Posted on 02/14/2010 9:34:01 AM PST by SeekAndFind
The Ezra Klein post that Stephen Spruiell ably critcizes below raises (by failing to see) an important point. The difference between most conservatives and most liberals on health care is not a difference of degree but a difference of direction — a difference on the question of which we way want to move from our existing highly inefficient system of paying for health insurance.
Both sides agree there are huge problems with the current system, and they even agree on what some of those problems are: there is a shortage of incentives for efficiency, and therefore costs are rising much too quickly, which leaves too many people unable to afford coverage. The system we have is neither a market nor a government program, it’s a private third-party payer system, and so makes very little economic sense. The question is, given that we want to change the existing system, how do we want to change it?
Liberals argue that we should move in the direction of socializing insurance coverage: that the efficiency we lack would be produced by putting as much as possible of the health-care sector into one big “system,” in which the various inefficiencies could be evened and managed out of existence by the rational arrangement of rules and incentives. The problem now, they say, is that the system is chaotic and answers only to the needs of the insurance companies. If it were made more orderly, and answered to the needs of the public as a whole, costs could be controlled more effectively.
Conservatives argue that we should move toward a genuine individual market in insurance coverage: that the efficiency we lack would be produced by allowing for price signals to shape the behavior of both providers and consumers, creating more efficiencies than we could hope to produce on purpose, and allowing competition and informed consumer choices to exercise a downward pressure on prices. The problem now, they say, is that the system is opaque, hiding the cost of everything from everyone and so making real pricing and therefore real economic efficiency impossible. If it were made more transparent and answered to the wishes of consumers, prices could be controlled more effectively.
That means that, beginning from where we are now, liberals and conservatives want to move in roughly opposite directions. And they each tend to think that moving in the other’s direction would be worse than just keeping what we have for now. That’s why the offer of moving in the Left’s direction but not quite as far or quite as fast as the Left would ideally like isn’t really very attractive to conservatives. It’s why the individual pieces of their bills that the Democrats try to point to as incorporating Republican ideas don’t really win any Republicans — because the question is which direction are you moving the system in on the whole?
There are ways of incorporating market mechanisms in an approach that on the whole moves toward a more socialized insurance sector than we have now (like creating insurance exchanges), and those as part of such an approach would still not appeal to conservatives, who tend to think that even the current system, with all its problems, is preferable to the inefficiency of a true third-party payer system in which the government enforces efficiencies. There are ways of using government quite energetically (and expensively) in an approach that on the whole moves toward a true individual insurance market (like large high-risk pools for those with pre-existing conditions), and those as part of such an approach would still not appeal to liberals, who tend to think that even the current system, with all its problems, is preferable to leaving to the market, with its cold vicissitudes, the allocation of so essential a necessity as health coverage.
The difference between the Left and the Right is not a difference of degree, but of direction, and each side tends to think that moving even a little in the wrong direction is worse than doing nothing. That’s why a compromise won’t be so easy.
The larger public, I think, is not so tied to either direction, but is opposed to doing anything huge. That’s a big part of what the Democrats have done wrong this year: They have proposed too much. Whichever side is smart enough to propose some modest and sensible incremental steps in its preferred direction will have far better luck with the public. Conservatives would be wise to do so in a serious and concerted way before liberals realize that it’s time to employ some different means toward their same misguided end.
Tennessee has joined several other states in trying to pass a Health Care Freedom Act. NO COLAs for granny, retired Military or retired fed employees. BIG NEW fees for Tricare for Life retired over 65 Military's secondary health ins. (DOD bill already passed, delayed but goes into effect 2011)
New Dem mantra: Woof, woof eat dog food granny....ala let them eat cake.
TRI CARE FOR LIFE This from a google search:
http://economicspolitics.blogspot.com/2009/05/tricare-for-life-is-obama-trying-to.html
This option would help reduce the costs of TFL, as well as costs for Medicare, by introducing minimum out-of pocket requirements for beneficiaries. Under this option, TFL would not cover any of the first $525 of an enrollee’s cost-sharing liabilities for calendar year 2011 and would limit coverage to 50 percent of the next $4,725 in Medicare cost sharing that the beneficiary incurred. (Because all further cost sharing would be covered by TFL, enrollees could not pay more than $2,888 in cost sharing in that year.)
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/99xx/doc9925/12-18-HealthOptions.pdf
http://www.vawatchdog.org/09/hcva09/hcva110609-1.htm
Bill Would Restrict Veterans’ Health Care Options 11/06/09
Buyer and McKeon Offer Amendments to Protect Veterans and TRICARE Beneficiaries
Congress plans to block Tricare fee increases
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2009/10/military_tricarefees_blocked_100709w
By Rick Maze - Staff writer, Oct 7, 2009
Tricare fee increases imposed last week by the Defense Department will be repealed by a provision of the compromise 2010 defense authorization bill unveiled Wednesday by House and Senate negotiators.
Snip
The fee increases were announced on Sept. 30 and took effect on Oct. 1, but the defense bill, HR 2647, includes a provision barring any fee increases until the start of fiscal 2011.
Snip
Retired Army Maj. Gen. Bill Matz, president of the National Association for Uniformed Services, said the announcement of fee increases was shocking considering that the Obama administration promised earlier this year to hold off on any new fee Tricare fee increases until fiscal 2011.
“President Obama and DoD assured NAUS and the entire military family earlier this year that there would rightly be no increases in any Tricare fees” in fiscal 2010, Matz said. “We took them at their word, and I can’t believe that a co-pay increase like this was allowed to go forward,” he added.
In American politics, what works is usually — evolution, not revolution.
People do not want something presented to them in one BIG BANG, but a series of small steps so that they can digest the small changes to see if they work.
THAT is the big mistake with Obamacare.
The same will be true for those who keep harping on the FAIR TAX. I won’t be accepted by most people today. Better to make the change evolutionary. That’s what Paul Ryan’s alternative flat tax is all about for instance.
I think the writer captures the fallacy of dubbing Republicans as the “party of no” with the implication that they are simply contrarians against everything the President proposes. There are fundamental differences in the direction of the two parties and their underlying values and beliefs. “Compromise,” “finding common ground” or “bi-partisnaship” means moving or evolving the system toward a progressive one - ending in single payor.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find only things evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelogus
I think that is true about ANY issue. Conservatives and Liberals see a problem and instinctively go in opposite directions to rectify it.
Every level of gov't in TN is asking for tax increases or fee increases...which are just taxes by another name.
Quite frankly if 10% is good enough for GOD it ought to be good enough for all levels of government combined.
“Liberals argue that we should move in the direction of socializing insurance coverage: that the efficiency we lack would be produced by putting as much as possible of the health-care sector into one big “system,” in which the various inefficiencies could be evened and managed out of existence by the rational arrangement of rules and incentives. The problem now, they say, is that the system is chaotic and answers only to the needs of the insurance companies. If it were made more orderly, and answered to the needs of the public as a whole, costs could be controlled more effectively. “
Id like to ask Liberals where in the history of the United States has the government ever effectively done that?
I’d also like to ask the liberal why they want to make all the “efficiency” choices and trade offs themselves rather then let the people choose what to do with their own money?
Yes the liberal solution here is positively insane and disconnected from the history, principles, and reality of this government and federation. Not only is it unconstitutional, a betrayal of Americas most deeply held virtue individual liberty, known as freedom. Never has that solution ever failed to produce anything but LESS efficiency, more wast, and more frustrating bureaucracy.
So I’m sorry but the whole history of the United states serves to demonstrate again and again that the United States Federal Government is one of the worlds WORSE managers.
The very fact that liberals would even propose having the government take over and “manage” the healthfully as a “cost saving” measure should get them committed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.