Letter to the NY Times
I read your op-ed, "The Case for Reform", 12/30/09. I disagree with your conclusion that this bill should be passed and instead urge Congress to start again and forge a true reform bill. In the end, this bill is not a reform bill, it simply extends a broken system to 30 million new people without paying for it.
Your op-ed is void of any cursory analysis. Consider some of the key points in your op-ed:
1) "The fact that 46 million people in this country have no health insurance should be intolerable".
My response: I think most Americans agree; this is not controversial.
2) You state that the reform bill won't cut costs, but will pilot some projects that will attempt. "No one yet has the answer".
My response: That is an egregiously false statement! Plenty of tried and true reforms exist that can be implemented now, but are not. We will lose our opportunity to implement them. Among the reforms: tort reform, cost sharing, cross-state competition
3) "the C.B.O. says that the reform bills are paid for over the next 10 years and would actually reduce future deficits"
My response: Any rational person knows this not be be a true statement. It is true that the CBO states this, but the CBO by law can only consider:
a) the next 10 years, and since the reforms are delayed 3 years, we get 3 years of taxes but no outlays. If they estimated the 10 years starting in 3 years, then it would cost plenty.
b) the current law without the doctor "fix". As you know, the doctor fix is passed every year by congress (else risk mutiny by doctors), but yet does not make it into the CBO estimates since they cannot consider likely changes to the law. This cost is at least $250.
c) The cost saves from the independent commission are subject to a Congressional veto, as you state. Anything unpopular will be vetoed, so any significant reform will be politicized and vetoed. No cost saves will make it (unless they impact non-voters only).
In short, any sane, independent-minded person would not call this bill cost neutral (or better). You risk your credibility when you state that.
I don't know why "left-leaning" people defend this bill when meaningful reforms exist. I know why left-leaning politicians do, as this bill is designed for political wins.
It reminds me of several years ago when I wrote to the WSJ to beg their friends in Congress to oppose the Iraq invasion. This bill, like the Iraq invasion, is a dereliction of duty for the mainstream media for not being up in arms over the sell-out by politicians to lobbyists.
Thank you
Your op-ed is void of any cursory analysis. Consider some of the key points in your op-ed:
1) "The fact that 46 million people in this country have no health insurance should be intolerable".
My response: I think most Americans agree; this is not controversial.
2) You state that the reform bill won't cut costs, but will pilot some projects that will attempt. "No one yet has the answer".
My response: That is an egregiously false statement! Plenty of tried and true reforms exist that can be implemented now, but are not. We will lose our opportunity to implement them. Among the reforms: tort reform, cost sharing, cross-state competition
3) "the C.B.O. says that the reform bills are paid for over the next 10 years and would actually reduce future deficits"
My response: Any rational person knows this not be be a true statement. It is true that the CBO states this, but the CBO by law can only consider:
a) the next 10 years, and since the reforms are delayed 3 years, we get 3 years of taxes but no outlays. If they estimated the 10 years starting in 3 years, then it would cost plenty.
b) the current law without the doctor "fix". As you know, the doctor fix is passed every year by congress (else risk mutiny by doctors), but yet does not make it into the CBO estimates since they cannot consider likely changes to the law. This cost is at least $250.
c) The cost saves from the independent commission are subject to a Congressional veto, as you state. Anything unpopular will be vetoed, so any significant reform will be politicized and vetoed. No cost saves will make it (unless they impact non-voters only).
In short, any sane, independent-minded person would not call this bill cost neutral (or better). You risk your credibility when you state that.
I don't know why "left-leaning" people defend this bill when meaningful reforms exist. I know why left-leaning politicians do, as this bill is designed for political wins.
It reminds me of several years ago when I wrote to the WSJ to beg their friends in Congress to oppose the Iraq invasion. This bill, like the Iraq invasion, is a dereliction of duty for the mainstream media for not being up in arms over the sell-out by politicians to lobbyists.
Thank you
posted by Matt P at 7:41 PM
0 comments
