If the states can come up with better plans, let them. Ezra Klein explains:
This morning, Sens. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and Scott Brown (R-Mass.) introduced the “Empowering States to Innovate Act.” The legislation would allow states to develop their own health-care reform proposals that would preempt the federal government’s effort. If a state can think of a plan that covers as many people, with as comprehensive insurance, at as low a cost, without adding to the deficit, the state can get the money the federal government would’ve given it for health-care reform but be freed from the individual mandate, the exchanges, the insurance requirements, the subsidy scheme and pretty much everything else in the bill.
Wyden, with the help of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), was able to build a version of this exemption into the original health-care reform bill, but for various reasons, was forced to accept a starting date of 2017 -- three years after the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act goes into effect. The Wyden/Brown legislation would allow states to propose their alternatives now and start implementing them in 2014, rather than wasting time and money setting up a federal structure that they don’t plan to use.
In general, giving the states a freer hand is an approach associated with conservatives. On Wednesday, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) sent a letter to the Republican Governors Association advocating exactly that. “The most effective path to sustainable health care reform runs through the states, not Washington,” he wrote. If it’s really the case that the states can do health reform better, Wyden and Brown are giving them a chance to prove it.
Do this. This is brilliant, and something that I'd expect all 41 GOP Senators (and Mark Kirk when Illinois gets off their asses) to vote for. If your state can come up with a better plan than Obamacare, then prove it. We'll give you the money to do it.
And it gets even better.
One state that wants to prove it is Sanders’s Vermont. “As a single-payer advocate,” he says, “I believe that at the end of the day, if a state goes forward and passes an effective single-payer program, it will demonstrate that you can provide quality health care to every man, woman and child in a more cost effective way. So I wanted to make sure that states have that option.” Vermont’s governor-elect, Peter Shumlin, is on the same page. “Vermont needs a single-payer system,” he said during the campaign.
Single-payer, of course, is even more objectionable to conservatives than the existing health-care law. But that’s the beauty of this option: It allows the liberal states to go their way, the conservative states to go their way, and then lets the country judge the results. If Vermont’s single-payer system provides universal care at a low, low cost, then maybe that nudges California -- which is facing massive budget deficits -- off the fence. After all, if the state spends less than the government sends it, it gets to keep the remainder. It’s a nice incentive for cost control. And if it works, how long will more conservative states wait before they decide to take part in the savings, too?
But conservatives don’t believe that will happen. They think a consumer-directed system will offer higher-quality health care at a lower price, and with more choice. If Tennessee takes that route and outperforms Vermont, it’ll be their system that spreads across the land.
The funny thing about the health-care reform debate is that for all the arguing, everyone says they’re in favor of it. The GOP’s "Pledge to America," for instance, promises that the Republicans will repeal Obama’s health-care law “and put in place real reform.” Shumlin, too, promises Vermonters that he’ll produce “real reform.” The problem is that no one seems able to agree on what real reform is. The beauty of Wyden and Brown’s approach is that the country doesn’t have to choose.
Even better, individual states can decide, or they can stick with the current schedule of reforms. Let red states and blue states battle it out with their own plans and see which one works. Then all the states can use those plans in their own backyard, and we can put this to rest.
This is exactly what Republicans have been asking for: a chance to prove they can do health care reform better than Obama and the Democrats.
So man up and do it. Let Tennessee try its plan now. Let Vermont try its plan. Let California try its plan. Let Oregon and Massachusetts try theirs. Let's see what works in the real world. Give states the choice. I am all, all for this.
Pass this. Pass this now. This is a brilliant idea. I love it. Wyden-Brown for the win.
And naturally, I bet Republicans go bugnuts and hate it...even though it's exactly what they say they want. What they really want is Obama the villain, and this bill would actually make Republicans have to govern. They don't want that. They want to win. There's a difference.
Having said this, this legislation would force the GOP to go on record as being a bunch of douchebags who don't want to give the states the right to try better programs, but that they just hate Obama and want to destroy him.
4 comments:
Many of us in California are also itching to go single-payer, and our newly elected insurance commissioner is an advocate.
I like this idea. Because letting the states decide has never ever ever gone wrong. Ever.
Seriously though, we've had arguments about letting the states decide--slavery and reproductive rights come straight to mind--and they never turn out well.
I can understand your excitement, but I honestly doubt this will be as good as you think it is.
Alas, the only way this could win Republican favor is if conservative states were allowed to abolish Medicaid and pass laws mandating that hospitals must refuse treatment to indigent patients and leave them to die on the streets. That's the real conservative analogue to single payer.
Of course, and that's why Republicans will filibuster this. They don't want states to decide. They need "Obamacare" to blame everything on for the rest of eternity whenever anything goes wrong.
Post a Comment