The Conservative Case for Obamacare

[Greenbeard]

A fellow at the conservative American Enterprise Institute makes it today.

The counterargument to Obama used to be that the policy was perfectly fine, it just wasn't permissible to do it as a federal-state partnership (though, arguably, Romney's version already was, since it needed federal support). We found out in June that isn't the case and that Obamacare is just as constitutional as Romneycare. So now all that's left is the policy discussion and that's actually quite amenable to conservative principles.

The Conservative Case for Obamacare

IN the partisan war sparked by the 2008 election, Republicans conveniently forgot that this was something many of them had supported for years. The only thing wrong with the mandate? Mr. Obama also thought it was a good idea.

The same goes for health insurance exchanges, another idea formulated by conservatives and supported by Republican governors and legislators across the country for years. An exchange is as pro-market a mechanism as they come: free up buyers and sellers, standardize the products, add pricing transparency, and watch what happens. Market Economics 101.

In the shouting match over the health care law, most have somehow missed another of its obvious virtues: it enshrines accountability — yes, another conservative idea. Under today’s system, most health insurers (and providers) are accountable to the wrong people, often for the wrong reasons, with the needs of patients coming last. With the transparency, mobility and choice of the exchanges, businesses and individuals can decide for themselves which insurers (and, embedded in their networks, which providers) deserve their dollars. They can see, thanks to the often derided benefits standardization of the reform act, what they are actually buying. They can shop around. And businesses are free to decide that they are better off opting out, paying into funds that subsidize individuals’ coverage and letting their employees do their own shopping, with what is, in essence, their own compensation, relocated to the exchanges.

But perhaps the clearest indication of the conservative economic values underlying the act is its reception by many Democrats. The plan has few champions on the left precisely because it is not a government takeover of health care. It is not a single-payer system, nor “Medicare for all”; it does not include a “public option,” a health plan offered by a federal insurer. It is a ratification of market ideas, modified to address problems unique to health insurance. [...]

Clear away all the demagogy and scare tactics, and Obamacare is, at its core, Romneycare across state lines.

 

[Mad Scientist]

ObamaCare is RomneyCare. Some of us knew that already and that's why I don't expect Romney to move to repeal it if he gets elected.

Both Parties are joined at the hip.

 

[Greenbeard]

That's because is this where our politics has led us: to a fusion of liberal and conservative principles. Cover more people, but do it using market mechanisms and private players.

Both presidential candidates have obviously endorsed this approach in their own ways. And at this point there isn't much out there in the way of alternatives.

 

[Lovebears65]

ObamaCare is RomneyCare. Some of us knew that already and that's why I don't expect Romney to move to repeal it if he gets elected.

Both Parties are joined at the hip.

There is a difference. Romney did it at a state level , Obama did it national. If the states had a vote for it and that state wants it I see no problem with it. But when it is forced down our throats. Plus Mass already had 97 percent of people already that was insured . He only had to worry about 3 percent..

 

[Katzndogz]

obamacare is unconstitutional. Taking the money to fund obamacare is constitutional as part of the taxing authority.

 

[alan1]

That's because is this where our politics has led us: to a fusion of liberal and conservative principles. Cover more people, but do it using market mechanisms and private players.

Both presidential candidates have obviously endorsed this approach in their own ways. And at this point there isn't much out there in the way of alternatives.

More like where the media has led the ignorant.
Claims of a "healthcare crisis" by (primarily leftist) politicians and the media sucks it up and broadcasts it.
And what is the supposed solution? Not changes to healthcare, but rather, changes to health INSURANCE.
Health care isn't a right, health insurance isn't a right.
Alternative that.

 

[Greenbeard]

Not changes to healthcare

Yes, changes to health care. This is where Romneycare and Obamacare diverge, as the latter is comprehensive health reform that encompasses health care, health insurance, workforce development, public health, the public programs (Medicare and Medicaid), you name it. Romneycare, on the other hand, only focused on health insurance.

But in their approaches to health insurance markets, Romneycare and Obamacare are very similar indeed.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

2700 page bill

5000 pages of regulations (so far)

yeah, all great civilizations had a health care system like that

 

[California Girl]

One is a state program.

The other is a federal program.

See the difference? If not, you may be too stupid to vote.

 

[Greenbeard]

One is a state program.

The other is a federal program.

That argument lost its legs in June: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf

Given that there's no constitutional issue, it's just good policy now. Even--or especially--Mr. Romney would agree! Besides, exchanges remain in state hands, just as Romney's Commonwealth Connector has and will.

Bill Frist explained the virtue of this state-based approach not too long ago: "Why both parties should embrace ObamaCare's state exchanges"

State exchanges are the solution. They represent the federalist ideal of states as "laboratories for democracy." We are seeing 50 states each designing a model that is right for them, empowered to take into account their individual cultures, politics, economies, and demographics. While much planning has yet to be done, we are already seeing a huge range in state models. I love the diversity and the innovation.

Want a more conservative, small-business focused exchange that bans abortion coverage in all its plans? Try Utah and its state exchange, originally founded under Gov. Jon Huntsman. Think that President Obama missed a huge opportunity to steer the nation towards a single payer system? Try Vermont, which plans to ultimately transform its state exchange into a single payer system, Green Mountain Care, that will offer coverage to all state residents. With soaring health care costs one of, if not the most, dangerous threats to America's greatness, a new round of national health care experimentation is exactly what we need.

An approach that's conservative to its core.

 

[Greenbeard]

I'm still curious why it's conservative when one state uses market mechanisms to get more people covered, but not when every state uses market mechanisms to get more people covered.

 

[squeeze berry]

sure health care needs reformed,but is Obama care the answer?

 

[xsited1]

I'm still curious why it's conservative when one state uses market mechanisms to get more people covered, but not when every state uses market mechanisms to get more people covered.

You're confusing Romney with a conservative. It's a common mistake.

 

[Murf76]

[youtube]EwzYVEunPQ0[/youtube]

 

[francoHFW]

When it is implemented, you will discover what brainwashed fools you are.

 

[alan1]

I'm still curious why it's conservative when one state uses market mechanisms to get more people covered, but not when every state uses market mechanisms to get more people covered.

First, you are mistaken. It wasn't and isn't market mechanisms in either case, it is government mandated mechanisms.
Second, it isn't conservative to allow the government to force people to engage in commerce at either the state or national level.
Third, see the post from xsited1.

 

[Listening]

When it is implemented, you will discover what brainwashed fools you are.

We've already discovered what a brainwashed asshole you are.

 

[Listening]

I'm still curious why it's conservative when one state uses market mechanisms to get more people covered, but not when every state uses market mechanisms to get more people covered.

First, you are mistaken. It wasn't and isn't market mechanisms in either case, it is government mandated mechanisms.
Second, it isn't conservative to allow the government to force people to engage in commerce at either the state or national level.
Third, see the post from xsited1.

Can we chose not to have insurance ?

Not painlessly.

 

[xsited1]

I'm still curious why it's conservative when one state uses market mechanisms to get more people covered, but not when every state uses market mechanisms to get more people covered.

First, you are mistaken. It wasn't and isn't market mechanisms in either case, it is government mandated mechanisms.
Second, it isn't conservative to allow the government to force people to engage in commerce at either the state or national level.
Third, see the post from xsited1.

Can we chose not to have insurance ?

Not painlessly.

Unfortunately, the government in its infinite meddling was the direct cause of rising medical costs. People used to take a more personal role in choosing their health insurance. They were able to tailor-make their policy, but then along came the government that said they had to buy a bigger policy they wanted complete with tests they didn't need. At the same time, doctor salaries skyrocketed. The fact is the government caused the massive increases in health insurance and medical care and now they've returned to 'save the day'. That's a nice scam and they got away with it. Shame on the people for letting this happen.

 

[Polk]

ObamaCare is RomneyCare. Some of us knew that already and that's why I don't expect Romney to move to repeal it if he gets elected.

Both Parties are joined at the hip.

There is a difference. Romney did it at a state level , Obama did it national. If the states had a vote for it and that state wants it I see no problem with it. But when it is forced down our throats. Plus Mass already had 97 percent of people already that was insured . He only had to worry about 3 percent..

That's a weak argument, because Congress is also elected. The ACA is no more being "forced down [your] throat" than any piece of legislation you don't support is.