After dismissing for years the idea that Democrats’ health care plans would lead to a government takeover, new House Budget Committee Chairman John Yarmuth on Tuesday asked Congress’ top economist to sketch out the options for a government takeover. The Kentucky Democrat also implicitly sketched out the political game plan: enact socialized medicine before patients and taxpayers understand what they’ll be losing.
People 65 and older accounted for over one third of U.S. medical spending. Yet despite the fact that government pays for 65% of the elderly’s medical expenses, the burden of health spending (out-of-pocket expenses as a percentage of income) is much higher among the elderly than among those below age 65. You might suppose that a policymaker in 2008 would look at these data and conclude that if there is a crisis in affordability within the U.S. population, it lies among the elderly.
The Health Care Choices Proposal would block-grant to each state its federal share of health care funding. When combined with their own health care resources, states would have the authority to determine how best to help their unique populaces obtain insurance. This private-insurance based program would give patients more choices—at multiple price points—to customize a health insurance plan that works best for their unique situation. It would empower employers, families, and individuals with expanded choices and premiums up to 32% lower.
More than 12 million nondisabled, working-age Americans are enrolled in Medicaid. They receive medical care that is virtually free, and in most states they are under no obligation to work or seek work.
Sounds like a great deal.
Until you consider how much these “free” benefits may cost a recipient over the course of a lifetime. That could total more than $323,000 in foregone wages for men and over $212,000 for women, according to a study by the Buckeye Institute, an Ohio-based free-market think tank.
Gallup polls have been asking some big picture questions about the major dimensions of health system performance–quality, coverage, costs and access–for nearly two decades now. This allows me to show you a long time series of trends that leave little doubt that despite many lofty promises made for Obamacare (or the high hopes of its proponents), Obamacare essentially left American health the same or worse on quality, coverage, costs and access . I found literally no evidence in these data that it made things better.
The Democratic party is moving steadily toward a full embrace of Medicare for All as its official health-care policy. While the term is flexible enough to mean different things to different people, the overall direction is clear enough. The party is advocating for the enrollment — eventually — of all Americans in a government-run insurance plan of some sort.
Even here in the United States, government-run health care programs such as those of the Veterans Administration and the Indian Health Services have appalling records of patients dying while waiting for care.
For anxious mothers like me who don’t want to wait three days for results from a lab culture while my child suffers, government-run health care doesn’t promise speedy service.
Give Working Families A Break
The Trump administration is using its regulatory authority to provide Americans more flexibility and choices of affordable health coverage, but it should take additional steps to help working families struggling with the cost of health coverage.
The administration has proposed allowing employers to establish defined contribution arrangements that enable their employees to purchase health insurance plans available outside the workplace.
But an important new option would be for an employee to use an HRA contribution to buy into their spouse’s plan at work.
Last month, Judge Reed O’Connor of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas issued a ruling declaring Obamacare unconstitutional. The case was brought by 20 Republican state attorneys general. Seventeen Democratic state attorneys general responded January 3 by appealing to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit.
Judge O’Connor appears to be on a bit of an island — the conventional wisdom on both the right and left is that his decision will be overturned by a higher court.
House Democrats used their new majority on Thursday to squeeze Republicans on health care, taking the first step to intervene in a court case in which a Texas judge has ruled the Affordable Care Act unconstitutional.
That move will be followed by a vote next week designed to force GOP lawmakers into a political corner: agree to defend a law many members have spent years reviling or appear to oppose popular ACA protections for millions of Americans with preexisting medical conditions that many have pledged to uphold.
Thursday’s authorization was part of a collection of rules the House adopted to guide its operation in the new Congress. It gives Pelosi permission to intervene in the Texas court case and allows the chamber’s counsel to work on the litigation.