 |
||
The House passed health care reform on Saturday night. I know it’s a big deal. I know it’s the furthest we’ve gotten in, well, ever. I suppose we should celebrate.
I don’t want to be a downer – I really don’t. But I can’t believe it’s been this hard. I can’t believe people are talking about how hard it’s still going to be. Listening to the rhetoric from the minority party, you would think President Obama was trying to make communism look like socialism. It would be funny if it weren’t so sad.
How far has the Right (and the Left) moved to the right? Bear with me as I take you into the past.
A president sends a “Special Message” to Congress. He’s proposing comprehensive health care reform. Here are his words:
Without adequate health care, no one can make full use of his or her talents and opportunities. It is thus just as important that economic, racial and social barriers not stand in the way of good health care as it is to eliminate those barriers to a good education and a good job.
Today the need is even more pressing because of the higher costs of medical care. Efforts to control medical costs under the New Economic Policy have been Inept with encouraging success, sharply reducing the rate of inflation for health care. Nevertheless, the overall cost of health care has still risen by more than 20 percent in the last two and one-half years, so that more and more Americans face staggering bills when they receive medical help today.
Guy makes a good point. What does he want to do?
Upon adoption of appropriate Federal and State legislation, the Comprehensive Health Insurance Plan would offer to every American the same broad and balanced health protection through one of three major programs:
[1]--Employee Health Insurance, covering most Americans and offered at their place of employment, with the cost to be shared by the employer and employee on a basis which would prevent excessive burdens on either;
How would that work?
Every employer would be required to offer all full-time employees the Comprehensive Health Insurance Plan. Additional benefits could then be added by mutual agreement. The insurance plan would be jointly financed, with employers paying 65 percent of the premium for the first three years of the plan, and 75 percent thereafter. Employees would pay the balance of the premiums. Temporary Federal subsidies would be used to ease the initial burden on employers who face significant cost increases.
Now that’s a powerful employer mandate. I see no small business exclusion. That’s way more than anyone is pushing right now. Radical!
[2]--An improved Medicare Plan, covering those 65 and over and offered through a Medicare system that is modified to include additional, needed benefits.
So this president wants to strengthen Medicare. Fair enough. I’m listening. What’s the last part?
[3]--Assisted Health Insurance, covering low-income persons, and persons who would be ineligible for the other two programs, with Federal and State government paying those costs beyond the means of the individual who is insured;
But how would this fancy Assisted Insurance work?
The program of Assisted Health Insurance is designed to cover everyone not offered coverage under Employee Health Insurance or Medicare, including the unemployed, the disabled, the self-employed, and those with low incomes. In addition, persons with higher incomes could also obtain Assisted Health Insurance if they cannot otherwise get coverage at reasonable rates. Included in this latter group might be persons whose health status or type of work puts them in high-risk insurance categories.
Assisted Health Insurance would thus fill many of the gaps in our present health insurance system and would ensure that for the first time in our Nation's history, all Americans would have financial access to health protection regardless of income or circumstances.
A principal feature of Assisted Health Insurance is that it relates premiums and out-of-pocket expenses to the income of the person or family enrolled. Working families with incomes of up to [a certain amount], for instance, would pay no premiums at all. Deductibles, co-insurance, and maximum liability would all be pegged to income levels.
Anything else?
There would be no exclusions of coverage based on the nature of the illness. For example, a person with heart disease would qualify for benefits as would a person with kidney disease.
And how would you make sure that happens?
The States would approve specific plans, oversee rates, ensure adequate disclosure, require an annual audit and take other appropriate measures. For health care providers, the States would assure fair reimbursement for physician services, drugs and institutional services, including a prospective reimbursement system for hospitals.
That’s… a massive amount of government regulation. This guy loves his government oversight and intervention. Moreover, he doesn’t seem to want to leave anything to the free market system.
OK, so we have lots of people getting insurance from their employer. People over 65 get strengthened Medicare. The rest would get subsidies to buy private insurance. No one could be denied insurance because of prior conditions. States would closely regulate insurance and reimbursement. This sounds awfully familiar; the conservatives must have hated him.
Who was this communist?
Can we stop pretending this is government run amok? Can we stop pretending this is unprecedented? Can we stop pretending that every cry of socialism, of communism, of fascism is reasonable? Please?
President Obama has proposed a plan that is slightly to the right of President Nixon. It’s a remarkably moderate incremental sort of reform that a reasonable conservative should recognize as his or her own.
I don’t think this reform is enough, and I won’t stop saying so. There are plenty of rational reasons to criticize it. But it’s not nearly as radical as some are pretending it is. They should stop.
Read more about health care policy and get your questions answered at Rational Arguments.
Follow Aaron E. Carroll on Twitter: www.twitter.com/DSYGAaron
Marcia Angell, M.D.: Is the House Health Care Bill Better than Nothing?
The House Health bill just throws good money after the bad. And because costs will keep rising, there is now a danger that people will conclude reform is impossible, when in reality, we still haven't really tried.
Eric Tang: Anh "Joseph" Cao: The Surprises Are Just Beginning
The improbable victory of Joseph Cao gave Republicans something to gloat about in the wake of its November defeats. But Republicans may soon learn that they're getting more than they bargained for.
Lord Weidenfeld of Chelsea: 20th Anniversary of the Fall of the Wall
In the future much of the world's power -- however uncomfortable the word may still sound for Germans -- will emanate from Germany, where it is strongly rooted.
Nancy L. Cohen: 10 Reasons Why the Stupak-Pitts Amendment Has to Go
Even if some Democrats who voted for the amendment did so because of deep convictions, the main thrust of the measure is to condemn women for being sexually active.
NEJM -- Nonpayment for Performance? Medicare's New Reimbursement Rule
Obama Wants Medicare Reimbursement Rates Out of Congressional ...
Obama and health care: Miles to go
White House Spent 'Weeks' Courting Lone GOP Vote on Health Care Bill
Would Senator Joe Lieberman chose Iraq War death over Health Care life?
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
From a policy point of view, Richard Nixon was a pretty damned good REPUBLICAN president. It was just that whole, ugly, truly disgusting Watergate thing - and the cover-up thereof. Frankly, what he did regarding Watergate wasn't nearly as bad as what Bush Junior did... I think history will be kinder to Nixon than most of us now expect - and surely he'll be better remembered than Junior.
.
Holy Cow Aaron Carroll, I think you've done it ..... This very article needs to be read on the floor during the next HCR debate.... All of the senators would be ashamed not to pass what is in front of their eyes.
It would be the jab at the repubes very party that might shake them up and make them see that they have gone to far away from what they used to stand for...
Very good article...
Yes, I knew that the Republicans of old were in many ways more "liberal" than Democrats of new. For health care, single payer. Minding to the health of a nation as well as to the education of a nation makes its citizens more productive. It is the moral thing to do anyway.
That seemed to change dramatically as corporations became multi-nati
I've been taken back by the Republican caucus' lies and falsehoods, but more so by the people who believe them. Presumably they've never had to fight to get their insurance companies to pay a hospital bill or medical expense or have been denied coverage otherwise they wouldn't be up-in-arms over healthcare reform.
Since most uninsured people cannot afford a doctor, they go to the emergency room instead which is much more expensive. Their emergency care is paid for by the public in the form of higher medical costs, higher prescription drugs prices, more expensive hospital stays and higher insurance premiums. Unless brought under control the more costlier they will become. But with access to a doctor and regular check-ups, visits to the emergency room decrease and helps contain costs.
If healthcare reform is not passed everyone loses except the insurance companies. The people who stood against reform cannot complain when, not if, but (because it is only a matter of time) when their insurance company decides to reject a claim or denies a medical treatment or whatever else becomes a problem as a result thereof.
If it does pass, perhaps they will not be so easily fooled by falsehoods and lies next time which no doubt there will be a next time.
If only facts and logic mattered. This is politics, and it's a game of perceptions.
Simply put, and accurate.
I haven't seen anyone mention the proliferation of right wing think tanks such as Heritage Foundation, CATO Institute and AEI for the rightward shift in the general public's political perceptions. Their people show up on opinion shows all the time. You rarely see anyone from a truly left leaning think tank on a MSM talk show. Centrist opinions are considered left. It drives me nuts every time I hear someone I know repeat the usual BS these think tank wingnuts report as fact. When I try to give them a counter argument they don't believe a thing I say. Super frustrating to say the least!
I know. I hear you. All I can say, really, is that I sympathize.
It's incredibly frustrating, arguing with stupid people and people with no sense of history.
All anyone need do is read just a little bit of U.S. history to realize that we're regressing and becoming far, far more conservative, not radical by any means.
If Obama is considered "radical" than I have no idea how to label a progressive, let alone a real socialist.
Obama is, if anything, a little RIGHT of center on most issues.
You are so right, of course. ...I can't even _think_ of a _single_ "left wing think tank." They don't exist. ALL think tanks, so far as I am aware, are right-wing things.
When someone I know spouts off with some of their nonsense, I take the proverbial bull by the horns. I carefully pick apart the argument, show how the person I'm talking to was manipulated, how whatever it is is actually against their interests, etc. Sometimes, it has to be done in multiple conversations. And, it's an art, not a science - the trick is to not accidentally make an enemy. Even if you "don't win", you can be sure your words are working on them long after your conversation and you may well be surprised at some future time to hear that they've come around...
.
A list of liberal think tanks:
* Brookings Institution
* Center for American Progress
* Center for Defense Information
* Center for Economic and Policy Research
* Center for International Policy
* Center for an Urban Future
* Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
* The Century Foundation
* Commonweal Institute
* Council on Hemispheric Affairs
* Demos
* Drum Major Institute
* Economic Policy Institute
* Global Financial Integrity
* Institute for Policy Studies
* Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies
* New Democrat Network
* National Security Network
* Progressive Policy Institute
* Roosevelt Institution
* World Resources Institute
Anytime I hear the word radical I think of HanniTOY's brainwashed 6th education listeners, associating the word with the Black Panther's, Obama, Acorn....a
Well presented comment on the present day situation with Health Care Reform. I have sent this on to all my conservative friends in the hopes that a few might actually start really thinking this through.
It's radical because these politicians want to make getting insurance compulsory. A blogger from the American thinker explains it perfectly:
For the first time, the federal government would be ordering Americans to buy a product or service they do not voluntarily choose to purchase. They would be required to purchase health care insurance acceptable to the Health Choices Administrator. This is quite different than government regulation of an activity that individuals have chosen to undertake. Failure to comply with the mandate would result in a tax collected by the IRS but the mandate is itself a hidden tax.
This is indeed radical if you look at the fine print, and in many ways works counter to what many Americans THINK they would be getting. It is in effect unconstitutional by the way they are shaping it- I'd say this glaring omission is radical as well.
Health care should be available to everybody. It should be paid for with taxes. Just like the Air Force.
For the first time, the federal government would be ordering Americans to buy a product or service they do not voluntarily choose to purchase.
I do believe there are quite a few Americans who do not want to spend $680 Billion/year on the Military or Billions on Schools and roads and clean water, we ARE forced to BUY these things through taxes, so I guess this isn't the first time now is it?
As to this being Unconstitu
There is one other ultimate check on government of the United States of America and it is the Ballot Box.
I too believe there should not be anyone without insurance if they choose to be insured. Under these circumstances under true reform they would be provided with government assistance at a cost commensurate with what they are able to pay. This is altogether a different situation, whereas yes, people pay for roads and services through sales and a variety of other taxes, however what we are dealing with is an ADDITIONAL tax (VAT) on top of all of this. The problem with this type of taxation is that it runs like a tax ON TOP of a tax, and the compound nature of its makeup disproportionately effects lower income people in comparison with their cost of living. I regularly vote in every election, but I am sick and tired of the oligarchy this country has become, and sadly to me the democrat/republican dichotomy becomes somewhat of a false choice. Explain to me how the ballot box countered the bank bailouts that the American people were almost unanimously against. The Supreme Court would likely side with Congress as their is overwhelming precedent for over half of a century for upholding the governments ability to tax and regulate. I'm seeing far too many people jump on this bandwagon without having the slightest clue what is contained in those close to 1200 pages of the House Bill. This thing has been so tainted with greed and backroom negotiations that I am far more cautious than it appears you choose to be.
You mean like Social Security and Medicare payroll deductions are voluntary?
You make an excellent point - this constant and gradual shift to the right is something that more of us should be aware of. It's almost as if we're devolving to 1950s McCarthyism, with every progressive thought struck down with a cry of communism or anti-Americanism.
On a somewhat unrelated note, reading Nixon's health-care proposal makes you realize how peculiar Nixon himself was, both politically and personally. I don't think we've ever had a president since Nixon that was so uniquely flawed on a moral level, yet at times could be extraordinarily inspired and forward-thinking.
Well, um, there was Bill Clinton...
Excellent point. I have been stating all along that Barack Obama is a pretty centrist, maybe slightly to the left, kinda guy. That his policies will not be radical and his message of change was more about repudiating George Bush than anything else. But all in all, I do prefer him over the alternative. But it is funny to watch the right calling him a communist, and the left shocked that he is not one. It's all about rhetoric these days, but our under-educated, fear-driven, society seems to believe whatever you tell it.
I was about to post that. People assume that Obama is all extreme and liberal because he ran on the Democratic party ticket.
He is actually very centrist.
And that assumption is counter to the actual facts as well. Today's Democratic party are to teh right of Nixon as well.
Saying and doing are two different things.
You can't say you're "strengthening" Medicare when you're pulling dollars away from it.
Obama is big on platitudes but on the details this legislation doesn't deliver.
Actually they're pulling dollars from one program within medicare that has become more expensive faster than other programs that do the same thing. It's a good though very minor thing.
Exactly. This is a VERY tired GOP talking point. It is also a sign that they don't have much else.
You see zen, you have fallen for the classic bait and switch.
The right wing punditry are calling Medicare Advantage, a private supplemental insurance subsidized by the government, AND paid in premiums by it's clients, simply Medicare.
And you, not bothering to research the story, bought it as told.
So the two are not the same, the false equivalency, a favored tactic of the right, is incorrect.
If anyone believes that the HCR "debate" was anything but a pre-ordained result:
http://www
This post illustrates well the massive shift to the Right undergone by the mainstream media over the past few decades. The spectrum of public opinion has not changed, but the information fed to the public has changed drastically. The vast majority of people parroting corporate talking points have no earthly idea that the policies they parrot will adversely affect them, but thy do know that the resentment they feel is real - probably the only real thing they know. The swing back to normalcy can only happen when media monopolization rules are enacted and enforced, and it can't happen soon enough.
Agreed. GOP talking points get regurgitated unopposed while liberal points are pressed with vigor. In many (if not most) instances "fair and balanced" has nothing to do with truth. The good news is that at least some of the American People are catching on: CNN, which is the worst offender, has ratings that continue to plumment. Thae bad news is that Fox's ratings continue to rise. At least MSNBC has some shows that do their homework and present facts. Shout out to Keith and Rachel!
Don't forget Ed!! He has been a stalwart in the HCR debate!!
Fox's rating remain fairly steady, with the highest rated programs just over 3 million viewers.
It has been the same plus or minus a few dozen thousand for almost 2 years now....
Thank you. A good point, excellently presented.
Yes, our "liberal democrats" just voted for a package that's well to the right of Nixon. One Democrat, just one, voted against it from the left. The rest who opposed it were even further right. And those are the DEMOCRATS!!!
We no longer have a progressive voice in any party, much less a progressive party, in America.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
