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.
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”
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"
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.
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.