Web Search powered by YAHOO! SEARCH
share
email
font size
options
 
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
High-priced reform
President Barack Obama needs to use his clout to get a better health care bill than the one House Speaker Nancy Pelosi helped get passed over the weekend.

The Democratic-controlled House took an historic step in passing a health care bill over the weekend, yet the measure — unless it’s modified — could mean the death knell for health reform this year.


It’s not that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other congressional leaders made any fatal legislative moves. Indeed, Pelosi had good reason to liken the landmark legislation to the passage of Medicare, if not Social Security.
 

Millions of Americans now without health insurance would receive coverage under the $1.2 trillion plan, and those with workplace-based insurance would be more assured they could keep their coverage.
 

Unfair insurance industry practices such as denying or dropping coverage due to medical condition finally would be banned.
 

In the boldest move, private insurers would see competition for the first time from a government-run health plan serving working-age Americans.
 

But as congressional action shifts to the Senate, the House plan clearly cannot serve as the only template for the bill that eventually reaches President Obama’s desk. Primarily, that’s because it’s unaffordable in its present form despite bearing the title “Affordable Health Care for America Act.”
 

Unfortunately, the House measure does little to rein in escalating health care costs and that, in the end, would harm the middle class and small businesses alike.
 

Although the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that the measure would reduce federal deficits by about $104 billion over a decade, the House conveniently excluded $250 billion in estimated Medicare payments to doctors over the same decade.
 

At least, the House gets it right by paying for much of the plan through a tax on high-earning Americans, rather than the Senate’s disadvantaging this region with a tax on health plans.
 

But the cost-containment measures fall short of what the Senate has proposed, accounting for some erosion in Democratic support during the close 220-215 vote. For one, freshman Rep. John Adler (D., N.J.) said he voted against the plan over its cost.
 

So the Senate will have to impose its own reality test on cost — certainly, if Majority Leader Harry Reid hopes to hang on to the votes of conservative Democrats in his ranks. (The House hard-line stance limiting abortion coverage also could complicate Reid’s hunt for 60 votes, since it’s likely to be viewed as patently unfair to many low-income women.)
 

While Reid was being urged Sunday by the president to “take up the baton and bring this effort to the finish line,” the senate leader will need Obama’s help in pushing for greater reform efforts to bend the cost curve. Only with real efficiencies — in addition to taxes and cuts in Medicare — will the nation be able to improve and help pay for expanded coverage.
 

One of the surest means to tamp down costs is to implement a Medicare-style health plan, as the House proposed. So even though the so-called public option is a deal-killer for Republicans and a few conservative Democrats and independents like Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut, the Senate must find a way to craft a compromise that preserves this key reform measure.
 

Posted by Inquirer Editorial Board @ 2:10 AM  Permalink | 1 comment
Comments   
Posted 08:51 AM, 11/10/2009
fafafooey
There is no "reform" in this bill. The trial lawyers get off scot-free because they contribute millions and millions to the Democrat party. How can you have health care "reform" without addressing malpractice?
1 comments
About The Inquirer Editorial Board
Harold Jackson, a winner of the 1991 Pulitzer Prize for Editorial Writing, grew up in Birmingham, Ala., during the civil rights movement. He graduated from Baker University in Baldwin, Kan., in 1975, with a degree in journalism/political science. He has also worked at the Birmingham Post-Herald, United Press International, the Birmingham News, and the Baltimore Sun. He was at The Inquirer in the mid-1980s, returned in 1999, and became editorial page editor in 2007.

Paul Davies is the deputy editor of the Editorial Page. His newspaper career has spanned more than 20 years and includes stints at The Wall Street Journal and the Philadelphia Daily News. He graduated from the University of Delaware and received a masters in journalism from Columbia University, where he was also a Knight-Bagehot Fellow. He was born in Philadelphia and still lives in the city.

Tony Auth began drawing while bedridden for a year and a half at the age of five. He graduated from UCLA in 1965 and worked for six years as a medical illustrator while doing three cartoons a week for various college newspapers. Tony has been happily ensconced as The Inquirer’s editorial cartoonist since 1971. He won a Pulitzer Prize in 1976, and has won numerous other awards, including five Overseas Press Club Awards, the Sigma Delta Chi award for distinguished service in Journalism, and the Herblock and Thomas Nast Prizes. Tony is married to Eliza Drake Auth, a painter of realistic landscapes and portraits.

Trudy Rubin is the foreign affairs columnist for The Philadelphia Inquirer, and a member of The Inquirer’s editorial board. Her column appears twice weekly in The Inquirer and runs regularly in many other newspapers around the United States. She is the author of Willful Blindness: The Bush Administration and Iraq.

Kevin Ferris is an assistant editor on the Editorial Board who oversees the Sunday Currents section and writes a weekly column on a wide range of issues. In his 15 years on the board, he’s handled letters to the editor and the Community Voices pages and has been Commentary Page editor. He started with The Inquirer in 1986, and his assignments have ranged from the copy and news desks to the Chester County bureau and the national/foreign desk.

As an editorial writer for The Inquirer for the past two decades, Russell Cooke has written on a wide range of topics covering government, legal, civic and social issues. Before joining the Editorial Board, he was a reporter in the Inquirer’s City Hall bureau.

Editorial writer Dave Boyer joined The Inquirer in 2002. He writes about politics, government, the economy, sports and many other subjects, but draws the line at writing about "Jon & Kate Plus Eight." He has won journalism awards and insists bribery was not involved. A native of Allentown, Boyer graduated from Penn State. He and his wife reside in Center City, where they enjoy strolling and paying the wage tax.

Melanie Burney joined the editorial board in January 2008 after covering education at the Inquirer for eight years. She previously worked at the Associated Press in Philadelphia and southern New Jersey. She is a graduate of Glassboro State College, now Rowan University, and a member of the National Association of Black Journalists.

Josh Gohlke has been The Inquirer’s op-ed editor since last year, editing the daily commentary page and writing occasional editorials. He came to the Inquirer after eight years at The Record of Bergen County, N.J., first as a reporter covering local and state politics and government and ultimately as the deputy editorial page editor. He also worked as a reporter for several smaller papers in New Jersey and California. Josh was born and raised in Los Angeles and graduated from Stanford University. He lives in Philadelphia.

Advertise Here