On October 11th, John Boehner (R-Ohio), the current House Minority Leader—and the presumptive Speaker of the House in the 112th Congress—warned that we should not expect funding to implement health care reform if the Republicans become the majority in Congress – “They’re going to need money from us to hire those 22,000 federal employees we think it’s going to take to run this monstrosity. And I’ll just tell you, they’re not going to get a dime from us.” 

Representative Boehner went on to acknowledge that an all out repeal of the health care law is unlikely, as President Obama will still hold veto power from the White House. But even if an outright repeal isn’t possible, Republicans will still have the ability to hold up funding for many aspects of the reform legislation through the annual budget process. If Republicans take control of the House (as most polls indicate is a very likely scenario), Boehner stated that it will be the Republicans “job to do everything we can to keep it from being implemented, to keep it from moving ahead.”

So, as I see it, the choice in this election regarding health care is a clear one.  Flawed or not, do you want health care reform?  The bill has many great features—elimination of preexisting conditions clauses and recission, access to minimum coverage for the poorest Americans, etc. But, I think we all recognize that it also comes with a range of problems to be fixed.

Which leaves one question to think about: If the Republicans are in the majority, what is their alternative proposal?

In a recent speech, Kentucky Republican Senate Candidate Rand Paul said that Medicaid is “intergenerational welfare.” His stated rationale was that coverage has spread beyond those “truly in need” and citing the fact that 800,000 people out of Kentucky’s approximately 4.314 million citizens (18.5%) were on Medicaid. Given Kentucky’s Medicaid eligibility requirement—$13,671 in annual household income for family of 4 (62% of the federal poverty level)—I would say that has more to do with the income distribution in Kentucky.

I find Dr. Rand’s comments a bit hypocritical. This is coming from a candidate who is an ophthalmologist (an ophthalmologist who invented his own board certification, no less) and has 50% of his income coming from Medicaid and Medicare. This is the candidate who said in an interview on October 3, 2010 that he would cut Medicare benefits and raise the retirement age for Social Security in order to keep the full Bush-era tax cuts. So while depending on your perspective, I suppose you could consider this to be intergenerational welfare; I would maintain that it is, in fact, intergenerational war.

I’ve been a bit perplexed by this election season. I’ve decided we’re stuck in a real-life version of the 1989 film classic, Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade. You remember the one—the globe-trotting, action-packed search for the Holy Grail. I’m reminded of those prophetic words near the end of the film, “...choose wisely, for while the true Grail will bring you life, the false Grail will take it from you...”

These would be good words for voters to heed on November 2nd. Unfortunately, we’re caught between a false set of choices due to the political messaging that we’re bombarded with via every type of media on a 24-hour basis.

The Republican messaging, with its recent “Tea Party” flavor, is generally “All government is bad.”
The Holy Grail – Eliminate government and let the free market rein. 

The Democratic messaging, with its recent panic attack at the loss of the public popularity contest, is “Save government. It’s best for the little guy.”
The Holy Grail – Let’s keep our government operations on track.

I think the Republican Party is at its most disingenuous these days when compared to the past two decades, using those poor “Tea Party” chumps (most of whom are on Social Security and Medicare) to try to prevent government from curbing the worst of the free market abuses (I’m a free market person – and I can tell you that the ethical among us want protection from all of the unethical business entities).

I think the Democratic Party seems to be populated by fearful sycophants. They’re afraid to be the party of ‘good government’ (which is what we need) because introducing a accountability and good business practices would cause consternation among their traditional supporters.

My advice to voters: Choose wisely. Look for candidates who believe in good government – government that provides reasonable protections (regarding health, land use, safety, economics, etc.) to us all – government that is willing to apply standards, accountability, and good business practices. The candidates are out there in both parties, Republican and Democrat.  But we need to turn off the campaign advertising and look beyond the party-line messaging. If you take the time to explore each candidate’s positions and background, you should be able to choose wisely.