The slowing pace of health care reform in Washington is welcome. It will allow for more through examination of options and broader involvement by the public.
Posted: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 12:00 am
The slowing pace of health care reform in Washington is welcome. It will allow for more thorough examination of options and broader involvement by the public.
As Sen. Mike Johanns put it last week, "it is more important to craft a good, solid bill" than meet an arbitrary deadline.
Key to the slowdown were sobering estimates from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office on the cost of reform. For example, the CBO said that a bill crafted by Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn. and Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., would cost $1 trillion over 10 years and add only 16 million Americans to the rolls of the insured.
Admittedly, the figures put out by the CBO are estimates, and subject to error. But at least the agency strives to be independent and nonpartisan. It's likely to be more trustworthy than estimates from other sources.
It's worth noting in this context that the CBO also pointed out this month that the publicly held portion of the national debt is growing faster than gross domestic product, potentially reaching 82 percent of GDP in 2019.
Although President Barack Obama has pledged that health care reform will be on a pay-as-you-go basis, it's important that details of the legislation ensure that the goal will become reality.
So far there have been such a multiplicity of proposals floating around in Washington that it has been difficult for the public to follow the action.
And the amount of detail is staggering. A so-called "discussion draft" in the House was 852 pages long. A Senate proposal covered 615 pages, and was criticized for lack of elaboration on features such as a public health option.
There's little doubt health care reform is needed. America spends about twice as much on health care than other rich countries, but ranks worse on measures such as life expectancy and infant mortality.
Millions of Americans are uninsured. Yet the uninsured are still treated when they show up at hospital emergency rooms. Their care is subsidized by a hidden tax - higher insurance premiums paid by those who do have insurance.
It's much easier to define the problem than it is to realistically solve it.
Although Obama and some Democratic leaders have pledged to seek a bipartisan plan that would win at least 60 votes in the Senate, Sen. Chuck Shuster, D-N.Y., last week again suggested using the arcane tactic of budget reconciliation for a reform bill, which would require only a majority vote in the Senate.
That would be a mistake. Fundamental, far-reaching revamping of health care in America should not be hastily enacted with parliamentary tricks. Congress should take the time to do it right.