Bruce Benidt
Jon Austin
tcarideo
Ellen Mrja
Mike Keliher
Joe LovelandRepublican President Theodore Roosevelt once described what it is like to stick your neck out in the brutal world of political communications:
“It is not the critic who counts: not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes up short again and again, because there is no effort without error or shortcoming, but who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, who spends himself for a worthy cause; who, at the best, knows, in the end, the triumph of high achievement, and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who knew neither victory nor defeat.”
(Our guy T-Roos was a tad melodramatic, dontcha think?)
Well starting today, congressional Republicans will now find out what it is like to be “in the arena” when it comes to the biggest legislative cage match of our lifetime, the debate over national health care reform. Today, Republicans have offered their long-awaited alterative, that reportedly has (drum roll please):
SECURITY. No ban on corporations rejecting people with pre-existing ailments.
AFFORDABILITY. No option to buy into an insurance exchange to make insurance more affordable.
UNIVERSAL COVERAGE. No requirement to buy insurance, and therefore nothing moving us to universal coverage.
COST CONTROL. No option to buy into a Medicare-like program.
The Republican alternative does include malpractice limitations, a provision to allow sale of insurance across state lines and a ban on caring for illegal aliens, which reportedly is written into the bill in all CAPS with three exclamation points.
It hasn’t been easy for congressional Democrats to stick their neck out on this issue. Now Republicans, at least for a short time, get to find out what it’s like to be “in the arena.”
- Loveland
Filed under: Communications, Government, Messaging, Politics | Tagged: health care reform, illegal aliens, in the arena, insurance exchange, malpractice reform, pre-existing conditions disqualification, public option, Republican alternative, Theodore Roosevelt
For a fraction of the cost, the GOP bill solves 50% of our problems.
By contrast, Pelosi-care masks the direct patient costs while larding the actual costs funded through taxation.
What a bargain. I’ll take two!
I’m underwhelmed by the Republican alternative. Not surprising to anyone, I’m sure, but after so much, “No, No, No!” you’d think there’d be a little bit more they’re for.
One thing, though, that does seem sensible on the face…what’s wrong with letting us by insurance across state lines? I’m sure there are arguments pro and con, but I haven’t heard them. The conservatives tend to put it in their talking points, the libs don’t.
What’s up with that?
- Austin
You’re right. It’s a good idea and should be bipartisan — at least there are some points we should all agree on. I think the conservs also should embrace a basic health plan for those who can’t afford coverage. We are all going to wind up paying for it anyway in one way or another.
Right. I do think that we need to keep in mind the points in Joe’s article (below), which are fairly easily addressed, if you create some minimal federal regulations about insurance–basically disclosure and classification rules, which, I would imagine, address most of those issues. I think that it would be appropriate to impose some basic standardization rules for insurance products, so that people know what they are buying, and can conduct real comparison shopping between different plans.
Jon, I haven’t studied it enough to have an informed position. But as with most things, it’s not as simple as it first sounds. This is the downside, lifted from a Chicago Tribune newsblog.
That post also includes a lengthy discussion about how consumers might be protected.
I’d want more than disclosure at the federal level. I’d want strong consumer protections.
I’m okay with “buyer beware” when it comes to simple products and services. But with highly complex and specialized services like health insurance, consumer protections are needed. Faced with a mountain of health plan legalese, most of us are not equipped to spot loopholes and coverage weaknesses, much less comparison shop with any precision. And if most of us can’t comparison shop, the market doesn’t work as intended.
When I’m wading through the pile of health plan legalese in progressive MN, I have confidence that regulators have set a reasonable protection floor to protect me. But if the insurer in question has located itself in Mississippi because that state has the weakest consumer protections, I’m not at all confident that either regulators or I will be able to ensure my family is protected.
So, I guess I would be for interstate competition if there was a set of uniform federal consumer protections as strong or stronger than MN.
Looks like the CBO doesn’t think much of the republican alternative either–saves less money, covers fewer people, etc.
The Democratic bill, in other words, covers 12 times as many people and saves $36 billion more than the Republican plan. And amazingly, the Democratic bill has already been through three committees and a merger process. It’s already been shown to interest groups and advocacy organizations and industry stakeholders. It’s already made its compromises with reality. It’s already been through the legislative sausage grinder. And yet it saves more money and covers more people than the blank-slate alternative proposed by John Boehner and the House Republicans. The Democrats, constrained by reality, produced a far better plan than Boehner, who was constrained solely by his political imagination and legislative skill.”
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/11/congressional_budget_office_th.html