The new Republican health study group may be interested in resurrecting Sen. John McCain’s (R-AZ) failed consumer-driven health care proposal or ensuring that Americans never have a choice between a public or private health care plan.

One goal is certain: this isn’t about coming up with viable policy solutions. To the contrary. This group is more interested in scoring political points and recycling trite rhetoric, than they are in lowering health care costs.

Consider Rep. Roy Blunt’s (R-MO) (he’s the group’s chair) description of the GOP’s approach to the health care crisis:

Republicans are committed to making health care more affordable, more accessible and offer more options to American families…Through this working group, Republicans will develop real solutions to improve our health care system by putting patients before paperwork and frivolous lawsuits. I am honored that the Republican Leader has asked me to lead a group of talented members who I know will be active participants in this important debate.”

To identify “real solutions,” one must first properly diagnose the problem. Blunt’s argument that “frivolous lawsuits” are significantly driving up health care costs, however, misses the point entirely.

The total cost of malpractice constitutes just 0.46 percent of total health care expenditures and settlements have grown modestly with inflation. While approximately 98,000 people die each year from negligent treatment, a mere 2 percent sue their physicians. As Maggie Mahar of Health Beat observed, “a very small group of doctors are losing or settling malpractice lawsuits, but they are losing big.” Between 1990 and 2002, “5.2 percent of doctors were responsible for 55 percent” of all malpractice pay outs.

In short, the increasing costs of malpractice insurance premiums are hurting doctors, but they’re not the real causes of increasing health care costs. And the longer Republicans obscure the real issues and obstruct reform efforts, the higher the costs will rise.

Throughout the course of the stimulus debate, I have argued that investing in health care would create health care jobs in the short term and lay the foundation for lowering health care costs.

But Sens. Ben Nelson (D-NE) and Susan Collins (R-ME) — who have led the effort to cut spending in the stimulus bill by about $100 billion — aren’t buying it. In an effort to trim “the fat“, they’re slashing a litany of health care provisions. The Kaiser Family Foundation has the latest:

- Reduce funds for federal subsidies for health insurance under COBRA by $5 billion and funds to help hospitals adopt electronic health records by $2 billion.

- Federal subsidies for COBRA would cover 50% of health insurance premiums for 12 months, compared with 65% of premiums for nine months as called for in the original Senate legislation.

- Reduce funds for the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority for pandemic flu preparedness by about $870 million.

- Reduce funds for health care prevention and wellness programs by $2 billion.

- Eliminate funds for comparative-effectiveness research and school nutrition programs.

Today, President Obama explained the logic of investing in the health care sector:

If we’re going to be spending money anyway creating jobs, why not create jobs getting these medical records set up in a way that drives down health care costs over the long term?

So my critics have said that’s social policy. That’s not stimulus. Look, doesn’t it make sense if we’re going to spend this money to solve big problems that have been around for decades? That’s what we’re trying to do.

Watch it:

It may be pointing out the obvious, but the general public overwhelmingly supports comprehensive health reform. Most are even willing to pay higher taxes to bring costs down and cover everyone. Consider these poll results:

- When asked to name “the most important problem facing the country today,” the public now rates health care second only to the economy

- 83 percent said it was “very important” that “any health care reform plan” makes sure all Americans are covered

- 61 percent said they were willing to pay higher taxes to achieve those goals, and more than half said they were willing to have the Government require employers to pay most of the health insurance premiums to cover their workers

Health reform advocates, myself included, sometimes interpret this data as validation of our vision of reform and its inevitability (to use the words of Sen. Max Baucus).

But we shouldn’t get too comfortable. These numbers aren’t from 2008 or the last election cycle — they’re from 1993. From September 1993, just as President Clinton was making his case for reform to the public. Then, just like today, the people were on his side. They overwhelmingly supported a larger government role in the health care system, an employer mandate, a personal financial sacrifice etc…

But the reformers still failed. The President may have been focused on health reform, he may have been energetically making his case to the public, but opponents scared the public about the consequences of reform.

Unfortunately, Americans are no more concerned about reform sixteen years later. Today, sixty-two percent of voters say the economic crisis makes it more important than ever to take on health care reform, but “many Americans are nervous that health care overhaul may actually worsen their coverage.” According to the pollsters, “voters are equally as anxious about changing the health care system as they are hopeful that an overhaul will improve their situation.”

As Chris Jennings points out at the National Journal blog, “when it comes to health reform, fear beats hope. In the past, this has meant that nothing gets done.”

So the problem is not in convincing the American people that we need reform; they’ve heard that message before and they overwhelmingly agree with it. The real goal, this time, is to do a better job in mobilizing that public support into action for change. It’s about getting all the troops behind a proposal that lowers costs and expands coverage. And it’s also about flipping anxiety about reform into anxiety about inaction.

We should adopt the model of our opponents: convince Americans that rising costs are a threat (check!) and then explain to them that while you understand their anxieties, if we fail to act, then the economy and the rising costs of health care will devastate the American family and economy.

It’s not really about scaring people, it’s about warning them about the realistic consequences of inaction.