The Great Debate
02:47 February 26th, 2009

The challenge of health insurance reform

Tags: General, , , , , ,

Diana Furchtgott-Roth–Diana Furchtgott-Roth, former chief economist at the U.S. Department of Labor, is a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute. The views expressed are her own. –

Today President Obama submits his budget outline to Congress, and, with it, a $634 billion fund for health care drawn from higher individual and small business taxes and lower reimbursements to medical providers.

Reform of our health care system is long overdue.  If you’re unemployed, or work for a small business that offers no health plan, or someone in your family has an existing illness known as a “pre-existing condition,” your main concern might be how to get health insurance.

As Obama said on Tuesday night in his address to the nation, “We can no longer afford to put health care reform on hold.”  But setting up a $643 billion fund and raising taxes in the middle of a recession isn’t necessarily affordable either.

In testimony yesterday before the Senate Committee on Finance, Congressional Budget Office Director Douglas Elmendorf presented options for controlling health care costs.  He warned that “reducing or slowing spending over the long term would probably require decreasing the pace of adopting new treatments and procedures and limiting the breadth of their application.”  That’s rationing by another name, not a comfortable concept to Americans. (To read the testimony in pdf format, click here.)

Mr. Elmendorf pointed to the current employer-based health insurance system, where health insurance premiums are untaxed income to workers, as one of the main causes of price increases.  He suggested replacing the tax exclusion or restructuring it, so that patients have more incentives to control costs.  In that way the purchase of health insurance would be similar to the purchase of home insurance or auto insurance, services that consumers appear able to purchase without major problems.

President Obama has said he will consider all proposals.  During his campaign, the centerpiece of his health reform effort was to set up a new health insurance plan, similar to the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program. It would be open to all, with “affordable” premiums and co-payments.

In addition, he proposed a new National Health Insurance Exchange to set standards and regulate private insurance underwriters. Those who could not meet the standards would close.

In a third provision, some employers who offer health insurance now would have to pay higher premiums in order to raise benefits to the level of the new public plan.  Those employers who don’t offer health insurance would be required to pay into the new plan, a new tax.

One way President Obama proposes to save health care dollars would be to encourage or require doctors and hospitals to use electronic health records.  Although privacy concerns have stalled this effort, it could save billions of dollars a year in medical error.  The stimulus bill allocates $20 billion to this effort.

Yet setting up an electronic data base raises many questions.  Can people opt out of the national database?   Should the federal government or individual states mandate one type of standard that can be shared between institutions? Can private companies be allowed to compete among themselves to offer the most convenient method to the medical community?  These questions need debate.

Obama plans to fund his $634 billion fund through higher income taxes on those making over $250,000 as well as limiting itemized deductions by 20 percent. This would be a substantial increase in tax for those households, as well as for small businesses who file under the individual tax code.

Yet even these numbers might be understated.  The insurance program for federal employees is of a higher quality and more costly that typical private-sector coverage.  Expanding health insurance and providing better care costs more money, not less.

Everyone agrees that health insurance needs to be easily accessible and portable, like auto and home insurance.  The question facing us is how to get there and how to pay for it.

Diana Furchtgott-Roth can be reached at dfr@hudson.org. For previous columns, click here.

Best Comment

February 27th, 2009
2:51 pm EST
I am a small business owner. Let's see right I am involuntarily paying for 4 health plans 1.family health insurance 2.Medicare(Ponzi's) 3.Low income health insurance 4. employee's. On top of that, I pay copay, deductibles, with a 1 million dollar lifetime cap. (which means if(knock on wood)something happens I need multiple surgeries and treatments it will easily be exhausted) Now you want to increase tax when my business is struggling. And how many more small business are closing as I'm writing this comment? Hmmm, how about this for a change-- force the big insurance companies to lower their profits, and make it illegal for them to be a public traded companies. How many billions of dollar BCBS, UnitedHealthcare, Cigna were making and I don't have the mention the pharmaceuticals. (only in America) Don't come up with a fake universal health plan that not truly helping everyone, esp when the sole winners are the insurance companies. (even the Canadians systems make more sense) Corruption still lingers, tackle the fat cat that's causing all these problems in the first place-- HMOs and the pharmaceuticals.
-Posted by Yo

42 comments so far

August 13th, 2009 7:36 pm GMT - Posted by Phil

Just read the article and some of the comments. It’s seems to me that we forget that we are all paying for one anothers’ health issues. If a family goes bankrupt because of overwhelming medical cost, or a person recieves emergency care knowing they can not pay, or a person dies because they didn’t recieve preventive care, we all pay. We pay a price either through higher taxes, higher insurance cost, or the emotional strain of knowing we can not afford or own health care. It seems a universal program would help to, if not completely eleviate some of these issues. And when we talk of losing choices of care, I just don’t see it. Besides, you are already being force to use the service your provider deems needed, and to further your providers power, you can only use doctors they deem worthy of being on there list of of caregivers. So, you really don’t have freedom of choice to begin with, other than finding another health insurance company. I don’t know about the morality of health care, but I do know in a civilized country we take care of one another. I don’t want to live in a nation which would turn a person away from medical service if they broke there arm, just because the injured party could not pay. And it goes even further when you consider many health conscious, well meaning individuals are stricken by illness and disease by no doing of there own. Another option would be to regulate health care cost. I can’t understand how one doctor can charge my insurance $180. for a doctor visit, and another can charge $85. for the exact same visit. There is obiously some unscrupulous behaviors going on here. At least when a mechanic works on my care I know what I will be charge per hour and that I will not be charge the highest amount the machanic think I cab pay.

As stated, this is not an easily solved issue. But, it is solveable. The problem is, as it always is, there will need to be changes made and everyone will not be happy. But, if the overall consiquence is a more civil nation with less coruption and money involved with personal health care. Then the difficulties will be worth while.

Peace and Love……

August 10th, 2009 10:51 am GMT - Posted by Carol

We need more agressive education on preventive health care and eating right, excercise and the like. Healthy living should be rewarded and junk foods taxed.

Post Your Comment

*
To prove you're a person (not a spam script), type the security word shown in the picture. Click on the picture to hear an audio file of the word.
Click to hear an audio file of the anti-spam word

House Rules:
  • We moderate all comments and will publish everything that advances the post directly or with relevant tangential
  • We try not to publish comments that we think are offensive or appear to pass you off as another person, and we will be conservative if comments may be considered libelous.information.