A few thoughts on today’s news:
- As widely reported, the Senate Finance Committee rejected two amendments to Senator Baucus’s America’s Healthy Future Act of 2009 to establish a “public option”. The New York Times reported that Mr. Baucus voted against the amendments even though he thinks the public option is a good idea. Senator Baucus, perhaps taking the mantle of Senator Kennedy’s legacy, said, “My job is to put together a bill that will become law. In the Senate that means my job is to put together a bill that gets 60 votes.” It is a pity that more members of Congress fail to remember that is the reason we elected them.
- In today’s edition of The New York Times, David Leonhardt’s column “’Cadillac Tax’ Offers Opportunity” (at least that is what the title was in the print edition) calls out special interests for subjugating the national interest to their personal interest. As stated previously, I am convinced that shared sacrifice on the part of all Americans is an essential component of comprehensive reform of the healthcare (insurance, delivery, and wellness) system. In particular, Mr. Leonhardt points out that the unions, whose members would likely be disproportionately affected by the “Cadillac Tax”, are vigorously fighting the concept. Calling out the A.F.L.-C.I.O. is serious business at the Old Grey Lady, so credit Mr. Leonhardt with speaking the truth. Mr. Leonhardt points out correctly that limiting the growth in the cost of healthcare is a key goal of reform – I say “correctly” because some folks in Washington have forgotten that is the real issue. Mr. Leonhardt also cites research from RAND Corporation and others that conclude that there is not a difference in health status between those with “Cadillac” plans and “Chevy Malibu” plans. Mr. Leonhardt also quotes Jonathan Gruber, a health economist at M.I.T., as saying, “Taking someone who’s uninsured and giving them insurance unambiguously improves their health”. I am not sure the evidence supports that, which I will discuss in more detail soon.
- Today’s USA Today headline is “Millions in waste clogging Medicaid” (their capitalization, not mine). I am neither the first nor almost certainly the last to suggest that, if the White House really believes that health reform can be funded by eliminating fraud, abuse and waste, then time’s-a-wasting. Why do we need new legislation if we can address our cost issue with rooting out fraud, abuse and waste? Isn’t that the role the Office of the Inspector General? If the government is certain of the fraud, abuse, and waste and cannot end it, then why do we want the government taking more responsibility in healthcare? Perhaps We, the People, should require the Government to be faithful in the small things before granting them authority over the large things.
