The Opinion Blog

Not dead yet

For anyone interested, the "Choice" option that inspired such a terrific debate here the other day got a small breath of life in the Manager's Amendment that's just been released (the giant package of compromises that Reid said has 60 votes).

Don't Ignore the “Choice” Option

Friday’s editorial makes a last-ditch effort to encourage the Senate to include more options for most American families in their health-reform effort.

“Choice is a very powerful thing. It works in every other aspect of our economy.”

- Jennifer Hoelzer, spokeswoman for U.S. Sen. Ron Wyden.

For a brief, bright political moment, the Senate was home to a true bipartisan plan to create free-market-based universal health coverage, rather than the expansion of government participation nearing completion by the Democrats or the vaporous do-little legislation counter-offered by Republicans.

Tethered to the Cost Curve

Thursday’s editorial contemplates the fact that, in a disheartening illustration of how Washington works, the “massive overhaul” of health care just isn’t going to have much effect on most Americans.

Democrats have made much hay this week over a report released Monday that says their health-reform legislation won't do much to increase health insurance premiums for the vast majority of Americans, contrary to the frightening claims made all year by Republicans.

But the report is not actually such great news. Why? Because the Democrats are right; the premiums won't change much for most workers: They're going to keep going up.

Town Hall for Seniors Good Idea

Tuesday’s editorial lauds the effort to create a health-care forum for retirees.

The Grand Strand and both Carolinas continue to be magnets for retired folks from many other states so a health care forum especially for seniors is an excellent idea.

Economic Scene - House Health Care Bill Fails to Live Up to Its Goals - NYTimes.com

Reduce the growth of health care costs. Bend the curve. Find the game changers. Reform the delivery system.

Yawn.

Health care reform has always had two main goals. The first — insuring the uninsured — carries grand overtones of social justice. The second — making the health care system more efficient — can seem abstract, technocratic and a bit nerdy.

via www.nytimes.com

With all the hoopla over the House bill, here's a thought-provoking article comparing it unfavorably to a much better piece of legislation, the Senate Finance bill, and suggesting pretty common-sense improvements to the overall package. 

Open fire.

Reform for Some

Saturday’s editorial examines how health-care reform seems poised to aid the uninsured and those who can’t get insurance for their employers, but will do little for the majority of Americans who receive insurance through their workplace.

Washington's long effort to overhaul the nation's health-care system is now closer to reality than it ever has been, with five House and Senate committees all passing similar bills. While the plans have their differences, they all indulge in the apparent paradox of completely rebuilding the system – without major change to most people's coverage.

Health care reform is constitutional - Erwin Chemerinsky - POLITICO.com

Those opposing health care reform are increasingly relying on an argument that has no legal merit: that the health care reform legislation would be unconstitutional. There is, of course, much to debate about how to best reform America’s health care system. But there is no doubt that bills passed by House and Senate committees are constitutional.

via www.politico.com

This article at Politico.com addresses a long-running question on The Opinion Blog: Does the U.S. Constitution permit the government to mandate everyone buy health insurance? The author makes a number of arguments - do they persuade you personally, and, separately, do you think they'll hold up in court?

Here's the "unconstitutional" argument, by the way: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1009/28463.html

The health bill the President will sign?

I don't normally do this, but I'm going to post the entirety of an item from Congressional Quarterly. So if you read what's below, give a courtesy click to http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=cqmidday-000003201570 so that neither you nor The Opinion Blog is stealing.

Senate Finance Committee negotiators neared completion Monday of a health care bill that would cost an estimated $880 billion over 10 years and include language aimed at reducing medical liability lawsuits.

The cost of the bill, newly estimated by the Congressional Budget Office, would be fully offset by spending cuts or new revenues, said Kent Conrad, D-N.D. “In fact, we’re a little bit to the good.”

The six negotiators — three Democrats and three Republicans — were expected to meet again later in the day, Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., said, and remain on track to produce a draft bill by the end of the week. Baucus also planned an evening meeting with other Finance Committee Democrats to bring them up to date on the talks.

The six negotiators plan to talk Tuesday with state governors to discuss how much of the cost of a Medicaid expansion the states would be required to pay.

Baucus said the bill’s programs “are not going to cost states as much as originally feared.” The lower costs, which Baucus has not detailed, result from changes to the Children’s Health Insurance Program and Medicaid drug rebates.

Conrad said the draft bill would enable states to run demonstration projects with federal support to reduce medical liability lawsuits. One proposal is to require lawsuits to have a “certificate of merit” from experts before they can proceed.

The significance of this is that it's the first health-reform bill to emerge with significant political traction that the nonpartisan CBO has judged won't add to the deficit (other than the sadly neglected Wyden-Bennett bill, of course), thus fulfilling a major pledge Obama made in his speech. Before you jump down the CBO's throat, remember that this is the same agency that scored the Senate Health and House bills as costing well over $1 trillion, dealing them major blows.

What is the Senate Finance bill? It's basically what Obama outlined in his speech, minus the public option. It's got all the reforms to the insurance industry that end exclusions for people with pre-existing conditions and so forth. It has a mandate that all Americans buy insurance. It creates co-operatives so people without employer-sponsored insurance can band together and bargain for lower premiums from insurers. It gives subsidies to poor Americans so they can buy private insurance. I believe it'll have a handful of Republican ideas, such as the cost-controlling Medicare advisory committees and malpractice reform experiments. And in recent days, they've stripped out benefits for end-of-life counseling (ie "death panels") and hardened citizenship requirements for subsidies (thank Joe Wilson). (More complete summary here: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/09/baucuss_framework_summary.html)

And, with the blessing now of the CBO, it's likely to pass, and the President will likely sign it. The CBO's report doesn't seem to have been made public yet; I assume it'll be released after the official unveiling of the Senate Finance bill on Wednesday.

Your thoughts?

Speak up, Sen. Graham

Saturday's editorial encourages U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham to be a more forceful advocate for the health-care reforms he advocates.

U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham may be among the most sensible voices today in the nation's out-of-control health care debate - so it's too bad he's speaking so quietly.

Dr. DeMint's Sugar Pill, Part 2: Unfunded, inadequate and unambitious

Sunday's editorial adds practical criticisms to Saturday's conceptual critique of U.S. Sen. Jim DeMint's "Health Care Freedom Plan:"

As we explained Saturday, the most serious weakness of Sen. Jim DeMint's "Health Care Freedom Plan" is its lack of strong mechanisms to control out-of-control medical inflation. But within the plan itself, specific elements also have deficiencies of their own.