The WSJ reports:

“The vice president will present new White House findings that “health insurance premiums in states have gone up between 90-150% over the last decade,” according to speech excerpts released by the White House.

“This new state by state data is astounding and makes the case for nationwide reform. From Alaska — where premiums increased 145% while wages grew just 35% — to Florida, where premiums increased 121% while wages increased 43% — even, to Michigan, where the 37% gap between premiums and wages is actually the smallest — all around the country, we see these gaps widening,” Mr. Biden is expected to say.

Mr. Biden will use the appearance to press for ground rules for all insurance companies “to restore stability and security to our health-care system.” The rules, which Mr. Obama has called for frequently, would ban insurers from refusing to cover people based on gender, pre-existing conditions or dropping the policies of those who become seriously ill. The rules would also expand coverage for young people and ban insurers from charging “exorbitant” out-of-pocket deductibles or co-pays, or placing annual or lifetime caps on coverage.”

So the White House’s answer to rising insurance costs continues to be to extend coverage to more people while at the same time limiting the amount those people pay in to the system. More people, less money coming in, and this is supposed to curb our health care problems. Apparently, Americans’ insistence this summer that this formula doesn’t make sense to them hasn’t resonated with the White House, which is continuing its push for reform with the same old, broken talking points.

In the excerpt from Biden’s speech, he specifically calls out Alaska, Florida and Michigan. What if, rather than using these states as strategic pawns to push their plans for health care, the administration steps back and commits to taking a closer look at those states in an attempt to determine what is contributing to high health care premiums on the ground there?

And, how about instead of just focusing on states with high costs, it also looks at states that are faring well, with low premiums, an abundance of doctors, low liability rates for doctors and multiple insurers competing for business?

Instead, the administration thinks that singling out states with high premiums will automatically convince Americans that we need their health care reforms and we need them now.  Never mind that they are overlooking that the government and its regulations are part of the problem, so simply adding more to the mix will not be a cure-all.

Why not look at states like Texas and Missouri that had serious health care problems, with doctors in short supply, sky-high liability rates for medical professionals and a dwindling number of insurers willing to do business in the state? At one point, this was the case for both Texas and Missouri.

By passing tort reform in the way of limiting non-economic damages and venue shopping, these states were able to turn their situations around. By implementing these reforms, they lowered the number of malpractice suits thereby lowering the costs of medical malpractice insurance. This in turn, gave doctors and insurers a reason to return to their states to practice medicine and compete for business. Insurance premiums decreased, making insurance available to more people.

What better proof is there that the new system worked than an article like this one from the ABA mourning the loss of work for trial lawyers in Texas post-tort reform?

In Texas, the number of lawsuits filed between 2002 and 2005 fell by 55%. In Missouri, lawsuits fell by 91% after enacting reforms. Missouri Gov. Barbour says,

“It’s mysterious to me that the administration and the leadership of Congress talk about health care reform and the goal of reducing costs, and yetrefuse to put tort reform into the legislation,” he said. “I believe $200, $250 billion a year in health care costs is caused by litigation. It may be more than that. But this is the lowest hanging fruit, this ain’t rocket science. If they want a demonstration project, come down to Mississippi, and I’ll show you a demonstration project.”

I won’t hold my breath waiting for the White House to take Barbour up on his offer. But, if they are truly serious about making a dent in our health care problems, they must lay their old talking points to rest and start studying state programs — those that work and don’t work — before they start imposing blanket reforms on the whole country.

*Originally published September 22, 2009 on the American Issues Project Blog, here.