The long-awaited “Framework for Comprehensive Health Reform” released by Senator Baucus and the “Bipartisan Six” is marginally less prescriptive than the House Democrats’ bill (H.R. 3200). The proposal also is alleged to be moderately less expensive than H.R. 3200.

Examples of increased flexibility under the Baucus plan include: (1) a less comprehensive individual coverage mandate that includes an “affordability” exception, (1) creation of state-level co-ops instead of a government health insurance plan, (3) creation of state-level health insurance exchanges instead of a national exchange, and (4) greater permissible variation in health insurance premiums in relation to a person’s age (reducing premium subsidies from young to old).

Overall, however, the Sept. 9 Wall Street Journal lead editorial, The Perils of BaucusCare, hits the nail on the head. The proposed Baucus compromise reflects the same basic “government knows best” philosophy and therefore has substantially the same drawbacks as H.R. 3200.

Regarding financing, the Baucus outline proposes lower limits on tax exempt flexible savings account contributions and excise taxes on high cost insured and self-insured plans, which in effect would scale back the tax advantage of rich employer-sponsored plans. But, while the proposal eschews income tax surcharges on the affluent, it instead proposes annual fees beginning in 2010 of $6 billion on the “health insurance sector,” $4 billion on the “medical device manufacturing sector,” $2.3 billion on the “pharmaceutical manufacturing sector,” and $750 million on “clinical laboratories.” Moreover, it apparently threatens nonprofit hospitals with a loss of tax exempt status unless they satisfy new requirements for meeting community needs. Taxing health care services and insurers would obviously make health care and insurance less rather than more affordable. It’s pure political expediency.

It’s time to go back to the drawing board.