If this were a Presidential election year there would only be two issues considered: Health care and Iran.
Iran is a smoldering beast all on its own. In fact, there’s very little we can do other than sit on the sidelines and cheer for our favorite team. Health care, however, is that ominous cloud everyone wants to go away except the rain-dancers by third base.
Meanwhile, President Barack Obama stands on second base, almost ready to steal third and seal the deal:
“At the president’s behest, Democrats are exploring ways to ramrod a health care reform bill through Congress this fall by using procedural shenanigans to avoid a Republican filibuster. In his budget, Obama has already proposed an additional $634 billion—nearly three-quarters of a trillion dollars—in health care spending over the next few years. If he gets his way, this money will be the first installment toward a government insurance plan that will compete with private plans to allegedly put affordable coverage within everyone’s grasp.
But whatever else universal coverage might bring, there is no evidence that it will bring economic nirvana. If anything, contrary to what the president suggests, the correlation runs the other way for countries with universal coverage such as Canada, England, France, Germany, and Japan. On nearly every economic front, their performance has been worse than America’s—even, surprisingly, in controlling health care costs”
The problem with Obama’s health care plan, and what’s got the right in a tizzy, is the fact that Obama’s plan could establish a government-run monopoly.
Some, like Dr. David Scheiner, Obama’s doctor, like that idea:
“What should the president be focused on? Scheiner thinks that a good health reform would be “Medicare for all,” a single-payer system where the government would cover everyone and pay for it by cutting out waste in the system. “A neurosurgeon gets paid $20,000 for cutting into the neck of my patient. Have him get paid $1 million a year instead of $2 million or $3 million. He won’t starve,” Scheiner says.”
The crux of the matter falls on the dubious public option, a policy that allows the public to choose a government insurance program – back by the feds, lawmakers and taxes – and would compete with the private sector.
The reason why the private sector cannot compete with the public option is because the public option is backed by the federal government’s taxpayers – you.
If a public option were to turn around and you decided to stay with a private insurer, your tax money, and the tax money of the insurer, would go towards funding the public option, stifling the very concept of a free-market. The public option is a leech on those who opt out of it, causing them to pay for something they want no part of.
It’s like taking the guy selling hotdogs at $8 a pop and putting him in charge of national health insurance. You buy it only because you can’t bring your own hotdogs into the stadium.
But of course, Obama’s always open to alternative plans, after all:
“Obama is signaling that he’s willing to compromise, and yesterday White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel carried the message to lawmakers that the president is “open to alternatives,” Senator Kent Conrad of North Dakota said.”
Unfortunately, alternatives have always been there, ever since the health care debate was born anew in the 90’s, and even before that. In the recent months there have been conferences held by Cato, Heritage, and other Libertarian/Conservative think tanks making suggestions.
Many of the ideas are a free-market solution and suggest that insurance policies shouldn’t limited by State boundaries. This could drive down rates, make insurance companies compete, and in the end, provide affordable heath insurance.
Arnold Kling lays out a three step plan at Cato:
“First, government assistance should take the form of vouchers, given to people based on need. Government must end the practice of reimbursing health-care providers for services. Instead, consumers with low incomes or expensive pre-existing conditions should be given vouchers that compensate for their disadvantages. Consumers can then decide which health-care services best meet their needs, based on what they can afford given their own resources and the vouchers.
Second, Medicare should be phased out — by gradually raising the age of eligibility — in favor of a system that encourages people to save for the health coverage they will need in their old age. This is the only way to fund health care for the elderly on a sustainable basis. People should be given savings targets and tax credits that help them meet those targets.
And third, private health insurance should be deregulated. Affordable health insurance requires radical changes to the way health-insurance policies are designed today. In order to get there, we need less regulation of health insurance, not more. My hope is that the industry would come up with plans that pay claims to only those who fall within the top 2 or 3 percent in terms of health-care needs; those who need basic care would pay out of pocket. Health insurance would look like fire insurance. Few of us would make claims, and premiums would be affordable.”
Cato even invited some of Obama’s White House staff to their latest conference on health care. Some of his staffers accepted the invitation – then at the last minute decided to not appear for reasons unknown.
But think-tanks aren’t the only ones giving out ideas though. Surprisingly two Senators, Sen. Ron Wyden (D) and Sen. Robert Bennett (R), struck up a bi-partisan bill, but were quickly shot down by the administration.
The bill, with the title “Healthy Americans Act” would create state-based purchasing pools, where Americans would enroll in a private insurance plan. This, according to the plan, would boost heath insurance for Americans and be revenue-neutral and has a good Congressional Budget Office score, but it was shot down almost as soon as it was introduced to the Finance Committee.
In a column piece for the New York Times David Brooks gives some rather telling reasons why the Wyden-Bennett plan was smothered in bed:
“The Finance Committee’s chairman, Senator Max Baucus, looked exasperated. With that haughty and peremptory manner that they teach in Committee Chairman School, he told Wyden and the world that this idea was not going to happen. […]
Now you might think that in these circumstances someone might take a second look at the ideas incorporated in the Wyden-Bennett plan, which already has a good C.B.O. score, bipartisan support and a recipe for fundamental reform.
If you did think that, you are mistaking the Senate for a rational organism. For while there are brewing efforts to incorporate a few Wyden-Bennett ideas, there is stiff resistance to the aspects that fundamentally change incentives.
The committee staffs don’t like the approach because it’s not what they’ve been thinking about all these years. The left is uncomfortable with the language of choice and competition. Unions want to protect the benefits packages in their contracts. Campaign consultants are horrified at the thought of fiddling with a popular special privilege.”
The plan is far from perfect, and has the nasty feeling of being forced on people as Collin Levy of the Wall Street Journal points out:
“The plans favored by Massachusetts Sen. Ted Kennedy or President Barack Obama rely on a “public option” in which government insurance would supposedly “compete” with private insurers, a move many see as leading to a single-payer system. By contrast, the Wyden-Bennett Healthy Americans Act relies on the private insurance market while imposing a series of regulations to squeeze savings from the private sector. It also requires individuals to buy coverage for themselves, the controversial “individual mandate.””
However, it’s an alternative, and it does have some popularity, and it’s ignored.
But perhaps we’re looking at the whole situation wrong. In a rather clever video, Reason TV’s Nick Gillespie finds a key problem with private health insurance – people can afford it, easily too, but they’d just much rather drink:
“>http://www.youtube.com/v/tT3KiB2otV0&hl=en&fs=1&
” type=”application/x-shockwave-flash” allowscriptaccess=”always” allowfullscreen=”true” width=”425″ height=”344″>
So what’s Obama’s suggestion? Well, have the tax payers pay for the almost $634 billion dollar plan. Except, of course, those who helped him into office:
“But the union workers who helped Democrats win Congress and the White House and whose support will be key in getting a health bill signed into law would not pay the tax.
With cost estimates already as high as $1.6 trillion, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., has proposed paying for the bill in part by taxing health care benefits for workers who earn more than $100,000, or $200,000 for married couples, according to those familiar with the discussions.”
That rain cloud looks awfully heavy.
