Health care reform: A good bill is better than none

By Money Matters Editors

Health care reform update: Former President Bill Clinton, D-Arkansas, hit the nail on the head  Thursday when he evaluated whether Democrats should or should not vote for a health care reform bill that does not contain a public option.

Clinton urged Democrats and others to vote for the bill: “Does this bill read exactly how I would write it? No. Does it contain everything everyone wants? Of course not," Clinton told the Agence France-Presse. “But America can't afford to let the perfect be the enemy of the good.”

As presently crafted, among other features, the bill offers subsidies for those who cannot afford to buy insurance at market rates but who do not qualify for Medicaid. The subsidized citizens would then enter “health insurance exchanges” where they presumably would get multiple bids from private insurers, encouraging competition. There would not be a public option. Liberal Democrats have called the exchanges inadequate without a public option, arguing there won’t be enough competition to lower premiums.

The bill also reduces Medicare funding by shifting to an outcomes-based approach, from a ‘testing’ approach, in which doctors are paid based on how many tests they order. Medicaid would also be expanded to cover more poor citizens who cannot afford any private sector premium.

In sum, the bill will eventually insure many more Americans than the current untenable system, which is a step forward, and that’s why Money Matters Editors supports its passage. It’s not as good as a bill with a public option, but the current bill does represent progress: it gets the nation closer to universal health care.