Scott Brown: GOP’s Health Care Peace-Broker?

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


Thus far, the Republican war against health care reform has been one long, blaring cry to repeal the federal law. Given just how unlikely this outcome would be under the current administration, the GOP’s strategy has largely come across as political posturing meant to undermine the Democrats rather than offer any constructive alternatives or changes to the Affordable Care Act.

That was until Thursday, when Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.) decided to break away from his party’s all-or-nothing call for repeal, proposing a reform that could actually be an improvement on the federal law. Brown has teamed up with Democrat Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) to introduce legislation that would allow states to opt out of the individual mandate to purchase health insurance more quickly. Under federal health care reform, states can appeal to the federal government for mandate waivers beginning in 2017 if they propose an acceptable alternative. Brown and Wyden want to push the start date to 2014, so that states don’t have to go through the motions of complying with the federal law if they have an alternative plan in the works.

Within the Affordable Care Act itself, there is already a way for states to opt out of the law—one that doesn’t require suing the federal government or repealing the entire thing. Wyden had pushed to insert this provision in the original bill—as Oregon had already begun experimenting with alternatives to federal Medicaid—along with Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who supports bringing a single-payer system to Vermont. But the state waivers don’t just support liberal alternatives: any state can apply to opt out of the federal law, provided that they meet certain criteria. Ezra Klein explains: “If a state can think of a plan that covers as many people, with as comprehensive insurance, at as low a cost, without adding to the deficit, the state can get the money the federal government would’ve given it for health-care reform but be freed from the individual mandate, the exchanges, the insurance requirements, the subsidy scheme and pretty much everything else in the bill.”

This all makes sense to me: conservative legislators and states that have been complaining about oppressive federal mandates actually have the opportunity to put their own ideas to the test, and the Brown-Wyden bill will make it even easier for them to do so. Yes, there are certain things that are non-negotiable: states must provide coverage that’s as comprehensive as the federal law, for instance, which will force conservative-leaning states that have failed to insure many low-income residents to expand access. For states that have been complaining about a “one-size-fits all health care plan,” the waiver “provides flexibility and allows states like Massachusetts to opt out of portions of the health care law,” as Brown himself says.

Health reform advocates could use the waiver to press opponents to explain exactly how they’d do a better job: those who oppose the law would have to articulate exactly what their state-based, non-federal alternative would look like. Texas Governor Rick Perry, for instance, recently threatened to drop out of the federal Medicaid program altogether, claiming that states could act as “laboratories of innovation” to devise a different plan for insuring the poor. The Brown-Wyden bill will make it even easier for states to step in if they can indeed offer better ideas and not just incendiary rhetoric. And legislators like Perry could find themselves under increasing pressure to put up or shut up.

Moreover, Brown’s move is an encouraging sign that not all Republicans are wiling to go along with the GOP’s just say no approach to governing, and his bipartisan proposal could draw other moderate Republicans out of the woodwork. Sen. Bob Bennett (R-Utah) was primaried out of office precisely because he committed the heresy of collaborating with Wyden on health care. And Maine’s Olympia Snowe—who’s already facing a GOP primary challenger—has shown signs of shifting rightward, signing onto a brief supporting the states’ lawsuit against health care reform after she’d worked for months on the bill. Brown had already broken with his party on multiple high-profile occasions, and his latest move suggests that he’s willing to carry the torch into the next Congress.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate