The reason is simple: Too much money is being made by too many corporations from the contributions from employers, philanthropists and taxpayers that are intended to care for the sick and the injured.

Those who make that money will use it to fight any change that threatens their sacred cow. If we could infinitely expand our budget for health care, we could afford any number of sacred health-care cows. However, since that is not possible, health system sustainability requires sacrificing sacred cows. We will know meaningful health-system reform is happening when we see the bovine carcasses.

In contrast, what we have seen related to health care in the Utah Legislature is a sacred-cow worshipping session. The unanimity and bliss witnessed as House Bill 133 passed through the Utah House must be orchestrated, because nothing like this happens naturally. In fact, every special interest has been reassured that their sacred cow is not to be slaughtered.

For those remaining few who expressed any uncertainty about HB133, intimidation and threats have worked to bring them into proper reverence. No one wants to be outside the slaughterhouse if, in fact, any real bovine butchering will be done in the legislative study promised by HB133.

But the language of HB133 makes any real ox goring unlikely. Twenty-three of the 35 pages of the bill represent no (or very little) change in current statutes dealing with health insurance rating, the tax code, and the workings of the small group and individual health insurance markets.

In the remaining few pages of the bill, the departments of health, insurance, workforce services and the Governor's Office of Economic Development are given various tasks related to health-system reform, but with no real force of intent. For instance, the office of consumer health services, to be created within GOED, shall assist in the development of the strategic plan, create an Internet portal, facilitate collection of premiums and assist employers to create cafeteria plans, but may not regulate, adopt rules or resolve disputes.

When you really mean to get things done, do you assist, create and facilitate or do you regulate, rule and resolve?

Beyond the toothless language of the bill, the evidence for no real intent to change can be found in the budget for health-system reform, which is effectually zero. For example, the health department is to help the private sector form an alliance to improve health-care decisions as funding permits. Budgets tell us what state government priorities really are.

For those who failed to perceive which sacred cow stands supreme in HB133, please refer to the outline of the strategic plan for health-system reform, which is found toward the end of the printed bill.

There the state departments of insurance, health, workforce services and GOED are instructed to do 10 things, most of which directly benefit the health insurance sector. The first requirement, however, is that the departments of state government shall "sustain a viable insurance market."

Described in this section are a dozen different ways that the insurance industry is to be favored, including exemption from state health-insurance laws, creating minimum required coverage policies and bringing public employees into the private health insurance market.

Unquestionably, this bill was written by the insurance companies and for the insurance companies. I think the bill title should be "No Health Insurance Company Left Behind."

It is outrageous that Utah state government should be instructed to sustain a viable insurance market. Since when is government in charge of sustaining any market? How is it a market if government must sustain it?

Health insurers are not meeting the needs of many potential customers, mostly individuals and small employers. The reason is straightforward: Health insurance products are wasteful, inefficient and expensive. The health insurance business model does not meet the needs of today's consumer.

A century ago, the village blacksmith's business model no longer met the needs of the consumer and American society did not have state governments step in and sustain a viable blacksmith market. Even if state governments had attempted to sustain a viable blacksmith market, they would have failed. This strategic plan for health-system reform which requires state government to sustain a viable health-insurance market will likewise fail.

HB 133 nonetheless enjoys universal approbation. Perhaps it represents a growing wish for meaningful health-system reform. By its permissive language, lack of funding and failure to substantively address any real health-system problem, while carefully protecting the interests of the health insurance industry, all the bill can express is wishful thinking.

In health-system reform, unanimity means no progress. Personally, I am not interested in joining the sacred cow worship. Call me when you are ready to gore the health-insurance ox.

---

* JOSEPH Q. JARVIS is chairman of the board of trustees of the Utah Health Policy Project.