stakes

Manon McKinnon

* * * *
ADVERTISEMENT