For the past few days I’ve seen many articles asking, “What would Reagan do about Obamacare?”
It seems the discussion’s genesis was an article written by Avik Roy for the National Review entitled, “How Would Ronald Reagan Have Replaced Obamacare?”
Although I loved President Reagan, my knee-jerk reaction was, “I don’t care.” Obamacare is unconstitutional, as would be any “replacement” plan. As much as I respected Ronald Reagan – heck, I joined the Navy in part due to Reagan being commander in chief – if he advocated for any federal involvement in the dispensation of private health insurance or health care, I know I should disagree. Of course, that’s easy for me to say – I’m not president.
However, I was curious, so I read the article. Roy reviewed a book about Reagan authored by Henry Olsen entitled, “The Working Class Republican.” Roy wrote that, “Reagan’s views on health-care reform might surprise those who think of him as a libertarian absolutist. …”
Now, no one would mistake Reagan for a “libertarian absolutist.” If he had been, he would have rejected each and every federal budget that crossed his desk, as well as commence the closure of most federal departments and agencies – at least nine of the 15 are clearly beyond the purview of the federal government. And most of the money spent by the feds is on unconstitutional projects. So no – an absolutist he was not. Again, easy for me to say.
Roy continued by quoting a passage in the book from Reagan’s famous televised 1964 “A Time for Choosing” speech in support of a much more libertarian Barry Goldwater.
He pulled a passage of that speech from Olsen’s book that read, “No one in this country should be denied medical care for lack of funds. … Any person in the United States who requires medical attention and cannot provide for himself should have it provided for him.”
As a compassionate human being, I agree wholeheartedly with Ronaldus Magnus. But as a strict constitutionalist, again, I know I should not. I stated in an article just a couple of days ago, entitled, “Treat the Constitution Like the NFL Rulebook,” that regardless of our feelings and desire to help our fellow citizens, we MUST follow the nation’s rulebook. Nowhere in our nation’s rulebook does it even hint that the federal government can or should provide assistance of any kind to its citizens. However, this hardline stance is not practical. It hasn’t been for a very long time.
Ronald Reagan knew this. He was a practical conservative. He knew he could not take as hard a line as did Goldwater years before. He had to work within the system presented to him at the time.
That being said, he never would have signed onto Obamacare for the same reason he opposed Medicare. “Reagan opposed Medicare for two principal reasons: participation was mandatory, and because Medicare spent scarce taxpayer funds to subsidize coverage for wealthy people – even millionaires – who didn’t need the help,” wrote Roy.
It sounds counterintuitive, but in order to roll back government involvement in health care, the strict rules of the Constitution must, to a certain extent, be put aside for now. However easy they are to recite, strict originalist rules just won’t resonate with the public today.
Roy suggests that a “coherent Reagan-style reform” would include “a robust system of tax credits and health savings accounts to help the poor afford the coverage,” so as to not be forced into “single-payer programs like Medicaid,” thus “focusing our expenditures on those who are truly in need.”
He added that, “the only way conservatives will ever be successful at gaining public support for rolling back government involvement in the health-care system is if we do so in a way that improves coverage and care for the poor and the vulnerable.” This was Reagan’s vision.
So I guess it does matter what Reagan would do about Obamacare.
