For a long time now, healthcare has been a big problem in the United States. We are the only industrialized nation that still does not provide public coverage for its citizens. We tried back in 1993, but the attempt was bungled so badly that it has not been seriously considered since. Now that we once again have a Congress and White House in Democratic hands, it's time to try again, and - hopefully - get it right this time.
Yesterday,
the House Democrats released the first draft of the Healthcare reform bill:
House Democratic leaders gave members their first glimpse of their version of President Obama’s healthcare overhaul on Tuesday, with liberals leaving the meeting happy and centrist Democrats walking away skeptical.
The outline put forth lacked many of the details that will decide the fate of the overhaul — notably, how the proposal would be paid for. But it made good on the commitment Obama and Democratic leaders made to include a government-run "public option."
A public option for healthcare insurance is essential for liberals in the caucus. Blue Dogs and New Democrats got less of what they wanted. Most notably, the plan ignores Blue Dogs' call for a government plan to be a "fallback option," if reform of private healthcare doesn’t work.
The article refers to it as the HELP bill, which shows that Dems are finally getting wise to the game of properly naming things. Then again - it may just be named that because it came from the HELP committee.
Naturally, the Republicans (and some conservative Democrats) are against it:
Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) took to the House floor on Tuesday to question the public plan being advocated by Democrats.
"The forthcoming plan from Democratic leaders will make healthcare more expensive, limit treatments, ration care and put bureaucrats in charge of medical decisions rather than patients and doctors," he said. "That amounts to a government takeover of healthcare, and it will hurt, rather than help, middle-class families across our country."
Some Democrats also have reservations.
As noted in a
first-person essay by a Canadian, these are the same myths that they propagate about the Canadian system, and are easily debunked, if people would simply pay attention.
- Expense: The biggest waste of money in the healthcare system today is the private insurance middleman. Bad investments, high CEO pay, and the need to maintain a profit add costs that would be removed with a government-run "insurance" program. It would also eliminate the need for the uninsured to use emergency rooms for routine healthcare.
- Limit treatments: I've never heard a clear explanation of how this would be the case. It would actually increase treatments, because you wouldn't have some private insurance bean-counter saying "no, we're not going to pay for that".
- Ration care: ditto.
- Put bureaucrats in charge of medical decisions rather than patients and doctors: This is the biggest joke of all for anyone who has medical insurance. Insurance companies put out lists of procedures that they will and won't cover, and how much (Chiropractic? not covered. Mental Health? 20 visits per year max). A properly created public option insurance coverage would remove those limits. You'd actually get the middleman OUT of the medical decision process, and put it back where it belongs - with the patients and the doctors.
(there are other debunked myths at the link...)The one remaining sticking point is "how would it be paid for?", and the answer is the one no one wants to say out loud: raise taxes. However, this could be offset in two ways. First, people that choose the public option would no longer be paying for their share of public insurance out of their paychecks (does any company pay 100% of the premiums anymore?). Some companies may choose to remove medical insurance coverage from their benefits packages completely, and pass the savings on to their employees, which would also offset the tax increase.
The second option could be to offer a tax credit to those that don't want a "bureaucrat making their medical decisions", and would rather go with a private insurance option. To get the credit, they would have to provide proof of coverage with a private provider.
Of course - I am not a legislator, and there is no telling what we'll end up with once the Republicans and conservaDems get their stank all over the bill. I just hope it doesn't get compromised to the point that it's destined to fail upon implementation and make the doom-and-gloom prognosticator's warnings come true.
82 comments )
