Here's a striking graphic of the results of continuing New York Times/CBS News polling on the question, "Do you think the federal government should guarantee health insurance for all Americans, or isn't this the responsibility of the federal government?"
Support for a government guarantee of health insurance starts dropping sharply as the country starts debating the topic. It's not clear from this graphic, provided by Gallup, but support is at 64 percent in June, 55 in July, and 51 in late September, well after the Long Hot August and just after President Obama's health care blitz that included his primetime speech to Congress and highly publicized rallies in Minnesota and Maryland. Note also that the question doesn't mention any downsides of the government guarantee; respondents apparently had figured those out for themselves.
Oddly enough, if you search the New York Times site for this question, nothing comes up. And if you Google the question, the Times isn't in the search results. It's almost as if they didn't want to publicize their very interesting finding. You can find a reference to it here and documentation here.
Another interesting take on support for health care "reform" can be found here -- a graph of all the polls on health care plans offered by the president or in Congress, from January to present, showing opposition rising. Also from pollster.com: President Obama's slipping approval numbers on health care.
A front-page Washington Post story today notes that the cost of Obama-style health care reform will fall disproportionately on young adults.
Younger workers are typically more healthy than the population at large, and a significant share of them quite rationally choose not to buy health insurance, as my colleague Mike Tanner explains in a recent op-ed. The major health care plans on the table in Washington would force them to buy coverage. As the Post story explains:
Drafting young adults into any health-care reform package is crucial to paying for it. As low-cost additions to insurance pools, young adults would help dilute the expense of covering older, sicker people. Depending on how Congress requires insurers to price their policies, this group could even wind up paying disproportionately hefty premiums—effectively subsidizing coverage for their parents.
I’m beginning to see a pattern. Those same young workers will be forced to pay the bills for soaring Social Security and Medicare expenditures when the Baby Boomers begin retiring en masse a decade from now. And of course, they will be the ones paying off the $9 trillion in additional federal debt expected to be wracked up from the current explosion in federal spending.
I always thought parents were supposed to support their kids, not saddle them with bigger bills and huge debts.
As Washington debates a big increase in federal health care spending, I came across these two articles on what a splendid job the government is doing managing its current health programs.
Harvard professor Malcolm Sparrow recently testified that roughly $100 billion or more of Medicare and Medicaid dollars go down the drain each year due to fraud. It's easy to rip these programs off because of their vast size and electronic claims processing. Medicare processes more than 1 billion of claims each year.
This Washington Post article last year described one particular example of the fraud. A high-school drop-out managed to bilk Medicare out of $105 million by submitting a 140,000 false claims from her laptop computer.
So we've got $100 billion or so of taxpayer's hard-earned money being stolen each year from our current public health care plans. You would think that with today's giant budget deficit that the highest priority of policymakers would be to reform these programs to reduce the unbelievable and disgusting amounts of graft. But no, many in Congress and President Obama have decided that current government health care works so well that they want to expand it.
President Obama wants to create a new "public health option" to "keep insurance companies honest." Hey Mr. President, you should do something about the $100 billion of dishonesty in current public health plans, instead of hitting up taxpayers to fund an even more bloated health care budget.
Federal unions, government officials, and the Washington Post's "Federal Diary" column frequently suggest that federal civilian workers are underpaid. They suffer from a large "pay gap" compared to private sector workers, or so the story goes.
But in the Post's "Jobs" section yesterday, human resources specialist Lily Garcia argues that "Uncle Sam Is a Boss You Can Rely On." For job seekers, Garcia points to the many advantages of federal work:
- "Generous benefits, solid pay, and relative job security -- a combination that is challenging to find in the private sector, even in the best of times."
- The "widest selection of health-care plans of any U.S. employer."
- "Liberal amounts of paid time off."
- Very lucrative retirement benefits.
- Family-friendly policies such as "first priority and subsidies at a number of top-notch day-care facilities."
- "Federal employees are paid relatively well . . . [and] practically guaranteed periodic within-grade pay raises."
- Finally, "federal employees cannot be unceremoniously fired." I've found that only about 1 in 5,000 federal civilian workers are fired each year due to poor performance.
Is the lack of firing a result of the superb quality of the federal workforce and superior management practices? Hardly. Garcia notes that the downside of working for Uncle Sam is that the government "has its fair share of bullies, sycophants and incompetents who pick on employees, display favoritism, mismanage operations and find creative ways to manipulate the rules to their advantage." I'd guess more than its fair share. Since federal workers are rarely fired, the ranks of non-performing managers and workers grows over time, contributing to the bureaucratic ineptitude we are all familiar with in the federal government.
To improve workforce efficiency, I've suggested privatizing as many federal activities as possible, include postal services, air traffic control, and passenger rail. To cut costs, I've suggested a federal wage freeze and a cut in federal benefits as part of a plan to reduce federal budget deficits.
For more from Lily Garcia, see here. For more from me, see here.