Self-Preservation: The Real Reason the GOP Opposes Health Care Reform
We've heard all the reasons, listed ad infinitum on Fox News and, particularly, at length on MSNBC's Morning Joe. Health care reform will cost too much. It will bankrupt the country. It will force government bureaucrats between patients and doctors -- as though this was somehow worse than our current system, in which insurance-company bureaucrats insert themselves between patients and doctors and, with a profit motive in mind, lose themselves in the sort of banal evil that has created one horror story after another in our health care system.
When polls come out that show that the majority of Americans support a public health care option and would even pay higher taxes to get it, thus robbing conservative pundits of their most populist talking point, they simply play up other polls that show Americans are concerned about the costs, as though concern over costs somehow negates the public's desire for reform. This was the ridiculousness peddled on Morning Joe this morning from my back yard in Miami, when the host, Joe Scarborough, who has recently rediscovered his fiscally conservative voice, argued with bombastic fellow MSNBC personality Chris Matthews. In response to Matthews' howls that the government had to get this done, that conservatives would lose this battle, and that Scarborough's commentary represented that of right-wingers, Scarborough put up the Washington Post poll that showed Americans are concerned over health care costs and demanded to know if all those people were conservative -- never mind the New York Times poll that showed equally huge numbers wanted public health care, regardless of whether they had to pay higher taxes for it. (Update: HuffPo's Jason Linkins has the video of this tete-a-tete here.
But is it just a sudden regaining of their fiscally conservative roots after years of supporting President Bush's profligacy that has conservatives howling over a public health care option? I would argue that there is a more immediate, more cynical and far more political motive: self-preservation. Journey with me now back in time, to those bygone days of the Clinton era, the last time liberals attempted to ensure health care coverage for all Americans, the latest in a long string of failures dating back to the Progressive Era, and then on to the New Deal and the Truman administration. When President Clinton began the push for health care reform in the 1990s, it was none other than far-right pseudointellectual Bill Kristol who released a memo documenting how the right would go about opposing health care reform, and the reasons why they should. You can read the full memo yourself here. But the primary takeaway for our purposes is this: "[health care reform] will revive the reputation of the party that spends and regulates, the Democrats, as the generous protector of middle-class interests."
Ironic, really, that the one time Bill Kristol is actually right about something is the time when he spells out the doom of the Republican Party. Especially now, at one of the party's historical low-water marks, passing health care reform that guarantees coverage for the 47 million uninsured Americans would drive a stake through the heart of the party that opposed that reform. The newly covered 47 million voters would, after all, likely have a tendency to vote Democrat, if only to prevent the Republicans from taking over and rescinding their newly gained health coverage. Add to that total the untold millions who would get a warm, fuzzy feeling toward the Democrats after switching to a cheaper, more-efficient public option, and you begin to see just what a vast problem this could turn out to be.
Public health care isn't just the right thing to do from a moral standpoint. For the Democrats, it also makes the most sense politically. It could turn the years that the GOP now faces in the political wilderness into decades upon decades as a minority party. Hell, it could turn them into the Whigs, destined for the trash heap of history. And when it comes to pure politics on a Machiavellian scale, the Republican Party is far from stupid. The movers and shakers have to know how much damage a public option could do to them, and that's why they fight so vociferously against it; not because of some sense of fiscal discipline, but out of simple self-preservation.
Contact Dan Sweeney at dfsweeney@citylinkmagazine.com
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
It's kind of insightful that Kristol clearly says Democrat's policies are good for America and the middle class... that that's specifically why they need to be opposed.
Very revealing about how conservatives truly are running an anti-American agenda.
Think about how many of the 'stakeholders' are publically traded companies...Wall Street rears its ugly head in healthCare, too...
"Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power."
--Benito Mussolini (1883-1945), Fascist Dictator of Italy
http://www.bidstrup.com/economics.htm
This is where Bush and the GOP took us.
If this is so good for the Democrats politically, why aren't they doing it already?
They don't need the Republcians to pass any plan they want.
WallStreet
Could be because they are trying to get it right? There are many ways to go about providing care to the American people - many of them wrong headed. I prefer a plan that's well thought out that would provide the most benefit to the most people. Not just a plan for the sake of a plan. Let Congress take their time - if only the Dems, so be it - to put together a comprehensive list of options that will provide good choices.
Brilliant post Dan. What is alarming is how "quiet" the Dems are about a public option. If they successfully pursued single payer, I'm sure one day we would see President Obama's picture on the currency. As it stands now, I nominate Sen. Bernie Sanders' likeness for a newly minted dollar coin! It is sad to see that single payer is not an option when the Administration has such strong public support. This is their chance!
Part II of my earlier post
Libertarians have a better idea to reduce costs and ensure quality, affordable, univerally-available care:
* Allow taxpayers to deduct the costs of their health insurance from their income taxes.
* Repeal health insurance mandates that force Americans to pay for treatments they won't ever use.
* Scrap unneeded and unnecessary regulations that keep life-saving drugs and treatments off the market. Such regulations are often supported by health care lobbyists and are intended to freeze out competing products and companies.
* Allow Americans to shop for health insurance across state lines, forcing insurers to compete.
How about no insurance companies?
Part II of my earlier post:
Libertarians have a better idea to reduce costs and ensure quality, affordable, univerally-available care:
* Allow taxpayers to deduct the costs of their health insurance from their income taxes.
* Repeal health insurance mandates that force Americans to pay for treatments they won't ever use.
* Scrap unneeded and unnecessary regulations that keep life-saving drugs and treatments off the market. Such regulations are often supported by health care lobbyists and are intended to freeze out competing products and companies.
* Allow Americans to shop for health insurance across state lines, forcing insurers to compete.
What life saving treatments and drugs?
How do you "deduct" costs you can't afford to pay?
How's a libertarian outlook on health insurance going to make insurance companies do what they claimed they would when someone signs up?
http://www.lp.org/
Research: Government-run health care MORE expensive than private care
Donny Ferguson - Jun 23, 2009
Health care researcher Dr. Jeffrey H. Anderson, writing in today's Investor's Business Daily, reveals the troubling findings of research into government-run health care programs. Despite Barack Obama's promises that his proposed government takeover of doctor's offices will somehow reduce costs, the facts show exactly the opposite is true.
You may click here to read the column. Dr. Anderson writes, in part:
The results are clear: Since 1970 " even without the prescription drug benefit " Medicare's costs have risen 34% more, per patient, than the combined costs of all health care in America apart from Medicare and Medicaid, the vast majority of which is purchased through the private sector.
Since 1970, the per-patient costs of all health care apart from Medicare and Medicaid have risen from $364 to $7,119, while Medicare's per-patient costs have risen from $368 to $9,634. Medicare's costs have risen $2,511 more per patient.
These conclusions are true despite very generous treatment of Medicare. My study counts Medicare's prescription drug expenditures as part of privately purchased care, rather than as part of Medicare. It counts health care purchased privately by Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries (including Medicare copayments and Medigap insurance) among the costs of private care, without counting its recipients among those receiving private care " thereby magnifying private care's per-person costs. And it doesn't adjust for cost-shifting from Medicare to private entities.
I don't know why this is a surprise. Everything the government does costs more than in the private sector. The problem is that those that support government run healthcare do so from a Utopian perspective that is divorced from reality.
Exactly. But if you call them out on the flaws in their argument, they attack you.
And they say we libertarians have an unrealistic viewpoint...
Here are links to some reports from objective, unbiased sources regarding Obama's health-care plan. Hopefully these will be acceptable.
http://www.factcheck.org/politics/obamas_health_care_claims.html
http://www.factcheck.org/politics/pushing_for_a_public_plan.html
If we can get universal single payer health care I sure hope they name it something like Libertycare, Freedomcare or Patriotcare... it would piss off the Repubs even more.
saw this link on wikipedia recently for 'single payer health care':
An opinion piece in The Wall Street Journal by two conservative Republicans argues that government sponsored health care will legitimatize support for government services generally, and make an activist government acceptable. "Once a large number of citizens get their health care from the state, it dramatically alters their attachment to government. Every time a tax cut is proposed, the guardians of the new medical-welfare state will argue that tax cuts would come at the expense of health care -- an argument that would resonate with middle-class families entirely dependent on the government for access to doctors and hospitals."
Beware of the Big-Government Tipping Point, Peter Wehner and Paul Ryan, The Wall Street Journal, January 16, 2009
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123207075026188601.html
universal singe payer health care (not to mention insurance) is NOT on the table.
Your are right in much of what you say. First, those that seek to earn profits from the healthcare system are capitalist pigs who hould be destroyed. It is this desire to earn profits that has made the United States the evil counrty it has become. Obama is right to use the power of government ot rid of of economic profiteers.
You are also right about the importantce of the political leverage that will come about from making millions of people dependent on the government. The more people we can get dependent on the government the more we will be able to control them politically. This is going to be a glorious giant peoples snowball were more government control begets more dependence on the government and that begets more government. We are on the verge of finally eliminating the evils of capitalism from the world.
Please sign these petitions!!
http://ga3.org/campaign/healthpetition?source=healthpetition
http://standwithdrdean.com/
http://www.americansunitedforchange.org/page/s/AMA
Let those in Washington know we DEMAND a public option!!!!!
Hi,
I have being thinking about this point for a long time. I wondered why the subject was never brought up anywhere. It just make sense. I mean think about it the Republicans hate Social Security one of the most successful program that lifted a huge class of Americans out of poverty.
Anita Paul
Anita --
Exactly, and look what happened when the Democrats passed the Social Security Act in 1935. FDR was re-elected three times, followed by 7.5 years of Truman, followed by the very moderate Republican Eisenhower, followed by more Democratic rule. Indeed, the Democrats only lost control of the White House when the party fragmented over the Vietnam War.
And look at the Congress. It had been seesawing throughout the 19th Century and was controlled by Republicans when the Depression hit. The GOP was ousted in the aftermath, and the new Democratic majorities passed the Social Security Act, among other reforms. Afterward, the Republicans regained both houses in the late 10940s for one session and the mid-1950s for one session. Other than that, Democrats controlled both houses until the GOP finally regained the Senate in the early 1980s, finally taking control of both houses in the 1994 election.
You are correct. Getting more people dependent on the government is the key to our success.
Taking the profit out of health care is the only way to control costs.
Profits are evil and they should be eliminated from all parts of our economy
If there's no profit to be made, what will encourage the health care companies and medical providers to work harder?
We don't need Wall Street for health care
Is that why you are in Pharmacy? To make 100k? Well, I hope you know it employment is cyclical for pharmacists....
Splitting health care into two systems could work wonders to lower costs and increase coverage.
System one keeps the private system we have but remove all government mandates and funded programs.
The second system would be a publicly owned, funded (from a national sales tax), and operated system of hospitals and clinics to serve individuals and businesses which wanted to use totally free public care, medications, all prescribed services, no insurance, no co pays, and free period.
Every individual wanting free care and medication would have it.
Businesses large and small choosing the public care option could also free themselves from all financial burdens or any involvement in any way for the health services their employees receive.
The cheapest way to collect money to pay for health care is through a national sales tax, not forcing people to purchase insurance in a system that failed them.
The cheapest, most efficient, best outcome producing, delivery system would be through government owned and operated hospitals and clinics, free to everyone choosing to use government care, no restrictions period.
Dual health systems public and private you choose would save hundreds of billions of dollars annually from the $2.5 trillion expended now, even while giving free care and medications to everyone choosing to use public care.
Going back and forth between free public, and user purchased private care, may suit some people, it would provide unlimited choices, ultimate freedom, and always free public care would be available when it is needed or desired.
A 2-tier system, one for the well-to-do and one for eveyone else.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
