- Egypt rights center raided, 2 Mubaraks acquitted
- New Mexico Supreme Court rules same-sex marriage constitutional
- Blame Bush: 5 years later, that’s still the mantra, pollsters find
- Dutch prostitutes demand same retirement benefits as soccer stars
- John McCain to Harry Reid: I’ll ‘kick the crap’ out of you
- Dogs that talk: Researchers seek $10K for ‘No More Woof’ technology
- 1,000 firefighters called to battle stubborn Big Sur wildfire
- Black Friday brouhaha: Millions of Target shoppers hit by credit card theft
- Britain orders airplane to rescue citizens from violent South Sudan
- Mega Millions winner emerges as Georgia mom, in ‘disbelief’
BLANKLEY: Obama’s prescription
Question of the Day
Of all President Obama's transformative domestic policy proposals, none is more far-reaching and less transparent than health care. What most Washington policy people mean when they talk about the president's health care proposal was described in the lead paragraph of Robert Pear's meticulous article in the New York Times on Wednesday.
“Efforts to overhaul the health care system have moved ahead rapidly, with the insurance industry making several major concessions and the chairmen of five congressional committees reaching a consensus on the main ingredients of legislation. The chairmen, all Democrats, agree that everyone must carry insurance and that employers should be required to help pay for it. They also agree that the government should offer a public health insurance plan as an alternative to private insurance.”
Also, Mr. Obama wants to digitalize and collect all patient health care data - initially because such data could assist in assessing best practices.
This is, for certain, a controversial and vastly expensive universal coverage proposal: It will cost about $1.5 trillion to $2 trillion over 10 years. But the full scope of Mr. Obama's health care policy ambitions cannot be understood without accounting for his claim that he needs to do health care this year as part of his long-term plans to reduce the deficit.
While some emergency-room and related cost savings will be realized if everyone has health insurance, no one seriously suggests that such savings would even put a dent in the trillions of dollars this proposal will cost in tax increases or debt issuance in the first 10 years.
Mr. Obama's claim only make sense if this huge proposal is merely the first step in a series of timed policy changes on a path toward near comprehensive federal government regulation and management of health care.
What follows is my surmise of what the administration hopes the path to America's future health care system will look like. Currently, a little less than one-fifth of the American economy is devoted to health care. Of that, about 68 percent of it is in the private sector, with 32 percent run by the government (Medicare, Medicaid, Veterans Affairs, Defense Department health services, etc.)
This year, the Democrats hope to pass the above described universal coverage law, which would include creating a public insurance option - that is, the federal government would offer health insurance plans to compete with the private-sector health insurance that most of us purchase through our employers. In the face of government cost-undercutting of private-sector health insurance, more and more Americans would choose to come under the federal health system.
At some point, the age eligibility for Medicare may be lowered, (perhaps to 50 or 55) and the income ceiling for Medicaid may be raised, thus further increasing the percentage of the public covered by government rather than private-sector health insurance.
According to Tom Daschle (Mr. Obama's first choice to design and implement his health care policy), in order to manage federal costs by prescribing permissible treatment procedures and medical technological use (and proscribing diagnostic and treatment methods deemed not cost-effective) a regulatory board to establish standards for public health care delivery in the United States would be modeled on how the Federal Reserve Board and Securities and Exchange Commission oversee banks and corporations.
Technically, the board would oversee only the public health systems. However, Mr. Daschle suggested in his book last year on how to redesign health care: “Congress could opt to go further with the board's recommendations. It could, for example, link the tax exclusion for health insurance to insurance that complies with the board's recommendation.”
After first squeezing the private insurance policies by undercutting their offerings with subsidized federal health insurance, the government could then further undercut private insurance by denying the insurers tax deductibility unless they complied with federal health service regulations. As only the wealthiest could afford to buy private health insurance if the cost was not deductible, private health insurance companies would be compelled to follow federal benefits and cost regulations.
At that point, almost all Americans would get their health care pursuant to federally regulated systems. Then the president would be able to begin to deliver on his twin pledges to reduce the cost of entitlements and make health care overall contribute to lower deficits.
The federal regulators could merely do what the British regulators do:
About the Author
By Andrew P. Napolitano
Fourth Amendment says Obama is not at liberty to collect metadata
Get Breaking Alerts
- Calling sentence disparities unfair, Obama pardons 8 crack offenders
- Homeland Security helps smuggle illegal immigrant children into the U.S.
- Gov't wasted $30 billion on 'pillownauts,' crystal goblets -- buying human urine!
- Duck Dynasty Phil Robertson suspended indefinitely for gay quip
- Bill Gates: The Secret Santa disguised as a 'friendly fellow' on Reddit
- Armed response, not restrictive gun laws, brought swift end to school shooting
- Obamacare 'pajamas boy' gets roundly mocked
- BOLTON: Nero in the White House
- Democrats cite pope in call for minimum wage hike, jobless benefits
- Outrage over Phil Robertson suspension, 'malignant' political correctness