A conservative alternative to Obamacare has been unveiled. Read about it after the jump. Then consider these questions: (1) Does it sound better than Obamacare? (2) What is particularly conservative about it? (3) Is it qualitatively different from other efforts to have the government presiding over the health care of its citizens? [Read more…]
Patrick J. Deneen writes about the similarities between the current crises in health care and education. He argues that the solutions put forward by both the left and the right will not work. Since both spheres had their origin in the work of the Church, he calls for a rediscovery of the Christian concept of charity that is grounded in (wait for it) the doctrine of vocation–that is, offices of love and service to one’s neighbor.
The essay after the jump. [Read more…]
Conservatives in Congress put forward their proposed alternative to Obamacare. It basically expands health savings accounts, passes malpractice reform, and allows for the purchase of health insurance across state lines. [Read more…]
Another reason the new national health care bill will have a hard time working:
Once provisions of the Affordable Care Act start to kick in during 2014, at least three of every 10 employers will probably stop offering health coverage, a survey released Monday shows.
While only 7% of employees will be forced to switch to subsidized-exchange programs, at least 30% of companies say they will “definitely or probably” stop offering employer-sponsored coverage, according to the study published in McKinsey Quarterly.
The survey of 1,300 employers says those who are keenly aware of the health-reform measure probably are more likely to consider an alternative to employer-sponsored plans, with 50% to 60% in this group expected to make a change. It also found that for some, it makes more sense to switch.
“At least 30% of employers would gain economically from dropping coverage, even if they completely compensated employees for the change through other benefit offerings or higher salaries,” the study says.
It goes on to add: “Contrary to what employers assume, more than 85% of employees would remain at their jobs even if their employers stopped offering [employer-sponsored insurance], although about 60% would expect increased compensation.”
So if that happens, the Democrats will have no choice but to nationalize the whole thing, if they can. Or would it be worth it to be paid more money and buy one’s own health insurance, especially if the government makes it cheap?
Democrats are saying that the Republican attempt to repeal Obamacare would add to the deficit. Saying that our only hope of controlling the deficit is to have health care reform, they cite numbers from the non-partisan Congressional Budget. Charles Krauthammer exposes the way the Democrats are cooking the books:
Suppose someone – say, the president of United States – proposed the following: We are drowning in debt. More than $14 trillion right now. I’ve got a great idea for deficit reduction. It will yield a savings of $230 billion over the next 10 years: We increase spending by $540 billion while we increase taxes by $770 billion.
He’d be laughed out of town. And yet, this is precisely what the Democrats are claiming as a virtue of Obamacare. During the debate over Republican attempts to repeal it, one of the Democrats’ major talking points has been that Obamacare reduces the deficit – and therefore repeal raises it – by $230 billion. Why, the Congressional Budget Office says exactly that.
Very true. And very convincing. Until you realize where that number comes from. Explains CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf in his “preliminary analysis of H.R. 2” (the Republican health-care repeal): “CBO anticipates that enacting H.R. 2 would probably yield, for the 2012-2021 period, a reduction in revenues in the neighborhood of $770 billion and a reduction in outlays in the vicinity of $540 billion.”
As National Affairs editor Yuval Levin pointed out when mining this remarkable nugget, this is a hell of a way to do deficit reduction: a radical increase in spending, topped by an even more radical increase in taxes.
Of course, the very numbers that yield this $230 billion “deficit reduction” are phony to begin with. The CBO is required to accept every assumption, promise (of future spending cuts, for example) and chronological gimmick that Congress gives it. All the CBO then does is perform the calculation and spit out the result.
In fact, the whole Obamacare bill was gamed to produce a favorable CBO number. Most glaringly, the entitlement it creates – government-subsidized health insurance for 32 million Americans – doesn’t kick in until 2014. That was deliberately designed so any projection for this decade would cover only six years of expenditures – while that same 10-year projection would capture 10 years of revenue. With 10 years of money inflow vs. six years of outflow, the result is a positive – i.e., deficit-reducing – number. Surprise.
If you think that’s audacious, consider this: Obamacare does not create just one new entitlement (health insurance for everyone); it actually creates a second – long-term care insurance. With an aging population, and with long-term care becoming extraordinarily expensive, this promises to be the biggest budget buster in the history of the welfare state.
And yet, in the CBO calculation, this new entitlement to long-term care reduces the deficit over the next 10 years. By $70 billion, no less. How is this possible? By collecting premiums now, and paying out no benefits for the first 10 years. Presto: a (temporary) surplus.
Now that it’s 2011, parts of the Health Care Reform Bill kick in. The linked article summarizes changes in Medicare, giving seniors cheaper prescription drugs and giving them some free preventative tests. Also a $2.5 billion tax on the pharmaceutical industry, which can only mean higher prices and less money to invest in new miracle drugs. Here are some of the changes that will affect everyone:
For those insured outside Medicare, 2011 starts a new requirement that insurers must spend 80% of revenue for small-group plans and 85% of revenue for large-group plans on medical care. The requirement is designed to rein in industry profit and administrative costs. Carriers that don’t meet the requirement will have to issue rebates to consumers, though those won’t go out until 2012.
Consumers will no longer be able to use their flexible spending accounts—tax-free funds set aside for medical costs—to pay for most over-the-counter items unless they are purchased with a prescription.
For many consumers, Jan. 1 will mark the first opportunity to tap into a slate of benefits that began taking effect Sept. 23. That’s when the law called for insurers to allow parents to keep a child on their policy until their 26th birthday, among other things. Employers didn’t need to make that batch of changes until they started a new plan year.
Nurse midwives also will see change in the new year. Until now, certified nurse midwives were paid 65% the rate of physicians for performing the same services by Medicare. Now they will be paid at the same rate.
I don’t understand. First of all, 80% of revenue for one thing plus 85% percent of revenue for something else adds up to 165%. That must be a misprint. But it seems wrong for the government to “rein in profits and administrative costs.” How does the government know how much administrative costs will be, much less how much profit a business should be allowed to make?
And why limit flexible spending plans? How will that help consumers? And how will paying midwives as much as doctors hold down health care costs?
How is any of this a good thing?