The presumptive leader in the 2010 race for governor of the Sunshine State has launched a controversial public campaign to persuade Attorneys Generals in other states to join him in “launching a full review of the constitutionality of the individual mandate and potential legal options for States to pursue on behalf of their citizens should this mandate become law,” Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum writes in a letter to his AG peers.

The Senate recently approved a draft of the healthcare reform bill that provides for a mandatory tax of $700 to $4,000 against individuals who do not obtain health insurance coverage, either individually or through their employers, before 2013. The provision was added when lobbyists for the nation’s top health insurance companies successfully negotiated it in exchange for dropping an additional proposal that bans insurance companies from declining to provide coverage for people with pre-existing health conditions.

McCollum maintains that the tax would violate the provision of individual freedoms contained in both the United States Constitution and that of the State of Florida.

“I have grave concerns about the constitutionality of this mandate,” said McCullom. “Such a ‘living tax’ is worrisome because it would be levied on a person who does nothing, a person who simply wishes not to be forced to buy health insurance coverage…The mandate is especially troubling to Floridians who are guaranteed through the Florida Constitution to have ‘the right to be let alone and free from governmental intrusion into [their] private life.’”

In another public statement to the media, McCullom explained his stance against the proposed tax and threatens legal action if it becomes law.

“I am committed to pursuing any legal action necessary to defend (the rights)…of the more than 18 million individuals who call Florida home,” writes McCollum.

Earlier this year, McCollum announced his intent to seek the Republican nomination for Governor of Florida in 2010. He intends to replace Governor Charlie Crist, a fellow Florida Republican, after serving one term as Attorney General. McCollum is considered the frontrunner in the race for the nomination because Crist also served as AG for Florida before he took over the state’s highest office.

Democratic Senator Dan Gelber of Miami, who is running to replace McCullom as Attorney General, quickly criticized McCullom in a statement shortly after McCllom announced his intent to review the constitutionality of the healthcare tax.

“General McCollum’s decision to use his office to investigate ways to block health insurance reform is exactly why we need new leadership in the Attorney General’s office,” said Gelber. “There are four million Floridians without health care including 800,000 children. Only one state has a higher percentage of uninsured. I wish McCollum was as concerned about solving Florida’s health care crisis as he was about stopping the solving of the health care crisis.”

Yes, you read that right. South Carolina Representative Joe “You Lie!” Wilson has proposed an amendment to the healthcare reform bill lumbering through Congress, which would require all congresspersons to enroll in the public option health insurance plan. He hasn’t switched sides and decided to vote for the Democrats’ bill; rather, his amendment is a stunt intended to point out what he sees as the failures of the public option.

Ironically, supporters of healthcare reform have pointed to the government-subsidized insurance enjoyed by senators and representatives as evidence that there should be a public option–if health insurance is good enough for our politicians, shouldn’t it be good enough for the rest of us? (In fact, although the federal government subsidizes their healthcare, it is actually administered by private insurers.) Wilson turns that strategy on its head, by saying that if a public option is suitable for average Americans, it should also be suitable for Washington D.C.

It’s quite unlikely the amendment will be ratified in the House. The current language simply allows Congress to sign up for the public option. Most Democrats probably won’t vote for this ‘poison pill’ provision; as they have admitted, most Americans would prefer to keep their existing health insurance. Republicans might vote for it as a lark, although they might refuse to dignify Nancy Pelosi’s bill with any type of ‘yes’ vote. Joe Wilson has 72 hours to get his own mandate into the bill, before it reaches the House floor.

I recognize that healthcare reform is a serious issue that has the potential to change the lives of millions of Americans. I also acknowledge that many people are worried that such a bill will endanger their existing health insurance plans; their fears shouldn’t be downplayed. However, when healthcare reform proposals are compared to “domestic terrorism”, isn’t that going a bit too far? North Carolina Republican Virginia Foxx recently took to the House of Representatives floor to express her vehement opposition to the Democrat-written bill. The representative was quoted in the Associated Press as saying that the nation has more to fear from the bill’s potential passage than it does from terrorists. While hyperbole is a standard feature of modern politics, Foxx has reached a new level.

One of the identifying features of terrorism is the intent to cause a feeling of terror in a population.  Many may disagree with Nancy Pelosi’s plans of healthcare reform that include a public option, but keep in mind that congresspersons of both parties genuinely believe that what they are doing will help America. They may be wrong–and their policies might have disastrous results–but neither Democrats nor Republicans are purposely trying to destroy the United States. Therefore, comparisons to the likes of Osama bin Laden are off-base.  The worst thing about her comments is that they serve to cheapen the legitimate concerns people have. Foxx doesn’t like the bill because she believes it will allow the government to force people to buy health insurance, raise taxes, and and give bureaucrats more power. These are all valid arguments that deserve to be debated, but some people may tune them out due to her inflammatory statements.

Our infamously long-winded Vice President once said that he tried to never question a person’s motives, no matter how much he disagrees with their policies. All of our politicians would do well to take that advice. Both parties are striving to achieve what they think is best for America. Their varied opinions on healthcare reform deserve to be discussed civilly, without resorting to the modern equivalent of Godwin’s Law. In my opinion, that would be best for us all.

(Image: U.S. Army under CC 2.0)

The House’s healthcare reform bill looks like it’ll cross the $1 trillion mark, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. Many Democrats have promised a bill that would cost less, and initial CBO estimates agreed with them. However, they have since added billions more in funding health insurance for the retired, as well as more spending on public health and increased reimbursements for preventative care services. Some of these provisions are intended to garner more support from important populations, such as senior citizens. These modifications bring the estimated total of the bill to at least $1.2 trillion over ten years.

Breaking the trillion dollar threshold makes reform of the health insurance industry more difficult to achieve. Nancy Pelosi has previously claimed that the bill would cost about $900 billion; still a massive sum, but short of the trillion mark.  It seems to be a sort of psychological block, even among Democrats whom are otherwise supportive of the bill. The new CBO estimate is closer to Republicans’ claims of $1.3 trillion. The big question is whether it’s worth the price. Supporters would argue that the eventual savings from health insurance plans would allow the nation to pay off that debt in time (after all, America managed to pay off its decades-long national debt by the end of Bill Clinton’s second term), but others feel that it’s a pointless gamble.

Last year, a representative from Texas was the true Republican maverick in the presidential race. Ron Paul may not have won the nomination, but he is still bringing his unique libertarian perspective to Congress’ table. His proposals for healthcare reform are no different. He recognizes that the current health insurance situation is untenable, but is against governmental involvement. Recently, he presented several intriguing bills to the House of Representatives.

1. The Comprehensive Health Care Reform Act of 2009 would give Americans a 100% tax credit on their health care costs (e.g. prescriptions, hospital stays, doctor visits). Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) with high-deductible health insurance plans would also be tax-free. Low-wage employees who don’t file tax returns can have the credit refunded against their payroll taxes, so the bill would help those who need it most afford healthcare. Currently, only medical expenses that reach over 7.5% of an individual’s income can be deducted.
2. Dr. Paul’s Coercion Is Not Health Care Act of 2009 would forbid the government from enacting a health insurance mandate. There has been some speculation as to the legality of such a mandate. Congressional Democrats, along with the Obama administration, believe that it has to be part of healthcare reform legislation. Their view is that universal coverage must include the young and healthy in order for the insurance pool to afford covering those with pre-existing conditions. This interference in the free market is anathema to Paul. Incidentally, if there is no public option, such a mandate might not be necessary.
3. Finally, his Freedom From Unnecessary Litigation Act of 2009 would save money through indirect tort reform. This act would establish so-called “negative outcomes insurance”, which would pay off if a patient’s medical treatment goes wrong; it would also offer a tax credit to make the purchase more affordable. The goal is to decrease some of the unnecessary (and costly) testing done in order to avoid malpractice liability, as well as lessen the need for hospitals and physicians to carry billions of dollars in insurance.

As Paul is himself a doctor, his views on the healthcare industry are worth listening to. His opinions tend to be shortchanged in the House because he doesn’t walk in lockstep with either party’s platform, giving his bills little chance of passing.  However, many Americans–who fear socialized medicine, yet acknowledge that we need more affordable health insurance as soon as possible–could find something to applaud in his plans.

So far, Republicans in Congress have mainly expressed opposition to the healthcare reform plans proposed by the Democrats. They haven’t offered many solutions of their own, but that’s about to change.  John Boehner, the most powerful member of the minority party in the House of Representatives, has promised that the GOP will present an alternative bill that doesn’t entail major government involvement or adding to the national debt. Obviously, there will be no public option in this version.

Boehner acknowledges that the current system isn’t ideal. How does he plan to give more Americans access to health insurance? These are several things Republican healthcare reform bill would do:

• Severely decreasing the number of medical malpractice lawsuits. This would lower health care costs through a reduction in the unnecessary tests given by overly cautious doctors. Malpractice insurance can also cost doctors millions of dollars per year. As a bonus, it doesn’t hurt that trial lawyers tend to support and contribute to Democratic politicians; this measure wouldn’t affect many GOP supporters.
• Creating a pool that allows small businesses and individuals to buy affordable health insurance in large groups. That proposal is similar to part of the Democrats’ healthcare plan. It’s pretty noncontroversial.
• Repealing the regulations that prevent people from going across state lines to buy health insurance plans. Some states, such as New York, regulate the industry more than others. These regulations include prohibitions on denying insurance to people with pre-existing conditions, for example. While these measures allow more people to be insured, they also result in higher health insurance premiums. Boehner believes that creating a nationwide free market will be more effective in lowering healthcare costs than a public option.

A Republican plan wouldn’t include a health insurance mandate, and would avoid tax increases. It sounds nice, but would it actually be successful? Even party leaders admit that their proposals wouldn’t come close to covering most of America’s uninsured.

Over the past week or so, the public option has been on a roll. Democratic leaders of Congress have insisted that some form of a public option be included in their healthcare reform bill, considering it an essential step in providing the nation with more affordable health insurance. It wasn’t going to be an easy battle. Senator Joe Lieberman has expressed his opposition to such a government-run plan. The independent senator–who used to be a Democrat and still caucuses with the party–cites budget concerns as his primary reason for rejecting it, and believes it isn’t the right time to go into even deeper debt. A less charitable view is that he wants to continue receiving funds for his re-election from major health insurance companies, many of which are headquartered in his home state of Connecticut. Only Lieberman himself knows his motivations for sure.

Lieberman has stated that he will vote with Harry Reid in the initial procedural vote that allows the bill on the full Senate floor for further debate, but vows to be part of the inevitable Republican filibuster against any final bill that includes the public option health insurance plan. Leaders should take him seriously, since he’s well-known for switching sides: he even campaigned for John McCain during last year’s presidential campaign. Nobody said getting 60 votes in the Senate would be easy; don’t be stuck without a health insurance plan in the meantime.

(Image: Official U.S. Senate Portrait)

While making the rounds of the Sunday morning talk shows, Republican Senator (and 2008 Presidential candidate) John McCain stated that he believes that some form of a public health insurance plan will be included in the healthcare reform bill. McCain is a staunch opponent of government involvement in health care, but is certain that the Democrats have enough votes to pass some form of a public option in both chambers of Congress. While it’s looked for awhile as if the House of Representatives’ bill would include that government health insurance plan, prospects for such a provision in the Senate appeared doubtful. However, other legislators shared McCain’s confidence that it would gain the 60 votes required to pass; as well as his doubts that Republicans would filibuster the health reform bill.

Still, the plan that ends up in the final bill may not be the comprehensive Canadian or European-style public program that has been receiving all the attention. It’s very likely that the public option included might be subject to a trigger. Such a trigger option would only take effect if the private market fails to perform to certain specifications, as a sort of safety net. These conditions include the failure to insure a certain percentage of states’ populations over a certain time period, or not achieving enough success in reducing costs. That type of coverage from the federal government isn’t as far reaching as what Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi desire, but is a health insurance plan that has a better change of passing both houses. McCain speculates that the triggered public option is what will probably be included in the bill, as Democrats were burned from their last attempt to pass sweeping health reform during the Clinton administration.

(Image: marcn under CC 2.0)

At several fundraising events this week, President Barack Obama has urged fellow Democrats to pressure their congresspersons to support health insurance reform and criticized opposition, whom he claimed were hoping reform would fail. The House of Representatives and the Senate have both passed reform bills, although their versions differ. Committees now have to hammer out a compromise between two options: the more sweeping changes recommended by the House, and the more cautious version passed by the Senate. Obama has expressed his support of a public option in the past, which is more likely to happen under the House’s bill.

Virtually all of the Democrats in Congress have voted for health care reform, but so far only one Republican (Maine Senator Olympia Snowe) has joined them in voting yes. The Democratic National Committee has asked supporters to make 100,000 calls to Congress in an attempt to seek more Republican votes. However, the prospect seems unlikely. Regardless, the Democrats currently have enough votes in both chambers of Congress to pass a bill. The future of health insurance may be decided several weeks from now, when a final bill is expected to be presented.

On August 11th, John Stewart on The Daily show pointed out something very important, that in reality both Democrats and Republicans have no idea whats going in with Healthcare Reform. Republicans are focused on bashing Obama and any attempt to change anything. Democrats are confused and too lazy to read through the thousand pages of tedious and boring Health Insurance Reform documents. This is why this has been such a lengthy deliberation on the subject!

We really need to get it togther. The country is going to tear itself apart at this rate. Things need to be made simpler so the general public as well as congressmen can understand it. There is too much opportunity for abuse and for strange or little known policies to be slipped in! Reminds me of what its like to buy a house, eventually you don’t even care about fighting all the fees they stick you with. I think the American people want to get this topic over with!