Given the obscene increases in health premiums over the past weeks, someone had to intervene on behalf of policy holders. Come right down to it, the annual increases over the past decade have been beyond obscene as have the increases in the cost of prescription drugs. No wonder the administration proposes some kind of regulation.
The legislation would create a rate board, called the Health Insurance Rate Authority, which would broadly determine what increases are reasonable and justifiable. The seven-member board would have consumer, industry and medical representatives, as well as experts in health economics.
A top official said [HHS Secretary Kathleen] Sebelius would conduct an annual review of premium increases, and could work with state insurance officials to deny increases that were seen as excessive.
The Republicans don't like it. They've issued a series of nonsensical admonitions via staffies.
"At first glance, this seems to be an admission from the Obama administration that their massive government takeover of health care will, despite their promises, increase health care premiums for millions of Americans," said Kevin Smith, a spokesman for House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio).
But they need to be careful with their criticisms, the Washington Post reports. They don't want to be seen as "siding with big insurance companies that are imposing drastic rate hikes on Main Street Americans."
Plus, Congressional Republicans are getting increasingly unpopular even as they gear up for what the Post's Chris Cillizza calls the health care "showdown." He points to the latest CNN poll finding that 86% of Americans believe the system is broken.
The Economist has a more conservative, more optimistic, view of Washington. Our federal government wasn't designed to act quickly. Most governance was intended to come from the states. And Congress is doing just fine. Etc., etc.
To begin with, the critics exaggerate their case. It is simply not true to say that nothing can get through Congress. Look at the current financial crisis. The huge TARP bill, which set up a fund to save America’s banks, passed, even though it came at the end of George Bush’s presidency. The stimulus bill, a $787 billion two-year package, made it through within a month of Mr Obama taking office. The Democrats have also passed a long list of lesser bills, from investments in green technology to making it easier for women to sue for sex discrimination.
That may sound nice, but it doesn't take into account what happens when one party is determined to prevent passage of any legislation they didn't initiate, that they can't take credit for. Ego and anger are playing far greater roles in Washington than belief in "states' rights" and the cooling saucer of the Senate.
Peter Beinart's piece for Time on polarization in the country and Washington seems more realistic. He takes into account the (deliberate) polarization in news reporting and advocates for more responsible media.
In today's highly segmented, partisan news environment, it's hard to create big new media institutions dedicated to objective news reporting. But it might be possible to create new talk shows and blogs in which liberals and conservatives interrogate one another's views — programs like the early (and more substantive) incarnation of CNN's Crossfire or William F. Buckley's Firing Line. There's no guarantee that the conversation would be edifying, of course. But it would be a useful antidote to the current cable and blog ghettos, where you can go years without hearing the other side make its case. The recent televised meeting between Obama and the House Republican leadership was a reminder that honest but civil debate can show people that their side isn't infallible and that not everyone on the other side is evil and foolish.
