Tag: health care reform

Parsing Pelosi: House Health Takeover Would Cost around $2.25 Trillion

Just like the Senate Finance Committee’s government takeover, the House of Representatives’ government takeover hides more than half of its cost by pushing those costs off the government’s budget and onto the private sector.

So when Speaker Pelosi says the House bill would cost under $900 billion, what she actually means is that it would cost around $2.25 trillion.

Max Baucus’s Magic?

Max Baucus says every single Democratic senator will vote for all the taxes, all the private-sector mandates, all the inter-governmental mandates, all the Medicare spending cuts, and all the new private-insurance subsidies that he and Harry Reid are cobbling together.  What’s left to discuss?

Baucus may know something I don’t.  But here’s what I do know.

  1. To subsidize Paul, Democrats need to rob Peter.  And Peter ain’t gonna like that, whether “Peter” is union members, small businesses, insurance companies, medical-device manufacturers, sick people, or the middle class broadly.
  2. Of course, the government already does a lot of Peter-robbing and Paul-paying in health care. Democrats could subsidize Paul #2 by cutting subsidies to Paul #1.  But again, Paul #1 — whether “he” be seniors, doctors, hospitals, insurance companies, pharmaceutical manufacturers, medical-device manufacturers, home health agencies, skilled nursing facilities, etc. — ain’t gonna like that.
  3. Members of Congress, including Democratic senators, tend to listen to those Peters and Paul #1s.
  4. Democrats could try to rob future generations, but they (particularly President Obama) have painted themselves into a corner on that one by promising not to add to the deficit.  And with regard to deficit spending, the public appears to be in no mood.

Heck, I’m sure that Baucus knows a lot of things I don’t know.  But I doubt he knows any magical incantations that’ll make those challenges go away.

(Cross-posted at Politico’s Health Care Arena.)

Wednesday Links


Weekend Links

  • The Senate Finance Committee’s version of health care reform is definitely a step up from all of the other versions of the bill. But that’s still a pretty low bar.
  • Change? The president cuts another deal for special interest lobbyists at the expense of American families.

Baucus Bill’s Spending Cuts Won’t Stick

Why? Just ask Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN):

You can sort of see this coming. The savings from the pharmaceutical companies and the insurance industry, you can kind of count on that because they’re not very popular.

The hospitals are a different story.  People, you know, like their hospitals; they tend to trust their hospitals. The hospitals have pledged big savings. I can easily forecast at some point in the not-too-distant future the hospitals coming in and saying, “You know what, this isn’t working exactly the way we expected. Please spare us from this,” and them getting a good hearing in [Congress].

The same thing goes for physicians.

And the pharmaceutical companies.

And the insurance industry.

Wednesday Links - Health Care Costs

The Congressional Budget Office released a report this week that revealed that the proposed health care bill would not increase the deficit.  But is it that simple? Cato health care policy experts have examined the bill and added up the costs. Here are a few things they have found:

“Keep Your Subsidies off My Ovaries”

In my recent Cato paper, “All the President’s Mandates: Compulsory Health Insurance Is a Government Takeover,” I explain that if Congress compels Americans to purchase health insurance, it would “inevitably and unnecessarily open a new front in the abortion debate, one where either side—and possibly both sides—could lose.”

Slate’s William Saletan explains how the pro-choice side could lose:

This week, the Senate finance committee is considering amendments that would bar coverage of abortions under federally subsidized health insurance. Pro-choice groups are up in arms. After all, says NARAL Pro-Choice America, “In the current insurance marketplace, private plans can choose whether to cover abortion care—and most do.” If Congress enacts subsidies that exclude abortion, “women could lose coverage for abortion care, even if their private health-insurance plan already covers it!“…

The argument these groups make is perfectly logical: If you standardize health insurance through federal subsidies and coverage requirements, people might lose benefits they used to enjoy in the private sector. But that’s more than an argument against excluding abortion. It’s an argument against health care reform altogether.

Saletan also explains why pro-life and pro-choice positions on Obama’s health plan are irreconcilable:

To get what they consider neutrality, pro-choicers have to make pro-lifers pay indirectly for abortions. And to keep what they consider clean hands, pro-lifers have to make abortion coverage federally unsupportable and therefore, in a subsidy-dependent system, commercially nonviable.

Rather than an argument against all health care reform, I’d say this is an argument against reforms that expand government subsidies or otherwise give government the power to choose what kind of insurance you purchase.  Fortunately, there are better ways to reform health care.