For now, it would be wise for Obama to take the Baccus bill and run with it. This bill has the support of the 4 senators who belong to the respective groups. As I had posted earlier that in football you normally get to a touchdown by moving 10 yards at a time. The fight with the insurance industry will be long. At least Obama can begin with a choke hold on them by barring dropping of patients and requiring them to accept pre-existing. At the same time he can lay the groundwork for public option by instituting "insurance co-operatives" and maybe provide them with seed funding of 30 billion dollars (the profits the Govt. would make from bailing out banks such as Citibank)
====================================================
Baucus’ health bill flawed, but it gets the ball rolling
U.S. Sen. Max Baucus’ long-awaited health care reform bill is far from ideal. But it appears to be the best vehicle yet for moving the contentious debate forward.
Missouri Democrat Claire McCaskill on Thursday joined three other key senators in expressing general support for the Finance Committee chairman’s efforts.
“While we each have outstanding concerns we wish to see addressed, Senator Baucus has taken an important and critical step forward with this legislation, which is budget neutral and reduces future health care costs,” says the statement, also signed by Republican Olympia Snowe of Maine, Independent Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut and conservative Democrat Ben Nelson of Nebraska.
Both the Congressional Budget Office and the nonprofit Center on Budget and Policy Priorities said the plan drafted by Baucus, a Montana Democrat, will pay for itself.
The CBO’s analysis projects that the plan would actually reduce the federal deficit in the long term. The new bill proposes a Medicaid expansion and more subsidies to help low-income people purchase insurance. But it offsets those expenses with a tax on high-cost insurance plans, savings in the Medicare program and other measures.
Baucus’ plan also would expand coverage to 94 percent of legal U.S. residents, partly by requiring everyone to subscribe to an insurance plan, beginning in 2013. And it makes it easier for individuals and small businesses to band together to compare prices and purchase insurance.
That’s the good news.
The bad news is that the new bill fails to create meaningful competition in the insurance industry.
Baucus’ plan to set up nonprofit, member-run cooperatives in every state is a weak and flawed alternative to a government-run insurance option.
Health insurance co-ops have a high failure rate, and they would likely be too small to negotiate deals with pharmaceutical companies, hospitals and physician groups that would drive down costs.
Baucus’ bill prohibits insurance companies from hiking premiums or denying policies based on someone’s health history. But without a government plan to provide real competition, private insurers are more likely to find other ways to maximize profits at the expense of consumers.
Another serious problem is Baucus’ provision requiring employers who opt not to provide health insurance to employees to pay a fee only for low-wage workers who would then need government subsidies to afford health care.
That provision, if it stands, would create a jobs barrier for low-income citizens. A married woman insured under her husband’s policy would be much more attractive to hire than a single mother, for instance.
Employers should be required to insure their workers or pay a small fee. Period.
The Baucus bill needs work. But it is encouraging to see the beginnings of a coalition forming to move it along. Too many families are paying too much for health care or lacking it altogether. Reform of America’s costly, inefficient system is needed now. Politicians from both parties must seize the momentum and work in good faith toward getting the job done.
kansascity.com |
