Because It Offers Choice and Reduces Costs, Consider Sen. Wyden's Bi-partisan Healthy Americans Act



Posted: Wednesday, September 02, 2009

by Walter Rhett
Charleston Perlo

Like the massive invisible government health care that threatens grandma's health more than the imaginary panels dreamed up by Sarah Palin when she mis-read the basic legislative language of the bill, fear haunts health care reform. (The bill Palin cited called for "authorization," but the word referred to funding, not to actually "creating" consultations about end of life issues, and definitely not panels to institutionalize murder.)

Perlo has blogged and written before on the source of these fears and their rampant emergence in American culture (and no, Perlo didn't blame the media). But Perlo does like to peek in the dark places. The way things are going, the best thinking is often kept in the dark.

That's certainly the case with the health care bill introduced by Ron Wyden Democratic Senator from Oregon. Sen. Wyden's bill, The Healthy Americans Act, co-authored by Republic Senator Bob Bennett from Nevada. It has been laying out there in plain sight. It has drawn very little notice or consideration. It's worth more than a glance. In fact, it has a loyal following who believe it's the best health care bill proposed. And more, the bill has bi-partisan support. (Oh, it protects grandma too, from these mean panels who would heartlessly take away the pills she had to sell her house to buy.)

The great thing about Wyden-Bennett bill is that, as it expands coverage, it pays for itself, breaking even after only two years, according to the Congressional Budget Office mark-up.

Below is a summary of the bill prepared by the Library of Congress' Congressional Research Service.

1/18/2007--Introduced.

Healthy Americans Act - Requires each adult individual to have the opportunity to purchase a Healthy Americans Private Insurance Plan (HAPI). Makes individuals who are not enrolled in another specified health plan and who are not opposed to coverage for religious reasons responsible for enrolling themselves and their dependent children in a HAPI plan offered through their state of residence. Sets forth penalties for failure to enroll.

Establishes standardized coverage and state options for HAPI plans. Requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to promulgate guidelines concerning the benefits, items, and services to be covered. Sets forth requirements for setting premiums. Requires the Secretary to establish the Healthy America Advisory Committee to provide annual recommendations concerning modifications to the benefits, items, and services required.

Provides for school-based health centers.

And here's a link to a pdf summary provided by Sen. Wyden's office: http://bit.ly/1YjzS5 .

Here's an excellent discussion of the bill and a blog list at the Open Congress site ( www.opencongress.org ).

The bill has 14 Senators as co-sponsors, Republicans and Democrats.

Sen. Lamar Alexander [R, TN]

Sen. Robert Bennett [R, UT]

Sen. Maria Cantwell [D, WA]

Sen. Michael Crapo [R, ID]

Sen. Lindsey Graham [R, SC]

Sen. Judd Gregg [R, NH]

Sen. Daniel Inouye [D, HI]

Sen. Mary Landrieu [D, LA]

Sen. Joseph Lieberman [I, CT]

Sen. Jeff Merkley [D, OR]

Sen. Arlen Specter [D, PA]

Sen. Debbie Ann Stabenow [D, MI]

Endorsers include Oregon's state Medical Association and many health care think tank and policy organizations.

Here's what Sen.Wyden said in recent interview with the Willamette Weekly:

" I think the two issues that really drive the discussion . . . first, affordability. You've got to make this affordable for individuals, for families and for taxpayers. Certainly, Washington is reeling from the sticker shock of when the finance bill came in at $1.6 trillion and the Kennedy bill had huge, huge numbers. . . The other part is, you've got to change the incentives driving everybody's behavior."

I'm open to looking at anything that contains costs and particularly changes the incentives that drive everybody's behavior. The law for selling private health insurance in America today is inhumane. It's about taking healthy people and sending sick people to government programs more fragile than they are. And we outlawed that. There will be no more cherry-picking-you have to take all comers, you can't discriminate against people with preexisting illnesses. The Congressional Budget Office has scored one bill as budget-neutral, and that's ours. That's because we changed the incentives that drive the system. . .. So we give people choices, and we give them financial incentives to shop for health care."

" Germany, for example, has very good care for less money. They don't have a public option . . .. The other part of this story is, I've got conservative Republicans on a universal coverage bill, hard-nosed insurance reforms with the most generous subsidies, up to 400 percent of poverty [level], and guaranteed lifetime portability. I think that's pretty progressive."

Here's Perlo's comments on the Wyden plan:

Why does Perlo think this plan is workable and effective? It eliminates special interests by removing their influence and putting choice directly in the hands of consumers.

What are the problems that Perlo sees in the plan? Costs, What Wyden correctly identifies as a priority, costs, are still uncontrolled. Consumer choices no longer influence costs. The auto industry is an example; the pharmaceutical industry is another.

Why is this bill invisible and not likely to be voted out of committee? Special interests, especially the unions and the insurance industry, lose clout or are left out.

Walter Rhett Walter Rhett attended Ohio State and writes from Charleston, SC. He writes about national and global affairs with an eye on Southern history and culture and enjoys listening to his readers.

This Article has been viewed 282 times. (Not updated in real-time.)
Top-level comments on this article: (1 total)
» left by Lisa Ryan 2 years 267 days ago.
Have you noticed there are two phrases in your article that directly contradict each other? They are: "sets forth penalties for failure to enroll", and "putting choice directly in the hands of consumers".
 
The real problems in the healthcare industry are related to government regulation. The fact that health insurance companies cannot cross state lines to find customers means they do not have to compete with each other. That is the same as passing a law that says if you need your lawn mowed and don't want to do it yourself, then by law you can only hire the teenager who lives in your subdivision. With this law, the teenager you hired charges you more because he does not have to compete with the teenager who mows lawns in the subdivision next to yours.
 
Tort reform: Do you want to stop paying the huge amounts juries award to those who file frivolous lawsuits? We need laws limiting who can sue for what. Where do insurance companies get the money to pay those awards? Your insurance premiums.
 
Do you know the real reason insurance premiums are so high? Most doctors and hospitals are accustomed to receiving payments from medicare. These payments are well below the market value of the services provided. To stay in business, the doctors and hospitals must charge non medicare patients more than the market value of the services provided to them. Insurance companies pay most of that cost, then pass those elevated costs on to you by charging you higher premiums.
 
Free market capitalism always improves service and brings down price, because it allows the customer true freedom of choice. This compels businesses to improve themselves to attract and keep customers. We all should be able to choose our own doctors and pay cash for the services if we want to, without the permission of a bureaucrat or administrator. If we want to change doctors, we should be able to do that too.
 
True freedom is the only thing that creates real choice.
We want your comments! If you can read this, you don't have javascript enabled, so you can't use this comment system. Please enable javascript.