This is written on Election Day, 2009. Since the polls have not closed, I will not attempt to divine what, if anything, this year’s electoral tea leaves may say in connection with the much more important contests in 2010 and 2012.

The one issue that is likely to consume the political landscape in the weeks after the election is the attempt by the Obama Administration and the Democratic majority in Congress to reform the health care system. This is likely to be a long and contentious battle.

I happened to get the views this week of a Republican senator who is very knowledgeable about health care matters and he predicted that a health bill will likely pass the House of Representatives by Thanksgiving. (Speaker Nancy Pelosi unveiled a 1,990 page bill this week). However, he believes that the Senate fight will be long and hard, with an enormous outpouring of public support. Obviously, sponsors of the House bill will have to find a way around the abortion controversy, as Democratic prolife members are attempting to strip the bill of any direct or indirect federal payments for abortion.

Certainly critics of the House bill have no shortage of ammunition. In a persuasive editorial this week in The Wall Street Journal entitled “The Worst Bill Ever,” the piece describes a number of the problems with the bill.

One issue is cost. The House bill, already given a price tag by the Congressional Budget Office of $1.055 trillion over ten years, is very likely to cost far more than that. Most of the outlays under the current bill are for subsidies for middle income workers and employers not offering health insurance or small business with fewer than 100 workers. There is every likelihood that these restrictions will be eased over the years, substantially increasing program expenses. The bill also makes the assumption that payments to physicians under Medicare will be cut by 21%, something that is not in the cards.

Another concern of the Journal editors is that the bill substantially increases Medicaid expenses by vastly increasing the number of eligible beneficiaries. Indeed, in ten years an estimated one-fourth of the population would be included in a program that was originally intended for the poor women, children and the disabled. Conversely, the popular Medicare Advantage program, which offers a private option to seniors, would be sharply cut back.

Of course, the bill, as the editorial points out, would impose myriad new taxes that would land on small businesses and employers, many of which are not indexed for inflation. Even these taxes may not be enough, which will lead to broader imposts on the middle class.

Finally, the Journal editors complain about the “takeover” of the insurance industry by the government under the House bill, which will impose numerous requirements on the carriers, including first dollar coverage on what regulators deem to be “essential” benefits. The likely result is that insurers will essentially become governmental contractors with no opportunity to give purchasers incentives to reduce the cost of care.

Make no mistake about it. The United States health care system does need some reform in at least two areas. First, there are millions of uninsured persons. Second, there is a disconnect between the payor (typically employers) and the person making the decision to request services, thus creating disincentives to low-cost care. But there has to be a simpler, more effective way to deal with these provisions than the incredibly complex and expensive bill being considered by the House.