Blake's Think Tank

Last week I appeared on television with GOP political consultant Bill Vickery to discuss the latest amendments to the health insurance reform bill pending before Congress. After a quick discussion of the opportunities presented by two interesting additions: the expansion of medicare to those 55 and up, and a the creation of national health plans negotiated by the federal government but hosted by private insurers, we got into the politics of the deal.

I point blankly said that Republicans have no interest in seeing health care reform pass because it doesn’t benefit them politically. Mr. Vickery disagreed even to the point of suggesting that I was calling him and his ideological brethren cold-hearted.

I’m right about this, and you only need to look back a few years to see why. Jacob Weisberg of Slate has painted the clearest picture I can find of the GOP flip-flop on health care reform. His primary example is Medicare Part D, a program passed by a GOP controlled congress (54-44) during George W. Bush administration.  What did it do? We’re not entirely sure. It alleged to make prescription drugs more affordable, but because of a complicated forumula, loopholes, financial triggers and other measures, seniors still pay a hefty amount for medicine. And it cost a damn fortune: $1.2 trillion estimates indicate.

Unlike the revenue neutral plan pushed by Democrats currently, Medicare Part D was financed by deficit spending, something the GOP now adamantly opposes. In fact, Comptroller General David M. Walker called it “probably the most fiscally irresponsible piece of legislation since the 1960’s.”

Yet, in 2003, the bill passed. It was a year before re-election and this legislation corralled seniors into supporting the GOP ticket. It was expensive ($300 billion more than what the latest Senate bill costs) and expanded the role of government in the health care arena.

For people willing to examine the entire record it’s clear that politics are the rationale behind current efforts to roadblock healthcare reform. The logic – that it’s too expensive and too expansive – is disingenuous. But as Mr. Weisberg notes,

Today, GOP incumbents are more worried about fending off primary challenges from the right, like the one [Iowa Senator Charles] Grassley may face in 2010, or being called traitors by Rush Limbaugh. But what happened the last time they were in charge gives the lie to their claim that they object to expanding government. They only object to expanding government in a way that doesn’t help them get re-elected.

Of course, this provides no political ammunition for Arkansas Sen. Blanche Lincoln who voted in favor of this bill. She, too, was up for re-election in 2004.