After last night's speech by President Barack Obama, the Republicans had Congressman Charles Boustany (R-LA) give the rebuttal. All Boustany accomplished was recycling some of the worn-out Republican talking points.
What Boustany did was provide us with a rough outline of what the Republicans health care reform plan looks like. And I use the term "reform" loosely.
The Republicans keep repeating this line or a line similar to it: We do not want a government takeover of the health care program. Of course, none of the plans (with the exception of H.R. 676) would provide for a single-payer, government-run health insurance system. What President Obama proposed last night is not a government-run system. What Democrats have been discussing for the last few months is not a government-run system. Are there supporters for such a system? Yes. But the support consists of about one-quarter of the House of Representatives (all on the Democratic side). So the chances of a government-run system happening are slim to none.
But why do the Republicans continue to use this line? To capitalize on the anti-government sentiment that will energize their base. As you will see, the Republicans idea of health care reform isn't really reform at all. They talk about some of the key problems with health care, such as costs and quality, but drop the ball on one important element that is safe for them.
Boustany pushed the anti-government rhetoric last night:
"Replacing your family's current health care with government-run health care is not the answer. In fact, it'll make health care much more expensive. That's not just my personal diagnosis as a doctor or a Republican; it's the conclusion of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office – the neutral scorekeeper that determines the cost of major bills.
Boustany wasn't listening and many Republicans weren't listening. Factcheck.org debunked this months ago. What Obama is pushing is not government-run health care. However, here's a good question: If Republicans want to alienate those who receive government-run health care or insurance, why don't they oppose Medicare? Why don't they oppose TRICARE for members of the military? Why don't they oppose Medicaid?
Last night, Boustany also repeated that the GOP wants to lower the cost of health care five times and said twice that the GOP wants to improve the quality of care. For all the spin last night and this morning that the President did not provide specifics, the Republicans are big on vague language.
We all can agree that the cost of health care is high. When nearly one-sixth of our GDP is dedicated to health care spending, there is a problem. Even further, when health care costs are high and the quality of that health care is average or slightly above average, there is a big problem.
But these are not new problems. These are not things we didn't already know. So what Boustany achieved last night in his speech was repeating the obvious. On the early talk shows this morning, Republicans talk about lowering the costs of health care and improving quality, but they do so without offering a real plan. Saying you want to lower costs and improve quality keeps everything simple (which is what the GOP has done throughout this entire debate), but it falls short of pushing actual reform.
There were two points Boustany made about the GOP health care plan. One was allowing families buy insurance across state lines. The other was medical liability reform.
Yesterday, I supported in a post the idea of medical liability reform. I do think it has to be done within reason, but I am not opposed to it. I know that puts me at odds with progressives and the Democrats, but if that's what it takes to get reform done with a strong public option in the bill, then I am for it. I believe that there are some frivolous lawsuits out there that we can get rid of. The Republicans have a point when they say this.
The other proposal is one that Senator John McCain pushed on the campaign trail, but unfortunately, it's one that has been shown to be an ineffective idea. Allowing people to buy insurance across state lines would do the following, according to the New America Foundation:
As we enter the home stretch of a long presidential campaign, the good news is that both major candidates recognize that our health care system, especially the insurance marketplace, does not work well. The concept of selling health insurance across state lines has been included in health care proposals put forth by several Members of Congress and most recently in the campaign plan of Republican presidential nominee, Senator John McCain.
Allowing insurers to sell insurance across state lines would not work as advertised. While it may help the young and healthy, it will have a devastating impact on the insurance market for everyone else (and none of us will be young and healthy forever).
* premiums would rise for many people,
* benefits would be less-generous,
* more Americans would likely become uninsured over time.
This policy approach fails to provide the incentives necessary to transition insurers to a 21st Century business model that values care coordination and high value care over underwriting and marketing. Without substantial additional reforms, the proposal to sell insurance across state lines will not work for most Americans.
The New America Foundation authored a policy paper on this issue. They showed why it would be ineffective. The Republican thought is that people will go to the states with lower premiums. They are right. As a result, however, that would put unnecessary burdens on those states and lead to higher premiums anyway and would make the insurance market worse than it already is.
To summarize the Republican plan, they are focused on lowering the costs and improving the quality. They also would like to see medical liability reform. They are now pushing letting families buy health care across state lines and they are against a government takeover of the health are system. Not very specific, is it?
Thus, the problem the Republicans have and why we need to remind Americans of it. The Republicans are the party of no ideas. They aren't just the "party of No." They are the party of no ideas. Saying things like "we need to lower the cost of health care" is what millions of Americans with insurance are saying every day. We know that's a problem. It is nice to repeat that, but it would be better to, as members of Congress, propose a plan to lower those costs. The plans the Republicans pushed forth would only raise those costs (the interstate plan, for example).
It is also nice to repeat that we need to improve the quality of care. Millions of Americans with insurance can tell you this. We don't need to be reminded of this. We know what the problem is. We need a proposal or solution.
While support for medical liability reform is good, it should not be the main piece to the health care reform puzzle. It is one of many elements, but it will not do what some Republicans believe it will do. It will not, by itself, dramatically lower costs. Will it prevent unnecessary tests that cost money? Yes. But it will not lower premiums. It will not lower the cost of care, at least significantly.
That is what the difference is between the Democratic plans and the Republican plan. They are focused on everything except access to care. We are focused on everything INCLUDING access to care. Access to care is a huge issue that the Republicans ignore and we debate. We need to lower costs. We need to improve quality. But we also need to get the nearly one-sixth of this country without health insurance covered. Without that, we haven't reformed anything.
What do the Republicans have for a plan? Not much, really. They can hold up their bills in the House during the President's speech. They can shout out at the President. But really, what do they have to offer to the debate other than these tactics?
Nothing except more of the same we have been hearing for a long time now. That's not reform. That's stagnation.