Heritage gets results on health care
April 6, 2006 | By Nathaniel Ward
Just in: The Bush Administration has decided to not seek election to one of the 47 seats on the United Nation's newly created Human Rights Council. After criticizing the Council as only a minor improvement over the discredited (and now defunct) Human Rights Commission and voting against its creation, the Administration should be applauded for sticking to its principles. Check back to MyHeritage.org for more on this breaking story.
Gov. Mitt Romney presented his health care plan at The Heritage Foundation in January.
Working closely with Gov. Mitt Romney (R-MA), Heritage health care experts Ed Haislmaier, Bob Moffit and Nina Owcharenko spent months crafting a plan to reform Massachusetts health care and provide health insurance for all residents—without any new government entitlements or additional government spending.
The liberal-dominated Massachusetts legislature overwhelmingly approved the plan on Tuesday, with only a few changes that leave the guts of the reform intact. After another procedural vote in the legislature, Gov. Romney is expected to sign the bill into law.
The plan comprises three basic conservative reforms, Haislmaier explains in a forthcoming paper on the Massachusetts plan:
- Establish an insurance exchange, which allows employees at small firms to shop around and find the health insurance plan that best suits them—all paid for with pre-tax dollars. The exchange includes “consumer choice of plans, true coverage portability, and the functional equivalent of individual health-insurance tax credits to help pay for coverage,” Haislmaier writes, “the basic objectives of conservative health reform.”
- Ensure that all those eligible for Medicare are enrolled in the program. The cost savings can be used to help low-income Massachusetts residents buy private health insurance through the exchange
- Replace the de facto mandate on taxpayers, who have to pay the medical costs of the uninsured when they visit hospitals, with a requirement that all residents either purchase health coverage or pay their own way.
While the bill passed by the legislature implements much-needed reforms, it isn’t perfect, Haislmaier writes. For example, the new law would:
- Fine those who choose to pay their medical costs out-of-pocket, instead of simply letting them demonstrate their ability to pay.
- Arbitrarily limit employer involvement in the exchange to firms with fewer than 50 workers.
- Charge employers a fee for each employee to whom they don't provide health coverage.
Nevertheless, he concludes, “the Massachusetts plan is a promising departure from states’ previous attempts to expand insurance coverage and drive down the cost of care. Massachusetts has opted to rely on the market, rather than government mandates and controls, to meet its aims. In the world of health care, this is radical.”
Blogger Andrew Sullivan explains why this reform is important: “it empowers individuals to take control of their own health insurance, rather than putting all the emphasis on employers. … You get a real market, in other words, where consumers can see trade-offs and make sane decisions.”
Down the line, Sullivan says, groups like churches or other community organizations could offer their own health care using the same mechanisms. “You begin to see how choice can come alive in the healthcare market. You also get rid of the economic inefficiencies of tying individuals to certain jobs for health insurance rather than other reasons. And by bringing more people into the general pool, you can reduce premiums in the medium and long term. What's not to like?”
Heritage gets results II
One of The Heritage Foundation’s primary missions is to spread conservative ideas to the public through the media. And now Heritage has achieved a major milestone: Heritage papers will become a regular feature in online editions of The Washington Post.
In the first installment of the series, Heritage’s James Carafano explains why a massive government program to electronically monitor illegal aliens would be the wrong way to enforce immigration laws. Such a program, he says, is unneeded in the vast areas of the economy where illegal immigrants do not work. What’s more, like other big government programs, it would be inefficient, intrusive, costly and unlikely to yield any results.
Other, simpler means to verify employment and catch illegal workers should be tried first, Carafano explains: “Targeted enforcement, coupled with creating opportunities for U.S. businesses to hire the employees that they need to conduct business, would help to change the culture of the American workplace, which has ignored immigration laws for too long and shifted the costs of an undocumented workforce onto states and local communities.”
Children of immigrants, again
In my last e-mail, I sought to represent Professor Eastman’s article on the Fourteenth Amendment, which holds that the text of the amendment does not support the existence of birthright citizenship. Judging by the comments I’ve received, it seems I did not do the article justice.
As Prof. Eastman explained, it is precisely the original language of the amendment that inspired his critique of the current, more permissive interpretation. The amendment begins: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
He argues that, “as manifest by the conjunctive ‘and,’ the clause mandates citizenship to those who meet both of the constitutional prerequisites: (1) birth (or naturalization) in the United States and (2) being subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.” He goes on to explain that “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States means one who consents to the laws of the nation, just as the Founders believed. Therefore, simply being born within the borders of the United States is alone insufficient for citizenship; the parents must also be acting within the laws of the nation.
Prof. Eastman uses the historical record of the debate about the amendment and other important documents of the time to determine what the amendment's authors intended, and he explains why today's prevailing view is itself revisionist.
In other news
- The New York Times reports that national welfare rolls have “fallen by more than half since the federal law was signed in August 1996” and even more in urban New York City. The federal reforms were driven in large part by the efforts of The Heritage Foundation, and analyst Robert Rector in particular. Naturally, The Times, of course, finds ways to spin this welcome decrease in government dependency as a bad thing.
- Heritage’s Ed Haislmaier testifies today before the Senate Subcommittee on the District of Columbia about health care reform in the nation’s capital.
- Some good may yet come of Congress’ ongoing attempts to reform the lobbying process. Several Congressmen are considering an amendment that would require the government to reveal which institutions receive federal funds. This transparency could help weed out wasteful federal programs and funding for lawmakers’ pet projects.
- In another victory for transparency, Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK), chairman of the Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, has unveiled a new website to track federal spending.
- It’s not just lawmakers and reporters that use our publications. The Army recently contacted The Heritage Foundation to discuss ways to incorporate our work on strategic communications into their operations.
- Sen. Trent Lott (R-MS) recently defended his plan to spend $700 million in federal hurricane relief money to tear up a newly-repaired Mississippi railroad and replace it with a road. He criticized fiscal conservatives who have questioned these apparently wasteful programs, calling them “nothing but trouble since Katrina.”
Coming up at Heritage
To attend these or any other Heritage Foundation events, RSVP at Heritage’s events website. Or you can watch these events live online at Heritage.org. All times are Eastern.
- On Friday, April 7 at 9:30 am, Azerbaijani foreign affairs minister Elmar Mammadyarov will discuss his nation’s foreign policy challenges.
- On Monday, May 1 and Tuesday, May 2, The Heritage Foundation will host its twice-annual President’s Club meeting in Washington, DC. Speakers include House Majority Leader John Boehner (R-OH), United Nations Ambassador John Bolton, television host John Stossel, columnist George Will, and Rep. John Shadegg (R-AZ) of the Republican Study Committee. The event is open to President’s Club members.
Nathaniel Ward is the Editor of MyHeritage.org—a website for members and supporters of The Heritage Foundation.
