Area opinions mixed on Senate health care bill [The Joplin Globe, Mo.]

Dec. 25--Local health care officials and area U.S. senators and party officials offered mixed reviews of the health care reform bill passed Thursday by the U.S. Senate.

"This was a golden opportunity for a bipartisan discussion on public health policy, and I don't think that happened," said Gary Duncan, president and chief executive officer of Freeman Health System. "And that's a shame."

Another perspective comes from Dr. John M. Cox, a Freeman cardiologist.

"This is a good step in the right direction," Cox said.

Moral issue

Cox said he considers health care reform a moral issue. He made his comments Wednesday, anticipating Senate passage on Thursday.

"I have for a long time felt that we needed reform of the health insurance industry," Cox said. "It has gotten by with far too many abuses."

Cox said many of his patients who have jobs and health insurance cry foul when they realize their coverage is inadequate to cover costs.

He said the bill has the backing of the American Medical Association.

"The provisions in this bill will accomplish many of the goals we need for reform," Cox said. He said those include that no one can be refused insurance because of a pre-existing condition.

"Exactly how the uninsured will be taken care of is still a work in progress," Cox said. "If all we do is throw money at the insurance companies, it's not something I will be in favor of."

Cox said opponents of President Barack Obama have seen health care reform as an opportunity to try to give the president a "black eye."

"There has been far too much in the way of misinformation and inflammatory statements for political gain," Cox said.

Squandered opportunity

Duncan has a different opinion.

"I think we've missed the mark on establishing a new health care policy," he said. "We've nibbled around the edges."

He said a positive aspect is that the legislation would allow for the uninsured to get insurance through so-called insurance exchanges in states or regions.

Duncan said the bill would place many more people on Medicaid, and he said Missouri doesn't have the money to pay for it. Medicaid also pays hospitals and doctors below their costs.

He said he doesn't think the bill would do anything to rein in insurance costs. He said that if everyone must be covered, insurance companies can't rate their risk.

"It's a whole list of insurance regulations that are bound to drive the cost of insurance," Duncan said. "It's going to result in a significant rise in premiums."

The House bill includes a so-called public option, or government plan, while the Senate bill doesn't.

"I don't have a strong opinion on that as long as there is a reasonable mechanism by which the uninsured can get insurance," Cox said. "As it stands now, the insurance companies have a virtual monopoly."

Said Duncan: "From a provider standpoint, a public option would get everyone insured. The question is: How would it be financed?"

He said that question hasn't been answered, which is why he thinks the Senate and the general public don't support a public option.

Duncan said blame for the situation rests with both political parties and the polarized political landscape.

"They squandered an opportunity, both of them," Duncan said.

Scott Watson, vice president for government affairs at St. John's Regional Medical Center, said in an e-mailed statement to the Globe that he is waiting to see what emerges from the conference committee.

"At that point, we will have a clearer picture of how the legislation may affect hospitals and physicians," Watson said. "It's still too early to completely know the effect this will have on health care."

Partisan differences

Local political officials had differing opinions, based on their party affiliations.

Nick Myers, chairman of the Newton County Republican Party, said that in order to get all the Democratic senators on board, the bill was changed to provide money to the states of the Democratic holdouts.

"I'm sure we'll be finding out in the weeks and months to come what the consequences of this bill are," Myers said.

Jim Hight, president of the Newton County Democratic Club and treasurer of the county party's central committee, said he favors the House bill over the Senate bill because the House bill includes the public option.

"I'm hoping in the conference committee they'll be able to make it a lot better" and include the public option, Hight said.

Hight also said the Senate bill seems like a giveaway to the big insurance companies.

He said the bill must be good, however, because there is so much Republican opposition.

U.S. Sen. Christopher "Kit" Bond, R-Mo., said in a statement that Missouri taxpayers shouldn't have to subsidize the purchase of Senate votes.

"Missourians deserve a real plan that lowers costs and improves the quality of health care, and the Democrats' government-run plan fails to achieve those goals," Bond said in the statement.

U.S. Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., said in a statement that the bill isn't perfect, but it achieves goals of stabilizing health care costs and covering the uninsured.

"Over time, it will vastly improve the current realities of health care in our country, a system where sick people are unable to get coverage and those with coverage face huge increases in cost every year while they fight their insurance companies for fair treatment," McCaskill said.

House vote

The health care reform bill in the U.S. House passed last month by a vote to 220 to 215.

To see more of The Joplin Globe or to subscribe to the newspaper, go to http://www.joplinglobe.com/.

Copyright (c) 2009, The Joplin Globe, Mo.

Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune Information Services.

For reprints, email [email protected], call 800-374-7985 or 847-635-6550, send a fax to 847-635-6968, or write to The Permissions Group Inc., 1247 Milwaukee Ave., Suite 303, Glenview, IL 60025, USA.