Uncategorized

Forcing the candidates to get real on health care change

Let’s pretend that either Senator Obama or Senator McCain will be able to implement their respective health care reform plans if elected. This exercise should be easy. We’ve been doing it for months now.

Or, we can get real and expect them to do the same.

For all the arguments both candidates are making that they are change agents, including over their competing health care reform proposals, this dirty little secret remains –– neither Senator’s health care plan has a chance of being implemented.

Senator McCain is not going to get a likely Democratic Congress to pass a health care reform plan that eliminates the deductibles of employer-based health insurance and pushes millions of consumers into a wide-open and less regulated insurance market.

Maybe the Congress should pass it — but they won’t.

If Obama is elected he will not get even a Democratic Congress to pass his health care plan which will cost at least $100 billion a year. The 2009 deficit is now projected to be in the $500 billion range–and that is before the huge cost in 2009 to extend the Bush tax cuts even Obama favors and the cost of the Freddie and Fannie bailout.

Maybe the Congress should pass Obama’s health care reform plan in the face of these overwhelming fiscal realities — but they won’t.

So this presidential debate over "my health plan versus your health plan" is interesting but it’s actually pretty irrelevant.

The real question that needs to be put to these candidates: Just how will you achieve bipartisan health care reform in the face of the reality of needing to deal with a Democratic Congress (McCain) and a crippling budget challenge (Obama)?

Bipartisanship means reaching out to get enough of the other guys onside. Political leadership means finding the place a deal can be made. So, just how would these candidates get the job done?

Let me suggest that it is more important for voters to hear from these candidates about how they will handle the real world of health care reform rather then the pretend one they seem to be debating.

Let me give you a for-instance.

There is one bipartisan health care reform plan that takes from both sides and the CBO says is cost neutral. It has 16 Senate sponsors–8 Republicans and 8 Democrats.

Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) and Senator Robert Bennett (R-UT) have crafted a health care reform plan that gives both sides the most important things each are looking for:

  • For the Republicans, it gives them a plan that moves away from the third-party employer-based payment system to one of individual responsibility and the promise of a more vibrant market.
  • For the Democrats, it provides a plan that assures everyone will have access to coverage and provides the financing to get about everyone covered in the short-term.

But here’s the big one: The Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee on Taxation have said the Wyden-Bennett plan could be operational by 2012 and would be budget neutral by 2014! In health care terms, parting the Red Sea would be an easier accomplishment.

I’d ask McCain and Obama just how they would accomplish health care reform–in the real world not in the pretend one they are in now. I’d go further and ask each of them if he would sign the Wyden-Bennett plan if it came to his desk.

If I had the answers to these questions then I would really know something about just how they would be "change" agents and accomplish health care reform!

Livongo’s Post Ad Banner 728*90

9
Leave a Reply

9 Comment threads
0 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
8 Comment authors
Completely FedupJocelyn GuyerPeterMarkRandall Walker Recent comment authors
newest oldest most voted
Completely Fedup
Guest
Jocelyn Guyer
Guest
Jocelyn Guyer

As always, thanks for the thoughtful analysis, although I’m more skeptical of Wyden as a possible model. I suspect that some of the groups concerned about key elements of his plan have held back on weighing in out of concern that doing so would generally throw cold water on momentum toward broader health reform. Also, one of Wyden’s key selling points — the CBO assessment that his plan is budget neutral — also reflects a series of policies that could easily be portrayed as a massive tax increase on Americans. The plan imposes a new income tax to help pay… Read more »

Gregg Masters
Guest

Peter: My hunch is based on her, “it’s really quite simple, there is no mystery here….” characterization when referring to the position to which she aspires, that she’s got the health care conundrum figured out as well. That simple “one size fits all” ideological world view, where answers are so transparent, i.e., the “I know the Truth” (with a capital “T”) crowd, is quite unsettling in its mass appeal! Our current position, both economically and from a global sentiment perspective is a direct consequence of such ill advised “faith based” confidence. I agree with a previous poster, “wake up America”!… Read more »

Peter
Guest
Peter

Greg, I wonder what kind of “getting real” on private sector solutions for healthcare Republicans can propose now with yet another bailout, now AIG, to the tune of $85 BILLION in taxpayer funds. Yes, that efficient free market, unregulated system where personal responsibility is a cornerstone to it’s mission statement. I guess when Sara Palin said Fanny and Freddie were just too big and needed to be broken up into smaller companies (don’t know how she would do that with a free market approach?), maybe she could enlighten us about AIG and Lehman and Bear Stearns. Does she think U.S.… Read more »

Mark
Guest
Mark

Here’s a crazy idea. Regulate a minimum price for prescription drugs which reflects what we pay. The variable cost of a pill is what, a penny? We pay the pharmas research overhead while they sell to nationalized countries at bargain basement prices–but still above their variable costs. True, pharmas can’t afford to sell that cheap to everyone as they’d never recoup their massive research costs unless we all started ingesting their pills like candy. But force them to not bargain any better with another country and it will force the France’s and Canada’s of the world to turn their heads… Read more »

Randall Walker
Guest
Randall Walker

The McCain campaign asserts that its plan “would drive more people into the individual market, fomenting competition, reducing premiums and discouraging consumers from buying more coverage than they need or can afford.” “Can Afford”, indeed. With such a wide disparity of incomes now, isn’t that the crux of the problem? What a family that makes $500K/year can afford is a lot different from the US Median family income, of about $60K. Moreover, any of the “high deductible/catastrophic-only ” plans suffers from the same inherent disparity, and thus, as incomes get higher, the “incentive” to seek value, which is the rationale… Read more »

Paul Maurice Martin
Guest

There’s no answer to the problem of health care in this country because, in essence, there is no problem: our representative government now represents the interests of corporations and wealthy shareholders. And the wealthiest can afford the best health care and health care coverage that money can buy. The fact that millions of other people lack coverage and millions more have woefully inadequate coverage – that’s just other people’s problems and so it’s no problem at all to the well-represented. In this context, the 100 billion dollar figure for Obama’s plan, if correct – or even half that much –… Read more »

ann
Guest
ann

The point everyone misses is the scam that insurance companies are free to continue to run. They are for profit very much so, they have executive compensation which blows the average MD’s take home pay away, and they are in the business to figure out how not to pay. For those of us who have insurance, the average Joe’s policy, it gets lousier every year. Higher premiums, co-pays for everything and huge new “facility fees” that are tacked on by docs because the insurance companies are re-imbursing less and less. No one seems to care abut this. Forget McCain’s Healthcare… Read more »

Gregg Masters
Guest

You mean focus on “issues”. Why I thought this election was about “personalities”. At least that was before, Lehman, Merrill, AIG and whoever is on deck next. The intricate web of toxic financing, CDOs, and those derivatives, which no regulatory entity even concerns itself with (yeah, go free market) have yet to surface. Just how much due diligence could B of A jammed through in 2 days? Let’s watch for the first B of A hiccup after swallowing Countrywide, let alone drilling into their MBS or CDO portfolios via Merrill. Yeah, the economy is fundamentally sound! LOL…. So, a health… Read more »