Bush and the GOP Health-Care Strategy
October 18th, 2007 by Peter SudermanI’ve got a piece in NRO today arguing that although Democrats are bad on S-CHIP, conservatives, at least those with a free-market bent, need to be willing to call out Bush for his position as well. The Democrats have won this issue in part by painting Bush and the rest of the GOP as “against S-CHIP,” but the truth is, the Republicans want to expand the program too. By refusing to take a strong stand, they’ve hurt themselves far more than they know.
The New Republic’s Jonathan Cohn and Slate’s Tim Noah both recently argued that even with a Bush veto, universal health-care supporters win on this issue. Why? Because Bush’s opposition to this, especially with the way it’s been painted by the Democrats as “against health care for children,” has only helped lay the groundwork for support for universal coverage. So Bush lost big-time, not just because of the way he and his party end up looking now, but because they’ve actually built support for a far more expansive, far more troublesome national health-care program in the future. If Hillary Clinton wins the presidency — and right now, the best bet is that she will — Bush will have made it that much easier for her to pass her universal coverage program.
So Bush has dealt himself and his party a huge blow, not in service of principle or a tough stance on government-managed medical programs, but over a quibble about the details of a program. On a purely political level, Bush might’ve been better off negotiating the Democrats down a little bit and then quietly going along. At least that way, he wouldn’t have energized the universal health care crowd nearly as much. Of course, the best option would’ve been for him to lay down some firm, positive principles from the outset, principles which could carry fiscal conservatives through the upcoming universal health care debate. There’s supposedly a movement afoot to “re-brand” the GOP as the party of “fiscal conservatism” (see this great New York Times picture of Bush posing in front of a giant banner with those words), but if this is what it looks like, I’m not impressed.
October 24th, 2007 at 5:26 pm
If the SCHIP program is such good insurance for middle class kids, the Congresscritters, and the staff of those who vote for it, ought to be required to sign their children up for it.
* FYI, in WA state, the SCHIP program is basically the same as Medicaid  full of red tape and restrictions on providing quality care.
o There’s lots of clinics that don’t take it, or severely limit access to care by one means or another. This is likely to get worse if SCHIP passes in it’s current format.
o Putting more folks into the Medicaid treadmill is only going to make it harder for the truly needy on Medicaid to get timely care as the middle class starts cutting and crowding in line for their care.
* Hence the suggestion that those in Congress and staff ought to experience that which they wrought. If it’s good enough for the middle class, it ought to be good enough for Congress.