Another faux-fixe for health care

The following article, “Bipartisan Health Bill Still Gets No Respect” was aired on NPR. As with most other media sources, NPR failed to ask poignant questions, or is guilty of not knowing the details of what was being reported, or perhaps a bit of both. Following the article is a short analysis of the Wyden-Bennet “offering”, and the alternative that will bring health care justice to America
***
Bipartisan Health Bill Still Gets No Respect
What would you say about a health overhaul bill that promises to provide health insurance to virtually every American, to add not a single penny to the federal deficit and to claim supporters ranging from conservative Republican Sen. Judd Gregg of New Hampshire to liberal Democratic Sen. Debbie Stabenow of Michigan? On Capitol Hill, they're saying it doesn't have a chance.
That's the dilemma faced by Sens. Ron Wyden (D-OR) and Bob Bennett (R-UT), sponsors of the so-called Healthy Americans Act. Roundly Ignored
Despite being the darling of health policy bloggers and the first bill to be certified by the Congressional Budget Office as covering nearly everyone and fully paying for itself, the measure is being roundly ignored by those actually trying to put together a health overhaul measure on Capitol Hill and in the White House. That's frustrating for its sponsors, who spent years refining its finer points.
The concept is fairly simple. The plan would change the tax treatment of health insurance provided by employers in a way that would likely prompt many, if not most, to stop offering coverage. That appeals to Republicans, who say the current tax-free status of employer-provided insurance is unfair and encourages overuse of the health care system.
But the bill would also require employers to give workers back what they're spending now on health insurance in the form of a raise. Workers would also get new tax credits, and those who were previously uninsured or did not have insurance on the job would get government subsidies. Everyone would then take that money and be required to buy insurance, from a new, government-regulated marketplace offering an array of private plans that would compete on the basis of quality and price. Wyden says it only makes sense to start to move people away from the employer-based health insurance.
"Today the typical worker changes jobs 11 times by the time they're 40," Wyden said. "Right now, health coverage today isn't portable. In fact, when you lose your job, you go into something called the COBRA program, which a bunch of us say is the only federal program named after a poisonous snake."
That's a joke — COBRA is an acronym for the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985, the law under which the insurance continuation provisions were enacted.
Bringing The Parties Together
Bennett says one reason he thinks the measure hasn't caught on is that neither he nor Wyden is senior enough on the committees charged with writing the health overhaul bills.
"I've discovered that hell hath no fury like a committee chairman whose jurisdiction is being challenged," Bennett said. "They weren't interested in a couple of guys out in the hall."
But Len Nichols of the non-partisan think tank New American Foundation, an early backer of the measure, says there's another reason the bill isn't up for serious consideration. As with single-payer health insurance, it would simply represent too big a change for most people.
"Too many people were afraid of giving up their employer coverage," said Nichols. "It turns out employers weren't as ready to run away from it as some people thought. And unions were deathly afraid of removing it from their ability to recruit and retain workers."
Nichols, however, says Wyden and Bennett have accomplished something major for the health care debate: "They showed you can get Republicans and Democrats around two core ideas: Cover everyone, but be serious about costs."
And Bennett hasn't quite given up on the bill for this year: "We're hoping that when everyone finishes throwing his or her hands up in horror, and saying, 'What do we do now?' the two guys standing out in the hall can say, 'Look, will you let us in the room and let us get in the discussion and tell you what we've done?"
***
My Analysis and Alternative
Even before Wyden and Bennet unfurled their “plan”, the solution to our health care crisis had already been written. It is House Resolution 676 (HR 676) . It is a single payer bill.

Why Wyden and Bennet want to re-invent the wheel is anybody’s guess. (Hint to follow.)

They say that the “concept” of their bill is fairly simple.
1. Their plan would change the tax treatment of health insurance provided by employers in a way that would likely prompt many, if not most, to stop offering coverage. That appeals to Republicans, who say the current tax-free status of employer-provided insurance is unfair and encourages overuse of the health care system.
2. But the bill would also require employers to give workers back what they're spending now on health insurance in the form of a raise. Workers would also get new tax credits, and those who were previously uninsured or did not have insurance on the job would get government subsidies.
3. Everyone would then take that money and be required to buy insurance, from a new, government-regulated marketplace offering an array of private plans that would compete on the basis of quality and price.
“Fairly simple”? Only if they start from the premise that we the people are simple-minded. Let’s delve into some of the “simpleness”.
1. Stop employers from offering coverage because it “is unfair and encourages overuse of the health care system”? Unfair to whom? To workers who were fortunate enough to belong to a union or who received benefits from employers anxious to keep their workplaces union-free? Now the plan is to blame or punish those workers/employers for the sins of Congress? Remember, for decades lawmakers have failed to take action to guarantee access to medical care for everyone. Workers had to go it alone. Now they’re to be punished for doing for themselves what Congress neglected to do on their behalf? That looks like lack of accountability and scapegoating from where I stand. Then there is the malarkey about “overuse”. How many of us wake up on nice sun-shining mornings and elect to go to our doctor for want of something better to do? We all know the answer. We go when we’re sick. Duh! That’s “overuse”?
2. You can cloak it, mask it, or camouflage it, but this is nothing more than a scheme to turn more of us into customers of companies that peddle a commodity called insurance premiums. They are the same entities that have been ripping us off for decades. Now we’re to believe they’ve had a “come to Jesus” moment?
3. “A new, government-regulated market place”? Oh good. That’s certainly reassuring. “Government” has done such a hunky-dory job regulating banks, Wall Street, health insurers, workplace safety, gas prices, the environment, ad nauseam, and we’re all quite secure knowing that Congress will be on the job protecting our health care, right? (Except, of course, for the several months each year it devotes to campaign fund-raising, and to servicing their corporate benefactors.) Who do they think they’re fooling?
Perhaps the most egregious part of the Wyden-Bennet scheme is the nonsense about “offering an array of private plans that would compete on the basis of quality and price”. “An array of plans”? That’s code for “Band-aid and aspirin coverage for the financially strapped, and primo, Cadillac coverage for the well-heeled (because they can afford it)". Why don’t lawmakers just come out and say, “all medically-necessary and ancillary care will be covered”? Simple. Because that’s not what they mean.
Now for the promised “hint”. The medical profits industry (insurers, for-profit hospitals, and drug companies) lavished $2.2 billion on Washington, D.C. over the past decade. They have purchased access and results. What doors did our paltry checks of $50, $100, or even $500 open? Congress may be the only thing that is still made and sold in the USA!
As the old saying goes, “if you don’t stand for something, you’ll fall for anything”.
It is time to stand up and fight for HR 676. HR 676 resolves all the preceding issues. And it does another all-important thing: It removes Congress from funding authority (HR 676 is self-funding – read all about it at UFHC.org) and it prohibits lawmaker from making decisions on what medical procedures can be rendered. Those decisions will be made by patients and their doctors. Insurance company bean-counters would be sent packing. Imagine that! Imagine getting all the care you need at a truly affordable cost without interference from politicians or profit-takers!
That’s single payer! That’s HR 676. Don’t settle for less than what is needed! The lives of our loved ones, our friends (not to mention our own) are at stake. Tell your Senators and Representative that you will not vote for any politician who refuses to support single payer! We’ll never be able to compete with the cash gifts that profit takers bestow on Congress, but we sure as heck have more votes than all the CEOs and preferred shareholders combined! Millions more!
Let’s use the power of the ballot box wisely!