The latest from Jeffrey H. Anderson, which I'll file under I-Wish-I'd-Said-That:
In a newly released report, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) estimates that, in fiscal year 2010, $48 billion in taxpayer money was squandered on fraudulent or improper Medicare claims. Meanwhile, the nation’s ten largest health insurance companies made combined profits of $12.7 billion in 2010 (according to Fortune 500). In other words, for every $1 made by the nation’s ten largest insurers, Medicare lost nearly $4...
Actually, it may have been even worse than that: The GAO writes that this $48 billion in taxpayer money that went down the drain doesn’t even represent Medicare’s full tally of lost revenue, since it “did not include improper payments in its Part D prescription drug benefit, for which the agency has not yet estimated a total amount.”
Courtesy of The Weekly Standard.
A correspondent for The Economist, whose initials are M.S., posts this on the Democracy in America blog:
[T]he new health-care-reform law passed in March is an entirely private-insurer, free-market-based reform. If someone were to refer to it as a "government takeover of the health-care sector", that person would hold a factually incorrect ideological belief.
I wonder what convinced M.S. that the new health care law is an entirely free-market-based reform. Was it the expansion of the government's Medicaid program to another 16 million Americans? Was it the 19-million-plus other Americans who will receive government subsidies to purchase private health insurance? Was it the new price controls that the law imposes on health insurance? Or the price and exchange controls that it will extend to even more of the market? Was it the dynamics those regulations set in motion, which will reduce variety and innovation in health insurance? Was it the mandates that require private actors to spend their resources according to the wishes of the state? Or the new federal regulations that will shape every health insurance plan in the United States, whether purchased through the employer-based market, the individual market, or the new health insurance "exchanges"? Was it the half-trillion dollars of (explicit) tax increases over the next 10 years?
I wonder what it is about this law that M.S. thinks is consonant with the principles of a free market. Perhaps we have a different idea of what "free" means.
M.S. lists other "factually incorrect beliefs," including:
that the Clinton plan would deny patients their choice of doctor, and that the health-care-reform bills in Congress at the time involved government "death panels" that could decide to withhold care from elderly patients on a cost-benefit basis.
I won't dredge up the Clinton health plan. But I have previously demonstrated that, when Sarah Palin claimed that President Obama wanted to give a government panel the power to deny medical care to the elderly and disabled based on cost-effectiveness criteria, the president had in fact proposed a panel with the power to do exactly that.
I agree with M.S. about this much: "once people are exposed to false information, it's extremely difficult to convince them it's false."
Congressman Paul Ryan (R-WI) takes the President to task for cooking the books on projected health care costs, most egregiously with the “doc fix” -- namely, assuming Medicare slashes physician payments by 21.3% this year and subsequently lets them fall continuously in real terms.
What nobody seems to have noticed is that the same phony “doc fix” taints the new “Health Spending Projections Through 2019" from Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS).
Drew Altman, president and CEO of the Kaiser Family Foundation, tries to downplay the CMS forecast “that the public sector will start paying more than half of the nation's health care bill starting in 2012, and that government spending will grow faster than private spending from 2009 to 2019 (an average of 7.0% per year vs. 5.2%).”
Worrying about such spending trends is a foolish “ideological battle over the role of government,” says Altman, because rapid increases in government health spending is “just the byproduct of economic and demographic trends” (recession and an aging population). “Is government health spending out of control?” he asks; answering “NO” in capital letters. “The report simply underscores the need to control health care costs in the public and the private sectors alike."
On the contrary, the reason government health care spending is projected to slow down to 7% a year is, the CMS explains, “due principally to the 21.3% reduction in physician payment rates . . . mandated in current law.”
Putting aside such “doctored” projections, “health spending by public payers ($1.2 trillion) is projected to have grown much faster in 2009 (8.7 percent) than that of private payers (3.0 percent).”
That was not because of high inflation in costs of medical goods and services (which should not differ much between government and private payers), but because the government has only in recent years been heavily subsidizing health insurance for the unemployed and drug insurance for seniors, and actively expanding the enrollment of Medicaid programs which (being "free") often lure people out of employer-sponsored plans.
What Congressional Democrats call “reform” is, in fact, much more of the same—more non-poor people getting Medicaid and other subsidies that are yanked away if you work too hard.
No, It’s Not Health Inflation
Describing runaway entitlement spending as “health inflation" is terribly misleading (even when Rep. Ryan does it), because doing so confuses rising prices with rising utilization of medical goods and services by people who are insulated from actual costs by taxpayer-financed subsidies.
Government subsidies also raise costs to those using private insurance. The CMS notes that 2009’s 4.6% increase “private health insurance premium spending per employee . . . resulted in part from an increase in the proportion of high-cost claims—many of whom have temporary COBRA coverage" [emphasis added], which is 65% financed by taxpayers.
By contrast, health inflation per se is projected to be 2.8% this year -- comparable to other labor-intensive service industries and also down from 3.2% in 2009 and 3% in 2008. Morevoer, “out-of-pocket spending is projected to have grown 2.1 percent in 2009, down from 2.8% in 2008.”
What about all the uninformed media fuss about health insurance companies supposedly "asking for" premium increases of "up to" 39%?
If President Obama really wanted to find out how quickly typical health insurance premiums have been increasing, he could have a staffer call the Bureau of Labor Statistics and ask for Table 3A of the “Consumer Price Index Detailed Report Tables Annual Averages 2009.” It turns out the consumer price index for health insurance premiums fell by 3.2% in 2009.
Over at Think Progress, Matt Yglesias takes me to task for saying that the so-called public option in the House’s health care bill “would all but eliminate private insurance and force millions of Americans into a government-run system.”
Yglesias apparently still buys into the myth that the public option is, well, an option.
For people who receive health insurance through their employers, which is to say the vast majority of the Americans who currently have health insurance, the House bill would change very little. Or, rather, the biggest change would simply be the confidence that if, in the future, you cease to get health insurance from your employer (maybe you’ll lose your job or want to change jobs) that you’ll still be able to get health care. What’s more, of the minority of Americans who would be getting health care through the new “exchange,” the majority will probably sign up for private health insurance and everyone will have the option of doing so. If the government-run public plan is, for whatever reason, vastly more appealing than the private options then it will dominate. But if you believe the government can’t run health care well, there’s no reason to think that will happen. Whatever you think of that, though, the basic fact is that even if the public option does dominate the exchange most people will still have private employer-provided insurance.
That might be true if the new government-run program were going to compete on anything close to a level playing field. But, because the public option is ultimately supported by the taxpayers, the playing field can never be level. True, the bill does say that the new program is supposed to be self-sustaining, covering administrative and benefit costs entirely out of premium revenues. But remember that Medicare Part B was originally supposed to support 50 percent of its costs through premiums. That has shrunk to the point where premiums pay for less than 25 percent of the program’s cost.
And the government has a myriad of ways to prevent the true cost of the program from showing up in premium prices. For example, the government-run plan will not have to pay state or federal taxes, and unlike private insurance plans, who can be sued in state courts, the government-run plan could only be sued in federal court.
At the very least, the program carries with it an implicit guarantee against future losses. Suppose the public option prices its products too low and loses money. Can you imagine that Congress is simply going to let it go bankrupt, go out of business? Would a Congress that has bailed out banks and automobile companies because they are "too big to fail" resist subsidizing the government's insurance plan if it began to lose money? Even without the actual bailout, such an implicit guarantee has a value. For example, the implicit guarantees behind Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were estimated to have saved those institutions $6 billion per year.
All of this means that the government-run plan would be significantly cheaper than private insurance, not because it would out-compete private insurance or because it was more efficient, but because it had unfair advantages. The lower cost means that businesses, in particular, would have every incentive to dump workers from their current health insurance plan into the government plan. And, if other provisions of the bill make insurance more expensive, as is likely, the incentive for employers to shift workers to the government plan would be even greater. Estimates suggest that nearly 90 million workers could eventually be forced into the government plan.
As Robert Samuelson, dean of economic columnists, writes in the Washington Post, “a favored public plan would probably doom today's private insurance.”
Samuelson is right. There is nothing “optional” about a public option. And that is just the way the Left wants it.