If the Democrats' health care package is so great, why are President
Obama and Dem congressional leaders so hungry to share the credit for
its passage with a Republican?
It's not as if D.C. Dems are opposed to hogging the glory when a federal
program is popular. So why did Obama feel the need to announce after the
Senate Finance Committee passed a health care measure with the support
of Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, that the measure "enjoys the support of
people from both parties" when this one bill enjoyed the support of
one lone-wolf Republican?
Obama doesn't need Snowe's vote to pass a measure if he can draw the
support of the Senate's 58 Democrats and two left-leaning independents.
Snowe's vote was hardly pivotal, considering that the committee approved
the measure by a 14-9 vote. Democrats hold a comfortable majority 256
members out of 435 in the House. So why are Obama and company so
desperate to win over a token Republican or two?
Is it the idea that if ObamaCare fails, they want voters to blame the
GOP? Or does the president want to be able to share the blame if a bill
passes and inevitably fails to deliver as promised? No one knows what
the final health care reform bill will look like, but plenty of reasons
remain for voters to be skeptical. Until those who claim the mantle of
reform acknowledge the cost of all the things they want to give
families, they have too many incentives to over-promise and too few
incentives to tell people they can't get something for nothing.
In Washington's standard hide-the-tax fashion, the Senate Finance
Committee legislation would impose an excise tax on "Cadillac"
employer-funded health care plans a 40 percent levy on premiums in
excess of $8,000 per individual or $21,000 per family. So they're taxing
a service to make it cheaper.
Big labor is opposed because "Cadillac" policies can be very working
class. But some on the left support this scheme, in the belief that
taxing health care will control costs by providing employers with
incentives to offer less-generous health coverage.
If this plan passes, workers will have to pay higher premiums and/or
taxes for what they already have. That's more cost shifting than cost
The worst suspicions of the plan's critics thus have been confirmed.
Under ObamaCare, those who have health care will be paying more fair
enough but for less health care which is not so fair.
As for proposed limits on what insurers can charge based on age or
gender again, these schemes don't control costs; they shift costs.
And cost shifting is the practice that has led to runaway health care
spending in America.
With all the freebies thrown into versions of the package with
millions of additional people covered, no denials for pre-existing
conditions, free checkups and preventive procedures ObamaCare can
only increase the nation's health care tab.
"When history calls," Snowe said to explain her vote, "history calls."
Maybe, but history can be like the Delphic oracle: It doesn't always
tell you what you think you hear. The more Washington pads the
guaranteed benefits package, the less incentive Americans will have to
look for savings in their own health care. Snowe and the Democrats may
believe that their plans will cut health care costs, but history
suggests that these paper savings will not materialize.