Ted Cruz is trying to position himself for a run at the 2016 Republican nomination for President.
He has already endeared himself to the Tea Party based on his government shutdown strategy.
As with many who need to retain their conservative bona fides while attempting to appeal to a broader audience, Ted has a problem. His actions and words are often at odds with one another.
In an attempt to distance himself from the last Republican who ran for President, Ted said this at a recent Koch Brothers event.
The central narrative of the last election, what the voters heard was, ‘We don’t have to worry about the 47%.’ I think Republicans are and should be the party of the 47%.’
Just as a reminder, the 47% reference here was Romney’s description of those dependent on the government and, as a result, unlikely to vote for him.
Here’s what Ted has done to help the 47% over the last couple of years.
This was an effort to defund Obamacare which provides insurance for a large percentage of the 47%. The government shutdown took a $24B bite out of the ecomony and , according to Mark Zandi from Moody’s, slowed the recovery that we are now experiencing by at least two quarters. It also furloughed thousands of federal employees without pay, though they were eventually paid. Federal contractors also furloughed thousands of employees without pay. They never received their lost pay. Small businesses suffered delays in payments and frozen SBA loans which caused them to lay off workers too.
He later defended his action saying:
As a result of that fight, millions of Americans rose up and demanded we stop the disaster that is Obamacare. Together, we elevated the national debate. And now, the misguided healthcare law is more unpopular than ever.
Ted also opposes any immigration reform that would provide a pathway to citizenship. He supports deportation of Dreamers.
He opposes any increase in the minimum wage.
Each of these positions makes life for the 47% worse. So it does call into question how he plans to become a champion of the poor and middle class.
Now he wants us to believe that he can provide a reasonable alternative to Obamacare. He remains convinced that “every last word of Obamacare must be repealed”. His alternative is designed to address the 7.5M that could lose coverage if the Supreme Court strikes down subsidies for those who have purchased insurance through the federal website.
The administration has done absolutely nothing to prepare for an upcoming Supreme Court decision that could leave millions of Americans unable to afford insurance thanks to this failed law.
Republicans must offer the American people alternatives that lower costs and break the status quo that favors big government and big health care business over hardworking Americans.
Before we dig into this just a couple of points about how insurance works.
Insurance companies make money by spreading the risk of a claim over a large population of insurance customers. The larger to pool of people unlikely to make a claim, the lower the rates for everyone in the pool. Obamacare works because it adds WAY more healthy people to the insurance pool than sick people.
This “pool” business model also introduces a bit of counter intuition with regard to competition. The bigger the pool, the lower the cost. That means that competition actually increases insurance company costs because the pool now has to be split among competitive companies. The number of insurance companies that any particular state can support depends on that state’s population. Increasing the number of choices for consumers (by allowing buying outside state boundaries) will actually reduce the number of in-state choices consumers have, particularly in smaller population states.
Here are the major points of Teddycare.
Allow people to purchase health insurance across state lines
His claim along with other Republicans is that increased competition would lead to lower premiums. This is disputed by experts. That’s because the cost of insurance is driven by the cost of healthcare, and not the marginal costs to operate their companies.
Eliminating state boundaries will return us to a world where healthy people can get very cheap insurance that they never use and ill people, if they can find insurance, won’t be able to afford it.
Insurance is regulated on a state by state basis rather than nationally. Allowing consumer to buy insurance from any state they choose will encourage at least some states to compete for that business by weakening their regulations. We’ve seen the same thing in credit cards where most companies are headquartered in Delaware or South Dakota where consumer protection laws are weak.
Repeal the individual mandate
Obamacare was able to implement requirements to insure everyone (healthy or sick) by requiring everyone (healthy or sick) to purchase insurance. This increases the pool of healthy people enough to actually offset the costs to offer the same plans to sick people. The result that we’ve seen is that the the rate of premium increases we saw before Obamacare have now slowed.
Eliminate the marketplaces
This reduces the ability for consumers to easily shop for plans on an apples to apples basis. Plans are complicated and even with the requirements that a marketplace impose, comparisons are still difficult. Remove the marketplace and very few consumers will be able to make informed decisions. They will instead have to return to insurance brokers who will help drive the cost of insurance up.
Remove the subsidies
Subsidies also widen the pool and make sure that care is being provided at the lowest cost location, a physician’s office rather than the highest cost location, the ER.
Eliminate protections against pre-existing conditions
Insurance companies will simply refuse to offer coverage to the very sick. The very sick will exhaust their own resources, declare bankruptcy and qualify for Medicaid. Tax payers foot the bill.
Eliminate parents’ ability to carry their kids on their insurance until age 26
Kids who age out of their parents’ plans will simply not purchase insurance. Rates go up because the pool is less healthy
Allow insurance companies to cap lifetime benefits
For the first time in our history, bankruptcies because of medical costs went down in this country because of Obamacare. This will cause them to go back up again.
Ted Cruz isn’t offering an alternative to Obamacare. He is simply returning us to the insurance system that existed before Obamacare. This was the system that was failing the 47% and threatening to bankrupt the country with out of control increases in healthcare costs. This was the system that left many people one serious illness or accident away from financial ruin. This was the system where the most vulnerable in our society had the least protection. This was the system where tax payers where forced to carry the burden for 30M uninsured.
I doubt that this will ever be introduced as a piece of legislation because it then can be scored by the CBO. That will reveal it as the fraud that it really is.
That does seem about right for the party that wants to “lower costs” for “hardworking Americans”. That’s really the code word here. We’re not talking about the 47% anymore. We’re talking about the 85% who have insurance and have been brainwashed into believing that extending care to another 27M people must be costing them something.
That’s what Teddycare is all about, fear mongering and Big Lies. One thing you CAN say about Ted Cruz, he is consistent.