Over the holiday weekend, I decided to spend some time educating myself on various aspects of the Democrats' proposals for health care reform. One of the things I wanted to learn more about was this "health insurance exchange" we keep hearing about. So I googled it. And what was the first search result I got?
The Heritage Foundation.
That's right, kids. Back in 2006, before there was an actual Democrat in the White House trying to pass health care reform, it seems that health insurance exchanges were actually a great idea.
The article entitled "The Rationale for a Statewide Health Insurance Exchange," which you can read in its entirety here, lays out the case for why this would be helpful. To wit:
Americans get unlimited federal tax breaks for the purchase of health insurance if they receive that coverage through their workplace. Outside of the workplace, however, they almost always pay for coverage with after-tax dollars. Statewide health insurance exchanges are a solution to this inefficient inconsistency, giving individuals and families the opportunity to secure the health plans of their choice without losing tax benefits.
Thanks, Heritage Foundation! I had been wondering where our extremist president gets his wacky ideas--now I see this particular one has been floating around in policy-wonk circles for years.
The piece explains why we need to move away from an employer-based system for health insurance:
Workers who buy health coverage outside of the employer-based system often have to cope not only with high administrative costs and inflexible government mandates, but also with the loss of federal and state tax breaks. The loss of these tax breaks could add 40 to 50 percent to the cost of a policy purchased through the place of work.
Employers do not own auto, life, homeowners’, or property and casualty insurance policies on behalf of their employees. Indeed, most Americans would find such arrangements strange. But in contrast to every other type of insurance in the private market, health insurance in the United States sticks to the job, not the person. Employers own health insurance policies; individuals and families do not.
Ya know, this kind of reminds me of some remarks that candidate Obama made back in 2007--you know the ones--about how how we need to move beyond employer-based health insurance, but it might take 10 or 20 years? Fox News and others on the right have tried to use his comments for the basis of their claim that "President Obama himself has said he wants to get rid of private insurance in 15 years!!"
In case you missed it, here is a link to Mediamatters and their debunking of this talking point here.
In the 2007 "Shocking Video!" that is being posted on right-wing blogs everywhere, he is clearly saying that he wants to move away from an employer-based system "to something more portable."
Now, to find this same argument being made on one of the foremost Obama-bashing websites in the country is just too rich.
By the way, in case you are wondering--as I was--why this common-sense reform measure (then) has now suddenly become part of a secret plot to rob Americans of our freedoms (now)--I mean, other than the fact that the Democrats are pushing it--well, that's a good question...
From what I can tell, reading the anti-reform screeds at this same web site (and there are a lot of them--some in video form, explaining why the Democrats' plan will destroy small business in America), it seems that this was a good idea as long as you are talking about a statewide health insurance exchange. They are firmly against a national exchange. The one teentsy problem with this is that the Democrats' bill calls for the states to set up the exchanges.
I just couldn't believe my eyes when I found this article (although I guess the right's flagrant hypocrisy shouldn't surprise me anymore) and wanted to share.