Obama's Health Cost Illusion - WSJ.com »
Posted By Klarissa 5 months, 3 weeks ago in NewsThe main White House argument for health-care reform goes something like this: If we spend now on a hugely expensive new insurance program for the middle class, we can save later by reducing overall U.S. health spending. This "tastes great, less filling" theory could stand some scrutiny, not least because it is being used to rush through the greatest social spending program in American history.
What if this particular theory turns out to be a political illusion? What if the speculative cost savings never report for duty, while the federal balance sheet is still swamped with new social obligations that will be impossible to repeal?
The only possible outcome will be the nationalization of U.S. health markets, which will mean that almost all care will be rationed by politics.
Yet the entire Obama agenda is about increasing political, rather than individual, control of the health markets. Ted Kennedy's draft health-care bill offers insurance subsidies up to 500% of the poverty line -- for a family of four, that's $110,250. In that kind of world, all costs will climb even higher as people use far more "free" care and federal spending will reach epic levels.
Bureaucrats watching the bottom line will try to ration care while simultaneously locked in a death match with interest groups guarding their turf. Congress will join the fray and make things worse, as it always does.
Caught in the political crossfire will be patients, as they always are.
None of the complexities surrounding regional health spending variation would matter as much if the Obama Administration were merely trying to defossilize Medicare and save the federal fisc.
But instead it is exploiting the looming bankruptcy of our current entitlements as a pretext to pass the largest entitlement expansion since 1965. And it is selling this agenda with a phony cost-control "plan" that doesn't even exist.
The now-famous Obama-Orszag mantra -- "entitlement reform is health-care reform" -- really means that when they're done, all health care will be an entitlement.
Read Full Story at online.wsj.com »
294 Views Share Story 38 Comments Report
Submitted By:
Klarissa
Berkeley conservative. Don't ask to be my friend unless you have a real bio.Eat your dessert first, life is uncertain. Bridge player, water ...
Who Also Submitted:
Other Related Articles:
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentComments So Far: 38 (view all)
-
67%
Klarissa5 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Now the White House -- especially budget chief Peter Orszag -- claims there is new cause for hope.
Reply
The magic key is the dramatic variations in per patient health spending among U.S. regions.
Often there is no relationship between spending and the quality of care, according to a vast body of academic research, most of it coming out of Dartmouth College. If the highest spending areas could be sanded down to the lowest spending areas, about 30% in "waste," or $700 billion each year, would be saved. More than enough to pay for ObamaCare. Or so the theory goes.
But -- how? Mr. Orszag's ideas include more health information technology; emphasizing prevention and healthy living; rejiggering reimbursement policies so doctors and hospitals are paid more for quality care; and funding federal research that compares the effectiveness of medical treatments.
These are the lovable bromides of all politicians, and some of them may or may not improve health overall.
But there's scant evidence that any of them will ever save real money. There's a reason the Congressional Budget Office can't score them."-
44%
mesodude5 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
BushWatch: Eight Years of Health Care Failure
Reply
With the reauthorization of the nation’s health care program for 11 million low-income children (State Children’s Health Insurance Program), today’s look back at BushWatch examines the president’s record on health care. It’s not pretty—especially his two vetoes of the children’s health program.
(Click here and here for first two parts of our BushWatch review.)
After eight years of chronicling President Bush’s actions, it’s clear the common thread in his health care decisions, policy initiatives, legislation and regulations is this: preserving and protecting the private, for-profit health care industry—especially the massive health insurance industry and pharmaceutical giants.
The corporate health care cult has spent hundreds of millions of dollars in lobbying expenses and campaign contributions to influence health care policy in Washington. It’s paid off. The children’s health care program is a great example.
In 2007, bipartisan majorities in Congress were fighting to bring health insurance to the nation’s millions of uninsured kids from low-income and working families who couldn’t afford the soaring costs of health insurance.
What was Bush’s stance? He said such a bill would hurt the private, for-profit health insurance industry. Never mind that the reason these kids didn’t have health insurance coverage was because their parents couldn’t afford to buy it from private insurers. Congress voted twice to try and get through such compassionate conservatism.
http://blog.aflcio.org/2009/01/14/bushwatch-eight-...
-
-
70%
Klarissa5 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"A far better alternative is to increase individual responsibility for medical decisions. In 1965, the average American paid more than half of his health care out of pocket.
Reply
Spending has since increased sevenfold, but the amount that consumers pay directly hasn't even doubled.
When people aren't exposed to the true cost of their care -- though it is paid in foregone wages and higher taxes for public programs -- they consume more care.
The research of MIT economist Amy Finkelstein suggests that roughly half of the real increase in U.S. health spending between 1950 and 1990 is due to Medicare and the spread of third-party, first-dollar insurance.
Increasing cost-sharing would discipline the health spending curve and give it a more rational bent. As societies grow richer, it makes sense that people will invest more in their own well-being.
Health is a superior good, while the utility of wealth is fairly low if you're dead. The U.S. health cost "crisis" is that we spend so much without incentives to weigh the costs against the benefits."-
38%
mesodude5 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Mr. Bush’s Health Care Legacy
Reply
Equally remarkable was Mr. Bush’s decision to push through a costly new prescription drug benefit under the Medicare program for older Americans despite stout opposition in his party to government-run health care. It was the largest expansion of Medicare in decades and it dragged the program, at long last, into the modern medical era, in which drugs are a cornerstone of treatment.
We have objected to many features of the program — the refusal to allow the government to negotiate with manufacturers for lower prices, shortfalls in providing subsidies to low-income Americans, a failure to protect many patients from high out-of-pocket costs. Still, it has achieved its main goal by reducing the percentage of older Americans who lack drug coverage, from 33 percent before the program started to only 8 percent in 2006.
Less heralded was the Bush administration’s willingness to grant Massachusetts a Medicaid waiver to redeploy federal funds to help start a universal health insurance program. The program took the controversial step of requiring all citizens to obtain health insurance or pay a penalty, precisely the sort of government mandate that drives many conservatives wild. By many measures it is off to a promising start and could become a model for other states or the federal government.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/03/opinion/03sat1.h...
-
-
-
43%
mesodude5 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Bush Was a Big-Government Disaster
Reply
He expanded the state, and the idea that the state is incompetent
"Or schoolchildren struggling under No Child Left Behind, which federalized K-12 education to an unprecedented degree with nothing to show for it other than greater spending tabs. Or the bizarrely structured Medicare prescription-drug benefit, the largest entitlement program created since LBJ. Or the simple reality that taxpayers now guarantee some $8 trillion in inscrutable loans to a financial sector that collapsed from inscrutable loans.
Such programs were not in any way foisted on Bush, the way that welfare reform had been on Bill Clinton; they were signature projects, designed to create a legacy every bit as monumental and inspiring as Laura Bush's global literacy campaign.
The most basic Bush numbers are damning. If increases in government spending matter, then Bush is worse than any president in recent history. During his first four years in office—a period during which his party controlled Congress—he added a whopping $345 billion (in constant dollars) to the federal budget. The only other presidential term that comes close? Bush's second term. As of November 2008, he had added at least an additional $287 billion on top of that (and the months since then will add significantly to the bill). To put that in perspective, consider that the spendthrift LBJ added a mere $223 billion in total additional outlays in his one full term."
--In spite of all this, lying hypocritical cons who would wh*re their souls (if they had one) for a tax cut REWARDED Bush with FOUR MORE YEARS in office. This is something no con can deny. ;-P
http://www.reason.com/news/show/131264.html
-
-
78%
buckncindykill5 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The people of this country are starting to get the picture. They are starting to figure out that their politicians are a little bit too in love with power. It took a while, but some of our brighter citizens are starting to rebel against this idea that America is great because of government. Considering the government takeovers and outrageous spending, Americans are realizing that maybe this idea of "big government" isn't all it's cracked up to be.
Reply
So the people are getting antsy, and this is happening before the looters (Dems) can even really get going on their plan for ultimate power, government healthcare. The left knows they need to work quickly before the great unwashed mess things up. There's another problem: Congressional approval ratings are in the tank. Dick Cheney is more popular than Nancy Pelosi in the latest polls. What to do? How do you save the left's number one priority? You call on God, that's what you do. In the case of the Democrats, that means you get Barack Obama involved.
Yep, the president initially said that he was going to leave the healthcare debate up to Congress. That was then. This is now; and now the people are wary of a government takeover. Riding the coattails of Obama's popularity will be a government healthcare scheme they say will cost this country over $1.3 trillion over the next 10 years. They're wrong. Look for twice that amount. White House budget director Peter Orszag says, "Ultimately, as happened with the recovery act, it will become President Obama's plan." Even Rahm Emanuel says, "Obviously ... the president's adoption of something makes it easier to vote for, because he's -- let's be honest -- popular, and the public trusts him." No, Rham. He's sort of a God.
These people aren't stupid. They know how to dupe the government-educated into believing that this is what they want - more government.-
38%
mesodude5 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Americans and Obama Versus Neocon Republicans and the Health Care Lobby. Part I
Reply
This is merely the first of many articles on the now-joined health care battle. The Republicans have alerted their troops. They have told them to back down from any direct confrontations because the American People are clearly impatient for action on universal health care and angry at those who try to disrupt the process.
“Leading Health Care Groups” have supposedly volunteered to help reduce costs by $2 trillion. Good. Now let’s get started tearing that apart. Sifting out the subtle lies. Shutting up Harry and Louise before those ignorant old farts can open their mouths again.
One of the groups was the American Medical Association. They are so generously willing to “help cut costs.” Well, of course they are. But first, “a message from our sponsors.” Greed and incompetence before helping the American people.
http://www.populistdaily.com/politics/americans-an...
-
-
71%
ranchhasawhiteass5 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I would be interested in where the money is coming from to pay for this.
Reply
And if everyone works fer the goverment and gets paid a wage by the government and is taxed by the government.Its like having a club and everyone joins that makes it a country.
Wow this is like playing hot potato LOL-
29%
mesodude5 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
But that's just it, ranchy...You people are only NOW interested in watching the President's spending habits. For 8 years (at least) you looked the other way when Republicans gave Bush anything and everything he wanted. Now you have no credibilty whatsoever (not that you had much before). You rolled into power based on fiscal responsibility and you're just like the insurance companies--now that the Democrats are running things you're suddenly lying and crying about how you're all reformed and you NOW want to be hawks watchin' the budget or whatever. No one believes cons, ranchy. You screwed yourselves in Nov of 2004. You thoroughly screwed yourselves and our country and now real Americans can't even stand to LOOK at you tax cut wh*re traitor cons. ;-0
Reply
-
-
-
67%
mesodude5 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"I'd calls his fixation a love hate relationship."
Reply
---LOL...I dare a con to walk on the white carpet and we'll see what dog crap comes off the bottom of your shoes. You're the one's who can't get over your extreme failure and rejection by the American public last fall. Trying to attack Obama for issues over which you were dead silent when Bush did similar or worse makes you look like silly lying sore losers with no life. Get serious, cons. None of your lies and spin will work. You've screwed America over too many times. time to get behind your President the way you preached for the last 8 years. Exactly...We haven't forgotten, cons. ;-P
-
-
67%
k9kssr5 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/06/08/a-closer-loo...
Reply
This has some interesting info, including a link to the entire bill. -
71%
nostalgia5 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Kennedy bill would make employers provide care
Reply
Employers would be required to offer health care to employees or pay a penalty - and all Americans would be guaranteed health insurance - under a draft bill circulated Friday by Sen. Edward M. Kennedy's health committee.
The bill would provide subsidies to help poor people pay for care, guarantee patients the right to select any doctor they want and require everyone to purchase insurance, with exceptions for those who can't afford to.
Insurers would be supposed to offer a basic level of care and would be required to cover all comers, without turning people away because of pre-existing conditions or other reasons. Insurance companies' profits would be limited, and private companies would have to compete with a new public "affordable access" plan that would for the first time offer government-sponsored health care to Americans not eligible for Medicare, Medicaid or other programs.
Under Kennedy's bill the "affordable access plan" would pay providers 10 percent over Medicare rates, which would make it cheaper for patients, but harder for private insurers to compete with. Private insurers fear such a construct would drive them out of business, and there's even division within Democratic ranks.
That was underscored Friday in the House, as the liberal Congressional Progressive Caucus released a set of principles for how the public plan should operate that directly contradicted principles released Thursday by the Blue Dog Coalition of conservative Democrats.
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090606/D98L1MI00...
This is how Kennedy will get the money to pay for his health care bill - force all employers to offer coverage
Then they can tax the coverage as a benefit and make enough money to cover everyone else
Wonder how the unions are going to like having their health care benefits taxed?-
67%
gwhiddon5 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I work for a small company that, if they are forced to pay for medical care, would put about half of their employees out of work.
Reply
What a plan, have half of the pople working who used to work, but the people left will have health care.
Sorta like making the minimum wage $20 an hour. Sounds great, but everyone is out of work.
Wonderful. -
100%
flyonthewallzz5 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Well Nostalgia:
Reply
I have not been able to figure out the difference between what medicare pays out and the "negotiated" price private insurance pays.
I have found a more than %4000 percent swing in the list price and negotiated price, that different hospitals will accept. (Vimo.com)
I think it would be wrong to force businesses with less than 50 employees to provide insurance to their employees.
I approve of the GSE concept of an insurance product, to meet the needs that industry has failed to.
The industry tells the IRS and it's stock holders that it is operating at a 7.6% profit margin:
and pays out dividends that represent about 1/2 of that.
There are more than 45 million folks that the industry has failed to provide an acceptable product for. Small businesses and self employed folks are getting a raw deal from them.
If government is so inefficient what are they afraid of?
Below I posted comments: that demonstrate that it is possible to reduce the rate of growth in health care costs.
-
-
100%
flyonthewallzz5 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/eop/2009/B34.xls
Reply
"TABLE B–34.—Population by age group, 1929–2008" Average annual increase in folks over 65.
1981-1988..1.96%
1989-1992..1.77%
1993-2000..1.00%
2001-2008..1.24%
There where 3.6 million more over 65 year olds in 2008 than in 2000.
Gross medicare spending increased by $278 billion over that time frame.
Or at an annual average growth of 8%.
Gross Medicare spending was 215%* ($241-$519 billion) higher in 2008 than it was in 2000.
* based on an estimated number and probably light.-
100%
flyonthewallzz5 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2009/sheets...
Reply
"Table 16.1—OUTLAYS FOR HEALTH PROGRAMS: 1962–2013" Average annual increase in Gross medicare spending.
1981-1988..10.95%
1989-1992..9.73%
1993-2000..6.03%
2001-2007..9.61%
Average annual increase in gross total health care spending.
1981-1988..9.48%
1989-1992..11.68%
1993-2000..6.04%
2001-2007..8.45%
Average growth in medicare premiums paid out by recipients.
1981-1988..12.72%
1989-1992..9.16%
1993-2000..5.95%
2001-2007..12.69%
About 17% of net health care spending pays for: Veterans, federal employees, and the Defense Health Program. or $108.6 billion out of $716.8 billion in 2007.
-
Submit a Story
Advertisement
Add a Comment
Sign In With Your Propeller Account
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.