Approach To Health Care Reform-Piecemeal Or Package

President Obama's approach to health care financing has been much the same as Clinton's was, a package deal. The only real difference I see is that Obama left it all up to the Congress and Senate to work it out while Clinton put the package together and sent the package to the Congress and Senate to pass. In my opinion it would have been much better to use a more piecemeal approach in both cases. The package deal was too much for enough Senators or Congressmen to accept in its totality. There were too many parts to both that some just couldn't accept. So the package is rejected.

We know what is wrong with the health care financing system. It costs too much and doesn't cover everybody and has too many limitations. If you already have a condition you can't get coverage. If it costs too much the total won't be covered. If you don't work for a company that offers health care coverage you can't afford it. There is no competition between health care insurance companies. And if you change jobs or lose your job you lose your coverage.

Both Republicans and Democrats seem to agree on most of these points. But there are just too many items in the package that some on both sides don't agree on. Even enough Democrats don't agree on enough of them to get the total package deal done. Some in both houses and a lot of the talking heads are saying the approach that should be taken now is to tackle these items one at a time, the piecemeal approach. I think that's the way it should have been done in the first place. Do the things both houses agree on in a way they can agree on. Do the easiest ones first and then move on to the ones that have been sticking points with the package.

The public hasn't really been behind the reform package from the start and as time has gone by less and less of them support it. When health care reform first started being talked about polls showed that a large majority, including some 70% of health care workers, favored a single payer system. But that was kept off the table by Senate finance committee chairman Max Baucus and President Obama. Why? My answer is because of the influence of the insurance companies!

If we had expanded Medicare to cover everyone the insurance companies would have lost business. Also, republicans didn't like the idea because taxes would have to be increased. But I doubt that the increase would be as much as policy holders pay now in premiums. I believe total cost to the public and individuals would have decreased. But the total package deal the House and Senate came up with would have cost even more than we are paying now. And there is no agreement on how to pay the increased cost. So the whole bill is dying and we are getting more of the same. And insurance premiums are up.

Will the lawmakers take a piecemeal approach now? Or will they take a scaled down approach like many are advocating? If the insurance companies have their way it will probably be the latter approach because it won't do as much to decrease their profits. As long as there is so much money influencing politics I don't expect real change to either the approach to health care reform or the high cost.