The Republicancare elephant in the room

By Steven C. Day
Things are looking more than a little bleak for President Barack Obama’s health care reform initiative: polls show public support dropping, increasing numbers of people profess to be confused by the issue, the GOP stands emboldened in opposition as right wing talking points predominate in the media and “centrist” Democrats, true to form, cause endless mischief.
So the question of the day becomes: what can Obama do about it? And one of the most popular answers is that he needs to be more specific. One can hardly expect people to rally around a reform proposal, the outlines of which remain maddeningly vague, proponents of this view argue.
And there’s a lot to be said for this point (which appears to be gaining some traction inside the White House). One downside to Obama’s desire to stay above the nitty-gritty of the debate — leaving the details for Congress — has been that it’s left him without a clear vision to communicate to the American people. At times he’s seemed downright wishy-washy: “We need the public option unless we don’t need the public option,” and so on. Not exactly awe-inspiring rhetoric from a guy known for his awe-inspiring rhetoric.
But, for what it’s worth, I don’t think the biggest problem with the Democrats’ approach to the health care debate has been their failure to adequately highlight what they themselves are proposing. No, their greatest screw up has been the failure to adequately highlight what the other side isn’t proposing — because, at the end of the day, the Republicans aren’t proposing diddly-squat.
We hear derisive references to “Obamacare” from Republicans all the time. The question that needs be asked is: So then what exactly is Republicancare? Because the answer, of course, is that they are proposing nothing — nothing that is other than more of the same.
Here, in fact, is precisely what Republicancare means:
1. Tens of millions of Americans — currently standing at 46 million – uninsured;
2. You lose your job, you lose your insurance;
3. You get seriously sick, you go bankrupt and, just maybe, your family ends up on the streets;
4. You have a pre-existing condition, tough luck bud, you’re screwed;
5. Faceless bureaucrats who work for private insurance companies that are primarily motivated by earning a profit decide when and whether you qualify for treatment (yup, those “death panels” you’ve been hearing so much about, but not the fake ones that right wingers have dreamed up, but the real ones that exist within the insurance industry today);
6. Health care costs continue to spiral out of control;
7. More and more employers drop health insurance as a benefit as it becomes increasingly expensive.
This is the big freakin’ elephant sitting smack dab in the middle of the room of the health care reform debate — Republicancare. Obama’s proposals may be far from perfect: God knows, many liberals, myself included, aren’t overly enchanted with them. But right now (and for the foreseeable future) they’re the only game in town.
If the Republicans in Congress have made anything clear, it is that the only thing they care about is scoring political points by trying to kill anything Obama and the Democrats put up in this area. They have offered nothing constructive at all — and so far at least, they’ve been getting away with it.
That’s the message Democrats need to be taking to the American people: It’s your choice, folks, Obamacare or Republicancare – meaningful, if imperfect, reform, or more of the same. If you’re happy with the status quo, great, because that’s exactly what the GOP will give you. But if you’re not satisfied with it, then you better get off your ass and let Congress know.
Then leave it in the voters’ hands.
If need be, let the Republicans filibuster reform (make them do it the old-fashioned way where they actually have to stay up all night) and then let them take that to the electorate. Let them have their moment in the sun bragging about their great “victory” over Obama: in fact, let’s make sure they get all the credit they deserve for maintaining the status quo (that everyone, except the insurance industry, rightfully hates). In fact, let’s make sure that this great Republican “triumph” becomes the centerpiece issue of the 2010 campaign.
Then let the chips fall where they may.
LAST CHANCE DEMOCRACY CAFE
- Login or register to post comments
- Printer-friendly version
Buzz this on Buzzflash.net




Technorati Tags:
Old Snake Oil In A New Bottle
HR 2520 is nothing more than yet another attempt to open the cash spigots for the private sector via federal "subsidies" for those who can't afford their private insurance while at the same time removing federal control over several programs and putting the more-easily manipulated states in control of health care regulation. Yep, that's a proposal all right - a proposal for even more corruption and abuse than we have even now. Way to go, GOP! We hardly know you, do we?
you forget tort reform
Health reform starts and ends with tort reform, but you forget that the democratic plan mentions nothing about it. Why would that be? Maybe the trial attorney lobby and its overwhelming support for the democratic party? Howard Dean himself just admitted this last week, how the dems won't touch the issue because they fear the backlash of the lobby (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Dean-says-Obamacare-authors-dont-want-to-challenge-trial-lawyers-55140567.html). Now that sounds like the dems aren't really going for true reform but rather what their money wants them to push. And yet, you accuse the republicans of pandering to their interests to pay off the corporations. Both sides are equally as guilty, but one side is being far less truthfull about it right now.
Despite what flaws may be in 2520 (if the media ever actually covered it, maybe we would all have a chance to debate it properly), the point is that it is irresponsible for uninformed authors to make blanket statements about the absence of any alternative reforms, when in fact they do exist, they are just conveniently ignored.
Tort reform is overhyped and
Tort reform is overhyped and just another red herring the obstructionists hope will derail healthcare reform. The real reason that malpractice insurance is so high is because the medical profession has circled the wagons and won't reveal to the public the identities of the small percentage of doctors who commit the majority of malpractice and put them out of business. If those serial malpracticing few had their licenses to practice medicine revoked there would only be small fraction of the current numbers and the cost of malpractice insurance would come down without the need to deny justice to those innocent people harmed during treatment gone horribly wrong.
really?
Except for the fact that all of that information is public record. Doctors' disciplinary records are available through a variety of search engines, including the state certification agencies. Anyone would be wise to do research on the person who they entrust with their health and well being, especially with regards to specialties and any surgeons.
Enforcement of sanctions is a definite need for reform but doesn't negate the crux of the issue. The issue revolves around the capping of awards. Attorneys often abuse the absence of defensive medicine to imply malpractice, and doctors fear the staggering amounts involved w/ uncapped damages. Subsequently, doctors over-prescribe treatments and tests (otherwise known as defensive medicine) in order to avoid possible litigation. Furthermore, increased malpractice insurance costs (just another reason for y'all to hate another insurance industry), coupled with the increased amount of tests needed to "prove themselves," result in increased costs that are passed on to the consumer. Over-zealous trial attorneys exploit the absence of defensive medicine to imply malpractice. John Edwards himself made a huge fortune profiting off of faulty scientific evidence to do just this.
It is not the increase in the amount of litigation that is the root of the problem. The problem is the uncapped limits requiring substantial amounts of malpractice insurance and reinforcing the notion that doctors must prescribe everything possible to avoid liability. That attitude raises the amount doctors are willing to accept in order to assume the risks of litigation involved. If tort reform is enacted, malpractice insurance premiums decrease, and doctors can be freed from the need to cover themselves by over-prescribing.
Medicine is not a 100% guarantee, and our overly-litigious society exploits the risks involved to benefit the attorneys, not the victims. I'm not saying that people don't deserve damages when they have been wronged, however there need to be limits placed on the amount of the awards, including attorneys fees, so as not to inhibit people from willingly practicing medicine or driving the costs of quality medicine to unsustainable levels. And for sake of full disclosure I am currently in law school, so I say this knowing it is against my direct financial interests.
HR 2520
just have to point out HR 2520, the republican health care reform initiative which you claim is non-existant.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-2520