The Daily Signal - #428: The Conservative Health Care Plan, Explained

Episode Date: March 28, 2019

There's a conservative health care plan that could reduce costs and help Americans get better access to medical care. Marie Fishpaw, director of domestic policy studies at The Heritage Foundation, joins us to share what lawmakers would have to change, and how the plan would work. We also cover these stories:•Republicans on the House Intelligence committee are calling on Rep. Adam Schiff, the California Democrat who chairs the committee currently, to step down from that position.•The House of Representatives took a symbolic vote to condemn the president’s ban on transgender service members in the military.•Eric Holder, former attorney general under President Obama, went after "make America great again" slogan, saying America really wasn’t ever great. The Daily Signal podcast is available on Ricochet, iTunes, SoundCloud, Google Play, or Stitcher. All of our podcasts can be found at DailySignal.com/podcasts. If you like what you hear, please leave a review. You can also leave us a message at 202-608-6205 or write us at [e-mail]. Enjoy the show! Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

It's Canadian Tire's Black Friday sale. With the lowest prices of the year. Hello, can we go? Limbo again. Shop the Black Friday sale at Canadian Tire and save up to 60%. November 27th to December 7th. Conditions apply. Details online.

This is the Daily Signal podcast for Friday, March 29th. I'm Kate Trinco. And I'm Daniel Davis. Well, we all know what Bernie Sanders wants for America's health care system, single-payer, government-run, socialized medicine. But what's the conservative alternative? If conservatives could have their way, what would the system look like? Today, we'll consider that question with Marie Fishpaw, who heads up domestic policy studies at the Heritage Foundation.

Plus, Ben Shapiro gets labeled Alt-Right, even though he's gotten more than his fair share of hate from the alt-right. We'll discuss. And if you're enjoying this podcast, please consider leaving a five-star review or rating on iTunes, and please subscribe. Now on to our top news. President Trump isn't happy about the conclusion of the Jesse's Smollett case where charges were dropped after a grand jury found it credible that the Empire actor was guilty of creating a hate crime hoax. Trump tweeted Thursday FBI and Justice Department to review the outrageous Jesse Smollett case in Chicago. It is an embarrassment to our nation.

Well, President Trump also slammed top FBI officials over the Russia investigation saying that they committed treason. On Wednesday, speaking on Sean Hannity's Fox News program, The president said, quote, they wanted an insurance policy against me. And what we were playing out until just recently was the insurance policy. They wanted to do a subversion. It was treason. He continued, we can never allow these treasonous acts to happen to another president, end quote. Trump also said he would release the FISA warrants and other related documents that led to the Russia probe,

saying he wants to get to the bottom of how the collusion narrative began. Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee are calling and Representative Adam Schiff, the California Democrat who chairs the committee currently, to step down from that position. Here's Representative Michael Conaway, Republican of Texas, speaking to Schiff. Special Counsel's investigation did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with conspired or coordinated with the Russian, with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 presidential election. Special Counsel Mueller's findings are consistent with those of this committee, as well as the public statements of various senators on the Senate select committee on intelligence.

Despite these findings, you continue to proclaim to the media that there is significant evidence of collusion. You further have stated, you will continue to investigate the counterintelligent issues. That is, is the president or people around him compromised in any way by hostile foreign power? Your willingness to continue to promote a demonstrably false narrative is alarming. The findings of the special counsel conclusively refute your past and present assertions and have exposed you as having abused your position to knowingly promote false information. having damage to the integrity of this committee and undermine the faith in the United States government institutions. Your actions both past and present are incompatible with your duty as chairman of this committee,

which alone in the House of Representatives has the obligation and authority to provide effective oversight of the U.S. intelligence community. President Trump, meanwhile, tweeted, Congressman Adam Schiff, who spent two years knowingly and unlawfully lying and leaking, should be forced to resign from Congress. Schiff responded during the hearing saying, My colleagues may think it's okay that the Russians offered dirt

on a Democratic candidate for president as part of what was described as the Russian government's effort to help the Trump campaign. You might think that's okay. My colleagues might think it's okay that when that was offered to the son of the president who had a pivotal role in the campaign, that the president's son did not call the FBI,

he did not adamantly refuse that foreign help. No, instead that son said that he would love the help of the Russians. You might think it's okay that he took that meeting. Schiff also said, Now, I have always said that the question of whether this amounts to proof of conspiracy was another matter. Whether the special counsel could prove beyond a reasonable doubt, the proof of that crime would be up to the special counsel, and I would accept his decision, and I do.

He's a good and honorable man, and he is a good prosecutor. But I do not think that conduct criminal or not is okay. And the day we do think that's okay is the day we will look back and say that is the day America lost its way. Well, the House of Representatives took a symbolic vote to condemn the president's ban on transgender service members in the military on Thursday. All Democrats and five Republicans voted for the resolution with one Republican voting present. The bill criticized Trump's policy as being detrimental to. quote, our national security by undermining our ability to recruit and retain talented personnel, also adding that the policy is based on, quote, flawed scientific and medical assertions, end quote.

The president's policy announced in 2017 reverse its President Obama's decision to open up military service to transgender troops the year before that. The ban was recently upheld in court and goes into effect on April 12th. Russia reportedly addressed its military presence in Venezuela, Thursday with Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova saying, per CNN, that Russian specialists were in the country, but also saying that those Russians were in accordance with the provisions of the bilateral intergovernmental agreement on military technical cooperation between Russia and Venezuela. On Wednesday, asked about the Russian presence in Venezuela, Trump said, We'll see. We'll see. We'll see. All options are open.

All, just so you understand. All options are open. Go ahead. Well, Eric Holder, former Attorney General under Obama, went after MAGA on Wednesday, saying America really wasn't ever great. Here's the exchange on MSNBC with host Ari Melver. There's a lot of talk about America being a leader as a democracy, quote unquote, in the 1800s when women and African Americans couldn't vote. What kind of democracy is that? Well, that's exactly right. And that's what I hear these things about let's make America great again.

I think to myself, well, exactly when did you think America was great? It certainly wasn't when people were enslaved. It certainly wasn't when women didn't have the right to vote. It certainly wasn't when the LGBT community was denied the rights to which it was entitled. Does that phrase echo as discrimination in your ears? It takes us back to, I think, an American past that never in fact really existed in this notion of greatness. You know, America has done superb things, has done great things, and it has been a leader in a whole range of things. but we're always a work in process.

President Trump's tweets might soon be accompanied by a message from Twitter. Fijia Gad, Twitter's head of legal policy and trust and safety, said at a Washington Post event that the company was exploring, adding context to certain tweets. Quote, one of the things we're working really closely on with our product and engineering folks is, how can we label that? How can we put some context around it so people are aware

that that content is actually a violation of our rules, and it is serving a particular purpose in remaining on the platform, end quote. Up next, Murray Fishpaw unpacks the conservative agenda on health care. Want to get up to speed about the Supreme Court? Then subscribe to Scotus 101, a podcast about everything that's happening at the Supreme Court and what the justices are up to. Deductibles are way too high. Obamacare is a disaster.

So we're going to be the part. And I said it yesterday, and I mean it 100%. I understand health care now, especially very well. A lot of people don't understand it. We are going to be the Republicans, the party of great health care. That was President Trump this week, reigniting the health care discussion. However, there was media skepticism at his pivot to health care.

CNN, for instance, headline to peace, Trump says GOP will be the party of health care, but provides no plan. Joining us today is Marie Fishpaw, Director of Domestic Policy Studies at the Heritage Foundation. Marie has been working with other conservative groups for over a year on a conservative health care plan that would lower costs and help improve medical care. Marie, can you please tell us about your health care choices proposal plan and what it would change? Absolutely. So it's definitely fake news that there is no such thing as a plan, no such plan right now. conservatives have been working with lawmakers and the president's administration since 2017,

when we saw the very disappointing failures in the Senate to fulfill a campaign promise to lower health care costs and improve choices by repealing and replacing Obamacare. And so in the wake of that failure, conservatives and others across the country have gotten together and come up with the plan that we call the health care choices proposal. And what we like about it is it answers Americans' real concerns about their health care, the things they've been telling us that they're afraid of, that they don't like happening, and that they do want to happen. And the big results from it are that costs would go down. We have estimates showing that premiums would decline by about as much as a third in some cases, and that people would be able to pick the right plan that works for them.

Unlike under Obamacare, where costs have skyrocketed, choices have really fallen, people can't see the doctors they want because networks have narrowed. People would really be able to start. We would see those trends reverse and we would see people having the care that they'd like to have. How exactly would do that? What steps would the government take? Yes. So it's a couple steps.

Step one is we need to stop the failed entitlement spending scheme that we have under Obamacare. This is a really backwards entitlement spending scheme that where insurance companies literally get more tax dollars from you and for me every time they raise their prices. And that has been exactly a recipe for what we have seen, which is costs have gone up and value has gone down. So we're going to get rid of that failed entitlement spending scheme and replace it with a approach that takes the money that's currently going to insurance companies through tax credits or Medicaid expansion and send it in a grant to states. And states would have to do a couple things with that. They would have to make sure that everybody could access coverage of their choice and not just insurance. They would have to have to make sure that everybody could

access coverage of their choice and not just insurance. They would have to be able to let, so the people would be able to use it for those products. And they would be able to, states would have to make sure that vulnerable people. So this is people with preexisting conditions and lower income people can access care. It can happen to get into more details about how if that's useful. So what you're basically saying is in a state that has chosen to expand Medicaid after Obamacare, instead of giving Medicaid to people who now qualify, they would give them health care through these other means. Like they would have the money to spend it in a different way. That's right. So the money in the system would remain to some extent largely intact.

What changes is how it's what it's spent on and who gets to spend it. So right now, dollars are going to insurance companies. In this case, and those insurance companies can only offer very, very specifically tightly defined plans. that are huge, every bell and whistle under the sun. They have a lot of restrictions on the types of products that people might offer. So instead of that approach, individuals would get to say, if they qualify for a subsidy, they get to go by the plan that they think is the right one for them. And that could include things like religious sharing ministries,

which is where people get together and help each other pay their bills. They don't go through a formal insurance company. and arrangements where people want to work directly with a doctor, not going through a middleman. So a lot more options rather than what's happened today, which is people have really, particularly on Medicaid, been put into substandard plans. And if you are sick, this is the whole myth that the left is pushing, which is this, they like to claim that Obamacare has been really great for sick people. The reality is if you are very sick and you're on Medicaid, you're not going to be able to see the doctors that you need in most cases. because specialists and doctors don't take Medicaid.

So does this get those patients out of situations where they're paying for plans that literally have to cover everything and that are high premium? So what it does is it lets, it does a couple things. Because the emphasis is on choice and letting people choose what works for them, yes, if you want to use your subsidy or if you want to access a plan that covers everything, you can do that. If you want something that's a little more that's arranged a bit differently where you might pay more through a higher deductible and a lot less in premiums, you can do that. But so the point is if you like what you have right now, you're not going to lose it. You're just going to have a lot more options. So this wouldn't affect people who are not currently on Medicaid or any other government plan if this went through. Is that right?

That's right. This only impacts people who are currently on Obamacare, people who are on Obamacare's version of Medicaid. So not traditional Medicaid. If you're aged, disabled, nothing changes to how you're getting your health care. So the people who would really be impacted are people who work for small businesses. Maybe their employer's insurance has gotten so expensive they can't afford to offer it anymore. The self-employed. So these are the people who've really been hurt under Obamacare in addition to those who are sick and need to get specialist care. And you mentioned that this would reduce costs by up to a third? It would reduce costs by up to a third. We have independent estimates from a group of

estimators who are bipartisan who have taken a look at what the result on premiums would be and they would come down by up to a third. And it would also do so, and this is what's important, in ways that continue to make sure that people of preexisting conditions can get access to care. And this isn't just some myth. This is a proposal that builds on successes that are actually going on in the states right now. So under Obamacare, states' get permission if an administration will grant it to them to get some relief from Obamacare's mandates. This is a plan that is building on things that we know are already succeeding. So it's, it's not a mythical pie in the sky idea. Today under Obamacare, some states can get some

relief from the mandates that have really resulted in driving up costs and reducing people's choices. And so we've seen seven states that have taken advantage of that relief and Heritage Foundation scholars Doug Badger and Ed Heislemyer have looked into those states. And it's both red states, blue states, it's not a partisan thing. It's a thing that works. It's states that are diverting a bit of the money that currently goes to insurance companies and instead are giving it to arrangements that help people who have high health care costs, pay those costs without raising costs on everybody else. And the results of these changes have been really striking. In some states, have gone down by as much around 40% all using tools that protect people with preexisting conditions.

And so, you know, I keep coming, come back to that because it's almost, it's become hard to listen to people on the left claiming that anybody who doesn't want big government wants people to suffer, particularly if they're sick. And that, you know, we all. And die. I think Sanders is asking how many people would die under some conservative health care center. area the other day. He's made some comments like that. And I think it's incredibly unfair because I think Americans are, this is a compassionate, we are wealthy and compassionate people and we take care of each other. And what we're, we're not arguing about people getting access to care. What we're arguing about is what's the right way to do it. And we've seen Obamacare

fail. This is not a successful program. It did not achieve the goals that laid out to achieve. Costs of more than, premiums more than doubled in four years, long litany of things that that haven't gone right. And the left solution to this is to double down on all those failures and do more with what Sanders is calling Medicare for all, but which really means outlaw any kind of private coverage arrangement and put everybody on a new government plan. So the left wants to replace Obamacare too. They're just doing it in a way that I think would lead to more pain and suffering like we've seen under the last few years. Yeah. So the plan you outlined it really seems to hit the sweet spot. I mean, Trump has talked about protecting

people with pre-existing conditions, and yet, you know, getting rid of Obamacare, rolling that back. Where's the GOP stand on this plan? Well, this plan has, we think that the reason, I'm going to answer that question, but the reason we have some pretty broad-based support outside the Beltway, and I think that's important because, you know, part of the things that failed last time in 2017 were very much Beltway-driven products. So this is a proposal where we started with 13 people signed on to it this time last year and we're now at almost 100 and these are leaders across the country. And national think tank, state think tanks. We have two governors who have endorsed our proposal. And we think the

reason for that is that we have really listened to what people were telling us that they needed, what problems they needed to be solved. And so when it comes down to where's the GOP on this, President Trump has called on Republicans to return to this issue. He knows it's important to Americans. And that's something that they need to be figuring out if they're going to accept his challenge. And do you think it's important that politicians should tackle this issue? Obviously, there's a lot of people who would prefer not to touch health care again. Americans want Congress to deal with this issue.

And when you look at polls, health care is, polls as one of the top issues for people over and over and over. again. And I think they're right to be frustrated. This is, you know, Republicans were elected, I think, over a course of eight years to deal with this and then they didn't. And the real vacuum right now, if there's a leadership vacuum among Republicans, the Democrats would love to fill that with doubling down on more of the things that have given to this the problems we have right now. And that's, you know, Medicare for all. So I do think that they, that politicians need to deal with it. The left has their answer. I don't think it's the right one. And so I don't think this is something that you can avoid dealing with if you're an elected politician. Yeah, some really interesting polls, which I know

you're aware of, but for our listeners, I mean, Medicare for All polls a lot better than the details of Medicare for All. And when people, when people hear about the details of what it is, they like it a lot less. I mean, it seems like Republicans have been scared for years now that the left will just kind of hit them with this. Like, you don't care. And do you think the country, might be a bit more to the right on health care than Republicans tend to think. I look at it a little bit differently, which is Americans over and over and over again have said they care about their health care. And they've told us they care about a couple things. They fear that someone they love or that they themselves might not be able to see a doctor

when they need it if they have a preexisting condition or they might lose access to coverage. They also fear, you know, having their private plan taken away from them. They hope for more choices. They hope for lower costs. And I don't know that the locus of, like, I don't think the blame has been, nobody has really decided on who to blame just yet. And the left would like to blame, you know, too many big businesses. And I think what's important for people who will work on these issues to remember is that this is really a choice about are you on the side of an insurance company, which is where Obamacare has been, are you on big government side, which is where Bernie Sanders wants us to be, or are you on people's side? And that's where this plan would be, which

says that people, families, individuals, can make good decisions about their health care if they work with their doctors and they're given the tools to do so. And right now, everything in our government system works against that. And one thing, just an example on that, if you are, say a lower income person and you qualify if you have an employer sponsored plans. Maybe you work at Walmart, but your income is too low to afford that plan. What our government today has said is that you get to go beyond Medicaid, which we know lots of doctors don't want to take that. And it's as if let's just put you on this thing and say you're taking care of, but you're not

taking care of. And what's great about the plan that we were talking about, the conservatives have been working on for so long is that it would say we do trust you to be able to make a good decision. If you want to stick with what the government gave you, okay, but if you want out, if you want to pick something that works better for your family, you now have the ability to make that decision. So I do think that's one of the transformative aspects of this plan and why the stakes could not be higher when we start thinking about the direction of health care for our country. Thanks so much for joining us, Marie.

You're welcome. Do you have an opinion that you'd like to share? leave us a voicemail at 202-608-6205 or email us at letters at dailysignal.com. Yours could be featured on the Daily Signal podcast. Ben Shapiro had a bit of a dust-up, to say the least, with The Economist on Thursday. The Economist published an interview with him, timed for the release of his new book, The Right Side of History, but with one little mistake. Actually, a big mistake.

The interview was titled Inside the Mind of Ben Shapiro, the alt-right sage without the rage. Shapiro did not take well to that. He, of course, is an Orthodox Jew and has been vocally critical of the alt-right, so critical, in fact, that he receives constant threats from the alt-right. He was quick to respond on Twitter, saying, quote, This is a vile lie. Not only am I not alt-right, I am probably their leading critic on the right.

I was the number one target of their hate in 2016 online, according to ADL data. I demand a retraction. He went on to say, You should be ashamed of yourselves for that garbage headline and description. To call yourselves a journalistic outlet and then botched this one so badly is astonishing. And he said, quote, If you lump me in with people who are so evil, I literally hire security to walk me to Shoal on Shabbat. You can go straight to hell, end quote.

The economist got wise and took down the title. But, Kate, it does raise the question, why the association there in the first place. And this is something that, you know, I don't think we have a great definition of alt-right, but it's generally presumed that when the mainstream media, like the economist uses it, the implication is you are talking about the very, very, very, very tiny number of people on the right who have actual racism, who maybe are white supremacists or think that this country would be better if it just had white people. That is the association that the mainstream media has applied to that term.

I realize some people self-identify as alt-right and are not racist, but it is taken as a negative term. And to smear Shapiro this way, Shapiro, who as he said, has been, you know, the constant, he's been constantly threatened himself. He is Jewish. He's very outspoken about that. He's also, you know, he is not a partisan person in the same way that some people are. You know, he does this thing on his podcast, like good Trump, bad Trump.

Like he's, which, you know, I love. And he's, yeah, he's not a partisan. He is someone who is a thinker on the right. And I think it's shameful that the economist tried to essentially smear him as someone who's a racist. Yeah, his views are, I mean, he's very outspoken, obviously. But he's also, I would say, mainstream in terms of his conservatism. I mean, he's got the typical, you know, three-legged stool, the social conservatism, fiscal and national security conservatism. He's kind of liens libertarian, but, I mean, totally not racist, which is what Altright is supposed to be all about.

I think it kind of displays that the left really doesn't understand conservative philosophy at all. I mean, they kind of let to lump him in with the alt-right. Right. But I think it's also really dangerous when they do this. And, you know, this is similar. We've talked a bit, I think, about how the Southern Poverty Law Center is under fire right now. You know, their founder and their president up until a week ago or so have both stepped down. There's an investigation going on by a former Obama aide.

there's accusations of racism and, you know, sexual harassment and other problems there. But the Southern Poverty Law Center for years has done like a hate groups list, which lumps in conservatives with literally the KKK. And I think that that is sort of the same thing that's happening here. We need to be able to call out people as racist and as hate groups. But when the media or a liberal activist group uses those terms to apply to people that they disagree with, but are not racist. They undermine it and they make it so that people genuinely believe there are no real racist or the media is so unfair they can't trust them on it.

And that poisons things. That really does. Yeah. I also think that liberal outlets like the economist, they think of, I mean, they kind of lump these kind of new startup conservative brands all in one kind of far right bucket. And I think they just think of all of the new right kind of intellectual dark web type people as being all right. And I think a lot of it just does come down to ignorance.

I mean, I can't read their hearts, but I do wonder if sometimes it's a deliberate attempt to ostracize and make it less likely that people will engage with conservative thought. But I think the thing is that sort of backfires in the sense of if you make all or most robust conservative thought offensive, then you make it more likely. I think that people, if they say, oh, all of this is evil, maybe I should reconsider, you know, my belief on something like racism, which would be really

truly horrendous and horrible. And so, I mean, I don't know. I feel like the mainstream media is, in a way, fueling extremism by labeling people like Shapiro is all right. Well, hopefully everyone will get the point about Shapiro not being all right after this episode. And that's going to do it for today's episode. Thanks for listening to the Daily Signal podcast brought to you from the Robert H. Bruce Radio Studio at the Heritage Foundation. Please be sure to subscribe on iTunes, Google Play, or SoundCloud, and please leave us a review or a five-star rating on iTunes. Robin Rachel will be with you on Monday. You've been listening to The Daily Signal podcast, executive produced by Kate Trinko and Daniel Davis.

Sound design by Michael Gooden, Lauren Evans, and Thalia Rampersad. For more information, visit DailySignal.com.