Health Care

Does the GOP Think the British Are Coming?

Published March 26, 2009 @ 05:07PM PT

The House Republicans released their initial version of their budget proposal.  Although others are focusing on various aspects of the 19 page proposal – say, that there aren’t any number in their budget, just some broad principles – since I’m all about the health care, I couldn’t help but notice the extent to which I think we may be on the cusp of a new line of thinking on health care.  In this new model, being in favor of reforming our broken health care doesn’t just make you a communist, a socialist and a fascist – it also makes you a Redcoat.

The British are coming!  The British are coming!

To give credit where it’s due, the House GOP budget does an excellent job of paraphrasing John McCain’s health care plan from the 2008 election.  Their solution involves “tax incentives” (the less-specific version of McCain’s refundable tax credits); allowing people to buy across state lines, so the poor consumers in Massachusetts who can today get a health care plan with consumer protections can instead purchase a much cheaper plan from Wyoming, where your claim can be denied without the insurance company giving you a reason and with no appeals process outside that within the company; tort reform (whoopee!  Half a penny savings on every health care dollar!); and some weird plan to charge George Soros and Warren Buffet $2 extra for their Medicare prescription drugs – no word on whether Republican kabillionaires would also be required to pay $2.  These aren’t principles I agree with, and there’s absolutely no indicator as to how these tinkering-on-the-margins proposals would achieve additional coverage, affect health care spending and/or the deficit.  (Again with the no numbers).  But at least there’s a principle.

But the rest of the section on health care is basically an attack on the British.  Weirdly enough, I thought we were done bashing them after we won the War of 1812.

But no!  Because the British model is held up as the scary taste of things to come if we reform health care.  It’s also held up as exactly what Obama and others want to create here in the U.S. – except that the Obama/Baucus plan looks nothing like the British system.  Heck, HR 676 looks nothing like the British system.  Nevertheless, we get to hear all about Ann Marie Rogers, who sued the government for denying her a drug she needed for her cancer.  I suppose that’s supposed to make me scared about letting the government near my health care, but this instead sounds exactly like what I hear from American patients who are denied care by their insurance company. “They’ve got no right to decide who can have this life-saving drug. This is not a poor country, after all. I have worked all my life and paid my taxes.”

These are horrific words.  But it’s not clear to me how that’s different from what millions of uninsured and underinsured say when they, too, are denied care in this country – often when they have insurance. Much like a Star Wars movie, I guess it just sounds more sinister and villainous in a British accent.

So we have reformers trying to build the American health care system of the 21st century and anti-reformers trying to re-fight the battles of the 18th and 19th.  Thanks for clearing that up, guys!

(Photo credit:  Thowra_uk on Flickr.)

Related Posts

Comments (3)

  1. Any health care solution that includes any type of insurance is a loser. I want what the Canadians have true health care for all and taxes pay for it all very efficently. If any form of insurance is maintained the system will still be a rip off. The current system only benifits the insurance and for profit hospitals. It is sad to me that making money is more important than helping all of our fellow Americans have a better quality of life.

    Cherokee Fred Hussein Jesus
    end the war on us (drugs)

    Posted by Cherokee Fred Jesus on 03/26/2009 @ 07:09PM PT

  2. Cameron Wilson

    While not terribly germain to health care; the United States did not win the war of 1812. The US declared war on Britain for a variety of reasons. Military battles and land were won and lost by all (British, American, British North Americans i.e. Canadians, Indians, etc.). Effectively a military stalemate. The whole mess ended with the Treaty of Ghent and pre-war borders were respected. Therefore since the United States declared war and did not gain any land, it is therefore argued the United States lost the war.

    Posted by Cameron Wilson on 03/28/2009 @ 11:19PM PT

  3. Timothy Foley

    I was wondering if someone was going to point this out.  Yeah, I went for the easy, historically inaccurate joke.

    Posted by Timothy Foley on 03/29/2009 @ 08:49AM PT

  4. Reply to thread

Add a Comment

For your comment to be published, you will need to confirm your email address after submitting your comment.

If you already have an account, click here to log in.

Comments on Change.org are meant for further exploration and evaluation of the ideas covered in the posts. To that end, we welcome constructive comments. However, we reserve the right to delete comments that are offensive, abusive, or off-topic; that contain ad hominem attacks; or that are designed to subvert or hijack comment threads rather than contribute to them. Repeat offenders may be permanently removed from the site at our discretion.

Author

Twitter Feed

Timothy Foley

Tim has been an online organizer and blogger on health care policy for the Obama for America campaign (during the primaries) and currently for the Committee of Interns and Residents/SEIU Healthcare, a labor union for intern and resident doctors. Views expressed here are Tim's, and don't represent the positions of CIR or SEIU.

close

This user's Profile page is not public. They have restricted it to only their friends.

Already a Member?

Create an Account

You must create a Change.org account to complete this action. If you already have an account click here.

  Cancel