7-17-09, 10:28 am

Health care reform gained new momentum this week with several major endorsements. Wednesday, July 15, the Senate HELP committee passed a version of the bill that closely fits President Obama's main principles for reform. The same day, House Democrats announced the introduction of their own health reform and its referral to three major committees that will finalize the bill.

On the same day, United Steelworkers (USW) President Leo Gerard also announced his organization's backing for the bill. This is important because the USW had previously only supported a single-payer plan offered by Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich. In addition to praising the House bill for creating 'a high quality public health insurance plan option that will bring real competition for private insurance,' Gerard indicated support for the bill's industry reforms that will disallow denial of coverage based on pre-existing conditions and other discriminatory practices and its expansion of pre-Medicare insurance to retirees over 55.

In related news, United Steelworkers (USW) President Leo Gerard also announced his organization's backing for the bill. This is important because the USW had previously only supported a single-payer plan offered by Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich. In addition to praising the House bill for creating 'a high quality public health insurance plan option that will bring real competition for private insurance,' Gerard indicated support for the bill's industry reforms that will disallow denial of coverage based on pre-existing conditions and other discriminatory practices and its expansion of pre-Medicare insurance to retirees over 55.

'The legislation meets President Obama’s goals to control runaway health care costs, offering all Americans real choices for expanded access to quality health care,' Gerard indicated.

In related news, the American Medical Association announced its endorsement of the bill. 'We pledge to work with the House committees and leadership to build support for passage of health reform legislation to expand access to high quality, affordable health care for all Americans,' wrote AMA CEO Michael D. Maves in a letter to House ways and Means Committee Chair Rep. Charlie Rangel, D-N.Y. The AMA claims approximately one-fifth of the country's practicing and retired doctors.

In 1947, the AMA notoriously used its political influence to block major universal health care reform proposed by the Truman administration. In 1993, sharp criticism from the AMA helped torpedo President Clinton's effort at reform.

Small business owner Kelly Conklin, co-owner of Foley-Waite Associates, Bloomfield, NJ, described the current health system as 'an administrative nightmare' and saw a huge financial benefit for his business if reform passes.

Conklin, who has owned his business for 31 years and works with the Main Street Alliance, a national organization of small business owners who back health reform along the lines proposed by President Obama, said, 'When we access health insurance, the system is so fractured and inefficient, that very often it causes as much harm as it addresses.'

Urging swift action on passage of the reform package, Conklin expressed strong support of the House bill's inclusion of a surcharge on the wealthiest one percent of Americans as a funding mechanism and strongly endorsed the inclusion of a public option in both the Senate and House bills.

In a press statement released earlier this week, multimillionaire Chuck Collins, the co-founder of Wealth for the Common Good and inheritor of the Oscar Mayer fortune, expressed support for the House health reform bill. 'The proposed tax surcharge would impact those of us with the greatest capacity to pay, about one out of 100 taxpayers,' he explained. 'That revenue could be used to pay for much needed improvements to our broken health care system, and provide coverage for over 50 million Americans who are uninsured, while protecting employer-provided health care benefits.'

Collins favors progressive tax code reform and a repeal of the Bush tax cuts.

Public option and costs

Now that the health reform bill has entered House committees for debate and amendment, a clearer picture of how the public option will work is emerging. According to information provided on the House Labor and Education Committee's website, the public insurance program would be part of an insurance exchange, which also would include a variety of private plans, beginning in 2013.

Individuals and families who choose the public plan will pay premiums based on a sliding scale tied to their household incomes. Those between 133 percent and 400 percent will be eligible for the public insurance program and would pay premiums totaling no more than 11 percent of their income. In effect, individuals earning $43,000 or less, or families bringing in $88,000 or less will be eligible and would see big savings in health care expenses.

The House bill mandates that the public insurance program be self-financed and that the coverage it provides be comparable to the private insurance market.

Funding for the program would be generated mainly by eliminating government funding for partial privatization of some Medicare programs, an employer mandate that would charge a fee to employers who don't provide insurance for their employees, and reduced and controlled costs of care, prescription drugs and premiums.

Weighing in on the issue of cost, MIT economist Jonathan Gruber said that with regard to the 'cost curve,' a reference to the rising cost of health care over time, 'we can't bend the cost-curve without (health reform).'

'It is true,' Gruber added, 'we don't know how much health reform can bend the cost curve. But we know for sure that non-reform won't bend the cost-curve.'

One study actually provides an estimate of how much the cost-curve can bent, contrary to Gruber's comment. Savings could add up to as much as $2 trillion over ten years, according to a recent study by Harvard economist David Cutler and Melinda Beeuwkes Buntin, a senior economist at the Rand Corporation.

Republicans, on the other, are using a recent CBO study with a more pessimistic outlook to promote opposition to health reform. Critics of the CBO report point out, however, that its authors refused to include cost savings not directly tied to federal spending. The report simply distorts the facts, using a far too narrow methodology.

Republicans have also been critical of the House plan to raise funds with a surcharge on the wealthiest Americans. So far, however, they have been unable to square their opposition to a new tax on the richest people with their own plan to impose a new tax on the health benefits of workers. Again, Republican unabashed class loyalties are showing.