the public's skittishness about overhauling the system also reflects something else: the deep-seated psychological biases that make people resistant to change.He goes on to list all of the irrational biases that lead people to want the status quo and resist real health care reform. He never mentions labor unions. Yet unions are a major political factor in the status-quo bias that Surowiecki laments.
Because of unions, the Democrats are in a love-hate relationship with private health insurance. They hate private health insurance companies, but they love the employer-provided health insurance system, which is where private health insurance companies are entrenched.
I, too, hate private health insurance companies, but I have no labor union pressuring me to support the continuation of the tax deduction for employer-provided health benefits. So I can support a policy of getting rid of that deduction, which might produce meaningful change.
The other contradiction concerns Medicare. Medicare is in worse shape than private health insurance. It faces trillions of dollars of unfunded liabilities. Medicare is what President Obama is talking about when he says that America's health care system is unsustainable and something has to change.
But the status-quo bias in Medicare is enormous. Seniors are happy with it, because the costs are borne by future generations.
So, we have a Democratic Party that wants health care reform but at the same time wants to entrench Medicare and employer-provided health insurance. In a way, the Democrats are lucky that they have political opposition. Without it, they would have to face up to their own contradictions.
The whole dem party wants health care reform? NOT!
Although, I am glad that the DNC doesn't act like the rubber stamp GOP did when they were in power. The GOP is made of dumb bullies and if the DNC had some bullies we would not be debating pre-health care bill, we would be debating post-health care bill.
Republicans prefer a government that governs the least and by golly when they are in power that's exactly what America gets.
At least the DNC thinks the system could use some change and are having a healthy debate for it. Arnold Kling seems to prefer klinging to worthless political rhetoric.
You're certainly correct about the contradictions.
But the agenda of liberal Democrats is to create a situation where the health insurance market collapses and we're left with no choice but to embrace a single payer system.
Frankly, I'm more disappointed that the Republicans have not pressed a series of market-based initiatives that would reform health care by making it more affordable. For instance, a federal law that pre-empts state regulation and allows insurers to sell policies across state lines. You could bar insurers from disallowing folks with pre-existing conditions from insurance, but you would to be able to charge a surcharge for folks who smoke or who are overweight.
As you said, this is not about Congress working together to reach a compromise on health reform. It's about liberal Democrats wanting to restructure health care in the United States along the lines of Canada and Great Britain. And the fate of this legislation will be determined by whether the Democrats can hold together its "big tent" in the Party.
...And the agenda of conservative Republicans is to wait for market forces to do the same thing, and push for the abolition of Medicare.
Propose some ideas that will actually work, and don't just sound good on to the Sunday morning talk shows. The preemption of state regulation is a political non-starter, and the real problem is is that existing insurance policies are getting skinnier, while insurance companies (and the medical industry in general) are getting fatter. You must be smoking something if you think perpetuating the status quo, and adding a quart of nonsense, will do anything to help get this situation under control.
What's remarkable about the situation is the strenuous efforts of the Republicans to not only use this opportunity to market their own particularly vehement brand of ignorance, greed, and stupidity, but to not even come up with a decent set of ideas that will serve as a counterpoint to the Dem's agenda. Surely, they have some clue up on Capitol Hill, or have they decided their future lies on waiting for the other guys to bankrupt this nation, and they will come in as the savior on the white horse, promise the same sweet nothings they failed to deliver a scant year ago? If anything, outsourcing their healthcare agenda to a fat, smoking radio talkshow host reveals the true extent of their appalling inability to think and act for themselves, and how much they care about the health and personal responsibility of their constituents. So long as you can pay for it out of your own pocket, anything goes, right?
...And the agenda of conservative Republicans is to wait for market forces to do the same thing, and push for the abolition of Medicare.
Propose some ideas that will actually work, and don't just sound good on to the Sunday morning talk shows. The preemption of state regulation is a political non-starter, and the real problem is is that existing insurance policies are getting skinnier, while insurance companies (and the medical industry in general) are getting fatter. You must be smoking something if you think perpetuating the status quo, and adding a quart of nonsense, will do anything to help get this situation under control.
What's remarkable about the situation is the strenuous efforts of the Republicans to not only use this opportunity to market their own particularly vehement brand of ignorance, greed, and stupidity, but to not even come up with a decent set of ideas that will serve as a counterpoint to the Dem's agenda. Surely, they have some clue up on Capitol Hill, or have they decided their future lies on waiting for the other guys to bankrupt this nation, and they will come in as the savior on the white horse, promise the same sweet nothings they failed to deliver a scant year ago? If anything, outsourcing their healthcare agenda to a fat, smoking radio talkshow host reveals the true extent of their appalling inability to think and act for themselves, and how much they care about the health and personal responsibility of their constituents. So long as you can pay for it out of your own pocket, anything goes, right?
When Newt Gingrich's own project director brags about the current health care debate being the corrupt shell game it is; how the hell do any Democrats defend Obama and the Democrat congress and senate?
From Truthdig.com
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20090823_this_isnt_reform_its_robbery/
The Democrats are collaborating with lobbyists for the insurance industry, the pharmaceutical industry and for-profit health care providers to craft the current health care reform legislation. “Corporate and industry players are inside the tent this time,” says David Merritt, project director at Newt Gingrich’s Center for Health Transformation, “so there is a vacuum on the outside.” And these lobbyists have already killed a viable public option and made sure nothing in the bills will impede their growing profits and capacity for abuse.
This is an emotional issue and we all should support covering individuals through private health insurance. To conquer these serious changes, doesn’t it seem right to advocate for greater transparency in both quality and price information, for it overlaps with many other issues? http://www.friendsoftheuschamber.com/issues/index.cfm?ID=300
There is no "tax deduction" for employer health benefits. Calling an untaxed benefit a deduction is the distortion you place upon that fact, and one that weakens your credibility.
It's routine for the tax code to tax different types of income differently. See capital gains.
According to the Lewin group study, the darling of conservatives, the Public Option will reduce premiums by up to 30% over private premiums, attracting about 84M employer-insured people away from private plans onto the public option. (The employer will still pay for the plan.) We can debate this number, and the CBO does, but the point is that if the Public Option is going to cut into private insurance coverage, as a stalking horse for single payer as conservatives say, then how can you call the Democrats schizophrenic for proposing a solution which will sever the ties you claim they want to maintain.
And what do unions have to do with it?
There is no "tax deduction" for employer health benefits.
There most definitely is a deduction to employers who pay the health insurance premium for employees.
There is also an exclusion for the employee, which is why employer provided health benefits is such a a rich and distorting subsidy.
There is no "tax deduction" for employer health benefits. Calling an untaxed benefit a deduction is the distortion you place upon that fact, and one that weakens your credibility.
It's routine for the tax code to tax different types of income differently. See capital gains.
According to the Lewin group study, the darling of conservatives, the Public Option will reduce premiums by up to 30% over private premiums, attracting about 84M employer-insured people away from private plans onto the public option. (The employer will still pay for the plan.) We can debate this number, and the CBO does, but the point is that if the Public Option is going to cut into private insurance coverage, as a stalking horse for single payer as conservatives say, then how can you call the Democrats schizophrenic for proposing a solution which will sever the ties you claim they want to maintain.
And what do unions have to do with it?
You think Medicare is in bad shape, you should look at the military. It has all sorts of liabilities, and no dedicated revenue stream. Why doesn't anyone talk about the bankruptcy of the military?
I realize The Atlantic has gone downhill of late, but anyone who thinks the party of "No" is making a useful contribution to the health care discussion is more out of touch with reality than usual.
Market-based initiatives, like selling insurance across state lines, or tort reform - which is hardly market-based - won't save much in health care costs. Even Switzerland, the most market-based of the universal health insurance countries, has much much more regulation than anything in the Obama health care bill - and they don't come close to the per capita savings of a plan like Canada's or France's. Why not craft the best system we can from examination of the rest of the world? It's public skittishness being amplified by insurance industry lobbyists who don't want to lose their ginormous profits.