|
Daschle’s gone, but his plan’s not By Michael C. Guilmette Jr. Originally published on Feb. 5, 2009, in the Connersville News-Examiner. President Obama’s fledgling administration was dealt a setback Tuesday when Tom Daschle, the former senator from South Dakota, withdrew his nomination to be Health and Human Services secretary due to issues relating to unpaid taxes.
Obviously, this is not a new issue. Even before HillaryCare flamed out in 1994, dozens, if not hundreds, of competing proposals have been made to provide Americans with the ultimate entitlement — the ability to open up and say “ahh” for free. The common belief in the United States is the American health care system is broken. There are allegedly 35 to 42 million people, depending on who you ask, who do not have health coverage. Insurance companies, driven by profit, seek a myriad of ways to deny coverage to their customers, and they block essential treatments to patients. Furthermore, individuals and families struck with catastrophic illnesses can see their life savings drained. Along with these are the endless forms, annoying co-pays and the confusing plans that supposedly make many long for a simplified system. It is not hard to find examples to illustrate the above, and supporters of a government-funded and government-run system use these examples to further their cause. The also point to Canada, the United Kingdom and even Cuba as models for the health care system we should have in this country. But what would such a system look like here? We do not have to look far for examples. The U.S. military has a highly regarded medical system with access to the latest treatments and procedures and are immune from civil litigation — a point the military uses in recruitment drives. The trade off is that military members cannot refuse treatment, even something as simple as a flu shot. This makes sense for a military that needs to keep its fighting forces healthy. The Veterans Health Administration, in name, is an organization that provides health care to veterans, but in fact it provides care only for those meeting specific criteria. While the quality of care is heralded, availability is not as widespread as regular hospitals and the treatments are generally geared toward service-related injuries and conditions. In February 2007, Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., introduced HR 676, a bill that would “provide for comprehensive health insurance coverage for all United States residents, and for other purposes.” While it is nowhere near HillaryCare’s 1,400 pages, it is a revealing look at how a so-called “single payer” plan would work in the United States. Conyers’ plan calls for all Americans to receive a United States National Health Insurance Card and outlaws private coverage for what the plan chooses to cover. The plan further creates a national board empowered to determine pay for doctors and medical staff, sets appropriate staffing levels, medical technology and “scope of work in the health workplace” and, through state boards, provides oversight on the placement of new hospitals and clinics. This plan would be paid for with higher taxes on the rich, a “modest and progressive excise tax on payroll and self-employment income” and “a small tax on stock and bond transactions.” The plan counts as funding the savings it realizes from reduced paperwork and bulk rate drugs, and any shortfalls will be paid for by “additional sums … authorized to be appropriated annually as needed to maintain maximum quality, efficiency, and access under the Program.” This plan in many ways sounds a lot like it would only replace the current system and add a new federal level of bureaucracy instead of actually improving U.S. health care. Even though this plan died in committee, Daschle’s proposal for a “Federal Health Board” as laid out in his book, “Critical,” sounds very similar. The book states the board will “promote ‘high-value’ medical care by recommending coverage of those drugs and procedures backed by solid evidence.” In other words, the government, not doctors, would be deciding the best treatment. While it is true the U.S. is the only industrialized nation without such a system, we also lack features seen in other countries, such as an autobahn. While there have been attempts to implement a German-style highway system that eliminates speed limits, officials determined that Americans just do not share the European mentality that makes their public speedway viable. Do the American people have the frame of mind needed to make a universal health care system work? Are we willing to pay higher taxes, give up choice of care providers and even give up the choice of deciding if we even want the treatment recommended? The American people may be greatly divided by these questions, but as soon as Obama finds his next Tom Daschle, we may well have the answers very soon, whether we want them or not. • Guilmette is managing editor of the News-Examiner. He may be contacted at mguilmette@newsexaminer.com. |
|||
|
|||
|
Copyright © 2009, Michael C. Guilmette Jr. |
While it is unclear why a tax cheat can head the Internal Revenue Service but cannot handle America’s health care issues, Daschle is still out of the game. His hallmark issue, and one of Obama’s campaign promises, is still on the table — universal health care.
