Ten Wrong Reasons to Oppose Health Reform
Posted:
03/10/10


Greetings to my conservative readers, who have vented and philosophized about President Obama's health reform drive in countless comments and e-mails. I want to talk today to you.

Obviously, it is your perfect right to oppose what Obama and Democrats are trying to do. And there are legitimate reasons to do so. Maybe you think the government shouldn't be in the business of trying to make sure all Americans have health coverage. Maybe you think that would be nice, but we can't afford it. Maybe you oppose raising any taxes or fees to help finance changes in the health care system, or you think any savings we can wring out of it should be used for other priorities.

Yet these are not always the reasons readers offer for their (sometimes ALL-CAPS, often vitriolic) opposition -- as anyone can see in the comments sections of every column I write about health care. Here are some of the charges and claims, and why I think they are not the right reasons to oppose the health overhaul before Congress:
Get the new
PD toolbar!

1. It is socialism. The Democratic plan would add about 15 million people over 10 years to Medicaid, the existing federal-state program now serving about 60 million poor and low-income Americans. It also would provide subsidies to middle-income families to help them buy private coverage. The bottom line, however, is there is no new government health program in the bill. The House passed a government-run plan (the "public option") in its health bill, but the Senate bill doesn't have one and the final product won't, either. Private insurance companies would not only survive under this bill, they would get millions of new customers. That doesn't sound like socialism.

2. It is a government takeover. The federal government would certainly be more involved in regulating insurance companies. The government would also set up and regulate a competitive new exchange, or marketplace, where small businesses and the uninsured could buy coverage. But the coverage would all be plans offered by private companies. The bill is, in fact, designed to preserve employer-based health benefits and the private insurance industry. So, increased government role, yes. Government takeover, no.

3. It is being "rammed through." There's a 100-year history of failed presidential attempts to achieve universal health coverage. The topic was discussed at length throughout the 2007-2008 presidential campaign. Since last January, it has consumed 15 months of hearings, legislating and debate in Congress. The House passed its bill in November and the Senate, by a 60-40 super-majority, passed its version in December. Take your pick -- a century, three years, 15 months -- but this doesn't meet any definition of "ramming."

4. Reconciliation is "ramming" AND cheating. Reconciliation is a Senate budget process instituted 30 years ago. Since reconciliation bills can't be filibustered, they need only 51 votes to pass -- so everybody uses them to get things done. A chart of 15 major reconciliation initiatives in last weekend's New York Times shows that Republicans have used the process many more times than Democrats. And we're not talking small ball. Republican presidents have signed reconciliation bills that, among other things, cut welfare benefits, expanded health coverage, raised taxes, reduced taxes and overhauled the student aid system. In this case, reconciliation will be used to amend a bill that's already passed the Senate with 60 votes. Cataclysmic, as Sen. John McCain put it? I think not.

5. It is unconstitutional. The bill requires every American to buy health insurance, including healthy people, and offers subsidies to help middle-income families. Insurance companies sought the mandate, saying it is the only way to keep premium costs from skyrocketing once they are not allowed to deny coverage to people with pre-existing medical conditions, drop sick people or limit annual and lifetime coverage (all popular provisions of the health bill). The mandate would not be the first imposed by state or federal governments -- they already require people to buy car insurance, buckle seat belts and wear motorcycle helmets, not to mention make sure their children are educated. Conservatives used to promote the health insurance mandate on grounds of personal responsibility. It's the law in Massachusetts.

6. It has sleazy special deals. The most notorious are the Cornhusker Kickback for Nebraska (permanent federal payments for Medicaid expansion) and the Florida exemption (seniors there would get to keep private Medicare Advantage plans that cost more than regular Medicare and are subsidized by taxpayers). The final package will not have these special deals. For procedural reasons, House members must first approve the Senate bill, which does include them, but the "fix" package -- possibly to be voted on the same day -- will remove them.

7. It would penalize senior citizens by cutting Medicare. The Senate bill would save more than $400 billion over 10 years by ending subsidies to Medicare Advantage and reducing projected payments to insurance companies, hospitals, drug companies and other players (some have already agreed to keep prices down). Seniors in regular Medicare would get the same benefits they have now, as well as additional services, like free preventive care. The AARP, which has 40 million members over age 50, says it supports health reform because it will put Medicare on a sounder fiscal footing.

8. It would do too little to curb costs. Amazingly, some people argue both No. 7 and No. 8. There are, in fact, many provisions intended to control costs. They include financial incentives for doctors and hospitals to provide efficient, coordinated care (rather than getting reimbursed for every test, procedure and hospital readmission); research into what treatments work best; a focus on preventive services and chronic care; pilot programs on ways to limit malpractice suits and awards; and an independent advisory board to recommend cost-saving changes in Medicare. These and other cost-cutting steps are described here.

9. It isn't popular. Did voters in Virginia, New Jersey and Massachusetts send clear messages -- by electing Republicans -- that they don't want this health package? Inconclusive at best. The economy is almost always the primary factor in election outcomes. Beyond that, Democrats had exceptionally weak candidates in all three states. The latest national poll from Gallup found slightly more people saying they'd advise their representative to vote against rather than for health reform. In a new poll from The Economist, 53 percent said they support Obama's proposed changes to the health care system. It's fair to say the country is split. In any case, Obama and Congress are not bound by polls.

10. It doesn't give us the same coverage as Congress. Actually, Congress is trying to provide similar coverage through these state exchanges. They are modeled on the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan, which looks like this. The offerings are mostly from private insurers and every federal employee -- including members of the House and Senate -- pays for his or her own coverage. In time, I'm betting people who get coverage at work will be jealous of those who get it on the exchanges. They'll have choices, just like Congress does. Eventually the exchanges may open up to the rest of us as well.

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/03/10/ten-wrong-reasons-to-oppose-health-reform/

A conservative trying to help other conservatives make sense of all the garbage they hear.

Hope it helps some.

Nope. Nice try, tho' ... it still amounts to a GOVERNMENT TAKEOVER of the best healthcare system in the world. I'll give you ONE reason why it should be opposed as compared to the lengthy ObamaBible you wrote on the head of this pin ... Until now, it has NEVER been a REQUIREMENT of CITIZENSHIP to BUY a damned thing. Under 'ObamaCare', EVERY CITIZEN will either HAVE to buy a GOVERNMENT insurance policy OR face the threat of fines or jail time. And THAT's what you want us to support ... ? I think not. There are so many more flaws to expose, but I'll leave that to others. This one does it for me.

#5. It is unconstitutional. The bill requires every American to buy health insurance, including healthy people, and offers subsidies to help middle-income families. Insurance companies sought the mandate, saying it is the only way to keep premium costs from skyrocketing once they are not allowed to deny coverage to people with pre-existing medical conditions, drop sick people or limit annual and lifetime coverage (all popular provisions of the health bill). The mandate would not be the first imposed by state or federal governments -- they already require people to buy car insurance, buckle seat belts and wear motorcycle helmets, not to mention make sure their children are educated. Conservatives used to promote the health insurance mandate on grounds of personal responsibility. It's the law in Massachusetts.

This is classic... The old.. you have to buy auto insurance line..

Well, you actually don't have to buy auto insurance if you don't own a car. It's an individuals choice whether he or she owns a car. There is nothing in the constitution that provides the federal government the power to compel someone to buy anything. A drivers license is issued by the states and is considered a privilege not a right. If you don't pass the driver's test you are not granted the privilege of driving legally. The insurance aspect of car ownership is a hedge that is required because most people can't afford to buy the vehicle outright. The finance company or bank actually owns the vehicle and they want to be sure that if you wreck their vehicle there is a way for them to recoup their investment. After a person pays off their car they are required to keep atleast liability insurance in case they cause an accident and someone else is injured or their property is destroyed. Notice how the requirement of insurance coverage is based on the concept of protecting the interests and investments of others, not necessarily the person that buys it.

Government mandated health insurance is not the same as auto insurance.

Dragoness, if you keep trying to make sense and use logic and facts instead of fear, you're NEVER going to get that talk-show host gig on Fox "News" or be appointed Chairperson of the Tea Baggers Party...

PERHAPS OBAMA SHOULD PRACTICE WHAT HE PREACHES...........












AND WHAT DOES TINKERBELL THINK OF OBAMA HEALTH REFORM?

BY definition, I agree, but in theory it is a similar mandate. The auto insurance mandate arose mostly out of economic concerns more than public safety. For all the people who drove cars without insurance and then had ACCIDENTS,, the rates of those WITH insurance went up to cover the costs. The mandate , therefore, that all drivers carry insurance was born.

With healthcare, similarly, for everyone who ends up in ill health and does not have insurance, it costs those people who DO have insurance more money , and the mandate that everyone carry insurance for their health has been born.

Here in Nevada, we have had an emergency care shut down because so many uninsured came in with emergencies having to be treated,, the hospitals couldnt keep up with the costs by themself and SOMEONE had to cover the cost, noone did, and they shut down.

Do you have FACTS to substantiate your allegations, you know.....do a google and print the statistics, website, etc.....or do you just post assumptions?

ANYONE KNOWING ANYTHING ABOUT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW knows that the government CANNOT, consitutionaly make anyone buy anything.......AND, should this so-called health reform of obama's pass mandating THAT everyone buy health insurance or be fined and/or imprisoned, well expect quite a few YEARS of having this quagmire of a dictatorship mandate be tried in courts..............PEOPLE JUST DO NOT THINK....RATHER SOCIALISTS DO NOT THINK........

What are the reasons you think it's the best health care system in the world?

Great post! Obviously you're very passionate about the issue and I appreciate the time & effort that you put into it. I find myself undecided on the whole issue because of a lot of the issues you raised… the details. However in making my final judgment… the one I use by myself and for myself… I find myself against this particular bill.
Rather than going thru all my wonky reasoning and machinations I’ll use your list of talking points as a vehicle to express my views on each issue (as if…, right? Regardless…)”:

1. It is socialism. I don’t care if it’s Socialism or not… what we call whatever form of government that we collectively choose is not material to me. I would point out that most examples of governments that have used a socialistic model have had bad results… but maybe we could do better, who knows. But probably what’s more important is that you refer to points in “the bill” that I can’t seem to accept as fact… the process is still very fluid, dynamic and changing… there are no facts that are being guaranteed to stay facts. So those numbers can’t be depended on.

2. It is a government takeover. Again, I don’t care if it were a government takeover. I wouldn’t object if they went w/ the “public option” or government being the sole body of issuing health insurance. The private sector has had plenty of time to do it right, they haven’t… so get outta the way. I don’t care who runs, I just want everyone to have access to reasonably affordable health care.

3. It is being "rammed through. I agree with your arguement 100%.

4. Reconciliation is "ramming" AND cheating. Guess what? Don’t care. That’s a procedural issue that has more to do with ppl who can’t seem to get along. Games.

5. It is unconstitutional. This topic is interesting but I think it’s more about semantics, a misunderstanding about what the constitution is and a “false” paradigm. Just because something is not pertaining to/covered by the constitution doesn’t make it Unconstitutional. Also, as you point out the constitution allows the government to mandate things. The false paradigm, IMHO, is that health care is a commodity. I disagree; I think we’re obligated by God/common decency to help each other. That we have used the vehicle of insurance to compensate those providing health care is a secondary issue, the issue at hand is that there are too many Americans not getting health care and a lot of them aren’t getting it because of the costs… we need to remove that obstacle.

6. It has sleazy special deals. I believe that there are some sleazy deals going on and I hate it. Your argument doesn’t convince me that those deals will be undone.

7. It would penalize senior citizens by cutting Medicare. Seems to me that this a great point for the argument for a single payer system. If everyone is in the same group we wouldn’t have to be so concerned about other little groups. We all get the same coverage… no separate accounts for this group and that group.

8. It would do too little to curb costs. How can we possibly know?? We don’t have a finished product yet. The proposals are simply that, proposals. We do need more time for the number crunchers to get a hold of the final-proposal, then tweak it accordingly, in a civil/fair manner.

9. It isn't popular. Actually, I think this is a fact… regardless of what’s happening in the political areana(s), all the polls show high numbers both for and against. INHO, anytime that we as a nation get results like this, we need to step back and simply realize that we’re dealing with one of those issues that’s going to require giving and taking from both sides… this is where educating ourselves and practicing compromise in our daily lives/relationships comes in.

10. It doesn't give us the same coverage as Congress. See #7.

Bottom line for me is that I can’t support the bill as it stands today. But that’s just me. I’ll go listen to some John Lennon songs now.

You're asking this as a SERIOUS question ... ?

Yep. I'd like to hear your reasons.

Have you ever needed to actually USE our healthcare system ... ? If you have, you already know why. If you haven't and want to replace it just because some little Leninist poseur tells you it's bad, that's the height of gullibility.

I'm not sure I understand why there is such a rush to push this through so fast when none of it will even begin to take effect until after the next Presidential election?

and why is he spending so much time and rhetoric demonizing the insurance industry when he is going to force every single american to to buy their products?

I asked you a simple question that should be easy for you to answer. So please give us your reasoning.

You support the change - give YOUR reasons for doing so.

This isn't about what I think or support right now. I asked specifically about where you said this is the best health care system in the world. Why can't you tell us why you think that?

I have no problem telling why we have the best healthcare in the world - I have a problem wasting my time explaining it. The pattern (oberservable and traceable on this site) is that, when anyone opposed to the desires of 'The ONE' to impose his Leninist vision upon the institutions that make our country great explains their opposition to those 'policies', those who are his supporters immediately dismiss anything said in response to the reasons for opposition to them as being invalid or repeatedly ask for 'proof' or 'sources' or 'links' (yet fail to provide these same things in their screeds). I have no intention of wasting time explaining only to be dismissed by a non-serious response. I'm not rising to your bait ... 'chum in the water' is for fools and fish.

You're really reading way too far into a simple question. I was not attacking what you thought, just simply asking why you thought this country has the best health care system. This is a forum for discussion, correct?

King wrote

'when anyone opposed to the desires of 'The ONE' to impose his Leninist vision upon the institutions that make our country great explains their opposition to those 'policies', those who are his supporters immediately dismiss anything said in response to the reasons for opposition to them as being invalid or repeatedly ask for 'proof' or 'sources' or 'links' (yet fail to provide these same things in their screeds).'

respectfully, the EXACT same can be said about how those who repeat rhetoric about why they oppose OBama respond to those who support him

both sides are equally guilty of this 'PROVE your point, but only with proof I deem valid" mentality in these 'debates'. I think its rather high school myself.