A leading GOP negotiator on health care struck a further blow to fading chances of a bipartisan compromise by saying Democratic proposals would restrict medical choices and make the country’s “finances sicker without saving you money.” Any health care legislation should lower medical costs for Americans without increasing deficits and the national debt. “The bills introduced by congressional Democrats fail to meet these standards,” he said.
The death knell for Obamacare sounded when White House officials projected a knee-buckling $9 trillion deficit over 10 years. Enzis judgment is particularly noteworthy because he is one of the three Republicans on Senate Finance who have been working on a bipartisan bill. That’s the one that has the agreement with BigPharma to not use government influence to control costs, and disposes of the public option in favor of a cooperative.
Earlier, Enzi called for more competition among health insurers, for the ability of small businesses to band together across state lines to negotiate for lower-cost insurance plans, for tax breaks to help people buy insurance and for reducing malpractice lawsuits.
So what does that leave the Democrats with? Some very viable and attractive options, if they are wiling to take them. Charles Krauthammer lists them in his most recent post and I will review them.
1. Let the public option go. You are never going to get moderate Democrats to go along as long as their re-elections are at stake. And not one liberal will lose their seat because it’s not in there. Cindy Sheehan doesn’t roar that loudly and Democrats don’t turn on their liberals. Not like Republicans turn on their conservatives when they fail.
2. The Senate is already dropping end of life counseling. Keep government out from between the patient and doctor. The Senate is dropping it. The House should follow.
3. Since the real purpose of allowing the government to set “best practices” is to ultimately establish official criteria for denying reimbursement for certain treatments, let that go too.
4. Quit selling Obamacare as cost cutting. Here’s why…
5. Sell Obamacare as nothing but pleasure. Prohibit: denying coverage for pre-existing conditions, dropping coverage if someone gets sick, and capping insurance company reimbursements. Government will impose an individual mandate, making all the young people who don’t buy it now pay for it. The insurance companies will have a larger risk, with more insured in the pool, and those who can’t afford it will be subsidized. Two new revenue streams for insurance companies with universal coverage all in the mix.
In the end, those who buy into the faux utopianism of universal coverage will get it. We’ll get hooked, costs will go up, and care will be rationed just as it is everywhere else. And America will live with it.
Think Democrats will listen?
The Senate is already dropping end of life counseling. Keep government out from between the patient and doctor. The Senate is dropping it. The House should follow.
The funding for this and the language was orginally put in by Republicans in the last medicare reform.
Care is already rationed for those who do not have insurance. Those with pre-existing conditions and those who cannot afford the cost often use the hospital for primary care.
Who pays for that? Those companies and individuals who still have insurance. How much of our current cost per year is this? Right now estimates run around 25% of our premium or about $2,000.oo per year each.
Since the number of uninsured is likely to continue to go up businesses like my employer can expect to have to pay more to cover their employees. This year the increase for them was 35% over last years rate. They were forced to drop our coverage for glasses and dental and change to a higher co-pay plan to reduce the increase to under 30%.
Next year who knows, another couple of years more of adding to the rates to cover the uninsured, duplicate tests and executive salaries of millions of dollars each and I will not have insurance. Then I will have to go to the ER for my primary care also.
Perhaps we should consider covering the uninsured and getting rid of duplicates tests as is proposed in all of the health bills under consideration.
If we then provided private insurance at the current average rate to the uninsured of about seven thousand per year that would only cost about 350 Billion a year or 3.5 trillion over 10 years.
The public option to cover the same 47 million with basic care costs only 1 trillion, seems cost effective to me comparitively.
For those who cannot subtract that is a savings over all of 2.5 tillion over 10 years.
Jim,
thanks for an excellent post.
Terry, here is Enzie saying that his MAIN mission is to prevent and delay any reform at all. He is NO hero. He’s a selfish bum fueled by Corporate HC dollars.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bAc6YX__odg&feature=PlayList&p=Ebhf2IaH5LM
Red
I watched the video. I heard that if he hadn’t been working hard, Obamacare might already have been pushed through. I LOVE that. Like you LOVE lining the pockets of trial lawyers. Now that people have gotten a chance to know what is in the bill, they DON’T WANT IT. I LOVE that.
The only selfish bum we all are worrying about right now is the one in the white house soaking up 99% of trial lawyer dollars to make sure they can keep feeding at the public trough.
And Jim,
Sorry, but that is lazy math. Kind of like “we’ve saved $2 trillion from not continuing the surge in Iraq for ten more years!”
Why not try this? Hey, we COULD pay for everybodys insurance. At the rate of $7000 per year, that would cost $20 trillion over the next ten years. OR we could mandate everyone buy it and make the insurance companies cover the rest and save it ALL. We save MUCH MORE my way!!!
Hey Terry,
I am glad you enjoyed that! I am also glad that you AND he are in the minority.
We’re going to get affordable health care coverage for everyone. Enzie is part of the problem. We need solutions.
Sorry Red, but as usual YOU are the one in the minority. 41% favor government health care, 44% oppose.
Also, 80% oppose providing government health insurance for illegals and most voters oppose making health insurance mandatory. Now, you might argue the first is irrelevant because we already provide health care for illegals just as we do everybody, but its important. We dont have to validate their status with HEALTH INSURANCE.
The current proposals would eventually force people to change to a public plan, and 70% like what they have now. Thats a non starter too. I know you think being able to say most Americans dont like their health care system. But thats like saying most Americans dont like Congress, but they keep electing their own representatives, who they like. THEY LIKE WHAT THEY HAVE, THEY JUST THINK THEIR NEIGHBORS ARE WORSE OFF.
Only 29% think a government option would provide better service.
All you are doing it seems to me is arguing that anyone who disagrees with the current plans in congress is against universal care.
I’m not and most citizens are not. We are against plans that don’t do any of the things people actually want, while being massive giveaways to liberal interest groups. If those can be dropped, yes, universal care can happen.
Actually those who have insurance are already paying for those who do not in a very costly and ineffective way.
The co-op option being discussed is pretty much along the thinking you have laid out. It does not have a public option but mandates a high risk and currently uninsured co-op be estabulished. And does mandate businesses and individuals to purchase insurance.
That may be an option to consider.
I would agree that tort reform is needed to reduce malpractice insurance costs.
Many plans now include that to receive services you have to agree to abritration in malpractice situations.