Walt Minnick & Health Care

I contacted Walt Minnick’s office in Washington D.C. yesterday asking why he is opposed to the Senate version of health care reform.  Wouldn’t you know, there was no one there that was “knowledgeable” about health care issues.  I had to wait for Wednesday to speak with someone who would be available.

So I guess that is it not important to have “knowledgeable” people in your office in the month that the President wants to pass the most comprehensive and important piece of social legislation since Medicare passed in 1965.    Don’t worry, though.  It still didn’t stop me from asking questions.

Minnick’s position on health care is this:

• First, reforms must be fully funded.
• Second, comprehensive, affordable health insurance must be made available to all Americans.
• Third, no “socialized medicine.” The health care system of insurance must be private – not run by the government.
• Fourth, insurance companies must be required to make insurance available to everyone regardless of age, employment status or preconditions.
• And fifth, reforms must reduce costs, not just expand coverage.

So here’s my case.

Step One: Reforms must be fully funded.

According to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office and theJoint Committee on Taxation, “CBO and JCT estimate that, on balance, the direct spending and revenue effects of enacting the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act would yield a net reduction in federal deficits of $130 billion over the 2010-2019 period.”  Not only is the Senate bill fully funded, it will actually reduce the budget deficit.

Step Two: Comprehensive, affordable health insurance must be made available to all Americans.

See Step Four

Step Three: No “socialized medicine.” The health care system of insurance must be private – not run by the government.

The Senate bill does not include a public option.

Step Four: Insurance companies must be required to make insurance available to everyone regardless of age, employment status or preconditions.

According to the Senate Finance Committee, “A high-performing health system would guarantee all Americans affordable, quality coverage regardless of age, health status, or medical history…Reforms proposed for the individual and small group markets would ensure a competitive insurance market in which plans compete on price and quality rather than on their ability to segment risk and discriminate against individuals with pre-existing health conditions.”

Step Five: Reforms must reduce costs, not just expand coverage.

How in the world can we reduce costs AND expand coverage?  How about we do the following:

Form insurance exchanges to create more competition–reducing costs and expanding coverage

Reduce excessive prices, including those of supplemental plans enrolling Medicare beneficiaries

Moving to value-based payment in Medicare to eliminate wasteful spending

Tax generous insurance plans to reduce overall medical costs

Empower an independent Medicare advisory board to improve efficiency

Combat Medicare fraud and abuse

Invest in information technology to streamline medical communications

Reforms that are all included in the Senate bill.

Of course, most would say that Minnick would never support the passage of any version of health care reform. That’s why he said, “The House bill is only a first step. I am hopeful that other proposals will take a fiscally sound, bipartisan approach to the problem of health care reform. I look forward to working with my colleagues and eventually passing a more balanced bill…”

But wait, if that wasn’t enough, most would say that Minnick would only support health care reform if his constituents supported it too.  That’s why he said, “The vast majority of Idahoans want improvements to the health-insurance system.”

Apparently, the Senate Bill–meeting all five of Minnick’s criteria–is not a sufficient step toward a fiscally sound “bipartisan” approach, despite a VAST majority of Idahoans who support improvements to the health insurance system.  The only real argument to be made here is that the Senate bill is not “bipartisan.”  Aside from the political maneuvering of the Republicans who have vowed to oppose nearly every Democratic policy proposal, would it warm Minnick’s heart to learn that a Republican indeed voted for the Senate health care bill in the Finance Committee?  Or that a Republican voted for the much more liberal House version of health care reform?  Or that national polls indicate strong bipartisan support for the individual proposals contained in the both versions?  Or that there are Republican governors who support the comprehensive health care reform?  Or that the President himself has included several Republican proposals in his comprehensive health care reform package?

The Senate bill certainly isn’t perfect–just like Minnick’s logic on health care reform.