Saturday, January 23, 2010

Defending the Senate Health Bill

By Dave

A reader responds to this post:
Barney Frank is right and Dave is wrong. The Senate bill mandates everyone buy insurnace from the companies who have messed up the system and transfers about a trillion dollars to those companies. If this were to happen, I doubt the voters would look favorably on the Democrats.

The Senate Dems need to change the cloture rules so that business can be conducted with a simple majority and then pass progressive legislation.

Yes, the House Bill creates a public option for insurance. But it is exactly that, an option. People don’t have to use it and will only use it if it can actually provide cheaper service. Otherwise both bills call for an individual mandate, which is what I think the comment is talking about. So under both bills people will purchase insurance from the private companies. According to the CBO, even with the public option, the majority of people will still buy from the private sector.

But while the companies will still be private, the service they provide will be very different. New regulation in the Senate Bill provides for stronger medical loss ratios, excludes insurers who jack up premiums from the exchanges; prohibits excluding people based on pre-existing conditions and will immediately prohibit excluding children with preexisting conditions; ensures access to care by banning the use of annual limits; and it adds new patient protections and a guaranteed independent appeals process. It will add transparency by forcing insurers and providers to report on their performance.

The Senate bill does a lot to reform our system, to add morality and justice back into the picture, and it will force insurers to comply.

I don't really follow the comment about transferring insurance companies a trillion dollars. The bill actually gives people, that is America workers, mothers, fathers, and children, subsidies to help them buy insurance over the next decade. It’s true that money will end up with insurers, but at the end of the day those millions of people will also be happier and healthier. It’s kind of like saying food stamps are awful because they subsidize big Agri-business or saying we shouldn't subsidize the costs of medicine for seniors because we’re only subsidizing big Pharma. It’s true, I guess. But it neglects the fact that tens of millions will now have coverage and hundreds of thousands of lives will be saved over the course of a decade.

Krugman is right, believing that killing the Senate Bill will somehow move us closer to universal coverage is the underpants gnome theory of business.

However, I do agree that Dems should change the cloture rules. The filibuster has been too used and abused over the last year.

No comments:

Post a Comment