The Republican Health Care Plan Is Obamacare
by Bob Schwartz
Say something once, why say it again?
Talking Heads, Psycho Killer
Sometimes making a point means repeating yourself and not saying you’re sorry.
The current situation is that Newt Gingrich yesterday criticized attempts by some Republicans to repeal the Affordable Care Act, saying that the party had to offer alternative plans and unfortunately had not one idea.
He is of course wrong. As pointed out in an earlier post Heritagecare, the Republicans at one time did have a big idea about health care reform. It was developed at the conservative Heritage Foundation in 1989, as a market-based alternative to any sort of single-payer national health plan. The centerpiece of this reform was a national mandate requiring everybody to have insurance. With some refinement, this Heritage plan is at the heart of the Affordable Care Act. Obamacare is a version of Heritagecare.
Following the development of the Heritage plan, this is what happened.
Bill Clinton was elected President. First Lady Hillary Clinton promoted the adoption of national single-payer universal health care. This proved to be a political disaster and embarrassment. Health care was taken off the table for years.
Mitt Romney was elected Governor of Massachusetts. He used the Heritage plan—a Republican idea— as the basis for a state health care program. By all accounts, it was a success.
Barack Obama was elected President. He made health care reform a priority, but with single-payer dead in the water—maybe forever—he promoted a program based on the Heritage plan. As proof of concept for the Affordable Care Act, he could point to Massachusetts, where such an idea had worked.
Republicans intent on eviscerating Obama and his presidency used what they called “Obamacare” as a prime example of totalitarian socialism in action. They ignored the conservative origins of the plan. These Republicans were aghast when the Supreme Court narrowly allowed the plan to proceed as constitutional, but continue to do whatever they can to thwart it, including the dozens of attempts to repeal it—the same useless attempts that Gingrich criticized.
Mitt Romney ran for President. He could no longer embrace Heritagecare/Romneycare/Obamacare. He explained that while the plan might be good for Massachusetts, it is no good for America. He was never directly confronted with a version of the question: Are you serious?
Newt Gingrich is a very complicated man and politician, but he should be given his due. He is joining a chorus of mostly old-school Republicans trying to tell the Young Turks to get real. In this case, getting real could actually work to the Republican advantage, though they seem to be too ideology-blinded (and Obama-hate blinded) to see it.
People really do have some serious and legitimate qualms about the Affordable Care Act, and its implementation is bound to be a rocky road. If the Republicans looked back to their own Heritage plan, and if they took seriously the lip service of “compassionate conservatism”, they might actually be able to offer some constructive, earnest and enlightened adjustments—all for the sake of the general welfare of the country. As it is, that won’t be happening now or anytime soon.
Bob Schwartz 
I have nothing to add, nothing to subtract, and only one thing to say: thank you.
Quoting Talking Heads gets you extra brownies as well.
Except that Heritage plan was markedly different from the ACA. As for Massachusetts, it’s not the big success it has been heralded to be and it’s relatively small problems of fewer doctors, rising costs and ER vistis would only be magnified at the Federal level. So what is good Massachusetts very well may not be good for country.
Heritagecare, Romneycare and Obamacare are all different, it’s true. But all share a market-based approach to a severe problem, in a country that, for better or worse, and for whatever reasons, refuses to accept a solution that isn’t market-based. None of them tackle the equally big fundamental problems in the health care industry as opposed to just paying for health care, but politically, taking on Big Pharma and Big Med is as impossible as introducing something that looks vaguely socialistic. As for ACA’s acknowledged imperfections, no major public policy innovation is without flaws, maybe big ones, because public policy is pragmatic — practice, learn and correct. If there are improvements to be made, before implementation or now, let the opponents propose them, which they don’t. The most disturbing conclusion from a lot of what is very directly said is not that ACA and its precursors are unworkable; it’s that there is no problem to be solved in the first place. Everyone who wants or deserves health care, including insurance, can get it. I wish I was making this up, I wish I had not heard a number of high-level politicians say this, but I did.
You are not telling the truth. Not the Whole Truth.
1. “Mitt Romney ran for President. He could no longer embrace Heritagecare/Romneycare/Obamacare. He explained that while the plan might be good for Massachusetts, it is no good for America. He was never directly confronted with a version of the question: Are you serious?”
This is NOT True. Romney specifically said that he did NOT say that Romneycare was great as model for NATIONAL healthcare but did say that Romneycare was great as a model for STATES. That each state should be able to make their own specialized healthcare plan for their specific needs.
Even his quotes from way back when Romneycare passed were specific that Romney did not say that Romneycare was great as a National Model as in ONE system. So, your comment is just false.
Also,
What makes you say people DESERVE health insurance?
So someone who doesn’t contribute to society at all and never does anything but suck off of the state and forces YOU to take care of them deserves YOUR Money? Are you saying that for real? Because I need some Money right now to pay my bills!! CAN YOU HELP ME? I DESERVE IT DONT I? I MEAN I DIDNT WORK AT ALL THIS YEAR!!! DONT I DESERVE TO BE TAKEN CARE OF BY YOU?
First, I had to go back to the post to see where it said that people “deserve” health insurance. I couldn’t find it, because it’s not something I think I have ever said, mostly because I don’t know exactly what “deserve” means in this context. But if it’s there, and I missed it, I stand to be corrected.
As for the main question of Romney and the various Cares, Romney’s position was disingenuous and self-serving, unless he’s a whole lot less sophisticated a thinker and analyst than he claims to be. Without going into too-granular detail, our federalist system of health insurance has for decades been flying in the face of American realities, both demographic and business. We have a mobile national population and a national business economy. To say that someone who lives in Missouri is so different than someone who lives in Mississippi that an entirely different set of health insurance regulation needs to apply is ludicrous — especially if you consider that when that Mississippian moves to Missouri, he is not a different person with different needs. Heritage saw that, those promoting national health insurance saw that, and Romney saw that. He just couldn’t say it politically, so that he could become the President.
There are BIG differences between Romneycare and Obamacare.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2012/09/25/jonathan-grubers-new-analysis-of-obamacare-and-romneys-health-reform-plan/