Today we continue our series on presidential do-overs. And the health care issue provides a perfect opportunity to do something that the American people want to see from their president: they want him to confront his own party.

As we’ve discussed on this blog before, great presidents always take on their own party. This shows the rest of the country that they are more than presidents, they are leaders. After all, anyone can confront an enemy, But confronting a friend is harder. Yet health care gives the president the chance to do just that.

So instead of outsourcing health care to Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, he can work with Democrats and Republicans and create a plan that takes some simple steps that will work: like giving individuals tax credits to purchase their own insurance, or reducing (rather than increasing) the number of regulations on health plans. These two steps would help contain health care costs. So if the president is really serious about “bending the cost curve” he can start by bending the ears of his own party.

Today we continue our series on do-overs. What should President Obama do over from last year’s health care debacle?

This time he should try and include Republican ideas. And the early indications are that he is especially interested in one: medical malpractice. http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/02/09/obama.health.care/

That’s a good place to start. How can we reduce the cost of health care when doctors and insurance companies are getting sued frivolously? Lawsuits only help lawyers. Meanwhile, the rest of us get stuck with the bill. Last year, Obama didn’t seem interested in medical malpractice. This year, he seems open to it. That’s a good do-over.

Today we continue our series on what Obama should do over as he now tries to fix the health care mess.

For starters, he should drop any hint of a government-run health option. I know that this is no longer in the Democratic bill, but it is still in the minds of Democratic legislators. Many of them would love to revive the idea of a government-run plan. But the president should reject this. He spent a great deal of time in 2009 trying to convince people that the same folks that run the post office would do a good job running health care. They can’t and they won’t. Government bureaucrats don’t know better than you and your doctor.

So let’s start this new round of discussions on health care by completely abandoning any talk of a government-run plan.

Last week we ended our series on what Obama should do next. This week we begin a new series on what Obama should go back and re-do. By all accounts, his first year in office created a lot of controversy. How can he fix that?

We’ll start by focusing on a key issue where we know the president has stated he is going to try and move forward: health care. Okay, fine. But what should health care reform look like? We know what it shouldn’t look like: the bill House and Senate Democrats produced last year. It’s time to start over. So this week, I’ll be giving the president some helpful hints about what should and shouldn’t be a part of health care reform.

Check back in each day for more information!

Today we begin our series on what Obama should do next. And this is a great time to discuss this since he’s delivering his State of the Union Address this week. What should he say?

He should say that he had the best of intentions in his first year, but that he overreached. He should say that he wants to work with Republicans to find bipartisan ways to solve problems.

Take health care, for example. Everyone agrees that the current health care system is unsustainable. Health care costs go up 10% every year. That can’t continue. But instead of pushing for more mandates on health insurers (which they will pass on to the consumer in higher premiums) why not borrow a Republican idea and offer tax incentives for individuals and families to purchase their own health insurance with pre-tax dollars the way corporations can do?

This would be a great way for Obama to still get what he wants (health care reform) but change direction and show the country that he heard the message in Massachusetts and wants to work with people on both sides of the aisle.

“>

“>

Here is something else to expect in 2010: higher health care premiums.

One of the rules of Washington is the law of unintended consequences. By passing more mandates on private insurers, the federal government has guaranteed the cost of health care will go up. Why? Because health insurance companies will pass on the costs to consumers.

So the great irony about Obama “bending the cost curve” is that he has bent it…only it’s going to go up, not down.

Happy New Year! Last year was a banner year for our website and blog. But we have even more in store for 2010.

This week we are kicking off our 2010 blog with a series of postings about “What to Expect in 2010.” It will cover everything from politics to business. So check in each day this week.

And have a great 2010!

So it looks like President Obama will get his health care bill passed.  But at what cost?

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/12/21/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry6006838.shtml?tag=contentMain;contentBody

So much for change we can believe in.  This is old-style bribery.  A key senator in Nebraska got the federal government to start paying for his state’s share of Medicaid costs.  A senator in Louisiana got a similar pledge.  And a senator in Florida got special protections for seniors in his state who are enrolled in Medicare Advantage plans.

This is how health care reform was passed?  Not by writing a good bill but by running up a bill that the taxpayers will have to pay for?

Remember when the Obama stimulus was going to turn the economy around?  These days, the White House doesn’t even pretend to believe that anymore:

http://www.politico.com/politico44/perm/1209/stimulus_big_enough_d73b7ad9-b743-4181-92fa-bfb2bcadbe6f.html

As the article notes, the White House now sheepishly says that “we got what we could get” with the stimulus package and that it was the “political load that could be carried.”

What?  So we passed a $787 billion spending bill not because it would work but because it was politically feasible?  No wonder the stimulus hasn’t worked.  It wasn’t designed to work.  Instead it was designed to show the government busy doing something.  But as a great writer once put it, there is a difference between motion and action.  The Obama White House has given us lots of motion and little action.

But here’s the sad part: the White House is talking about doing even more to “stimulate” the economy.  I say “no thanks” to that.  Let’s let entrepeneurs and business leaders lead this economy.  We don’t need anymore of Washington’s “political load.”

Remember when the Obama stimulus was going to turn the economy around?  These days, the White House doesn’t even pretend to believe that anymore:

http://www.politico.com/politico44/perm/1209/stimulus_big_enough_d73b7ad9-b743-4181-92fa-bfb2bcadbe6f.html

As the article notes, the White House now sheepishly says that “we got what we could get” with the stimulus package and that it was the “political load that could be carried.”

What?  So we passed a $787 billion spending bill not because it would work but because it was politically feasible?  No wonder the stimulus hasn’t worked.  It wasn’t designed to work.  Instead it was designed to show the government busy doing something.  But as a great writer once put it, there is a difference between motion and action.  The Obama White House has given us lots of motion and little action.

But here’s the sad part: the White House is talking about doing even more to “stimulate” the economy.  I say “no thanks” to that.  Let’s let entrepeneurs and business leaders lead this economy.  We don’t need anymore of Washington’s “political load.”

Remember the story about the couple of who attended a State Dinner at the White House without an invitation?  Evidently, this isn’t the only example of the White House security messing up:

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20091216/D9CK7BAO0.html

So this nice couple from Georgia shows up at the White House for a tour, accidentally ends up at a meeting with the president, tells the staff they don’t belong and are told to just “go with the flow”? Incredible. As the story notes:

“So the Dardens served themselves at the buffet, and took their seats. Shortly thereafter, Barack and Michelle Obama arrived and began talking and getting photographs with guests at each table. Vice President Joe Biden and his wife, Jill, also stopped by. Darden said it was ‘quite a treat’ to meet the Obamas and the Bidens. But he remains puzzled about how he was escorted into a private breakfast – and he grew a little anxious after the Salahi episode exploded in the news. The couple’s only regret, Darden said, is that they haven’t received a copy of that picture taken with the Obamas.”

After an episode like this, why does the White House want us to believe it can manage the car industry or health care?  They can’t even manage a dinner party.

So President Obama has given up on a government-run health insurance plan.  His new idea?  Allowing people younger than 65 to buy-into Medicare:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091214/ap_on_bi_ge/us_health_care_overhaul

Come again?  At a time that the Medicare ship is sinking, political leaders in Washington are seriously considering adding more people on deck?

“It calls for jettisoning a plan for government-run insurance that Reid had initially placed in the measure. In its place would be the expansion of Medicare, alongside a system of nationwide plans to be offered by private insurers and overseen by the federal agency that supervises the health care system that members of Congress use.”

This is another great example of Washington’s cure being worse than the disease.  No other industry in America would consider adding more people to a program that is going broke.

What is Washington thinking?

Here is why you should be concerned about the government running health care: it can’t even stop carp.

In the Mississippi River, the torpedo-shaped Asian carp often leap out of the water as boats are approaching. But more serious than the danger they pose to ships is the danger they pose to other fish. They prey on other species and because they are so large pose a real threat to smaller fish. As the carp continue swimming north in the Mississippi, they could endanger the recreational fishing industry in the Great Lakes.

So here comes the government to save the day.

First, fish poison was pumped into the water to kill the carp. But it hasn’t worked. Now the government is considering separating the Great Lakes from the Mississippi water basin.

The question is: if the government can’t stop the carp, how can it run health care, or win a war or turn the economy around?

Here is why you should be concerned about the government running health care: it can’t even stop carp.

In the Mississippi River, the torpedo-shaped Asian carp often leap out of the water as boats are approaching. But more serious than the danger they pose to ships is the danger they pose to other fish. They prey on other species and because they are so large pose a real threat to smaller fish. As the carp continue swimming north in the Mississippi, they could endanger the recreational fishing industry in the Great Lakes.

So here comes the government to save the day.

First, fish poison was pumped into the water to kill the carp. But it hasn’t worked. Now the government is considering separating the Great Lakes from the Mississippi water basin.

The question is: if the government can’t stop the carp, how can it run health care, or win a war or turn the economy around?

Today we conclude our series on health care with a look at some ideas that Congress isn’t considering–the health care ideas that would work.

First, to reform health care, Congress could supersede the state laws that mandate that hundreds of medical procedures be covered by insurance plans. I don’t need acupuncture in my plan. But many states require this and other procedures be covered. As a result, the insurance companies pass the cost onto us. Let’s have Congress pass a law that says you can get a basic benefits plan without all the extras. That would save lots of money.

Second, Congress should allow plans to compete across state lines. Right now, a plan in Texas can’t compete with a plan in California. But when the market is allowed to work and plans are forced to compete with each other for customers in different states, they have to be competitive on price.

Third, we need to move the health tax benefit from the company to the employee. Right now, if you get health insurance through a big company, that company can buy the insurance with pre-tax dollars. But if you buy the insurance yourself as an individual, you pay with after-tax dollars. This creates an unfair advantage for corporations and an unfair burden for individuals and families.

If Congress would enact these three stops, health care costs would come down. Unfortunately, Congress is not considering these three steps. And I fear health care costs are going to go up.

Here is all you need to know about the Democrats’ health care plan:

Earlier this year, a group of House Republicans tried to pass an amendment that would make anyone who voted for the government-run health insurance option have to sign up for the government-run health insurance option. The idea was to make Democrats practice what they preach.

Not surprisingly, the Democrats wanted no part of that.

But if a government-run health care plan is such a good idea, then why don’t Democrats want to try it out for themselves?

Actually, we already have a government-run health care plan and we know how well it works. It’s called Medicare and it’s going broke in about seven years.

Sounds like government-run health care is a bad prescription.

Mark Warner is not a typical Democratic senator. He’s a smart businessman who made millions of dollars in the high tech industry before entering politics. He knows how to build and market a product. And what does he say about the Obama administration’s health care plan? He thinks it wasn’t packaged very well:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/10/warner-obama-misplayed-health-care-debate/

As Warner puts it:

“I wish the president would have started the debate by explaining to the American people that our current health care system is not financially sustainable, for even another decade. Driving down health care costs should have been the focus of the debate.”

Warner is right. So the question is: why didn’t the administration focus the issue this way? Why has the president spent so much time trying to create a government-run option?

The reason is because the president decided to pursue an ideological version of health care reform that empowered Washington bureaucrats by building a whole new federal government program for health care. Not only is that not needed, it won’t work. And it’s the wrong focus.

I only wish there were more Mark Warners in the Democratic Party.

There has been a lot of talk about what the House Democrats’ health care bill does.

It creates a government-run health insurance option.

It raises taxes on wealthy Americans.

It requires all Americans to purchase health insurance.

And prohibits insurance companies from denying coverage because of pre-existing conditions.

But here’s something it doesn’t do: it doesn’t factor in the rising cost of health care. When you hear that the House bill will cost $1.2 trillion, remember that this number does not include health care inflation. And we all know that health care has gone up about 10% a year for many years now. So the real cost of the House bill is likely to be closer to $3 trillion.

So the House Democrats bill does a lot of bad things; but it also doesn’t do the one good thing it was supposed to do: control costs. Of course, only the market can control costs. But the House Democrats weren’t interested in that.