Before the crowing and pats on the back that the House Democrats "health care reform" bill may engender, take a harder look at the reality.

It is a flawed, cobbled together bill that still relies on employer provided health care, a foundation that is an historical accident, a way to evade wage controls during WWII, not a sound principle; an attempt to put what Congress considers ice cream on cow pies.

As pointed out at McClatchy News:

"Under the main Democratic health bills that are being debated in Congress, many people with job-based insurance could find it difficult to impossible to switch to health plans on a new insurance exchange, even if those plans were cheaper or offered better coverage. The restrictions would extend to any government-run plan.

"The provisions could change, and there are a few exceptions: Workers would be allowed to buy insurance through the exchange if their job-based coverage gobbled up too much of their incomes or was too skimpy. Also, under the proposal by Democrats in the House of Representatives, people could get insurance through the exchange if they paid their entire premiums, a cost that would be prohibitive for many.

"Democratic lawmakers and administration officials say the restrictions are crucial to maintaining a strong employer-based insurance system, which covers 158 million Americans.

"Critics argue, however, that the rules run counter to suggestions that a health care overhaul could provide people with a broader choice of insurance options. The restrictions, they say, could be especially unfair to some lower-income workers who are enrolled in costly job-based insurance. Also, they warn that the rules could hurt the proposed public plan by limiting enrollment.

"Jonathan Oberlander, an associate professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, said, 'The rhetoric is that Americans will gain new alternatives, but the reality is that they are putting up firewalls that are going to restrict the access of people with employer-sponsored insurance to the exchange.'

"One result, he said, is that any public plan would be substantially smaller and less powerful than many backers are envisioning.

"Most individuals would have to carry insurance or pay fines under the congressional proposals.

"Under the House Democrats' legislation, workers who are eligible for job-based insurance could go on the exchange only if their costs were more than 11 percent of their incomes.

"People who were willing to pay their entire premiums, without subsidies, also could enroll through the exchange under the House bill.

"Jacob Hacker, a Yale University professor of political science, said the debate reflected "a delicate dance" in which lawmakers were trying to give some people access to the exchange while preserving the employer-based insurance system.

" 'To my mind,' he added, the House bill 'errs too far on the side of making it hard for workers to obtain coverage through the exchange.' "