Healthcare reform isn’t dead, despite last night’s stunning special election of Republican Scott Brown as the junior U.S. Senator from Massachusetts to fill the late Ted Kennedy’s seat.
Maybe it’s wishful thinking (or the liberal in me), but you have to remember what happened after the health insurance industry — with the help of Harry and Louise — killed Hillarycare 15 years ago. The ranks of the uninsured rose steadily from about 37 million then to 50 million now.
We still face an eroding employer-sponsored insurance market, a broken individual insurance market, inadequate Medicaid eligibility levels, and rising insecurity, vulnerability and out-of-pocket expenses for the lucky ones among us who have healthcare coverage.
Obstruction won’t alter these trends — and in fairness that’s all Brown’s victory offers. As USA Today notes, what the victory “does not do, sadly, is suggest a new answer to the country’s medical mess.”
At what point does healthcare insecurity touch so many of us something has to be done: 75 million uninsured? 100 million? Do we have to wait until 75% of personal bankruptcies are from healthcare bills versus 50% today.
These aren’t rhetorical questions. The reason reform came so far this time around was that the numbers were getting too big for people to find comfort in platitudes like “it won’t happen to me.” “It” being sickness and financial ruin.
Remember, the only reason Republicans can block reform is filibuster power, not an actual majority. And that’s why I think the House will ultimately pass the Senate bill — with all its flaws — and get reform done. We’re too far along — and too many people would benefit — not to make reform happen.
Subscribe in RSS Reader
January 20, 2010 at 3:52 pm
This is a fairly partisan post. In fairness, Republicans/Conservatives do have an alternative-a free market solution that would break down barriers to interstate purchase of health insuance. This would create price competition nationwide as exists in all other insurance markets and bring down costs. See the Geico/State Farm et. al. price wars to see how effective this could be. Making health insurance an individual vs. employer based market would enable most people to obtain affordable insurance. Repealing the EMTLA would motivate people to do so as they would no longer be able to count on strolling into any ER when they need care. No doubt some subsidized care (e.g., Medicaid) would remain for those means tested into eligibility.
One can argue that government created this problem with a combination of the best humanitarian and worst political motivations. Government could fix it and save itself from eventual bankruptcy by privatizing the whole system. After the miracle in Massachussetts, this is less of a fantasy than it was just a few hours ago.
January 20, 2010 at 7:00 pm
I’ll admit to this being a “fairly partisan post.” And as I note, it may be nothing more than wishful thinking on my part. But to paraphrase Paul Krugman, the facts in healthcare have a liberal bias. I and my family have an HSA plan (in fact, I was among the early adopters). It’s worked for us; but we’re healthy and wealthy. I can tell you from experience that it’s not a solution for everyone — and it’s not going to solve the problem of the uninsured. But I am curious to hear Brown’s plan.
January 21, 2010 at 11:05 am
Healthcare reform isn’t dead. However, what has been dictated as the solution [is] not acceptable reform. A real solution requires more people at the table than just those the President wishes to listen, a broader range of market driven solutions and less deals with special interests. There are more options for “healthcare reform” of the system as compared to what is being presented to the United States citizens today. It’s time to develop a true non-partisan solution versus the crap being pushed in either proposal. Your letter today is clearly the voice of the liberal in you.
January 21, 2010 at 12:51 pm
You must be an eastern liberal, no way are there 50 million AMERICANS uninsured in the U.S. and if the liberals had done a true reform either time (that means include everyone’s needs not just the liberals) they would have passed Hillary care then and we would not need to be in this mess now. Instead they choose to try and ram something through in the cover of darkness without anyone except the elite even knowing what’s in it ( not to mention the only way they can get it by their own party is by granting special favors also known as bribing them). Why don’t the dems even want to talk about little issues such as tort reform or opening up the insurance markets nationwide, refusing illegal aliens free care (they are already receiving this). And there are many other issues such as will this in the end cause rationed care? How can it not, and is this what you want, if it is go to Canada and ask someone waiting for a life saving procedure that is on a waiting list. I nor any tax payer should in anyway pay for any type of abortion ( unless the mother’s life is in danger). As a professional in health care I see abuse of the system all the time, mainly by the poor and uninsured after all it doesn’t cost them anything so why should it bother them to abuse it. We do not have a perfect system by any means ( there is no such thing) but we still have the best system in the world, so why don’t we simply fix some of the things we all can agree on instead of throwing the whole thing out. A misconception about conservatives is that they don’t care about the poor and needy, but if you look at per capita conservatives give way more to charity than liberals, and our “Lawmakers” that are Democrats are by far Lawyers as compared to the Republicans of which the majority are business people. Break this down Democratic Congressmen and Senators are people used to making a living off other people’s money, and Republicans are used to earning their own way in the business world. I thank GOD that Mr. Brown was elected to stop this madness, now maybe cooler heads can prevail and they can get something done for all the people of the greatest nation in the world!
January 21, 2010 at 1:26 pm
Oh, By the way, who’s going to pay for this massive government intrusion into the healthcare market? The only means of healthcare “reform” you “progressives” understand is more government. What you call obstructionism is the total and arrogant ignoring of alternative approaches to the reform process. Obstructionism in your eyes is people with different positions on this issue in numbers that might not let you have it your own way.
Stop whining and grow up!
January 21, 2010 at 1:30 pm
Mr. Mercurio, the questions I have are:
Does the bill that you (or the liberal left) are proposing address tort reform?
Does the bill that you (or the liberal left) are proposing tell us who is going to pay for the billions?
Will the President, his family, & Congress have the same health insurance coverage as everyone else?
The answer is not to pass a flawed (your words) bill that does not address the major problems. The answer is to lock our law makers in the Capital until they can hammer out a bill that addresses what the insurance industry, the legal industry, & the medical industry, have done to create this problem.
Just a moderate’s thoughts.
January 21, 2010 at 1:32 pm
Please don’t send me any more of your left-wing (you call them “liberal”) editorial views on health care “reform” – the Senate bill you hope the House will pass is a travesty on the very idea of reform – a Frankenstein monster aimed to devour the entire health care system (including the only part that works – the private employer-based part that drives all the real improvement in quality and value – all that government ever cares about is paying less to doctors).
As a self-proclaimed card-carrying “liberal” (how embarrassing to admit to the world that you don’t bother to think, but just “feel”) – like those 60 pathetic excuses for honest, intelligent, respectful “public servants” called Democratic Senators – you obviously aren’t concerned with trivial matters like the unconstitutionality of the federal government mandating the purchase of health insurance, as well as the obvious violations of Equal Protection of the Laws that non-Nebraska states’ Attorneys General are preparing to make the subject of a lawsuit against the federal government.
If you want a socialist system controlled by government, move to Canada – then you can cross the border if you become seriously ill – (unless the Democrats – before they’re massacred this fall – somehow manage to sneak through Obamacare in defiance of the will of the people – even in Massachusetts – in which case you would have nowhere to go).
January 21, 2010 at 2:01 pm
Carl,
Thanks for your blog entry today. I agree with all you said, but am perhaps a bit less optimistic than you. However, we are all hoping that some level of intelligence will prevail over polemics and that a bill passes that moves us at least a step away from the current morass.
Best regards,
Don
January 21, 2010 at 4:26 pm
Carl, The problem with Dem reforms is that they are not real reforms and that is why the electorate is rebelling. We do need reform!…just not what has been proposed so far. More people need coverage, and some need subsidized coverage given the exorbitant costs of current system, but the solution is not one of covering more people. There is no discipline in the healthcare system/markets because institutions, not people are deciding what is needed and when they need it. Those institutions have narrow intersts. Real reforms can be orchestrated by government, but will only prove be if they are driven by real people paying for healthcare services and health insurance themselves and voting with their wallets. Employer sponsored care is totally innefficient and has proven inneffective in controlling costs and protecting people’s health interests. If the proposed plans offered real reform that would have the desired lasting effects that people want (lower cost, higher quality and access, then we wouldn’t be having this discussion. Mark
January 21, 2010 at 4:56 pm
Carl – Clearly you have struck a polarized chord. The message of your post actually rang very true for me so I must fall into the camp of the “East Coast Liberal”, although that’s not what I call myself. Actually, it’s my public health roots (coupled with 15 years in managed care) that drive me to look for a solution for the greater good. The current health system (private and public) is terribly broken and the American people are suffering because of it – either directly in poor access to care or indirectly in skyrocketing insurance premiums and out-of-pocket expenses. I can’t attest to the merits of all components of the Democrats’ federal legislation – in fact I think some elements are not desirable. But I applaud our Democratic leadership, including our President, for tackling this deep seeded issue. And I am deeply worried that Scott Brown’s addition to the Senate will only offer more obstacles to change, rather than support of progress. However, I am optimistic that both sides can come together and reason will prevail; that we will see some progress, however incremental it may end up being.
January 21, 2010 at 6:18 pm
Please point out where in Obama’s bill it does anything to address out of control consumption of medical care in the US? Other than cutting $500B from Medicare- which is really not cutting consumption- just financing. We are the fattest people in the world with a got to have it now mentality that results in drive thru fast food laden with calories and sodium. It is an indisputable fact that over 50% of our healthcare expenditures are a result of poor life style choices. Obesity, smoking, lack of exercise- how will this any of these improve with someone else footing the bill? I say tax the heck of smokes, fast food, junk food and anything else that contributes to bad health and use the money generated to cover the uninsured. Preserves our freedoms and pays for itself.