Apparently, August Never Happened

(National Review Online)  James C. Capretta is a Fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center.

---

During August, in scores of meetings which were held in all parts of the country and attended by thousands, concerned citizens sent unmistakable signals to their elected political leaders that if Congress is going to produce anything on health-care this year - and many openly stated they hope nothing at all will pass - they want it to be a more targeted, less expensive, and less controversial product, and one based on bipartisan consensus and not ideological ambition. Polls show most Americans are strongly opposed to a full governmental takeover of U.S. health-care, and they rightly sense that is exactly what would happen if the bills currently under consideration were to pass.

And so how are Democrats responding to this spontaneous display of widespread public disapproval of their planned agenda? Not with a sensible course correction, it seems. No, by all appearances, it's still full steam ahead.

On Tuesday, Pres. Obama delivered a campaign-style speech to his union supporters which made news mainly because the president went off of his prepared remarks to deliver a false attack on his political opponents. The president said those who are against his government-heavy plan have offered no alternatives, which is flatly not true. Months ago, Senators Coburn and Burr, and Congressmen Ryan and Nunes offered the Patients' Choice Act which would build a true consumer-driven marketplace for insurance and medical services.

Also on Tuesday, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus distributed a summary of his long-awaited plan to selected members of his committee, and it looks to be the same plan that was under discussion in June and July, with only the most modest of tweaks. It is built on the same flawed foundation as the House bills, starting with a so-called "individual mandate" that would penalize any American who didn't sign up with government-approved insurance. Employers would also pay a tax if any of their lower wage workers ended up on government-subsidized plans, which would create a strong disincentive for hiring such workers in the first place. The federal government would vastly expand health-care entitlement spending by enrolling millions of people in Medicaid and standing up a new entitlement for persons with incomes between 133 and 300 percent of the poverty line. The new spending in the Baucus plan is said to be near $900 billion over a decade, but no official estimates are available.

To "pay for "the additional federal costs, Sen. Baucus wants to impose a vast array of new taxes, on health insurers, drug companies, device manufacturers, and clinical labs, all of which will be passed on to patients, of course. In addition, Sen. Baucus wants to impose payment rate reductions in Medicare and Medicaid which will save between $400 and $500 billion over ten years. Among the cuts would be a deep reduction in Medicare Advantage payment rates, which would force millions of seniors out of their current coverage and back into the traditional Medicare program and expensive Medigap plans.

The Baucus plan is flawed from the get-go because it starts from the same misguided premise as its counterparts in the House. It seeks to achieve "universal coverage" but without building a functioning marketplace to slow the pace of rising costs. And so, if it were to pass, costs would escalate just as rapidly in the future as they have in the past, and it would only be a matter of time before the current administration or its successor proposed new and draconian "cost control" measures to hold down governmental health-care spending.

At that point, federal central planners would resort to the same kinds of price setting devices that have been tried for years in others settings, including Medicare. And the predictable result would be a large reduction in the willing suppliers of medical services, which would mean queues and lower quality care all around.


By James C. Capretta
Reprinted with permission from National Review Online

[rocketjl]

The only real answer to 'our' major headache is to figure out how to implement the repeal process, once 'they' force their health care bill through.

Plan to start right now, to advise all my friends that I want to vote Democrats out of office.

These guys will go down in American history all right. Remember their names.

[rocketjl]

Somebody is planning to force something down our throats. Not sure how replacing our total medical system in one fell swoop to cover (not cover, provide insurance opportunities for) a small portion of the population, is really going to help. It may cause more damage than it will ever fix.

Hire a company to insure the uninsured at a cost of $90B and lets get started on fixing what is broke. Deals have already been made with the drug companies. The rest should be no sweat.

[bcpats]

Keep telling us that August didn't happen...... tell us millions of people weren't out-raged at the dictatorial way the healthcare reform is being pushed - - people protesting in the streets and at townhall meetings !! Keep telling us... one day we may believe that Obama's way is what everyone wants ! ! ! Keep telling us WE have an option.... keep telling us the public believes what he says....... keep telling us.......... like stories (lies) being told over and over again.... pretty soon it appears to be the truth.

[DaveTenor]

HARVARD HAWAIIAN RIPS THE HEALTHCARE WAVE! Obama's speech tonight settled any doubts about who is the dominant speaker in the Capital. This has been a long time coming, he didn't make it happen, but when the time for change has come he really articulated the key issues, and gave credit where it is due. He call lies just that, but also dealt with the multiple facets of this problem like the great thinker he is.

[nearl451]

The author just doesn't get it.

Public disapproval is after disinformation spread tellingthemthat their end of life will be dictated by beaurocrats; medicare is being gutted; they wil have no choices etc.

Healtcare WILL be reformed. If not this bill, then the system will crash and there will a reactionary bailout.

[ladyday77]

I have been trying to pinpoint what bothers me so much about the proposed healthcare reform (besides the expansion of government and entitlement programs that we can?t afford). I have been laying awake at night thinking about it. And here is what I have come up with. The government rations and allocates funds everyday ? what crops to subsidize, what banks to bail out, what auto manufacturers to buy up, which companies are ?too big to fail?. All of these decisions on how to allocate limited funds are based on economic models of where the government thinks that they will get the best return on their investment short term and long term.
Now, try to add human life and healthcare into that economic equation. It is a scary thought. I do not believe that the president or the proponents of this bill want to ration healthcare or make decisions on who gets what treatments based on their productive value to society. But I do believe that it could come to that, whether it is what the framers of this bill intended or not.
Imagine that the United States finds itself in a national economic crisis because, I don?t know, maybe we spend too much and accumulate more debt that we can pay and other countries no longer want to finance the US. Or perhaps we have massive inflation because we do something crazy like print a bunch of money. In an economic crisis where there are not enough funds to cover everyone?s healthcare, tough decisions would have to be made, hard cuts would have to be rationalized. And the basis for those cuts or rationing would then have to be on who gives the government the best return on their investment. Which healthcare recipients will give back to society in productivity? Which recipients are close to death anyway and therefore are not a good investment? Which newborn or unborn should be let go because the government has no investment in them yet? Which disabled person will only be an economic drain on society?
I think of my quadriplegic father. What if the government, out of money for healthcare, had to decide if his irreversible condition was worth investing in treatment for? My dad might have private insurance today, but is it even possible that, under this proposed plan, those successful individuals who have private insurance that they pay for will get tired of paying for health insurance twice? They would be paying once for their own private insurance and again to subsidize through taxes the insurance of those who have not purchased private insurance. It is possible that more and more people will decide to take the government subsidized option until private insurance companies go out of business and we are left with a single-payer system? Is it possible that companies that pay for their employees health insurance today will decide that it is cheaper to pay ?the fine? for not providing health insurance and let their employees get on the public option? Again, driving private insurance companies out of business and leaving us with single-payer government run healthcare. Again, I am not saying that this is the design of the creators of this plan; rather that it is a flaw in the design that is not being considered.
We are living in a crazy time where our country may be fundamentally transformed from what our founding fathers designed. I am not a political activist. I am not part of any lobby or special interest group. I am an American who is deeply troubled by what I see as the possible ramifications of this transformation and the miasma of government control of industry, that once established, will be very difficult to disentangle ourselves from. I am also very excited. I do believe that America is a ?sleeping giant? and once awakened, everyday American?s that love their country and pay their taxes will wake up, flex their muscles, raise their voices and say ?not in my country.? And that will be a marvelous thing to behold.

[noloyalisti]

What about the entitlement programs most of which benefit the rich and the big corporations. In fact, most of our laws and regulations seem to favor big corporations.

And what about the greedy corporations meddling in our personal life, our health care and our government?

Right now we pay more than any other country and are ranked 37th in quality. Why should there be ANY profit for something as important and critical as health care? Does the military make a profit, of course not.

[inketolstoy]

noloyalisti

Please explain to me why I should expect our government to improve quality and decrease the cost of healthcare? Did Canada or Britan improve quality (they did decrease cost)? Did medicaid decrease cost (it is broke)? I agree that we need improvement in these areas, but forgive me for mistrusting our government's ability to deliver. What has our government done to earn my trust in any area other than national defense?

[didserve]

Please be advised that this very same NRO is the one who touted the Iraq war and every other NEOCON debacle that was expressed by the Republicans!

They are run by duel passport holding Neocons that no more care about the National Interests of the United States than the elected officials that they have purchased!

They hide under the protection of the American Constitution but work for the interests of other countries!

[stevador39]

THE 'TEA-BAGGERS' ARE LOUD AND INTOLERANT. THEY CLAIM TO BE A 'SILENT MAJORITY.' THAT CLAIM IS OXYMORONIC. THEY ARE NEITHER SILENT NOR A MAJORITY. THIS IS A 'FULL COURT PRESS' BY THE FASCIST RIGHT TO OPPOSE HEALTH CARE.

[inketolstoy]

Says the loud (I assume that is the reason for all caps) and intolerant liberal who claims to speak for the majority. We will see who is the teabagger and who is the tea baggee next election.

[noloyalisti]

Why do we want big corporations, who care only about money, stand in the way of quality health care? Why are we so scared of the government, the ONLY entity big enough to clean up the mess created by the greedy big corporations? At least we elect the government. The private health care system has FAILED, time for change and reform. Real reform. At least strong public option. You know, free market and all.

[tincup356]

Until you eliminate the lobby dollar corruption that has infected BOTH parties of congress,,,,,you will never "Elect" anybody who will represent the voters who put them into office. As it is,,,those GREEDY corporations,,,OWN ,,,,BOTH parties of congress,,,, so what makes you think EITHER party is going to change its ways and DO ANYTHING that would benefit the people at the cost of BILLIONS in profits to the corporations that PAY ,,,BOTH parties of congress, BILLIONS in lobby dollars to get their way?

[pubsrtoast]

And so how are Democrats responding to this spontaneous display of widespread public disapproval of their planned agenda? Not with a sensible course correction, it seems. No, by all appearances, it's still full steam ahead.

This reminds me very much of the run up to the Iraq war wear large majorities opposed an invasion of Iraq and Bush just said God told him to do it and he did, ignoring the will of the people. Of course, back then, the NRO and in fact most of the most vocal opponents of healthcare at last months townhalls were thrilled that Bush ignored the will of the people. They went so far as to claim he was resolute and a decider because he didn't look at polls, well suck it up Republicans because here it comes.

[noloyalisti]

Who on earth would be against a public option for health care? Big insurance companies and their buddies. Why would we not want more freedom and choices? Who would be against that? Fascists who want to continue to let big corporations run everything.