Still Miles Away From Health Reform

Friday, September 18, 2009

After months of negotiations, it seems as though Sen. Max Baucus's "Gang of Six" has produced a bill -- or at least, a summary of a bill -- that could be a poster child for the dangers of government by committee ["Baucus Bill Would Expand Care Without Adding to Deficit," front page, Sept. 17]. The bill would raid Medicare funds, force all citizens to buy insurance from private companies without any meaningful protections concerning deductibles, and utterly fail to create the cost-control pressure on the insurance industry that a solid public insurance option could have provided. And even after giving away the store in a manner that would make Neville Chamberlain blush, Mr. Baucus apparently still doesn't have the support of Republicans, meaning the Democrats will be solely responsible for the mess that this patchwork of compromises will create.

Now that it is clear that no amount of weakness will produce a bill acceptable to Republicans, Mr. Baucus should scrap this proposal in favor of a new "reform" bill worthy of the name: one that creates a strong public insurance option and is loaded with meaningful consumer protections.

SCOTT BARDEN

Leesburg

It is hard to believe that it took Sen. Max Baucus so long to come up with such a bad bill. I thought that our leaders were trying to cut the cost of insurance, not give the insurance companies Christmas in September. To move forward, I suggest that the Democrats stick with the public option and add to any proposed bill the following provisions that seem to be the Republicans' health-care reform panacea: malpractice reform and allowing health insurance to be sold across state lines.

The clock is ticking. Other countries have figured all this out. Are we stupid?

ANNE C. STALFORT

Easton

--

George S. McGovern suggests Medicare be made available for all [Outlook, Sept. 13].

There might be a way to make this appeal to Republicans as well as Democrats. Make Medicare available for all Americans, but allow people to opt out and receive a credit that could be applied to purchase coverage from a private insurer. The credit should be equal to the average cost of providing Medicare. Insurers would not be allowed to deny coverage for preexisting conditions, discriminate on the basis of risk or cancel coverage, and they would have to provide at least the minimum catastrophic coverage provided by Medicare. Since the same minimum coverage is provided, insurers should be able to operate across state lines, allowing for real national competition, not only between insurers but with the government. Also, incorporate tort reform, which will really bend the cost curve down without requiring rationing of care.

This plan should appeal to Democrats, as it would provide universal coverage, and would include enough compromises and freedom of choice to appeal to many Republicans.

KEENAN RICE

Ellicott City

--

Opponents of a public option in health-care reform argue that government is an inefficient and wasteful provider of services, so only private insurers should provide health-care plans. And then they argue that if a public option were enacted, it would become so efficient and effective that its low cost and attractive services would undercut private health-care plans and drive them out of business. Which is it -- government is too inefficient or too efficient?

ROBERT TILLER

Silver Spring