Heath bill far less than needed

Within the month, Congress will probably pass a bill described as comprehensive health care reform.

It isn't, but it is a foot in the door -- which is what many of its opponents don't want. Over the years, we expect this legislation will be significantly modified -- hopefully in a direction that will lead to true reform.

A reader pointed out to us, and after checking we discovered it was true, that several of the key provisions of this bill were actually proposed in a GOP effort in the early '90s to pass a health-care reform bill -- in particular, the section allowing insurance companies to offer policies across state lines. That expanded competition is expected to drive down insurance premium costs. Theoretically. But if that fact doesn't add to the perception that the current debate is all about politics and power, rather that progressive policies to help Americans, we don't know what would (unless it's the Republicans objecting that the Democrats want to use a special senate procedure -- reconciliation -- to get to a vote on the floor, which prevents them from using a special senate procedure -- the filibuster -- that would prevent a vote from ever taking place).

Universal health care was first proposed by President Theodore Roosevelt, more than 100 years ago. It has come up in almost every president's administration since them. The closest it ever got, until now, was the Medicare and Medicaid provisions passed in the 1960s -- over a firestorm of protest at the time. Yet, those programs have turned out to be fairly successful and a godsend for many.

Somehow, we think the final result of this bill will fall somewhere between the golden utopia promised by supporters and the dark Armageddon predicted by the legislation's opponents.

The bill, however, fails to adequately address what we believe are two fundamental issues -- tort reform and cost containment.

Tort reform (and you're asking a bunch of lawyers in Congress to go along with this), could theoretically cap some malpractice awards and reduce the number of frivolous lawsuits that must be defended. That would, theoretically, drive down what are admittedly outrageous malpractice insurance premiums for doctors, which contribute to your costs of seeing a doctor.

In addition, the bill fails to take any substantive action in reducing the costs of prescription drugs and medical procedures. The famous $1,000 toothbrush charged on one person's medical bill is just an example, albiet an extreme one, of costs gone wild. MRI exams are another example. Why does it cost one person $1,000 and another $600 if they belong to an HMO, even when they both used the same machine and technicians? Because the health care industry can. Because when you need medical care you are at the mercy of the industry, and often, the cost isn't your primary consideration at the time. In addition, all too often if it is a primary consideration, a person simply doesn't seek needed health care, which then often triggers a whole set of other problems that taxpayers usually wind up paying for in the long run.

This bill is, at best, a foot in the door, but it falls well short of providing the kind of reforms we actually need -- or were promised. The modifications made to it in the future will be more important, in the long run, than the current bill, itself.

-- Kelly Everitt