December 01, 2009
Health Care Reform Critic's Refuted
The NY Times reports:
The Congressional Budget Office [CBO] said Monday that the Senate health bill could significantly reduce costs for many people who buy health insurance on their own, and that it would not substantially change premiums for the vast numbers of Americans who receive coverage from large employers.
I would like to leave this article there with the NY Times quote. But, alas, I must respond to critics' arguments I have heard before.
Those who would poo-poo the CBO, are very likely the same people who CITED the CBO when it first reported on an anticipated House version of the Health Care Reform bill which said the initial cost would be over a trillion dollars and would no lower the deficit but increase it. It would seem such critics are cherry pickers, and will condemn the this independent CBO when it doesn't like their findings, and use their research as a megaphone when results support their argument. The CBO crunches numbers based on proposed scenarios for legislation. Their methodology and reliability is the same regardless whether the results support Democratic Party or GOP positions.
Those who pedal the false allegation that the government will take over American health insurance are to be regarded as paranoids of their own imagination. Current legislation would insure most of those not now covered or who will lose their insurance in the future. This bill in no way attempts to put private insurance out of business. The numbers are in by the CBO. The Senate version of the bill would reduce costs, not increase them, for many people who buy insurance on their own (not employer provided insurance). If costs would go down for private insurers, OBVIOUSLY, those companies would not be declaring bankruptcy, as price increases would be a step to avoid bankruptcy though some corresponding lost market share in the short run.
Additionally, it would change premiums for the vast numbers of Americans with employer health insurance. Same conclusion follows. Those private insurers providing employer based health insurance would not be bankrupting over the Senate version of the bill. Therefore, those who continue to rant that this reform will increase costs for the majority and constitutes a government takeover of the health insurance industry have no basis in fact for their claim. Further, they are liars engaging in deception to further their own personal interests, not those of America and American health care insurance consumers, or those who want health insurance and can't for any of a number of reasons, get it.
The best argument critics can put forth honestly, is that the Senate bill is not in its final version, and the Senate bill will be further compromised by the conference committee that will resolve differences between the House and Senate versions, and therefore, the CBO results on the current Senate version of the bill is irrelevant. Final legislation will not be what this Senate version is. Hence, reform could still end up costing Americans more.
However, since there is no provision in either the House or Senate bills to take over the health care industry and socialize it, the final version of the legislation will not move in that direction either. It wouldn't pass if it did and everyone knows it.
The Senate version of the bill provides enormous benefits to those without insurance at reasonable and affordable cost, insures all Americans of a health insurance policy throughout their lifetimes should they lose their private insurance for any number of reasons from unemployment to pre-existing condition, and does this without increasing the cost of health care insurance for large numbers of Americans.
Taxes will go up on the very wealthy, not anyone else. It's in the bills.
Critics will have a valid argument in speculating that this reform bill, if passed, may increase our deficits in the short run, and fail to lower the increases in health care costs in the long term. Conservative Democrats and all Republicans insured that would be the case by rejecting previous options which could have held costs in check in the short and, especially, longer term. But, that is what legislation is, the bartering and compromising process of getting to consensus which has a form that can achieve sufficient votes to pass. It is American. It is Constitutional. And it has been our way of legislating since the founding of our nation, and even before.
David
The ostensible problem for health care was/is the rising cost. It indeed matters who pays but it also matter HOW MUCH America pays in total. The plan figures out clever ways to shift who is paying but does nothing to reduce the total costs.
It is great for you and I not to pay more because we find a way to make others pay for us, but that doesn’t address the problem of rising costs.
It is like the fat man “solving” his eating problem by getting someone else to pay his enormous and growing food bill.
I don’t see that proposed legislation will be successful at curbing costs.
What is needed is a public option with a ‘death panel’ to limit expensive procedures for the hopelessly ill. This would provide coverage for anyone who wants it but leave a large incentive to buy your own coverage. Alas, this is unmentionable - so the pro lifers have ensured politically that costs will never be under control.
Posted by: Schwamp at December 1, 2009 12:07 PMChristine,
The major benefit to all, as I see the Senate bill is that it will dramatically reduce the demand upon our Emergency Rooms by the uninsured - which in turn - will reduce the costs of ER care by those who do use the ER for emergencies. Compared to the federal budget, or even deficit, the savings will be miniscule, but, to the ER patient in years to come with a 10% co-pay, reducing the overall ER bill by as much as 25% will help that patient’s ER be more affordable and less onerous on their budget.
But, that is the World of Health Reform Part I.
Civil Rights for colored people in this country did not come about in one fell swoop legislation. It came in stages, which could be passed in compromised pieces. Same is true of universal suffrage. Many battles were fought, and separate legislations were successively implemented to give women, colored people, and the 18 year old soldier the right to vote.
Health care reform will be an ongoing reform. The votes aren’t there in the Senate to pass legislation which would dramatically lower the health care inflation curve. So, the Congress will pass many positive benefits for ALL AMERICANS for which the votes may be acquired. Every American will benefit from reforming pre-existing condition clauses, sleeping easier knowing it won’t happen to them, and every American will benefit from knowing their insurance will not lapse if their accident or illness requires large sums of care and cost. Every American will benefit in a small way as bankruptcies per year are reduced, and defaults on loans and credit are reduced due to medical care issues, helping to buoy up the economy, if only by a small amount. Every parent will appreciate that their children will not have to go without health insurance during their lifetime regardless of what happens to their employment status during a recession, or industry shift, or their ability to pay.
It is a start. All large efforts begin with a first step. Let’s get on with it. The fact that this Senate version is cost neutral in terms of the deficit, requiring no expansion of the budgetary spending, and that employer and individual insured’s rates will not go up, as a result, is a net positive, considering the millions more Americans who not have to suffer or die prematurely for lack of health insurance.
The issue of health care inflation will still be with us as one of our nation’s highest concerns in 2 years, 4 years, and beyond, until some Congress and President can muster the votes and will to address it. This year, conservatives and Republicans do NOT want to address that issue. So be it. We as a nation will do what we can, and try again down the road.
Posted by: David R. Remer at December 1, 2009 02:59 PMSchwamp, astute observation, except that a death panel determining who should be kept alive and who not, WAS NEVER proposed for health care reform in this country. That was a pathetic lying attempt by some on the Right to deprive their fellow Americans with health insurance. Promoting voluntary elective end of life counseling and living wills and such, is what every financial adviser and planner worth their salt already recommends for everyone.
Otherwise, see my reply to Christine, above.
Posted by: David R. Remer at December 1, 2009 03:00 PMHTML Formatting Tips:
<strong>bold text</strong>
<em>italicize text</em>
<u>underline text</u>
<strike>strike text</strike>
<a href="http://domain.com/link">link text</a>
<blockquote>quote text</blockquote>
By clicking the "Post" button you agree to abide by the Rules For Participation.
