RSS Feed MenuConservatives went into the healthcare fight with many tactical advantages.
1) We were the party of the status quo … always the strongest position in America’s interest-bound politics.
2) We were the party in opposition – and people of widely different points of view will find it easier to unite around what they oppose than what they support.
3) We could raise questions that forced proponents into the impossible position of having to prove negatives. Could they PROVE the plan did NOT create death penalties? Could they PROVE the plan would NOT promote abortion?
4) The healthcare consumers who will lose under the plan – enrollees in Medicare Advantage – are the country’s best informed and most active citizens. The winners – recent immigrants, the very sick – are people who do not normally involve themselves in politics much.
Those tactical advantages were offset by a strategic dilemma, and it’s that dilemma that may have proved fatal.
Republicans and conservatives want two things in the healthcare debate:
1) They want to hold the line on costs, because those costs fall heavily on core Republican constituencies: small business, the elderly.
2) They want to preserve the freedom of healthcare providers to do business in their own way, free of government interference.
But of course you can’t have both!
In past debates, the GOP tilted more in favor of principle 1. But this year it was principle 2 that usually received precedence. (Perhaps because so much of the money and energy behind the tea party movement was quietly provided by people with a strong financial stake in principle 2.)
Complying with principle 2, we argued that any reduction of health spending in any way or form amounted to state-sponsored mass murder; any impinging on the freedom of doctors and insurers to carry on their business as they pleased amounted to fascist tyranny.
But the more we urged principle 2, the more we cut ourselves off from the institutional supporters of the Republican party, the taxpayers, small business owners and corporate leaders most concerned with principle 1.
Not that the Democrats did so much better with the groups that cared about principle 1. They threw away that opportunity by their own misplaying. But they didn’t need those groups as intensely as the Republicans did.
Without them, it proved impossible to constrain the votes of moderate senators. In the end, even Joe Lieberman – sensitive as he was to industry concerns – knuckled under to the Democratic party whip.
It would be premature to say conservatives have lost this fight. There’s still hope. But it grows faint … and our own miscalculations explain much of why.
teabag // Dec 21, 2009 at 7:39 pm
The GOP history of obstructing the basic needs of Americans.
“It may be impracticable that our distinctively American experiment of individual freedom should go on.”
—Senator David Hill (D-NY), in 1894, bemoaning the creation of a federal income tax
“Woman suffrage would give to the wives and daughters of the poor a new opportunity to gratify their envy and mistrust of the rich. Meantime these new voters would become either the purchased or cajoled victims of plausible political manipulators, or the intimidated and helpless voting vassals of imperious employers.”
—Former President Grover Cleveland, in 1905, on why women shouldn’t be able to vote
“[T]he child will become a very dominant factor in the household and might refuse perhaps to do chores before six a.m. or after seven p.m. or to perform any labor.”
—Senator Weldon Heyburn (R-ID), in 1908, on why child labor should remain unregulated
“I fear it may end the progress of a great country and bring its people to the level of the average European. It will furnish delicious food and add great strength to the political demagogue. It will assist in driving worthy and courageous men from public life. It will discourage and defeat the American trait of thrift. It will go a long way toward destroying American initiative and courage.”
—Senator Daniel O. Hastings (R-DE), in 1935, listing the evils of Social Security
“[I]t would make it practically impossible for any publisher in the United States to accept any food, drug, or cosmetic advertising without facing squarely into the doors of a jail.”
—Federal Trade Commission Chair Ewin L. Davis, in 1935, on the dangers of empowering the Food and Drug Administration to regulate the food, drug, and cosmetic industries
“I do not think we can take the Chinese with their habits and mentalities in this year and time into our great American melting pot and in ten years or a hundred years bring them up to our standards of civilization.”
—Representative Compton I. White (D-ID), in 1943, on why we shouldn’t allow Chinese nationals to immigrate or become U.S. citizens
“[The Act represents] a step in the direction of Communism, bolshevism, fascism, and Nazism.”
—The National Association of Manufacturers, in 1938, condemning a national minimum wage and guaranteed overtime pay
“It is destroying the amicable relations between the white and Negro races that have been created through 90 years of patient effort by the good people of both races. It has planted hatred and suspicion where there has been heretofore friendship and understanding.”
—Senator Strom Thurmond (D-SC), Senator Richard Russell (D-GA), and other Southern legislators, in 1956, describing the perils of integrating public schools
“It is socialism. It moves the country in a direction which is not good for anyone, whether they be young or old. It charts a course from which there will be no turning back.”
—Senator Carl Curtis (R-NE), in 1965, opposing Medicare
“[T]his bill could prevent continued production of automobiles . . . [and] is a threat to the entire American economy and to every person in America.”
—Lee Iacocca, executive vice president of Ford Motor Company, in 1970, on why the government shouldn’t regulate airborne contaminants that are hazardous to human health
“The effects include serious long-term losses in domestic output and employment, heavy cost burdens on manufacturing industries, and a resultant gradual contraction of the entire industrial base. The irony of this bleak scenario is that these economic hardships are borne with no real assurance they would be balanced by a cleaner, healthier environment.”
—The National Association of Manufacturers, in 1987, on the perils of an emissions reduction program to combat acid rain
“The doctor begins to lose freedoms; it’s like telling a lie, and one leads to another. First you decide that the doctor can have so many patients. They are equally divided among the various doctors by the government. But then the doctors aren’t equally divided geographically, so a doctor decides he wants to practice in one town and the government has to say to him you can’t live in that town, they already have enough doctors. You have to go someplace else. And from here it is only a short step to dictating where he will go.”
—Ronald Reagan, in 1961, arguing against the creation of Medicare
The more things change the more they remain the same.
sinz54 // Dec 21, 2009 at 9:02 pm
anniemargaret: If you lost your job and your insurance,…. and was turned down by insurance, do you change your mind?
That’s what happened to me.
Unlike “WillyP,” I got sick as a working adult. I fell into the usual trap with life-threatening illness: Couldn’t work anymore (at least not till my condition was stabilized), lost my job, lost my group health insurance, and could not even apply for individual health insurance due to my new “pre-existing condition.”
What saved me was RomneyCare, and the fact that I live in Massachusetts where RomneyCare had gone into effect. RomneyCare offered me a number of options to get most of my hospital bills paid, thank goodness.
RomneyCare is a counterexample to the Dem charge that the GOP has nothing to say on health care. Romney implemented near-universal coverage in Massachusetts, years before Obama was ever elected President.
But since staunch conservatives like “WillyP” and “MI-GOPer” are opposed to any government initiatives that make insurance companies do things they wouldn’t want to do, Romney was forced to run away from his own achievement. When campaigning for President in 2008, he never spoke of RomneyCare before a GOP audience.
franco 2 // Dec 21, 2009 at 9:12 pm
What a lovely party we have here! A Bunch of left-wing commies and one sole dissenter in Willie P, a patriot and ten times smarter than all of you pathetic losers. And all hosted by Frum the Centrist.
The fundamental illusion you all seem to share is that one person’s labor should go towards another, which is really slavery which y’all think is so bad. Yes you are hypocrites on top of being idiots, and you wrap it up in moralism. You lefties are the most moralistic fucks, making the preachers look like amateurs.
No one is entitled to ANYTHING not food, not a job, and not health care.
A doctor doesn’t have to be a doctor. Why should he/she learn, go into debt, spend time and emotional capital dealing with sick and dying people, invest money to set up a practice, spend years studying SCIENCE the very subject you fuckers HATED in school. The most boring, challenging subject and ALSO having to have a bedside manner that enables you the patient to digest the bad news that you are going to die. Having to tell loved ones that someone died.
These people are supposed to just give you what you want for a pittance. Well, you commies, you will never get people to do this kind of work for nothing, no matter how many laws you make. And take full notice: None of these Senators are subject to the wonderful plan they have given you. And you are all too stupid to get that, preferring your own illusions.
SpartacusIsNotDead // Dec 21, 2009 at 9:26 pm
Sinz wrote: “RomneyCare is a counterexample to the Dem charge that the GOP has nothing to say on health care.”
I’m not aware of any Republicans outside the very liberal state of Massachusetts who believe RomneyCare is good policy. Certainly there are no Republicans of national renown who favor RomneyCare.
Moreover, while Romney deserves credit for supporting HCR in MA, let’s not kid ourselves about which political forces were responsible for developing and enacting the reforms. That credit goes to those who are left-of-center.
No matter where you look, there is not a single issue or challenge confronting the country for which conservatives have a viable solution or are capable of making a positive contribution. They exist only for the purpose of opposing ANYTHING and EVERTHING proffered by Democrats without regard for the merits of the proposal.
teabag // Dec 21, 2009 at 9:29 pm
Franco 2 , you were a joke when you were Franco now as Franco 2 you are even funnier. Go back to Redstate please. You are a parody of a rethuglican surely.
teabag // Dec 21, 2009 at 9:36 pm
Fourteen-year-old Brendan Staub of St. Louis County, Mo., may max out his insurance policy before doctors even figure out what’s wrong with him. For the past six years, Staub has had frequent seizures because of a strange neurological disorder that doctors cannot diagnose. He receives regular treatment at the Mayo Clinic — which comes with a $15,000 price tag every three weeks. If that keeps up, he will reach the $1.5 million limit on his health insurance policy within two years, reports the St. Louis Post-Dispatch’s Christine Byers. He has already used about $1.1 million.
Brendan’s treatment already costs his family about $1,000 out-of-pocket. To help the Staubs deal with the expense, friends and family have started Brendan’s Buddies, a foundation to help Brendan and other children with neurological disorders. They have raised about $80,000 so far, according to the Post-Dispatch.
And this is what Republicans are proud to fight to retain. Idiots.
CentristNYer // Dec 21, 2009 at 9:57 pm
franco 2 // Dec 21, 2009 at 9:12 pm
“What a lovely party we have here! A Bunch of left-wing commies…”
Thanks, Franco — you always come through to prove my point!
franco 2 // Dec 22, 2009 at 7:15 am
Hey TEABAG,
Fourteen-year-old Brendan Staub of St. Louis County, Mo., MAY max out his insurance policy before doctors even figure out what’s wrong with him. AND IN THE WORLD OF SOCIALIZED MEDICINE DOCTORS WILL BE LESS COMPETENT TO DIAGNOSE LITTLE BRENDEN AND HE’D LIKELY BE WAITING… For the past six years, Staub has had frequent seizures because of a strange neurological disorder that doctors cannot diagnose. He receives regular treatment at the Mayo Clinic — which comes with a $15,000 price tag every three weeks. REALLY, AND YOU THINK HE WOULD BE GETTING THESE TREATMENTS EVERY THREE WEEKS UNDER HARRY REID’S PLAN? If that keeps up, he will reach the $1.5 million limit on his health insurance policy within two years, reports the St. Louis Post-Dispatch’s Christine Byers. He has already used about $1.1 million.
THIS IS OBVIOUSLY A GODAWFUL CASE BUT TEABAG AND REID HAVE NO SOLUTIONS FOR THIS EITHER -IN FACT BRENDEN WOULD BE WORSE OFF!
Brendan’s treatment already costs his family about $1,000 out-of-pocket. PER MONTH? PER YEAR? WHAT? AND TELL US, GENIUS, WITH THE INSURANCE COMPANY PAYING ALL THIS MONEY 1.5 million, the family should not have to chip in, just a bit? To help the Staubs deal with the expense, friends and family have started Brendan’s Buddies, a foundation to help Brendan and other children with neurological disorders. They have raised about $80,000 so far, according to the Post-Dispatch.
IN CASES LIKE THIS ONCE INSURANCE RUNS OUT DOCTORS WILL REDUCE THEIR FEES DOWN TO ZERO, AND KEEP TREATING HIM. UNDER THE DEMOCRAT PLAN BRENDEN WOULD BE GIVEN SOME ANTI-SEIZURE DRUGS AND TOLD TO GO HOME. NO DOCTOR WOULD BE ALLOWED TO TREAT BRENDEN AT $15,000 A POP.
Your is quite sad, I’m sure you have donated money to this cause. No? You just want others to be forced do so while you whine. And you think a Socialized medicine would give this poor child relief? He’d still be waiting to see a doctor in your socialist utopia.
Lentrist
What point? That you are a closet lefty?
franco 2 // Dec 22, 2009 at 7:16 am
Teabag. You are the joke. Your name is a pathetic joke. Teabag me…
WillyP // Dec 22, 2009 at 9:08 am
teabag says:
teabag // Dec 21, 2009 at 6:15 pm
WilleyP
Your whole attitude reeks of being an unsavory radical Fascist. You are totally intolerant, do you believe in a master race?…
The fact is that you have received great care here in the USA. Probably because your father had a good job with great benefits.”
Considering that I’m arguing the classical liberal line, and you’re arguing the National Socialist line, I think you should be more careful who you call a Fascist. Then again, the “Left” never comprehended that national welfare programs are antithetical to true liberalism.
Full disclosure: My father did not have a “good job with great benefits.” My care was paid in part by my extended family, and in part by the state. When the state isn’t BANKRUPTED by financing the entire healthcare system, they can afford to treat patients who REALLY DO NEED CARE.
Look, talking with a double digit IQ is frustrating. But it’s a simple analogy – bigger pie, bigger piece for everyone. And since the PRIVATE SECTOR MAKES THE PIE, the bigger the private sector, the bigger the potential public sector. And isn’t it also worth mentioning: when statists take over the economy, like the New Deal and like now, people LOSE THEIR JOBS and lose their wealth, depleting the extended family networks that now and then people must rely on? The ability for society to solve its own problems is called SOCIAL POWER, and is the polar opposite of STATE POWER.
Frankly I wish you’d go back to the U.K., and cast your votes there.
WillyP // Dec 22, 2009 at 9:34 am
annie says:
“You go to the extreme here calling anyone who calls attention to this serious problem as some type of communist or ’stalinesque’. Absurd. Are you saying that we (meaning Democrats and Republicans and those inbetween) cannot figure out a more meaningful solution to this problem than either 1) ignoring it or sweeping it under the rug or 2) shouting out epithets against those who do think there is a problem and want to address it in a meaningful way?
I won’t apologize for my ‘compassion’ Willy. And if you know what ‘compassion’ is in healthcare, what does it mean for you? If you lost your job and your insurance, or if you child had a pre-existing condition (as does one of mine who has a disabling illness), and was turned down by insurance, do you change your mind?”
Considering that the government is taking over healthcare, blocking the opposition party from meaningful input, insists on squaring the circle through statist, non-market “reforms,” and completely mischaracterizes or lies about the nature of the criticisms of the opposition, I do not consider my “stalinist” comments very far exaggerated. Are they purging Republicans? No. Are they conducted a smear campaign, and basing their plan off the demonstrably failed model of central planning, all while praising the accomplishments of Canada and the U.K. without recognizing the colossal failure of their systems? Yes, without a doubt. That’s dubious behavior, deserving of the strongest condemnation.
I do not think that anyone whose default position is “universal coverage” is capable of solving the position. That’s a GOAL. It is not a plan, much less a WORKABLE plan. It’s a silly catch phrase that morons throw around to get elected. A meaningful solution would be nurturing the market system, which provides everything from car insurance for the ambulances, to doctors’ cell phones, to the medical devices used for treatment, and nearly everything else you use on a daily basis.
The world isn’t utopia. There is rationing under both systems – private and public. Acknowledging this fact, I naturally prefer the system that rations less, and provides more options. That is the private sector.
All you hacks unfailingly paint yourselves into the corner. You may be successful in providing every citizen (and illegal alien) a stupid pink card that says “U.S. Insured.” It may be issued at the time of birth, and come with certain “rights.” However, you cannot provide more coverage, you cannot provide better care, you cannot provide more personalized attention. All your schemes ultimately fail. Yet in your fetish for universal coverage, you will sacrifice the rest of us.
AND STILL CALL YOURSELVES COMPASSIONATE! Liars and knaves!
WillyP // Dec 22, 2009 at 9:47 am
As for “Romneycare,” it will be plagued by the same problems as all other state insurance programs. Chronic underfunding, cost overruns, misallocation of resources, a smaller number of doctors, and finally (and certainly) rationed care.
Central planning has a timelessness to it, you know.
WillyP // Dec 22, 2009 at 9:49 am
And to further cement my point, what about private sector charities that serve the families of the ill?
http://rmhc.org/
Should we seize their assets, too?
CentristNYer // Dec 22, 2009 at 9:55 am
WillyP // Dec 22, 2009 at 9:34 am
“Considering that the government is taking over healthcare, blocking the opposition party from meaningful input…”
This is the same opposition party that killed reform in the mid-1990s and sat on their hands for a decade and a half when they could have taken the lead. For them to complain now that they didn’t have an opportunity to provide “meaningful input” is the height of hypocrisy.
WillyP // Dec 22, 2009 at 9:56 am
centrist,
so instead of supporting real reform, you’re going to throw in with the commies? real principled.
sinz54 // Dec 22, 2009 at 10:27 am
WillyP: The world isn’t utopia. There is rationing under both systems – private and public. Acknowledging this fact, I naturally prefer the system that rations less, and provides more options.
Provides more options to whom???
In the current American system, if you’re not employed by some corporation that gives its employees group health insurance as a tax-free fringe benefit, you’re out of luck.
If you’re self-employed, you have few options. And if you’re self-employed and have a pre-existing condition, and you don’t live in Massachusetts or other state that has enacted its own reforms, you have NO options–except to pay for your health care out of pocket.
sinz54 // Dec 22, 2009 at 10:29 am
SpartacusIsNotDead: Moreover, while Romney deserves credit for supporting HCR in MA, let’s not kid ourselves about which political forces were responsible for developing and enacting the reforms.
Yep.
Romney pushed for universal coverage before the MA state legislature ever did.
He was ahead of the curve, as far as the MA government goes.
sinz54 // Dec 22, 2009 at 10:32 am
SpartacusIsNotDead: No matter where you look, there is not a single issue or challenge confronting the country for which conservatives have a viable solution or are capable of making a positive contribution.
You’re wrong,
especially in issues like education, defense procurement reform, etc.
But that would be off-topic for this discussion thread.
In fact, I grew up in New York City, where liberals WRECKED the New York City public school system. I just managed to graduate before the system was destroyed.
WillyP // Dec 22, 2009 at 10:38 am
sinz says
“In the current American system, if you’re not employed by some corporation that gives its employees group health insurance as a tax-free fringe benefit, you’re out of luck.
If you’re self-employed, you have few options.”
And why, instead of eliminating perverse tax incentives, do people wish to wreck it all with a single payer system? Fix the tax system, and eliminate a huge % of the problem.
What sense does it make to fix 10% of the system and ruin the other 90%? It doesn’t make any.
sinz54 // Dec 22, 2009 at 10:38 am
franco 2: IN CASES LIKE THIS ONCE INSURANCE RUNS OUT DOCTORS WILL REDUCE THEIR FEES DOWN TO ZERO, AND KEEP TREATING HIM.
Who’s going to pay to run the machines in the laboratories, the CT scans, the X-rays, etc. That all costs money to maintain.
The money to run the hospital facilities will be carried back as an overhead charge on all those hospital patients who are insured.
But this young man’s case does suggest something: It’s possible to keep folks alive today that couldn’t have been kept alive 50 years ago–but at an extremely high cost. The most expensive year of your life, as far as health care is concerned, will be the last year of your life. Studies have proven this.
My dialysis costs $80,000 a year, every year, for as long as I live (unless I get a kidney transplant, which costs even more but is a one-time charge). It’s not just the doctors’ fees. It’s the running of the dialysis clinic, with expensive dialysis machines, climate control, electricity, a miniature chemical plant that mixes all the needed chemicals and purifies the water, and a portable generator in case of a power outage.
There is no magic cheap alternative to this.
An authoritarian society might question whether it’s worth it to keep these kidney patients alive at such a high cost.
WillyP // Dec 22, 2009 at 11:11 am
sinz says:
“An authoritarian society might question whether it’s worth it to keep these kidney patients alive at such a high cost.”
I had an aunt who was on dialysis for years, and I understand (second hand) what a torture it is. She eventually received a kidney, thankfully.
I think you’re quite correct. If you are unemployed and costing THE STATE ~$100,000 a year, eventually a disconnected bureaucrat is going to “reallocate” your resources to more politically viable persons/taxpayers. You will be looked at as a drain on the system, which according to the numbers you are.
I think these healthcare nuts should consider the case of the quintessential bureaucrat, Eichmann, who was unconcerned with the end results of his decisions. He was a dedicated “social servant,” following protocol according to the state’s recipe. To be clear (since subtlety does not run high in forums), I am not comparing Democrats to Nazi exterminators. However, Eichmann certainly believed in his cause, as much (or more than) the health reformers of today. When, in the not so distant future, the healthcare bureaucrats of the Federal government are faced with a terrible decision, they will not even acknowledge the tragic choice involved in ending a desperate patient’s dialysis regimin and treating a premature infant. Almost certainly, they will end the dialysis treatment with the full gusto of one who is convinced that all is right and proper with their decision. After all, it has been sanctioned by the State, “democratically” decreed, and the apparatus signed into law. Remember! You’re in the business of HEALTHCARE!, they’re continually assured.
One may, I suppose, counter that a sick parent would give his life for her sick child. This action is understandable, even commendable. Still, I would question the compassion of one who would presume to make that choice for the parent.
The methodology is the same; the technic analogous. Although motives may be different, the end results of bureaucritization are predictable.
WillyP // Dec 22, 2009 at 12:55 pm
Most Americans OPPOSE the healthcare reform as-is.
“Quinnipiac University’s Polling Institute in Connecticut surveyed 1,616 registered voters from Dec. 15-20 and found 53% “mostly disapprove” of the health care changes being considered in Congress, compared to 36% who “mostly approve.” Meanwhile 56% disapprove of Obama’s handling of the issue compared to 38% who approve.”
http://www.freep.com/article/20091222/NEWS15/91222024/1322/Poll-Most-Americans-against-health-care-reform
tbetz // Dec 23, 2009 at 10:47 am
“3) We could raise questions that forced proponents into the impossible position of having to prove negatives. Could they PROVE the plan did NOT create death penalties? Could they PROVE the plan would NOT promote abortion?”
Thank you, David, for making it very clear (as if it were not already obvious to many of us) that you Republicans must rely upon logical fallacies (and the ignorance of uneducated people who do not understand the principles of reasoned discourse) to achieve your nefarious ends. For you, Power overcomes Principle every time, and as you proved when you worked for the Bush administration, you have no qualms whatsoever about lying to Americans if it will give you the slightest temporary political advantage.
Get your News: Get live news from all around the world » Your Abbreviated Pundit Round-up // Dec 23, 2009 at 11:43 am
[...] David Frum: Why the GOP Lost the Healthcare Fight [...]
ursinho // Dec 23, 2009 at 12:48 pm
WillyP,
Here’s a simple question for you. How do you feel about democracy?