Updated September 29, 2009
Try to picture the American economy permanently stuck in the same place it is right now or in worse condition. That’s what could happen if extremists on either side of the health care debate have their way.
If the president’s enemies and defenders of the status quo win, the familiar cycle will repeat itself. Health care costs will continue to skyrocket and bankrupt individuals, businesses, and government agencies. When businesses move overseas, close their doors, or merge with others, and agencies cut their staffs because of the shrinking tax base, displaced workers will lose their health insurance.
These workers will join the millions of people who develop advanced chronic diseases because they can’t afford preventive or maintenance care. Care for advanced diseases is more expensive than prevention, and some diseases lead to disability. As you can see, the costs of doing nothing are too high.
If supporters of most bills that have passed related committees win, we could have the same result. In spite of the president’s best intentions, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) says we would all pay higher taxes to fund these plans. Tax increases would further weaken the economy. Small businesses create most of the jobs in this country. High taxes leave them at a competitive disadvantage.
So, what’s the solution? Instead of wasting time trying fix the bill by Sen. Max Baucus, which has drawn bipartisan criticism, the Wyden-Bennet Bill or Healthy Americans Act is a good place to start. Though legislators have all but abandoned this bill, it’s the only one that has achieved bipartisan support. It’s also short enough for legislators and the public to understand.
Preliminary estimates from the CBO say the bill will pay for itself the first year and reduce federal health care costs afterward. It will also reduce costs for consumers. Isn’t that what we’re trying to do?
To achieve those goals, the bill features:
- a strong emphasis on preventive care with incentives for consumers and fair compensation for providers
- tax incentives for employers to create wellness programs
- premium discounts for participation in wellness programs
- health care exchanges that allow consumers with employer-based plans to choose from affordable individual plans that they can keep if they change or lose their jobs
- additional coverage for catastrophic illnesses that exhaust lifetime limits
- negotiations for fair prices on prescription drugs
- subsidies for insurance on a sliding scale that includes the middle class
The bill also:
- eliminates co-pays for chronic disease prevention and disease management services and related products
- forbids insurances premiums that are based on age, gender, industry, health status, and health history
- addresses long-term care needs
- reduces paperwork for providers
- allows patients in hospice to receive curative care instead of just comfort measures
- requires employers to increase the salaries of workers who move from employer-based coverage to a private plan
- honors existing labor contracts for seven years
- creates a Health Care Standard Deduction on federal income taxes that increases over time for everyone who files a return
- allows medical schools to report what works so new breakthroughs no longer get lost for decades
- emphasizes that only private funds can be used for abortions, a provision that brought conservatives on board
- addresses malpractice reform because the cost of malpractice insurance drives many good doctors out of the industry and increases the costs for all
The bill would be even stronger if it:
- allowed insurers to compete across state lines
- enforced or strengthened anti-trust laws
- prohibited insurers from discriminating against providers who offer alternative medicine treatments
- included an automatic trigger for a public plan in states where insurers don’t provide affordable coverage
Now that doesn’t seem so hard. Why hasn’t a sensible plan like this been accepted by the majority of legislators?
Conservatives and Progressives both dislike that the bill requires everyone to have coverage. Conservatives believe this provision is unconstitutional. Progressives believe insurance companies are the root of all evil. The mandate may be unnecessary with the bill’s subsidies and emphasis on prevention.
Progressives also dislike the bill’s incentives to move people from public to private plans. In spite of the criticism hurled at private insurance companies, public programs have weakened both the health care system and the national economy. Capitalism drives efficiency and creates jobs in this country. It works on the law of supply and demand. Public programs decrease both. They also cause smaller insurers (and other businesses) to merge and go out of business because the pool of customers is too small. If we move more people into the private system and enforce anti-trust laws, smaller companies should be able to provide real competition.
Now that we’ve found a workable solution, can we stop calling each other names, pass something, and move on to dealing with other important issues. Our economy is going flat while we’re out here fighting like children.
—-
Jacqueline Laurette Jones is author of Unmasking a Diagnosis: How to get Help for a Confusing Chronic Illness Without Filing for Bankruptcy.
Comments