Free Markets, Free People


Health Care Reform – Left and Right

In case you missed it, which is entirely possible, it appears one of the potential “show stoppers” for the reconciliation of the health care reform bill between Democrats in the House and Senate is no longer an issue. Surprisingly that would be the “public option”.

A week or two ago, the House Whip, Rep. James Clyburn, made it clear in an interview that the House wouldn’t be rubber stamping the Senate’s version of reform. No sir. Because, you know, the House isn’t some second class legislative body and it has certain requirements that must be in a bill, such as a strong public option, before the support of House Democrats can be considered to be behind it.

That, of course, was then. Now Rep. Clyburn is singing a different tune:

“We want a public option to do basically three things: create more choice for insurers, create more competition for insurance companies and to contain costs. So if we can come up with a process by which these three things can be done, then I’m all for it. Whether or not we label it a public option or not is of no consequence,” House Majority Whip James E. Clyburn, South Carolina Democrat, said Sunday on CBS’ “Face the Nation.”

When asked by CBS host John Dickerson whether he could give his support to a bill that has no public option, Mr. Clyburn said “Yes, sir, I can.”

I’m sure that Clyburn actually meant he wanted something which created more “choice for the insured” vs. “insurers”, but nevertheless his defense of dropping the public option is exceedingly weak by anyone’s standard. That’s not to say dropping it is a bad thing – obviously I’d like to see the whole bill dropped. But that’s not going to happen. However it is interesting to watch the willful self-delusion necessary to state the Senate bill does these things parroted by someone who was adamantly against the Senate’s version of the bill because it lacked that very thing he now says it contains.

And, of course, it doesn’t “create more choices for the insured” or more “competition for insurance companies” and it certainly doesn’t “contain costs”. It mostly increases government’s intrusion into the market by mandating coverage (Who is going to monitor and enforce that? Government.), requiring insurance companies to cover those with pre-existing conditions (Monitor? Government. Result? Increased cost.) and increase taxes (Enforced by? Government. Result? Increased cost, although not “direct”.).

It also leaves a significant portion of the uninsured uninsured. Well, not really. They either self-insure or pay a fine (or, got to jail). In fact, this bill is so bad that even the ever dependable statist hack Bob Herbert is having problems swallowing the “major accomplishment” line on this boondoggle. He’s not at all happy with one particular provision in the bill. Methinks it’s probably because Mr. Herbert knows he’s one who will be paying for it:

The bill that passed the Senate with such fanfare on Christmas Eve would impose a confiscatory 40 percent excise tax on so-called Cadillac health plans, which are popularly viewed as over-the-top plans held only by the very wealthy. In fact, it’s a tax that in a few years will hammer millions of middle-class policyholders, forcing them to scale back their access to medical care.

The so-called “Cadillac health plans” are those which cost more than what the government (via the Senate bill) has decided cost more than what it arbitrarily has designated as a “cost-effective” health care plan. In other words, it has declared a certain amount paid for health care coverage to be “enough” and anything over that excessive and taxable. The entire intent of the bill is to make those who enjoy better health care insurance benefits pay for the privilege through a tax penalty which will then subsidize those who don’t have insurance to the tune of 150 billion.

As Herbert realizes, that means a number of things might happen, none of which translate into “if you like your coverage, you can keep it”.

The idea is that rather than fork over 40 percent in taxes on the amount by which policies exceed the threshold, employers (and individuals who purchase health insurance on their own) will have little choice but to ratchet down the quality of their health plans.

These lower-value plans would have higher out-of-pocket costs, thus increasing the very things that are so maddening to so many policyholders right now: higher and higher co-payments, soaring deductibles and so forth. Some of the benefits of higher-end policies can be expected in many cases to go by the boards: dental and vision care, for example, and expensive mental health coverage.

Proponents say this is a terrific way to hold down health care costs. If policyholders have to pay more out of their own pockets, they will be more careful — that is to say, more reluctant — to access health services.

Notice how it is in the private market that these “proponents” seem to be aiming their “cost cutting” knife. Tell me – how does cutting costs in these private plans at all effect the 89 trillion in future benefit obligations of Medicare and Medicaid? That’s where the unaffordable costs are. Isn’t that the area where government should be focusing its “cost cutting” effort? Sure it claims it will cut 500 billion from Medicare – something absolutely no one believes will be done. But this so-called “cost cutting” measure aimed at “Cadillac plans” is pure and unadulterated semantic nonsense.

There’s no benefit in terms of “cutting costs” to be found in taxing them. It’s a revenue stream, pure and simple. The “cost savings” rhetoric is purely to dupe those who don’t know any better. It does nothing to “cut costs”.  In fact, it increases the cost of those plans. But it does accomplish two “progressive” goals – it levels the benefit field so the vast majority of people, most likely including the entire middle class, is on “equal footing” with everyone else, especially the “poor”. In fact, only the rich will enjoy Cadillac plans after the Senate gets done with it (oh, and the Senate of course, which has exempted itself from what we proles are allowed to have).

The other goal it will supposedly accomplish is ration health care consumption without calling it that (increasing the cost will impose self-rationing). And, it will do it through cost. Yes, irony of ironies, that was exactly the complaint progressives used to support government intervention in this market. But as we all know, the left is irony impaired. By jacking up co-payments to levels that hurt, people will indeed be less likely to consume health care. But that’s not a “cost cutting” measure no matter how badly progressives want to characterize it as such. Because someone will be consuming health care. It’s a finite product and government is in the middle of expanding the market by millions and millions at a higher cost (pre-existing conditions) than before.

Newt Gingrich is out there saying Republicans should be running on repealing this bill (obviously assuming it will pass and be signed into law). I agree. This is the perfect platform and perfect example of government out of control. The good news, if there is any, is the bill is structured in such a way (taxes begin immediately, benefits don’t kick in for 4 more years) that it can be repealed before the damage is done.

Unfortunately, and I say this based on history, the Republicans most likely won’t have the stomach to just repeal it and return to the status quo, or even better, pass legislation that enables the market (tort reform, sell insurance over state lines, etc). My guess is they’ll get wobbly and assume they have to pass some sort of nonsense that appeases the whining on the left. Of course it won’t appease the left’s whining – their compromises never do – but it will compromise the Republican’s principles – again. That’s assuming the same old faces that got the GOP in the mess it now finds itself in are still running the show then. I think you get my point.

So, in summary, the stage is set to pass this monstrosity. The stage is also set for the GOP to use its passage as a platform for electoral success and its eventual repeal. If even Bob Herbert understands that his travesty does much more harm than good, then the average voter is going to pick up on it as well. And since it is going to effect that average voter immediately while they see no benefit from the increased taxation, the GOP should have a very strong case to make. But they better have their ducks in a row and be willing, for a change, to actually stand on principle and then once in power, have the spine to implement those principles and do what is necessary to roll back government intrusion, power and spending.

And that, of course, is the weakness of the plan – the GOP has never, ever, shown it has the cajones to live up to its principles once in power. That’s because the perks of power are just too seductive and the incentives of the existing political system work at odds with any stand to limit them.

~McQ

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Tumblr
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • email
  • Print
  • Google Bookmarks

23 Responses to Health Care Reform – Left and Right

  • You’re correct the GOP won’t have the guts to make a public push-back repeal of this. That said, the GOP will never have the ability to do so (filibuster-proof majority in Senate, House control, etc)

  • No worries, we’ll do the hard work of instituting progress.  The R’s job is just to maintain the new status quo.

    • You would have to know absolutely zero to think of this ghastly bill as “progress.” This is the most backward, unsophisticated, cost-increasing, care-reducing, backroom payoff-making, rotten piece of legislation that has, on the sheer size and scope of it, ever come down the greasy pike.

    • One man’s progress is another man’s slavery.

      • If the whip is in your hand, then it’s “progress”.  If it’s on your back…not so much.

  • IIRC longshoremen are not subject to the “Cadillac” tax.

  • Well Tom, then I wish you all the joy of any system that is implemented by the Democrats.  I have every confidence for me such a disaster will be expected, whereas I anticipate with a certain amount of glee you standing there, mouth opening and closing like a fish out of water when you get your quality government run Health Care (oh, that’s right, you get the BILL first, the actual treatment, such as it will be,  will come later…that probably doesn’t bother you either…)

    In the meantime, I promise I will fight against it even if it will mean protecting….people….like yourself from their judgment (I mean judgment for your decisions, not your judgment) .

    Tom, after all, you were dancing in the aisles over the selection of the current President.  I’m wondering how you really like that choice at this point.  Certainly a good number of your fellow travelers have realized your, and their, decision making process when it comes to important things like this was/is flawed (alas, not that I feel Mr. McCain was exactly a superior choice, but surely better than President Barry Imeme has turned out to be).

    • I think you overestimate some libs.  As I’ve written before, there is an apparently large segment of the left that is so motivated by petty hatred and envy that you could line them up before a firing squad and they’d go with smiles on their faces so long as they knew that they could look down on the muddy corpses of “the rich” who went before them.

      They decided a long time ago that “equality” means dragging everybody down to the same level of misery.

  • None of this will actually come to pass. The reason is that by the time all of this stuff is supposed to go into effect we will be totally bankrupt and facing double didgit inflation.  SOmething will give before then.

  • My reaction to this bill and the people who vote for it: Roll out the scaffolds.

    • Misten lister!  NOt Sentator Baccus, he was not legally resp…resp….responsibbbil for any of that schtuff!

       

    • Yep.  I think that it might be a little more effective at this point to protest on Capitol Hill carrying pitchforks and nooses rather than signs.  I’m not suggesting violence, but rather making it rather more clear to the (apparently drunken) wardheelers and thugs who are intent on saddling us with this mess that they are treading on VERY thin ice.

  • I don’t think many people know what is about to hit them. I have a few lib friends who figured it out now and are rather pissed off.
    I wonder if State Workers/Unions have “cadillac” plans that will be taxed?
    If you think about this, its actually great, great news.
    Consumers/Taxpayers are being shown the cost of the bill. The middle class will see the price for “subsidizing” people who are 150%+ over the poverty line. People who could really buy their own insurance, but would rather have that big screen TV etc.
    This bill would have been hidden under single payer, which is why people think its “free.”
    Plus we have to pay for 3 years before anything starts – is there any better way to make people resentful?

    • At one level or iteration, “Cadillac Plans” accounted for 70% of all employer based health care plans.

      And just a guess, I’d expect gov’t employees are as exempt from the tax as they are from the rest of this cluster.

  • Bob Herbert attacks the Senate healthcare plan …

    There is a middle-class tax time bomb ticking in the Senate’s version of President Obama’s effort to reform health care.
    The bill that passed the Senate with such fanfare on Christmas Eve would impose a confiscatory 40 percent excise tax on so-called Cadillac health plans, which are popularly viewed as over-the-top plans held only by the very wealthy. In fact, it’s a tax that in a few years will hammer millions of middle-class policyholders, forcing them to scale back their access to medical care.
    Which is exactly what the tax is designed to do.

    The tax on health benefits is being sold to the public dishonestly as something that will affect only the rich, and it makes a mockery of President Obama’s repeated pledge that if you like the health coverage you have now, you can keep it.
    Those who believe this is a good idea should at least have the courage to be straight about it with the American people.

    • What nobody in the press has picked up on but it is evident in the speeches in the Senate, but only in bits and pieces, is that this bill has virtually nothing to do with insuring the “uninsured”.  This bill is is to restructure the balance sheet of the Medicare and Medicaid.  Of course, the Democrats have been claiming for years that nothing needs to be done, but when you add up the pieces of the bill that really amount to anything, this will add those “death panels” or whatever you want to call them in the Medical Advisory Board that will add a “wildcard” to the bill in the form of the ultimate cost containment and at the same time add new revenue to cover the “Baby Boom” but still at a reduced level than what their parents of the “The Greatest Generation”got.
      Frankly, the the best thing the Republicans can do is treat this whole thing as toxic.  This means don’t promise anything, especially don’t promise to rescind it, because you will then get “tarred” with the brush of whatever must then be put in place to replace it.
      The best move is to use the truth, in small doses, to show what this really is, meanwhile knowing that this albatross will be around the necks of Democrats for decades to come.  The truth may be that this or something like it might be necessary down the road, but the Democrats lied their asses off before when they said nothing needed to be done in the past and when they finally decided to fix what they said needed no fixing.

      • I don’t see that.  I see them defunding Medicare and expanding its enrollment.

        I think they are deliberately hastening its collapse so they’ll have millions of Seniors clamoring for a public option.

        Just like this bill taxes and burdens private care so that it will also collapse.  Case in point.  I can pay the fine of only $750/year or get stripped down coverage.  Then when I get really sick, I can get a plant will good coverage.  This abuse will cause plans with good coverage, which most people with families have, to become very expensive.

        My guess is that they plan on burdening the old system, including both private care and medicare, to create support for an entirely new system that sweeps away any private component completely.

        • Ask yourself, though, why would Reid for that super majority test on the “Medical Advisory Board” if it wasn’t so important to something ?
          The two key pieces are the new revenue stream and the “Medical Advisory Board.”  Once these pieces exist, they can amend the hell out of it, with sympathetic Republicans helping out.
          I see them defunding Medicare and expanding its enrollment.

          Once they have it broke, they will fold it all together.

  • If the Republicans get swept into office and they don’t essentially undo it, they’re finished.

    I’m not so sure the way the public feels about them has improved that much that they’ll get the opportunity in 2010.  But if they do, it will be their last one.

  • I wonder now if there might be an aggressive attempt to sell out of country insurance policies.
    Some nations like Thailand offer fast, good, and inexpensive surgeries and treatments which they often bundle with a nice vacation.  It would be out of the scope of the US government, and would interfere with trade treaties if they tried to stop you from getting care out side of the nation.
    When things become so farked up over here, the middle class might have to resort to taking their health care out of the country.  I would like to see if it were possible to form some sort of Thai based medical insurance.

    • If there aren’t plots of land in Mexico near the border lined up already to become medical facilities, entrepreneurship in the World is dead.

      Canada is in there too.  There are already clinics exempt for providing for the rich and foreigners looking for advanced procedures.

michael kors outlet michael kors handbags outlet michael kors factory outlet