The Pelican Institute, a Louisiana-based think tank, released a report yesterday (PDF) on the economic costs of federal health care reforms in their state.
From the press release:
The report was produced by Arduin, Laffer & Moore Econometrics, the research firm of internationally renowned economist Dr. Arthur Laffer. It models the general concepts included in the health care reform proposals by President Obama and the congressional leadership.
Jarrett Skorup has an excellent article on the false impression some in the health care reform debate have about the intentions of insurers versus the intention of bureaucrats.
While it’s true that insurers are primarily concerned with their bottom line, rather than acting benevolently, it’s not true that we should expect any more goodwill from a government bureaucrat.
Here’s something interesting from the White House, via MSNBC:
Cross-posted from State House Call.
One of my grandfathers (now deceased) used to be a member of of the Fraternal Order of Eagles, one of many such organizations that still dot the land, especially in small towns. I know his lodge to be a place where he would go to smoke, drink, bowl a few frames and talk with his buddies. I never knew about lodge medicine, a practice that is discussed in this short essay published by the Foundation for Economic Education. Lodge medicine was likely past its prime during his day (he was, after all, a member of a trades union).
The good news is that Americans are living longer than ever. The bad news is that this fact, combined with laws that encourage dependency on government to pay for long-term care, is putting a great strain on state budgets.
Last year, Rhode Island received a “global waiver” from the U.S. Health and Human Services department, which lets it revamp its Medicaid program. Medicaid is a common way for nursing home residents and others to pay for long-term care.
Scott Harrington, in a Wall Street Journal piece, fact-checks some of President Obama’s more dramatic stories in his speech last week.
He finds that two of the president’s stories about insurance being dropped left out important information, that he inflated the market share of Alabama’s top insurer and downplayed the satisfaction of that insurer’s policy holders.
As the health care debate continues, President Obama has a major problem: The majority of Americans who are happy with their health insurance.
In a bid to convince them reform is necessary, Obama refers to new statistics saying that nearly half of Americans lost their insurance coverage for one month or longer at some point between 1997 and 2006.
Should government forbid insurance companies from putting conditions on the policies they write – for example, forbidding “pre-existing conditions” limitations?
Sheldon Richman says it would be more intellectually honest to create a new welfare program, paid for with a tax on everyone. Here’s what he says President Obama should have told Congress last week:
As Nick Gillespie reminds us, a well-working industry makes prices transparent and lets people know how much things will cost.
Current Minnesota law (enacted a few years ago) requires that all health care providers disclose their prices if asked.
A new website in the state goes much further. It takes data from the top four health plans and calculates the average reimbursement for about 100 procedures for almost all clinics statewide. This means that you can learn what they accept for reimbursements from the health plans rather than the outrageous list prices.
Nick Gillespie is puzzled at President Obama’s invocation of state-run universities as an analogy to a state-run insurance company:
Leaving aside a host of questions about the analogy, college costs are among the few that have been rising with the speed and intensity of medical costs. So how would this sort of competition reduce costs, one of the main goals, says Obama, of any health care reform worth the name? Indeed, the obvious similarity between higher ed and health care is that both systems rely on a third-party payer system where expenses are heavily subsidized (by employers, tax breaks, parents, federal grants, special loans, you name it) and the end consumers (patients, students) are shielded from knowing the full cost of the services they consume.
John Goodman lays out how these two propositions – the first a popular reform proposal and the second an option that Americans just aren’t willing to support – are linked through the complexities of the health care system.
It isn’t realistic to expect the majority of Americans to understand how these two propositions are connected, but it is more than reasonable to expect that lawmakers hire experts who can predict the consequences of all the nice ideas floating around in public debate before writing or passing laws.
Michael Pollan, in a New York Times op-ed, reminds us that as the government is allowed to take away the ability of Americans regarding their health care, it will become interested in more of the choices Americans make while living their daily lives. Specifically, the choice of what to have for dinner.
The James Madison Institute recently released a new paper that looks at the economic impact that the pending national health care legislation would have on Florida. To read the entire report, click here (PDF). To view a summary of the study, click here (PDF). It calculates that over the next 10 years, the bill passed by the U.S. House would cost Floridians nearly $6 billion.
Gary Palmer, president of the Alabama Policy Institute, reminds us it’s not what’s in the bills being considered in Congress that matters, but what’s not in the bills:
For example, will the House bill provide health care for illegal aliens?
“Obama’s claim that the health care reform bill does not include a provisionfor government health benefits to illegal aliens is only half the story. The fact is every effort by Republican congressmen to amend the bill to require documentation of legal residency and ensure that no one obtains coverage illegally has been rejected by the Democrats.”
It’s refreshing to read, for a change, of a state that is doing something to make the costs of insurance less expensive.
Oklahoma, for example, has a task force on insurance mandates. According to the Tulsa World, “Sen. Cliff Branan, R-Oklahoma City, said he wants the task force to review mandates that the Legislature has handed down in the past. He said he hoped the task force could study if those efforts were meeting their original goals.”
Shikha Dalmia on President Obama’s speech Wednesday as an image at least as colorful as the outburst of Rep. Joe Wilson (R-South Carolina):
For several months now, the American people–as if exhorted by the ghost of William F. Buckley (no particular hero of mine)–have been standing athwart the Democratic agenda of socialized medicine, yelling, “Stop!” But President Barack Obama showed them the policy equivalent of the middle finger Wednesday night.
What’s in the only piece of legislation that has been passed by the House of Representatives? A physician takes a look.
Cross-posted from State House Call.
In this audio clip, Rep. Mike Pence (R-Indiana) speaks with KMOX about alternative proposals on health care reform. I wish he and some of his colleagues had had the opportunity to wave those papers that he talks about in the clip. It would have made for good theater and perhaps gotten across an important point that the alternative to ObamaCare is not limited to “do nothing.”
The Michigan Economic Development Corp., state Legislature, governor and other supporters of government “jobs” programs have adopted an almost pop-culture idolatry for all things environmental by showering taxpayer subsidies upon corporations claiming to bring purportedly “earth friendly” products to market. It has a shiny, new green paint job, but in fact this is just the latest in a long line of failed state economic development program fads.
Gov. Jennifer Granholm has gone public with a laundry list of proposed tax hikes and “loophole closings.” It's a "death by a thousand cuts" strategy, which most items extracting relatively small amounts, or targeted at politically powerless populations like smokers. Unfortunately, these little injuries add up to a lot of blood drained from Michigan's already ailing economy.
Want government intervention in health insurance? We’ve already got it. Here’s the latest example: Michigan may (again) tell insurance customers what their policy must contain. It would also ride roughshod over the moral objections of pharmacists.
Cross-posted from State House Call.
National Public Radio sent someone out to survey the scene at a few parties where people were gathering to listen to President Obama’s speech last night. The online comments are filled with the usual, including those who favor a greater role for government calling those who oppose it selfish, uncaring Randians who don’t look out for anyone else, etc.
The newspapers are filled not only with stories about President Obama’s latest speech on health care, but on swine flu cases — Connecticut, Delaware, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Maryland, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee and Texas.
To be sure, some people have died from the swine flu (mentioned in a few of the stories linked to above). But many, many more people die from heart disease, cancer and stroke. Even influenza and pneumonia, a category that takes in much more than simply swine flu, claims just 10 percent of the number of people who die from heart disease.
Will an employer mandate help business productivity? Wishful thinking, says The Heritage Foundation’s D. Mark Wilson, who explains the several effects of employer mandates on both employers and employees.
Cross-posted from State House Call.
Is there wasteful spending in health care in the U.S.? Sure. Here’s Michael F. Cannon on the subject:
Cross-posted from State House Call.
