Health Care Reform Framed by Politics - Without Consideration of the General Public

Although the Health Care Reform bill currently before the Senate will be modified several times prior to a final vote; the current version does not deliver adequate coverage and or cost savings for consumers according to an AP report released today. The rush to push the bill through the Senate lately, has less to do with the populace, rather it is being eyes as a political tool, by both major parties. Some Democrats are pushing the bill through for “Obama”, making sure the President is not seen as being unable to control members of his own party, while the DNC is casting Republican’s as the “Party of No”.

On the flip side, Republican’s are framing the debate as a government takeover of the health care system, adding the “liberal” tag to frame the debate:(From the Los Angeles Times):

Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele also foreshadowed next year's election season in his response to Saturday's Senate vote, in which all the Republicans but the absent Sen. George Voinovich of Ohio voted against taking the healthcare bill to debate -- just as all the House's Republicans, except for Rep. Joseph Cao of New Orleans, voted against the House health bill.

"Make no mistake: this was not a free vote," Steele said. "A vote in favor of this procedural motion paves the way for the bill's final adoption, which would impose a government-run healthcare experiment on America that increases premiums, increases taxes, cuts Medicare and allows for taxpayer-funded abortions.

"President Obama, [Senate Majority Leader] Harry Reid and their liberal Senate allies will surely gloat and pat themselves on the back for winning tonight's vote in the dark of night during a rare Saturday session, while Americans were home with their families," Steele said. "But as they do, those moderate Democrats who voted for Harry Reid's bill will have to answer to their constituents."

Support for health care reform by the public based on Rasmussen Polls, remains under 50%, and the topic has generally been portrayed in all media as a Republican versus Democrat issue, as relates to the ability to win or lose in 2010, pushing the debate away from actual solutions to problems that currently exist, towards slogans for election or re-election.

Rushing a major change to American’s health care system through legislation in order not to embarrass the President is ridiculous. If concern for the American people were at such a feverous pitch, Democrats would take the time to actually work with the Republican’s in both Houses, taking time to debate, and craft legislation that would address the needs of the people, rather than the needs of the President and or either political party. Regardless of where the blame lays for the current state of health care in the United States, one certain fact remains; health care is big business, regardless of which side of an aisle on sits upon.

Using Massachusetts as a model, the current form of “coverage for everyone” has resulted in huge deficits for the Commonwealth, and high increases in private pay insurance (11% in most cases). A 10 to 11% increase in debt owed, (as is the case of premium costs projected in current national legislation and realized is Massachusetts) at a time when American’s are struggling to pay for essentials, is ludicrous. The co-pays and high deductibles still exist, leaving those currently holding coverage, in additional debt.

The American people deserve better – improvements to the current system that will work, without adding additional debt to either the government or to the general public – requires cooperation on all levels, from both political parties. Unfortunately, attaching labels for political purposes appears to be more important than taking the time to craft legislation that would include concessions from both sides of the aisle.

What is missing: the Republican’s have crafted a plan, calling for competition across state lines (which would drive down costs to those currently holding private insurance), the Democrats are seeking to cover those who have pre-existing conditions with any carrier (currently the bill has a six (6) month gap in coverage). Would that the two actually talk to one another, the ability to purchase health insurance, across state lines, driving down the costs, would compensate for the additional risk of covering those with pre-existing conditions as the pool would be spread nationally, instead of confining it to less than a half dozen carriers allowed to provide coverage in some states. Tort reform is also necessary, as the rising costs of mal-practice insurance (which extends beyond doctors, to almost anyone in a health care provider setting), is being tacked onto the consumers bill, and finally raising premiums across the board.

What will happen in 2010 remains to be seen, but the party that is seen as being in a rush to push through anything in partisan fashion, will merely provide ammunition to the other side. It is in debates of such grave nature as this, that the founders were right to abhor the notion of major political parties, rather than the citizen legislature they so proudly envisioned – party loyalty, trumping the needs of constituents and the greater good of the nation as a whole, is driving today’s health care debate. It is detestable that a "party" would take credit for providing "healthcare for everyone" (see AP Article opening paragraph) without regards to honest debate, regardless of length of time to pass well-crafted, bi-partisan legislation, in order to gain a "win" of some sorts, for the party, not the public. It goes without saying, that should the otter party consider "defeat" of such a bill, a win for the "party" not the public, it would be more of the same.