The Corner

Politics & Policy

Walker’s Health Plan and Its Mistaken Critics

Jonathan Chait and Kevin Drum have offered criticisms of Walker’s, and to a lesser extent Rubio’s, health-care plans from the Left—criticisms that seem to me either to lack perspective or misunderstand the plan.

1) Walker and Rubio’s plans are “not so much plans as skeletal descriptions of planlike concepts,” says Chait. They have an “extreme lack of detail.” I’d like more detail, too, but Walker’s description is reasonably detailed for this stage of the campaign. It compares well to this document from Obama’s 2008 campaign, which was obviously incomplete (and also pretty different from the law Obama eventually signed).

2) Drum says he would expect Walker “to explain pretty carefully” how the plan can work without adding to the deficit, and he doesn’t. Walker says he is going to reform the tax break for employer-provided plans and get savings out of Medicaid. He doesn’t specify the numbers in either case, or the proportions, but there’s no reason to doubt that some such mix could be made to work. (Avik Roy notes that Walker’s problem is a lot bigger if you assume that he would reverse rather than replace Obamacare’s Medicare cuts. Republicans have generally favored replacing them, but we’ll know more when Walker makes his Medicare proposal.)

3) Chait says Walker would let insurance companies “charge higher prices to sicker customers,” which would be bad “for people who have, or ever will have, higher medical needs.” No. Walker’s plan, like the Burr-Hatch-Upton plan, would bar insurers from charging higher prices to sicker customers provided they had maintained continuous coverage, which presumably includes people with pre-existing conditions who had gotten coverage through Obamacare. Obamacare’s regulation, which bans discrimination with no requirement that people keep continuous coverage, reduces the incentive for healthy people to buy insurance and thus necessitates the individual mandate. The Walker idea increases the incentive to buy insurance and eliminates any need for a mandate. At the same time, it provides people with the means to get that continuous coverage.

4) Drum: “[I]f you let your insurance lapse, you’re screwed.” At that point you’d have to go to a high-risk pool. (For some reason Chait ignores the insurance regulation part of Walker’s plan and Drum ignores the risk pools.) Remember, though, that we’re talking about a population with both the means and a strong incentive to keep covered.

5) “Walker will somehow prevent insurance companies from raising your rates if you maintain continuous coverage. He provides no clue just what kind of insurance regulation would accomplish this, and for a good reason: I doubt there is one,” writes Drum. How Walker will do this “remains a mystery.” A protection for people in the group market who have maintained continuous coverage has been law since 1996. Walker’s plan would just expand and strengthen that approach in the individual market. You can read more about the basic idea here or here. There’s no mystery.

6) Drum: “Walker’s tax credits would, at best, pay only for catastrophic coverage. Maybe not even that. Nor will his plan cover everyone. Nor is it likely to cost nothing. Nor does it have any concrete proposals to reduce the cost of health care. If you think that’s OK, then Walker is your guy.” Drum started off confessing his boredom with reading Republican health proposals, and by this point he’s not even trying. Walker’s plan would not cover everyone, largely because nobody would be forced to buy health insurance, but neither is everyone covered by Obamacare. Capping the tax exclusion for employer-provided coverage is as much a “concrete proposal to reduce the cost of health care” as anything in Obamacare. And so on.

What the critics have established is that  Walker’s plan looks pretty bad if you ignore its key provisions, judge it by unreasonable yardsticks, approach it in bad faith, or all of the above.

Update: Forgot to add: (disclosure)

Ramesh Ponnuru — Ramesh Ponnuru is a senior editor for National Review, a columnist for Bloomberg View, a visiting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, and a senior fellow at the National Review Institute.

Most Popular


If Amy Wax Is Wrong, Let’s See the Data

Regarding the kerfuffle Jason Richwine addressed here earlier, the economist Glenn Loury has posted an impassioned plea to his Facebook page. Loury, you may recall, hosts the video blog where Wax made her controversial claim that black students at Penn Law School rarely graduate in the top half of the ... Read More
Politics & Policy

San Francisco Bans Fur Sales

San Francisco has banned the sale of fur. From the CBS-SF story: San Francisco has become the first major U.S. city to ban the sale of fur clothing and products. Tuesday, the Board of Supervisors unanimously approved a measure that prohibits the sale of fur clothes, accessories, even souvenirs in stores and ... Read More

For the First Time in Weeks, Relief Sweeps over Austin

Making the click-through worthwhile: The Austin bomber is done in by one of his own devices; some new numbers suggest that a small but significant portion of Trump voters are tiring of the chaos and aren’t showing up to support other Republicans in 2018; and the mixed news for conservatives coming out of the ... Read More

The Baleful Effect of #MeToo on Campus

Remember the series of hurricanes that pounded the Caribbean last summer? Something like that has been occurring on college campuses, as they're hit by one destructive mania after another: diversity, Title IX, anti-speech protests. Now it's the #MeToo Movement. In this Martin Center article, British academic ... Read More
Politics & Policy

A Time for Choosing

This year’s Conservative Political Action Conference was controversial. Invitations to European nationalist populists such as Nigel Farage and Marion Maréchal-Le Pen (the niece of Marine Le Pen) caused many longtime conservatives to question whether they still belong to the conservative movement. Vocal critics ... Read More