Healthcare Truths, Heritage’s Future, and the Progressive Resistance
Here’s What You Need To Know
Regardless of anyone’s thoughts on the content of the healthcare bill passed by Republicans in the House last week, there can be little doubt among anyone that the fallout has been confusing. A collection of bombastic, sometimes contradictory claims is swirling in the political and media landscape as critics of the bill rushed to set the narrative surrounding the legislation.
Here are a few of the most egregious inaccuracies being spread about the legislation:
- The Bill Classifies Rape Or Sexual Assault As A Pre-existing Condition: This claim was widely spread by Democratic opponents of the bill and echoed by media. Fact checkers at The Washington Post and PolitiFact have both declared this claim false. The truth is the bill in no way specifically addresses rape or sexual assault and does nothing to alter the existing federal policies installed to protect those with mental and physical conditions relating to domestic violence. These individuals are also protected by laws in virtually every state prohibiting health insurance companies from using a woman’s status as a domestic violence survivor to deny coverage.
- The Bill Eliminates Protection For Pre-Existing Conditions: Perhaps the most pervasive argument against the Republican measure is that it eliminates the generally popular Obamacare provision protecting coverage for preexisting conditions. In reality, the measure only offers states the opportunity to opt out of the Obamacare requirements regarding preexisting conditions, meaning the national standard would remain to protect those preexisting conditions, and adds in funding for those states to maintain high risk pools that help those who are impacted afford insurance. The issue also only impacts those on the individual market, which is an incredibly small sliver of the national healthcare market. So, the claim is meaningless for anyone receiving insurance through their employer, Medicare, or Medicaid.
- The Bill Leaves 24 Million Americans Uninsured: Opponents of the bill have also claimed it will leave 24 million Americans uninsured. This figure comes from a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) analysis of an early draft of the bill, so it is not technically based on the version passed by House Republicans. The Washington Post disputed this claim, pointing out that the CBO report does not suggest that any number of people would be “thrown off” of or “lose” health insurance. The figure includes those who only have insurance now to avoid being fined by Obamacare, and would opt not to purchase insurance under the GOP plan. It also worth reiterating the fallibility of the CBO estimates.
- Insurance Executives Will Personally Make Millions Off The Bill: This claim, put forth by Democratic Wisconsin Senator Tammy Baldwin, is based on the fact that the GOP legislation would repeal an Obamacare cap of $500,000 on how much insurance companies can deduct on their tax returns from their chief executives’ salaries. The wrinkle in Baldwin’s claim, however, is that the cap applies only to how much corporations can deduct – thus having no direct impact on the size of an individual insurance executive’s compensation or tax liability.
News You Can Use
BLAME STATE POLLING FOR 2016 SHOCK?
The American Association for Public Opinion Research recently released a report on how they believe the polling industry got the results of the 2016 presidential election so wrong. Their contention is that while national surveys were relatively accurate in assessing the popular vote, state-level polling had a historically bad year in forecasting the Electoral College. The report cites several reasons for this poor analysis, including the sizable shift in vote preference that occurred during the final weeks of the election, the failure of many pollsters to correctly adjust for over-representation of college graduates, and Trump voters who refused to self-identify when participating in pre-election polling. National surveys are undoubtedly simpler to distill for voters following the horse-race coverage of the election, but it is clear that pollsters’ focus on these at the expense of perfecting state-level polling for the Electoral College helped contribute to the degree of shock most voters felt on Election Day.
Subscribe to Receive Insights
"*" indicates required fields
WHERE DOES HERITAGE GO FROM HERE?
Presidential historian, former White House aide, and certified Friend of Delve, Tevi Troy, recently opined on how outgoing Heritage Foundation president Jim DeMint’s removal from his post shines a light on some of the troubles the think tank has recently faced and offers an opportunity for the storied home of conservative policy ideas to get back on the right track. Regardless of the rationale for DeMint’s surprise ousting, the think tank is now seeking a new leader and has the chance to pick someone who can help reshape the definition of conservatism in the 21st century at a moment when many conservatives feel in the midst of a political identity crisis. Troy argues in order for this new leader to be successful, they must have a scholarly background, be capable of bringing conservatives together, and above all, they must take on the difficult challenge of building a wall between the scholarly work of the Heritage Foundation and the political activism of Heritage Action. Finding this perfect individual will not be easy. But, with Republicans in control of the federal government, having a source for well-crafted conservative policies is essential.
DATA AND ANTITRUST
As big tech firms’ control grows larger, they increase their control over the 21st century’s most valuable resource: data. This has raised concerns among antitrust officials. But, the traditional approaches and measurements used by these regulators has not been built for this new type of industry and resource. A recent article in The Economist laid out two specific principles on how to rethink antitrust measures in the age of data: First, antitrust regulators can move beyond more industrial assessments of size when reviewing a merger and look instead at the data assets being purchased and the amount being paid. These measurements serve as an indicator of whether or not a company is preemptively purchasing a nascent competitor. Second, regulators could limit the control that online service providers have over user data and offer greater transparency to consumers about what information these companies hold. The process of rebooting antitrust regulations for the information age presents many challenges, but the prospect of only a few tech giants dominating the data economy could require action sooner rather than later. If those tech giants are smart, they will think of ways to self-regulate and demonstrate responsibility and trust with their users before government has too many of their own ideas.
WHERE DOES THE PROGRESSIVE RESISTANCE BEGIN?
Progressive Democratic activists given a platform through leaders like Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren have found a new focus for their outrage and energy: state-level politics. Most recently in Sacramento, progressive activists have begun pressuring California’s Democratic leadership to move further to the left of the political spectrum and serve as a bastion of resistance against President Trump and the national Republican agenda. For example, the California progressives have made aggressive pushes for single-payer healthcare in the state, while also beginning to target moderate Democratic state legislators who previously helped block anti-business environmental measures. Recall the Golden State’s taxpayer revolt of 1978 that foreshadowed Ronald Reagan’s path to the Governorship and then Presidency. Given California’s size, events occurring in isolation in Sacramento could build into national political movements. Even in a swing state like Virginia, a Democratic candidate for governor is focusing his campaign message on Trump rather than his actual opponents.
Related Posts:
ARROGANCE IN BLUE
Joel Kotkin, Executive Director of the Center for Opportunity Urbanism, recently published an op-ed in which he describes “the arrogance of blue America.” He argues that many in the liberal elite operate with a sense of superiority based on misconceptions about the value of traditional, largely Democratic urban centers and their contribution to economic output. Kotkin points out that much of the economic output touted from major urban areas can actually be attributed to those cities’ suburbs and exurbs. He also emphasizes that major manufacturing and energy firms based in Trump states – like Texas, Michigan, and Utah – actually employ most of the nation’s scientists and engineers. Kotkin also argues these elites base their thinking on the fallacy that “everyone” is moving to cities, when inreality suburban areas are still seeing the most growth out of any locations. Kotkin’s conclusion is that if liberal elites hope to regain control of elected government, they will have to dissuade themselves of these myths and reconnect with realities about the lives and outlooks of most Americans.
EUROPEAN POWER PLAYBOOK
Guardian writer Paul Mason reviewed the new memoir from one-time Greek political insider Yanis Varoufakis entitled, Adults in the Room: My Battle with Europe’s Deep Establishment. Mason declared the book “one of the greatest political memoirs of all time,” tracking Varoufakis’ transition from political outsider to confidant of left-wing Greek Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras, and finally once again to outsider status. Varoufakis not only offers insight into the handling of the Greek debt crisis; he provides a frank analysis of political power in the 21st century and outlines the network of favors between the powerful, their justifications for their actions, and how they make major decisions that affect us all. With EU policies in question throughout the region, this insider’s look at the internal machinations of the European power elite is a timely read.