Consider this new op-ed from today's Detroit News:
Moderate Democrats, Republicans quietly work on health care bill
PETER PITTS
Republican Congressman Bill Cassidy recently broke some news that could turn the health care debate on its head. During a radio interview, he revealed that Blue Dog Democrats have been quietly reaching out to Republicans to draft an alternative health reform bill.
This isn't surprising. After all, neither Republicans nor centrist Democrats nor the majority of Americans approve of the clumsy hodgepodge of big-government policies that make up Sen. Max Baucus' health care bill.
An alliance between Republicans and moderate Democrats could give Americans the reform package they're looking for -- one aimed at lowering costs while promoting competition and choice.
Polls show that public support for health care reform is at a new low. According to a Rasmussen poll from Sept. 28, 56 percent of Americans oppose the leading Democratic reform proposal.
They're not alone. Blue Dog Democrats -- a group of 52 moderate Democratic members of Congress -- have long been uneasy about health care reforms that give too much power to the federal government. In fact they were among the leading opponents of the government-run "public option." Although that idea seems to be off the table, there's still plenty in the Baucus legislation for these fiscally conservative Democrats to criticize.
The nonprofit health care cooperatives that the Baucus bill creates, for instance, would create many of the same problems as the public option. It's true that these co-ops wouldn't officially be part of the government, but they would benefit from federal financial backing (the Baucus bill provides $6 billion for the establishment of these co-ops) and an implied federal guarantee. Consequently, they would pose a serious threat to Americans' ability to purchase private coverage.
Since co-ops would be able to draw from a healthy supply of federal funds, they could push private insurers out of the market by offering artificially low rates. This would soon result in a health care sector with few alternatives to the federally chartered co-ops.
At the same time, the Senate bill -- which carries an $856 billion price tag -- also fails to sufficiently address the issue of cost. A recent Gallup poll showed that the No. 1 concern Americans have about health care is cost and affordability.
And a bipartisan alternative to Baucus' legislation has the potential to be the kind of practical, cost-lowering bill that American's want and America's healthcare system needs.
What would such a bill look like? It's hard to say, but one smart way to go about crafting a bipartisan bill would be to model it off existing successful health care policies -- namely, Medicare Part D.
By creating a system where private insurers could fairly compete to offer Medicare beneficiaries the best drug coverage, Part D has reduced the number of seniors without drug coverage by 17 percent, while still managing to cost about 30 percent less than originally estimated.
The program also enjoys a 92 percent satisfaction rating. This is largely because Part D provides seniors with a real choice over the kind of drug coverage they receive (the program offers over 1,800 plans).
This basic model could be used as the basis for a new bipartisan healthcare bill. Under such a program, the federal government would expand coverage to chronically uninsured -- those 8 million to 15 million Americans who can't afford private coverage but earn too much for government aid -- by creating a system of privately administered health insurance options. Customers would choose the plan most appropriate for them, and the federal government would help subsidize their premiums, depending on their need.
Such a program would keep costs down by rewarding insurance companies for providing the best coverage at the lowest price. It would also give Americans the freedom to choose from a wide array of different insurance plans.
The time is right for a real bipartisan reform to take shape.
Peter J. Pitts is president of the Center for Medicine in the Public Interest and a former Food and Drug Administration associate commissioner.
