Get the Ricochet app
Ricochet will work fine in a browser on your mobile devices, but for the best experience please download our app.
The majority party is supposed to lead and set the agenda. That is my understanding based on my really good grades in civics, history and social studies in elementary school back in the middle of the 20th century. An important part of the whole leading thing is having a plan to deal with obvious, foreseeable issues and events.
For example, let’s say, hypothetically, that the American health care system is a fiscal train-wreck, that existing government subsidies wound up going to very upscale individuals and families without really extending coverage to others; that government mandates make health insurance more expensive; or that a lot of people lack coverage—a share of the population that may increase as employers can’t afford to hire and offer coverage because of the persistent rise in the price of premiums.
And also, hypothetically, what if there were a sudden crisis point: say, an end to subsidies that causes Obamacare plans to suddenly become more expensive, followed by a media-fueled concern that access to healthcare is under threat? Again, hypothetically, what if the current congressional minority were to try to seize upon that issue as a rallying point for the midterms? Surely the current majority has a coherent, saleable, detailed plan in place to address the issue before the minority has taken control of the issue. Right? They must. Right?
Some of us are old enough to remember when a pair of brash young campaign managers named Carville and Begala, with help from some really good pollsters, engineered an all-time upset by defeating popular former Governor and USAG Dick Thornburgh in a race for an open Senate seat in PA on behalf of the charisma-challenged Harris Wofford. They won by making poll-tested vague promises to increase access to healthcare. They did not need to offer specifics, merely allude to a willingness to Do Something, unlike the presumptively uncaring opposing candidate.
Even while wearing my favorite, store-bought pundit suit, I don’t have a comprehensive national health care plan somewhere in my notes. However, I do know enough about national politics to know that if there were the appearance of a crisis point in healthcare availability, factually sound lectures about fiscal responsibility, the rightful limited role of the federal government and the inherent flaws of ACA would not comprise a winning campaign strategy unless accompanied by an intelligible affirmative alternative.
I know it’s not very GOP to get in front on some kinds of issues, but maybe it’s time. Democrats can mobilize 45% of voters just by yelling "Trump," "Abortion" and "Racism," even in support of appallingly bad candidates. Healthcare is the kind of issue that could add that key 6%. It is political malpractice not to be ready for that.
Discussion (15)
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
Planning strategy for the future doesn't seem to work for the Republicans. I doubt that they'll be ready.
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
I believe the OP premise is that the Republicans are 10 months late with thier plan already.
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
If the assumptions behind the argument for partially socialized medicine are correct, the only solution for its present failure to deliver on its promises is to make it more completely socialized.
The history of partially socialized medicine since its adoption in the 1960s is one of a series of failures to deliver on its promises, and consequently a steady advance toward totally socialized medicine.
If the Republicans want to “get in front” in this race, they need to become bolder and more open about proposing a more rapid descent upon the Road to Serfdom than the Democrats.
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
The premise seems to he that government and politicians can fix healthcare. Government and politicians caused the problem long before Obamacare. We elect lawyers and idiots. They aren’t going to fix it. The voters won’t let them remove government (and government $) from it.
I remember when we had a family doctor who even made house calls. We patients were the customers. Except for concierge doctors, I don’t think that exists anymore. I love my doctor. He is slave to the whims of Medicare and Tricare for Life. My doctor can’t determine if a medicine is a medical necessity, the insurance company must approve it. My dentist is not a slave to insurance companies. I don’t have dental insurance. If I want to go in again before six months have passed because of vacation plans, I can.
Half of us pay for medical care for 100% of those getting health care. The government is the customer for half of health care and it underpays doctors. Sally Pipes wrote a book about health care problems and fixes (Encounter Books) but who read it?
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
Critics of ObamaCare warned at the time it was being debated that if it passed, it would be nearly impossible to change because it was ubiquitous throughout healthcare. In my mind, I envisioned a computer virus.
This is what Trump ran into his first term.
"Repeal and replace" sounds wonderful on paper, but it may be impossible. The ObamaCare programmers were good with computers, but they didn't know much about patient care or healthcare systems. The doctors couldn't describe what they needed the computers to do well enough for the programmers to do it.
Trying to fix an existing computer system for any organization--and that's what we have now, a monolithic healthcare organization and system--is extremely difficult. When a private organization has to do this, the company has to create, usually over a period of several years, a parallel system that, when completed, the company brings online in one fell swoop as the company simultaneously shuts down the other system. That may be what we would have to do now to fix the existing ObamaCare system. It would be extremely expensive.
Interesting story. Everyone accused Romney of being responsible for the creation of ObamaCare. This was completely off base as accusations go. RomneyCare was not the blueprint for ObamaCare. Not even close. One bit of evidence I always point to in making that case is that when Massachusetts embarked on becoming part of the ObamaCare system, the computer system Massachusetts had built to comply with Romney's plan had to be completely scrapped. RomneyCare was relatively new programming in our state. It then cost us $8 million more to retool our computer systems to comply with ObamaCare. To put the $8 million in perspective, the population of Massachusetts is about 7 million. And not one cent of that $8 million, or the millions of dollars in programming expenditures for the RomneyCare system that was summarily thrown in the trash, fixed a single broken bone in our state.
I can't imagine fixing the entire country's healthcare system at this point, and it seems to be impossible to tweak.
I can really understand the despair that was rampant in the centralized government Soviet Union. Sigh.
You're seeing five of 15 comments. Sign in, or join for just $5 per month, to read them all and add your own.