The True Narcissists

Fresh from the presses is a supposed compromise on health care reform.  The op-ed from Senators Wyden and Bennett offers us these gems:

1. “…everyone — not just those who currently get insurance through their employer — would get a generous standard deduction that they would use to buy insurance — and keep the excess if they buy a less expensive policy.”

A “generous” tax rebate?  I find these tax rebate notions slightly ridiculous.  If it was that imperative that we have the money to purchase insurance then why do we have to first hand it over to the government.  The reason is thus:

2. “The Republicans agreed to require all individuals to have coverage and to provide subsidies where necessary to ensure that everyone can afford it.”

The government can dictate when to give you this deduction by penalizing those who “choose” not to be insured.  Also, the tax collection to redistribute this money must accompany some kind of tax increase or lead to further deficit spending. Also, this seems to echo the notion of your tax dollars going directly to the insurance companies with you getting the remainder of your “generous” deduction.

3. “Our plan would give the consumer the same leverage in the health-care marketplace by creating state-run insurance exchanges through which they can select plans, including their existing employer-sponsored plan.”

I am not sure how I.E.’s lower prices (see Massachusetts), but the notion that we provide a “generous” allotment for a health care plan seems to direct more dollars to state based markets.  Further, the increase in demand for plans should send the prices of plans up.  Still, this seems like government sponsored price setting.   For example, the insurance companies know that a certain percentage of people are buckling to the mandated insurance provision and can predict how much a group will be paid.  Thus, the directors of distribution on the state level set prices by simply allotting money; the individual exerts no leverage, the bureaucracy that levels the tax deduction does.

Further, this compromise does not solve the notion of higher costs due to the illegal immigrants effect on the hospital system.  If the basis for this plan is to be specifically state run from a federal dispensary then states with higher illegal populations will continue to suffer with localized budget drains.

In effect, this bill appears the first on the bi-partisan butcher block, choked with handouts to the insurance companies with no notion of regulating the rising cost of health care.  Further, by denying the government to act as an honest broker in negotiating prices across the board the money we provide them carries no incentives when delivered to the insurance companies.  The reason is because insurance companies know that they are getting your money.

All I can see is that we would have government subsidised status quo health care.

As health care reform seems to be spiraling towards some kind of a conclusion as the August recess of congress approaches the plethora of plans in contention seems to obscure any fortune telling as to what exactly is going to be the result of all this compromise.  While the so-called Blue Dog Dems seem to be gumming up the works for any substantial reform the average person will have very little input on this upcoming bill.  While  special interests push to preserve or favorably manipulate what makes the current and future system profitable.

But I understand that most Americans will wake up some day and learn about this health care reform and then make the best decision for themselves.  Despite the average Americans political ideologies (either right, left or centrist) the notion that they specifically grasp the nuances between a mixed market vs. two-tier systems is ludicrous.

You are also confronted by the ideological leanings of the populous.  Certain people will never be open to a public option because of the deep-seeded belief that this infringes on the liberty of the people.  Whats more is that they would continue to hold this belief even if the public option was successful.

Now that we are faced with the summer break of our Congress, health care reform waits in the shadows of back room  deals and compromised quid pro quo.  But not to worry, that’s the way its always been.

President Obama’s position has focused on repeatedly calling for the need and importance of reforming one-seventh of our economy and practically declaring that it must be delivered.  Also, he has said that it must be fiscally neutral; not adding any more deficit spending (in the long term at least).

But what about the Prescription Drug Plan that President Bush signed over that denied Medicare the ability to negotiate with these companies.  Essentially, this denies the ability of the government to establish itself as a “public option” competition, while costing the public millions in over-priced drug subsidies.

Will the new health care bill be so hindered by “bi-partisan” compromise that it fails to effectively provide a public option?

What I find even more troubling is that will the bill be signed if it meets the broad targets laid out by Obama himself, but does not go far enough to truly provide us with an effective public option?

Has the President over-committed to the point where he will be faced with the option of vetoing a defective bill and suffering the loss of face by being viewed as unable to deliver on compromise?  Or signing weak legislation in the hope that at least its something (i.e. see Stimulus Bill).