Why Does The Administration (And The Media) Only Choke at Cost When It Comes To Health Care?
By Susie Madrak Sunday Sep 06, 2009 10:00amEzra Klein talks about what everyone on the Hill knows: that the health-care deal will now get done by making it unaffordable for the people it's supposed to help. Only in D.C. is that considered a "victory." Well, I say it's spinach, and I say to hell with it!
The basic structure of the bill has three main planks working in conjunction with each other: The individual mandate creates a mechanism for a universal, or near-universal, system. A universal, or near-universal, system creates the conditions for insurance market reform. The subsidies make the individual mandate affordable for people to follow.
There are a few ways to destabilize this system. The most likely way is to reduce the subsidies so that the individual mandate isn't really affordable. That seems to be happening even as we speak. At that point, reformers have two options, both of them bad.
The first option is to reduce the value of the minimum insurance policy such that buying something the government considers insurance isn't very expensive. This means policies with high deductibles and co-pays, or policies that don't cover very much. But asking someone with a relatively low income to purchase a policy with a $1,500 deductible and significant co-pays is asking them to purchase something they can't really afford to use. So we're making them spend $7,000 or $8,000 a year on something they don't necessarily want and can't really take advantage of. That's a recipe for a huge backlash.
The second option is to drop the individual mandate altogether. Obama, who didn't have a mandate in his campaign plan, might be amenable to this approach. But here, too, there are problems. The young, healthy risks will hang back from the system while the older, sicker risks will flood in to take advantage of subsidies and new regulations that stop insurers from discriminating against them. The risk pool will reflect that, and health-care insurance will become even more unaffordable for the people who need it. And because it's less affordable because of the presence of the sick, it will become even less attractive to the healthy.
The happy news is that the difference between a plan with decent benefits that's affordable for people and a plan that's not affordable for people and doesn't offer decent benefits is not that large. Optimally, you'd want to spend about $1.3 trillion over 10 years. You could probably do it for $900 billion to $1 trillion. But you can't do it for, say, $700 billion, which is a number I'm hearing fairly frequently.
The difference between doing this right and doing this wrong is, in other words, about $30 billion a year, or $300 billion over 10 years. To put that in perspective, many of the legislators who are balking at the cost of health-care reform voted for the Kyl-Lincoln bill to reform the estate tax at a cost of $75 billion a year, or $750 billion over 10 years. You can make health-care reform work at a price tag that legislators are, in theory, willing to bear, at least when the tag is attached to tax cuts.
Isn't it interesting? Because I never hear them talk quite the same about costs when it comes to war. For example: "We really want to stabilize Afghanistan - but it has to be revenue-neutral" or "Yes, we know we said it was important to stabilize Iraq, but we simply can't afford this anymore."
No, the place where they decide to draw the line is... our health. War is seen as the absolute necessity and health care is seen as optional. That's just crazy.
I hope President Emanuel changes his position on this important issue.
Login or Register to post comments.
To obscure the fact that the greatest heist in history is underway. It is the perfect Plutocracy, thanks to Helicopter Ben and his Bud The Appointed One.
A previous thought on the Zero Master here.
As Chris Hedges says, it is inverted totalitarianism. We have JUNK POLITICS.
Let us declare a Van Jones day, we best all be communists now.
good reads.
If Obama caves in to the health insurance companies, I'm going to be mad as hell. My son works in construction, the same job for many years, and does not have health insurance because he can't afford it. I worry all the time about what will happen if he is injured on the job.
And I'm goddamned SICK of signing petitions and writing legislators and the White House about their do-nothing-but-satisfy-corporatism's-interests. I just signed another one, but why should Americans have to expend more energy trying to get them to do the right thing than they put into it themselves?
I am getting really pissed.
WWHD?
a typical wingnut retort if I have ever seen one!
exactly.
Wars necessary for national survival must be paid for -- but our current wars are wars of convenince. Oil in Iraq and regional influence in Afganistan. All those lives and money invested in Iraq, and we didn't even get 99 cents a gallon gasoline. And, to lock down Afganistan, we will need 5 million soldiers in country. Disaster.
Time to come home and fund universal health care.
Let Intel and police chase bad guys.
they doubled the price of gasoline and that is good for the economy...err Wall Street.
plus control of the Heroin trade too, remember those photographs of Brit troops patrolling and guarding those poppy fields. They didn't destroy them.
that the OSS, and subsequently the CIA, were actively involved in supporting OPIUM war lords in the fight against the Japanese Co-Prosperity Sphere during WW-II, and then against the Chinese Communists from 1947 onward. Then they used the very same scenario in the run-up to the Bay of Pigs Invasion in Cuba. The CIA repeated this policy, yet again, to help fund the same warlords in Laos during the Vietnam Police Action.
Then during the Iran-Contra debacle, the CIA tapped COCAINE drug lords to help secretly fund much of the war against the Nicaraguan (land reform) "communists". General Noriega, the CIA's "man in Panama" was routed out, arrested, then convicted in USA courts for drug trafficking -- not so much because he was, but because when Noriega nationalized Panama's banks, he seized not only Columbian drug lord accounts but also CIA "drug lord" accounts.
Finally, when the USA went after the Taliban in Afghanistan, who did they back with plane loads of cash and arms? -- the Afghani drug lords. This is one aspect of the "War of Drugs" started by RM Nixon and continued to this day that smacks of both irony AND hypocrisy -- one branch of the USA government totally at odds with other branches of the USA government, based upon perceived vital national interests.
It for damn sure puts the lie to just why the USA government is still in the "War of Drugs", and why we cannot win that war domestically.
But yes, access to the oil and natural gas resources of the Caspian Sea Basin, based upon pipelines through Afghanistan and Pakistan to the sea (or else to India), represents a net gain of (an estimated) 11 Trillion USD to Unocal and other western energy interests over the lifetime of those reserves. In the larger scheme of things, such a pay-off makes the OPIUM drug trade issues a minor carnival sideshow. It also puts a lie to the mantra of "bringing democracy to Afghanistan", doesn't it? Whatever blood and treasure that the USA (and NATO) expends in Afghanistan has far less to do with "democracy" and a lot more to stabilizing the region for the "peaceful" exploitation of energy resources -- in effect, another not quite so hidden subsidy from the USA taxpayer to privatized for-profit international corporations.
What part of fascism, or national socialism (Privatized Profit, Socialized Risk) does not apply here, eh?
WE didn't get $.99/gallon gas, but I'd be willing to bet the connected oil companies DID.
HR 676
HR 676 would be heaven on earth. As I recall it covers everything to include dental, eyes, hearing aids, old folks home, etc.
Boy, I bet dentists would really be wizzed off having to accept MediCare level payments. Sorry, tooth mechanics, no second yacht for you.
The Tooth Mechanics or any doctor for that matter have the choice to just not accept madicare don't they?
One might wonder how Republicans would respond if, rather than "placing seniors before a death panel" if we just told them to go fight in Afghanistan.
Great way to lower heathcare costs, no? (/snark)
*doff tinfoil hat*
DUH! Because the Top 0.001% still doesn't have ALL of the wealth of the nation.
"They" are working hard to make "our" country ungovernable so "they" can move into the power vacuum when the government collapses. Rollerball World, here we come.
*replace tinfoil hat*
the Cons why they are so EAGER to spend billions on killing people in foreign countries but not on healing Americans.
The problem is there's no one who's willing to ask the question. The media won't ask. Dems won't ask. No one will ask it.
If they can't pass a decent healthcare reform that includes the public otion, then I'm done. I'm so over being a Democrat. I'm tired of my party being run by wimps and idiots.
If Obama, Pelosi and Reid can't deliver on their promises and on one of the Dems biggest issues then they're an even bigger bunch of useless, gutlees, brainless turds than I thought.
I'll suggest it to the people below. Will you e-mail them too? Thanks!
rachel@msnbc.com
countdown@msnbc.com
Any other suggestions?
by Muslim Terrorists on 9/11/01...so we Had to invade several foreign nations and keep fighting phantoms there forever...to keep us safe from those darn terrorists...dontcha know.!?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2SbT12z9ho&fe...
with those budget crap HSA HI things, people are switching to the higher deductible schemes to avoid 30% increases, they get hit with 20% ones, and have their deductibles double or triple, and have much higher co-pays, and lesser coverage.
Its lose lose all round for the individual, but companies win by lowering their employer contributions in these HSAs.
A couple of years ago at my previous job, we had some fly HSA salesperson come in and give us a BS sales pitch about how if we took transferred over to HSA, paid into it and also paid out of pocket for medical costs, then after 5 or 10 years, we could use the unused HSA money for dream holidays or motorbikes/cars. As if us low paid scum could afford both to pay into a HSA AND pay for expensive medical bills at the same time.
When half your wages are being sucked up by HI, yes of course we can afford to pay out of pocket...
There is a real interesting story posted today in the Las Vegas Sun by J. Patrick Coolican about how large an influence the media is with regard just making up copy and rarely checking facts from what the old republican hate machine feeds them. It's also fairly critical about how shallow and self-aggrandizing the media is and how they just seem to 'ignore' the truth. (Duhh..where have we seen this before..?)
If health reform goes down, the media deserves a HUGE portion of the blame. They are NOT helping..they are making things far worse.
railing against the so called far left media since....forever. Iff you don't get it yet, THERE IS NO LIBERAL MAINSTREAM MEDIA!
You can bet your last advertising propaganda dollar there is no significant left MSM.
The only silver lining is that they are greedy, morons and fools, they have destroyed the golden goose. We get to see it all collapse as a consolation prize.
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2009/sep/06/m...
I agree with you 100%. I have noticed this for a LONG time. Why is the military NEVER mentioned when speaking of COST?
To talk about money when flag waving patriotic
profitswars arediscussedpromoted.Did Hitler and Stalin talk/worry about money when they invaded and partitioned Poland, did Hitler talk/worry about cost when he invaded France and the low countries, did Hitler talk/worry about cost when he invaded the USSR.
It was patriotic and fun.
are enemies of freedom and democracy....and the Democratic Party, including Obama are deathly afraid of these Corporate Media Fascists and their right wing, KKK allies in the KKK-GOP....
I'd like to see the cost per kill for the US, how much money have we spent since 1950 killing people? What does that come to? I'm sure we spend more money killing our enemies than we do helping our own citizens live.
enemies if we weren't creating them?
SSHHHH! You're not sposed to say that out loud!
that there is a world of difference between propping up private for-profit international corporations, and actually providing for the well-being (and hence, a boost to the USA's global competitiveness) of the USA's workforce. The first favors fascism (or national socialism), while the second favors communism, donchaknow? (Privatized Profits AND Socialized Risks RULES!) 8^)
/snark
Why Does The Administration (And The Media) Only Choke at Cost When It Comes To Health Care?
All Americans, except for the super rich, of course, are just disposable cogs in the big machine that is Corporate America aka the U.S. Government. Is all we are to them (the ruling class) is the tax base. Remember the old saying, “It takes money to make money?” Well, it’s true. It takes money (our tax dollars) to make money (for the ruling class).
As for the media, it's just a tool of Corporate America used for manipulating outcomes.
The deck has been stacked against real progressives and we've lost again. Rahm and the Blue Dogs in the congress have sunk any chance of meaningful reform. I'm looking forward to the President's speech Wednesday, but I don't see him breaking free from the leash that he has allowed Rahm to put on him. If you haven't read Matt Taibbi's story in Rolling Stone, you need to.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/29...
Is it okay to talk about vouchers yet? Or is that still a taboo topic?
The "problem" of deficits is only acceptably addressed by cutting social spending. What about cutting corporate welfare? Or the possibility of *gasp* taxing the extremely wealthy at the same rates the rest of us pay? Or the rates they paid under Reagan? Under Eisenhower? As one of Bush's best buddies might say: These possibilities are "off the table."
The answer to this question is very simply. Americans are motivated by fear.
Spend Trillions to Help Wall Street and the Banks or the whole economy will colapse. SCARY
Spend billions on a war to fight them there before we have to fight them here. SCARY
Death Panels. SCARY
Reform the Health Care system to help your fellow man. HUMANE
p.s. Milton Friedman would be very proud.
Were they finger-licking good?
"Liberals — many of whom want to do away with the private health insurance industry and replace it with Medicare for all — were furious."
This is from an article talking about how Obama says the public option is negotiable.
Get ready my fellow liberals. We're about to take the blame for healthcare reform's failure. At the very least, we are about to get thrown under the bus, which will then drive forward and backward severals times to make sure we're squashed.
.
THE FUTURE OF MY HEALTH CARE IS NOT NEGOTIABLE!
.
Wall Street's $500 billion plot to profit from your death
Explains why there is so much resistance to UHC.
.
There's a killing to be had at making war...
... Just not so much at keeping people healthy.
Ahhh...
... If only that Christian Nation ideal was true.
.
Because war is good. Good for those who crave ever more power, whereas health care only empowers the people...not the elites.
As usual, Glenzilla explain with frightening clarity, the "why" in a recent post:
In this country, those who decide have determined that the people must not be empowered. They must be subservient, in debt and in fear, ready to be culled at will by those who own the wealth and the means to health.
If the last sentence appears a tad melodramatic to some, consider a future without health care reform (or a stillborn bastard of a reform) which stark description can be read here.
A sample:
And that is from a policy wonk whose writings are usually of the dry variety.
Excellent post, Ms M. Apropos of nothing else, I especially liked your link to that famous old New Yorker cartoon. My father used to quote that caption to me as a small kid, usually when I had been watching the uneaten, cold vegetables harden on my plate. I wasn't moving until I'd eaten them.
It seems to me that we RUSH towards the average. The Democrats seem to be okay with average because they think everyone will be happy that way. Republicans go more extreme, so the average goes to the right more.
It's very simple - the Republicans controlled the legislative and executive for about 6 years. THEY chose to do whatever they wanted. We know how that turned out. So I think we're safe to try the "liberal" ideas.
Login or Register to post comments.