The House’s health care option
Is the House Democrats’ plan to tax the rich and make businesses insure employees a viable way to fix U.S. health care?
Uninsured patient Yulisa Mateo, 9, has her eyes tested.
(Reuters/Corbis/Lucy Nicholson)
What happened
The House unveiled its version of health-care overhaul legislation Tuesday. The bill greatly expands health coverage by subsidizing lower-income Americans, penalizing companies that don’t insure their employees, and offering a government-run alternative to private insurance. To pay for this, the bill adds an income surtax on the wealthy and cuts Medicare and Medicaid costs. (The New York Times)
What the commentators said
The House plan is “far from perfect,” said Timothy Noah in Slate. But unlike the versions being kicked around in the Senate, it’s at least “a real health-reform bill.” The inclusion of a public option is crucial—the “most important part of any health-care reform”—but the House bill too restrictive of who can sign up. Also, it would be “more egalitarian” to offer one “reasonably generous” public-option plan, rather than three or four tiers.
It would also be more egalitarian, and better policy, to not make “the rich” pay for the bill, said The Washington Post in an editorial. There’s a good case to be made for a more progressive tax system, but “there is no case” for the new surtax on households making $350,000 and up. Leaving aside fairness issues, President Obama will need to save the tax-the-wealthy card for when he gets “serious about the long-term federal deficit.”
The “paradoxical” thing about the House plan, said Jonathan Cohn in The New Republic, is that it should actually lower the deficit-busting cost of U.S. health care. Bringing more people into the insurance pool, and giving everyone a financial stake, wrings inefficiencies out of the insurance market. But even if “the worst happens” and the cost savings don’t materialize, extending economic and health security to “tens of millions” is a “major accomplishment.”
Of course this would cost more than advertised, said Allahpundit in Hot Air. It’s a government program, so we’ll get cost overruns and lower-than-forecast revenue. And in a clever “sleight-of-hand,” House Democrats have kept the bill to $1 trillion over 10 years, as targeted, by keeping the full annual costs from kicking in for five years. If Democrats want to own this bill, “go for it.”
Show: Oldest | Newest
25 Comments
Posted by Decca, Wednesday, July 15, 2009, 10:27 am This is another power grab. There are a million other possibilities to cut costs of health care, but this is the only one that offers the gov't total control. I make a pittance, but I still don't think 'the rich' should get confiscatory taxation. Reforms need to be done, not this way, this is the end of Liberty.
Posted by Glenn in CA, Wednesday, July 15, 2009, 11:46 am BRAVO! Democrats for having the courage to stand against the Medical insurance lobby and the Republicans and reintroducing two very American concepts to this business Equality and Opportunity. The bottom line: its my premium dollar and I should have the choice with a single pay plan to not pay 30 of it to the insurance company. And a universal mandate will, in time, reduce the 15 of charged costs that defray the cost of the uninsured. I don't like seeing the rich having to pay more but if its temporary to jumpstart reforms so be it!
Posted by Bobby, Wednesday, July 15, 2009, 1:32 pm What is a healthcare reform to cut the nation's expenditure on healthcare that does not lead to more government control?
Posted by look into the light, Wednesday, July 15, 2009, 1:35 pm There are two main reasons that the cost of healthcare is so high. One reason is that we're living longer thanks to medical and pharmaceutical advances, but we're not necessarily living better we're not getting enouogh exercise, and we're addicted to fattening foods, so the problems that generally come with the onset of natural aging are compounded by things like old knees that won't support our everincreasing weight.Also, NONE of it will cost less until the issue of tort reform is seriously addressed.
Posted by GD, Wednesday, July 15, 2009, 2:39 pm Look Into the Light, I agree that medical tech advances coupled with arguably unreasonable expectations for the level of care are a big driver of cost. But, as Bobby suggested, the 23 percent operating costs in forprofit health insurance companies is a much bigger culprit than bogus suits. I highly recommend Bill Moyer's interview with Wendell Potter on this point. Ultimately, we charter the government to manage some things, e.g. roads and water, because it better serves the overall market not to burden these with the profit motive.
Posted by Mainer Mike Brown, Wednesday, July 15, 2009, 3:06 pm This is AS I SEE IT, by Mainer Mike Brown. Obama says we are closer than ever to health care reform.But that's what he says. That's AS I SEE IT. I'm Mainer Mike Brown.
Posted by Gary, Wednesday, July 15, 2009, 4:02 pm I am not sure I understand why those of use who work for a living and have decent health insurance through our employers and have achieved a certain level of success and income due to two people working after years of education and starting at the bottom should support this or be pleased. I am happy with my current situation and wonder why I should be taxed or have any change in order to help the guy who works at McDonalds. Another classic leveling of society by the Democrats who won't be happy until the middle class has less...
Posted by APatt, Wednesday, July 15, 2009, 8:36 pm Exactly, Gary. In the end all we will have is more poor people and less wealthy people and much, much, much less privacy and little or no say over our own lives. Don't fall for it, America!
Post a Comment