THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1994, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: FRIDAY, June 10, 1994 TAG: 9406100020
SECTION: FRONT PAGE: A18 EDITION: FINAL
SOURCE: Long
DATELINE: 940610 LENGTH:
The original bill, as drafted by the president's 1,000 secretly chosen outside consultants, was dead before arrival. ``Regional alliances'' and ``managed competition'' were too obviously Rube Goldbergish (and probably require large and explicit tax increases) to be sold to the American people. The president and his congressional allies are now settling for pushing the responsibility for providing health insurance onto business, which also has the virtue of camouflaging the cost. This plan is traveling under the passport of ``universal coverage'' and ``guaranteed private insurance.''
{REST} Universal coverage is one item the president swears he will not yield on, and it is easy to see why. He knows that no matter how it is phased in, triggered or whatever exemptions are carved out, he will plausibly be able to claim he has achieved a goal that has eluded Democrats since the New Deal. Most Republicans are too terrified of what they perceive to be the political consequences of opposing universal coverage that few have done so.
If the Republican Party cannot come out against the nationalization of the health-care industry - with its attendant rationing, shoddy care and spiraling costs - then the party is scarcely worthy of its name.
This Republican reticence is especially hard to understand given the increasing unpopularity of universal coverage among Democrats. California Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein, a co-sponsor of President Clinton's initial plan, has quietly dropped her co-sponsorship. The reason: Republican Rep. Michael Huffington is challenging her and is planning to make her support of health-care mandates an issue in the campaign.
Mandates that businesses pay 80 percent of the cost of health insurance for all their workers, as the Senate Education and Labor Committee voted to do on Thursday, will be a job killer. As Herb Caen, the CEO of Godfather's Pizza, tried vainly to point out to the president during a town meeting a few months ago, he would have no choice but to slash employees to pay the extra costs. Multiply that across the economy, and more people will be looking for work.
William Kristol, of the Project for the Republican Future, has an idea: Republicans should refuse to cooperate in forging any kind of ``bi-partisan'' health-care package until the president explicitly abandons his universal care demand, just as President Bush abandoned his ``no new taxes'' pledge. Any sort of plan will require some Republican support to pass, so the threat would be credible.
And if the president won't give? Then Republicans should be prepared to take their case to the country in the fall congressional elections. They should not be afraid to say that a bad bill is worse than no bill, and use the opportunity to highlight Republican alternatives of targeted reform centered around portability, personal choice and health-care IRAs.
The Clinton plan runs against the grain of the way the world is headed in the computer age: less bureaucracy, less centralization, more freedom of choice. The Clinton plan, or any variation of it, would dragoon Americans into what would amount to a government-run program that would eventually head for the rocks, just as Medicare is doing. What is needed is careful, targeted reform, not a pile-driver approach that would take a system that is working well for 90 percent of Americans and destroy it for everybody.
The next month promises to be a critical one in the nation's health-care debate. Democratic congressional leaders are saying they want the broad outlines of a bill moving toward passage by the July 4 recess. They seem likely to get their way, unless House and particularly Senate Republicans can get up the courage to slam on the emergency brakes and prevent President Clinton from slapping job-killing health-care mandates on employers.
The original bill, as drafted by the president's 1,000 secretly chosen outside consultants, was dead before arrival. ``Regional alliances'' and ``managed competition'' were too obviously Rube Goldbergish (and probably require large and explicit tax increases) to be sold to the American people. The president and his congressional allies are now settling for pushing the responsibility for providing health insurance onto business, which also has the virtue of camouflaging the cost. This plan is traveling under the passport of ``universal coverage'' and ``guaranteed private insurance.''
Universal coverage is one item the president swears he will not yield on, and it is easy to see why. He knows that no matter how it is phased in, triggered or whatever exemptions are carved out, he will plausibly be able to claim he has achieved a goal that has eluded Democrats since the New Deal. Most Republicans are too terrified of what they perceive to be the political consequences of opposing universal coverage that few have done so.
If the Republican Party cannot come out against the nationalization of the health-care industry - with its attendant rationing, shoddy care and spiraling costs - then the party is scarcely worthy of its name.
This Republican reticence is especially hard to understand given the increasing unpopularity of universal coverage among Democrats. California Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein, a co-sponsor of President Clinton's initial plan, has quietly dropped her co-sponsorship. The reason: Republican Rep. Michael Huffington is challenging her and is planning to make her support of health-care mandates an issue in the campaign.
Mandates that businesses pay 80 percent of the cost of health insurance for all their workers, as the Senate Education and Labor Committee voted to do on Thursday, will be a job killer. As Herb Caen, the CEO of Godfather's Pizza, tried vainly to point out to the president during a town meeting a few months ago, he would have no choice but to slash employees to pay the extra costs. Multiply that across the economy, and more people will be looking for work.
William Kristol, of the Project for the Republican Future, has an idea: Republicans should refuse to cooperate in forging any kind of ``bi-partisan'' health-care package until the president explicitly abandons his universal care demand, just as President Bush abandoned his ``no new taxes'' pledge. Any sort of plan will require some Republican support to pass, so the threat would be credible.
And if the president won't give? Then Republicans should be prepared to take their case to the country in the fall congressional elections. They should not be afraid to say that a bad bill is worse than no bill, and use the opportunity to highlight Republican alternatives of targeted reform centered on portability, personal choice and health-care IRAs.
The Clinton plan runs against the grain of the way the world is headed in the computer age: less bureaucracy, less centralization, more freedom of choice. The Clinton plan, or any variation of it, would dragoon Americans into what would amount to a government-run program that would eventually head for the rocks, just as Medicare is doing. What is needed is careful, targeted reform, not a pile-driver approach that would take a system that is working well for 90 percent of Americans and destroy it for everybody. by CNB