WhatFinger

We want more. Much more. But that's no reason to oppose something that makes things better.

Graham-Cassidy is far from a full ObamaCare repeal, but everything in it is good

By Dan Calabrese ——--September 22, 2017

American Politics, News | CFP Comments | Reader Friendly | Subscribe | Email Us

There's no question we've fallen a long way from the heady days of, er, January 2017, when we thought we were going to get a quick repeal of ObamaCare. Republican Congresses never fail to fail, and it should not be forgotten that the latest failure to repeal ObamaCare was very much the work of Lindsey Graham's best buddy. But here's what I believe about legislation: You don't vote for something just because it can pass, but you don't oppose something just because it isn't everything you've ever wanted. If the country would be better off with a bill's passage - even if only a little better - then you vote for the bill. If you've left problems unsolved, then it's your job to come back later and solve the other problems too. But opposing the solution of Problem A just because Problems B through Z are not being solve simultaneously makes no sense. Solving Problem A is better than not solving Problem A, so solve Problem A.
The Graham-Cassidy bill would repeal the individual mandate, which is one of the most egregious features of ObamaCare, and it would convert most of ObamaCare funding to block grants to the states. It would also establish a separate fund to take care of people with pre-existing conditions, which is necessary if you're going to get rid of the mandate. Jimmy Kimmel's hyperventilating notwithstanding, this gives everyone the chance to be covered if they want to, but it brings markets and individual choice back into the equation. There's nothing in Graham-Cassidy that's bad. There's a lot more that would be good that I wish was included, but everything that's actually in it is better than the status quo and deserves support:
Republicans are scrambling to pass Lindsey Graham and Bill Cassidy’s health-care bill before Sept. 30, when the clock expires on the budget procedure that allows the Senate to pass legislation with 51 votes. The bill would devolve ObamaCare funding to the states, which could seek waivers from the feds to experiment within certain regulatory boundaries, and it also repeals the individual and employer mandates and medical-device tax. The left spent weeks declaring this dead on arrival, but now that Republicans appear close to a majority here come the tweets. The Graham-Cassidy proposal “eliminates protections for people who are or ever have been sick. GONE. Insurers back to denying coverage for the sick,” Connecticut Democrat Chris Murphy claimed this week.
In fact, a state that receives a waiver from ObamaCare’s regulations must show plans that retain access to “adequate and affordable” coverage for people with pre-existing conditions. ObamaCare’s rules are not the only way to do this, despite the claims of Jimmy Kimmel. The Affordable Care Act’s price restrictions have in practice degraded the quality of care for the ill and sent insurers shopping for healthy patients who are more profitable. States could set up high-risk pools, for example. These pools subsidize care for those who need costly treatment without concealing the expense across healthy patients, who may drop coverage if they can’t afford it. This can lower premiums for everyone.
Conservative purists will offer all kinds of complaints about this bill, but their problem really should be with Senate Republicans who couldn't come to a consensus on any other form of ObamaCare repeal. To some degree that includes Lindsey Graham, although he was at least willing to vote for so-called "skinny repeal" unlike McCain, Collins and Murkowski. Those three so far have been the real villians in this. I put the focus more on the Senate because if not for the need to comply with Senate reconciliation rules, the House could have been a lot more ambitious in what it chose to pass.

Support Canada Free Press

Donate
As always happens in situations like this, we can expect lots of objections from the likes of Rand Paul, who never saw a piece of legislation that was perfect enough for him - although he too did vote for skinny repeal, so maybe he can be brought along on this one too. It's hard to imagine McCain going against a Graham-sponsored bill, but it's also hard to imagine McCain doing anything significant that conservatives want. I think he'll probably vote yes in the end, but I sure as hell wouldn't stake my life on it. By and large, though, I hope conservatives get behind it. For all the reasons the Journal outlined in its editorial, it's a good bill and it makes things better. It would be nice if it made more things better, but if want to make legislative progress, we have to take steps forward when they present themselves to us.
Subscribe

View Comments
Dan Calabrese——

Dan Calabrese’s column is distributed by HermanCain.com, which can be found at HermanCain

Follow all of Dan’s work, including his series of Christian spiritual warfare novels, by liking his page on Facebook.

VIEW Comments

Sponsored