I Need A Doctor Because I Am Sick of the Health Care Reform Issue

March 7, 2010 — I was recently inspired to read this editorial in the New York Times (NYT) http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/07/opinion/07sun1.html?pagewanted=1&ref=opinion by a well intentioned post on Facebook from a friend. The editorial piece, while it does have some merit, is nothing more than an ad for what the administration and most Congressional Democrats want in the way of reform. It takes direct slaps at the Republicans using such descriptors as "paltry proposals", "small dent", "happily fanned those fears", etc, etc. It does an excellent job of presenting big numbers about this and that such as the number of uninsured in the country as of 2008 and the expected uninsured in 2019...how cost of health care has risen in recent times. And, it goes on to point to what is happening in that foreign country known as California and how Anthem Blue Cross is planning on hiking premium rates by 35-39% for nearly a quarter of those it insures. It notes we should be alarmed by this and hints that this is the sort of thing that will happen to all of us if health care reform fails. Well I truly have a few questions:

1) How is the program (the proposed reform) fully paid for and how should it actually reduce the deficit over the next two decades? Here is the quote from the editorial that prompts my question: "But, despite what the critics charge, this is not a government takeover. And the program is not only fully paid for, it should actually reduce the deficit over the next two decades."

2) What is the estmated penalty if I do not purchase insurance under this proposal? The editorial states: "Under the new system, all people would be required to have health insurance or pay a penalty."

3) The Congressional Budget Office estimates that at the current rate there will be 54 million uninsured by 2019. The Senate's reform bill would reduce that number by an estimated 31 million by 2019. Now lets see...using my elementary arithmetic... 54 million minus 31 million leaves a remainder of 23 million uninsured. What are they chopped liver? What happened to coverage for all?

4) How will those individuals that by their own insurance or work for a small business that currently cannot afford to cover their employees health insurance be able to get a better deal if they can purchase their insurance on a competitive exchange? What is the estimated cost of such a policy? The editorial says: "All of these groups should be able to get a better deal if they can buy their insurance through new, competitive exchanges."

5) What is the estimated subsidy (in hard dollars) that would be forthcoming to help low- and middle-income people pay their premiums. The editorial says: "Reform would help them by setting minimum standards of coverage and providing subsidies to tens of millions of low- and middle-income people to help pay their premiums."

6) Here is another editorial statement: "Pending reform legislation, specifically the Senate bill, would launch an array of pilot projects to test reforms in delivering and paying for care. It would also create a special board to accelerate the adoption of anything that seemed to work. That seems a reasonable way to go and a lot better than standing by as costs continue to spiral out of control. The Republicans’ proposals — including their call to cap malpractice awards — would make only a small dent in the problem." What are these arrays of "pilot projects" they claim will test the reform provisions? Who would sit on the "special board" that would accelerate the adoption of anything that works? (geesh that is an incredible way to put it)

7) How does the Senate bill reduce the deficit by an estimated $132 billion in the first ten years and more in the next decade? The editorial states: " The truth of the matter is that the pending reform legislation has been designed to generate enough revenue and savings to more than offset the substantial cost of expanding Medicaid and providing subsidies to the middle class."

"The Congressional Budget Office estimated that the Senate bill would reduce deficits over the first 10 years by $132 billion and even more in the second decade."

While I can agree that maintaining the status quo on health care is not sustainable, I need answers to the above questions before I can do the right thing. If anyone reading this blog can provide factual and sane (dare I say that) arguments to the questions proposed, I will welcome them in the light of honest debate.

The editorial left out one line at the bottom of the article. It should have stated: "The preceding editorial was paid for by the Democratic Party of the United States and we approve its content."

Now I am heading to the Drs office in the morning and get some meds for this bad case of "I Am Sick of the Health Care Reform Issue" bug I have...it's what really matters!