Baucus Health Care Bill is start to bipartisan solution.

Yesterday Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT) unveiled his health care reform. Originally the plan was touted as a bipartisan bill but the support from Republicans has evaporated while raising the ire of those on the far left of the Democrat party. I perused the 223 page bill (http://finance.senate.gov/sitepages/leg/LEG%202009/091609%20Americas_Healthy_Future_Act.pdf) to get a brief overview of what Sen. Baucus is proposing. Perhaps the most glaring point missing from the health care reform plan is the absence of a public option. "Liberal Democrats and unions recoiled at Baucus's proposal to compromise with moderates on the government-sponsored insurance option by establishing nonprofit insurance co-ops instead" (The Boston Globe).

The bill does however place a mandate on all Americans to purchase health insurance or face paying a fine. Really? The president made the comparison of health insurance to car insurance during this speech to the joint session of Congress the other week. The comparison is unfounded as it is a privilege to drive a vehicle and one does not have to have a driver's license to live in the United States. To say that I have purchase something I may or may not want to goes against the very essence of the United States. We are the land of the free. Our Forefathers fought against tyranny and undue taxation. The requirement that all American's must purchase health care insurance is similar to the tyranny that colonial American endured under English control.

There is a smarter way to achieve the end goal of driving down costs. The Baucus bill does take a step in that direction by allowing states to establish compacts with other states to allow health insurance purchasing across state lines. While I foresee a 10^th Amendment battle over a public option and the mandating of health insurance, allowing for compacts to be developed will not create a 10^th Amendment battle. Yet, the compact concept falls short because it still allows lobbyists to shape them. Does one really believe that HealthPartners or Blue Cross Blue Shield will allow Minnesota to join in a compact with another state that offers similar health insurance coverage at lower rates than theirs?

The only mandate on business to ensure health insurance benefits are not dropped is that companies with more than 50 employees will have to reimburse the government in the event their employees take advantage of the new subsides. Taking into consideration the administration costs that large companies face with health insurance benefits it may be more cost effective to pay the reimbursement fee than to offer health care insurance; especially when the company weighs the number of employees that would require subsides vs. those that will not. Even though AFL-CIO President John Sweeney said it "absolutely fails to meet the most basic health care needs of working families" (USA Today).

Sweeney wants to see a public option as it will help alleviate some of the legacy costs that Unions face. What Sweeney fails to realized is the Trojan Horse still exists in the bill because the lack of a mandate on business to keep current coverage or provide coverage in the future. The new rating system that will determine premiums and coverage limits will be more stringent and all insurance offered will need to meet by 2013. The bill will also impose fees on insurance companies to a tune of $6B annually. The fee is to help offset the start-up costs for the non-profit insurance cooperatives that will not be "run" by the state.

At the end of the day the Baucus Bill or any other bill currently on the table will not be the bill finally passed. The Baucus bill is the closest thing to a compromise to come from Congress since the year has begun. Since both sides are a bit miffed and disappointed – Left by no public option and the Right by no tort reform – means the bill is taking the right steps to compromise.

Obama Administration confused on Public Option

On the Sunday morning talk show circuit Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius commented on CNN that President Obama’s health care plan may be changing as the public option “is not the essential element”. Or is it? Even though the headlines across the land quip Secretary Sebelius it appears the White House is already back peddling. Linda Douglass, White House Health Reform Communications Director, released a statement saying, “Nothing has changed. The president has always said that what is essential is that health-insurance reform must lower costs, ensure that there are affordable options for all Americans and it must increase choice and competition in the health-insurance market. He believes the public option is the best way to achieve those goals.”

While Secretary Sebelius was pushing the conversation away from the public option, Sen. Conrad elaborated on Fox News Sunday that the president does not have the votes in the Senate to pass reform with a public option in it. Sen. Conrad has been pushing, a bipartisan approach, Co-operative option to increasing competition and providing affordable health care for all. While Sen. Conrad’s Co-Op option is more aligned with traditional Co-Op’s, Sen. Schumer has another vision of how a health insurance Co-Op would work.

Sen. Schumer is looking to have the Co-Op be run and subsidized by the government and include health care plans that were chosen by the government. In essence Sen. Schumer’s plan is no more than a public option organized a bit differently. According to the New York Times, the backers of a public option are outspending non-public option supports 3 to 1. A public option would be the death to privately held insurance.

The current House bill calls for companies to provide health insurance that is at least 80% as good as the public option or face a penalty of 8.5%. In our global economy how are large companies to compete with their counterparts around the world if they are faced with a possible 8.5% penalty for not keeping up with government run health care? They can’t and will not. Americans will see companies, albeit slowly, stripping away health care as a benefit the company offers. It makes sense too. With a public option available, where is the competitive advantage to offer a benefit that becomes too cumbersome to maintain and really is not needed since it is available for “free”?

No matter which side of this debate you fall on, make sure you get out to have your voice heard. Don’t rely on the sensationalism news reports to dictate your view of those for or against the president’s plan for health care. Get out to a town hall meeting and find out first hand. Call your member of Congress and learn of their position while voicing yours.