An Internet hub for moderates, centrists, and independents, with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, and right

« Be Careful What You Wish For (Guest Voice)

The Irresponsibility of Mark Sanford (Even His Top Staff Didn’t Know Where He Was »

Positive Reaction to the House Democrats’ Health-Care Plan

Posted by MICHAEL STICKINGS, Assistant Editor in Health, Politics.
Jul 15th, 2009 | Comments

House Democrats released their long-awaited health-care reform bill yesterday, and the plan it proposes includes a government-run component (a so-called “public option”). No, it’s not exactly the single-payer, universal system that many of us prefer (and that we have here in Canada), but it’s comprehensive and ground-breaking, and likely would ensure coverage for the vast majority of Americans — in fact, almost all of them.

The right, of course, is already objecting both to the public option, which it deems to be socialism, and to the fact that taxes would be raised on the wealthy to pay for the plan, but Paul Krugman considers it a “bargain“:

OK, so the CBO score for the 3-committee House health care plan is in: $1 trillion over the next decade for 97 percent coverage of legal residents.

That’s a bargain: the catastrophe of being ill without insurance, the fear of losing insurance, all ended — for much less than the Bush administration’s useless $1.35 trillion first tax cut, quickly followed by another $350 billion.

And that’s just the budget cost, which the House proposes covering partly with savings elsewhere, partly with higher taxes on very high incomes. As Jon Cohn points out, the overall effect of expanded coverage will probably be lower health care costs for America as a whole.

There is now absolutely no excuse for Congress to balk at doing the right thing.

No excuse whatsoever.

In addition to Krugman, both Cohn and Ezra Klein, two leading health-care commentators, think it looks good. Cohn’s reaction is “strongly positive.” (Make sure to check out their posts for more on the details of the plan.)

There is still the Senate, of course — where there is less unity among leading Democrats — and still much to be done. (And, of course, there is Obama, who, while committed to wholesale reform, has been less than specific when it comes to the details of his desired outcome.) Still, this is an exceptionally positive development, and an encouraging step towards the creation of a fair and equitable health-care system for all Americans.

(Cross-posted from The Reaction.)

Ads by Project Wonderful! Your ad here, right now: $0

AustinRoth

Talk about myopic reading of the reaction to the proposal. Here is something that may be unique to you Michael - another viewpoint:

http://keithhennessey.com/2009/07/14/house-taxe...

Ryan

Not that no-new-taxes promise again. Apparently this year's goal is to make the health care system less bad, not fix it. If he has to break a promise the voters were mug enough to buy, that's fine with me.

JSpencer

I think the appropriate rejoinder to all the "socialism" charges in their current, popular usage might well be "sociopathism", which is what it will border on if obstruction or caving occurs on the road to healthcare reform. The country has needed this for too many years, and it's an opportunity for government to prove it can work in the interest of the people... for a change. I am (very cautiously) optimistic...

GreenDreams

This plan should even please the insurance industry. By further enshrining the employer-paid health insurance model, it promises them more government-mandated customers. As for those whining about taxes (as usual), the annual increase for a family making making $400,000 a year is about a month's insurance payment. No big deal. If it survives the Senate with the public option intact, it will be a good contribution to solving the mess we're currently in.

Single payer and a retreat from employer-paid insurance would be better in my opinion, because businesses here are at a competitive disadvantage compared to every other nation on earth, all of whom have enacted relatively inexpensive health care programs without saddling their businesses with the tab.

DaGoat

From what I've read on the plan (and it's hard to find a good summary without someone's "take" thrown in) they could do worse. I like that it's incremental since it will give everyone some time to plan for it and hopefully work out the bugs.

I do have some concerns:

The math isn't going to work. Hospitals and pharma probably aren't going to find the kind of savings they have promised, and just taxing the rich will not be enough to fund the program. At some point the government is going to have to raise taxes further.

If millions of patients are dumped into the system in plans paying 5% better than Medicare, why wouldn't doctors sign onto that plan and dump Medicare, or more likely Medicaid, which pays lousy.

The burden on small business will be very high using the 250K payroll criteria. There will be some layoffs if this goes through. I suspect that level will change though when the Senate is done with it.

I can only find vague references to cost control, especially with respect to end-of-life care, dialysis, transplants and other often futile medical care.

All in all though I am somewhat optimistic.

DLS

As I wrote earlier, this incrementalist "public option" is a modern-day Trojan-Horse-bedecked-with-flashing-neon-signs-and-with-klaxons. What the Dems are attempting is transparent, even if they manage to fool the many stupid adherents and advocates with their "arguments" (which are wasted, since these people already have convinced themselves this is "necessary," if not "the complete solution, immediately").

Aside from the mindlessness of rushing this (which flailing Mikey no doubt approves), the main issue is the lack of attention to the costs and how to pay for it. "Free" health care now, paying for it later is worse than the obstructionism and lack of their own plan the Dems "treated" us to when mindlessly opposing the Bush Social Security reform attempt in past years. Can't this group of Dems manage to get Social Security and _existing_ Medicare (and Medicaid right) before trying to expand the scope of government health care? That's expecting too much of the agitated advocates, but shouldn't be of Dems in Congress.

(If they were smart, they would get the bugs, including financial bugs, out of Medicare before offering something similar to others while moving toward government health care for everyone sometime later.)

blog comments powered by Disqus