By E. Thomas McClanahan, Kansas City Star Editorial Page columnist

One of the most persistent myths regarding health care reform is that it will improve America's international competitiveness. After all, the argument runs, our companies are saddled with ever-rising insurance costs, which companies in many countries don't have to pay. Rep. Henry Waxman, for example, has said reform "is something to do right now to help fix our economy."
But what congressional Democrats have in mind won't "fix" our economy, it will weaken it.
As with so many of these myths, the Congressional Budget Office has been a key source of rebuttal. As the CBO pointed out (page 167), employee pay is set by the supply and the demand for labor. Health insurance is simply part of total pay. Workers bear the costs of such benefits by receiving lower cash wages. If companies didn't have to buy health insurance they'd still have to pay the same amount in terms of total compensation; cash and other benefits would increase "by roughly the amount of the reduction in health benefits for firms to be able to attract the same number and types of workers."
In the short-term, companies would save money and enjoy higher profits. But they "would experience no permanent change in their competitive status."
As CBO Director Doug Elmendorf testified to the Senate, providing health insurance to workers is "not a competitive disadvantage to U.S.-based firms."
Another big misconception is that cost-shifting is a major financial burden. This occurs when the uninsured use the safety net, such as emergency room care, and the rest of us pick up the cost in higher premiums or hospital charges. Elmendorf again: "Overall, the effect of uncompensated care on private-sector payment rates appears to be limited."
According to the CBO, pursuing universal coverage by expanding government won't lower overall costs, it will raise them. As a result, people will have to pay higher insurance premiums or higher taxes.
If there's an economic model that says higher government-imposed costs is a route to a more prosperous and competitive economy, I'm not aware of it. As David Brooks aptly put it, what we're watching in Washington is less like reform and more like "fiscal suicide."