With a Cherry on Top

by: Harris

Thu Sep 03, 2009 at 23:37:09 PM EDT

Tuesday's fundraiser from the Michigan GOP would be funny enough on its own, were it not so earnest.  Party chair Rich Weiser outdoes himself (or at least he at least got his money's worth).  The Atlantic has the goods.  And as they say, it opens with a bang:

Some Democrats in Congress, including members from Michigan, are trying to pass laws to cancel your private health insurance and put your family on Medicare.

This is not a scare tactic; it's the truth.

 Well, say this, at least we now know where Twitter Pete got his "now I know.." ideas from.  The "horrors" in the letter keep on coming, not least this:

Michigan's Lieutenant Governor John Cherry recently said in a townhall meeting state government should provide a system of health care for all. Cherry also encouraged a group of leftwing activists earlier this year to hit the streets promoting his vision of a government take-over of family health care.

This is fevered. Yes, in fairness one can hypothesize that Weiser is referring to Conyer's proposal for national single-payer coverage, but Weiser goes to amp it up one last notch:

Barack Obama and John Cherry...they have one thing in common. They want state and national bureaucrats to dictate your health care options, choices and quality of care. Simply put, they have really bad and dangerous ideas.

Whatever they call it - ObamaCare or CherryCare - it will harm Michigan's hard-working families.

Yep, that's scary.  "Really bad and dangerous ideas," why old George 43 himself couldn't have said it better.  Or worse.  

So you may be asking, what exactly are these evil CherryCare/ObamaCare proposals?  For that  we sadly need to follow them down a rabbit hole to Rep. Mike Rogers' openng statement

After first expressing "disapointment" (don't they all?) Rogers soon lapses into  teabag territory, asserting that we "are abadonning the principles of America".  In this land (our land?) health care is a benefit we earn -- all this business about reform is really a penalty on the 85 percent of hard working Americans.  

Oh dear.

The next section, however, is where Rogers leaves us, and where a bit of analysis and not simply snark must come to play.

Rogers' principle concern -- the same one that evidently lies behind Weiser's letter -- is the role of the Health Choices Commissioner  to"actually go in an disenroll individuals,"  surely a terrible thing.  If only Rogers or his aides had bothered to look at the sections in question (sec. 141-143).  Briefly these sections create the Commissioner post and describe its enforcement power.

Under HB 3200 Qualified Health Benefit Plans (QHBP) must meet certain standareds of performance such as not turning away people, no recission except in case of fraud, and the covering certain essential benefits (sec. 121 (b).  So what happens if a company fails to follow through by charging for preventive care (barred), or skimming the insurance pool?

The bill describes an escalating set of measures, from civil fines, to the disenrollment of individuals, to the shutting down of the plan.  While the Republican fear machine sees this action as arbitrary, the reality being described is something else again.  In the Real World,  QHBPs that have their members "disenrolled" have already been busy at work cheating those participants, they have shorted on services, overcharged, or otherwise increased costs.  Moreover, they've already been to court -- far from arbitrary, these are sanctions against predators.

Given this, one may well ask, "what bill was Mike Rogers reading?  Does he know what's in his hand?"  Mike Rogers' protests are those of one who would side with criminals. It may be that he prefers the company of abusive insurance companies, or perhaps only that he trusts the talking points Weiser and others have handed out. 

Finally, Rogers, Weiser and the Republicans do stand for freedom, but a freedom of a peculiar sort,  the freedom of benefit plans not to provide services, the freedom on the plans part to kick you off, charge you more for essentially arbitrary reasons; it is, in short, the freedom to abuse the policy holder.  

This is their dark secret, made all the more ironic given the abuse (and fear) of their tea-bagging supporters.