Health care bill doesn't add up

The health care proposals before Congress are economically unsustainable. Analysts agree on this, including, among others, the Congressional Budget Office, the Heritage Foundation, the Manhattan Institute, the National Center for Policy Analysis, and the Tax Foundation.

The proposals raise $88 billion through increased taxes on small businesses and the wealthy. But they are estimated to cause a reduction of $76 billion in economic activity.

The tax increases will grow revenues for the government option by 5 percent a year. However, the program's costs are projected to increase by 8 percent a year.

No analyst finds the mandatory public "option" sustainable. To the contrary, as this program adds to the government's deficits and debt, it will contribute to unemployment and cause consumers to pay more for less.

There are alternatives. Defensive medicine increases health care expenses by 15 to 30 percent.

Tort reform will save much of that amount while costing taxpayers nothing. The elimination of state mandates (benefits and coverage required by state legislatures) would save another 15 to 30 percent of our health care costs, also without spending tax money. Permitting risk pooling by individuals (not just employers and government) would enable insurance guarantees for those with pre-existing conditions. Health Savings Accounts have been shown to reduce premiums by as much as 50 percent.

These reforms would dramatically increase the affordability of private health insurance and access to medical care. Not only are they sustainable; they are cost free. Yet Congress refuses to consider them. In fact, for no discernible reason, Health Savings Accounts are outlawed in the current bills.

With policy options this stark and consequential, our elected representatives should think hard before ignoring practical reforms and voting for unsustainable programs. They could wind up voting themselves out of office.

Dr. David McNeil

Barrington