Health bills show that GOP is big-government party too

We now have the answer to a question that has hung in the air for months: Why did the Republican leadership not have an Obamacare repeal-and-replace plan on the shelf and ready to go the minute the election went their way? Why didn’t they use the time since the law’s 2010 passage to craft the Republican alternative?

The charitable answer would be: Because vetoes are daunting, big policy changes are difficult, big parties have incompatible factions and presidential leadership is critical. The real answer is that Republicans were bluffing.

Most of the attention during the agonies over the House bill focused on the Freedom Caucus, and it’s true that conservatives comprised 15 “no” votes on the original American Health Care Act. But 18 “no” votes came from moderates and others who listed a variety of reasons, including concerns about scaling back the Medicaid expansion and funds for dealing with the opioid crisis. In the Senate, several Republicans are balking for some of the same reasons. At the other end of the spectrum, Mike Lee of Utah and Rand Paul of Kentucky oppose the bill because it doesn’t go far enough in repealing Obamacare.

Look, even the Democrats had a miserable time passing their preferred health bill. In 2009 and 2010, they had a 36-seat majority in the House and a 60-vote filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. They still had to cajole and bribe members with lures whose nicknames will endure: “the cornhusker kickback” for Sen. Ben Nelson and the “Louisiana Purchase” for Sen. Mary Landrieu.

Barack Obama gave 75,227 (or it felt like it) speeches urging passage of the bill. They weren’t honest — we liked our plans but couldn’t keep them — but what they lacked in integrity they made up in length and frequency. So here we are.

The Republicans won control of the game and they are ... constipated.

Opponents of Obamacare were right about one thing: Creating a new entitlement to health care has transformed the U.S. into Great Britain — or close to it. The prime minister’s question time in Parliament is taken up with a remarkable number of questions like: “Mrs. Cynthia Reynolds of Quaddleon-Thyme has been waiting three months for her hip replacement. What does the prime minister propose to do about it?” The notion that the leader of a nation of 65 million should be involved in such specific cases, is magical thinking. That’s what happens when health care becomes a “right” rather than a product. Rationing is the rule in Europe.

America’s political leadership — on both sides — seems less interested in devising an escape from our progressively more European health care mess and more concerned with laying blame for it on the other party.

The goal of replacing a top-down, bureaucratically controlled health-delivery system (it’s not insurance) with a more market-oriented system recedes. The House and Senate, in part because they don’t have 60 Senate votes, have not even attempted to propose one.

What ought to be a serious debate about reform has become instead an exercise in trimming around the edges. Both bills keep the architecture of Obamacare. The trims are the Medicaid cuts. But let’s be clear: Because of Republican primary voters’ choices, we’re now heading straight for the rationing of care, just like Europe.