Democrats' dishonest health care agreement ploy

Opinion Journal:

...

It's as if the last year didn't happen. Only minutes into the discussion, it became clear the Democratic strategy was to portray this debate as somehow taking place between the 49 yard lines. Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus chimed in that "The main point is, we basically agree."

Yet the reality is that there is a vast philosophical and policy gulf on health care in Washington. Everyone agrees there are severe problems in the health-care markets. The disagreement is over solutions.

The morning was dominated by an argument over whether ObamaCare would lower insurance costs, and the exchange was telling. Republicans, led by Tennessee Senator Lamar Alexander, rightly said that premiums would increase, while the President disagreed. "This is an example of where we've got to get our facts straight," he said, in keeping with his strategy of depicting any disagreement as factually challenged or politically motivated.

One fact is that the Congressional Budget Office estimates that premiums in the individual market would jump by 10% to 13% in 2016 because the government will mandate that consumers buy richer benefits than they otherwise would. Mr. Obama eventually conceded that point but said these mandates are simple consumer protections. "Yes, I am paying 10% to 13% more because instead of buying an apple, I'm getting an orange," Mr. Obama said. "We want competition, we just want some minimum standards."

Well, yes, politicians always claim their standards are the minimum. Despite vastly different consumer health needs and preferences, the core of ObamaCare is the brute-force regulatory standardization of benefits and how they should be paid for, so that government can afford to subsidize health care for all. West Virginia Democrat Jay Rockefeller let the mask slip when he said the goal is to stomp on the insurers and "clip their wings in every way you can," because it is "a rapacious industry that does what it wants." Mr. Rockefeller added that "Sometimes decisions have to come from Washington."

Mr. Ryan, the Wisconsin Republican, posed the fundamental question: "Should people in Washington decide exactly how this works and what you can and cannot buy?" We thought the GOP acquitted itself fairly well, noting the irresponsibility of using Medicare cuts to float a new entitlement when the status quo has $37 trillion in unfunded liabilities. They also focused on smaller, incremental reforms that might do some modest good.

...

Mr. Obama also claimed that "Every proposal that health-care economists say will reduce health-care costs, we've tried to adopt," yet this is demonstrably untrue. The White House has delayed its own excise tax on ultra-expensive health plans (previously sold as the key cost-control measure) until 2018, well after Mr. Obama is out of office, assuming he wins a second term.

...

Another proposal they did not adopt was tort reform. The Democrats and their trial lawyer buddies constructed an argument that trimming tort judgments would only decrease cost about two percent. What that argument overlooks is the hidden costs of defensive medicine which add significantly to the cost of doctor visits as people try to avoid being sued.

Obama's goal was not to reach agreement with Republicans, but to give Democrats some talking points in the fall to explain their support for this monstrosity of a bill.

I don't think they persuaded many voters since most of them were actually doing things like working when the show was on.