In a sign that he may adopt a comprehensive approach to solving the health care crisis, President-elect Barack Obama has chosen former Sen. Tom Daschle (D-SD) to head the Department of Health and Human Services.

Ezra Klein points out, “you don’t tap the former Senate Majority Leader to run your health care bureaucracy. That’s not his skill set. You tap him to get your health care plan through Congress.” Earlier this year, during an address at the Families USA Action Conference, Daschle concurred with the need to ‘think big’ on reform:

Incremental change in our system is no longer a viable option. Instead we need comprehensive reform. In growing numbers the American people are demanding that we do something. Our goal should be to build what current and retired members of Congress have today, and make that available for all Americans.

Daschle is a Senior Distinguished Fellow at the Center for American Progress and is the author of Critical: What We Can Do About the American Health-Care Crisis.

The book lays out Daschle’s vision of achieving reforms through a framework shared responsibility, in which “every player in the health-care arena — the government, employers, doctors and hospitals, insurers, and individuals — should help support a rational, sustainable system.” Some of Daschle’s proposals:

- Expand the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program (FEHBP), or create a group purchasing pool like it: Participants could choose their own provider and would have the security of knowing they could never lose their coverage. Employers could let their employees get coverage through a FEHBP plan only if they enrolled all of their workers, not just ones with health problems. The FEHP pool would also include a government-run insurance program modeled after Medicare and would have tremendous clout to bargain for the lowest prices from providers and push them to improve quality of care.

- Subsidize coverage for those who need it: The government would provide financial help on a sliding scale so nobody has to pay more than a certain percentage of their income for health insurance. Administered as a refundable tax credit, this protection would apply to employer-based health insurance as well as private insurance obtained through the pool.

- Strengthen Medicaid: Simplify and extend Medicaid to cover everyone below a certain income level. The federal government should pick up the tab for this expansion, and ensure that states don’t’ cut off people when the budget gets tight.

- Concentrate on the value of care: Strive to get more for our health care money by promoting research that compares drugs and treatments to determine which ones deliver the best bang for the buck. Daschle also proposes promoting prevention that would reduce the number of chronic conditions.

- Improve health care infrastructure Adopt health information technology to lower expenses and allows rural residents to connect electronically with medical providers. Increase the number of community health cetners and government-funded clinics that provide basic care for the poor and uninsured.

Aside from supporting the basic principles of progressive reform, however, Daschle also proposes a Federal Health Board that “would resemble our current Federal Reserve Board for the banking industry.”

The Board would ensure harmonization across public programs of “health-care protocols, benefits, and transparency” and would set “evidence-based standards for benefits and quality for federal programs” in the hopes of lowering the complexity of different insurance regulations and ultimately lowering costs. “These standards would apply to federal health programs and contractors and serve as a model for private insurers,” Daschle writes.

Cross-posted at ThinkProgress.

Fresh from campaigning for Sen. John McCain’s health care proposal, self-appointed conservative health care spokesperson Rep. Michael Burgess (R-TX) is making straw-man arguments against progressive health care proposals.

After reading Burgess’ editorial in today’s Washington Times, for instance, one would falsely conclude that comprehensive reform efforts would force patients into government-run programs that ration care and limit coverage:

The idea of government-run health care sounds appealing to many Americans. Really what that means is limiting freedom – the freedom to choose a doctor, to take your health care with you when you switch jobs, to make personal medical decisions…As a Republican and a physician, it is critical for us to offer a clear and credible alternative to a one-size-fits-all system that puts bureaucrats in charge of health care decision-making.

Burgess has either ignored most comprehensive health reform legislation or misunderstood it, because nothing could be further from the truth. Consider Sen. Max Baucus’s (D-MT) proposal: the patient has the choice of staying with employer-based coverage or buying comprehensive insurance from a new Health Insurance Exchange.

The Exchange offers more options, not less. Individuals and small businesses will be able to “compare private coverage options and a public plan and to purchase the policy that would work best for them.” Plans purchased through the Exchange would be portable, allowing Americans to, as Burgess requires, “take your health care with you when you switch jobs.”

Over at Health Care Policy and Marketplace Review, Bob Laszewski argues that Barack Obama should hold-off on comprehensive health care reform until Congress reaches some broader consensus and more money is available:

I would argue that if Democrats do go for the whole deal they are likely to run into a political buzz saw and possibly squander the ability to do a more modest bipartisan list of health reform accomplishments that could be the first important steps in a longer-term strategy.

But Laszewki’s argument that a comprehensive reform bill will be too long and divisive can apply to any major piece of legislation. Congress had a difficult time garnering support for the financial industry bail out, but pressed against conservative opposition to adopt what was largely seen as a necessary measure.

Given the burden of growing health care costs on businesses and individuals, health care reform is no less important. In fact, a new report from the New America Foundation underlines the consequences of inaction:

- $207.3 billion: amount our economy lost because of the poor health and shorter lifespan of the uninsured.

- $24,000: the cost of the average employer-sponsored health insurance plan in 2016.

- 73: percentage of increase in the average deductible nationwide by 2016.

Moving health care reform to the back-burner will only exacerbate the current economic downturn. As Ezekiel Emanuel points out, “health care costs are the long-term driving force in federal and state budgets. To control the deficit and keep the country solvent, health care must be solved…The new administration must remember that health care is so big — $1 out of every $6 in the economy, dwarfing automobiles and all other economic segments. Everything is affected by health policy, and every decision should be examined for its impact on health care reform.”

But first reform must happen and the in-coming administration won an electoral mandate to transform the health care system.

Sign the petition for affordable health reform NOW, here.