[What follows is an editorial post I wrote for the Courier-Post Community Editorial Board]
As the House prepares to vote on the Senate version of health care reform (and the Senate prepares for the arduous reconciliation process to follow) I am left thinking how much of a Catch-22 this bill is politically and policy-wise–both for politicians and for individuals who want to see reform take place.
On the one hand, few would argue that our current health care system is not in need of reform, particularly when it comes to access and cost. Polls strongly reflect this across the ideological spectrum. However, while the current bill will seek to cover millions of Americans that, for whatever reason, do not have access to health care (as well as ensure that in the future citizens cannot be denied coverage due to pre-existing conditions) it remains to be seen if this is the most effective way to guarantee such coverage. However, in order to achieve this the bill leverages a number of provisions that are both controversial politically and not guaranteed to be effective in practice.
For example, let’s take a look at pre-existing conditions. Continue reading