Health care debate leads to talk of impeachment

The health care debate has been a spectacle to watch. Democrat members of Congress that are opposed to the legislation are being threatened by the President and by leaders of the Senate and the House. Some of it is subtle, like President Obama telling members of his party that he has no plans to campaign for them unless they vote for the health care bill. These days, in light of the incredible low he is experiencing in the polls, that is probably good news for Democrats. Other threats are less subtle, including some being warned if they do not vote for the bill, they are going to face well funded primary challenges. The arm twisting that members are experiencing is unprecedented and the tactics being used by Democrat leaders is being described by some as unconstitutional.

"Unconstitutional" and "impeachment" are fighting words for members of Congress and are dangerous when you are talking about the Speaker of the House. That is the type of language Michele Bachmann (R-MN) is using in light of the actions going on in the Congress.

One of the primary responsibilities of the media, known as the "fourth estate," is to hold those in power accountable. Congresswoman Bachmann argues that the media has dropped the ball by ignoring the Constitutional violations that are taking place in DC today.

Bachmann had the media in its crosshairs recently when she was in on Sean Hannity's program, stating, "Where is the mainstream media in all of this not telling this story? This is a compelling story - that the Speaker of the House would even consider having us pass a bill that no one votes on?" When she says that, the thought is a little shocking. The Speaker of the House is using an illegal procedure to pass a bill that will move one-sixth of the economy to government control and the media is more interested about whether the bill will become law than in the tactics being used to make it happen.

The procedures being used by Speaker Pelosi are so horrible, Bachmann says, that they alone serve as grounds for impeachment. Of particular concern is the "Slaughter Rule" or "deem and pass." The Wall Street Journal describes the situation well: "We're not sure American schools teach civics any more, but once upon a time they taught that under the U.S. Constitution a bill had to pass both the House and Senate to become law. Until this week, that is, when Speaker Nancy Pelosi is moving to merely 'deem' that the House has passed the Senate health-care bill and then send it to President Obama to sign anyway... Under the 'reconciliation' process.. the House is supposed to approve the Senate's Christmas Eve bill and then use 'sidecar' amendments to fix the things it doesn't like. Those amendments would then go to the Senate under rules that would let Democrats pass them while avoiding the ordinary 60-vote threshold for passing major legislation. This alone is an abuse of traditional Senate process." So abusive are the tactics, in fact, that Bachmann is talking impeachment.

Bachmann goes on to say that members of Congress should "laugh her out of the House and there should be people that are calling for impeachment off of something like this," Bachmann continued. "That's how bad this is. I mean, trust me - (former Speaker of the House) Dennis Hastert could have never gotten away with this. President Bush never could have gotten away with it."

At the very least, Bachmann hopes that voters will receive an important civics lesson. She argues that this is the type of thing that happens when one party dominates the entire political process. In the case of the Democrats, it became a temptation to abuse Constitutional power at a level we have never seen in the history of our country.

How serious is the impeachment threat? Right now it is only one member of Congress that is part of a legislative body dominated with members with a rather casual view of the idea of rule of law. But elections are in November and the political landscape could change rather quickly. It seems very obvious that voters will be watching what unfolds closely.

Kevin Price is a syndicated columnist whose articles frequently appear at ChicagoSunTimes.com, Reuters.com, USAToday.com, and other national media. Kevin Price is also host of the Price of Business (M-F at 11 AM on CNN 650). Hear the show live and online at PriceofBusiness.com. Visit the archive of past shows here.

What Health Care Reform Should Look Like

You have heard the old saying about the "cure being worse than the disease" and that definitely seems to be the case when it comes to the health care reform debate. Virtually every reform suggested will make health care more expensive and reduce the accessibility of quality care for the vast majority of Americans who are already covered. This will happen because they will have to pay for both the private system and the public system. This will likely have the same effect that the government has had on education...sure, every one can use private schools, but you are going to have to still pay for the government schools. The result of this type of policy is that 90 percent of all young people go to public, rather than private, schools.

This is a shame, considering that the US has the best health care system in the world. The life expectancy of the average American has increased by over a third in the past sixty years - from 57 to 78 years. The US is the health care capital of the world, with hundreds of thousands of people traveling here for consultations with our physicians and treatment in our hospitals. Furthermore, the U.S. has the highest cancer survival rate in the world. According to the American Cancer Society, two out of three American cancer patients are alive five years after diagnosis. This stands in stark contrast to the situation in Britain (which is under a national health care system) where barely one half of cancer patients survive five years. Over time, almost half of those in Britain with breast cancer will die (48 percent), while only one fourth with die in the US (25 percent). It is not surprising that the majority of Americans prefer their health care over a government model, according to Fox News.

To make matters worse, the biggest issues when it comes to health care are not being addressed. One of the most important of these is role of the states. The federal government does not have a proper role when it comes to health care reform. According to Article I, Section 8, the Congress has seventeen powers, none of them include forcing people to buy something they do not want to purchase. With that, the states should continue to pursue various approaches in an effort to find a better way to pursue health care reform, including:

• Restoring competition among companies nationwide. Right now you can only buy insurance from companies that are in your state. Every effort should be made for individuals to be able to buy plans around the country and for states to reduce and eliminate mandates that essentially prohibit such.
  
• Fostering individual choice and competition through Health Savings Accounts. One of the biggest problems with health care is the lack of individual responsibility and freedom. If people had to pay more for certain health care procedures, they would think economically about their health care. One of the reasons why HMOs were largely a disaster is that the cost of visiting a physician was below anything market. People faced lines and had Department of Motor Vehicle treatment. The same is around the corner with socialized health care. With HSAs, an employer could provide for many procedures -- tax free -- directly to the employee. Meanwhile these plans could be bolstered with very high deductible plans (that are quite affordable) to cover major illness or injury.
  
• Encouraging competition and portability. The states should break down the barriers that prevent true competition when it comes to the purchase of health insurance policies. Some states have only one or two carriers because of ridiculous mandates. Freedom of choice should fall on the consumer.
  
• Serious tort reform. One of the single biggest drivers in health care costs is law suits. According to Fox News, many doctors pay as much as $200,000 a year in insurance coverage. Medical malpractice lawsuits add an enormous cost to the practice of medicine. No one is advocating that people should not have recourse for when things go wrong, but if the cost is open ended, the risks are enormous, leading to high insurance premiums and, in turn, the cost of going to a physician. The Democrats, who are driving the health care reform debate, have a very cynical view of the importance of tort reform. Howard Dean, while serving as the Party's chairman, said he "did not want to take on the lawyers," expressing greater concern about one of his party's constituencies than over real reform.
  

This list, of course, is only a beginning. Meaningful discussions on the cost of regulation, the impact price fixing has on physicians who accept Medicare and Medicaid, and many other topics are worthy of debate. What is most important is that we return the discussion where it belongs -- in state capitals around the country -- and we seek solutions grounded in freedom and not in more government.


Kevin Price is a syndicated columnist whose articles frequently appear at ChicagoSunTimes.com, Reuters.com, USAToday.com, and other national media. Kevin Price is Host of the Price of Business (M-F at 11 AM on CNN 650) and Publisher of the Houston Business Review. Hear the show live and online at PriceofBusiness.com. Visit the archive of past shows here.

Is Baucus Using a Reversed Approach to a Public Option?

Max Baucus (D-MT), Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, has tabled the idea of public option and is proposing an approach that will ostensibly allow people to keep their private insurance, but have public insurance available. The reality appears, however, is that the Baucus approach promises to make private insurance simply too expensive for most people and will likely crowd people out of traditional coverage. This is due to the fact that it has the same flaws as the proposal promoted by President Obama. The problems can be found on several levels:

Taxes will go up.

While candidate Obama promised that the vast majority of Americans would see a reduction in their health care costs from his proposed reforms (at approximately $2,500 a year), reality is looking much different and this is even more the case with the Baucus proposal. The Heritage Foundation has pointed out that the "Baucus bill would, however, impose new fees on drugs and medical devices. Also, beginning in 2013, the bill would impose a new federal excise tax on high-value health insurance plans. The tax would be applied to health plans valued at $8,000 for single policies and $21,000 for family policies. Because not all workers in such plans are high income, many will likely be on the receiving end of a middle class income tax increase..." This stands in complete contrast to Obama's promise of not raising taxes on those who make less than $250,000 a year.

An Individual Mandate.

Regardless if you take the exaggerated number of 45 million uninsured that the left loves or the more conservative estimate of 15 million, many of those are uninsured by choice. Under the Baucus plan, virtually everyone will no longer be allowed to opt out of coverage after 2013. The plan doesn't specify how much the specific premium will be, which is further proof that the devil is in the details.

Oddly, a plan designed to increase coverage will actually force many people to abandon private plans. The Heritage Foundation notes that the tax penalty for those with private coverage would be based on two bands and would "be $750 per person, with a maximum of $1,500 per family. This penalty could apply to individuals with incomes as low as $10,831 a year. For those with incomes above that level, it would be $950 per person with a maximum of $3,800 per family."

Oddly, and in direct opposition to one of the fundamental ideas the Democrats claim to value highly, the Baucus bill would undermine privacy rights. His proposal would force bureaucracies like the IRS to inform government health agencies how much individuals earn. In addition to undermining our personal freedoms and privacy, this proposal promises to be very expensive due to bureaucracy.

New Taxes for Employers.

It is interesting that, in an environment with the highest unemployment in a quarter of a century, proponents of the Baucus plan wants to penalize employers for not offering health care benefits. The Heritage Foundation notes that "Employers with more than 50 employees that do not offer health coverage would have to pay a tax for each employee whose family income is low enough to qualify for a premium credit."

Those who will be penalized by this will be low skilled workers who are in desperate need of income. Furthermore, the proposal more harshly targets those that are the sole income earners of the family. For example, if one family member already has benefits from another source, the tax will not be applied to the employer of the other family member. It does not take much imagination to see the many problems such an approach will provide and there should be little doubt about the results: higher taxes, lower incomes, and job losses for those who need employment most.

This is only the beginning of the problems that plagues the Baucus proposal. While the American people are still looking for relief on the employment front and more opportunity to get health insurance coverage, Baucus and the Obama Administration seem to be making it more difficult to reach either of these objectives.

Kevin Price is Host of the Price of Business, the longest running show on AM 650 (M-F at 11 am) in Houston, Texas and on AOL Radio. His articles often appear in Chicago Sun Times, Reuters, USA Today, and other national media. Steve Moore of the Wall Street Journal calls Price the “best business talk show host in the country.” Find out why and visit his blog at www.BizPlusBlog.com and his show site at www.PriceofBusiness.com. You can also find Price on Strategy Room at FoxNews.com.

Ten Ways to Improve Health Care Without Increasing Government

I have to preface this by pointing out that I remain convinced that the US Constitution -- that nifty document that politicians swear to defend -- is the first obligation to the health care debate. According to that document, the issue of health care is to be left to the states and the citizens. Health care is simply too important for the federal government to pursue. It requires many approaches to find a plan that would work. However, the reality is, the federal government already plays a huge role in health care. It has long been my contention that any discussion on reform should begin with the damage that government has already done.

Dr. John Goodman, President of the National Center for Policy Analysis, has written a report that addresses the government impact well and should be part of the debate. He examines ten different areas that should be addressed in any health care discussion.

1. Free the Doctor. "Medicare pays for more than 7,000 specific tasks, and only for those tasks. Blue Cross, employer plans and most other insurers pay the same way. Notably absent from this list are such important items as talking to patients by telephone or e-mail, or teaching patients how to manage their own care or helping them become better consumers in the market for drugs. Further, as third-party payers suppress reimbursement fees, doctors find it increasingly difficult to spend any time on unbillable services. This is unfortunate, since it means that doctors cannot provide the type of low-cost, high-quality services that are normal in other professions." Instead of merely behaving as repair providers, medical doctors should have incentives to restore their role of health care advisor.

Goodman goes on to point out that, in order to "change these perverse incentives, Medicare should be willing to pay for innovative improvements that save taxpayers money. And doctors and hospitals should be able to repackage and reprice their services (the way other professionals do), provided that the total cost to government does not increase and the quality of care does not decrease. This change in Medicare would almost certainly be followed by similar changes in the private sector."

2. Free the Patient. Goodman states that "many patients have difficulty seeing primary care physicians. All too often, they turn to hospital emergency rooms, where there are long waits and the cost of care is high. Part of the reason is that third-party payer (insurance) bureaucracies decide what services patients can obtain from doctors and what doctors will be paid. To correct this problem, patients should be able to purchase services not paid for by traditional health insurance, including telephone and e-mail consultations and patient education services. This can be done by allowing them to manage more of their own health care dollars in a completely flexible Health Savings Account." Some of these things seem very obvious to me. The health care system is plagued by a "penny wise, dollar foolish" approach to medicine.

3. Free the Employee. It is imperative to move the selling of health insurance from a "one size fits all" group approach to one in which people can buy want they want and, more importantly, take it with them when they leave.

4. Free the Employer. In the same vein, Goodman notes that employers should be allowed to be in a system where they can "make a fixed-dollar contribution to each employee's health insurance each pay period. Like 401(k) accounts, the health plans would be owned by employees and travel with them as they move from job to job and in and out of the labor market."

5. Free the Workplace. The system needs to be changed to allow greater flexibility in the purchase of insurance, which would encourage more people to get covered. For example, if an employee has a spouse with health coverage, it would be helpful if the employer could give another benefit. But, Goodman points out, "the law does not allow her employer to pay higher wages instead. On the other hand, a part-time employee might be willing to accept lower wages in return for the opportunity to enroll in the employer's health plan. The law does not allow that either." The answer is pretty simple, companies "should be free to give employees the option to choose between benefits and wages, where appropriate."

6. Free the Uninsured. People who must purchase their own insurance should receive the same tax relief as employees who obtain insurance through an employer. The way pre-taxing works is simple. The amount that is paid for health insurance is simply subtracted from gross wages for tax purposes. This would be a huge and cost effective benefit to individuals seeking coverage.

7. Free the Kids. The increase in the States Child Health Insurance Plan (S-Chip) will actually move 4 million kids into government health care programs where, as Goodman notes, "children have access to fewer doctors and medical facilities than children in private plans."

He argues that these limitations alone means that "incentives should be reversed. S-CHIP money should be used to encourage parents to enroll their children in their employer's plan or another plan of the parents' choosing."

8. Free the Parents. Goodman points out that, "Under the current system, a child could be enrolled in S-CHIP, a mother could be enrolled in Medicaid and a father could be enrolled in an employer's plan. However, medical outcomes are likely to be better with a single insurer." Instead, the system should be designed to support a single insurer. Therefore the government programs "should be used to subsidize private health insurance, so that low-and moderate-income families are able to see the same doctors."

9. Free the Chronically Ill. For this particular issue, Goodman provides a comprehensive approach: "Under current regulations, insurers are not allowed to adjust premiums to reflect higher expected health care costs. This encourages insurers to seek the healthy and avoid the sick before enrollment. After enrollment, insurers have an incentive to over-provide care to the healthy and under-provide to the sick. These incentives need to be reversed. For example, in the Medicare Advantage program, the government pays higher premiums for seniors with more expensive health needs. This encourages insurance companies to create specialized plans - especially for chronic illnesses - that compete with each other." The solution? "Chronic patients also need to be able to manage more of their health care dollars directly. For example, 'Cash and Counsel' programs in many states allow home bound, disabled Medicaid patients to hire and fire the vendors who provide them with services." Programs such as this provide almost 100 percent patient satisfaction.

10. Free the Early Retiree. "Most baby boomers will retire early, before eligibility for Medicare. Two-thirds will not get health insurance from their former employer and even those who have been promised employer coverage may see those promises broken, since there is almost no prefunding of benefits. Under current law, an employer can include early retirees in its regular health plan, but cannot contribute to more economical, individually owned plans." In the spirit of the portability argument mentioned before, the government should make it easier for individuals to have many options and to take them with them wherever they go. This would enhance competition and drive down prices.

Ten simple steps that would expand the availability of coverage and actually lower the costs for all concerned. This is simple common sense, which is why the government is not seriously weighing these type of reforms.

Kevin Price is Host of the Price of Business, the longest running show on AM 650 (M-F at 11 am) in Houston, Texas and on AOL Radio. His articles often appear in Chicago Sun Times, Reuters, USA Today, and other national media. Steve Moore of the Wall Street Journal calls Price the “best business talk show host in the country.” Find out why and visit his blog at www.BizPlusBlog.com and his show site at www.PriceofBusiness.com. You can also find Price on Strategy Room at FoxNews.com.