I don't think Max Baucus gets it. That is honestly and truly the only conclusion that I can come to at this point. There seems to be a disconnect between him (as well as his moderate Senate Colleagues), and the people of the United States who need this reform to work because, quite frankly, their lives depend on it. That is the issue that I take with the Baucus' bill that was proposed yesterday. It seems to downplay the urgency of this situation, and believes that if we implement a piecemeal system of reform it will somehow fix a systemic problem that has plagued us for decades.

Sorry Senator, it's just not going to happen that way.

While there is a lot to like in the bill - A mandate that all people have health care by 2013, expansion of medicaid to 133% of the Federal poverty line, restrictions on insurance company plans, and State based health care exchanges - it still focuses on government subsidy as opposed to government competition. The result is that the bill will not do enough to drive down prices, and instead will put the federal government on the hook for increased spending requirements as health care premiums continue to rise (albeit at a slightly slower rate).

That is the true flaw of this bill. By placing all of our hope in the free market, and simply requiring that the government subsidize those who can't afford to pay market value, we are not guaranteeing the price controls that need to be put in place. As this blog talked about yesterday, the fact that private health care has increased by 120-131% over the past 10 years is one of the must fundamental reason why this reform package is necessary. To not provide government-based competition is to ignore that problem. In essence, we'll be addressing effect as opposed to the cause. We should be addressing both and while Baucus' plan attempts to do this it falls severely short.

In addition, the $6 billion in Federal funding for a National non-profit co-op system is thoroughly insufficient. This will not do nearly enough to make health care affordable for all Americans, and while it will create some form of competition the Congressional Budget office has estimated that such a system could insure a maximum of 12 million people. The House bill that utilizes a public option would insure 30 million. Looking at that basic math it is difficult to believe that a co-op system can be as effective, or create the desired result of this reform.

We can do better than this. We have to do better than this.

-- Newell for Congress Campaign