There’s been a lot of talk lately, in the Slog comments and elsewhere, about the need for President Obama to forcefully enter the health care reform debate. Otherwise the House and Senate might not get their acts together and produce reform bills by the August deadline—which, for complicated political reasons, could doom the whole process.
It’s not exactly a forceful entry, but today, as the Democrats in the House of Representatives unveiled a draft of their health care reform bill, Obama issued this statement. It’s worth a read, not just to see the tone that the president’s taking, but also as an overview (obviously from an interested party) of what your Representatives have cooked up:
For decades, Washington failed to act as health care costs continued to rise, crushing businesses and families and placing an unsustainable burden on governments. But today, key committees in the House of Representatives have engaged in unprecedented cooperation to produce a health care reform proposal that will lower costs, provide better care for patients, and ensure fair treatment of consumers by the insurance industry.
This proposal controls the skyrocketing cost of health care by rooting out waste and fraud and promoting quality and accountability. Its savings of more than $500 billion over 10 years will strengthen Medicare and contribute to our goal of reforming health care in a fiscally responsible way. It will change the incentives in our health care system so that Americans can receive the best care, not the most expensive care. And it will offer families and businesses more choices and more affordable health care.
This proposal will also prevent insurance companies from denying people coverage because of a pre-existing medical condition. It will ensure that workers can still have health insurance if they lose their job, change their job or start a new business. And it includes a health insurance exchange that will allow families and small businesses to compare prices and quality so they can choose the health care plan that best suits their needs. Among the choices that would be available in the exchange would be a public health insurance option that would make health care affordable by increasing competition, providing more choices, and keeping the insurance companies honest.
Cost-cutting? Check. Public option? Check. Insurance exchange? Check. Payment mechanisms? Politically tricky.
And, keep in mind, the House is the easy part. It’s in the Senate where advocates of real reform have the bigger problems.
Rest of Obama’s statement in the jump.
The House proposal will begin the process of fixing what’s broken about our health care system, reducing costs for all, building on what works, and covering an estimated 97% of all Americans. And by emphasizing prevention and wellness, it will also help improve the quality of health care for every American.
I thank Chairmen Rangel, Waxman, and Miller for their hard work on this bill that fundamentally reforms the health care system. As this process moves forward, I look forward to continuing to work with all House members in ensuring this legislation helps all Americans and plays an essential role in reducing deficits and bringing fiscal sustainability to our nation.
Ok it’s a start. But until he revs up folks those blue dogs aren’t going to be convinced by this kind of politics as usual wonkery.
Expect a contrived and made up “crisis” that will hit later this summer forcing the issue to the back burner.
If Insurance companies can not exclude pre-existing conditions then it will not be “insurance”; it will be “let the other policy holders subsidize my expenses”.
There is no free lunch.
@3 – no, that’s a condition of trade, and Adam Smith said that governments needed to enforce minimum standards such as that.
Grow up and crack open your Econ 250 books.
4
Insurance works like this:
Many people pay a small amount to insure them self against an infrequent but expensive occurrence.
For example your house burning down.
Or totaling your car.
If something is likely to occur it is not what they call an “insurable phenomenon”. If someone tries to insure it they will go broke.
An “insurance” plan that promises to cover a disease you already know you have will go broke. Unless it charges YOU enough premiums to pay for the treatment you will receive and a little extra for administration.
Passing a law won’t change that economic reality.
The proposed plan will either (quickly) go broke or (quickly) require massive taxpayer subsidy.
Forcing coverage of pre-existing conditions is like allowing people to buy fire insurance after the house catches on fire.
@5 – you were talking about Adam Smith, the father of Capitalism, and you are now talking about something different, the artificial need for insurance companies to maximize the return for their CEOs at the expense of society.
Crack open the original Adam Smith, comrade. He hated your type. He knew you were whiny unpatriotic bastards.