-
Adieu, Adieu, Remember Me
March 25, 2011 | 38 comments
-
DeMint’s Defense of RomneyCare is Ignorant…And Dangerous
March 17, 2011 | 85 comments
-
McConnell Pushing Vote to Block the EPA from Regulating Carbon Emissions
March 17, 2011 | 9 comments
-
More Barbour on Afghanistan
March 16, 2011 | 8 comments
-
House Passes Three Week Spending Bill
March 15, 2011 | 8 comments
The Spectacle Blog
Washington Post blogger Ezra Klein writes:
[T]his idea that the health-care bill affects “16% of GDP” is inane. That 16% of GDP captures people in private insurance, Medicaid, Medicare, and assorted other arrangements purchasing medical care. This bill will not stop them from purchasing medical care nor will it change the way they purchase medical care nor is it likely to change how much medical care they purchase.
To put this even more clearly, in 2008, the country spent $2.3 trillion on health care. In 2016 — so, after implementation — this bill will spend about $150 billion helping people buy health care. Assume that national spending that year will be about $3 trillion, then the health bill is accounting for about 5 percent of our spending that year. The idea that this bill, which is going to cost fairly little in the scheme of things and do virtually nothing to people who are already insured, is somehow transforming the provision of 16 percent of GDP is misleading at best.
In reality, saying that health care legislation “affects” 16 percent of GDP is a rather modest statement. While both the House and Senate bills may largely preserve the employer-based insurance model, if passed, they would certainly allow government to get its hands on every aspect of the health care system. The individual insurance market would disappear, and instead all sales would move to government-run exchanges. Once implemented, the House bill would actually make it illegal for private insurance companies to sell policies to individuals outside of the government exchange, which would be national. While the insurance policies offered within the exchange(s) would be ostensibly private, government officials would design them (whether it ends up being the Secretary of Health and Human Services or the Health Choices Commissioner we don’t yet know). Because the government would be mandating that everybody purchase insurance, it would also be in a position to determine what constitutes insurance. Therefore, whether somebody gets insurance through the employer or individual market, they’ll have to be in a position to prove to the Internal Revenue Service that they have a qualifying insurance policy, or they’ll face a tax. In addition, the much-touted reforms of the insurance industry — eliminating pre-existing condition exclusions, capping insurers ability to charge more to smokers or older Americans, mandating certain benefits, etc. — would affect premiums througout the insurance market.
Meanwhile, the legislation affects existing government programs. It expands Medicaid by 15 million people, placing a further burden on states that are already struggling with to pay for the program. And it cuts hundreds of billions of dollars from Medicare, including cuts to Medicare Advantage plans, which have 11 million enrollees (or roughly a quarter of all Medicare beneficiaries). The Senate bill includes as one of its major cost-saving provisions an Independent Payment Advisory Board that would be able to implement changes to Medicare payments with limited Congressional intervention.
Then there are a variety of other measures that will have to be reconciled during negotiations, but either way, would have a substantial affect on the private sector. The House bill includes a mandate that employers provide health insurance that’s deemed acceptable by the Health Choices Commissioner, while the Senate bill would tax employers if they have an employee who uses government subsidies to purchase insurance on an exchange.
There’s also the revenue measures, which, depending on how the House and Senate bills get merged could mean: an income surtax; a payroll tax hike; a tax on insurers; a tax on medical device makers; a tax on drug companies; and a tax on expensive health care plans. The Senate bill also has a tax on indoor tanning, which we can all laugh about, but is actually a telling example of the arbitrary nature of government power, as well as the scope of this legislation.
In the headline I said it would affect “at least” 16 percent of GDP, and that’s because in spite of Obama administration promises that health care legislation will bend the cost curve, by the end of the decade, we’ll actually be spending a lot more on health care than we are now, and even more that we would if we were to simply do nothing. That’s according to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, which is the division at the Department of Health and Human Services tasked with tracking national health care expenditures, from which the “16 percent of GDP” statistic comes from. According to two recent reports issued by the actuary at CMS, the Senate bill would hike health care spending to 20.9 percent of GDP, and the House bill would raise it to 21.1 percent of GDP.
Pingback| 1.5.10 @ 5:03PM
Twitter Trackbacks for The American Spectator : AmSpecBlog : Yes, Health Care Legisl links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 1.5.10 @ 5:56PM
Individual Insurance - GoHealthInsurance Recommends a New Year’s Health Insurance Res links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Lazy Jack | 1.5.10 @ 7:14PM
The U.S. spent 6.5% of GDP on healthcare before Medicare and Medicaid and nearly 17% today. What do you think it will be after this mess is passed? But remember, we do not need facts because Keynes, Krugman, and the late Kennedy have the answers.
For those of use hoping fortune smiles and the Democrats are unable to pass a reconciled, so-called healthcare reform package, the news that it is now a one-party vote is disheartening. Eleven pages of differences represent only difference colors of makeup for the pig. A bill will get passed only because the Democrats must pass something, anything, regardless of cost or consequence.
Among the real dangers to us as citizens is the real whopper, the mandate that you must buy health insurance. At a fundamental level, the individual mandate creates an obligation, accrued at birth, for every citizen in the U.S. Not only does it appear to violate the letter and the spirit of the constitution, it presumes that we accept that an imperial central government is more moral than the individual and actually has a conscience.
Regardless of the differences between the house and senate versions, I think we end up with a bill that creates an unconstitutional indenture of every U.S. citizen (See: Article 1, Section 8; Amendment 10; and Federalist 41). We also end up with higher cost, a broken compact (however misguided in its current form) with seniors when we cut Medicare, higher taxes on the majority of tax payers, and reduced access to care. What do you think?
For more about the conscience of the federal government, see:
http://thanksforthelaughs.word.....n-bondage/
http://thanksforthelaughs.word.....onscience/
Lazy Jack
Kyle Smith | 1.5.10 @ 7:37PM
I'm sorry, but why do we keep listening to 24 year old Ezra Klein. His writing gives away his age, I hadn't even heard of him until last month when he came up with some ingenious idea of killing the fillibuster (gee, I never heard that one before). Why conservative blogs quote him, and why the Washington Post would give someone with 24 years of life experience a blog and a pay check is beyond me. I'm sorry, I mean I'm 34, so I'm not so old that I need up to date guidance from someone The Economist magazine named one of the "minds of the moment", (yeah, a moment, kind of like 15 minutes of fame) and at age 16, I could have wrote and thought something as compelling about a politician as this quote he wrote about Joe Lieberman ; "willing to cause the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people in order to settle an old electoral score".
I must be getting old, because the political and worldly wisdom from these recent college grads just ain't gonna grab my attention. I'm just sick of reading his stupid name "Ezra" over and over again.
Stan Redmond| 1.6.10 @ 1:37AM
Sorry Kyle, attacking the messenger is weak and pathetic and reeks of liberal troll posts that show up here when the chosen 'won' and the democrat statists are attacked. Obama, Pelosi, and Reid aren't happy with 16% control over our lives. They won't rest until 100% of ever aspect of our lives are in their control. From being allowed to be born to the day they decide we die, they want absolute control.
Bob| 1.6.10 @ 7:14AM
Philip, while I dislike the health care bills, your comments do not pass the sniff test. In point of fact, while the Senate Bill will be more expensive than if we did nothing, we are talking about 20.9% versus 20.8%. For that, we cover anywhere from 13 to 37 million more people. I see you fail to mention that, but that is expected at AmSpec -- no rationality, just partisanship. If that 0.1% increase in cost saves 10,000 lives, is it worth it?
Furthermore, there is no competition in private insurance today, and you know it. Government exchanges would increase competition over what we have today. That said, I would prefer an open national market to government exchanges. But that is not the comparison you used.
In addition, the number of people who actually buy private insurance policies is rather small. Most buy group policies, so your tirade in this area makes little sense.
The fact is that Republicans (and you) seem to support the status quo rather than having a plan to reduce TOTAL health care costs from 16% to about 10%. We need this reduction to to become competitive in the manufacturing sector to increase jobs. The only way to do this is some form of rationing. I would prefer self-rationing where individuals buy the coverage they desire and if their cancer or end-of-life costs are not covered, they either pay for it out of their own pockets or suffer the consequence. If you believe that health care is a privilege and not a right, you must let people abide by their own personal decisions. If Republicans cannot move in this personal responsibility direction, then we might as well move to universal government coverage as that is the only other way to reduce costs dramatically.
Pete| 1.6.10 @ 10:36AM
"a plan to reduce TOTAL health care costs from 16% to about 10%"
There you go again, Bob. A silly assertion with no proof. Perhaps you could give a couple of examples where something run by the federal government became more efficient and less expensive?
Bob| 1.6.10 @ 11:41AM
Pete, using Reagan's phrase does not make you more relevant. The 10% comes from what other industrialized nations achieve with their health care plans.
Here's a reference for you because you obviously have not done the research:
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0934556.html
Look at the countries with universal government health care and you'll see that I am certainly correct. Do you have data (not diatribe) to the contrary?????
Pete| 1.6.10 @ 12:43PM
Stick to the subject, Bob. You asserted that the current plan(s) will reduce costs from 16% to 10%. I fail to see how your 2007 statistics, which "includes the provision of health services (preventive and curative), family planning activities, nutrition activities, and emergency aid designated for health" proves your assertion (or overcomes the data point provided in the last paragraph of the article above). I suppose you are assuming that the current plan(s) will reduce costs to those of some average of other countries? Not only is that a naked assumption (based on potentially non apples-to-apples statistics), it also ignores quality and all of the other nasty incentives embedded in the train wreck being negotiated behind closed doors. The bottom line, of course, is that you are willing to swallow any and all lies coming from the mouth of your corrupt messiah. Perhaps you don't care, given that you sound like a member of the liberal elite who will just fly to wherever the good doctors choose to relocate to avoid being told how to practice and how much they can make for their services.
Bob| 1.6.10 @ 12:56PM
Pete, now you need a reading lesson. I said the current plan will not change anything from a cost perspective. Only if we have a free market plan where people are not covered for everything (and the hospitals/doctors will not fix you unless you pay), or a universal plan will costs come down.
Pete| 1.6.10 @ 1:11PM
Regardless of how you meant your statement (perhaps you need a writing lesson?), my point still stands. A large assumption underlies your assertion and I think that assumption is wrong. To support your assertion, you have pointed to statistics from other countries and I can provide any number of examples where the federal government has inflated costs. Simple enough?
Bob| 1.6.10 @ 1:48PM
Face it, Pete, you have no data on health care to prove your point. I do. Assuming on a broad brush that since one program is inflated, all will be inflated is sheer stupidity. The way economists provide valuations is to have a macro comparison with similar programs. That is exactly what I have done. Perhaps you need to study the art of valuations.
Next time try reading rather than skimming....
Pete| 1.6.10 @ 5:49PM
I have made a very similar leap of faith to your own, and spare me the valuation babble. I am assuming, based on historical fact in the United States, that anything the federal government touches will become less efficient and more expensive. You are assuming, based on data from other countries with a wide variety of HC implementations, that the US government would be able to match the same per capita costs. Which assumption is stupid? I suppose I will leave it to the readers here. Next time try thinking.
Bob| 1.6.10 @ 6:09PM
You have made no leap of faith, Pete, you've come to a conclusion which is not supportable by fact. You are an example of what is wrong with populism -- there is no intelligence to its conclusions. Would we achieve the same result as other countries if we went to universal health care. Are you saying that other countries with central government control are more effective than us? Your argument says that central control of any government is inefficient. Therefore, we can be just as inefficient as other countries and achieve the same result. Other countries achieve this level through the use of rationing. Are you saying that rationing will not lower costs? I think you should take a class in logic -- and perhaps an accounting class in valuation/analysis techniques.
Pete| 1.6.10 @ 6:58PM
Bob, you are an example of what is wrong with liberal elites - you think you are better/smarter than everyone else. My conclusion is every bit as supported as yours: see my last post. The logic is quite similar. You maintain that because other countries have a lower per capita figure, the US can necessarily do the same. Fair enough, may or may not be true. I maintain that because the US government has been historical inefficient and wasteful, they would be so again with Healthcare. Again, may or may not be true, although I believe my scenario much more than yours, given the "unplanned" expansion and fraud inherent in government run endeavors. I think you should run into a brick wall and forget some of the things you think you have learned. I'll give you this, though, you are excellent at condescension.
Kyle Smith | 1.6.10 @ 10:41AM
Stan, you go right ahead and gain wisdom from 24 year olds. You telling me I'm weak and pathetic is using harsher words than I used on Ezra Klein, not Philip Klein btw. But, go ahead and focus on bashing me, while you accept premise after premise of what the left throws out there. I suppose you think we need to do something about global warming and fix health care so it is as good as Cuba's as well?
racking | 1.6.10 @ 11:01AM
http://www.racking-shelving.com
http://www.cold-store-equipment.com
Pingback| 1.6.10 @ 2:58PM
The American Spectator : AmSpecBlog : Yes, Health Care Legislation … Cable Body links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 1.6.10 @ 7:38PM
The American Spectator : AmSpecBlog : Yes, Health Care Legislation … American Me links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 1.6.10 @ 11:40PM
The American Spectator : AmSpecBlog : Yes, Health Care Legislation … High just to Me links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
autiemadman| 2.20.10 @ 2:18PM
Fake autism labels drive up education and health costs. Please be aware thet ther are many misuses and abusives of word autism today: this hurts peolple trying to help reall autistic persons http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks.....290796.htm
This link above exposess some of what going on in false autism diagnosis today...
also, i highly recommened seeeing Youtube video "AUTISM EPIDEMIC OUT OF CONTROL" and "autism spectrum seems out of control"
LarnerJG| 3.1.10 @ 3:40PM
I grew up in Canada and I lived in France. I can tell you that - contrary to mountains of right-wing propaganda -- socialized medicine in a democracy works very well indeed; and delivers better health care stats than ours at much lower cost, not to mention covering everyone. Yes, the Europeans and Canadians pay higher taxes for a public good. I don't see anything wrong with that.
Ask a European or Canadian if they'd trade their system for ours (and please don't drag in anecdotal stats about Canadians coming here for voluntary surgery -- urgent need surgery absolutely IS provided in a timely fashion in Canada, as I know from EXPERIENCE not second-hand rumors and lies) and they'd laugh in your face. After all, if they wanted our system, they could have it. Canada's a democracy; they could vote for politicians who would give it to them. But they don't.
Please don't believe the Republican hype. The problem with the present Democratic plan is precisely that it is NOT socialized medicine - it preserves the private profits of the insurance companies, which are a scandal. The clear and obvious way to cover everyone, while reducing costs, is a single-payer national health care plan.
And please don't believe Kyle Smith false equation of socialized medicine in a democracy with Castro's Cuba. Much of Cuba's health care stats are of course lies -- but Cuba's not a democracy. Socialized medicine can and does work very well in democracy. I think Smith also means to imply that socialized medicine leads to totalitarian tyranny -- another transparent lie, unless you think that Canada and Denmark (rated #1 in the world in patient satisfaction) are tyrannies.