All I talk about these days is health care reform. Whether it's fielding calls from panicked readers, arguing finer points with a certain co-worker or soothing the more outlandish fears of family members, it feels like I'm a correspondent for some health care CNN, but without the Darth Vader voice-over.
Not that I'm complaining. It's a critical part of my job to keep you informed of what's going on with these potentially game-changing pieces of legislation. And, whether you agree with it or not, it's my duty to offer my own less-than-humble perspective and analysis. (We do a pretty good job of that, by the way, in our weekly e-newsletter. And if you haven't subscribed yet, I can't imagine what you're waiting for.)
But I realized something while waiting for lunch today: I've yet to really open up about what I think of health care reform legislation. I guess it goes without saying that the House bill, for starters, is a deeply flawed piece of legislation, although clearly not as insidious as so many talking point chain e-mails imply.
My biggest problem with it? Money, of course. Well, sort of. See, this entire reform campaign is doomed because its very foundation is as unrealistic as trade show expense reports. I'm sorry, but you just can't expect to both expand coverage and cut costs at the same time. That's like my publisher telling me to go to more trade shows while slashing my travel budget in half.
Take Massachusetts, for example. No, please, take it. (Sorry, had a Henny Youngman moment.) While it's often touted by Congress as the role model for the health care reform, no one will admit that it's not exactly lived up to expectations. Sure, through a combination of mandates and lots of money, the state's managed to cover roughly 8 percent more of its residents. But at what price? Admin costs alone have jumped nearly 5 percent since the program started. But that's the least of the state's problems. Despite still-rising enrollment, lawmakers are slashing funding more than 12 percent and are actually delaying benefits for thousands of other residents. (So, no, there might not be an explicit provision in the House bill regarding the rationing of care, but it's an unavoidable by-product of artificially imposed cost controls.)
So I guess what it boils down to for me is, you have to pick one or the other. Either decide you want to cover everyone (because, you know, we can afford that). Or declare that you're going to cut costs (which will no doubt entail shifting some people off Medicare and Medicaid). I mean, we'll still have plenty to argue about, but at least we'll be at a much more honest -- and realistic -- starting point.
Now don't even get me started about that public option...
Denis Storey
Editor
dstorey@benefitssellingmag.com
