Tag: Obamacare

ObamaCare Remains Unpopular, or Round Two of My Exchange with Maggie Mahar

Maggie Mahar responds to my response to her critique of Michael Tanner’s claim that ObamaCare is deeply unpopular.  Mahar’s alternative narrative, espoused by many on the Left, is that “the more voters learn more about the reform legislation, the more they seem to like it.”

Mahar shows that her narrative works if you begin looking for a trend at the high-water mark of opposition, if you look at a few select polls, if you look at not-so-straightforward poll questions, if you interpret simultaneous declines in both support and opposition as growing support, and if you devise a rationale for ignoring the views of those who most oppose ObamaCare.  Which is to say, her narrative doesn’t work.  ObamaCare remains deeply unpopular.

Mahar claims that support for repealing ObamaCare has been trending downward since reaching its high water mark of 63 percent on May 22, as measured by the polling firm Rasmussen Reports. This was shrewd; if you’re going to look for a downward trend, the high water mark is an excellent place to start. But it doesn’t paint an accurate picture of what’s been happening with public support for repeal. Starting on the enactment date, as I wrote before, “Rasmussen finds opposition to repeal hovering between 32-42 percent, and support for repeal hovering between 52-63 percent, with no clear trend on either side.” No clear trend, and a majority consistently supports repeal.  Check out Rasmussen’s data and see for yourself.

Next, Mahar selects a few polls that do support her narrative (e.g., Gallup, NBC/Wall Street Journal, Kaiser Family Foundation).  For example, in her first post, Mahar cites an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll from June that suggests voters would prefer a Democratic congressional candidate who didn’t want to repeal ObamaCare over a Republican who did. Aside from the results being barely statistically significant, the question she cites introduces confounding factors such as party affiliation. When that same poll asked a more straightforward question, it found that 47 percent of respondents would be enthusiastic about or comfortable with a candidate’s desire to repeal ObamaCare, compared to 40 percent who would have reservations or be uncomfortable.

Moreover, selecting just a few polls probably paints a less accurate picture than looking at something like Pollster.com, which aggregates all polls and therefore (presumably) cancels out the quirkiness of individual polls.

The above graph shows that opposition to ObamaCare surged after Obama’s inauguration and surpassed support just as the debate began in earnest in July 2009. (That rising opposition fueled the angry town halls of August 2009.) In other words, from the moment the public began to focus on ObamaCare, they didn’t like what they saw, and opponents have out-numbered its supporters for 12 months now.  (Note: the above graph only includes polls that ask the straightforward support/oppose question. It does not include Rasmussen’s polls showing broad and deep support for repeal, nor the NBC/Wall Street Journal and Kaiser Family Foundation polls Mahar cites, which show weaker support for repeal. It would be interesting to see Pollster.com aggregate the “repeal” polls.)

When Mahar turns her attention to all available polls, she argues, “if you’re looking for a trend, it’s only sensible to begin the day the bill was signed, March 23.” Why?

It was only after the final bill was passed, that people could begin to offer an opinion.

How true that is.  Also: mere voters can hardly be expected to offer an opinion about would-be presidents until after Inauguration Day.

One would think that Mahar would only insult the public’s intelligence, and dismiss the views that a plurality/majority of adults consistently expressed for 9 months, if it would help to bolster her argument.  But it doesn’t.  When we look at the trend in public opinion on ObamaCare since the signing ceremony, we see that opposition and support are declining:

If the trendline showing declining opposition to ObamaCare supports Mahar’s narrative (“the more voters learn…the more they seem to like it”), the trendline showing declining support for ObamaCare supports the opposite narrative (“the more voters learn, the less they like it”).

But recall that Mahar claims that voters are warming to ObamaCare.  When we look only at polls of adults who are registered to vote, there doesn’t appear to be any change since ObamaCare became law:

Looking just at voters also reveals that the opposition leads support by an even wider margin (9.5 percentage points).

(NB: These Pollster.com graphs will update automatically as new polling information becomes available, which may affect the trendlines.  My description of the trends and the numbers I cite are current as of July 26, 2010.  Also, readers using Internet Explorer have reported difficulty seeing the trendlines in user-generated graphs from Pollster.com.)

Finally, Mahar channels Marion Barry, who (in)famously claimed that if you don’t count murders, the crime rate in Washington, D.C., is really quite low.  She cites a poll that “suggests that opposition is largely confined to the one group that already has universal coverage–seniors,” and then invokes Ezra Klein’s rationale for dismissing their opinions:

[S]eniors, of course, aren’t opposed to government-run health care. They love their Medicare, and insofar as they have a policy concern here, it’s that the Affordable Care Act will interfere with the single-payer system they rely on.

It is nonsense to say that ObamaCare is popular if we just ignore the views of people who will suffer.  If ObamaCare weren’t taking the money for its insurance-company bailouts new government spending out of Medicare, it would have to take that money from somewhere else and those people would be angry.  (Actually, since those Medicare cuts probably won’t happen, we’ll get to see that scenario play out.)  Even if ObamaCare were popular among non-seniors, all Mahar and Klein would have established is that massive new government entitlement programs would be popular if we didn’t have to pay for them.

Randy Barnett in the Wall Street Journal: “A Commandeering of the People”

Cato senior fellow Randy Barnett is the subject of the Wall Street Journal’s nearly-full-page Weekend Interview. Randy talks about interpreting the Constitution with “a presumption of liberty,” the subtitle of his book Restoring the Lost Constitution; about the Supreme Court’s expansion of government power from Wickard v. Filburn to Gonzales v. Raich; and especially about the constitutionality of the new health care bill and its individual mandate. Randy wrote an amicus brief with Cato in support of the Virginia attorney general’s challenge to the health care mandate.

“What is the individual mandate?” Mr. Barnett says. “I’ll tell you what the individual mandate, in reality, is. It is a commandeering of the people. . . . Now, is there a rule of law preventing that? No. Why isn’t there a rule of law preventing that? Because it’s never been done before. What’s bothering people about the mandate? This fact. It’s intuitive to them. People don’t even know how to explain it, but there’s something different about this, because it’s a commandeering of the people as a whole. . . . We commandeer people to serve in the military, to serve on juries, and to file a return and pay their taxes. That’s all we commandeer the people to do. This is a new kind of commandeering, and it’s offensive to a lot of people.”

For the full legal argument, read the brief.

Investors: Fear the Process That Gave Us ObamaCare, Not Efforts to Repeal It

Ezra Klein writes:

So long as the political system is working reasonably well, we can get out from even quite a lot of debt. But the more it breaks down — the more the market sees things like the deficit commission rejected by its Republican sponsors in Congress, the more it hears threats to repeal the deficit reduction in health-care reform, the more it seems likely that Democrats will become just as unreasonably obstructionist when they become the minority — the more it has reason to worry.

I doubt that investors worry more when they hear threats to repeal ObamaCare or its Medicare cuts, which few took seriously in the first place. Given that the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, the non-partisan chief actuary of the Medicare program, and even the International Monetary Fund have all expressed skepticism that those cuts will take effect, I expect investors have already discounted claims that ObamaCare will reduce the deficit.

More generally, the problem is not that the political system is breaking down.  That system is working pretty much the same way it always has and always will: it promotes irresponsibility.  Republicans and Democrats are merely responding to the incentives created by the system in which they operate.  (If they didn’t respond to those incentives, the political system would throw them out and replace them with people who do.)  If investors don’t already understand that, the sooner the better.

This is why responsible people want to take responsibility for our health care, etc., out of the hands of politicians.

The ‘Public Option’ Is Back

That didn’t take long at all.  Left-wing congresscritters have (re-)introduced legislation to create a “public option” in ObamaCare’s health insurance exchanges.

The Congressional Budget Office scores the bill as reducing federal deficits by $53 billion by 2019.  How?  Paying doctors and hospitals less!  Put that on a bumper sticker! The public option would use Medicare’s price and exchange controls to pay doctors and other health care providers 5 percent more than Medicare does.  Except for prescription drugs: the public option would, ahem, “negotiate” those prices, meaning it would use a separate price-control scheme and pay less than Medicare does.  (That means PhRMA probably won’t be bankrolling the public-option campaign the way it bankrolled the pro-ObamaCare campaign and is bankrolling the re-election bids of its congressional benefactors.)  Providers, such as community hospitals, would take a huge pay cut if some of their privately-insured patients suddenly only paid Medicare plus 5 percent.

When costs explode under ObamaCare the way they are exploding under RomneyCare, expect the public option to be the Left’s go-to solution. In CongressDaily, co-sponsor Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.) says:

By reintroducing it, we make sure that people don’t forget this is a viable option…. I think as the health bill is implemented, more and more people are going to come to the realization that cost containment and competition aren’t as robust as they should be, because of the absence of the public option.

Naturally.  Because the first thing that comes to mind when I think cost-containment and competition is government health care programs.

For a refresher on how the Left confuses cost-containment with spending-containment – and on why the public option is a really, really, really bad idea – see my paper, “Fannie Med? Why a ‘Public Option’ Is Hazardous to Your Health.”

A Response to Gruber on RomneyCare & Health Care Costs

I just came across this letter to the editor of the Wall Street Journal from MIT economist Jonathan Gruber.  I don’t know how to confine myself to just one of the letter’s many problems. So brace yourselves, here comes the fisk.

Joseph Rago’s article on Massachusetts health-care reform (“The Massachusetts Health-Care ‘Train Wreck’,” op-ed, July 7) is exactly the type of selectively misleading use of facts upon which opponents of health-care reform have been relying over the past year.

No comment, other than remember the phrase “selectively misleading use of facts.”

Health-care reform in Massachusetts has covered 60% of the state’s uninsured, has done so at roughly the cost projected before reform was enacted in 2006, and remains overwhelmingly popular with the residents of the state.

Regarding coverage gains, Massachusetts officials used to claim that RomneyCare reduced the share of uninsured residents from around 10 percent to 2.6 percent.  In a study released this year, Aaron Yelowitz (a former student and coauthor of Gruber’s) and I show why that figure is too low and why the actual figure is likely 5.1 percent or higher.  The study on which Gruber relies – like all other such studies – neither mentions nor attempts to measure the problem that Yelowitz and I identified: uninsured Massachusetts residents appear to be responding to the individual mandate by concealing their lack of insurance, which would inflate the coverage gains.  Since that study obtained results similar to our results for Massachusetts adults, that study’s estimate of a 60-percent reduction in the uninsured appears to be an upper-bound estimate, rather than a point estimate.

Regarding costs, I haven’t seen any updated numbers since the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation’s whitewash from May 2009.  I’d like to see an updated, non-whitewashed report on actual spending and how it compares to the original projections, especially considering that in 2006, the Kaiser Family Foundation reported that Massachusetts “anticipates that no additional funding will be needed beyond three years.“  Updated figures would also allow us to judge how much RomneyCare spent per newly insured resident.

The state has seen a decline in its nongroup premiums of more than 50% relative to national trends…It reduced the costs to individuals of purchasing insurance…[an] enormous reduction relative to pre-reform…

Here’s where Gruber engages in his own “selectively misleading use of facts.”  Yes, non-group premiums appear to have fallen for the 4 percent of residents in the non-group market – because RomneyCare shifted those costs to workers with job-based coverage.

It is true that reform has not slowed the growth of group health-insurance premiums, which have continued to rise at exactly the same rate as in the nation as a whole.

The first part of this sentence is an understatement; the second part is false.  This report from the left-wing Commonwealth Fund shows that premiums in Massachusetts are growing faster than anywhere else in the nation.  And the only study that has tried to isolate the effect of RomneyCare finds that it increased premiums for employment-based coverage by 6 percent (see cost-shifting, above).

Despite Gov. Mitt Romney’s claims, the Massachusetts reform was not designed to slow the growth of health-care cost growth.

It should be obvious by now that RomneyCare wasn’t designed that way.  But it sure was sold that way.  And so was ObamaCare.  Any bets on how long before we hear apologists for both claiming that ObamaCare wasn’t designed to slow cost growth?

The PPACA also includes a series of changes that represent the best thinking about how to control costs, such as an independent rate-setting board for Medicare, pilots of innovative medical reimbursement approaches, and an end to the open-ended tax subsidy to the highest cost health insurance plans in the U.S. None of these is guaranteed to slow the rate of cost growth. But each is better than doing nothing, which was the alternative.

So the, ahem, best thinking on how to contain health care costs is (1) price and exchange controls set by (2) an unelected and unaccountable rationing board, plus (3) taxing health insurance.  Bra-vo. Sure, Obama’s National Economic Council chairman Larry Summers says, “Price and exchange controls inevitably create harmful economic distortions. Both the distortions and the economic damage get worse with time.” But when the alternative is nothing – nothing! – that means the bar for “best thinking” isn’t very high.

In the end, it is impossible to control health-care costs without first bringing as many citizens as possible into our health-insurance system.

As I blogged earlier today, it does not speak well of the Left’s approach to health care that in order to reduce wasteful government spending – or at least pretend to – they must first create more wasteful government spending.

RomneyCare Advocates: We Swear, This Time Centralized Planning Will Work

You know things aren’t going well in Massachusetts when supporters of RomneyCare write “there’s some evidence that the reforms signed into law by Mitt Romney in 2006 are struggling.”  That’s how The Washington Post’s Ezra Klein puts it in a post defending RomneyCare.  The New Republic’s Jonathan Cohn offers a similar defense.

Klein mentions only a few of the difficulties confronting Massachusetts.  Here are a few more:

  • The Commonwealth Fund reports that even though Massachusetts already had the highest health insurance premiums in the nation, premiums rose faster post-RomneyCare than anywhere else; 21-46 percent faster than the national average.
  • A recent study estimates that RomneyCare has so far increased employer-sponsored health-insurance premiums by an average of 6 percent.
  • The success that Klein sees in Massachusetts’ individual market – which accounts for just 4 percent of the private market – is merely the product of shifting costs to workers with job-based coverage.
  • Contrary to Klein’s post hoc spin that RomneyCare “was never an attempt to control costs,” Romney himself promised that “the costs of health care will be reduced.”
  • Aaron Yelowitz and I find evidence suggesting that uninsured Massachusetts residents are responding to the individual mandate not by obtaining coverage but by concealing their insurance status.  Coverage gains may therefore be less than official estimates suggest.
  • Evidence is mounting that, despite stiffer penalties than ObamaCare will impose, increasing numbers of people are gaming the individual mandate by only purchasing health insurance when they need medical care. Such behavior could ultimately cause the “private” insurance market to collapse.

Nevertheless, the Klein/Cohn thesis is basically that costs have been climbing and employers have been dropping/curtailing health benefits for decades.  So you can’t blame that stuff on RomneyCare.  We should instead be thankful that Massachusetts enacted a new raft of government price controls, mandates, and subsidies to protect residents from those features of “the American health-care system.”

The only problem is that “the American health-care system” is the product of the old raft of government price & exchange controls, mandates, and subsidies.  The largest purchaser of medical care in the country (and the world) is MedicareMedicaid is second.  The Left complains so much about fee-for-service medicine fueling rising health care costs and reducing quality, you’d never know that their beloved Medicare program is the primary reason for its dominance.  Likewise, the reason why employers are dropping and curtailing coverage is that the government turned the private health insurance market into an unsustainable employment-based system that is doomed to unravel.  Cohn’s book documents the inhumanity of that system so well, you’d think it would sour him on the sort of centralized planning that created it.  I could go on…

RomneyCare and its progeny ObamaCare are attempts by the Left’s central planners to clean up their own mess.  If Klein and Cohn want to defend those laws, pointing to the damage already caused by their economic policies won’t do the trick.  They need to explain why government price & exchange controls, mandates, and subsidies will produce something other than what they have always produced.