Hill will propose universal healthcare

Clark County

Related Photos

Rep. Baron Hill

Discussion

April 7, 2007

By DAVID MANN The News and Tribune Sat Apr 07, 2007, 08:22 PM EDT

Universal health care has been a staple of U.S. political debate since at least the Truman administration. And it could be moving back to the national stage before the end of the year, with Indiana Rep. Baron Hill, D-Ind., at the helm.

In an interview Friday, Hill said he’s only a few months away from proposing an amendment that would put health care among constitutional rights — right alongside free speech or freedom of religion.

Hill’s plan isn’t exactly the kind of universal health care that liberal Democrats such as Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich have introduced in recent months, which would provide free coverage to everyone in the country. But it is a step in that direction.

Hill’s legislation — for now known as the Right to Care Act — would establish health care as a right by amending the constitution, but it does not provide any kind of direction as to how people should be covered.

He plans to file companion legislation establishing a health care commission to decide that. The commission would investigate various means of providing universal health care — both through private business and public administration — and make a recommendation to Congress.

Such an amendment ties back to the campaign in two ways: For one, Hill said then — when gay marriage was the debate — that he didn’t want to amend the constitution. Secondly, one of his major talking points was that health care should not be considered a privilege but a right.

Asked about those two things Friday, the congressman said that a constitutional amendment is necessary in this case, because of the amount of special interest involvement. Any time health care is debated in this country, special interest groups get overly involved in the debate, he said.

He points to former First Lady Hillary Clinton’s 1993 health care proposal as an example of that. The pharmaceutical companies have too much of a vested interest in maintaining the status quo, he said. An amendment would force the country to act on the issue because it couldn’t just be ignored.

As to whether or not such an amendment could pass is a different question altogether. Tom Wolf, emeritus professor of political science at IU Southeast, admits that he is a supporter of Hill, but has his doubts about the amendment.

The chance of such legislation passing is remote, Wolf said. This debate goes back more than a half century. And it hasn’t been acted on for two reasons, Wolf said. First, it’s “socialism” — which is a poisoned word that people fear. And second, because there is a question of who would pay for it.

If health care was established as a right for all Americans, the employers would be required to foot the bill. Therefore, all the pro-business lobbyists are going to come out against it, Wolf said. If the government were to pay for it, business might support it because it would take the burden off of them.

Hill said he’s not necessarily opposed to either idea. He’d like to see some sort of private for-profit solution to be proposed.

That would at least salvage the system the U.S. has in place now. But a universal single-payer program would not be out of the question if private business can’t come up with something creditable, he said. Leaving it open ended gives everyone a chance to come to the table.

The commission part of the equation is still being drafted. The constitutional amendment has already been written, Hill said. About 12 other members of Congress have given Hill some kind of commitment of support.

He’d like to get that number up to around 50 people before introducing it to Congress as a whole. That would likely be around June, he said.