The Winner Is?

The folks at Kaiser Foundation have put together a side by side comparison of 3 health care reform packages under consideration.

I encourage you to read it for yourself and decide, but here are some key points and contrasts between Mr. Fixit's campaign promise, the Senate Finance Committee, and Max
"What Deficit?" Baucus.

The Senate & Baucus plans issue a mandate that everyone have health insurance. Mr. Fixit does not explicitly make that mandate. The Senate & Baucus will require employers to provide health insurance for their employees.

Apparently no one in Washington watches the news. Part of the reason for the bankruptcy of Chrysler & Government Motors is the union negotiated health care benefits.

Part of the deal brokered with the UAW to save Chrysler is a reduction in pensions and health insurance for CURRENT as well as future retirees. Doesn't this fly in the face of an employer mandate or is it just me?

With regard to making coverage affordable, Mr. Fixit is rhetorical while the Senate & Baucus propose tax subsidies for those making up to roughly $88,000 per year for a family of 4.

Isn't that just about everyone? Latest figures say those households with $88k or less comprise roughly 80% of the population.

If they are going to cut taxes on most then who is left to pay for this?

Two of the proposals propose uniform benefit designs with 3 or 4 plan choices and little or no room for anything else. Rather than one-size-fits-all you can buy your health insurance in small, medium or large.

The carriers must issue coverage to anyone, regardless of any existing conditions. This works really well in states like NY, MA, ME & VT where rates are 2x to 3x higher than in neighboring states for comparable coverage and medical conditions can be underwritten.

One carrier we know is already ramping up for this change. They are currently still denying coverage based on certain medical conditions but that is only because their current rate structure does not allow them to charge enough to cover individuals with cancer, heart disease, MS, AIDS and chronic conditions like diabetes. Those who can qualify under the current rate structure will see their rates run anywhere from "standard" (no significant health history) to a 100% rate up before declining.

Once the base rates are adjusted upward, my guess would be to double the base rate as a start, then those on the upper end of the health risk scale can qualify for insurance as well at roughly triple current rates for a healthy individual.

Not a problem.

Other proposals include eliminating waste and transitioning to things like EHR (electronic health records). Mr Fixit proposes spending $600 billion or so over the next 10 years to improve efficiency. That $600 billion will go a long way towards reducing health care which is currently $2.7 trillion and expected to grow (if unabated) to double that in 10 years if not sooner.

There are not enough zero's in the Washington checking account to offset the growth in demand for health care.

As you wade further into the 17 page document you see 5 other proposals from various members of Congress that are mostly "me too" plans that are long on promise and short on reality.

I don't think anyone in Washington can balance a checkbook or has any grasp on the problem here.

The taxpayers are bailing out banks, insurance carriers, mortgage lenders, the FDIC and automakers. My question is, who will bail out the taxpayer?