NPR’s Julie Rovner deserves a shout-out for identifying what may be the GOP’s new thinking about healthcare—abandon the goal of covering more people with health insurance, and, as a political strategy, paint that goal as some kind of Robin Hood class warfare.
It’s hardly a secret that Republicans don’t like the Affordable Care Act, and that in its place they have trotted out old nostrums like malpractice reform, high-risk pools, and interstate insurance sales as their cures of choice. And also that policy experts believe none of those do much to cover the uninsured. In a segment Friday on NPR’s Morning Edition, and in a post published by Kaiser Health News, Rovner pushed further. In the process she took on no less a figure than Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell.
A few weeks earlier McConnell had told Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace that the uninsured “were not the issue.” Rovner rebroadcast parts of that interview, in which Wallace—admirably—pushed McConnell hard on the question of what the GOP will offer the uninsured. He asked a second, then a third time: “What specifically are you going to do to provide universal coverage to the 30 million people who are uninsured?” McConnell tried to reframe the discussion. “The question is, how can you go step by step to improve the American healthcare system?” he said. “It’s already the finest healthcare system in the world.” (Actually, that old claim—made by pols on both sides of the aisle—has been disputed repeatedly by studies like thisand this, from such reputable organizations as The Commonwealth Fund and the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).
Wallace let that one slide, instead choosing to press that pesky problem of the uninsured in the US. He asked the senator for a fourth time about the uninsured: “You don’t think the 30 million people that were uninsured is an issue? To which McConnell answered:
Let me tell you what we are not going to do. We are not going to turn the American healthcare system into a Western European system. That is exactly what is at the heart of Obamacare. They want to have the federal government take over all of American healthcare. We need to clean up the healthcare the federal government is already responsible for before we start immodestly trying to take over all of American healthcare.
For the record: Wallace might have noted that European systems don’t leave millions of people uninsured, as Obamacare does. And that the Affordable Care Act also leaves the provision of insurance and the provision of healthcare in the hands of private businesses. But put that aside.
The point I’d like to make is that Rovner’s good reporting took the story further, in both her radio piece and her blog post. First, she set the record straight about the number of uninsured. “By the way there are closer to 50 million Americans without health insurance; 30 million is the number the health law is estimated likely to cover,” she correctly reported.
Then she went on with her thesis: The Senate minority leader “isn’t the only top Republican saying covering the uninsured should no longer be the top priority.”
She noted that Utah Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch told attendees at a conference of the conservative American Enterprise Institute that it was a disgrace that so many Americans had no health insurance, “but we cannot succumb to the pressure to argue on the left’s terms.” She noted that Dean Clancy, the legislative counsel for Freedomworks, a group that supports and trains Tea Party activists, says the primary “goal should be reducing costs and expanding individual liberty.”
- 1
- 2
It's the left-Keynesians versus the right-Keynesians in a statist tug-of-war. Nothing new under the sun for the "free and independent" press, as they challenge the centers of power. *smh*
#1 Posted by Dan A., CJR on Fri 3 Aug 2012 at 03:05 PM
A health care system in which 30- or 50 or even 100 million Americans are left without health insurance, and a like number have ineffective (though very expensive) private insurance, is simply the most profitable for the largest number of Republican Party constituents.
Doctors can charge a lot. Hospitals too. Insurance companies can charge healthy people for coverage as long as they stay healthy, then drop them--it's a free market, right?--as soon as they develop a serious or chronic illness.
Employer-based health insurance also ties people to their crappy jobs even as their wages shrink in real terms. That reduces the pool of potential entrepreneurs, leaving the field more open to the sociopaths who game the system with dot-com bubbles and bank runs.
A socialistic universal coverage scheme is anathema not because it wouldn't work to reduce costs and increase efficiency, but precisely because it very well might.
#2 Posted by Edward Ericson Jr., CJR on Fri 3 Aug 2012 at 03:34 PM
Around the beginning of World War 2, maybe one American in 10 had medical insurance. By the time of Medicare, this figure was over six in 10. How did this happen, with all that 'turning away' of the uninsured? Since Medicare, the cost of medical insurance, like the cost of higher education, has zoomed along well ahead of the rate of inflation. How did this happen, with all that wonderful state intervention?
#3 Posted by Mark Richard, CJR on Fri 3 Aug 2012 at 04:57 PM
Around the beginning of the second world war, the world was still in the depression, you paid the local doc with chickens, and your barber offered surgery with a shave.
Times changed. We don't pay docs in chicken feed nor treat every ailment with leeches. Therefore there are costs attached to the new solutions, new equipment, and new techniques of medicine.
Also, companies are more vigorous about defending their intellectual property than they were in the past. Tests and drugs now have a 'cost of innovation' attached to them as people have to pay a monopoly premium or license fee to use medical knowledge.
Things are different since WW2. Is any of this somehow a surprise?
#4 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Fri 3 Aug 2012 at 07:06 PM
Health insurance was born as a free market work-around in response to Gubmint meddling with markets. It came about as way to attract workers during FDR's wartime wage freeze. It would never have existed otherwise in any free market because it is stupid. REAL stupid.
You don't insure your car for oil changes or spark plugs (unless you are an idiot). You don't insure your lawn mowing or snow shovelling.
It doesn't make any sense to insure routine expenses - doing so adds inefficiency and expense.
Insuring routine medical care is a stupid and inefficient idea.
The stated goal of Obamacare of reducing costs is patently absurd. Adding a zillion bureaucrats into the routine care business cannot possibly save anyone any money.
And of course, the stated goal of expanding coverage is also silly, since employers are going to dump plans in droves and since anyone with half a brain will wait until he or she gets sick to buy insurance.
The liberals want "Somebody Else" to pay for "Everybody Else's" health care. Again, a patently stupid idea.
The sooner we gut Obamacare, the better. The sooner we demand that ablebodied adults take care of themselves and their families, the better.
#5 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Sat 4 Aug 2012 at 10:25 AM
"What specifically are you going to do to provide universal coverage to the 30 million people who are uninsured?”
ANSWER: It isn't the government's role to make people buy health insurance or to encourage them to do so. I'm not going to do anything to force people to buy insurance. PERIOD.
#6 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Sat 4 Aug 2012 at 10:32 AM
Yeah, because in America, being uninsured or under insured is 'a choice'.
A choice that republicans + Romney would like to see extended to Medicare recepients.
I also note that you've left unmentioned how the gubmint should be involved when it comes to sick people seeking an insurer, other than to imply these people will become leeches under Obamacare.
How do sick people get coverage when Obamacare gets repealed? Can insurers knock people off the roles like they used to under rescission? You're talking alot about the indignity of citizens forced to buy health care, how far does your libertarian spirit reach into the unsympathetic corporate boardroom? Under you, do they go back to doing much of what they want?
#7 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sat 4 Aug 2012 at 10:49 AM
Thimbles gets one right: "Yeah, because in America, being uninsured or under insured is 'a choice'."
padikiller applauds: Yep!.. It sure is! You can buy cheap insurance on web from hundreds of licensed insurers. Finally got one right, Thimbo!
Thimbles asked: How do sick people get coverage when Obamacare gets repealed?
padikiller responds: They don't.
You don't get car insurance after your car crashes. You don't get homeowner's insurance after the tornado rips off your roof, You don't get life insurance after you die... And you don't get health insurance after you're not healthy.
Why can't liberals comprehend this "insurance" thing?
"Insurance" isn't "care".
Nothing is stopping anyone from getting health care. Routine visits to a "doc-in-the-box" provider cost less than a hundred bucks. Hospitals can't refuse emergency treatment. And Medicaid pays for ALL CARE for the indigent.
Everybody else should simply PAY.
The lefties aren't interested in care. They're simply after Somebody Else's money.
If somebody is stupid enough to go without catastrophic insurance, then he or she pays the price if he or she gets sick. But he or she still gets treated. Bankruptcy exists to give relief to people who make stupid decisions like this.
The talk of rescission is a dodge. A non-issue that liberals trot out to overstate their silliness. The number of insurance contracts subject to rescission is negligible and any company that acts illegally to rescind a policy faces stiff penalties and usually treble damages. State insurance boards permit complaints from policyholders to be handled expeditiously and insurance is highly regulated at the state level. If a contract is rescinded, it is almost certainly done so properly and legally.
#8 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Sat 4 Aug 2012 at 11:54 AM