Discussing health reform over the weekend, House Republican leader Eric Cantor told the New York Times that “it is my intention to begin repealing it piece by piece, blocking funding for its implementation and blocking the issuance of the regulations necessary to implement it.”
Congressman Cantor’s Problem
To which “it” does Congressman Cantor refer? The “it” creating a new long term care insurance program so that elders will be able to fund nursing or home care as they age? Or the “it” creating a new catastrophic care insurance plan so that healthy young people will be able to afford some insurance coverage as they age out of their parents’ plans? Perhaps it’s the “it” that provides new grants to community health centers, or the “it” providing new training for primary care physicians to recognize and treat chronic conditions, or the “it” creating thousands of needed new jobs in the health care workforce.
Congressman Cantor’s problem is that there isn’t an “it” to be repealed piece by piece.
He seems to confuse the health legislation itself with its substantive parts, as if it were like one giant private corporation that could be cut up into its constituent parts and sold off piece by piece until nothing remained. The substantive components of the health reform bill, however, are more like dozens of small businesses, each independent of the other and every one of them providing a product that meets a consumer demand.
Consider the real implications of Mr. Cantor’s position:
· Is he proposing to block the regulations that will reduce costs to the Medicare program over the next ten years, thereby raising the cost of federal government? That’s hardly fiscal conservatism; it sounds like wasteful spending to me.
· Or is he proposing to block the funding that will reimburse state governments for new costs to their Medicaid programs, thereby pushing a new unfunded mandate onto the states?
· Or does he hope to delay implementation of the provisions of the legislation that will add 30 million people to the insurance rolls, and replace these provisions with the proposal he backed that would insure only a small fraction of them?
Insured Consumers Pay for the Uninsured
It’s most likely delay Mr. Cantor has in mind, but while it might be good politics to argue for “piece by piece” repeal as he had done, or “repeal and replace,” like his colleague, Rep. Paul Ryan, our health policy matters to us more than just as taxpayers or health care consumers. This is because everyone’s cost of care is connected to everyone else’s. None of us sits on a health care island.
One of the biggest hidden prices we pay each year is the portion of our health insurance premium that pays for people who have no insurance. Since someone has to pay for the care we all receive, it stands to reason that the smaller the number of people who are insured, the higher the costs will be for those of us who are – unless, of course, the government were to pay more than its fair share of health care costs. But it doesn’t.
Historically, Medicare has paid less for the same health care than private insurers do, Medicaid has paid even less than Medicare, and uninsured “self-pays” pay the least. Who makes up the difference? We do, to the tune of over $1,000 per year in excess premium costs on our insurance.
Protecting Deadbeats?
Governing by sound bite may strike a chord in the short term, but the fact is that when the guy next store who can afford health insurance decides not to buy it, those of us who do have it are the ones paying to help cover him.
Remember this when you hear people talking about getting rid of the mandate, or covering fewer people. The bottom line is that they care more about the deadbeat than they do about you. And to add insult to injury, the deadbeat probably doesn’t even vote, either.
So “it” isn’t as simple as Mr. Cantor’s chorus and Mr. Ryan’s refrain.
We need more than this from our new Congressional leaders. We need them to remember that health care policy in this country has evolved considerably over the last hundred years, that we provide and pay for health care in a uniquely American way, and that what’s best in our system – the quality of our care – has come about because of partnerships between the public and private sectors, and not in spite of them. There’s plenty of room for improvement, but only if they make a real effort.
Will they be up to the task?
Comments
Post a Comment