Subscribe via RSS Feed

The ACA v. the Heritage Plan: A Comparison in Chart Form

[ 414 ] December 6, 2013 |

When I say that a lot of people got spun about the similarity between the Affordable Are Act, I don’t mean it as a criticism; I got spun myself. What is striking, though, in both that thread and the follow-up, is how committed anti-ACA lefties are to the ridiculous argument that the ACA is a “Republican Plan” developed by the Heritage Foundation even after presented details that make the comparison unsustainable. Perhaps it would help to present the comparison in graph form. Here, first, is an exhaustive list of the similarities between the plans:

This is, to be sure, a real overlap. It might even be a fundamental similarity in a context where the plausible alternative was a single payer or nationalized model. But that’s obviously not the plausible alternative — a statute that eliminated the American health insurance industry while steeply cutting the compensation of most medical professionals would (with the exception-that-proves-the-rule of abolishing slavery) be unprecedented in American history, and would also have no precedent in any high-veto-point system. (Even in the highly centralized Westminster systems of Canada and the U.K., in a context where comprehensive health care reform was a lot cheaper, the doctor lobby very nearly derailed universal health care and had to be bought off.) And in 2009, the idea that single payer was a viable possibility to 60 votes in the Senate requires ingesting enough hallucinogenics that you’d better have good insurance already. So, in the relevant context, the presence of a mandate in the ACA doesn’t establish any kind of fundamental similarity with the Heritage Plan. It just means that it’s universal health care reform designed by a non-moron.

I should note here that some of the arguments about this point of comparison between the plans were advanced in contexts where they make more sense than “the ACA sucks because it’s a Republican Plan which proves that Barack Obama is the third and fourth term of George W. Bush nyuk nyuk nyuk.” Noting the mandate in the Heritage Plan in the context of demonstrating the ad hoc nature of the radical libertarian constitutional challengeto the ACA is fair game — the mandate was the focus of the constitutional argument, so nothing about that argument implies any substantive policy similarity between the Heritage Plan and the ACA. And even though the Heritage Plan was just a decoy, it’s still eminently fair to observe that nobody noticed that the mandate was the greatest threat to human freedom ever when it spent years as the nominal Republican alternative.

There’s another variant, made by various people up to and including Obama itself, that notes the mandate in the Heritage plan to rebut charges that the ACA was volume 2 of the Communist Manifesto. Which, OK I guess, but I don’t endorse this line of argument, among other things because it gives Republicans too much credit and because it does begin to imply a substantive similarity between the programs even if it isn’t intended.

Which brings us to the most important dissimilarities between the plans:

This really should settle the debate. The plans are radically dissimilar. To argue that the ACA is the “Heritage Plan” is simply absurd.

Perhaps recognizing how feeble the argument is, the commenters trying to maintain the lie generally move to a bait-and-switch — when they say the ACA and Romneycare the plan passed by massive supermajorities of Masschusetts Democrats over Mitt Romney’s many vetoes are just the Republican Heritage Foundation plan, they also mean that it’s like the plan that John Chafee introduced in 1993 as a decoy alternative to Clinton’s health care reform proposal. While not as nearly progressive as the ACA — most importantly, it replaces the Medicaid expansion with medical malpractice “reform” — it is more like the ACA than the Heritage Plan. But the comparison remains transparently silly. First of all, it was of course never the “Republican alternative,” as no non-trivial number of Republicans have ever wanted to enact it (cf. every Republican-controlled house of Congress since 1994 passim.) And second, citing John Chafee — who was far to the left of the typical Republican in 1993 — as representing Republican health care policy preferences is an act of monumental bad faith, like citing David Souter as the typical Republican judicial appointment or George Wallace as having the typical civil rights policy preferences of a Great Society Democrat.

The final strategy is to just sort of throw up one’s hands at the prospect of reasoned debate. Whether the Heritage plan is meaningfully similar to the ACA is just a “subjective” matter, and if someone says that Paul Ryan’s plan to voucherize Medicare is a “variant” of the NHS because they’re both health care policies, who’s to say anyone’s bare assertion is worse than another’s? And, on some level, this is indeed a question that cannot be empirically proven to an absolute certainty. But I fully stand by my accusation of bad faith. Let’s consider a counterfactual. Let’s say the a liberal think tank developed a proposal identical to the ACA, and Bill Clinton used the power of the bully pulpit to ram in right down Congress’s throat in 1993. Barack Obama takes office in 2009 and proposes changing ClintonCare by making employee heath insurance benefits fully taxable, repealing the regulations requiring insurers to cover anything but catastrophic care, throwing many millions of people off Medicaid and devolving it further to the states, and enacting Paul Ryan’s proposal to end Medicare. Would any of the nominally left critics of the ACA be saying that Obama’s proposed changes were no big deal because they’re fundamentally just a minor variation on the Democratic, “Liberal Think Tank X” plan? Of course not — they would be leading riots against the greatest domestic betrayal by any Democratic president in at least a century, and they’d be right. Nobody really thinks that the Hertiage plan and the ACA are meaningfully similar. It’s just that some people refuse to compare the ACA to the status quo ante rather than a superior alternative that had no chance of passing, and saying that Obama just signed the “Heritage Plan” sounds a lot better than being open that your offer to the uninsured and working poor until Congress can pass the Magic Ponies and Unicorns Act of 4545 is the same as the Republican one: “nothing.”

Share with Sociable

Comments (414)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Les says:

    How come no one on either side mentions a for-profit system that stagnant wages, at a certain professional level, can’t maintain. Less income, less tax revenue.

    I think someone also needs to talk about the fact that no matter the plan, both are for-profit. Now, on the outside of the gov or those that need a fixed affordable solution, fair game.

    But, why does anyone think that handing over medicaid, something that is not paid for, except by taxes, is good to allow a coupon program in the states, that allows the states a means of switching from a non-for-profit, to a for-profit system. What happens here, is that regardless of the coverage for those needing assistance, they have to make great quarterly earnings. And, it becomes a bitch for doctors to get paid.

    ANd, when someone talks about malpractice insurance, why don’t they cite the fact that it’s an insurance company, who profits drive doctors into the arms of large groups that can afford this insurance. Has anyone done a study on how much money a malpractice company makes verses the amount of cases that are successful? Seems to me, malpractice talk is only for the corporate hospitals, not the people. And, even if you make it harder for people to sue, it doesn’t mean that the insurance will be affordable for the small business doctors.

    ANd, why does no one talk about the fact that certain insurance companies, inside and outside the ACA exchange, not only sit in on the meetings, but help right the legislation. Companies like BCBS, not only claimed non-for-profit in some states, but grew to be a big monopoly. In my state, if a doctor does not belong to a big corp, they only take BCBS. If you want a holistic doctor, forget it.

    ANd, why does no one talk about the fact that all government employees, get for-profit health insurance? We are paying for the profits. Why is this not a concern for those wanting less taxes?

    Food for thought.

    • Les says:

      sorry for the typos.

      • Les says:

        I’m just trying to point out, that somethings can be for-profit, and others maybe shouldn’t be for-profit. And, true capitalism, creates a situation of competition, not price gauging. So, when there is a power in the state, that sides with certain interests, the little guy can’t compete.

        Take for instance Minnesota and the power in the state, Mayo Clinic. They charge 1/3 the money if not less, than other state hospitals. They test and re-test. They drive the prices down in the state for pharmie, lab, equipment, doctors etc. I know this from experience.

        But, we can’t have this, because that would mean companies like Glaxo and Northshore and Blue Cross, couldn’t make record earnings.

  2. [...] I’ve said before when noting how radically dissimilar the ACA is from the Heritage Plan, the comparison is often made by liberals with good intentions. Krugman is definitely not using the [...]

  3. […] Democrats that override several of the governor’s vetoes unilaterally enacted it, he infected the whole concept with Republican cooties. Better millions of people die until the Magic Ponies And Ice Cream Castles In The Air Act of Never […]

  4. […] Republicans or state-level Republicans not governing alongside massive Democratic supermajorities who supported a massive expansion of Medicaid accompanied by a much more tightly regulated private i… I also note the implicit argument that the original Medicaid, which left large numbers of poor […]

  5. […] many times why Bartlett’s repeated assertions that the ACA is a Republican policy is plainly false. I will observe here only that Bartlett’s version of the argument is a particularly extreme […]

  6. […] were some unique insight. As ridiculous as the comparison to the Heritage proposal and the ACA is, the mandate is the one thing they have in common. With European style health care reform off the table, and an employer-mandate model poisoned by […]

  7. […] of the United States, and longtime don of the Gambino crime family Jonathan Gruber.  Also, I have no idea what was actually in the Heritage health care proposal, and think that governors rule Massachusetts like […]

  8. […] told by pundits that a President should lead, appear to be unable to understand that deep structural factors prevent himfrom doing so (a problem on both sides). Further, in many races, the liberal […]

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.