Health Care Reform FAQWhat we argue about when we argue about health care policy.

Democratic Sen. Max Baucus President Obama returned home from Europe this week determined to fix America's ailing health care system. Republicans just hope he didn't pick up too many ideas about European-style "socialized medicine" while he was away.

Obama says he wants the bill on his desk by Oct. 1. But between now and then, a lot has to happen. Even the most basic questions about what the bill will look like remain unanswered. The White House seems newly determined to include a "public option"—that is, a government-run health care plan that will compete with plans from private for-profit and nonprofit groups. But what about an "individual mandate" (requiring everyone to get care), or "guaranteed issue" (prohibiting companies from rejecting beneficiaries), or taxing health benefits to pay for reform? Sometimes it's hard even to follow the debate, let alone fix the problem. So here's a rundown of some of the most pressing questions looming over health care reform and a sampling of answers.

PRINTDISCUSSE-MAILRSSRECOMMEND...SINGLE PAGE

FacebookMySpace Mixx Digg Reddit del.icio.us Furl Ma.gnolia SphereStumbleUponCLOSE

Should the plan include a public option?

Yes. A government-run health-insurance program would be more affordable, portable, reliable, fair, and secure than its private-sector counterparts. Affordable because it wouldn't pay billions of dollars for advertising and unnecessary overhead. Portable because people could use it in all 50 states. Reliable because the public insurer isn't going to pull out of a region because it isn't making money—as some Medicare Plus Choice providers did in 2003. Fair because it would not deny coverage for pre-existing diseases. And secure because the government won't go bankrupt (at least not anytime soon).

Plus, a little competition is a good thing. The government plan will be better at reducing costs—through comparative effectiveness evaluation, digitizing records, and improving preventive care, for example—than profit-driven private insurers. Yes, the private sector promised just last month to make all these changes. Why believe them, when they've had decades to make such fixes? In its recent letter to Obama, the health care industry acknowledged that the reforms can't be voluntary—they need to be forced.

No. It will destroy private health insurance. Instead of competing on a level playing field, a public plan would undercut private companies by offering lower rates subsidized by Uncle Sam. Sure, the government says the public plan would compete just like any other company. But does anyone really think it would let a public option fail? It might not drive out every private plan, but the nation would probably end up with a private oligopoly alongside a public monstrosity.

The whole notion of a public option that competes on a level playing field is bunk. If the purpose of a public plan is to offer options that private insurers don't, such as coverage for pre-existing conditions or portability, why not just require that private companies change their ways instead of introducing competition? If the purpose is to goad the private insurers into reforming, that's fine—just don't pretend it's a level playing field.

How do we pay for it?

Cut costs. This sure sounds good. But it's unlikely to be enough to cover the estimated $1.5 trillion cost over the next 10 years of expanding health coverage to every American.

Tax the rich. Obama's original plan was to raise taxes on the wealthiest Americans by eliminating a series of tax deductions, particularly on charitable giving. But the dismayed response by charities and philanthropic groups, whose giving could decline about $4 billion per year as a result, has all but quashed the idea.

Tax employer health benefits. Right now, employees get all their health benefits tax-free—a policy called the employer tax exclusion. But there are problems with this setup. For one thing, it's regressive—people with jobs are generally wealthier than those without, yet they get the tax break. It also reduces transparency, since employees don't know exactly what their premiums are paying for. Not to mention, it gives employers an incentive to offer high-cost health care plans, which don't get taxed, instead of higher wages.

This proposal would cap the amount of untaxed benefits at, say, $12,000 or by income level. That would reduce or eliminate the preferential treatment described above. The best part: The feds would collect an estimated $200 billion to $300 billion a year. Over 10 years, that's potentially more than $2.5 trillion—way more than the government is going to need to pay for health care reform.

Republicans and moderate Democrats have been pushing this idea for a while. Sen. Max Baucus included it in his original white paper on health care reform. Sen. John McCain made it the centerpiece of his campaign health care plan. The downside for Obama is that he adamantly opposed this policy during the campaign. But budget director Peter Orszag has refused to take the option off the table, and economic adviser Jason Furman has supported the policy in the past. Obama himself has signaled that he would allow it—but he doesn't necessarily want to propose it.

PRINTE-MAILRECOMMEND...RSS

FacebookMySpace Mixx Digg Reddit del.icio.us Furl Ma.gnolia SphereStumbleUponCLOSE

Christopher Beam is a Slate political reporter. Follow him on Twitter.

Photo of Sen. Max Baucus by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images.

SPONSORED CONTENT

• Barack Obama's Holiday Card
  The first family reflects on its year in the White House.
  Christopher Beam | Dec. 21, 2009
• Joe Not Gonna Finish
  Why Al Franken told Joe Lieberman to stop talking.
  John Dickerson | Dec. 18, 2009
• Barack Obama's Facebook Feed
  Health care, Copenhagen, and Newsweek's Person of the Year.
  Christopher Beam | Dec. 18, 2009
• Search for more Politics articles
• Subscribe to the Politics RSS feed
• View our complete Politics archive