Senate Committee Passes Baucus Bill

The Senate Finance Committee today passed a "health care" reform bill, commonly referred to as the Baucus Bill, along straight party-line votes. (Yes, I know that Olympia Snowe voted for the bill, but as she is only nominally a Republican, my comment stands correct as far as I'm concerned.)

I haven't said much about this bill so far. This is mainly because it's hard to comment on a bill that isn't technically written yet, even after it has been voted on. Who knows what will be in the bill when a paper version of it finally shows up? From what little concrete information I have heard about it, it sounds like a pot pourri bill -- let's throw a little bit of everything into a pot and stir it up and see what we get! Unfortunately, since most of what was thrown in the pot was old, worn out, rancid, decaying, or just plain rotten, what they got was something that just smells bad. I've also refrained from paying much attention to this bill as I realize it is simply a starting point for debate, and that the final bill that will ooze out of the Senate to the House-Senate Conference Committee will likely bear little resemblance to the Baucus Bill but will rather be quite like the odious monster that is H.R. 3200.

National Review Online has two good articles currently regarding the current debate.

The first is entitled Obamacare Dissected: Ten things that probably will be in the health-care bill (but shouldn’t), written by Stephen Spruiell. It discusses ten of the more major flaws in the proposals currently being debated (all collectively being referred to as Obamacare, as a convenient shorthand). I'm sure that Mr. Spruiell could write a sequel tomorrow with ten more problems that would be just as critical.

The second is called Real Health-Care Reform: Ten things that ought to be in the health-care bill (but probably won’t), written by Kevin Williamson. Mr. Williamson takes the opposite tack, listing those things we need in a "health care" reform bill but which the Left won't allow or even consider. The first few paragraphs of this article constitute one of the best and easiest-to-understand arguments for why a free-market approach to "health care" reform would be superior that I have ever seen. Wish I'd written it! I do, however, have to laugh when in point# 7 he mentions "the AMA's cartel status" (a cartel that only controls 17% of the market ain't much of a cartel) and "an AMA-certified physician" -- where did this idea that the AMA certifies anything come from? For God's sake, the AMA is a professional association -- it's more like a fancy club than anything else. It has no regulatory authority, and never has had any. And regarding his point #9, Texas Congressman Louie Gohmert has already introduced legislation to try to get this to happen, though that bill won't go anywhere in the current Congress.

Both of these articles are must-reads. So go read them now.

While your there, read this article as well. It has nothing to do with health care, but everything to do with where we are as a country right now, and exactly in how much of the wrong direction we are heading.