I received a couple notable reactions to my post from earlier today.
First, “Mike Lee” wondered what exactly I meant by “refinement.”
If you mean just removing the accidental provisions that slipped through, I wouldn’t expect or encourage any Republican to take you up on that. Although Republicans have made use of the “it’s so big you can’t possibly know what’s in it” argument, they have also pointed to several things that we know are in it that they are ideologically opposed to, such as its large price tag, the intrusion into private markets, and the financial mandates on states and individuals. I would support “adjustment” over “repeal,” and I’ve written about one change I’d like conservatives to push for, but I suspect that by “refinement” you have in mind changes of a more limited scope.
What you suspect is correct, Mike. Moreover, regarding the suggestion at your blog that we “pay only for catastrophic plans,” you anticipate one objection: “subsidizing and mandating only catastrophic plans will leave some people without coverage for routine, preventive care.” But there’s a whole other objection I hope you’ll think about: The individuals who have pre-existing conditions that require expensive medications, long term.
I think that’s a category separate and distinct from “routine, preventive care” — and I know an individual who fits in this new category. With the proper medications, this individual will be a productive, taxpaying citizen. Without meds, he won’t be, plain and simple. I’m not saying other taxpayers should pay for his meds, but I think there has to be some law in place that gives him access to an affordable plan that offsets the cost. My hope is that the current law will do just that.
[UPDATE: Mike, formerly the TMV commenter known as “adelinesdad,” responded last night. He wrote: “my definition of ‘catastrophic plan’ includes coverage for those with chronic illnesses. Maybe plans that are currently sold as ‘catastrophic plans’ don’t cover that, but under my plan they would, which I should have made more clear … And my plan would include the anti-price discrimination regulation that is in the bill that was past, but only with respect to the catastrophic/chronic illness coverage.”]
Second, “B. Rohm” — who identified himself as a conservative, not a Republican — offered the following. (It was all one paragraph, so I tossed in a couple paragraph breaks, for the sake of readability; everything else is verbatim from the email.)
I think stating that you won’t repeal this bill and merely fix it is running on the premise that this bill at its heart is a good bill. There are a lot of good ideas in the current law, many of which should be put in any new legislation that would be proposed.
However, I think because the focus of the Democratic leadership was to do a comprehensive bill, there are too many areas that would be effected negatively if they were to fix minor details. To echo the sentiment of the Democratic leadership present at the Health care Summit; when the GOP leadership suggested smaller, successive bills to fix health care, it was stated that everything was related and one thing effected another and it was a domino effect so it was impossible to do anything but a large comprehensive bill. I believe the same argument would hold true in this case as well.
I believe the best thing for the GOP to do if they gain control of the House and/or Senate in the fall would be to propose their own plan, as they did in the Summer of 2009, adding in the key areas that most American’s agree that they want, that are in the current Health care laws. A new law should be drafted with their ideas, Democratic ideas and fixes to any ideas that they liked from the current legislation that were implemented improperly. That legislation should be presented in a way that once the new legislation has passed, the old legislation will be deemed to have been repealed.
We’ll see, although I don’t think the GOP will have the numbers needed to accomplish what B. Rohm suggests — and obviously, I hope they don’t, even though I’d be perfectly fine with a Congress more evenly divided between the two major parties than it is now.