The Republican alternative health care reform bill would be funny if it weren’t so cruel.
For months now, the nation has been engaged in a serious health care debate. The GOP stood on the sidelines jeering, saying it had the real solution, but keeping it a secret from the American public. They’ve finally delivered. You might hope the Party of No would have come up with a real plan that gets tough on insurance companies and provides Americans with real help on affordability and new options to keep their families healthy. Nope. The Republicans waited until a couple days before the House of Representatives is set to vote on a historic reform to control costs, increase coverage and enhance quality only to release a plan which basically does nothing but protect insurance companies’ profits.
Seriously? After months and months in which we’ve heard tragic story after story:
And the Republican Party thinks the solution is a health care plan that gives MORE leeway to insurance companies? The one thing that all Americans agree on is that people shouldn’t be denied coverage for pre-existing conditions, right? Right, everyone except the Republican Party. The Party of No wants insurance companies to be able to continue a practice that results in thousands of premature deaths each year, especially amongst children.
This Republican alternative could not be worse if you simply invited all the top insurance CEOs into a room and let them write it (of course, that’s probably not far from what actually happened). For those who can’t currently afford insurance, here’s what the Republicans are saying to you: tough. That’s right. No tax credits to help. No subsidies. No regulations to reduce costs. Nothing but: "You are on your own."
Many Americans live in fear that when they get sick, insurance companies will simply drop them from coverage. It’s a legitimate fear because it happens every day. The Republican solution to this problem? Let the insurance companies continue to do it. Why? It’s profitable. Oh and it doesn’t hurt that the insurance companies are good at showing gratitude to their protectors. A new analysis from the Public Campaign Action Fund finds the health insurance industry dropped $8.2 million to kill health insurance reform in just the last 4 months.
And by the way, the leading Republican spokesperson for their new plan, Congressman John Boehner has pocketed nearly a million dollars from the insurance special interests.
Some had the audacity to hope that the Republicans would come to the table to work with the President to solve problems like health care. Now, it’s clear they are putting insurance industry profits above the health of America’s families.
Cruel, but true.
Follow Deepak Bhargava on Twitter: www.twitter.com/communitychange
However, regardless of party, at the core is a system that few would disagree is full of corruption, special interests, backroom deals, etc. yet still some people want to trust the same system with health care. The logic just isn't there.
In the end, it must be realized that health care reform brings to light two distinct world views and highlights their differences. The modern Liberal/Progressive/Socialist view is that everyone is entitled to social services, that a large, powerful government is responsible for providing them and that those with more must be tapped to provide for those that have less. The Conservative view is that everyone is entitled to Life, Liberty and Property and that individual freedom is paramount. Limited government is essential and it regulates only insomuch as it protects the individual. Those with more have a moral obligation to help their fellowmen in need, but ultimately there is no government authority to enforce that. Social services are the responsibility of citizens taking care of their communities, whether through local charities, churches, etc. National and international level organizations also come into the picture to provide relief for our nation and our world. The extent to which these ideals are followed depends on the individual, of course. Not all Republicans are Conservative and not all Democrats are Socialist.
TO BE CONTINUED…
Fourth, are the insurance companies and lobbyist spending. While I applaud the author researching and citing sources, the citations are weak. First, the Public Campaign Action Fund article cited claims that $8.2 million was spent to kill health care reform, but fails to back that up with detailing how it was spent. Next, according to OpenSecrets.org, “Health, life, property and car insurance companies, agents and brokers are all included in this broad category;” this referring to the “Insurance Industry” Mr. Bhargava references. Even so, this industry has contributed more to Democrats in the past year than to Republicans. Also, the “nearly a million dollars from the insurance special interests” was over John Boehner’s career. A more accurate portrayal would show just 2009-2010, when the health care debate came into play. While Boehner is still in the top 20 for “Members of Congress” during 2009-2010, he is a distant #17 with $92k, versus #1 Charles Schumer with $195k. Regardless, the overall research was fairly shoddy considering that, according to OpenSecrets.org, the real money in this fight came from the “Health Services/HMO” category. Here, Boehner doesn’t even make the top 20 (15 of which are Democrats) and this industry spent nearly twice as much on Democrats than Republicans during 2009-2010. While long term trending does show Republicans with higher contributions, only when health care reform became such a hot issue did insurance companies ramp up spending for the Democrat party.
TO BE CONTINUED…
Third, assertions in the article that so many are dying from lack of coverage are based on a study which was federally funded, and "released by Physicians for a National Health Program, which favors government-backed or 'single-payer' health insurance." The source alone raises questions over bias of the study. Reading the study’s abstract, (full article must be purchased), researches did take some key factors into account. However, it notably left out diet. Also, it mentioned nothing about attitude toward health care or whether the uninsured were unable to afford insurance or if they chose not to purchase it. For example, all other factors being equal, someone who never goes to the doctor until he is extremely ill is more likely to die from a medical problem discovered too late than someone who has regular check-ups and engages in preventative care. I assert that such a person is also more likely to decide against purchasing insurance. Again, none of these critical factors are mentioned.
TO BE CONTINUED…
Second, regarding pre-existing conditions, insurance companies dropping coverage and no reduction in premium costs, Mr. Bhargava makes claims that are simply not true. The Republican plan “makes it illegal for an insurance company to deny coverage to someone with prior coverage on the basis of a pre-existing condition. So if you lose your health insurance because you lose your job, move, get divorced, or just want to change plans, you are protected” and “prohibits an insurer from cancelling a policy unless an individually knowingly commits fraud on an application form.” In terms of premium reduction, “According to CBO, the Republican Alternative would reduce health insurance premiums by up to 10% for employees with coverage through small business, 8% for those who do not have access to employer-provided coverage and 3% for employees who get coverage through a large business.” You can read the bill, its summary, etc at http://www.gop.gov/solutions/healthcare. If any of that is untrue, check the bill and cite the contradictions. It’s only 219 pages (versus 2000) so I’m sure you can find plenty of websites that have already dissected it. As a side note to the author, it would help your argument if you would actually cite the Republican bill instead of making unsubstantiated claims.
TO BE CONTINUED…
First, I'll address this: "After months and months in which we’ve heard tragic story after story." This is what we call anecdotal evidence. In a country with millions of people, it's pretty easy to come up with a few thousand tragic tales that tug at our heart strings, but that doesn't negate the hundreds of thousands who are satisfied with their current health care situation:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/sep/01/americas-health-insurance-plans/strong-satisfaction-health-insurance-coverage/
Furthermore, anecdotal evidence is not sufficient cause to radically alter our health care system, though it does suggest that we as Americans should do more to support charities that aid our fellow citizens who are struggling. This is a cornerstone of America: that we help each other out of the goodness of our hearts, we don't leave it up to a giant, bloated bureaucracy, for example: http://mises.org/story/3627
TO BE CONTINUED…
It's a thing of beauty
I'd like to READ the bill before I let you form an opinion for me. Thanks Deepak.
If we hadn't read ALL of the other bills ourselves, who knows what kind of mess we'd be in!