- Baucus’ Plan Exposes Democrat Hypocrisy…
Last Wednesday, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-MT) issued a 98-page report outlining his proposals for reforming the health care system. Although his introduction stated that the platform “is not intended to be a legislative proposal,” Baucus did state his hope that the ideas raised would become a starting point for discussions on comprehensive health care reform during the 111th Congress.
In reviewing the report’s contents, some conservatives may note several glaring contradictions present within its pages:
- The Baucus plan proposes tens of billions in unfunded mandates on states—requiring Medicaid programs to cover 7.1 million new low-income individuals, and further requiring 33 states to expand their State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) eligibility levels—at a time when Baucus and other Congressional Democrats allege that states’ “fiscal crises” require Congress to bail them out of their current obligations.
- While expressing his support for cutting payments to private Medicare Advantage (MA), Baucus proposes to repeal a planned premium support project within Medicare, because he wants to bring payments to private insurers in line with traditional Medicare costs while opposing a link between Part B premiums and “how much [private] insurers’ costs differ from traditional Medicare.”
- Senator Baucus, who at a health reform conference in June questioned Congress’ role in overseeing Medicare payments—“How in the world am I supposed to know what the proper reimbursement should be for a particular procedure?”—proposes numerous attempts to tie reimbursement to various actions by physicians (IT adoption, etc.) in the hope that these will achieve purportedly desirable health outcomes.
…While Proposing More New Spending, Little Cost Control
Many conservatives may also be concerned by the substance of the Baucus plan’s broader proposals. Similar in many respects to the less-detailed plan offered by President-elect Obama, the platform would expand the role of government in health care in significant, and historic, ways:
- Expansion of Medicaid and SCHIP to millions of new individuals, as referenced above;
- Health insurance subsidies for a family of four making $85,000 per year;
- Repeal of the current five-year waiting period for legal aliens to become eligible for government benefits, increasing government spending on non-citizens;
- Two new “temporary” entitlement programs, including a buy-in to the Medicare program for those aged 55-64, that many conservatives may be concerned will be anything but “temporary;”
- A new publicly-run insurance option available to all citizens, whose low reimbursement rates would likely encourage providers to raise rates for private insurers, potentially leading to a “death spiral” of privately-provided coverage options;
- A health insurance exchange representing another layer of regulation on the health insurance industry;
- An individual mandate to purchase insurance, requiring the government to pass judgment on the adequacy of individuals’ coverage; and
- Tax increases on businesses through a “pay-or-play” mandate that could in future years become an easy way for the government to pass off the cost of rising health care on the private sector.
Just as worrisome to many conservatives are the lack of true cost-containment measures present in the Baucus proposal. Two of the plan’s prime savings targets—an expansion of the Medicaid drug rebate and one-sided cuts to Medicare Advantage plans—constitute little more than government-imposed price controls, which some conservatives may believe both ineffective and detrimental to new innovation.
Some conservatives may believe that the true answer to reforming health care and slowing the growth of costs lies in harnessing innovation and competition. Implementing, rather than repealing, the Medicare premium support program would allow insurers to compete directly with Medicare to treat seniors in the most cost-effective manner. Additional means-testing for current entitlements would ensure that scarce government resources will go to those most in need of assistance—meaning that Warren Buffett and George Soros should not pay the same prescription drug premium as a senior making $20,000 per year. These efforts, coupled with initiatives to streamline costly state benefit mandates and other regulations, would expand coverage by slowing the growth of health costs, helping to ensure the future viability of our current entitlement programs.