The last time health care was repealed

The drive to “repeal and replace” the newly enacted health care-reform law has already bumped into a bit of Beltway conventional wisdom: Entitlements are never repealed. Even if Republicans somehow summoned the political will to try, they would first need to win the presidency and a filibuster-proof majority in the U.S. Senate.

That would be a tall order, to be sure. And no one should underestimate the difficulty of reversing what Washington has wrought—in a welfare state, the ratchet effect usually works only one way. But those who say it has never been done before are forgetting about the Medicare Catastrophic Coverage Act of 1988.

Unlike President Obama’s recent health care handiwork, the 1988 law was a genuinely bipartisan achievement passed by lopsided margins. It was signed into law by a Republican president, Ronald Reagan. It offered all kinds of new benefits, including expanded coverage of hospital stays, at-home care, and prescription drugs (the act was in some respects of a forerunner of Medicare Part D).

The Medicare Catastrophic Coverage Act was nevertheless repealed a year later. No change in partisan control of Washington was necessary—the repeal was passed by a Democratic Congress and signed into law by another Republican president, George H.W. Bush. The repeal turned out to be most popular with the elderly voters who had demanded the new benefits in the first place.

Why? In addition to creating new benefits, the reform also imposed staggering new costs. Those costs fell most heavily on the senior citizens who were supposed to be the program’s biggest constituency. But, congressional Democrats were astonished to learn, many of these seniors were happy with their existing coverage and resented having to pay a new tax to fund this expansion of government—costs which kicked in before many of the benefits.

Sound familiar? The similarities don’t end there. Members of Congress also had to hear from angry mobs opposed to the legislation, otherwise known as their constituents. The most memorable such incident occurred on Aug. 17, 1989, when House Ways and Means Chairman Dan Rostenkowski (D-Ill.) held a meeting in his district to sell seniors on the benefits of the catastrophic coverage act.

Instead of being won over by their powerful congressman, the angry seniors waved protest signs and ran him out of the room. As Rostenkowski fled, they shouted “coward,” “recall,” and “impeach.” One elderly woman wearing heart-shaped glasses even threw herself on the hood of Rostenkowski’s car to keep him from leaving.

Rostenkowski got out of the car and tried to escape on foot. The crowd chased him for about a block before his driver came to whisk him away. Imagine what would be said if the Tea Party movement did something like that. Instead the protest was organized by one Jan Schakowsky, then director of the Illinois State Council of Senior Citizens, now a Democratic congresswoman and chief deputy whip for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

The protest made the national news and graced the front pages of newspapers. It also had its desired affect—the catastrophic coverage act was repealed within three months. Not everyone who opposed Medicare expansion was particularly principled or even well informed. Health care scholar David Hyman quoted a reporter as saying at the time, “the elderly are not against the new benefits—unlimited hospital care, new at-home benefits, prescription drug coverage; they just don’t want to pay for them.”

  • Pingback: The last time health care was repealed – Dark Politricks

  • petrak

    For those of us who purchase health insurance through our employer group programs as the majority of people do, younger people already subsidize older Amercians; premiums are equal under these programs. If we are concerned about the unfair burden of health insurance costs on younger Americans, we should outlaw group employer plans as being unfairly discriminatory, an insurance regulatory provision that already exists in all states. Of course these people can choose to purchase insurance on the open market or to be uninsured. Employers seldom subsidize health insurance outside of their own group plans so this is rarely an affordable option. If they choose to be uninsured and then get sick, we pick up the bill through other “entitlement” programs such as Medicaid rather than letting them die on the street as a penalty due to their choice to remain uninsured. Of course they may choose to pay from their own pocket, an option that results in numerous bankruptcies, which their creditors and eventually the public bears the costs.

    Rather than talking about repeal of a “projected” funded program (entitlement?) that has not even taken affect, a better approach might be for people to search for ways to make this work. Let’s keep in mind that legislation was passed that prevented health insurance companies from rejecting people due to pre-existing conditions, eliminated caps on coverage and moved to require that everyone carry health insurance, much the same as we require automobile insurance. While some of us may think that this takes away an individual’s choice to choose, we all know that if these people get sick, most of them will not be able to pay their share of the cost without some form of subsidy, either the government or private industry.

  • Pingback: Can Govt Health Care Bill Be Repealed? You Bet!

  • ippy01

    The big difference here is that the costs fell heavily on seniors last time. This time, young people (who tend not to fuss much and don’t vote at the same rate) are being bent over to transfer yet more wealth to Gramps.

  • Pingback: The American Conservative » Yes, We Can (Repeal Obamacare)

  • goldbeachbiker

    Good piece by Antle; I agree with everything except one element. Why is everyone so afraid of a filibuster? I say, in the event that in 2013 a Republican majority in each house is achieved, and a Republican president is in place, then let the Demoncrats filibuster til they wet their pants on the Senate floor. We will triumph in the end. Also, how about the use of reconciliation? This battle is not over by a long shot.

  • libertyatstake

    Thanks for reminding me about the Rostenkowsi farce. So helpful on so many levels. For starters, the villain is a crooked Chicago pol. And the hilarious mind picture of elderly blue hairs forming an angry mob and setting the crooked pol to fleeing. ROTFLMAO!

    [For a light hearted take on our present peril]

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Jeanette-Rauchle/100000070513598 Jeanette Rauchle

      I have to agree…”Rostenkowski was forced to flee on foot.” I seriously can’t stop laughing about that.

      I would love to hear how the current liberal media would cover that because THAT would be even funnier!

  • Pingback: According to the plans laid out by the candidates, what is my best choice for health care?