Does Frank mean what he says?

I got an interesting e-mail today from the office of our plurality Congressman, talking about health care and the factors he was weighing before making a final voting decision. I’m not going to reprint the whole thing as one excerpt should suffice:

In order to get my vote, any health care reform bill must protect and expand patient choice, rein in skyrocketing costs for consumers and businesses, and break down the barriers that prevent millions of Americans from accessing coverage.  These are goals that cross party lines, and the debate over how to achieve these goals should focus not on partisan rhetoric but on a discussion of common-sense solutions that will improve health care and reduce costs for all Americans.

Last week, I led a group of my fellow Freshman Representatives in sending a letter to House Leadership urging them to take a step back and address a number of the concerns that our constituents have raised.  The letter highlights many of the common sense proposals we have heard in our town hall meetings:  fostering competition across state lines, reducing malpractice suits and defensive medicine, protecting small businesses, and ensuring that health care reform does not increase the deficit.  The letter is available on my website if you’d like to read more about the reforms for which I am fighting.

The message I have heard from my constituents is clear:  We need reform, but legitimate concerns remain about the current legislation.  In my view the current House bill does not do enough to accomplish the critical goals discussed above.  However, I am hopeful that we can develop a proposal that will cut costs, preserve consumer choice, protect small businesses, and increase competition.  We cannot afford to let obstructionists derail this debate, but nor should we be afraid to acknowledge that many of the concerns being raised are real and legitimate. (Emphasis mine.)

The way I read this Frank is a “no” vote on HR 3200, which is the bill we debated over the summer. However, that doesn’t mean he would vote against the Baucus bill that passed committee in the Senate today.

Let me make a few “obstructionist” points about what the Congressman said though.

The best way to “protect and expand patient choice” in my humble opinion would be to get the government and its tendency toward overregulation out of the way. Unfortunately, practically any bill put out by a Congress seemingly bent on expanding federal power would have the opposite effect. If anything, we should strive toward delinking employment and health insurance, creating a market based on choices tailored to each individual case. Auto insurance is a good comparison to the ideal solution because that market has hundreds of insurance companies who tailor policies toward drivers with specific financial situations – and they sell across state lines. Opening the market may help “rein in skyrocketing costs” in conjunction with true tort reform, such as “loser pays” and caps on punitive damages.

I’d like to know just what “barriers…prevent millions of Americans from accessing coverage.” If it’s the barrier of preexisting conditions, that can be solved by regulation at the state level. At that point, insurers can choose whether or not to compete in the state’s market. If it’s a barrier of cost, then states should repeal their regulations requiring coverage of particular conditions in all policies, making it possible to sell a simple catastrophic medical insurance policy that doesn’t cover, say, mental health issues.

If I could wave a magic wand, not only would we not be discussing ways to further bring government into our lives but also marveling at the vast amount of choices and awareness consumers have about their health benefits.

The problem with having government be such a large part of life isn’t just shown in the example of hapless Detroiters standing in line for “Obama money.” It’s the fact that we’re looking to Congress to solve a problem which, for most of us, doesn’t exist. Ideally, people would be free to select the method of paying for health care that fits them best, doctors would have the freedom to work with their patients to improve their health and not have to hire staff to deal with reams of paperwork, and those who were truly in need could be assisted either at the local or state level, or even through the benevolence of faith-based organizations. For a cause like that, people would likely be even more charitable than they already are if they didn’t have the IRS to lay their hand in the till. (I don’t have a study to back me up, but I contend that the larger part of charitable giving never leads to a tax deduction.)

Instead, we are simply arguing whether the government should be both heavily in our affairs and regulating the you-know-what out of the health insurance industry or just cutting out the middleman and allowing Uncle Sam to run our lives. Either way, we lose in the end.

Author: Michael

It's me from my laptop computer. View all posts by Michael