GOP Senators Don't Even Bother To Defend The Healthcare Bill

Republicans have been unable to mount any kind of serious defense of either the AHCA or the Senate health care bill. That's simply because there is no defense for gutting Medicaid in order to pay for massive tax cuts for the top 5% and even more massive tax cuts for the top earning 400 households.

Last week, Republican Senators were asked to describe what problems the health care bill would solve and not one of them could provide a reasonable answer. Chuck Grassley's comments in response to Vox's Jeff Stein were typical:

Jeff Stein

I want to ask a very broad question: What do you think this health care bill will accomplish that will improve America? What's the positive case for this bill?

Chuck Grassley

Well, I can tell you what it's going to do for Iowa. We are one of those states that in a couple of weeks if [the insurer] Medica pulls out, we'll have 94 of our 95 counties won't have any insurance ,even for people who have the subsidies. That's what we have to concentrate on now.

Jeff Stein

How do you think the bill will fix that problem?

Chuck Grassley

Well, by bringing certainty to the insurance market. They don't have that certainty now.

Jeff Stein

What do you mean by certainty?

Chuck Grassley

Well, they can't even file. They have to check the rates real high if they don't know what the government policy is. And so the certainty is that passing a bill gives the health insurance companies certainty.

Jeff Stein

Wouldn't not passing a bill also do that?

Chuck Grassley

No, it ... well, yeah — it gives them certainty that you'll have a lot higher rates than if you pass the bill.

Jeff Stein

So you're saying [the bill] will lower the rates?

Chuck Grassley

Um, if you're talking about lowering the rates from now down, no. The rates could be way up here. [Points to sky] And if they — if we get a bill passed, it maybe wouldn't go up or would go up a heck of a lot less than they would without a bill.

Jeff Stein

By "rates," are you talking about premiums?

Chuck Grassley

Yeah, premiums. … I'm sorry I have to go.

Yes, Grassley had to go before he buried himself even deeper in his own contradictions and nonsense.

Today, in the NY Times, Wisconsin Senator Ron Johnson wrote an amazing op-ed that claims the Senate bill does not go far enough in cutting government spending on health care. According to Johnson, "The bill’s defenders will say it repeals Obamacare’s taxes and reduces Medicaid spending growth. That’s true. But it also boosts spending on subsidies, and it leaves in place the pre-existing-condition rules that drive up the cost of insurance for everyone." On other words, for Johnson, gutting Medicaid to give huge tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans is an entirely defensible idea and is such an obvious positive development that it apparently requires no discussion. What is indefensible is the idea of forcing insurance companies to cover people with pre-existing conditions. Instead, Johnson would let them just die.

Johnson's expertise in health insurance apparently comes from being an accountant in the manufacturing sector. His depth of knowledge tells him "the private sector is much more effective at solving problems. Concepts like the 'KISS' principle ('keep it simple, stupid'), pursuing continuous improvement and root-cause analysis are core ideas in private-sector problem-solving...[P]atients neither know nor care what things cost. We have virtually eliminated the power of consumer-driven, free-market discipline from one-sixth of our economy...[A] a simple solution is obvious. Loosen up regulations and mandates, so that Americans can choose to purchase insurance that suits their needs and that they can afford."

I'm pretty sure I know who's stupid in this argument. As far as I know, no one has yet come up with a discount version of treating cancer. And, according to Johnson's logic, I should just die if I can't afford it. I hate to ask Johnson if he believes that people should be required to carry homeowners or auto insurance. According to the logic he presents here, I'm afraid his answer would be in the negative. In addition, if he really relied on his experience in manufacturing, he might want to look at how his "competitors" are delivering a better or equal product for much less money. In other words, he might want to look at every other advanced economy that manages to provide universal health care for every one of its citizens at far less cost than we do. But that would be "socialism".

Even more laughable is the fact that Hugh Hewitt believes that Johnson will vote for the bill anyway, despite his editorial claims that the bill "turns its back on this simple solution, and goes with something far too familiar: throwing money at the problem."

Speaking of Hewitt, he wrote on op-ed in the Washington Post today and he could not even muster one word of the 720 he'd written in defense of the Senate health care bill. He did spend one paragraph outlining and overstating the relatively easily fixed problems with Obamacare but not one word about how the Republican plan would address those issues. Instead, the entire editorial amounted to saying that the GOP base will desert elected Republicans if they don't pass this bill.

But that is the box that Republicans have created for themselves. When it comes to health care, they can either be exposed as liars now, by not passing anything, or later, when millions lose coverage and tens of thousands die because of their plan. If you know politicians, and especially Republicans, the option will be to wait until later.