Where Are We On Health Care Reform?

by Rep. Tom Petri

If I may use trendy public policy buzz words, over the past several months the Congress and President Obama have provided the American people with a series of "teachable moments" as we struggle over health care. The lesson? As the saying goes, "Nobody's life or property is safe while the legislature is in session."

Think of it: Your government is in the process of radically remaking one-sixth of the American economy, and it is being done by taking the typical political process of horse trading, backroom deals, special pleading and hidden favors, and putting it all on hyperdrive.

Democratic leaders in the House spent much of the spring and early summer concocting three separate massive health care proposals and pushing them through the key committees over Republican objections. The leadership's mantra was, "Get this done fast! Do it now before the opposition has time to mobilize!" In other words, before anybody else could consider the details and raise concerns.

But they couldn't get it done before Congress' scheduled August recess. Congressmen and senators returned to their home states to find large numbers of people furious about the bum's rush that was underway. The White House and its allies labeled these concerned citizens a bunch of know-nothings manipulated by talk radio and special interests, the kind of people who should be ignored by those who know better.

Then, in September, President Obama came to the House and gave a marvelous speech. He referred repeatedly to the many wonderful things that "my bill" would do. It was quite convincing - except for those who were aware that the President had proposed no bill and that the bills approved by committees in the House and under discussion in the Senate were, in their ultimate effects, at variance with what the President promised. The speech, in short, was among the most skillful examples of presidential dissembling that I have ever witnessed.

Then, behind closed doors and with no Republicans allowed, the three House proposals were molded into a new bill and then frog marched through the House with a slim majority.

Over in the Senate, as of this writing Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is struggling to corral the 60 votes he needs to end debate and bring his proposal to a vote. Will the bill facilitate abortions? Include a public option? Expand Medicare to allow some of those 55 and older to buy into the program? Tax health insurance benefits? Cut Medicare by $500 billion? For these and innumerable other questions, the bottom-line goal is not to do what's right but rather, simply, to get 60 senators to agree to allow a floor vote.

At the moment, it seems most likely that if the Senate passes a bill, it will do little to restrain health care inflation and will lead to higher taxes and premiums for many or most. Young adults in particular stand to get a vivid lesson that a government which can do everything for you can also do anything to you. To varying degrees, the rest of us will learn that as well.

If Sen. Reid gets his bill through the Senate by December 17, Speaker Pelosi has suggested that House and Senate negotiators will be able to iron out differences between the House and Senate bills over the course of a weekend and then rush final legislation to the floor before New Year's Day.

That would be unusual speed. It took four months to give the 2003 Medicare prescription drug bill proper consideration in conference before reporting a negotiated bill. But the Speaker has said that "we would do almost anything" to get health care passed by Christmas. There is even talk that the leadership could avoid a separate vote by including the legislation in a "must-pass" bill such as Defense funding.

In which case, the President would get a big Christmas present while the American people would get a lump of coal.

There is a much better way to health care reform. Any proper proposal must restrain health care inflation, and we can do that by giving individuals, rather than bureaucrats, more responsibility for decisions regarding their care. Taxes and subsidies should be structured to encourage patients to be informed consumers energized to save for future medical expenses and comparison shop to find the best health care at the most reasonable cost.

Tort reform, small business pooling arrangements and other improvements could put us on the path of lowering insurance premiums for families and small enterprises.

You may ask (as I certainly have), "Why are the Democrats so determined to take us over the cliff?"

My colleagues across the aisle are smart people. Surely they know what a mess they have created. And they know that as of late November, according to a Rasmussen poll, only 41 percent of voters nationwide favor the health care plans supported by President Obama and congressional Democrats while 53 percent are opposed to them.

So, why are they doing this? I propose three reasons:

First, the Democrats really do want to achieve reform - they want to do good, and they also want to take credit for having done it. And they figure that, no matter its flaws, if they can just get their plan through, they will be able to fix it later, somehow.

Second, they believe that if they fail to approve President Obama's signature initiative, the President will be seriously weakened.

And third, they are afraid that failing in this effort would cause such anger and depression among Democratic activists and contributors across the country that many would sit on their hands in 2010. In other words, the congressional Majority is even more worried about its base than it is about the anger of the voters as a whole.

I suspect it is for these reasons that they are driving the country toward all sorts of mayhem while crossing their fingers and hoping that the end result won't be too bad. It's a startling way to reform vital services comprising 17 percent of the economy.