by Julia Kaye, Brigette Courtot, and Kelli Garcia,
National Women's Law Center
A colleague of ours equated yesterday’s Bipartisan Health Care Summit to a Superbowl for the CSPAN crowd. The event featured an all-star lineup from the White House, HHS, and Congress — though notably, only a paltry four female members of Congress were among the 33 Congressional attendees — with each team in strategic formation on either side of the (not-entirely-objective) referee.
While we can’t speak for the rest of the American people, we were certainly riveted (CNN covering a debate about actuarial values? Be still our hearts!). But for those of you who: a) couldn’t justify watching TV for an entire workday to your boss; or b) couldn’t be paid enough to watch politicians debate health policy for 7 hours, here’s a roundup of the good, the bad, and the ugly:
The Good
- Setting the record straight. The President and Congress clarified what is (and isn’t) included in the health reform bill. Too many people are unaware that the bill will help millions of people find affordable health insurance; make sure insurance serves its intended safety net function; and use literally every promising cost-saving initiative to start to bend our nation’s health care cost-curve. Broadcasting these facts live to the American people is certainly a good thing.
- Policy over politics. The summit provided a healthy forum for substantive debate between the two parties. For example, one key point of contention was who should be responsible for regulating health insurance (e.g. the federal government, the states, or neither)—a legitimate disagreement that Americans should have an opportunity to witness and consider.
- Issues that matter for women. Rep. Slaughter began her argument in support of health care reform by observing that in 8 states and D.C., it is still legal for insurance companies to discriminate against survivors of domestic violence and that women are charged up to 48% more than men for the same coverage.
The Bad
Some Congressional leaders touted health policy proposals that won’t reduce uninsurance, won’t bend the cost curve, and could put women’s health and well-being at risk. These bad ideas included:
- Widespread expansion of high-deductible health plans and health savings accounts. They may work for the healthiest and the wealthiest among us, but women—who are poorer than men on average and need/use more health care — are particularly ill-served by these types of plans.
- High-risk pools as a permanent solution. While HRPs are a fine temporary fix for covering the uninsured before the new insurance market rules take effect, these pools perpetuate the segregation of sick and healthy people, when the whole point of insurance is to spread risks between the two. It won’t work in the long-term.
- Deregulated insurance markets. It’s hard to fathom why anyone would argue against minimum standards for health insurance—it’s kind of like hating puppies. Don’t all women deserve coverage that is fair and high-quality, regardless of where they live?
The Ugly
- Not Bipartisan? Really? Congressional Republicans largely avoided acknowledging that many policies they proposed are already in the current health reform plans. Instead, they argued that the proposals should be scrapped and healthcare reform should start over. Unfortunately, starting over does nothing for the 45,000 people who will die this year in the United States because they do not have health insurance.
- Not Democratic? Really? Senator Mitch McConnell also complained that using reconciliation to pass healthcare reform would “short-circuit” democracy. A vote, though, in which the majority wins, is about as democratic as it gets. According to one count, the 50 votes the Senate Democrats would need to pass the bill using reconciliation represent nearly 70 percent of the nation’s population. Moreover, in 16 of the 22 times that reconciliation was used since 1980, the votes were approved by a Republican controlled Senate.
View Original Post at womenstake.org
View Comments
blog comments powered by Disqus