It seems my blog post of last week, “The Trouble with Sasse,” has sparked a nerve.
In it, I explained why I believe that, based on US Senate candidate Ben Sasse’s public statements and writings, the former Bush Administration official:
- Supports the basic principles of Obamacare, if not all the details.
- Offered Obamacare’s authors advice on how to improve their bill while it was pending.
- Prospered by advising health care companies how to implement it.
- Wants to replace it with what may fairly be described as “ObamaCare Lite.”
I also noted that he praised Medicare Part D’s “premium support” model as an ideal model for revamping the entire US health care system, in pursuit of a goal of “universal health insurance coverage.”
I also noted that Sasse was for Part D before he was against it.
Obviously, these contentions run counter to the image he has been presenting as the most passionate, knowledgeable, and principled opponent of Obamacare in the race.
Which raises the question: What are his principles, anyway?
The pushback on my piece has been strong. His campaign has circulated a fund-raising email blasting me and FreedomWorks for mischaracterizing Sasse’s views (although all I've done is quote Sasse’s own words).
And Bill Kristol’s Weekly Standard has risen to Sasse’s defense, to attest that he does in fact favor repealing Obamacare (something I’ve never denied).
Now, I’ll be more than happy to withdraw any or all of my contentions when evidence is brought forward proving them inaccurate.
But so far, no one has actually answered them, or really even tried to.
The rebuttals so far have been essentially evasive. I cheerfully grant that Ben Sasse:
- Comports himself as a gentleman.
- Is deeply knowledgeable about about federal health policy.
- Wants to repeal Obamacare.
That’s all wonderful. But those things by themselves are not good enough reasons to put a man in the Senate. As far as I can tell, every Republican wants to repeal Obamacare. So does more than half the U.S. population. These days, a candidate’s desire to repeal Obamacare tells us approximately zero about how he will behave in office. To know that, we also need to know his basic principles (not only his principles for national health care reform but also his principles regarding the role and purpose of government).
So what does Ben Sasse support? What are his reform principles?
Taking my earlier contentions a step further, I would say that, based on his public statements to date, he would appear to be on the horns of at least three dilemmas (all three point to the same underlying issue, the proper role of government in health care):
- Universal Coverage Dilemma. Either he: (a) supports bigger, more expensive, more coercive government to achieve “universal health insurance coverage” (as by an individual mandate, or alternatively by way of massively higher spending) or (b) is willing to live permanently with some significant portion of the U.S. population uninsured.
- Replacement Dilemma. Either he: (a) wants to replace Obamacare with Obamacare Lite in some form (for example, with something akin to Romneycare, but expanded to the whole country), or (b) wants to replace it with a patient-centered health care system.
- Premium Support Dilemma. Either he: (a) supports government-regulated “premium support” schemes, which are built on coercion and mandates, or (b) favors dramatically deregulating the health care arena so doctors and patients can pursue their mutual goals in freedom.
(By the term “premium support,” I mean government-regulated pseudo-market programs like Romneycare, Obamacare, and the Medicare Part D program that Sasse has extolled. The latter can fairly be described as Obamacare Lite for seniors.)
Where does Mr. Sasse come out on these dilemmas? His public statements make it pretty clear he opts for option (a) in all of them. If so, is that the kind of worldview that Nebraskans want in their next U.S. Senator?
I would be delighted to discover I’m mistaken.
And by the way, if Sasse's ultimate goal is option (b) -- market-driven, patient-centered care -- you won't hear me criticizing him for favoring a transitional policy to move us toward that goal. All practical conservatives accept the need for transitions when change is potentially disruptive and affects millions of people.
But the question remains: What is his goal? What are his reform principles? Where would he take us, post-Obamacare?
Or to put it more simply: Which Ben Sasse is the real one? The anti-Obamacare firebrand? Or the Part D-admiring technocrat? The Sasse who claims to reject the entire “Obamacare worldview”? Or the Sasse who extolled Medicare Part D as “the answer to health reform” and a “patient-empowering solution”?
Will the real Ben Sasse please stand up?
Until he anwers that question clearly, I'll have to go by his public statements and assume that he's a big-government technocrat posing as a small-government conservative.
Dean Clancy is FreedomWorks Vice President for Public Policy. He has spent two decades working for health care freedom.