I have gone back and forth and tried to find something of value in the current iteration Senate proposal, the Baucus plan.  The Baucus plan seems to be favored by the Obama administration.  It seems that from the various spokesmen of the administration, the Baucus plan, and not the House plan is favored.  

The administration along with leading Democrats have admonished us naysayers, those who insist on a public option,  with the facile phrase:  "Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good".   So, I spent last week thinking what can be redeeming from the Baucus proposal?  Can we use it as a way to start with Healthcare reform and then change it?

The details of the proposal are boggling.  Bascially, the logic is like this:

1.  We will all be required to have health insurance coverage.  

2.  There are machinations  that will help us with subsidies, to pay  for that insurance.     The machinations in my estimation are complex and will require a great deal of money to implement.  Not to mention the confusion that will ensue.  Basically, no one will pay more than 13% of their income.  

The flaws in the subsidy structre are mind boggling, take for example basing the  subsidy on National income levels instead of regional as is done in other Federal programs.  For example, a family of four making say $70,000 will be eligible for the subsidies.  But, $70,000 in say Louisiana is a great deal more money than $70,000 in New York or California.  For all the bellyaching of our Southern Blue Dogs, they certainly will make out like bandits.  Way more subsidies.  But, I digress into policy nerd world.

3.  Right now it costs a family of four $13,375 to have insurance coverage according to the Kaiser Family Foundation:

If premiums continue to rise as quickly as they have over the last five years, the average annual cost of a family policy will exceed $24,000 in 10 years, up from $13,375 now, according to the nonprofit Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation and the Health Research & Educational Trust. 

The provision has no meaningful controls of insurance costs.  Also, some simple things, like private insurers will not have to take on people with pre-existing conditions till 2013, in the meantime, the Feds will pick up the cost.  What this basically means, is that again, we socialize risk and privatize profit.  

After spending a week of wanting to be a good citizen and support our President, I have to say, HELL NO!! 

This morning in the LA Times, just a few paragraphs galvanized my thoughts, you must read the article.  

"If the government is going to require people to buy an insurance policy, they have to guarantee it is affordable," said Jamie Court, president of Consumer Watchdog. "It is unconscionable not to."

And the following form Garamandi, the California Insurance Commisioner:

"We are about to force at least 30 million people into an insurance market where the sharks are circling," said California Lt. Gov. John Garamendi, a Democrat who served as the state's insurance commissioner for eight years. "Without effective protections, they will be eaten alive."

Once they start eating us, once they start gorging themselves on our carcasses, there will be no opportunity for changing the law.  Once they get embedded with their teeth into the American body, we will have no chance to change. it.  

The one and only reason private health insurance models work in Germany, Switzerland and other nations are : 

1.  Limiting the profit of the insurance companies, like in Switzerland to 15%, or making insurers non profit, like in Germany. 

2.  Cost controls of medical procedures.  

Employed Germans pay about 13% to 14% of their income towards insurance, but they have an understanding that costs are regulated and will not continually go up and that their nation controls the insurers.  

I am for universal affordable healthcare.  What we have in the current proposal, is mandatory insurance coverage, without any of the protections for the consumer. 

Nancy Pelosi right now is standing up for a public option.  The Obama administration, although they want our support, is playing a cat and mouse political expediency game that is making me really doubt their commitment to affordable universal healtchare.  

This final gem from the insurance company representative: 

"You can't restrain premiums unless you restrain medical costs," said Karen Ignagni, president of America's Health Insurance Plans, on the industry's view of the problem. "So far, members of Congress have been allergic to that."

Of course they are allergic, when I read that Baucus took in about $3 million from the healtchare industry as chair of the Senate finance committee in donations, what chance do we have?  

His plan coddles insurance companies and through public subsidies delivers to them the profits they are lusting after. 

Only Nancy Pelosi has stood firm on the Public Option.  The Public Option will also result in cost savings to the Federal Government by offering a direct lower cost health insurance option. 

Anyway, if Baucus included all these ways that the Feds pick up all the risk till about 2013, why the hell do we need them?  We will have to capitalize all the non profit coops and by the time they get into play, it will be at least 2014. 

Right now, I am with Nancy.   Mr. President, to get my support, you have to risk something and take a stance.  If a version of the Baucus bill passes, we are doomed.  

Please, don't come here telling me how I need to be a team player, tell it to the Senate and our President, they forgot the team that brought them into power.