A Moderate Republican’s Thoughts on Health Care Reform
By HHR | August 12th, 2009 | Category: Featured | 17 comments
By Dennis Sanders
As the health care debate seems to heat up, I’ve had a few thoughts about the whole drama from my vantage point as someone on the center-right. This is less of magnum opus than some random thoughts on the issue. I should stress these are the thoughts of one person and don’t reflect all Republicans or all moderate Republicans (all twelve of us).
First, I still don’t understand why many Democrats and liberals are so hung up on a public option. I know that the rhetoric is that it is needed to keep the private insurers honest, but to me it seems needless. I mean if we wanted to make sure the insurance companies are playing fair, we would have laws that would ban certain practices like pre-existing conditions or recission and the like. In short we could use regulation. I know that has become an anathema among your typical Republican, but then, I have never been the typical Republican. There is a need for some regulation here and it would make sense to have some regulatory scheme that would work far better than having to create some new program from scratch.
Speaking of which, do we even know what form this public option will take shape? Will it use a current program like Medicare or create something new?
Finally, this might make me seem a little odd, but I tend to worry that this is a backdoor way to get what a lot of Democrats want: a single payer health care plan. The fear is that the government can set prices far lower than the private insurers and that they will get out of the insurance racket leaving the government plan as the only one. Maybe that’s just a conspiracy theory. But I tend to agree with Lindsey Graham on this one:
My belief is that no private-sector entity can survive over a long period of time competing against the government. The public option will be written by politicians. It will be generous. Nobody in my business worries about the bottom line. Eventually, the public option will dominate the marketplace because the political forces in the public sector are different than the economic forces in the private sector. Eventually, the private sector will give way.
I know that there are some that think that the government can handle health care for the nation, but I have my doubts. No, I’m not worried about “death panels.” But I do wonder if we will lose our technological edge as Meghan McArdle and ED Kain believe. I also worry about the cost. I know that many are concerned about access to health care. Believe me, I understand. I’ve gone through periods without health care and have had to make choices based on what I could afford. That said, we also have to create a system that we can pay for in the long run and the plan being touted which includes the public option isn’t financially viable. We can’t only have the rich pay for it for it to work. It was Thomas Dewey, the Republican Governor of New York for two-time Presidential Candidate who said:
“It is our solemn responsibility to show that government can have both a head and a heart; that it can be both progressive and solvent; and that it can serve the people without becoming their master.”
I want health care reform, but it has to be done in a way that is both progressive and solvent and the Democratic plan is a little short on the solvent part.
Secondly, I think the official plan by the GOP is found incredibly wanting. I agree with Travis Johnson in that the plan put forth by some Republicans is basically the same tired old stuff. Tax credits, free market, blah, blah,blah. Come on guys, this is the best you could do? Listen, this is a real issue. When people lose their jobs, they lose their health care. There are people that have to stay in jobs they don’t like because they need the health care. You don’t have to support single-payer to know that the American health care system isn’t working. Get a clue, guys.
So, we have the Democrats stuck on public option and the GOP stuck on the free market and neither side wants to actually, you know work out a viable plan.
Which leads me to Wyden-Bennett, the “Healthy Americans Act.” It seems to blend both liberal and conservative ideas and has bipartisan backing. And yet, it hardly gets any press. Why is that? Why is it that we can talk about how we need to have bipartisanship and when someone comes up with a compromise plan, we don’t even give it the time of day?
Oh and about those protests at the town hall meetings. I don’t care much for them, they seem to be rather mean. However, I also think they have a right to protest. Protesting is as American as apple pie and it wasn’t that long ago, that the people who are ragging on the protestors were out there protesting themselves. Maybe dissent isn’t so patriotic when you are on the winning side.
As I said earlier, health care is important to me. So, please, can we get all the chips off our shoulders and try to craft a plan?
Just a thought.
Dennis Sanders is a pastor living in Minneapolis, Minnesota. He has worked on centrist Republican issues for years, including stints as President of the Minnesota chapter of Log Cabin Republicans (a gay/lesbian advocacy group) and Republicans for Environmental Protection. Dennis blogs at NeoMugwump and Republicans United he happily lives with his partner Daniel and serves two cats, Morris and Felix
on 
on 
on 
Speaking as an extremely liberal individual, I was pleasantly surprised to find this very even-handed commentary on heathcare here. Keep up the good work.
Dennis this is a well written article and in one swoop you did more to explain the healthcare debate than any GOP group or orginsation to date. I think the public option is just a chess move to have the goverment controlhealthcare in the nation. I also agree that tax cuts for eveything is starting to sound old and tried, especily to people who do not have a job. If people do not have a job tax cuts are meaning less. You first must have a job in order to pay taxes. Also one frustration I have is that the message from our party is primarly focused on rural folks and not urban folks. When you have a city of 6 million people like NYC, you need to understand that there are many people who have issues for a variety of things. You have people with drug addictions, mental health issues, and HIV just to name a few. We can not ignore these people we must speak to them and imnot sure tax cuts and tax credits is going to do it. Perhaps for other people we could talk more about the health saving account in which empowerment is the key here. People will find and pay for healthcare if the price is reasonable. One thing I do like in the GOP plan is the idea of allowing 18-25years old to stay on there parents plan. This will depend of course if the parent has healthcare to begin with. I think we need to improve medicare/medicare which are in many ways public options.
Very well rounded article.
Personally, I support a *well developed* public option because, in the long term, it will benefit more the people, provides a true baseline, slows down health cost inflation, is available to everyone and it’s in the best interest of our government to have healthy persons. [ http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200908130053 ]
I concur with your opinion on the GOP plan, it’s just hot air.
One point raised is that the poor, poor insurance companies would disappear if it turns to single payer. Well, this is America! I’m quite sure, if that would happen, many insurance companies would adapt and offer services not covered by the government. Sure, some companies will go down under, but others will survive, as it has always happened.
As for the town halls and protests: I’m from the school of thought that I may disagree with what others say, but I’ll defend their right to say it. They’re free to disagree and to protest regardless if I agree or not. That doesn’t give them the right to say stupidities like this [ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G3xS2ad1GhQ ]. These expressions are out of place, period.
BTW, can anyone enlighten me why is the single payer option so bad, if it’s working so well in other countries?
When the obvious should be the course of action beware the intensions. The public option is being championed by our President because the end game is socialized medicine.
Where is COBRA in all of this? It was designed so when you lose your job you keep coverage until you find a new job right? Oh yes I forget its more expensive (the employer contribution is gone) So maybe if we as a society cannot save for a rainy day then lets increase the unemployment insurance premium to cover the gap between what you pay for health insurance and what your employer pays.
It was stated that how can a tax break help a person not making money? How would an insurance premium help? Or are we talking about free health care? A tax break could offset an increase in Unemployment insurance; it could be designed to encourage savings.
What is lost in the rhetoric and the shouting one fundamental difference in thinking?
One side wants to take care of us and the other wants us to take care of ourselves.
In a perfect world yes but idiots are sometimes elected to public office. Reform is necessary but socialism is not……..
Your comment begs several questions, SBM:
* Are Medicare, Social Security, Public Schools and Public Transportation, among many other programs, acceptable in your view?
* Should the government have a special interest in its people’s health?
* What is your ideal health care system?
* Why a public option or a single payer plan health care is bad for the people?
All the programs you list are a disaster…. Do you wish to name others?
Let’s do this Fix the Public schools and then move on to health Care.
Can we expect “A” hospiatls in the suburbs an “F’s” in the Inner city?
Let’s talk about what the reformers should be thinking about.
-Encourage and reward responsible behavior
-Discourage waste and fraud
-identify specific problems and resolve those issues
Specifically
TORT REFORM
LOWER DOCTOR INSURANCE
More medical professionals to lower labor cost
Tax on drug companies that insist on selling drugs in US 10X higher than in other countries like Canada
Tax credits or rebates on Expensive Technology
I listened to the president today and all I hear is double talk and math that doesn’t add up.
900 Billion Over 10 years and 75% of the yearly cost is paid from savings but he could only site 13 billion that goes to insurance companies that run the system.
Where is the other 77 billion coming from?
Who will run Medicare advantage? Gov’t, at the same cost? will it be replaced, gotten rid of or what?
The President said The public option is just like Blue Cross/ Blue shield a non profit.
Why do we need the public option if it already exists unless there’s something else we don’t know about
Aren’t these companies part of the so called current problem? and The president believes he can do better.. by being like them… but not like them….
Just doesn’t make sense…
Are Medicare, Social Security, Public Schools and Public Transportation, among many other programs, acceptable in your view?
Schools, Roads were initially started by individual landowners, churches, business owners and local municipalities. The government under Dwight Eisenhower greatly expanded the highway system because of concerns of national security as it related to military movement. Social Security was a direct result if what occurred after the depression.
In each case there was generally some crisis that followed a government expansion with regards entitlements. In healthcare, we have today Medicare and Medicaid two government run public programs that are not perfect but they work. The only problem is they are now becoming very expensive and causing the nation to spiral down in debt. The argument is not to do away with these programs, but to improve them. The opposition is to the creation of a new expensive government bureaucracy. The people who oppose it on principle think that there are other solutions. They feel that the Government is not the end all too every major problem. Perhaps in the past this made sense but not today.
* Should the government have a special interest in its people’s health?
Yes, to some degree but more so in making sure that there is genuine competition with regards heath plans. Some companies have friends in high places “as a result competition which lowers price gets thrown out the window. We must make sure that any regulation is actually regulating and not simply another bureaucratic echo chamber. The government should be there to help its people and its business sectors thrive.
* What is your ideal health care system?
The ideal healthcare system is one with affordable choices, which over time does not increase the national debt and are based primarily on prevention.
*Why a public option or a single payer plan health care is bad for the people?
The bottom line: If the goal is honest competition in the provision of health insurance, the public option cannot do much good but can potentially do much harm
TO SBM: WHO THE HELL IS GOING TO DECIDE WHATS” GOOD AND BAD” BEHAVIOR? I GUESS WHEN THE GOP WINS AGAIN IT WILL BE THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT NUTS AND THERE SPECIAL PHONE LINE TO HEAVEN? I GUESS GAYS WOULD BE KICKED OUT OF ANY SYSTEM DUE TO “BAD BEHAVIOR”. WHAT THE @#$ DUDE YOU ARE OPPOSED TO GOVERNMENT INTRUSION YET YOURE OKAY IF IT’S MAKING DECISIONS ON “GOOD AND BAD BEHAVIROR”. THIS KINDA SMACSS OF THE INQUSITIONS THE GOEVRMENT OBSESSING OVER WHAT WIL BE GOOD AND BAD BEHAVIOR?
@Juan: Outbursts like yours don’t do any good to dispel lies and half-truths and promote civil debates. Disagree with the ideas, but don’t insult the person. You are acting no different from those right wing extremists you are criticizing.
@SAR
Thank you…..
@SAR
Thank you…..
[Note: I really hope comments can have some HTML. Otherwise, this will be all garbled.]
My reply to the first question I posted isn’t ready, but I’ll post the rest.
My issue with the whole “health care free market” is that companies exists to generate money to their shareholders; they are not running a charity after all. It’s not evil, it’s not wrong, it’s not twisted; it’s just the reality.
In my limited understanding of how insurance companies work [ read from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurance#Underwriting_and_investing ], it’s hard for me to foresee a way to have lots of competitors and keep low premiums at the same time.
Don’t get me wrong, “free market” works on many other areas perfectly, especially on those where the “little guy” can offer a unique service or product that bigger companies can’t or won’t. But I don’t see it working that well on health care.
By SBM:
SBM: What do you specifically mean by Tort Reform?
As I twitted the other day, (with the exception of prevention medicine), they’re a pretty tune, but just hot air (feel free to flame me for that privately, HHR
): they are abstract goals everyone can agree to. Preventive medicine, OTOH, is a concrete goal to achieve.
Tax, both as a punishment and a reward, just puts a tourniquet on the problem. It patches the problems for now, but they will return later.
Thanks for remembering an interesting bit, SBM. More medical professionals will not lower labor costs. Studying medicine is extremely expensive, and most graduates today graduate with high debts. Their first work years are not spend buying Ferraris or flying to Monte Carlo, but desperately trying to make these payments.
What’s equal is not advantage, the Spanish saying goes. So, what’s my ideal health care system? One where the priority is established by the people’s health, not their wallet’s content. One where doctors have full discretion on dictating the patient’s treatment, not a higher-up (be it a government or an insurance employee).
One way to drive the medical costs down is a well implemented public option: the government can negotiate lower prices on drugs and treatments since it’s paying in bigger bulk and people don’t have to worry about going bankrupt in order to get a chance at getting healthy.
Care to expand?
As a counter part:
* Why is the current system good?
——
Note apart:
SBM:
When have you heard a politician talk straight? It seems that double talk is a pre-requisite for being a politician.
The only politician I’ve heard in the last 20 years talking straight was a drunkard (on his defense, he was an excellent mayor, and one of the few true public servants).
@HHR: Does the comment system use BBCode? If so, let me know and I’ll fix my post asap.
Price Waterhouse recently concluded a non-partisan study about Medicare and Medicaid. They examined the $2.4 trillion dollar programs and found that of that budget $1.2 trillion was wasteful spending. Any reform needs to include overhaul of the current system. Imagine the dollars that could be recovered if we did? We are fools to ignore that there are inefficiencies that could save money without taking care away from those who need it. Great study.
LOL@”all twelve moderate republicans!”
The BBcode a plugin we have yet to ad we may add the plugin in a few months but for now we have the standard coding.
Basic questions with not so basic answers.
1. I view the US Health Care system a lot like a moving semi. It’s big, intricate, hauls a lot of product but is exceptionally expensive to run and can’t maneuver quickly. That being said, I am wondering WHY this administration things they can turn it 180 degress in the blink of an eye? Kinda hard to go from a free market system to a Govt. option like that. If we were founded on teh concept of a Socialized system and it needed an over haul, that would be one thing. But to erase 100 years of Health Care? C’mon….. ESPECIALLY with it being handled by beaurocrats and all the drama and strings that come with. It’s not like you have a meeting of CEO’s and other proven business leaders.
2. I still don’t know of an example where socialized medicine is a complete success and not a huge drain on the tax base. Which one of these countries with a successful system is competing directly with US in medical developments? I can’t think of any…. if you have one please advise. Germany? Australia? New Zealand? Any countries with more than 35 million polulation? It’s a numbers game…. let’s here what you have.
Free markets. This is the only market in the US where a service provider can provide a poor product and still get paid regardless of the consumers view on the matter. How many times have you heard about people getting botched proceedures, appointments cancelled after they arrived at the office, dealt with rude staff and more….Only to STILL get billed? Still have their insurance cut the check and the consumer doesn’t have a say?
Wow… if only my industry was like that. I’d really like to get paid when I did a bad job. Unfortunitly, if I don’t do exceptionally well at every turn, there’s another company ready to take my place.
I won’t even go into government mandated coverages not applicable to the consumer. Now will I touch on the Pharmeceutical industries ties to the insurance companies. You all probably know better than I. I just have friends that are in management at Pfizer and Lilly that have discussed how they collect some checks. It’s within the rules but, it’s definitely not fair to the fella paying the insurance premium.
Free market! Give power to the consumer!