Did they change the definition of ‘socialist’?

On Friday, President Obama's signature health care reform law reached its two-year anniversary. This week, justices of the U.S. Supreme Court will begin the process of deciding whether the law ever gets a third birthday.

In Las Vegas, Republicans celebrated what they regard as a dim holiday with a visit from the chairman of the Republican National Committee, Reince Priebus. Flanked by U.S. Sen. Dean Heller and Rep. Mark Amodei, Priebus denounced the law as a "socialistic-style" health care plan.

This, of course, is wrong.

If the law provided for the federal government to own every hospital in America, it could rightly be called socialist. If every doctor, nurse, physician's assistant and orderly who works in those hospitals suddenly became an employee of the federal government, if could rightly be called socialist. And if every American, by birthright, got health care -- paid for by their tax dollars, of course -- it could rightly be called socialist.

In fact, there was an alternative along these lines offered by an actual socialist, U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont. Perhaps the chairman missed it, although it's hard to see how: as a procedural gambit, Republican U.S. Sen. Tom Coburn insisted that Sanders's single-payer amendment be read aloud on the floor. (Sanders ultimately withdrew it.)

Instead, Obama's health care plan does what American reforms have been doing for decades: It funnels money to private insurance companies.

I mentioned that in a question to Priebus, which caused him to scoff. "Oh, c'mon," he said, asking if I was aware that a yet-to-be appointed board that Republicans voted last week to repeal would be setting Medicare reimbursement rates, "rationing" health care for Americans.

But doesn't the government set Medicare reimbursement rates now? I asked. And, although I didn't get a chance to say so, the Independent Payment Advisory Board is specifically prohibited from rationing care, cutting benefits or shifting costs to patients.

"The government is too involved in health care right now," Priebus replied. Republicans prefer a private solution, one in which insurance companies are allowed to compete across state lines to drive down costs, for example.

But Republicans didn't always think that. In fact, back in 1993, as then-first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton was leading closed-to-the-public meetings to devise a comprehensive health care reform plan, Republicans were the ones advocating an individual mandate.

Sen. John Chafee, Republican of Rhode Island, introduced the Health Equity and Access Reform Today Act of 1993, along with 21 co-sponsors. (Only two Democrats were among them.) The bill never saw debate or a vote, but was intended as an alternative to the Clinton plan. And -- based upon some policy work done at the conservative Heritage Foundation -- it would have required every citizen or lawful resident to purchase health insurance coverage by Jan. 1, 2005.

But now it's creeping socialism?

What should not be lost in this week's debate is this: President Obama saw a thorny, decades-old problem and tried to fix it, and was opposed by Republicans every single step of the way. Whether you agree or disagree with the constitutional question of whether the Commerce Clause empowers Congress to order Americans to purchase health insurance or not, it's almost impossible to argue that allowing people to go without until they must use the emergency room is somehow a better policy idea.

Obama's goal -- a goal shared by previous presidents of both parties -- was to extend health insurance coverage to people who did not have it. That this can be depicted as evil says more about the orientation of our current politics than it ever will about our current president.

Steve Sebelius is a Review-Journal political columnist and author of the blog SlashPolitics.com. Follow him on Twitter (@SteveSebelius) or reach him at (702) 387-5276 or ssebelius@reviewjournal.com.