A question I have been pondering this past week is: Why can't we just have a real bipartisan health care reform bill?
The Republicans want tort reform and to allow insurance companies to compete across state lines. They argue that tort reform would reduce costs because doctors order unnecessary tests and such to cover their butts in case they are sued. Greater competition, the argument goes will greatly lower costs as well. Fair enough.
The Democrats want greater regulation of insurance companies to make sure they do not deny care based on "pre-existing conditions" and cherry pick the healthy people over the sick. They (and Bill O'Reilly??!!) also want a public option to keep insurance companies honest and create competition. Both sides agree on many cost-cutting measures such as comparative effectiveness, electronic medical records and preventive medicine.
So why not have a bill with all these things?? If we can have a public option, the Dems could say, then we'll support insurance companies competing across state lines etc... Instead it looks like we're going to get more watered-down mediocrity that isn't even going to get Republican support. What a waste.
2 comments:
Here is the easiest reform idea out there: Pass a law that insurance companies can only ask 1 question on insurance applications: What is your age?
If all policies were sold only based on the age of the applicant, regardless of any other conditions, then you could set up standard levels of policy coverage (like auto insurrance already does) and then it would be easy for consumers to comparison shop. You could set up three age levels (like under 20, 20-45, and 45-65.) so that premiums are fair for those who use the system less. Medicare would still cover the elderly. Then provide a significant tax credit for people to purchase policies in the free market. Problem solved.
A public option will do nothing for competition. It is a trojan horse for government control. It is a non-starter for me. Drop it and start over in rethinking the issue and maybe more republicans would be willing to join in voting for reform.
I don't really care about the tort reform issue, other than to say I think we need a loser-pays system so that people would think twice about filling a frivolous law suit. Capping awards would not do as much as making people pay the doctor they are suing when it turns out their claims are bogus.
what happens to a 35 year old who is diagnosed with leukemia and wracks up enormous medical bills? can the insurance companies weasel out of providing coverage? can they drop people who end up in these circumstances? how does this plan deal with the increasing cost of health care?
Post a Comment