Off Hours: Talking health care reform

When the weather turned warm last week, I got a call from a riding pal who was putting together a short road trip.
A handful of us took the day off and broke out the motorcycles for a leisurely weekday ride through San Benito County, down to Coalinga and Avenal and back up the coast route.
From the outset, two of the guys continued their ongoing, heated conversation about legislation to reform health care at every rest and beverage stop along the way. They were on diametrically opposite ends of the issue and spouted all of the hot-button charges surrounding it. After a while, the rest of us would cluster separately and just watch the show.
There was the predictable argument of “government bureaucracy” and the ensuing reminder of the cluster-mess that exists under the present insurance system. To the charge of “socialism,” the response was a question about whether the government has an obligation to care for the health of its citizens. After stating concerns about being allowed to pick your own doctor, one was forced to admit that it wasn’t his own doctor that had performed the operation on his shoulder or delivered any of his three kids. The claim of needing more time to work out the “right” bill was met with a reminder that the same had been said to block the efforts of Bill and Hillary Clinton 12 years ago, and little thought had been invested by legislators since then.
It was both entertaining and enlightening.
I was struck by how my buddy in opposition to the reforms was familiar with all of the buzz phrases but hardly any of the actual reforms being proposed. By the time we got home that night, those two hadn’t changed their positions — but I think some of the rest of us had.
Ultimately, though, the bill that came out of the Senate Finance Committee last week was so watered down and gutted that both its chance of success and its impact if passed are questionable. Senators have offered 564 amendments to the bill, some of which reveal party differences that seem irreconcilable.
Virtually all of the Republican changes tilt the bill in favor of insurance companies and the status quo. Republican Sen. John Ensign of Nevada, for example, wants to delete the word “fee” everywhere it appears in the bill and replace it with the word “tax,” an attempt to stimulate public opposition by framing the bill as a huge tax increase.
The amendment of Republican Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa would do away with a core component of the bill — the requirement that virtually all Americans be covered by health insurance via either a private or a government-offered plan.
Democrats have an array of amendments that would make similarly radical changes. Several are pushing to expand the bill, which would be paid for by limiting the tax deductions for Americans in the highest income brackets to the same percentage imposed on the rest of us — an idea so strongly opposed by Republicans that it could consolidate their opposition enough to completely block the bill’s passage.
And there will be all sorts of wrangling over the proposed new fees for the most expensive insurance plans, the so-called Cadillac coverage — like the coverage offered to members of Congress.
Our elected officials claim to represent us, but I’ve not been consulted, have you?
On the contrary, their positions seem to have been solidified already by input (read: cash) from lobbyists and vested interests. Nevertheless, if you feel strongly about the issue, this would be the time to weigh in.
I’m thinking that watching Congress debate and posture in the coming weeks will be every bit as good a show as that put on by my friends on the road trip last week.
• Steve Bailey of Boulder Creek has spent plenty of time in recreational activities. Contact him at [email protected].