Rustling in the background of the latest high-drama attempt to reform our nation’s health care system is an apparent plan by Democrats to use the ill-advised reconciliation process to push through their agenda.
President Obama’s spokesman signaled the return of reconciliation earlier this week, and some news outlets indicated that the health care summit staged with both parties on Thursday was meant in part to allow Democrats to portray Republicans as so intractable as to justify a Democrats-only approach going forward.
Throughout this long debate, we have urged Democrats not to use the procedure that allows the Senate to bypass the 60-vote majority requirement and instead pass bills with a simple majority. Reconciliation usually is used for far simpler budget provisions or tax changes and hardly seems fitting as the lever to pass legislation as transformational as health insurance reform.
That said, if the Democrats who control Washington move in that direction, we hope the effort at least results in legislation that actually stabilizes costs for those already paying health insurance, both individuals and businesses, as it seeks to significantly broaden the safety net of insurance coverage for all Americans.
The current system is unsustainable, as aptly illustrated by the recent 33 percent spike in insurance costs by Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield, one of Colorado’s largest providers.
Obama released his version of health care reform Monday that closely follows the bill passed in the Senate on Christmas Eve, and it appears to be a good starting place.
The president’s plan dropped the sleazy deal the Senate reached with Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska to buy his vote and it also ended the union- only, five-year tax exemption on “Cadillac” insurance packages. Instead, all holders of high-end policies would wait until 2018 to start paying the tax, and Obama would increase the value of policies taxed from $23,000 for a family of four to $27,000.
His plan is better than what the Senate approved, but regrettably, it doesn’t include a public option, which we believe would create the kind of competition needed to drive down costs.
It also retains the mandate requiring all Americans to own insurance or pay penalties. We have supported the measure, despite its unpopularity, because we believe it is a strong way to bring down costs and is necessary if Obama’s further requirement that insurance companies cannot deny coverage for pre-existing conditions is to function.
While we’d rather have Democrats find some way to work in a bipartisan fashion to craft reforms beyond those central to Obama’s strategy, such as tort reform — and have enough Republicans agree to the changes in order to create some national buy-in for vital reform — we’re not that naive. But squandering the opportunity to bring down costs and expand needed coverage would epitomize the kind of irresponsibility that has disillusioned Americans with their elected officials.
