Health care reform is either going to happen within the next few weeks or it isn’t going to happen in this decade. If the Obama administration fails to push through some form of the legislation that is under consideration by Easter (less than a month from now), neither his nor a successor administration will touch the subject for years to come.
In other words, it’s do or die on what is for many Americans a matter of life and death.
Arguments for and against “Obamacare” have been tossed around for the better part of a year, even though it is only within the last month that the President has actually stated firmly what he wants (and even then, he stated it in true Obama-speak, leaving out more details than he specified).
The administration’s plan is to force the Senate version of the bill through the House on a straight up-or-down vote and then amend the new law (as it will then be) with a second bill that will be forced through both houses as a reconciliation measure. The result, if both bills become law, will be significant reform of the health care insurance industry (no more uninsurable “pre-existing conditions,” no loss of coverage coincident with the loss of a job), a mandate for an additional 30 million Americans to have health insurance, regulation of insurance premium increases, and a system of subsidies and tax credits for individuals and businesses that cannot on their own afford coverage for themselves or their employees.
It will cost under 900 billion dollars over ten years and will result in net savings to the federal budget of over 100 billion dollars.
It will also increase the choices consumers have in making health insurance decisions and will decrease the ability of insurance companies to ignore the needs of insured patients by refusing to allow doctor-ordered treatments and tests.
Sound good? It is if you believe the federal government should accept an active role in the health care that is available to American citizens. It is if you believe that access to health care should be more a right than a privilege in America. It is if you believe that the purpose of insurance should be to insure rather than to restrict.
So why, then, are the Republican members of both the House and the Senate in constant and unwavering lockstep in their opposition to this effort to reform the system (a system, it might be noted, that everyone agrees – albeit for different reasons – is not working and is not sustainable)?
Some, all right maybe many, of those who are adamantly opposed, are strictly playing politics with the issue. In other words, they want Obama to fail, they want the Democrats to fail, they want to get back in power.
But unless you are a tea-bagger or some other form of ill-informed but angry and frustrated American, you know that politics is not all that simple. For even if the Republican opposition to all-things-Obama is principally motivated by the thirst for power, there is a basic morality that creates that thirst.
For, in the end, it is morality, or one’s view of that concept, that creates the ideologies that direct the policies of those on the left and those on the right of the political spectrum.
For those on the left, the morality of healthcare reform is that no one should suffer from ill health needlessly or because a bureaucratic system denies him or her available care. In America, that care is available. The problem isn’t with the quality of our health care; it’s with its accessibility.
For those on the right, it’s a little more complicated. The morality of the health care issue for those on the right is all tied up in the idea of freedom. Freedom is almost prayerful to Republicans, and it (or some variant of it) is used in all contexts of domestic and foreign policy.
“Iraqis should be free to choose their own destiny,” was a talking point in the months leading up to the invasion of that country. “Americans should be freed from the oppressive nature of high taxes,” was one that Ronald Reagan put in play a generation ago. “Free markets are the best way to secure prosperity for all,” is the mantra that the Chicago School of Economics devised in the latter half of the last century.
All of this talk about freedom probably has some link to the most fundamental of freedoms from the perspective of those on the right – free will. The freedom to choose what to believe, and more specifically whether to believe in God, is the essence of conservative thinking. It is their morality.
Conservatives reject wholeheartedly anything akin to Hobbesian determinism. That concept might make sense in a physical world where cause and effect control. But in the human mind, the human soul, there is a freedom to choose, and it must be preserved and cherished at all costs (unless of course it is the freedom to choose what to do with one’s own body when it is impregnated, but that’s another story for another day).
And so, Americans must be free of all government programs or directives or regulations. The purest form of government is the one that does nothing other than assure the freedom of its peoples. Thus, all federal spending that is directed at anything other than protection (from foreign invasion, domestic violence, and crimes against personal property) is wasteful at best and immoral at worst.
The foregoing is only hyperbolic in the means I have chosen to express the thought. In fact, it represents the core of conservative morality, and I speak as one who in my youth adhered closely to that view of morality.
And if you understand what I have just expressed, you may begin to understand why the Republican Party, politics aside, is so adamantly opposed to the Obama health care reforms.
It isn’t that those reforms might not work to alleviate suffering for millions of Americans; it’s that they deny the freedom of Americans to choose for themselves how to live their lives.
Nice job, Ed. I don’t think I have ever seen the contrast in philosophies put so well.
Although, in the “impregenation situation,” I think at some point, you have to admit that there are competing freedoms.
Fred
Your cost analysis is completely wrong. Your analysis is the CBO answer for a bill that collects higher taxes for 10 years but only counts expenses for 7 years. The bill was deliberately constructed this way in order to put one over on the American people, and you are perpetuating the lie. It is the height of dishonesty.
The truth is that this bill will add $1 trillion to the deficit over years 10 – through 20. The CBO admits that even this is a conservative estimate of the deficit impact.
At a time when the biggest problem, and biggest threat to America, is the Trillions of dollars of deficits project each year for the foreseeable future (not health insurance), it is an irresponsible, ideologically based social welfare plan that ADDS to the deficit.
If people want it anyway, (and they don’t), fine, but stop passing false information as propaganda.
The American people don’t want this, even Nancy Pelosi admits it by telling Democrats to vote for it despite the fact that it will cost them re-election.
When opponents, therefore, say that Obama and the Democrats are forcing it down our throats, that is a correct, true, and clear characterization of what is happening.
Right on, Professor Telfeyan!
As someone who used to subscribe to a similar type of “morality”, I now fully realize how flawed (and cruel) that mentality truly is.
Look, I used to be one of these people. I’m ashamed to admit that I used to toe the party line, espousing all of the GOP’s “ideals.” I was a good little Republican, and I talked a great a game using all the standard rhetoric.
I would rail against any government spending or involvement of any kind. As if things were really that simple. But this type of moral conviction is so ingrained and so powerful, you can’t reason with it. I know because there was no convincing me. There was a time that I would have been so hostile to the views and ideas expressed on this very blog.
Seriously, I was so judgmental and clueless (not to mention, soulless).
But I truly believed in all that crap. But I didn’t know. I was conditioned to believe that any government regulation (however slight) would ultimately lead to tyranny. The reasoning goes that if you love individual rights and freedom, you don’t look to the government for anything. You solve your own problems. Rugged individualism, remember? This is the land of opportunity! And if you don’t have money or healthcare, well, it’s your own damn fault. It’s because of a moral failing. You deserve it (because we don’t bother looking at the actual circumstances and forces that are working against you). But if you are smart, dedicated, and work hard, you are guaranteed success in this great land. No need to worry. But if you even consider accepting government assistance of any kind. . .You’re single-handedly destroying this country and deserve nothing more than our contempt because now we’ll all be living in a horrible, communist, cesspool. I know, it sounds crazy, but this is the mentality.
And I bought it; all of it. Well, I did until I grew up and realized that it was all just one big fucking lie. See, there’s a lot of stuff they leave off of the brochures and fail to mention at all of those Young Republican meetings. So you just go on, drinking the Kool-Aid and supporting politicians, laws and policies that go against even your own self-interests! Pretty clever, huh?
But this is why dogma is dangerous; it’s what gives rise to depression, despair, and death. And of course whenever I say this, I get the, “you’re just being dramatic.” People for whatever reason, just can’t do the math on this.
Health care reform would save money in the long run while providing meaningful assistance to millions of Americans, which would also alleviate a whole host of other problems.
Don’t let ideology get in the way of common sense and basic human decency. Do the math. Stop thinking in the abstract. We’re talking about real people. People you know. People you care about–your family, friends, kids, colleagues, coworkers, and neighbors. This affects all of us in profound ways.
Ed,
A friend of mine copied me on your blog because it is an intelligent progressive view on the issues.
As for my position on Obamacare, I am like virtually all of my conservative friends. That is, we agree that the uninsured should be taken care of. We agree that insurance companies should cover people with pre-existing conditions, we agree that insurance companies should not drop people when they get sick, or refuse coverage when people change jobs, and we agree that steps need to be taken to lower insurance costs as well as the cost of care itself. Where we disagree with Obamacare is the heavy handed bureaucracy, and the high cost, as the solution. The objectives above could be solved at much less cost to the nation without all the government imposed complexity.
I understand ‘packaging’, but if the ‘packaging’ is dishonest, it must be called out. The truth is, this bill adds greatly to the deficit. I object to anyone saying otherwise because it simply isn’t true. That point cannot be argued. Perpetuating the lie as an argument for Obamacare does a disservice to everyone. I believe that dishonesty and misinformation is a prime reason that the nation is so divided and so adversarial. Both ends of the political spectrum do it. It gets ratings, and it sells magazines and newspapers, but it is destructive. I am also disappointed in Obama’s and the Democrat’s ease at ‘packaging’ in dishonest ways. This is exactly what they rightly criticized Bush for doing. I recognize, however, that this is a side point and a sad condition that won’t change.
So we are in favor of mandatory coverage, subsidies for the poor, coverage for pre-existing conditions, and coverage for job changes. We are also in favor of liability rationalization. Malpractice does occur and the public needs recourse, but it is an obvious place to reduce costs and Obama gives only lip service to it. It certainly is not contained, in any way, in the current bill.
The reason I know that repealing McCarron Ferguson will lower rates is precisely because insurance companies will act in their best interest, that is, undercutting rates where companies previously had a monopoly and high profit margins. Just like Geico, Progressive, Allstate, and others have done in auto insurance.
I fully understand that a market managed plan will still add to the deficit (everyone else will pay for it one way or the other), but it is a moral issue and is a cost that America should bear, just like Social Security and Medicare, but it will be less costly than the current plan. I point out that no one knows whether doing all of this will reduce rates for the healthy and the currently insured, or increase them, but it needs to be done anyway. I will also point out that Social Security and Medicare are on track to bankrupt this country so they are perfect examples of good intentions being implemented badly. Both Social Security and Medicare have also grown far beyond their original scope costing more and more in unanticipated ways. This is another pitfall of government run programs. We need to learn from those in preparing health insurance reform. I am not reflexively against government intervention, and I don’t distrust government as a blanket philosophy. One must, however, be honest about the dangers and make that part of any solution planning.
As for the deficit, I believe it is the biggest problem this country faces. Obama inherited the mortgage crisis and 2 years or so of increased deficits are unavoidable. At the current course and speed, however, trillion dollar + deficits are projected for as far as the eye can see and the Democrats are doing nothing to address the problem. They don’t even recognize it as priority. Obama’s priorities, as stated by him, are: 1) Health Care, 2) Education, 3) Energy, and as of the SOTU, 4) Jobs. He doesn’t even list deficit reduction. He talks about it, but it’s not on his list, and he has not addressed the issue in any meaningful way. When you add the fact that this health bill will add to the deficit, one must ask, what’s the plan on the deficit? You live in California. You have seen what happens when good intentions, piled up over decades, result in an unsustainable economic model. We must fiercely guard against that on the federal level at every possible opportunity.
One final point that is important to me; the vast majority of conservatives are not dumb, we do not oppose progressive ideas for frivolous uneducated reasons. Tea Baggers and their ilk do not represent the thinking of the majority, they just get the coverage.
Like you, I enjoy debates with thoughtful people, and I hope to offer you another point of view that has merit.
Just FYI. Eyes wide open.
New taxes contained in the Health Care Bill
Contained in the bill:
* A new 3.8% Medicare tax on capital gains
* An increase of .9% on the current Medicare payroll tax.
* A 40% tax on health insurance plans that cost over $10,200 per year on individuals, and above $27,500 for families
* Doubling the tax from 10% to 20% for early withdrawal of Health Savings Accounts (HSA’s).
* A penalty of $750 per employee on companies’ with more than 50 workers, who don’t offer insurance forcing worker so buy from the insurance exchange.
* A new tax on certain branded drugs.
* A new tax on imported medical devices.
* Increase from 7.5% to 10% of Adjusted gross income as the minimum before medical expense deductions can be taken.
* Other increases on a variety of items.
The total increase is estimated to be $415 billion per year.
Would anybody like to comment on this?
“I will not sign a bill that adds one dime to our deficit — either now or in
the future.”
– Barack Obama