Health Care For The Masses - RIP

Last December 24th, I wrote on Universal Health Care which now appears to be dead. A good deal of the blame goes to Republicans who demonized any sort of universal health care, but, ultimately, the Democrats did it to themselves. With the election of a Republican Senator from Massasschusetts who says he will vote against whatever health care bill comes out of the conference committee, there are now not enough votes to establish cloture in the Senate so any version of the two health care bills passed by the House or Senate is dead on arrival. The problem could be avoided by having a "hurry up" conference committee, but this idea has been rejected. Now the House could avoid this problem by simply accepting the Senate bill, but Speaker Nancy Pelosi has said she does not have the votes (I believe that the Senate could also vote to accept the House bill before the new Senator is sworn in, but this seems even more unlikely.). So in the end, the Democrats themselves did not want to pass a universal health care bill. A problem with the Democrats is, of course, that they are less disciplined than the Republicans.

So once again, it is proven that trying to pass an "ultimate solution" to a problem fails. In my experience, they always do.

So the idea now is to attack some pieces of the problem. President Clinton did this, most notably with his State Children’s Health Insurance Program, and President Bush the younger did it with Medicare D, a prescription drug program (but with some strong arm twisting to get the votes). So what pieces seem to be possible?

President Obama has reiterated that he would consider some form of tort reform which Republicans now say they want. I like the idea of tort reform, especially for "pain and suffering," but Republicans had six years in which they controlled the Presidency, the House, and the Senate and did nothing about tort reform. So my guess is that when push comes to shove, tort reform is dead.

Republicans in particular say they would like to have health insurance by insurance companies the is not restricted by state. I personally like this idea, but I am surprised that Republicans like it because insurance regulation has been one of the things that that been left to the states so to have national health insurance would obviously require some Federal regulation. Republicans are supposedly for states rights. Why take something away from the states? There is a second problem. It sounds nice to say you live in a state with expensive health insurance so you can buy insurance from a state with cheap health insurance, but, to stay in business, wouldn't the prices of insurance in the cheap states have to increase? Perhaps the health insurance in the expensive states would come down some to flatten costs over the U.S., but this would be to the detriment of the low cost states. Since medical expenses in low cost states is probably because the people have low incomes, the people of these states probably can ill afford increased health insurance costs. Thus I think when the issue is looked at closely, it is no go.

It seems like everyone doesn't like the fact that insurance companies can take health history into account in accepting applicants for health insurance. The insurance companies say there will be no preconditions so long as everyone is required to have health insurance. This sounds fine to me, but seems to have a lot of opposition from Republicans who have said this is just another give away to seniors. Well, this is what insurance is all about, isn't it? You take out fire insurance on your home, but it is very unlikely that your home will catch on fire during your occupancy. So you pay for the unfortunates whose homes do burn down or are damaged by fire on the off chance you will be one of them. While youth in general may have fewer health problems, there are those that do, and they would be covered also. As it is there are a number of thousands of people in their early 20s who collect Medicare for kidney problems (You have to have paid a certain number of quarters into Social Security to qualify.). But this idea seems to be a nonstarter.

Interestingly, none of the above deal with people currently unable to get health insurance because of costs though the last item addresses preconditions. So my guess is that maybe some more wheels will be spun on pieces of health care, but in the end nothing will be done. I will be happy to be proved wrong because no action is one of the most ecpensive options.