What should we do with the incredibly important issue of health care? Will additional government involvement improve its availability, cost and quality? And which proposal is optimal? Since the Democrats control the national political process and favor increased government intervention, we’ll stick to analyzing those options.
Let’s start by noting that the proposed reforms largely assume rather than explain how they would increase efficiency. Part of this is reasonable and expected but still frightening: We don’t really know what we’ll get when we embrace grand changes in policy.
In addition, there is often a considerable gap between the theory and practice of government. Politicians often overestimate benefits and underestimate the costs of their policies.
Will special interest groups have more or less influence than under the status quo? In his movie "Sicko," Michael Moore expresses admiration for single-payer health-care systems in other countries. But it’s interesting that he is not at all optimistic about it working here, given the power of special interests in our democracy.
The current mix of government and markets in health care certainly has an amazing amount of inefficiency. But will bureaucracy and red tape be reduced or enhanced with more government?
It’s difficult to imagine much if any gain. Thus, extending health-care availability will probably involve higher costs or reduced access in other contexts (rationing).
Higher costs are possible, but congress and the president are limited by the recent, stunning increases in spending and debt by George Bush, Barack Obama and their congresses.
Considerable rationing is quite likely. It may be necessitated by cost constraints. And we’ve seen rationing with Medicare and in countries whose governments are heavily involved in health care. The first major uses of rationing would most likely be to restrict expensive “end-of-life” treatments and health care attached to unhealthy “lifestyle choices.”
Let’s get more specific now: One current proposal would outlaw all private health-care spending and cap public health-care spending and growth. But it’s difficult to imagine people giving up so much of their freedom. Although the explicit rationing is amazingly bold, it is politically difficult.
In 1994, the effort to regulate health care was centered on a mandate that businesses would provide health coverage for their workers. But this would make it more expensive for firms to hire workers, resulting in lower wages or fewer jobs.
Another option is the U.S. House proposal to mandate that individuals get health insurance, subsidizing those with lower incomes. (The current proposal would subsidize those who earn less than four times the “poverty” level — $43,200 for an individual and $88,200 for family of four.) This would resemble our current approach to auto insurance mandates. But given the subsidies, it would be quite expensive.
Barack Obama’s proposal is to subsidize public insurance that would “compete” with private insurance. By definition, subsidized insurance would undermine private insurance to some extent — somewhere between attracting people at the margin and entirely destroying the industry. It would depend on the extent of the subsidy.
Consider two examples. Public education is highly subsidized, so its private competition is marginal. The U.S. Post Office has been granted a monopoly and often receives direct subsidies, but it still faces rigorous competition because of technological advance.
Beyond the short-term policy decision, a public-private insurance market could be altered in the future through changes in the subsidy or regulations impacting private insurers. We have reason for concern here, since such subsidies and regulations can be quite subtle.
Economists are fond of the phrase “There’s no such thing as a free lunch.” Well, there’s no such thing as free health care either. All of these proposals are likely to increase costs, decrease overall access or both. In all of this, perhaps we should also keep a medical phrase in mind — from the Hippocratic Oath: “Above all, do no harm.”
One last thought: It’s interesting that we’ve become so fixated on a federal approach to this problem. Why not allow the 50 states to try 50 different experiments rather than betting everything on one grand, federal experiment that would be difficult if not impossible to reverse?
Can we really afford to take such a chance?
Eric Schansberg, Ph.D., an adjunct scholar of the Indiana Policy Review Foundation, is a professor of economics at Indiana University Southeast in New Albany. He is the author of "Turn Neither to the Right nor to the Left: A Thinking Christian’s Guide to Politics and Public Policy" and the editor of SchansBlog.
Columns
SCHANSBERG: The promises and pitfalls of health care reform
- Columns
-
-
CLERE: Walkout is absurd
The walkout by Indiana House Democrats entered its third week yesterday as tensions continued to rise and misinformation proliferated.
-
LADD: New Albany has new energy
New Albany is evolving. Public art has become more prevalent in the downtown, drawing more locals and outside visitors to our community; bringing more publicity.
-
DODD: An unexpected Angel
-
STAWAR: The souvenir state of America
Recently, my wife Diane and I spent the day aboard the Belle of Cincinnati with our daughter’s family. We all had a good time, even though the diesel-powered Cincinnati attraction isn’t a real steamboat, like our own Belle of Louisville, and despite the fact that it poured down rain the whole time.
-
NASH: Making a Memorial vacation
Memorial Day weekend is upon us which brings us to the start of the summer travel season. With the mild winter we had around here most schools didn’t have much in terms of snow make-up days so many kids have already finished up their semesters and are ready to get on with their holiday. Not to worry parents it will only be a couple of weeks before the back-to-school sales kick in and in no time at all it will be time for those youngsters to go back.
-
HARBESON: A handy little idea
After having worked hard the past few months, I now have something new to add to my resume — “I was Lead Project Manager for a major construction venture, supervising every aspect in the creation of a privately funded community building.”
-
MORRIS: Nancy Hogan was more than just an employee
Pulling into The Tribune parking lot each morning was pretty uneventful in the old days. Nothing good happens between 5:30 and 6 a.m. Nothing at all.
-
HAMILTON: Is this really the best we can do?
As you know if you pay attention to national affairs, the United States faces a perfect fiscal storm at the end of this year. A confluence of deadlines and policy triggers unlike anything I can remember in a half-century of public life will produce massive budget cuts and serious tax increases amounting to a 3.5 percent hit on the nation’s Gross Domestic Product.
-
BEAM: Lost memories found
As time elapses, so do our memories. I forget things now. I can’t remember his height. How did he curl his lips into that sardonic, wholehearted smile? I only recall flashes of a moment. Wearing his jacket at prom. His golf clubs in the back of his old, golden car. Notes passed in the hallway. Listening to Boys to Men in his basement.
-
STANCZYKIEWICZ: A gift for mom and dad
Two strategies for parents are important. First, parents need to model for children how to disagree. “When you’re talking with your spouse and you’re whining and complaining and nagging, you shouldn’t be too surprised when your young person does the same thing,” Allen said. “We need to be good role models.”
- More Columns Headlines
-



