Health Care Reforms Won’t Take Effect Until 2013!
I was skeptical when my friend Milton insisted that none of the key elements of health care reform legislation would take effect for four years, thus rendering moot the charge by critics that coverage mandates would overburden businesses recovering from the current recession. Turns out Milton was right! That lag time should dramatically change the debate, except no one seems to know about this.
I asked our Washington Editor, Dave Postal, to check into this, and sure enough, the implementation timeline put out on July 14 by a trio of House committees shows that the launch of a public health insurance plan, the imposition of employer and individual coverage mandates (as well as penalties for those who do not willingly buy in), and bans on discriminating against individuals with pre-existing conditions would not kick in until 2013!
I don’t think many are aware of this critical point. My sense is that most people assume if President Barack Obama has an historic signing ceremony this year, health reforms will be in place in 2010. Not so!
I am amazed I haven’t seen any news coverage about this, nor read any columnists or heard any talking heads lambasting Congress for the delay.
Where is the public outrage? What happens to the 47 million or so who lack coverage over the next four years? And what about the millions more likely to lose their coverage due to a layoff or preexisting condition? And didn’t President Obama insist health care reform was urgent?
I guess the lesson here is never underestimate the ability of Congress NOT to take action–even when they appear to be taking action! Passing a health care reform bill at last won’t mean health care reform is coming anytime soon.
Of course, the timing would also be convenient for President Obama, since the most controversial portions of his plan would not take effect until after the 2012 election, which means his biggest proposals would remain academic during his reelection campaign. If the reforms go haywire in 2013 and beyond–failing to contain soaring costs or leaving too many U.S. citizens uninsured–he’d be a lame duck anyway, and immune from political consequences.
I’m not saying that is how President Obama planned this. In fact, I don’t recall any discussion by anyone about when these controversial reforms would actually take effect! That is truly amazing, is it not?
Well, now that we know the public plan, the mandates and the restrictions on insurers won’t be imposed for at least four years (if they survive at all during the negotiations with Republicans and Blue Dog Democrats), perhaps we can have a more intelligent discussion about how this might all play out.
For one, there is no need to fear that employer mandates will undermine recovery from this recession, since the current economic downturn is likely to be ancient history by 2013. By then, the economy is likely to be booming once more!
For another, having four years to work out the kinks in the Obama plan should give everyone plenty of time to legislate whatever tweaks might be necessary as we approach the launch date.
What do you folks make of all this???
Entries (RSS)
Well, two things, if you will indulge me.
1) Most of the tax changes would be enacted now and not in four years.
2) Why the rush?
SAM RESPONDS:
To cut the deficit, perhaps?
You can bet that the insurance, medical and drug lobbies also had a hand in convincing Congress to stall this until 2013 so that parts of the plan, if not the whole thing, can be reversed given enough time and further lobbying by them.
I’m sure they would say it would give them the needed time to “assess the changes and adjust before it takes effect.” I would not mind a waiting period of some type before a plan takes effect, say 6 months to a year, but 2013 is ridiculous and flies in the face of the Obama administration’s contention that reform is urgent.
We could get coverage for the uninsured faster by expanding the eligibilty for Medicare, and at the same time cutting back on the waste in the current system.
Medicare allows too many unnecessary doctor visits, tests and hospital stays because doctors and other providers have learned how to game the system and get the maximum Medicare will pay each year for each of their patients whether they need treatment or not.
David points to the waste in the Medicare system, which I would argue is a key element of any government-run enterprise. There is no health care crisis, although there are a lot of people who can’t or won’t buy health insurance.
After the Stimulus boondoggle, it would be silly for any American to sit by and watch our political class, which will continue to enjoy its own lavish health care plan, stuff this one up our collective noses. Perhaps our president can put aside his ego and work with both parties to come up with a solution for the problem, which has not even been properly defined.
The issues–helping those who are chronically uninsured; those who are unemployed for an extended period of time; whether or not it is appropriate to provide taxpayer funded insurance to non-citizens; and what to do about those well-off young and healthy men and women who simply do not choose to buy insurance. Here is an opportunity for our political class to develop a solution that is so perfect, it is good enough for them.
I don’t see that happening, but it would be nice.
This is really interesting – the calm discussion of implementing government health care – that may not hit us for three more years. Oh yeah, what a relief…Not…The last time I checked, to take money from one person in order to pass it on to another so that they can have some is either theft or socialism.
Yes, I’ll use that word, socialism. Isn’t that what is happening? So they aren’t passing cash, rather, a service – but it is still taking money from another forcibly to give to another that did not earn it. A cow pie by any other name is still a cow pie.
Yes, we have a health care problem. What does that have to do with the government? They never should have been involved in the first place! This discussion should be about how to get the government completely out of healthcare – forever. And then, we should focus on what health care is and how it is paid for and priced – but not as a government issue. It should be done as individuals, flooding the doctorsr’ offices and making clear how we need to have health care delivered.
Are there are those who don’t want to pay for it? Yep. Will they die if they don’t get care? Yep, they might. Isn’t it about time we starting allowing people to take responsibility for their actions? Even when the results are catastrophic? Yes, we should. Yes, it is unfortunate that some lose their health care when they lose their jobs. Let the private sector work. Let the religious/charitable groups function. Let this be done, voluntarily, however, not by force through taxes and government bungling.
Now, we can have lengthy discussions about how sad and terrible it is to have uninsured – and it is sad and can be terrible. But the solution is not to turn ourselves against our founding principles. That is the easy way out – and it is the path that has been taken already – and where are we? Trillions in debt.
When we start making this a government issue, we are asking for trouble – and we did ask for it many years ago – and today as well, and look where it has gotten us already.
SAM RESPONDS:
Sir, do you really believe if we eliminated Medicare that the private health insurance system would cover the tens of millions of elderly Americans, or leave them to die a far earlier death than they might with adequate care? Or if we dumped Medicaid that the tens of millions living in relative poverty would be able to get adequate care, or just be left to die in the streets?
This is really all about what kind of a society we live in. You obviously have a different view of that kind of society than I. That’s why elections matter. Obama was elected on a platform of reforming the health care and insurance system, and that’s what he’s trying to do.
As for our “founding principles,” as I said in an earlier response, while no one is a bigger fan of the Founding Fathers than I, the fact is their “founding principles” included slavery and denying women the righ to vote. Shall we “honor” those “principles” as well, or recognize the fact that the true brilliance of the founders was in establishing a foundation of government built on multiple checks and balances to guarantee that all views would be heard and tyranny could not prevail? They also approved of a constitution that could be amended and interpreted by the courts over time to reflect the realities of a changing world.
In addition, many of the founders did not support capitalism at all–take Thomas Jefferson, for example. Not all of the founders were as keen on capitalism as Alexander Hamilton. So when you call for respect for “founding principles,” which founder’s principles do you mean.
I do not like everything I am hearing about the health reform debate, but reform we must. I do not recall reading anything about Social Darwinism being the law of the land in the Constitution.