Kennedy- Kassebaum: It's too Expensive

Almost everyone describes the changes that Congress is about to enact in health insurance as "modest." I would put it differently: The changes seem small, but they are likely to have enormous consequences.

The reason is that the Kennedy-Kassebaum health bill won't solve the problems it promises to solve. New, stricter laws will be needed to correct the deficiencies, and probably more after that. Inevitably, Americans will arrive at the destination they rejected when Bill and Hillary Clinton proposed it: government-controlled health care.

At its heart, the bill does two things that seem worth doing. First, it makes insurance policies more "portable" by requiring insurers to issue you a policy if you lose or leave your job. Second, it prevents insurers from denying you a policy if you have a pre-existing medical condition.

Both of these measures seem humane and sensible. Unfortunately, they are also expensive. For example, if an insurer does not have the right to reject -- or delay for a long time -- coverage of someone who has a disease that's costly to treat, then the insurer will have to raise premiums.

The bill sponsored by Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) and Sen. Nancy Kassebaum (R-Kan.) does not cap premiums -- which is why so many Republicans support it. But caps will come because the outcry over higher rates will be deafening, and politicians will be forced to respond. That's what makes this bill so insidious and its "modesty" so illusory.

Just take a look at what's happened in the state of Washington. The state's program, says an article on the front page of the Wall Street Journal, "contains many provisions -- broader public access to insurance rolls, portability and short waiting period for people with pre-existing heath problems -- that mark the health-care bills that congressional reformers are pushing."