For the foreseeable future, health care must be the dominant focus of conservative domestic policy.
Sixty-eight years ago, after a long-sought victory in Egypt that marked a turning point in World War II, Winston Churchill said, “This is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.”
In what will be a long and arduous struggle to bring fiscal stability and true reform to our tottering health-care system, partial Republican control of Congress was a necessary first step. But, now, the hard work begins.
The Republican health-care platform, such as it is, is pretty simple: Repeal Obamacare and replace it with incremental, common-sense, politically popular reforms. The GOPs “Pledge to America” may therefore have been an appropriate platform for a midterm election. However, the document barely begins to address the profound and difficult issues that any serious government must. Indeed, if the early signals are any indication, the troubling reality is that the Republican health-care agenda for 2011 and 2012 may actually make it harder to repeal Obamacare in 2013, and thereby harder to achieve conservatives long-term goal of a humane, efficient, and fiscally sustainable health-care system.
The best way to grasp the enormous difficulties ahead is to work backwards.
Runaway growth in government spending is Americas biggest fiscal problem today. Growth in Medicare and Medicaid spending, in turn, accounts for nearly all the projected future growth in government outlays relative to GDP. If the principal domestic-policy goal of conservatives is to restore the country to a truly limited government that can live within its means, we can achieve that goal only through serious and thoughtful reform of health-care entitlements.
That is to say: For the foreseeable future, health care must become the single dominant focus of conservative domestic policy.
Hence, our first and most important problem is intellectual. Conservatives speak often of repealing and replacing Obamacare. But how many can articulate a conservative vision of what our health-care system should look like? Leading Republican politicians have plenty of detailed opinions on a broad range of subjects. But does anyone know what John Boehners vision is for the future of American health care? How about the main contenders for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination? To ask the question is to answer it.
FREEDOM, SECURITY, AND INNOVATION
It should be said that, within the diminutive circle of conservative health-policy wonks, there is a fair amount of agreement as to where we should go. But translating that wonkery into plain English isnt easy.
Among less specialized conservatives, a common refrain is, “Im not clear on the details, but that Paul Ryan sounds like he knows what hes talking about.” And Rep. Paul Ryans plan is indeed a solid start. But unless other Republican leaders fully immerse themselves in health-care policy, they will be able neither to articulate the core principles of free-market health care, nor to address new issues as they arise, nor to persuade American voters that they should be trusted to enact far-reaching reforms.
The core health-care principles that Republicans should embrace can be summarized in three words: freedom, security, and innovation.
First, the conservative vision must, out of both principle and pragmatism, hold that the best health-care system is one that trusts individuals to make the choices that are best for them and their families. The liberal view of health care is the opposite: that individuals are neither knowledgeable enough nor wise enough to make health-care decisions for themselves; instead, these decisions are best left to unelected government experts.
Second, conservatives must stand firmly behind the principle of a safety net for those who are genuinely down on their luck, and also for the principle that those who pay for insurance and play by the rules will get the care that theyve earned, without losing out on technicalities. Liberals might agree rhetorically with these principles, but they use them as a pretext for expanding the entitlement state, with destructive effects: extension of government insurance to those who dont need it, at a cost the country cant afford, and strangulation of private insurers with onerous regulations that the market cant sustain.
Third, conservatives must always keep in mind that the entire point of health care is to extend and enhance life. Thus their vision can include, but must be broader than, the hot-button issues of abortion and stem-cell research. A pro-life health-care policy involves accelerating the pace of medical innovation, by reducing the regulatory and financial burdens we place on the pharmaceutical and medical-device industries. That means strengthening the influence of market forces, as opposed to subsidies and price controls, on the development of drugs and devices. It also means streamlining the FDA so that innovative new therapies can reach the market more quickly and cheaply. It means minimizing, and if possible eliminating, the ability of federal bureaucrats to deny life-extending care.
Liberals, on the other hand, tend to look askance at medical innovation. Most progressive health-care economists blame new medical technologies for rising health-care costs: costs that can, in their view, be lowered only by restricting patients access to those technologies. In addition, new drugs and medical technologies are developed by private companies, for profit: a concept to which many on the Left are instinctively hostile.
Health-care policy is exceedingly complex, and translating these basic principles of freedom, security, and innovation into actual legislation will not be easy. Doing so must start with three policy goals.
First, Republicans must foster a truly free market for health insurance by eliminating the differing tax treatment of employer-sponsored and individually purchased insurance. Second, Republicans must make dramatic improvements to Medicaid, using Mitch Danielss impressive reforms in Indiana as a template. Third, Republicans must move Medicare onto a sustainable path that puts financial control in the hands of seniors themselves rather than central planners.
On all three fronts, Obamacare moves us in exactly the opposite direction. The law will force employers to provide insurance for their employees, instead of allowing them to leave that money in their employees paychecks so that they can buy insurance for themselves. The law will dramatically expand Medicaid in ways that will accelerate the pending bankruptcy of several large states, even though Medicaid provides far worse care than people can obtain on their own. And the law will effectively eliminate Medicare Advantage and other programs that helped move Medicare from its traditional single-payer approach into a more market-oriented one.
THE OBAMACARE TRAP
And so, it remains true that the most critical task for Republicans in the 112th Congress is to lay the groundwork for the ultimate repeal of Obamacare. Given that House Republicans dont have the power to repeal the law by themselves, what can they do in the meantime? More importantly, what should they do in the meantime? The question has been asked, but it hasnt been adequately answered.
We must remind ourselves of the electoral realities. For Republicans to succeed in repealing the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), they will need to control the House, the Senate, and the White House. From a political standpoint, if Republicans are not able to achieve this in 2012, they are unlikely ever to repeal Obamacare.
This means that influential Republican activists mustmustcoalesce around the most electable Republican presidential candidate who can articulate conservative health-care principles. This is no time for single-issue small-ball or personal score-settling. A GOP nominee who passes all the litmus tests but cant win in November would only succeed in making Obamacare permanent. One who can win but isnt capable of pushing for real health-care reform wouldnt be much better.
In turn, this means that Republican presidential aspirants must place health-care policy front and center in their campaigns. They must avoid the easy rhetorical flourishes and expend the time and effort to gain fluency in the complexities and trade-offs of health-care policy. A politician who regularly speaks of fiscal responsibility and limited government without building a mandate for actual, specific legislation to achieve them will not move the country in his direction. This is a time for serious government, and there can be no greater test of a politicians seriousness than his command of health-care policy.
And, of course, in order to repeal Obamacare, Republicans also have to gain control of the Senate. Here, too, we cannot afford any more Delaware Debacles: We need candidates who, whatever their flaws, are electable and who pledge to vote for repeal. A realistic best-case scenario is that Republicans get to between 51 and 55 seats in the upper chamber: a majority, but not a filibuster-proof majority. In the 2010 wave election, they gained six seats, raising their total to 47. Despite the favorable turf in 2012, they are unlikely to win the 13 additional seats needed to reach 60.
Hence, full repeal of Obamacare will require the participation of Democrats. There may be some Democratic senators willing to go along with a repeal effort: Joe Manchin in West Virginia, Ben Nelson in Nebraska, and a few others. But it is very likely that even with those Democrats, there wont be 60 repeal votes in the Senate. If that is the case, then Republicans will need to turn to the reconciliation process to roll back the law.
As we learned last year, the reconciliation process is different from the normal legislative process. The Senate parliamentarian, using Congressional Budget Office estimates, certifies measures that, either by raising taxes or by cutting spending, will reduce the budget deficit. Only deficit-reducing measures can be passed using reconciliation.
The problem for Republicans is that the CBO estimated that the PPACA would reduce the deficit by $132 billion over the 2010-2019 period. Because of amendments passed in late 2010, its likely that the CBOs estimate of the cost of repeal will be even higher in 2013. Hence, a simple, two-paragraph repeal measure wont get through reconciliation.
This is where the agenda of the next Congress comes in. In place of comprehensive health-care reform, House Republicans are promising to reverse some of Obamacares most unpopular elements: for example, the new 1099 provision, which requires that all businesses issue an IRS form 1099 for any payments to vendors of more than $600 per year. The CBO scores this measure as raising $18 billion for the government over ten years: indeed, thats why it was included in the PPACA in the first place. If Congress reduces Obamacare spending elsewhere to “pay for” this tax cut, ultimate repeal could become more difficult.
The individual mandate is a more worrisome example. Last June, the CBO projected that repealing the individual mandate would reduce the deficit by $252 billion in the 2011-2020 timeframe. In making that calculation, the CBO is counting on some people under PPACA paying the fine for not purchasing health insurance, thus increasing revenues to the government; however, repeal of the mandate would generate savings by reducing the number of people who rely on Medicaid and exchange subsidies. If the mandate is eliminated, repealing the rest of Obamacare will become $252 billion harder.
Hence, if Republicans in the 112th Congress succeed in eliminating some of these provisions, they will increase the fiscal cost, as scored by the CBO, of repealing the rest of Obamacare in the next Congress. In addition, every unpopular tax increase that is eliminated now will need to be offset by additional tax increases or spending cuts, which will complicate things when the real repeal effort starts in 2013. Republicans, therefore, may be setting a trap for themselves.
THE REGULATORY INTERREGNUM
Another problem with Obamacare is regulation. The PPACA dramatically expands federal regulatory control over the health-care system, concentrating enormous power within the Department of Health and Human Services. But, because most regulations arent germane to the budget, from a parliamentary standpoint, its far from clear that Republicans will be able to use the reconciliation process to reverse Obamacares substantial regulatory provisions. For example, the PPACA provision requiring health insurers to keep their medical-loss ratios above 80 percenta technicality that will drive many insurers out of businessisnt germane to the budget, but it is highly relevant to the future of the private insurance market.
Precisely because these regulations do not affect the fiscal calculus, and therefore will not undermine Republicans ability to repeal Obamacare after 2012, it is here that the new House majority can be most constructive.
In other words, Republicans will be well advised to adopt a two-track strategy: using the conventional legislative process to turn back as much of Obamacares regulatory architecture as possible, while waiting until 2013 and then using the reconciliation process, to repeal Obamacares tax and spending increases.
Hence, in the near term, Republican policy experts and legislative staffers will need to come up with a comprehensive regulatory strategy, one that will entirely replace Obamacares regulatory architecture with a sounder one that hews more closely to conservative market principles.
The politics of smart regulatory reform are favorable, too. Remember that many of the negative headlines about Obamacare since the law passed have had to do with new regulations: the fact that McDonalds almost dropped health coverage for its junior employees; the aforementioned medical-loss-ratio mandates, which will force many insurers to drop out of the market; the lobbyist-driven ban on new hospital construction, which preserves local hospital monopolies; and on and on. Regulatory reform is an important way for the Republican House to earn its credibility on health-care reform, while calling attention to Obamacares many flaws.
One other thing to keep in mind: The Prescription Drug User Fee Actthe law that Congress uses to oversee the FDAis up for reauthorization in 2012. House Republicans should use this opportunity to reform the FDA and demonstrate that they are on the side of patients who want faster access to innovative new medicines.
MEDICARE AND MEDICAID REFORM
Finally, House Republicans must begin to build the case for real entitlement reform. Medicare is the most politically sensitive subject, but it is one where Paul Ryan has already done most of the necessary groundwork. Medicaid is an even more urgent issue, as many states are sinking under the weight of reckless commitments made by their governors in flusher times.
It will be difficult for Republicans in the next Congress to achieve much on these issues without leadership from the other side. If President Obamas deficit commission is any indication, that leadership does not exist. The commissions report effectively advocated rearranging Medicares deck chairs, and it proposed essentially nothing to address the grave problems with Medicaid.
There is one Medicare-related issue that the next Congress will be forced to deal with: the never-ending saga of Medicares Sustainable Growth Rate, a.k.a. the “doc fix,” which governs how Medicare reimburses doctors and hospitals for their services. Remember that the doc fix was kept out of Obamacare because it would have added $239 billion over ten years to the laws price tag. Republicans will be under significant pressure from the American Medical Association and others to continue to pay doctors and hospitals at current rates, instead of the roughly 25 percent lower rates required by the 1997 Balanced Budget Act.
Its not clear that Republicans should go along. For one thing, the AMA was a strong supporter of Obamacare (albeit over the dissent of many of its members). More importantly, perpetuating the doc fix will cost tens of billions of dollars: money that will have to come out of some other vital priority. Republicans in the 112th Congress will need to consider ways to address the doc fix, and other pressing problems, without jeopardizing their ability to repeal Obamacare in the 113th.
Recent history is not encouraging. In December, with bipartisan support, Congress passed doc-fix legislation that froze reimbursement rates at 2010 levels for 2011, at a cost of $19 billion. The law was “paid for” using gimmickry: an amendment to Obamacare that would require some individuals to pay back insurance subsidies they may receive at some point in the future. Republicans saw this as a victory, as the compromise reduces future Obamacare spending, albeit in a manner that will be difficult to enforce. However, in the medium term, it is a victory for the Democrats, as the measure adds to the difficulty of repealing the entirety of Obamacare using the reconciliation process.
A TIME FOR GROWN-UPS
It has been said that we campaign in poetry and govern in prose. But the experience of Ronald Reagan adds a corollary: Only those leaders who have a command of public policy before their candidacies begin can succeed at both campaigning and governing.
The problems we face are grave. If their solutions were simple, they would already have been tried. Our presidential aspirants and congressional luminaries, as well as the people who elect them, must face up to the difficult choices ahead. If they do, we just may succeed in turning Obamacare back, and putting something much better in its place.
Original Source: http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/256349/obamacare-end-beginning-avik-roy