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.

President Obama needs to be specific tonight on health care reform

Tonight at 7 P.M. CST President Obama will address a joint session of Congress in an attempt to guide them in developing a health care reform bill for him to sign into law. President Obama wanted Congress to pass health care reform before the August recess for good reason; the message on health care reform is no longer being controlled by the White House. The August recess allowed, those really concerned, to review the House bill and get an opportunity to participate in town hall meetings. While not every member of Congress held open forums, they did hold meetings of some sort to hear from constituents on the issue of health care. No one denies, okay maybe one person, that health care costs are growing out of control and reform is needed. The disagreement is how much reform is required to bend the cost curve downward.

The "Gang of Six" is trying to hammer out an idea. The Republicans have a proposal but are unable to get it out of committee or get it scored by the CBO. Republicans do not want to release the plan before it can be scored by the CBO which is politics. I have had the opportunity this summer to witness first hand a number of C-SPAN session of Congress and can attest to Republicans ideas are not given real consideration in committees. The Liberal Left members of the Democrat party have drawn the line in the sand that if reform does not include a public option then they will not vote for reform. The Conservative Right is dead set against the public option and it appears many "Blue" dog Democrats are as well. President Obama campaign on bringing people together; yet he cannot find common ground with members of Congress without creating uproar from the base of the Democrat party.

Thus far the President has touted that "if you like your health care you will be able to keep it." Unfortunately his rhetoric does not match what is being done in Congress which is not a bad thing since there is suppose to be separation of powers. Then again, it his party that is in power and one would think they'd be on the same page. The current HR 3200 bill penalizes companies if they do not offer insurance equal to what the public option will offer. A bit of hypocrisy presents itself here. People in general are happy with the coverage but are unhappy at the rising cost of being covered. Why do we need to penalize companies if people are happy with their insurance cover? Let's not confuse the issue though.

I find it interesting that during the campaign and after taking office President Obama looked to places like Canada and England health care systems as models his administration would emulate. Recently President Obama said, "I've said that the Canadian model works for Canada. It would not work for the United States, in part simply because we've evolved differently. So, we've got to develop a uniquely American approach to this problem" (NYtimes.com). A "uniquely American" approach does not restrict freedom of choice or look to the government for the answer; rather free market ideals are what make our current system a "Uniquely American" approach.

The trouble with the current system is that the free market concept of competition is confined by state borders. By deregulating the health care system to allow one in Minnesota to purchase health care coverage from an insurer in Arizona will increase competition thus reducing costs. If the primary goal is to reduce costs then why not start reforming health care by doing this? America's deficit is spiraling out of control and opening up competition does not cost taxpayers any money; Budget neutral!!!!!

Back in June I was challenged by one of my progressive friends to provide an outline for health care reform which I did in my blog entry, Outline of Health Care and Tax Reform, on June 10, 2009. I recognize that my idea of health care reform does not provide all the answers but it does provide a solid base of ideas that would be budget neutral. One aspect that I neglected in my blog entry back in June was to include tort reform. Without solid tort reform the cost curve will not trend downward.

I am hoping that tonight President Obama will lay out specific plans or changes to current bills of health care reform. The time for lofty rhetoric has past; the time for specific language is required. Without specifics the American public fears will only be heightened. According to Scott Rasmussen, "those opposed to Mr. Obama's reform appear to have momentum on their side. Polling last weekend showed that 48% of voters rate the U.S. health-care system as good or excellent. That's up from 35% in May and up from 29% a year ago. Only 19% now rate the system as poor, down from 37% a year ago. It appears that the prospect of changing health care has made the existing system look better to a lot of people" (Wall Street Journal).

The sliding poll numbers are even more reason why President Obama needs to get specific on health care reform and display how the reform will benefit all Americans. I am one of the 48M uninsured in America right now and it is by choice. Because unemployment is just a portion of my previous income level the cost of health care increases but not due to an increase in cost rather due to the decrease in income. Now there are options for health care coverage that is less expensive and affordable than COBRA or any of those offered in Minnesota but I cannot take advantage of that because the coverage is in another state. I look forward to the speech tonight and hope that President Obama can produce on his campaign promise for health care reform that allows those with coverage to keep their coverage for as long as they are employed at their current employer.