Michael F. Cannon is the Cato Institute's director of health policy studies. Previously, he served as a domestic policy analyst for the U.S. Senate Republican Policy Committee under Chairman Larry E. Craig, where he advised the Senate leadership on health, education, labor, welfare, and the Second Amendment. Cannon is coauthor of Healthy Competition: What's Holding Back Health Care and How to Free It. He holds a bachelor's degree in American government (B.A.) from the University of Virginia, and master's degrees in economics (M.A.) and law & economics (J.M.) from George Mason University. He blogs at Cato@Liberty.
President Barack Obama and his congressional allies want to create yet another government-run health insurance program (call it Fannie Med) to cover yet another segment of the American public (the non-elderly non-poor). The whole idea that Fannie Med would be an “option” is a ruse. Like the three “public options” we’ve already got – Medicare, Medicaid, and the State Children’s Health Insurance Program – Fannie Med would drag down the quality of care for publicly and privately insured patients alike. Yet despite offering an inferior product, Fannie Med would still drive private insurers out of business because it would… Read more
I cannot disagree with Uwe Reinhardt's response to me. But his response bears clarification and emphasis. Improving "population health" generally means "helping people live longer." To paraphrase, Uwe then writes: If helping people live longer were our objective in health reform, we could do better than universal coverage. But health reform is not (solely or primarily) about helping people live longer. It is (also or primarily) about other things, like relieving the anxiety of the uninsured. I applaud Uwe for acknowledging a reality that most advocates of universal coverage avoid: that universal coverage is not solely or primarily about improving health. Will Uwe go… Read more
The more important question is: should Congress even try to achieve universal coverage? If the goal is to improve health, then the answer is clearly no. Ironically, even though universal coverage is presumably about helping the sick, the Democrats’ pursuit of universal coverage demonstrates not how much, but how little they care about their neighbors’ health. Economists Helen Levy and David Meltzer explain, in a book published by the Urban Institute, “There is no evidence at this time that money aimed at improving health would be better spent on expanding insurance coverage than on…other possibilities,” such as clinics, hypertension… Read more
In his weekly radio address, President Obama says private health insurance companies are “filling the airwaves with deceptive and dishonest ads.” Gee, I wonder if the insurers will dishonestly deceive even half the number of people that President Obama did during his address to Congress. (Cross-posted at Cato@Liberty.)… Read more
This is hardly the 11th hour. More like the end of the beginning, where the problem that Democrats have faced from Day One is finally coming to a head. The Left and the health care industry both want universal health insurance coverage. The industry, because universal coverage means massive new government subsidies. The Left, because that’s their religion. But universal coverage is so expensive that Congress can’t get there without taxing Democrats. Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) is the biggest opponent of Sen. Max Baucus’ (D-MT) tax on expensive health plans because that tax would hit West Virginia coal miners.… Read more
Two points: Baucus 2.0 would cost $2 trillion or more, not $829 billion. Baucus 2.0 would increase the deficit, not reduce it. 1. The actual cost. The $829 figure everyone heralds as the Congressional Budget Office’s preliminary cost estimate ignores another $108 billion in government spending under Baucus 2.0. The $829 billion figure is actually only the CBO’s estimate of new federal spending on health insurance. Former CBO director Donald Marron finds $75 billion of additional new federal spending. The bill would also impose unfunded mandates on state governments, which the CBO projects would increase state-government spending by $33 billion. Voila: $937… Read more
Related Link: http://www.cato.org
