Another View On Health Care

ZandarDad flagged me an editorial on health care reform this morning from the Editorial Board of the Cincinnati Enquirer and asked me to take a look at it.

President Barack Obama should call a time-out on health care reform, go back to the drawing board, and actually listen to what all Americans are saying instead of dismissing those who object as simply uninformed stooges. Polls show that Americans increasingly agree with Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., who argues for a more incremental approach and says it's "a real mistake to try to jam through" the proposed Democratic overhaul.

Even some of Obama's supporters seem unsettled by the botched message and bumbled strategy on health care reform. They wonder why he ceded the job of crafting a plan to the likes of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her left-leaning allies who have yearned for a government-run, universal single-payer plan - an overhaul far more radical than Americans were ready to accept.

Obviously, there's little reason to believe that the end product will turn out to be bipartisan in any meaningful sense.

Merely re-labeling it to make it more palatable won't help: It's Health Care Reform. No, it's Health Insurance Reform. No, it's Entitlement Reform. No, it's Hospital Gowns with Open Backs Reform.

So here's our message for Congress:

Tear it up, folks.

Just tear it up and start over.

It is somewhat of a tempting prospect. Obama really has fumbled the message. I've said numerous times that for the centerpiece of his domestic agenda, President Obama sure does seem to act like he wants to pass a bill. He's left it completely up to Congress to handle, and Congress has no intention of passing a real reform bill. So what do we do about it? The Enquirer suggests Wyden-Bennett:

Sharp-eyed readers may note that many of these principles align well with an alternative bill proposed by Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., and Sen. Robert Bennett, R-Utah. It may be the only truly bipartisan plan out there, with support from key senators in both parties.

Wyden-Bennett would move America away from employer-provided insurance:

Money that employers pay for coverage would go directly to workers.

Workers would use the money to choose their own insurance on the competitive, open market.

Everyone would be required to have insurance.

Since government wouldn't have to help fund employers' plans any more, that money would help pay premiums for lower-income (up to 400 percent of poverty) Americans.

The Congressional Budget Office says this plan could quickly pay for itself, and studies indicate it could reduce health care spending by $1.5 trillion over the next decade, not increase it by $1 trillion or more as the Democratic plans might.

A more radical plan? Perhaps.

But its rational simplicity is appealing.

Maybe that's why Wyden-Bennett is getting the stiff-arm from Democratic leadership - it's too simple, and it gives control-driven bureaucrats fewer levers to pull in the future.

To be clear: We're not endorsing Wyden-Bennett here. It needs more work and serious public debate. But it shows that it's possible to envision reform that doesn't resort to the tired old top-down, command-and-control mode Washington seems to favor.

And actually, I agree with the CE here. Wyden-Bennett does need a lot of work. As it stands right now, it's a huge gift to the insurance companies. I've discussed it before and the reasons Wyden-Bennett won't work as is: it really is too simple. Having employers give that compensation to employees to pay for insurance means yes, employees can take that money and shop around. It also means that insurance companies have every incentive to offer the least comprehensive plans as possible for maximum profit, because everyone will have to have insurance. Wyden-Bennett with a public option that would lower costs and foster competition would actually be a great plan. Wyden-Bennett without a public option would result in tens of millions of underinsured Americans with catastrophe only health insurance, the way car insurance is today. Now granted, there's much more competition in the auto field. But think about how many auto insurance companies for high risk drivers with low incomes are out there just so you can keep your car barely legal? God help you if you need the insurance. The same prospect awaits millions of Americans on health insurance.

Besides, Wyden-Bennett gets rid of the tax deduction for companies. If they're forced to offer coverage money to employees, and don't get deductions for it, that will be another game-changer in the American landscape. Employers would seek to hire whichever employee costs the least for them to give insurance compensation to. Single parents with kids on health insurance plans would find themselves to be the first let go...or not hired a all. And finally, let's not kid ourselves here, 200 million Americans shopping for health insurance? Informed shoppers will find the best deals. The rest are going to find out the hard way that there's always fine print. Wyden-Bennett still doesn't solve the major problem with health insurance: it's a for profit industry, and it does nothing to remove the rationing of health care by ability to pay for it, in fact it mandates it.

While the editorial does have good points, I disagree with the notion that none of the bills before Congress are worth passing. Anything that does pass needs at minimum the public option, and all the four bills that have come out of committee have it. Only the Senate Finance Committee refuses to consider it. The insurance companies are still calling the shots here. A truly "radical plan" would give them direct competition.