The Health Care Summit: the Reality behind the Rhetoric

By: Christopher M. Jaarda

 During Thursday’s White House health care summit, the President stated his intent to focus on the areas of health reform where Democrats and Republicans agreed. The President also asked the summit participants to put away their usual political talking points and to refrain from partisan attacks.

 Following the President’s remarks, Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN) opened for the Republicans. He extended an olive branch to the Democrats and suggested – in an effort to begin anew and put the political acrimony and partisanship in the past – that both parties wipe the slate clean and start over. The willingness of Republicans to work with Democrats and start over in a bipartisan manner after Republicans won the health care debate over the past year should have been welcome news to Democrats. Consider it another Washington bailout, but this one could actually save taxpayers money.

 Despite the President’s request to refrain from talking points and partisanship, when Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) followed Alexander she immediately launched into the Democrat’s usual talking points. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) followed Pelosi and began, in his unique and insipid way, by launching into a partisan attack. He even went so far as to call out Senator Alexander (and later rudely interrupted Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) in the middle of his remarks suggesting Coburn was filibustering).

 So, despite the President’s call to avoid partisan talking points, Pelosi resorted to her side’s talking points within 11 minutes of the close of President Obama’s opening remarks and Reid violated the President’s call to avoid partisanship just 5 minutes later. While Republicans appeared ready to adhere to the President’s request, Congressional Democrats did not.

 Getting to the substance of the debate, it looked as if Democrats had coordinated their message ahead of the carefully-staged, camera-centered confab. Democrat after Democrat spoke about how close the Democrats and Republicans were on key ideas on how to contain costs without sacrificing the quality of care.

 But while the Democrats used their time before the cameras to insist the positions of the parties was a difference without a distinction, the fact of the matter is that these differences are very real and the fiscal, policy and health consequences of the two party’s positions are real as well.

 For example, both parties generally agree that small businesses should be able to pool together to buy insurance for their employees. Republicans believe that these associations of businesses should be able to go to the free-market and negotiate as a group for a plan that best fits the employees’ needs and the employers’ budgets. By contrast, Democrats want the employers to have to go to a government exchange to buy a health insurance policy which would be subject to a series of federal coverage mandates.

 While Rep. Rob Andrews said this was a “semantic difference” the differences are anything but semantic. The purpose of group purchasing, or pooling, is to reduce costs for employers so that more employers can afford to offer coverage to their employees. This would reduce the number of uninsured and, by reducing costs, would also keep insurance affordable so that employers are less likely to drop coverage for their employees. This would reign in health care costs and “bend the cost curve” in the right direction.

 But the kind of coverage mandates being pushed by Democrats could actually jeopardize these potential cost savings. For example, in 2005 the Heritage Foundation concluded that eliminating various state insurance mandates could save each insured $2,000 per year in premium costs. As a result, by pushing mandates instead of allowing for broader negotiations between associations and insurers, the pooling concept proposed by Democrats could actually fail to produce the cost savings that are necessary to expand insurance coverage and reduce the number of uninsured. That kind of difference is anything but “semantic.”

 Another topic of discussion at the summit involved giving consumers the ability to purchase insurance across states lines. President Obama said: "I support the idea of purchasing across state lines" but then appeared somewhat dismissive of the benefits of the idea. As with pooled purchasing, Obama said he wanted anyone purchasing insurance across state lines to have to buy their insurance from a government bureaucracy, instead of through the free-market, and that such plans would be again subject to federal mandates, instead of permitting wide latitude in the kind of coverage plans insurers could offer.

 These mandates will operate to create fewer consumers’ choices and will likely inhibit competition among insurers. With fewer choices and less competition, we can expect the cost of any plan subject to the mandates Obama supports to be more expensive. Accordingly, by creating higher prices these mandates also run counter to the goal of lowering costs and reducing the number of uninsured. Again, the consequences of the policies that Democrats are pushing run counter to the interests of the American people. Namely, to lower costs, cover more people, and give consumers better choices.

 In conclusion, the White House health care summit failed to yield any substantive agreement on the details of a health reform plan. However, Republicans did a good job of putting forth their ideas and explaining those ideas. This should put to rest the Democrats’ talking point that Republicans are simply “the party of no” as Republicans once again put forward constructive solutions to the health care problems facing America. It also demonstrates why the American people are right to distrust the Democrat’s solutions to these problems.

***Christopher Jaarda is an attorney with The John Hancock Committee for the States. His previous experience includes working as a legal counsel and policy analyst for the Republican Policy Committee, one of the key leadership offices, in the United States Senate. His experience includes tax, budget, legal and national security issues."