The health care bill languishing in the Senate is flawed. We should pass it, anyway.
From the beginning, this bill has never been the radical reconstructive surgery that its critics have claimed — or, perhaps, that it should have been. Our health care system is deeply flawed. The employer subsidy shields health care costs from customers, encouraging us to consume more. The employer-provided care system keeps families from choosing their own coverage, and it forces us to lean on our bosses for health care, even when we want to switch jobs or start own own companies.
The bill does not re-make our health system. It does not
even promise to make it better. Instead, this health care bill makes
the system broader, with a chance to make it better. We can’t pass a
bill that takes away the government subsidy for employer-provided
health care, but we can start to tax employer plans. We can’t conjure a
fair and competitive health insurance market for individuals overnight,
but we can begin to build one through the state and federal exchanges.
As the employer tax grows (and it will) and the state and federal
exchanges grow (and they will), we could move toward something
resembling a real transparent market for insurance. Jonathan Rauch puts
it beautifully:
Taken together, these measures could set in motion a virtuous cycle. As
health costs rise, more employer-provided health plans become taxable,
giving employers an incentive to find cheaper plans. As
employer-provided plans grow less generous, more employees have an
incentive to take a tax credit and shop around, and, as premiums rise,
more qualify to do so. Little by little, insurance coverage shifts
toward an individual-based, consumer-driven market. And the faster
health insurance costs rise, the faster the transition happens.
You should read the whole thing.
