Improving Health Reform and Controlling Spending

The disadvantages of the health reform law have been well exposed by the conservative Republican party. The problem is that they want to repeal health reform instead of improving it.

Repealing health reform will be a shameful waste of tax payer dollars and will expose the public to all the alleged abuses committed by the health insurance industry. Those alleged abuses include dropping people after those folks contract cancer or some other disease that is expensive to treat.

Repealing health reform will leave the unemployed and the poor without health insurance. This is unacceptable. The visits to the emergency rooms by those without health insurance will only increase the insurance rates for everyone else.

Obviously repealing health reform is not the answer to our problems. Improving health reform is a much better option.

The very first item that must be removed from the health reform bill is the taxes imposed on those who don't have health insurance. First, I think it is unconstitutional to fine people for not having health insurance. Second, I think people should still have the freedom to accept or reject health insurance.

If the US Government wants to subsidize health insurance for the poor and unemployed, that is fine. But the health insurance coverage can not be full coverage. The poor and unemployed should have coverage for doctor visits and preventive health care. They should have coverage for prescription medications. They should have health coverage for all the conditions one goes to a doctor for. However there must, of necessity, be practical limits on what will be covered.

An unemployed person should have the option of retaining the health insurance that person had when that person was employed, but not at the same price. Of course, the subsidizing of this kind of coverage will be very limited.

Working people should have their choice of the amount of health insurance coverage. All requirements such as pre-existing conditions, annual and lifetime caps and coverage for expensive terminal diseases should be options, not requirements. This makes employee health insurance more affordable for both employers and employees.

Any person and business should be able to chose a health insurance firm regardless of which state the health insurance firm is located. Providing a list of health insurance firms is a great idea. A public service helping people find the coverage that is best for them is also a great idea. I think many web sites will provide a list of insurance firms as a public service.

Having free clinics is another excellent idea. The local governments can participate in encouraging the opening of free clinics.

Finally, Congress will not come up with a small health reform bill unless the internal rules of Congress are changed and the method of overriding those rules is changed. Overriding an internal rule should require the consent of 2/3 of the committee members. It could still be a resolution but it would be much more difficult for override a rule. I also support John Boehner's suggestion of a "cut (spending) as you go" rule.

With regard to earmarks and pork we must be practical. There is a natural tendency for Congressmen to try to obtain something for their constituents when adding amendments to a bill. Without allowing this, Congress would be in a virtual grid lock. Very little would be achieved. Hence I back away from the suggested "no perks, no pork" rule and instead I propose limiting the perks and pork. I definitely think that any amendment offered for a bill must be directly or indirectly related to the bill. But rather than restricting unrelated items completely, I think the rules should somehow include checks and balances so that a bill doesn't explode in size. One idea would be that the approval of an unrelated amendment to a bill should require 2/3 of the votes of the committee members. In my opinion, this is a worthy topic for research by a bipartisan Congressional committee. It won't be easy. But Congress must show that it is sincere in researching methods of reducing earmarks and pork. And those up for election must also prove they are sincere about reducing earmarks and pork.

New rules would definitely help lower the size and cost of the health reform bill. The big question is: Will politicians fulfill their promise of a more efficient Congress or will all these promises yield more frustrated voters?