Contributors

Thursday, August 06, 2009

The Other Ones

The other two bills that have been kicking around the health care dais in our Congress are the The Healthy Americans Act and the United States National Health Care Act.

The Healthy Americans Act was put forth by Oregon Senator Ron Wyden, a "Blue Dog" Democrat. The bill relies on the private insurance market while imposing a series of regulations to squeeze savings from the private sector. It also requires individuals to buy coverage for themselves, the controversial "individual mandate." This is similar to how each of us goes about getting auto insurance.

The thing I like about this bill is that it puts the controls for health care back into the hands of the individual. It has often been said that if insurance companies didn't run the health industry, people would look at the costs of some things and say no. I also like the regulation in an industry that has basically done whatever they wanted to do with costs for the last thirty years.

My problem with this bill is no public option. There has to at least be a public option. And there is the simple fact that such a radical restructuring could cause more damage to an already fragile system. The president said his discussions with Wyden are similar to those with people who advocate a single payer system. In theory, those plans work. As President Obama said of the plan, though.

The problem is, we have evolved partly by accident into an employer-based system. A radical restructuring would meet significant political resistance. Families who are currently relatively satisfied with their insurance but are worried about rising costs ... would get real nervous about a wholesale change.

And speaking of the single payer system, the final bill floating around DC is the United States National Health Care Act. This bill is a single payer system, similar to Canada's health care system, that was put forth by John Conyers. Of the three bills that seek to overhaul health care in the United States, this is the one that is being taken the least seriously. Although, you wouldn't know it by listening to hyper paranoid voices on the right.

In fact, virtually all single payer advocacy groups have been screaming at the top of their lungs that they are being excluded from the process...other than a pity meeting with Max Bachus. The fact is that this bill is never going to pass because our country, despite what the flat earthers will have you believe, is center right. Private industry will never be shut out of the process. It's too integral to our economy and our future as a nation. This is very true when it comes to health care. I do agree that competition spurs innovation and with a single payer system, we would not have that.

And that's why out of all three bills, I favor HR3200 out of all three. Primarily, it offers the best of both worlds and addresses the issue of how to pay for all of this. Wyden's bill relies too heavily on the private sector and Conyers bill will, in all likelihood, break the bank. We need to strike a balance and that's what this bill does. And this balance allows for traps and pitfalls that are going to occur along the way where the other two really don't.

It certainly isn't perfect but it is a start. We need a start. Simply doing nothing is not going to cut it.

6 comments:

GrumpyOldFart said...

Okay, let me see if I have this straight. You think people should be required by law to have health insurance, and that there has to be a "public option". So, you think every American's choices should be:

1. Pay for government run healthcare, administered by the same people who couldn't manage to run a whorehouse successfully, whether they want/need it or not, or

2. Pay for government run healthcare (out of your taxes) and private insurance, in hopes of getting coverage you actually want. Success in that is doubtful, since with insurance required by law the only standard private insurers will have to meet to stay economically viable is "better than the insurance provided by the people who can't run a whorehouse", or

3. Go to jail, go directly to jail, do not pass Go, do not collect $200.

Right?

Mark Ward said...

I do not think people should be required by law to have health insurance. If they don't want it, they should make sure that they can pay out of pocket. If they can't, too bad. They made their bed and they have to lie in it. I disagree with this part of the overhaul.

I do think that we should use tax dollars to pay for other people's health care. This is getting a little into a post I have for later in the week but essentially it's this...we already do so why is it suddenly a problem? We pay for all our soldiers to have health care, right? These people defend our country and we take care of them because they do.

Now, what about the person who may someday create something or innovate in some field that will help us defeat a cyber attack. Or defeat a disease. Or solve a serious global crisis. Or simply make us a ton of dough. This person could be someone...or several someones...that will do this because they spent the money on college rather than health care.

Health care isn't a right but it is a sound investment. We aren't investing any money now. We are, in fact, wasting it.

juris imprudent said...

I disagree with this part of the overhaul.

Okay, just make sure not to quote or link to anyone wailing about the national shame of 47 million uninsured.

...we already do so why is it suddenly a problem?

Well, you did mention that health-care isn't a right. That's a good start. Then it is a matter of paying for specific persons under specific circumstances - not EVERYONE, ALL the time.

GrumpyOldFart said...

We pay for all our soldiers to have health care, right? These people defend our country and we take care of them because they do.

Yeah. And before we agree to that, they commit to several years of life-threatening service. Yes, even in peacetime, military service is NOT safe. In other words, they earn it.

Now, what about the person who may someday create something or innovate in some field that will help us defeat a cyber attack. Or...

Now in this instance, you're not suggesting we should take care of anyone because they earned it. You're talking about it as an investment, as taking care of people because they might be worth what we invested someday.

In short, gambling.

Personally, I think there should be pretty stark limits on how the government is allowed to gamble with other people's money.

I most certainly don't think they should be able to gamble with our to the tune of a trillion dollars and then do a fearmongering campaign to tell us we must allow them to take this gamble without even reading the fucking bill.

GrumpyOldFart said...

Sorry, error...

"...gamble with our money to the tune..."

6Kings said...

Here is a great article for why these bills are worse than doing nothing.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZjdmN2JkNDIyNjQ5ODM5MzNmNTlmMzMyZDY4NmZjOTM=

In short, they aren't sustainable, aren't feasible, and should not be part of the government's domain. Even medicaid and medicare aren't sustainable at the current rate and you want to add to the problem?

A better solution would be to address the core issues causing health care costs to get out of hand. Instead of adding another gold plated finger to the leak in the dam, fix the causes. That requires work and some hard choices which politicians don't want to address or they might get voted out of their "entitlements".