Skip to main content

In which the News Journal discovers the truth--and then mis-interprets it

In a rare burst of candor about the Obama administration, the WNJ editorial page discovers that the administration's claim that Obamacare is driving down medical costs is false:

“The idea that we have licked the problem of health care cost increases is no more probable today than it was in the past,” Drew Altman and Larry Levitt, Kaiser’s president and vice president, said. “Our nation has made no fundamental change in how health care is paid for or delivered.” 
This means the claims that the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, was slowing the cost increases even before it went into effect just are not true. 
Likewise, according to the Kaiser report, when prices start going up over the next couple of years, Obamacare will not be the cause either.
So far so good.

But then the editorial writer takes a bit of a detour:
This expected return to increasing costs means the debate about Medicare and Medicaid will have to continue. One of the first things we must do is recognize that public policy has trade-offs. We cannot have all of the health care we want and low costs, too. There will have to be controls. We are already seeing some of them in the form of higher insurance premiums. For example, workers with employer-sponsored health insurance already pay higher premiums for smoking cigarettes. Increasingly, workers will be called on to pay more for insurance if they are overweight. Co-pays are rising. Advocacy groups, such as the Bipartisan Policy Center, are pushing for a revocation of employer-sponsored insurance’s tax-favored status. In other words, don’t be surprised in a couple of years if the value of health insurance is treated as income and taxed accordingly. 
You don't have to be either a libertarian or a progressive to recognize what a mishmash this paragraph is.

First, the writer says we have to have controls to keep prices down.  The usual reading of that sentence is a call for government controls.  But then the sentence is followed by the implication that higher rates charged by private companies represent part of the controls we need.  All of a sudden we have mixed more than metaphors, as a paragraph which seemed to start by advocating government control detours into free-market solutions.

Then there's the issue of insurance companies charging more for obese patients.  Let me count the ways that this is too simplistic an example to even make sense.  1.  Obesity, for many people, would be a pre-existing medical condition that the ACA would seem to forbid insurance companies from taking into account.  2.  There is rising evidence that obesity is in large measure genetic for many folks, which makes for an interesting set of discrimination arguments.  3.  If we are going to charge people more for obesity (especially if genetically predisposed) what happens to charging people for a genetic predisposition to certain kinds of cancer?

Then there is the gratuitous swipe at reclassifying health insurance benefits as income so that they can be taxed again.  Now the WNJ editorial writer is saying--effectively--that we're going to fail to contain health care costs no matter what we try, so just prepare for the inevitable new taxes to pay for the rising costs.

Don't get me wrong:  there are plenty of valid arguments on both sides of the health care argument.

But this editorial piece is nothing less than an incredibly mixed-up and self-contradictory over-simplification that bespeaks more of deadline pressure than anything meaningful to say.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...