Pelosi's Blueprint for Government-Run Health Care
The new House health care bill (H.R. 3962) unveiled by Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) yesterday clocks in at 1,990 pages and about 400,000 words. As written, the bill purports to cost only $1.05 trillion over the first ten years and is paid for by over $700 billion in tax increases and cuts to Medicare Advantage and Medicare prescription drug payments. But as troubling as those numbers are, the scariest thing about the bill is the solid foundation it lays for a complete government take over of the health care sector of our economy.
The Washington Post describes the bill as “creating an expensive new entitlement program (subsidies to purchase health insurance) and dramatically expanding an existing one (Medicaid).” This is true by itself, but the Post later dismissively adds: “If you’ve noticed that we haven’t talked about the public option in the House bill, that’s not an oversight.
For all the fury over the issue, it doesn’t matter that much; the CBO estimates that the government-run plan would actually have slightly higher premiums.” This is a breathtakingly naive statement by the Post and demonstrates that they have not yet fully grasped how all the different elements of the bill are designed to interact to produce President Barack Obama’s desired outcome.
The Medicaid Expansion: Under current law the CBO projects that only 35 million Americans would be on Medicaid by 2019. The House bill massively expands the Medicaid program by raising the upper income cutoff to 150 percent of the federal poverty line (FPL). As a result, the CBO now estimates some 50 million Americans will be enrolled in the program at a ten year cost to the federal government of $425 billion. This does not include the $34 billion in increased Medicaid costs that state governments will have to spend.
The Insurance Subsidies: The House bill also creates a Health Insurance Exchange through which individuals without employer based coverage could purchase insurance. The bill also provides “affordability credits” to people who are below 400% FPL. However, the bill also denies access to the credit for all people who are “eligible” for Medicaid. In essence, therefore, the House bill forces all Americans below 150% FPL to enroll in Medicaid or pay the individual mandate fine. The CBO explains why the Democrats chose this route: “The estimated costs of providing subsidies through the new insurance exchanges are now lower for several reasons: the larger expansion of Medicaid means that fewer people would be eligible for coverage through the exchanges.” In other words, it’s cheaper to force people into Medicaid then to give them subsidies high enough to buy private insurance. Furthermore, individuals are only allowed to enroll in the cheapest (”basic”) plans for the first two years. After that, they can only choose more expensive plans or the government run plan.
The Employer Mandate: The bill imposes a new 8% payroll tax on employers who don’t cover specified percentages of their employees’ health insurance. In the short term this will only result in job losses and lower wages. But further down the road, the health plans would have to meet new requirements to be specified later by Obama’s new Health Czar (“Health Choices Commissioner”). If your employer’s health plan doesn’t meet those requirements (which are all but guaranteed to drive up the cost of your health plan), you couldn’t keep it.
The Public Option: As health insurance premiums keep rising thanks to all the new requirements in the current bill and the Health Czar’s future regulations, more and more people will have no choice but to depend on the government plan or face a fine. At first, only individuals and employers with 25 employees or fewer would be eligible for the government run plan. But in year two (2014) individuals and employers with 50 employees or fewer become eligible, in year three (2015) employers with at least 100 employees become eligible but starting that year, the Health Czar permitted from this year forward to expand employer participation as appropriate, “with the goal of allowing all employers access to the Exchange.” In effect, the bill makes larger sized employers explicitly eligible and still turns over authority to the Health Czar to further open it up. The goal has been, and still clearly is, to open the exchange and the public plan to everyone. As the Post notes, the CBO now projects that the government run premiums will actually be higher than private plans. The Democrats will not allow this to continue. History shows that entitlement programs like this quickly devolve into price control central planning. A less “robust” public option today will almost certainly be a more robust public option tomorrow. Look no further than the history of Medicare. Medicare was initially designed to pay private rates, but now the program has a complex formula for administered pricing.
So that’s the plan: force all Americans to buy health insurance, regulate the private plans till they are too expensive, and then slowly expand the power and size of the public option as Americans are left with no choice but to turn to government run health care. That is how Pelosi aims to achieve Obama’s goal of “Everybody in, Nobody out” government run health care. The costs are going to be staggering. Not only will health care quality and choice suffer as more and more Americans are forced onto a government plan that reimburses providers at low government set rates, but the price tag is guaranteed to skyrocket. The only way the House managed to keep their price tag as low as $1.05 trillion is by pretending that Congress would cut Medicare reimbursement rates by 20% in 2010. The full ten-year cost of being honest about the Medicare reimbursement rates would be $250 billion. Less choice, lower quality health care, and trillion dollar deficits for years to come: that is the House’s prescription for health reform.
Quick Hits:
- An alleged member of the Hamburg, Germany terror cell linked to the Sept. 11 attacks is believed to be among al Qaeda leaders helping the Taliban in Pakistan.
- According to leaked House Ethics Committee documents, more than 30 lawmakers, including nearly half of the Defense Appropriations subcommittee, are being scrutinized about issues including defense lobbying and corporate influence peddling.
- In a rejection of President Obama’s engagement strategy, Iran told the United Nations nuclear watchdog on Thursday that it would not accept a plan to send its stockpile of uranium out of the country.
- Thanks to the fraud riddled homebuyers tax credit, and the $24,000 per car cost to taxpayers Cash for Clunkers program, the nation’s Gross Domestic Product grew 3.5% this summer.
- How Democrats can say the bill costs less than $1 trillion.

The public option that most American people want is not free.. They just want an affordable option. The insurance companies have no competition and so are robbing the
American people. They have people at desks deciding how long you can stay in the hospital and these people have no medical backgrounds so that is not what i pay for. that is not high quality as you say. I worked for a major insurance company until my stomach could take no more of the criminal things they do to people. I then went to work in an insurance department at a hospital and learned how all the other insurances were just as bad as the one i worked for. The first thing insurance companies teach their adjusters is to go over the claims to see what they can find to get out of paying them.. This after the person has paid his premiums and then if they can find nothing to get out of paying they pend them for some silly reason to hold off paying them.
While they are playing around the hospitals or medical facilities are threating the person to pay the bill saying if the ins does not pay it is your responsibility till some people go ahead and pay before the ins does... it is all a big rip off and the senators who are so opposed are the ones taking money from them. A memeber of my family was too ill to work so they lost their insurance and when they tried to buy from another company was told because they had a preexisting condition they would have to pay 3,000 a month and then it would not pay anything on claims for that condition. My own husband was in the hospital and had a tracheotomy and was extremely ill.. after so many days the insurance company refused to pay and the hospital sent him home even though we told them we would self pay they refused to keep him.. he almost died this after his dr said he definately needed to stay. That was 8 yrs ago and to this day he is not well and i feel it is because he was forced out..An you say this is the high quality you pay for.. i only hope you never have a serious illness..you will see how high quality you recieve..Insureance lik AIG who even took our taz money to pay these crooks all that money are nothing but rip offs and the so many American people dont understand this ..wish they would all go to work for one of these companies for even a week...!!!!
And now you're gonna get it.
If you believe Pelosi's statement that they can keep the cost of this under $1 trillon - as if that's such a bargain - then I have some ocean front property in Arizona for you.
It's funny how the same government that can tell you down to the fraction of a penny how much is owed to them in back taxes can't even come close to estimating the actual cost of any programs that those taxes are going to fund. Never have, never will. But you go right ahead. Drink that kool aid. Let me know how it tastes.
that easy to project how much a program is going to cost . It's not accounting, it involves a lot of projection models which are never 100% accurate.
The CBO prices this as decreasing the deficit for the first two decades (it's nearly impossible to project past that with these things). It will cost more initially, but the savings start in a few years. If we don't do anything, our public debt will go well over 110 - 115% of our GDP with current health care spending in the next 10-20 years. Doing nothing is the worst thing for our deficit I can think of, unless we just want to let old and poor people die by privatizing or eliminating medicaid and medicare.
What alternatives do we have to a public plan that is so "expensive" (how something that is cheaper than what we would spend otherwise is expensive is beyond me but whatever)? I haven't see a single plan that would do anything to curb costs besides a public option in any meaningful way. Things like opening up state lines (this could actually raise costs by promoting huge monopolies via an economy -of-scale type mechanisms and greater risk leverage prospects) or tax credits (which don't even address the problem of rising costs) would do virtually nothing. Exactly, what other option is out there that is meaningful?
Is that the kind of "savings" we can expect over the long run.
Now I realize that it's not easy to project the cost of these things. But they don't even get close. Cost overruns for universal health care in Massachusetts, Oregon, and Tennessee, along with Medicare range from 8 to 11 times their estimates. Even when there are laws put in place to prevent cost overruns, they are ignored. What exactly is my motivation to believe this is going to be any different?
And budget neutral? Don't make me pee my pants laughing. No way this is budget neutral. Ignoring the cost estimate piece, one of the ways the costs are supposedly going to be recouped is to get rid of the fraud in Medicare. With Medicare fraud estimated at $60 billion/year, where is the other $40 billion going to come from? Oh yea, the taxes that are in this bill that weren't going to be raised. Yea, I forgot about those.
As for the CBO saying it is going to decrease the deficit , that is the first I have heard of that. I have heard at least a hundred times that the CBO disagrees with Pelosi, Reid, and Obama and says there is no way it will decrease the deficit. If it does, I'll eat my hat with mayonnaise on it. And I hate mayonnaise.
Also, don't forget that the creative accounting those pushing for this bill are using. You have to pay for this plan for four years before it starts. That's the only way it could even come close to being deficit neutral - at least for the first decade. Good luck after that.
"Things like opening up state lines (this could actually raise costs by promoting huge monopolies via an economy -of-scale type mechanisms and greater risk leverage prospects)"
Exactly. Could. Probably wouldn't, considering the plentiful options you have in car, home, and life insurance policies that you can buy regardless of where you live. But could. So let's go with this fairy tale pipe dream being pushed on us like we're a bunch of suckers who will buy anything instead. Let's not learn from the past, where the government promotes overspending and fraud to proportions that would put you permanently in the unemployment line if you tried it in the private sector. Yea, that's a much better plan. Give me a pen and glass of kool aid, cause I'm in brotha!
Silly character limitations
"Exactly. Could. Probably wouldn't, considering the plentiful options you have in car, home, and life insurance policies that you can buy regardless of where you live. But could. So let's go with this fairy tale pipe dream being pushed on us like we're a bunch of suckers who will buy anything instead. Let's not learn from the past, where the government promotes overspending and fraud to proportions that would put you permanently in the unemployment line if you tried it in the private sector. Yea, that's a much better plan. Give me a pen and glass of kool aid, cause I'm in brotha!"
Car insurance, home, and life insurance aren't even remotely comparable. Why?
1 - Adverse Selection: A result from asymmetric information when people engage in a bad contract between buyers and sellers, which drives up costs. This doesn't exist in car insurance since its very easy to know the risks of a particular driver from their previous driving record - or if they are just young, they will charge a ton of money (like they do with health insurance because of the asymmetry!). But see, nobody cares if a 19 year old has to take the bus - he's not going to die without having car insurance. Life Insurance does have some degree of adverse selection, but this countered by the fact that the overwhelming majority of policy holders do not ever get to collect.
2 - Pricing Behavior: Heath insurance discourage shopping around because you know you aren't going to cover it. The major costs come from surgeries, which so few consumers can afford they require insurance. Because they could never pay more than the break-even point for medical procedures, they have no incentive to shop around since it doesn't matter - the price will never be substantially lower for them. This is a reality of health insurance no one can change . It is different than car insurance, the payments are actually within reason for many consumers for a repair and so they go for the cheapest option so their rates don't increase. Furthermore, many low- income policy holders don't bother making claims or get it fixed themselves to prevent a rate hike. You can't exactly do that with health care . You can't just ignore the problem and you can't fix it yourself since you can't pay even a sliver of the $100,000 bill.
So, no, they aren't comparable at all. This is even ignoring the collective monopoly that is the medical industry that doesn't exist in the car industry driving up prices.
I'll explain what happens when you open up state lines though.
If every insurance company competes in every state, the major insurance companies will drive down their rates and take on more healthy people. Due to a limited number of healthly people in one state, they are forced to take on some questionable people because they need the revenue. If they opened up state lines, the populations would be wide enough they could get around the adverse selection and risk-taking problems quite easily. They can take on so many healthy people, their profits are where they like to be and can ignore the unhealthy or questionable people. Small companies will not be able to lower their prices enough to compete with them, so people will go to the big companies. Now, the unhealthy people are left and so they will migrate to the small companies and then they will collapse since they don't have any healthy people to to pay in without paying much out. So, they go out of business.
Congratulations, we have just created a huge monopolized industry amongst less than 5 companies and now they are going to raise rates and the unhealthy will not get any insurance.
Lovely isn't it?
Or we could mandate they take everyone with no cost controlling public option and drive up all of our costs.
Even more lovely isn't it?
I say "could" as a precautionary, but what I mean is - it likely will if these companies aren't run by morons because they will figure out how to drive those companies out of business just like I figured out. Of course, given the recent financial crisis we
Your argument that the health care reform proposed by Pelosi and Reid is that even though the government can't accurately estimate the cost for a state the size of Massachusetts, they're going to nail it for the entire country? This, despite the fact they've never shown the ability to accurately forecast costs on social programs before? Sorry, bud, I ain't buyin' it.
And as for opening state borders to competition, your argument against it is that competition will drive down prices and the free market will drive some competitors out? Gee the free market working as intended is a horrible, horrible thing isn't it?
All in all, I think I'd rather take my chances letting the free market work this out rather than some dim witted politicians who can't even do their own taxes without "forgetting" about a couple hundred thousand dollars of income . But you go right ahead and enjoy the kool aid. I'm sure there's nothing wrong with it.
The equivalent budget office of Massachusetts never priced their program properly because they were given incorrect information. They were told that it was designed to accommodate 100,000 less people than the Commonwealth actually enrolled. If you actually look at the enrollment figures for the numbers they priced, the estimates were actually pretty close. It's not the economists and statisticians of Massachusetts faults, it's their governments fault for changing the program up and not letting them price that. You can't hold them accountable for that.
Also,
Drive down prices for how long? You really think they are going to keep prices down once everyone is driven out of business? History suggests otherwise. That's why antitrust laws were created. Big industry would set their prices extremely low because they had greater resources, force every smaller competitor to go bankrupt, then abuse the system with extraordinarily high prices.
You are advocating a system that will reduce prices for less than 5 years and then just blow up. Then we'll have to spend countless years until the courts decide to break up the monopolies and the health care system will be a disaster. They would probably even just calibrate it correctly to allow enough "medium sized" companies to succeed to prevent a monopoly charge - making health care more expensive and substantially worse off due to the severe lack of competition.
You'll get: less competition; higher costs after 5-8 years rising substantially faster than they are now; worse quality of care; less people insured; more people needlessly dying etc. Monopolies produce the worst, and that's what you'll get.
Is that what you really want? Really?
Explain how its "kool-aid." The only people drinking "kool-aid" are the ones that are under some delusion health care functions like a real free market; Joseph Stiglitz rightly termed these people "free market fundamentalists" who in the face of all evidence still argue health care is governed by free market principles.
Let's refer to the founder of health care economics, Kenneth Arrow (a neoclassical economists no less recognized how unlike market-like health care was). He changed the way we looked at health care with his paper "Uncertainty and the Welfare Economics of Medical Care." This essentially proved that health care functions so radically different from the market, the free market rules do not apply. Referring to Arrow's, "Fundamental Theorems of Welfare Economics" he demonstrated that in competitive markets the allocation of resources is most efficient (I guess the invisible hand eh?). However, this only works assuming ideal conditions . In comes Joseph Stiglitz who then proves that in situations with information asymmetry Arrow's first theorem falls apart and Pareto efficiency is no longer possible. Add in externalities, collective monopolistic behavior, etc and the health care market cannot obtain Pareto efficiency as a market. Stiglitz went further and proved mathematically that there always exists an organized mechanism that can induce Pareto superior outcomes to the market-places allocation and make a system more efficient (i.e. government ).
I just used entirely standard economic theory to prove that
1) Free Markets can't fix health care
2) Government can fix health care if done appropriately.
It doesn't mean government will fix health care (it means they can though), but it does mean that free markets can't.
I'm clearly drinking kool-aid with my use of standard economic theory here.
In its aptly titled article, the Wall Street Journal calls this "The Worst Bill Ever." And I agree wholeheartedly for the reasons outlined in the article and more.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703399204574505423751140690.html
"2) Government can fix health care if done appropriately. "
You will never, ever, ever, in a thousand years get me to buy that until they show that they can do it. Everything the government does is less efficient and more costly than if it is done by the private sector, and there are ALWAYS strings attached. Bigger government is only the answer if the end goal is a society completely dependent upon them, i.e. an entitlement society. We're already headed way to fast in that direction. The government needs to allow more competition and enact a few other measures, but not take over health care, which regardless of what they say is their agenda.
This is the same WSJ editorial page that thought that Dow 36,000 was possible, Clinton tax hikes would destroy the economy , Bush tax cuts would bring great economic success (they didn't if you look at the data), and that the Federal Reserves ridiculously low interest rates set by Alan Greenspan were necessary (which largely contributed to the housing bubble). So, forgive my skepticism of the WSJ claiming that health care will destroy "American freedom and prosperity" when they have been wrong about economic prosperity just about every time in the past.
The editorial actually offers no analysis or substantiation, some of it is glossed over, and some of its just wrong. I'll dissect it by point.
"Spending surge": Apparently they haven't looked at the projections of health care costs to the United States versus if we don't have a strong health care bill. I could care less about deficit neutral on its own. Either way, this bill is cheaper than what health care is going to cost us in the near future any way you look at it.
"Expanding Medicaid, gutting private Medicare": First, I'd like to point out how awful it is that we want to provide health care for those that can't afford it. Medicare is one of the most redundant programs out there. The savings come from cutting administrative costs and preventing redundant care .
"European levels of taxation": Since when did Europe become a single country? Regardless, the top marginal tax rate at 45% for those making over $500,000 or $1,000,000 as a couple doesn't bother me. Just like with the Clinton, they were wrong about his rates bringing about economic catastrophe (and wrong about Bush tax rates doing jack - they didn't). You can talk about whether this is "fair", but there isn't a strong economic argument against this.
"Insurance takeover": The editorial is even just wrong on the note of charging the same for everyone since it only applies to adjusted community rating for health risks. People in the same community rating for health must be charged the same rate. Why would they bother reading the bill though?
Your argument stems from " government is bad", simply because you know that government is bad and you assume free market always fixes everything. How is competition going to solve this problem precisely? If anything, it will lead to more monopolies and worse, more expensive care. Monopolies are a very natural part of competitive markets, going all the way back to Aristotle. The problem is that health care doesn't function like a free market due to the nature of health care itself. There is a reason there is not one free-market health care system that works on the entire planet. Not a single one. We don't value health care like jewelry that's why. I don't care if someone can't afford a new ring from Tiffany's, I do care if they die from not getting health care though.
I'm not under some delusion that this bill is perfect. This is a deeply flawed product that I suspect we'll spend the next 10-15 years fixing it when we could have had it right in the first place, but most of the arguments against this are a bunch of nonsense. I could list well over a dozen things I have a problem with, but it would still be better than our current system. The next decade will be spent fixing those dozens of things.
The strongest economic argument I've seen against the bill though (rather than ideological like "big government" or economic nonsense like the WSJ) is from Greg Mankiw. His argument stems from elasticity of taxable income . Now I personally disagree with him because this isn't a straight tax, but you are getting a product in return for your higher "marginal tax rate" and so the effects of decreasing work incentive aren't particularly accurate since you are receiving a desirable product that without would cost you more in the long term without it. Some work in behavioral economics shows my interpretation is largely correct (and, to be intellectually honest, there is some that also contradict my view), but no doubt Mankiw's argument is a serious one that should be discussed and that democrats need to take seriously before acting.
While his detailed work with Chetty is more interesting (you'd have to pay a hefty subscription fee otherwise I'd link it) but a reasonable outline of it is laid out best in his NY Times article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/01/business/economy/01view.html
This numbers are off for the house bill, they are lower than what he states in the article, but the overall theme is generally correct. Again, I disagree with his interpretation based on some behavioral research, but his argument is probably the strongest I've seen. The Republican party should just hired Mankiw to construct a health care bill for them, Mankiw could probably construct a serious alternative worthy of consideration.
PS: I'd be curious to know if you agree with Mankiw's interpretation or not (I'd suspect so), because I'd rather discuss Mankiw than the WSJ =(
The problem with all this theory is that the health care system in this country DOES work. It has worked. It will continue to work. The majority of Americans are covered under some form of health insurance , and the majority of them are satisfied with it. Costs of health insurance have definitely been increasing too quickly, but that always happens when there is a lack of competition and too much government regulation.
And what exactly is it about the health insurance industry that makes it the only industry on the planet that become that much worse with more competition? Forgive my non-economist ignorance, but I just ain't seein' it. The idea that the government will improve things is laughable. Sure, your premiums may lower, but you'll be paying out of the other pocket with your taxes . So did the cost lower, or is it typical smoke and mirrors B.S?