HillaryCare: The Return
Here we go again.
In 1993, Hillary severely damaged her husbands political capital with her universal healthcare plan and may have been a major contributor to the GOP takeover of Congress in 1994.
Now she has a plan to make purchasing private insurance mandatory and to support it via tax subsidies to the poor and tax increases aka eliminating cuts to the rich. She estimates the cost to be about $120 billion a year. When asked for the justification, she equates this to mandatory auto insurance laws in most states.
This whole plan makes me uncomfortable on multiple levels. And I would be it will make a lot of other people wary as well.
First ... is this Constitutional? The Federal Constitution is fairly rigid about what the Feds can mandate.
Second ... what would be the month to month costs for lower income families? Since the tax code is regressive, poor families might have to lay out cash on a monthly basis, painfully, and not reap the subsidy until the end of the year when filing.
Third ... I don't buy the $120 billion a year figure. I don't see anything in her plan addressing medical cost containment. Average family annual premiums run about $11,500, individuals $4400, and rates increase by anywhere from 6% to 15% annually.
Assuming the 45 million uninsured is accurate, of which perhaps 30 million are families, the annual cost would be about $550 BILLION dollars.
I don't see much in the way of employer contributions rising because I would surmise that most of the current uninsured don't have plans to participate in or there are no employer contributions. So where is the additional $400+ billion coming from? Certainly not the inidigent themselves...if they could afford it they'd already have it.
But let's compromise and assume the cost to the government ends up around $200 billion. Our current GDP growth is slowing down from the 4% it recently enjoyed. But, again, let's be wishful and assume that the GDP continues to rise at 4% in spite of the counterindications.
Also, bear in mind that Hillary wants to force the insurance companies to accept pre-existing conditions and limit their ability to actuarialize their policy holders. This will undoubtedly accelerate the cost of premiums.
So, we're looking at a boondoggle that will cost as much as the war in Iraq and that cost will increase by at least 2 to 11% per year after GDP tax growth estimates - $4 to 24 billion growth each year. What will that do to taxes and economic growth?
Assuming she's the nominee her opponents are going to have a field day with this.
This reminds me of the monorail debacle in Seattle. A good idea that is unworkable and dangerously expensive.
9 comments:
I haven't read the details of her report. All I know is that health insurance companies deny payments for services that THEY deem unnecessary - wtf? They pay their CEOs 1.35 million dollars and their first mandate is to make money for their shareholders. Conflict? I think so. There should be NO for-profit health insurance companies. That's why I'm for a single-payer system. It's already in place for veterans and seniors. Obviously things need to be improved and modified, but it's doable. It's not "socialized" medicine, either, since you're going to put anything down that isn't driven by $.
The health insurance co I am stuck with has been kicked out of the best hospital in Seattle (Swedish), my PTs for a bad shoulder have all severed contracts with them and my orthopedic surgeon has just told me his group can't afford to do business with them anymore. They've also been fined $13 million for the way they handle denial appeals. Having insurance is only a small part of the health care issue.
I entirely agree with you that having insurance is only a small part and that was the point I have been trying to make in all my healthcare posts and responses.
But I don't understand why you demonize the private insurance firms. Yes, you have highly paid CEOs as with any major industry, but they are not the folks promulgating the high costs of healthcare. Socializing them makes no sense.
The single-payer system I think you are referring to is Medicare? Do you know how much waste and fraud is attributed to Medicare each year? It's not an efficient system and if anything actually adds to the pricing problems.
Hillary's plan is actually quite impressive. It doesn't look like you actually read it, but rather have gone by the standard fictitious talking points put out by conservative talkies (they're all the same broken record). Anyways, here is a link if you care to read it.
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/feature/healthcareplan/americanhealthchoicesplan.pdf
It's a plan and I am sure there is a lot to workout, but it beats anything out there now. Of course, no one else has proposed anything so there you go.
BTW, Suzie, I didn't mean to minimize your personal issues with your insurance company. There are bad apples in every crate and I'm sorry you're having such a hard time.
Hunter, of course I read the report; I'm not going to look at an issue this important from someone else's slanted talking points.
Look again at my original post. I took most of those numbers from Hillary's plan and - to make sure all else was equal - the uninsured numbers and average healthcare cost I took from progressive think tanks.
I invite you to *carefully* look at my numbers and concerns in my final point. If you see a point you disagree with, be specific how. My concern that this is a big freaking fiscal black hole that glosses over the true problems.
No one is debating that universal healthcare is an admirable goal. But you also can't put lipstick on a pig and take it dancing.
I'd much rather see a seasoned, experienced, and non-partisan group study this issue and come up with a plan that addresses all facets.
No matter who comes up with a plan someone will be unhappy and claim it's partisan.
A single payer system alone could cut administrative costs by billions.
Gonzo wrote: >>But I don't understand why you demonize the private insurance firms. Yes, you have highly paid CEOs as with any major industry, but they are not the folks promulgating the high costs of healthcare. Socializing them makes no sense.<<
Cutting out a for-profit middleman makes no sense to you? What are you smoking?
And, just for the record, please define "socialized" medicine.
>>But you also can't put lipstick on a pig and take it dancing.
You've obviously never been to Burningman... ;)
-dta
Socialized medicine is where healthcare costs and services are government run.
In theory, Suzie, you are correct about a single-payer system. The problem is that in the real world, for example, Canada, the escalating costs of healthcare start to erode the quality and availability of services.
Also, the government has not proven itself to be particularly effective against waste and fraud and I repeat my earlier example of Medicare. Private industry has a vested interest in carefully rooting out fraud and improper billings.
In a single-payer system, you are not eliminating any middlemen, you're replacing an efficient private tier with an inefficient government one.
It's the entire system that needs close scrutiny, not any one facet.
Gonzo wrote: Also, the government has not proven itself to be particularly effective against waste and fraud and I repeat my earlier example of Medicare. Private industry has a vested interest in carefully rooting out fraud and improper billings.
Except when the industry itself is the problem. Free enterprise is not the solution to everything and this is one of those times.
In a single-payer system, you are not eliminating any middlemen, you're replacing an efficient private tier with an inefficient government one.
Efficient private tier? Are you kidding me? Medicare and the VA - with all their known problems - are far more efficient than the private sector.
It's the entire system that needs close scrutiny, not any one facet.
We agree on that. But a single-payer system could save billions in paperwork alone. That's enough for me to start with.
Socialized medicine is where healthcare costs and services are government run.
But we're talking about a single payer system that allows you to continue to go to your preferred providers, and not be stuck with the providers that an HMO, for example, requires.
>>In a single-payer system, you are not eliminating any middlemen, you're replacing an efficient private tier with an inefficient government one.
Efficient private tier? Are you kidding me? Medicare and the VA - with all their known problems - are far more efficient than the private sector.
<<
Care to cite some statistics? I can't believe that, seeing the Medicare stats that are readily available. A private firm would flounder with those numbers.
Post a Comment