Speaker Pelosi unveiled new democratic health-reform legislation today. I'm not sure why this is such big news, because chances are that it will never pass and we will just keep running around in circles on health care "to infinity." Essentially, they are asking for a government insurance option and for an increase to the ceiling for Medicaid.
The Washington Post, where I obtained much of the statistical info for this blog (Shaylagh Murray, Oct. 29, 2009), is quick to point out that there are still sticking points... minor things like using tax dollars from people who don't believe in abortion to fund abortions and using US tax payer funds to offer medical care to non-US citizens. Of the two problems, I think the former is the most offensive to me, but I suspect the latter will be of greater concern to most. Why do I care more about using tax dollars to fund abortions? Because people who abhor abortion, perhaps because of religious beliefs, have the right to not see their money fund abortions. It's separation of church and state. Why don't I care as much about immigrants receiving treatments paid for with US funds? Because sick people make other people sick, regardless of whether they are here legally or not. I'd rather treat sick illegal immigrants than pay to treat five sick people here legally who became sick because an illegal immigrant couldn't get treatment. But it does leave open the door for misuse... people could potentially come to America just to take advantage of free health care. And it is obviously using our limited resources for people who aren't paying in, which is a legitimate thing for people to be upset about.
But there are other really important problems with this legislation...
1) To bring it down from $1.06 Trillion over 10 years to $900 Million over 10 years they are putting more people into Medicaid. That justs moves the cost from the new government insurance option to the already-expensive Medicaid option.
2) The proposal gives providers the ability to negotiate reimbursement rates with federal health officials. Since that wouldn't happen until after the bill passes, how do we know if the cost will be $900M over ten years? The cost can't be reasonably predicted if the rates are decided. And this provision was put in to appease leaders from rural areas wh ocouldn't stomach Medicare rates of reimbursement because those rates are unfairly low in rural areas. But who is to say that the federal health officials won't hold out for the same or even lower rates in the "negotiations" once the legislation was accepted?
It's sad, really, that there will never be a plan that satisfies everyone. There will always be holes in every plan, better plans will always cost too much, and we just keep chasing our tails.
I hope they keep trying, though.
Recent Comments