McConnell and Health Care: Strange Bedfellows

U.S. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) gave remarks on the Senate floor on June 2 regarding health care reform. His office released his statement, "Health Care: Concept of a Government 'Option' is Misleading" (http://mcconnell.senate.gov/record.cfm?id=313838&start=1). After reading it, one would have to think about when someone in a crowded theater yells "fire"-- all the while remaining in a chair ready to watch the movie and snacking on a bag of popcorn. Let me explain.

With all due respect, Senator McConnell, you don't get it. Your "the sky is falling" approach in discussing a government run plan as a health care plan option for all Americans is mind-boggling. From the well of the Senate, you tell all that if health care reform includes such an option, we will lose what we have now as provided through the private sector, and in the end, what will be left is only a government-run plan. The private sector will no longer be able to compete. As you say in your published remarks, "According to a recent study, 119 million Americans would lose the private coverage they currently have as a consequence of a government plan." Let's back up Senator.

Presently, there are nearly 45-50 million uninsured Americans; add to this number those 1.0M+ who are underinsured and who are facing bankruptcy because they can't pay medical bills. These statistics keep on mounting, and with the state of the economy, they will only worsen. Even as you admit, with a government plan in place, tens of millions of Americans who currently enjoy their private coverage will be displaced, with eventually only wealthy Americans being able to continue on with their private plans. Isn't that what is going on today without there being in place a public option? But once more Senator, what happens to the present millions of Americans who don't have, or can't afford, health care coverage? Why don't you say how the private market will pay for those folks? You can't, because you know the private market will not support such contributions, i.e., taking from profit margins to help out with what should be a right (health care) for all Americans is not the corporate thing to do, huh?

Senator, you also said on the Senate floor that with a government plan, "at some point private plans would be crowded out altogether". I didn't know that giving Americans an option inclusive of a public plan would drive out private plans - - - unless, of course, those (private) plans were not as cost effective, were not as affordable, did not provide as much freedom of choice, weren't efficient enough, and failed to continue providing quality of care (points you said on the floor as well that should be in any health care plan). Yet, isn't competition the sine qua non of the American way of doing business? If the private sector can really still provide what all Americans can access and afford, why should this segment of the market be afraid of another competitor . . . called the U.S. government. If the private sector is so great, maybe a public plan will fall flat on its face.

Senator, besides Medicare (and state run Medicaid programs), why haven't you declared to your colleagues in the Senate that the private sector has been running the present health care system for decades. And during that time, millions of Americans have lost health care and coverage nor can pay for it. Why didn't you also say that managed health care came into existence because the (private) fee for service system wasn't cutting it either. And yet even with this reality you have the audacity to say, as you did on the floor of the Senate too, that with government care as the only option, "That's when the delays and denied care would kick in. Under a government run system, Americans would have no choice but to accept all the bureaucratic hassles, and the endless time spent on hold waiting for a government service representative to take their calls." This "sky is falling" mentality is fear mongering at its worst.

In the end, let all Americans decide what they want by giving us as many options as feasible from which to select - - - and that includes a public option. Or, perhaps, let us all have a base level of coverage funded with public dollars above which the private market can provide additional layers funded by each of us or with participation from our employers.

As with any contentious issue, the solution lies in the middle. With health care reform, the solution involves participation by both the private sector and the government with a public option; one is not mutually exclusive of the other. However, one thing is certain, Senator: you and health care reform as you spoke about it on June 2 make strange bedfellows indeed.

Comments

[LeftLeaner]

HuffPost's Pick

If government "subsidized" health care - which "we" the taxpayers pay for all Congress people, then we the taxpayers should have a piece of the pie too.

If McConnell doesn't want govt. health care for us the American people then he should have it taken away from him and the rest of those in Congress who think it's good enough for them but not for us.

This is a strong argument that should be made in defense of the 50 million some odd uninsured in this country.

The audacity, when you think of it, because "WE" are paying for his health insurance that he and others want to deny us of.

Simply amazing and outrageous.

But, the complacent American public no longer fights for what they deserve. That's why these clowns get away with this stuff

[serena1313]

Ezra Klein, blogger for the Washington Post, disassembles the conservative's talking points.

(see: "Bob Bennett's Peculiar Fear of British Health Care" and "Why the Public Plan Is a Fundamentally Conservative Idea")

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/

Both are quite informative and reasonably argued. Ezra suggests conservatives should support the public plan because it is based on free market ideals.

Basically he boils it down to 2 choices:

1) government solution: 'impose regulations by legislative fiat.'

2) market competition: "... the public plan will adopt effective reforms that will then lower its costs and improve its quality. In response, the private market will follow suit."

That is how the "free-market" is supposed to operate; it is called competition. We know conservatives love the free-market, but this is where the rubber meets the road.

I'd love to see the democrats all over the media -- radio, TV, cable shows -- challenging the GOP to put up or shut up (fat chance!).

The public option is not going to turn the health care system into a socialized health system (it did not happen in France, Germany or the Netherlands so, Ezra asks, why would it happen here?)

If the Republicans would get their collective heads screwed on straight they might curry favour with the public, but as is they are too busy freaking out.

[milesz]

Nicely said. You've said it all!

[schatsie]

think about 6 years ago, Bush and his Klan were all in favor of Universal Healthcare in IRAQ, in IRAQ, IN --FFF--- IRAQ..... Bush was supporting it as part of the westernization of that country...­.but we cannot afford it here....WH­AT GIVES with REPUGs....­.

[KYresident]

McConnell should realize how many Kentuckians are on Medicaid or the state insurance programs for children and people turned away by private companies. Oh yea, I forgot he doesn't care about Kentuckians.

[bluedoctor]

Some of the concerns about crowding out are legitimate but that shouldn't be an impediment to real reform. I have reservations that a competing public plan would actually charge actuarially sound rates especially when there is public pressure for low premiums.

We are seeing this playing out right now in Florida over their Homeowner's premiums where the public insurance option is heavily in the red and a major financial albatross around the neck of the state government. But since the public option there is charging arguably unsound premiums, they are underming the private insurance market. I still have hope for Florida to sort out their problems. Crist and others in the state are pushing for a financial backstop from the government in order to spread the financial risk.

A similar thing could occur in a national health insurance plan. If public officials charge premiums that are low enough for people to afford but not high enough to cover claims and expenses, then what will be the course of action? For the government to infuse capital into the Plan with money fresh from the printing presses? I hope that costs drop significantly in order to make this idea effective but I think we all need to be more mindful of the realities whether good or bad. I am rooting for Obama's health care package to succeed but I still fear the political pressures facing future administrations to keep premiums low--premiums that are too low to be justifiable.

[milesz]

Thank you for your comment; however, as nothing is ever perfect, shouldn't the public have as many options from which to use - - - and that includes a public option - - - After all, competition is intended to assist consumers.

[bluedoctor]

I agree. I want it to work and dismissing something that is so important is not a good idea. Surely, top minds will come up with good ways to manage costs to make a public health insurance option viable. Thanks for reading my post. Go CWRU! :-)

[Freemind42]

I can tell you exactly why, Sen. McConnell's biggest campaign contributor is Kindred Healthcare. See it for yourself at opensectrets.org. http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2010&cid=N00003389&type=I&mem=

[KYresident]

He does have a big warchest. Wish my fellow voters would wise up.

[milesz]

Right on!