Bob Dole, a leading Republican U.S. Senator for 30 years, Senate Majority and Minority leader, and of course the Republican presidential nominee in 1996, was also apparently something else you probably didn't realize. That's right: by the standards of John Boehner, Eric Cantor and the "Tea Party" people, Bob Dole was clearly a "Socialist." How's that, you ask? Check this out.In 1993, some Republicans believed they needed to come up with an alternative to Bill Clinton’s health care plan (in contrast to the, “Just Say No” approach advocated by Will Kristol at the time, and again today) – with 20 Republican Senators eventually introducing to great fanfare the Dole-Chafee bill. This bill was flawed and politically impossible to get through Congress given the many interests it offended – from labor to the elderly to big corporations. This was because its main goal was to undermine the employer-provided health insurance system and to a lesser degree the government-provided health insurance system. The Republicans saw these as distancing individuals from the cost of their health care decisions and thus as two of the main drivers of increasing costs – though they did not acknowledge or attempt to fix any of the problems which made the individual health insurance market untenable for most. This bill included:That's right, the 1993 Dole-Chafee, Republican health care reform proposal had "many of the same goals" and "similar mechanisms to achieve these goals" as the Democratic health care reform bills that passed the U.S. House and Senate last year. In fact, as this article explains, the Dole-Chafee Republican approach set "goals similar to Clinton's: universal coverage, cost constraints, and quality care...[plus] an individual, not employer, mandate...[that] requires individuals to purchase their own insurance," etc. Or, as this article puts it: "The model the Democrats are working on now clearly owes a great deal to these two Republican attempts at health care reform. It’s a shame that Republicans have now taken to demonizing Obama’s plan on many of the very grounds that would necessarily be at the core of an actual conservative attempt to tackle health care."
*An individual mandate enforced by a penalty imposed on those who did not comply.
*A government voucher to purchase health insurance for individuals to up to 240% of the poverty line. (Which is more generous than the Senate Finance bill which only offered subsidies for families up to 200% of the poverty line.)
*A cap on how much health insurance could be deducted as a tax credit (similar to what the Senate Finance Committee proposed recently, which Republicans denounced as raising taxes.)
*The removal of the tax credit for all private health insurance plans that did not provide a “federally guaranteed package of health care benefits.” (Which is more radical than anything Obama is proposing – and a greater reach of the government into the private sector.)
*The elimination of discrimination on the basis of preexisting conditions.
*Financing through cuts in Medicare Part B and the limits in tax credits discussed above.
In short, by today's Republican standards, Bob Dole and 20+ Republican U.S. Senators back in 1993 must have been "socialists," because the Republicans' 1993 health care reform plan has a great deal in common with today's Democratic plans. Unfortunately, today's Republicans are far, FAR to the right of 1993 Republicans. They also are far more willing to say anything, even if it poisons our political dialog and hurts tens of millions of people in the process, with the sole purpose of seeing that Democrats "fail." It's truly sad to see the intellectual and moral collapse of what was once a great U.S. political party.
P.S. Oh yeah, and let's not forget: it was Republicans who came up with the idea of "counseling for end-of-life issues and care", aka Sarah Palin's "death panels."



You really suck Lowell. I have really taken my hits for supporting Wyden-Bennett, but love many of the proposals of Paul Ryan.
ReplyDeleteAll of the *far wings* hate me now, but Wyden-Bennett is better than Dole-Chafee.
I'm just saying....maybe it's the right thing to do from a real bipartisan perspective!
Once again, just saying....
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteBut maybe it's just as you have stated in your past few post, "a failure to communicate" with the "radical individualist."
ReplyDeleteOr in reality, a failure of the execution of a real reform!
Once again, Just saying...?
So the current Senate Bill seems very similar to the Bob Dole healthcare proposal? Why should I ever vote Democratic again if thats the case? If I want Republican policy shouldn't I vote for them?
ReplyDeleteMike: I'd look at this more as a sign of how far right the Republican Party has moved over the past 15-20 years than anything else. As far as I'm concerned, this health care reform bill is a mixed bag, but on balance is worth passing and then improving down the road. Like Barack Obama, I'm a pragmatist not an ideologue, and in the end I'll settle for half a loaf rather than no loaf at all.
ReplyDeleteObama isn't a pragmatist at all. A pragmatist would understand that the status quo is acceptable. What you are failing to realize is that the population is not stable. In a matter of years (7 give or take) the 70 year old population will have ballooned from 12 million to 35 million people. People in their 70's require the most medical care.
ReplyDeleteWhat the "pragmatists" are proposing is this:
-make some changes that are flawed to begin with
-call it universal healthcare and wed oneself to it
-get hammered as it doesn't work or contain any actual cost control measures
-ignore the actual shortages and problems of a lack of actual medical care
-get hammed in 2010 and 2012 as people realize things still suck and they see deal-making such as the union exception for the excise tax.
We need adults to be running the country in a few years when these problems come to bear. There is a real need for strong healthcare reform today to blunt a very real problem. Its funny how the pragmatists can say, "we'll fix it later." It takes 12 years to graduate a MD. We graduate the same nominal number of MDs as we did since that Supreme Court ruling which prevented the ABA from controlling the number of law schools. Universities would open Law Schools instead of Med Schools of cost as a result. Not only that but women which made 10% of that first class now make up 50%. During the course of a female doctor's career, she will have seen 60% of the patients of male doctor in the same field. Where's the pragmatism of the Senate bill?
Pragmatism is about solving problems. Ignoring problems and calling it pragmatism is lunacy.
Wonderful, so how do you actually get all that accomplished? How do you convince 60 U.S. Senators - or even 50, for that matter - to vote for it? If you know, please enlighten us.
ReplyDeleteAs Obama said when he met the House Republicans: "You guys acted as if health care reform were a Bolshevik plot."
ReplyDeleteYour only solution is pass legislation for the sake of legislation. It doesn't address real problems. 48,000 Americans dying because they don't have insurance is nothing compared to whats coming. Its just demographic problem that has to be faced.
ReplyDeleteAll people will see is healthcare reform didn't solve their problems. They won't understand the larger implications. The Democrats, although I don't like to call them that, will be punished by the electorate, and we'll have to see if the GOP will fix it because they'll be back in power.
There are some minor that could make it a real difference today, but something that is too expansive will be seen in the eyes of the public as a "boondoggle" that didn't help people. The GOP will run this message, "billions for healthcare and you still died of cancer."
What they should do is to look at the British and how they did it. The Tories have had the opportunity to kill it, and they campaigned on that. They won eventually and the damnest thing happened. They actually improved the system to get re-elected because it was popular. Passing a good plan by reconciliation will work. Nobody will move against popular plan. If you don't believe me, the GOP has become the most supporters of Medi-Care. Its crazy.
If you don't have the votes in the Senate, expose which Senators are liars and nail them. They need to be replaced.
"If you don't have the votes in the Senate, expose which Senators are liars and nail them. They need to be replaced."
ReplyDeleteReplace them with who exactly? Pick any Democratic US Senator at random and tell us how we "nail them," let alone replace them. For starters, good luck finding a serious primary opponent for the incumbent Democrat. Second, how do we prevent the seat from simply being taken over by a Republican, which would be far worse? I have no idea.