Republicans trying to unite behind an alternative health insurance reform bill
I’ll believe this when I see it.
But that’s what they need to do.
The New Neo
A blog about political change, among other things
I’ll believe this when I see it.
But that’s what they need to do.
The thing that frosts my cookies about this entire debacle is that the general public believes that the Republicans are somehow required to offer an alternative. This is nothing more than playing on the field set by the progressives.
To wit: We had a workable health care system. Was it flawed? Yes! Did it work something like a Rube Goldberg contraption? Yes, but it did work. So the Dems replace a flawed system (flawed mostly by prior legislative meddling) with something that is equally unwieldy but UNworkable, then the Republicans are chastized because they are not offering anything, much less anything better. I know that there are tactical problems with this following suggestion, but why not simply an Obamacare repeal with a reinstatement of what we had? Just wipe it out of existence as if it never happened, like the portrait of a former Pharoah on a new Kingdom temple.
In short, why should the Dems get to screw it up royally and then make it seem like the Republicans are at fault for not offering their own variation on the theme?
T:
Because that’s the way people’s minds work.
“At least the Democrats are giving me something. What have Republicans done for me lately? Republicans only know how to say ‘no’ and screw widows and orphans and sick people.”
You and other conservatives may believe it’s enough to say “no” to bad policy, but more people want good policy in its place, and don’t think that “no” is a good policy (even though often it may be).
Tweaking the health insurance system to improve it is not a bad idea. It’s getting it right that’s hard, because it’s very hard to figure out a way to cover pre-existing conditions that doesn’t create hardship for the non-sick. I think the Republican suggestions sound like a good start.
Neo,
I do not disagree with you that such is the way people’s minds work. My complaint is that this this is a classic “the solution for the problem created by govt interference is more govt interference,” only this time the opposition party is tasked with the obligation of fixing the errors they did not create.
I repeat my claim; this allows the left to set the playing field and requires the right to answer on the left’s terms. The unspoken false premise (which the opposition accepts by offering it’s own plan) is “What business does the govt have in meddling in any of this in the first place?” And while you may be correct that the public now expects govt interference in this govt-created mess, the false premise also needs to be simultaneously indentified and broadcast to disabuse the public of this myth. No one’s thinking far enough to do that.
T:
Plenty of people are thinking about it. The problem is doing it, and human nature is a stumbling block there, as well. It will take an anti-Gramscian march through several institutions, and even then one is going against people’s tendencies to want to be given things and protected.
However, I think Obamacare is an opportunity to propose an alternative involving less government regulation (not none, but less) that, if it is enacted and works fairly well, will teach people that sometimes less is more.
Neo,
“I think Obamacare is an opportunity to propose an alternative involving less government regulation .”
I agree.
“. . . one is going against people’s tendencies to want to be given things and protected . . .”
IMO this is an overblown myth. To say that it’s simply untrue would be patently incorrect. I offer, however, that there is a big difference between wanting to be protected and given freebies to those who take advantage of freebies and protection just because it’s there. It’s seen over and over again in people who argue “Why should I work and take home only twenty bucks a week more than the govt is willing to give me for free?” The underlying fact: if the govt program isn’t available, then they will work regardless. Hey, if the govt is going to set me a buffet, why should I choose to starve?
My experience has caused me to believe that there are far fewer people who expect something for nothing than there are people who are willing to take something for nothing. That’s an important difference.
Wow, where to start since the whole situation is so dysfunctional…
An alternative that would make all government insurance optional would be a great start. That includes Medicare which has a captive clientele and strong arms the medical sector.
Tax treatment should be made equal for all and decoupled from employment insuring portability.
Opening health insurance markets across state lines, and offering an industry-wide risk pool for those with previously existing conditions who are uninsurable in the open market should be included.
Also, public assistance for those citizens who are truly without the means to pay for care and are not employable should be available on an application basis with reviews for eligibility changes semi-annually.
Insurance could then cover catastrophic/major events at reasonable cost. This could be an genuine opportunity to reduce consumer cost and improve quality,service, and innovation.
What are the chances?
T,
Yes, but once they take it, they don’t want to lose it, or the ability to take it again in the future.
Neo,
“once they take it, they don’t want to lose it”
In theory I agree, but in practice I’m not convinced it’s a clear cut as that. Many people? Probably. Most people? Perhaps. All people? Undoubtedly not. I submit that it may depend upon the trade off, it may depend upon the strings attached to retention or divestment.
Repeal it, repeal it, take off and nuke it from orbit, just to be certain.
Then start all over again; something practical, sustainable, offering catastrophic coverage to the uninsured, and encouraging health savings accounts for everything else.
My .02. YMMV.