Comments on: The belt-and-suspenders of the Kennedy-Dodd health care bill http://keithhennessey.com/2009/06/11/the-belt-and-suspenders-of-the-kennedy-dodd-health-care-bill/ Your guide to American economic policy Mon, 15 Mar 2010 21:49:22 -0400 http://wordpress.org/?v=abc hourly 1 By: Understanding the Baucus health bill  |  KeithHennessey.com http://keithhennessey.com/2009/06/11/the-belt-and-suspenders-of-the-kennedy-dodd-health-care-bill/comment-page-3/#comment-12257 Understanding the Baucus health bill  |  KeithHennessey.com Thu, 24 Sep 2009 18:08:32 +0000 http://keithhennessey.com/2009/06/11/the-belt-and-suspenders-of-the-kennedy-dodd-health-care-bill/#comment-12257 [...] Despite having no public option, the bill in effect turns the private health insurance industry into..., implementing public policy goals through privately owned firms.  Health insurance would be transformed from what it is today, a highly imperfect voluntary financial arrangement, into a tool of mandated redistributive social policy.  The insurance premiums you pay would consist in part of payments to others deemed by policymakers to be more deserving or needy than you.  I believe that the power this gives to the government officials who would design those premium rules is one of the two most dangerous elements of this bill.  The other is the long-term fiscal impact on taxes and spending. [...]<div class="comment-remix-meta"><a href="#" class="replyto" onclick="replyto('12257','Understanding the Baucus health bill  |  KeithHennessey.com'); return false;">Reply</a> - <a href="#" class="quote" onclick="quote('12257','Understanding the Baucus health bill  |  KeithHennessey.com','[...] Despite having no public option, the bill in effect turns the private health insurance industry into..., implementing public policy goals through privately owned firms.  Health insurance would be transformed from what it is today, a highly imperfect voluntary financial arrangement, into a tool of mandated redistributive social policy.  The insurance premiums you pay would consist in part of payments to others deemed by policymakers to be more deserving or needy than you.  I believe that the power this gives to the government officials who would design those premium rules is one of the two most dangerous elements of this bill.  The other is the long-term fiscal impact on taxes and spending. [...]'); return false;">Quote</a></div> [...] Despite having no public option, the bill in effect turns the private health insurance industry into…, implementing public policy goals through privately owned firms.  Health insurance would be transformed from what it is today, a highly imperfect voluntary financial arrangement, into a tool of mandated redistributive social policy.  The insurance premiums you pay would consist in part of payments to others deemed by policymakers to be more deserving or needy than you.  I believe that the power this gives to the government officials who would design those premium rules is one of the two most dangerous elements of this bill.  The other is the long-term fiscal impact on taxes and spending. [...]
Reply – Quote
]]> By: Rex http://keithhennessey.com/2009/06/11/the-belt-and-suspenders-of-the-kennedy-dodd-health-care-bill/comment-page-2/#comment-12123 Rex Fri, 18 Sep 2009 14:08:57 +0000 http://keithhennessey.com/2009/06/11/the-belt-and-suspenders-of-the-kennedy-dodd-health-care-bill/#comment-12123 This is the first (I think) response that raises the question of whether the proposed system (whatever it is in detail) is a good plan. Seems to me that it takes a system that currently is listed as the biggest long term threat to our financial well-being (underfunded by somthing like $30 TRILLION), and expands it without really saying much of anything about how it will bring costs down. Pretty much the tenor of the discussions is, "we will reimburse less." That will simply reduce the supply of health care. What it was billed as to start with was a solution to a problem that would bust the budget. What it has become is a solutions that will bust the budget more. I would suggest that we "privatise" health insurance by shifting ownership in the first place from one's employer to one's self. Next choice would be an ability to purchase whatever plan is available anywhere in the country that fits one's own needs. Then, if there is some group that cannot find a plan that they can pay for, and the reason is that they are definably "poor", we can consider subsidies. I think all plans should have some level of copay as an inducement for the user to consider costs, and to transmit that concern to their doctor. What we have here is a system without effective feedback control. It also has very expensive inputs. Places like France and England, and I would bet, Canada cover most, if not all of the cost of a medical education. Their doctors do not come out of medical school with $300,000 in debt (actual example from a friend), and, therefore, have to specialize to make enough to pay off that debt. Best suggestion that I have heard that is NOT in the law is, "find those practices in the country that deliver more for less and figure out how to propagate their approaches." Much of what IS in the law will hamstring a system that is already a muddle. Why can't we do something right?<div class="comment-remix-meta"><a href="#" class="replyto" onclick="replyto('12123','Rex'); return false;">Reply</a> - <a href="#" class="quote" onclick="quote('12123','Rex','This is the first (I think) response that raises the question of whether the proposed system (whatever it is in detail) is a good plan. Seems to me that it takes a system that currently is listed as the biggest long term threat to our financial well-being (underfunded by somthing like $30 TRILLION), and expands it without really saying much of anything about how it will bring costs down. \r\n\r\nPretty much the tenor of the discussions is, \"we will reimburse less.\" That will simply reduce the supply of health care.\r\n\r\nWhat it was billed as to start with was a solution to a problem that would bust the budget. What it has become is a solutions that will bust the budget more. \r\n\r\nI would suggest that we \"privatise\" health insurance by shifting ownership in the first place from one\'s employer to one\'s self. Next choice would be an ability to purchase whatever plan is available anywhere in the country that fits one\'s own needs. Then, if there is some group that cannot find a plan that they can pay for, and the reason is that they are definably \"poor\", we can consider subsidies. I think all plans should have some level of copay as an inducement for the user to consider costs, and to transmit that concern to their doctor.\r\n\r\nWhat we have here is a system without effective feedback control. It also has very expensive inputs. Places like France and England, and I would bet, Canada cover most, if not all of the cost of a medical education. Their doctors do not come out of medical school with $300,000 in debt (actual example from a friend), and, therefore, have to specialize to make enough to pay off that debt.\r\n\r\nBest suggestion that I have heard that is NOT in the law is, \"find those practices in the country that deliver more for less and figure out how to propagate their approaches.\"\r\n\r\nMuch of what IS in the law will hamstring a system that is already a muddle. Why can\'t we do something right?'); return false;">Quote</a></div> This is the first (I think) response that raises the question of whether the proposed system (whatever it is in detail) is a good plan. Seems to me that it takes a system that currently is listed as the biggest long term threat to our financial well-being (underfunded by somthing like $30 TRILLION), and expands it without really saying much of anything about how it will bring costs down.

Pretty much the tenor of the discussions is, “we will reimburse less.” That will simply reduce the supply of health care.

What it was billed as to start with was a solution to a problem that would bust the budget. What it has become is a solutions that will bust the budget more.

I would suggest that we “privatise” health insurance by shifting ownership in the first place from one’s employer to one’s self. Next choice would be an ability to purchase whatever plan is available anywhere in the country that fits one’s own needs. Then, if there is some group that cannot find a plan that they can pay for, and the reason is that they are definably “poor”, we can consider subsidies. I think all plans should have some level of copay as an inducement for the user to consider costs, and to transmit that concern to their doctor.

What we have here is a system without effective feedback control. It also has very expensive inputs. Places like France and England, and I would bet, Canada cover most, if not all of the cost of a medical education. Their doctors do not come out of medical school with $300,000 in debt (actual example from a friend), and, therefore, have to specialize to make enough to pay off that debt.

Best suggestion that I have heard that is NOT in the law is, “find those practices in the country that deliver more for less and figure out how to propagate their approaches.”

Much of what IS in the law will hamstring a system that is already a muddle. Why can’t we do something right?

Reply – Quote
]]> By: howard http://keithhennessey.com/2009/06/11/the-belt-and-suspenders-of-the-kennedy-dodd-health-care-bill/comment-page-1/#comment-11057 howard Sat, 05 Sep 2009 03:03:41 +0000 http://keithhennessey.com/2009/06/11/the-belt-and-suspenders-of-the-kennedy-dodd-health-care-bill/#comment-11057 There are examples both for success & failure of government run agencies, the argument can go and on ! However there is no doubt about the practices of Freddie & Fannie. Both of these government supported agencies shopped around their risky mortgages primarily on Wall St. Sure some banks got greedy and got burned. That does not negate the fact that these mortgages were bad to begin with. Couple that with the obstinate position of everyone who fell on the side of these agencies that " everything is OK" when the accounting principles were challenged by congress & the President (Bush). This could have been cut-off or at least minimized if certain parties had not stood in the way. Barney Frank, Christopher Dodd, Chuck Schmuer and many others stood in the way. Whats wrong with having an oversite committee? <div class="comment-remix-meta"><a href="#" class="replyto" onclick="replyto('11057','howard '); return false;">Reply</a> - <a href="#" class="quote" onclick="quote('11057','howard ','There are examples both for success & failure of government run agencies, the argument can go and on ! However there is no doubt about the practices of Freddie & Fannie. Both of these government supported agencies shopped around their risky mortgages primarily on Wall St. Sure some banks got greedy and got burned. That does not negate the fact that these mortgages were bad to begin with. Couple that with the obstinate position of everyone who fell on the side of these agencies that " everything is OK" when the accounting principles were challenged by congress & the President (Bush). This could have been cut-off or at least minimized if certain parties had not stood in the way. Barney Frank, Christopher Dodd, Chuck Schmuer and many others stood in the way. Whats wrong with having an oversite committee? '); return false;">Quote</a></div> There are examples both for success & failure of government run agencies, the argument can go and on ! However there is no doubt about the practices of Freddie & Fannie. Both of these government supported agencies shopped around their risky mortgages primarily on Wall St. Sure some banks got greedy and got burned. That does not negate the fact that these mortgages were bad to begin with. Couple that with the obstinate position of everyone who fell on the side of these agencies that " everything is OK" when the accounting principles were challenged by congress & the President (Bush). This could have been cut-off or at least minimized if certain parties had not stood in the way. Barney Frank, Christopher Dodd, Chuck Schmuer and many others stood in the way. Whats wrong with having an oversite committee?
Reply – Quote
]]> By: anon http://keithhennessey.com/2009/06/11/the-belt-and-suspenders-of-the-kennedy-dodd-health-care-bill/comment-page-1/#comment-10312 anon Wed, 02 Sep 2009 19:55:05 +0000 http://keithhennessey.com/2009/06/11/the-belt-and-suspenders-of-the-kennedy-dodd-health-care-bill/#comment-10312 The military is a special case as we have an all volunteer force made of individuals motivated by idealism and ideology. People want to defend or fight for their country, and really in THAT case, only a "public option" (as it were) could satisfy these people. If you consider this a matter of choice, I'd argue that this issue of choice is a big one that helps elevate our military over others staffed mostly by conscripts. On the other two, the fact that the de-facto gov't monopolies do a decent job doesn't mean that private sector counterparts wouldn't/couldn't do a better one. There is no "control" to determine that. In cases where there are such controls (eg the US Postal service vs. FedEx, or say the VA Medical system vs any private system) the gov't systems don't end up looking so hot. <div class="comment-remix-meta"><a href="#" class="replyto" onclick="replyto('10312','anon'); return false;">Reply</a> - <a href="#" class="quote" onclick="quote('10312','anon','The military is a special case as we have an all volunteer force made of individuals motivated by idealism and ideology. \n \nPeople want to defend or fight for their country, and really in THAT case, only a "public option" (as it were) could satisfy these people. \nIf you consider this a matter of choice, I'd argue that this issue of choice is a big one that helps elevate our military over others staffed mostly by conscripts. \n \nOn the other two, the fact that the de-facto gov't monopolies do a decent job doesn't mean that private sector counterparts wouldn't\/couldn't do a better one. There is no "control" to determine that. \n \nIn cases where there are such controls (eg the US Postal service vs. FedEx, or say the VA Medical system vs any private system) the gov't systems don't end up looking so hot. \n \n '); return false;">Quote</a></div> The military is a special case as we have an all volunteer force made of individuals motivated by idealism and ideology.

People want to defend or fight for their country, and really in THAT case, only a "public option" (as it were) could satisfy these people.
If you consider this a matter of choice, I'd argue that this issue of choice is a big one that helps elevate our military over others staffed mostly by conscripts.

On the other two, the fact that the de-facto gov't monopolies do a decent job doesn't mean that private sector counterparts wouldn't/couldn't do a better one. There is no "control" to determine that.

In cases where there are such controls (eg the US Postal service vs. FedEx, or say the VA Medical system vs any private system) the gov't systems don't end up looking so hot.

Reply – Quote
]]> By: Ace of Spades HQ http://keithhennessey.com/2009/06/11/the-belt-and-suspenders-of-the-kennedy-dodd-health-care-bill/comment-page-3/#comment-10299 Ace of Spades HQ Wed, 02 Sep 2009 19:16:21 +0000 http://keithhennessey.com/2009/06/11/the-belt-and-suspenders-of-the-kennedy-dodd-health-care-bill/#comment-10299 Hennessey: Removal of the Public Option Doesn’t End Mortal Threat to Private Insurers [jdub]…

With all the talk today about ObamaÂ’s possible introduction of the “public option” component of HealthCareReform to the ventral aspect of a large passenger conveyance, itÂ’s worth keeping in mind something Keith Hennessey noted a little while ago. He ca…

Reply – Quote
]]> By: Public Option Doublespeak | Be John Galt http://keithhennessey.com/2009/06/11/the-belt-and-suspenders-of-the-kennedy-dodd-health-care-bill/comment-page-3/#comment-6678 Public Option Doublespeak | Be John Galt Mon, 17 Aug 2009 14:57:50 +0000 http://keithhennessey.com/2009/06/11/the-belt-and-suspenders-of-the-kennedy-dodd-health-care-bill/#comment-6678 [...] in The Public Option - Individual Mandate Two-step: Killing the public plan is essential, but not enough to prevent government-run health care. Ramesh Ponnuru makes the case for focusing on the individual [...]<div class="comment-remix-meta"><a href="#" class="replyto" onclick="replyto('6678','Public Option Doublespeak | Be John Galt'); return false;">Reply</a> - <a href="#" class="quote" onclick="quote('6678','Public Option Doublespeak | Be John Galt','[...] in The Public Option - Individual Mandate Two-step: Killing the public plan is essential, but not enough to prevent government-run health care. Ramesh Ponnuru makes the case for focusing on the individual [...]'); return false;">Quote</a></div> [...] in The Public Option – Individual Mandate Two-step: Killing the public plan is essential, but not enough to prevent government-run health care. Ramesh Ponnuru makes the case for focusing on the individual [...]
Reply – Quote
]]> By: Patterico’s Pontifications » The Public Option – Individual Mandate Two-step http://keithhennessey.com/2009/06/11/the-belt-and-suspenders-of-the-kennedy-dodd-health-care-bill/comment-page-3/#comment-6673 Patterico’s Pontifications » The Public Option – Individual Mandate Two-step Mon, 17 Aug 2009 14:05:04 +0000 http://keithhennessey.com/2009/06/11/the-belt-and-suspenders-of-the-kennedy-dodd-health-care-bill/#comment-6673 [...] the public plan is essential, but not enough to prevent government-run health care. Ramesh Ponnuru makes the case for focusing on the individual [...]<div class="comment-remix-meta"><a href="#" class="replyto" onclick="replyto('6673','Patterico’s Pontifications » The Public Option – Individual Mandate Two-step'); return false;">Reply</a> - <a href="#" class="quote" onclick="quote('6673','Patterico’s Pontifications » The Public Option – Individual Mandate Two-step','[...] the public plan is essential, but not enough to prevent government-run health care. Ramesh Ponnuru makes the case for focusing on the individual [...]'); return false;">Quote</a></div> [...] the public plan is essential, but not enough to prevent government-run health care. Ramesh Ponnuru makes the case for focusing on the individual [...]
Reply – Quote
]]> By: The Greenroom » Forum Archive » The Public Option - Individual Mandate Two-step http://keithhennessey.com/2009/06/11/the-belt-and-suspenders-of-the-kennedy-dodd-health-care-bill/comment-page-3/#comment-6672 The Greenroom » Forum Archive » The Public Option - Individual Mandate Two-step Mon, 17 Aug 2009 14:02:43 +0000 http://keithhennessey.com/2009/06/11/the-belt-and-suspenders-of-the-kennedy-dodd-health-care-bill/#comment-6672 [...] the public plan is essential, but not enough to prevent government-run health care. Ramesh Ponnuru makes the case for focusing on the individual [...]<div class="comment-remix-meta"><a href="#" class="replyto" onclick="replyto('6672','The Greenroom » Forum Archive » The Public Option - Individual Mandate Two-step'); return false;">Reply</a> - <a href="#" class="quote" onclick="quote('6672','The Greenroom » Forum Archive » The Public Option - Individual Mandate Two-step','[...] the public plan is essential, but not enough to prevent government-run health care. Ramesh Ponnuru makes the case for focusing on the individual [...]'); return false;">Quote</a></div> [...] the public plan is essential, but not enough to prevent government-run health care. Ramesh Ponnuru makes the case for focusing on the individual [...]
Reply – Quote
]]> By: The Greenroom » Forum Archive » The sticker shock of ObamaCare-Lite http://keithhennessey.com/2009/06/11/the-belt-and-suspenders-of-the-kennedy-dodd-health-care-bill/comment-page-3/#comment-6108 The Greenroom » Forum Archive » The sticker shock of ObamaCare-Lite Thu, 13 Aug 2009 15:17:12 +0000 http://keithhennessey.com/2009/06/11/the-belt-and-suspenders-of-the-kennedy-dodd-health-care-bill/#comment-6108 [...] the so-called insurance market reforms still amount to government-run health care, as everyone from Keith Hennessey to Michael Kinsley [...]<div class="comment-remix-meta"><a href="#" class="replyto" onclick="replyto('6108','The Greenroom » Forum Archive » The sticker shock of ObamaCare-Lite'); return false;">Reply</a> - <a href="#" class="quote" onclick="quote('6108','The Greenroom » Forum Archive » The sticker shock of ObamaCare-Lite','[...] the so-called insurance market reforms still amount to government-run health care, as everyone from Keith Hennessey to Michael Kinsley [...]'); return false;">Quote</a></div> [...] the so-called insurance market reforms still amount to government-run health care, as everyone from Keith Hennessey to Michael Kinsley [...]
Reply – Quote
]]> By: The President’s press conference: health – Blog Title  |  KeithHennessey.com http://keithhennessey.com/2009/06/11/the-belt-and-suspenders-of-the-kennedy-dodd-health-care-bill/comment-page-3/#comment-5685 The President’s press conference: health – Blog Title  |  KeithHennessey.com Tue, 11 Aug 2009 00:22:55 +0000 http://keithhennessey.com/2009/06/11/the-belt-and-suspenders-of-the-kennedy-dodd-health-care-bill/#comment-5685 [...] Even if the government option drops out of legislation, health insurance will largely become a function of government. [...]
Reply – Quote
]]>