The Audacity of Shamelessness
I've been watching the health care reform debate with keen interest. It is one of those situations where I think there's a public policy problem, but the solution is very difficult to tease out. None of the proposals I've heard thus far have truly addressed the problem in an honest way, proposed a solution that would actually address the stated problem, and given any indication that the proposal is likely to gain political traction. It's a hard trifecta to hit, but what's the point of a pricey plan that doesn't achieve what we need, or of armchair proposals that will be shot down in committee faster than you can say "interest group politics"?
What I have seen is a lot of self-serving crap. This evening's article about how Democrats propose to pay for the $1.3 trillion cost of the Kennedy-Dodd bill (which, even if it manages to actually achieve its projected aim, would only cover 16 million of the estimated 45-50 million currently not enrolled in Medicare/SCHIP/a private plan*) may take the cake:
To pay for the legislation, Baucus has signaled he intends to propose a tax on health insurance benefits for individuals with the costliest health insurance coverage, possibly plans with premiums totaling more than $15,000 between employer and employee combined. Obama campaigned aggressively against the idea when Republican rival Sen. John McCain proposed it during last year's presidential campaign.
While the president has recently signaled flexibility on the issue, Dodd criticized it for potentially penalizing individuals and families at a time they are under financial pressure. "I'm not attracted to that idea," he said.
Other senators, allied with organized labor, have also expressed opposition, although Baucus has told reporters he could exempt health benefits included in union contracts from the tax.
Oh. My. Goodness. Why not just cut out the middle man and put a box on next year's tax form that says "Did you vote Democrat last November? If no, please pay tax on your health benefits."
I know, I know. If I'm appalled by shamelessness, I shouldn't have moved to DC. But still, the audacity of it all is astounding.
* Super-special bonus on that anemic 16 million? We have no idea which 16 million are going to pick up coverage. Of the 45-50 million, it is estimated that 10-15 million are illegal immigrants, who are not going to be covered under any plan. So we're really talking about 30-40 million who don't have coverage, which includes people who don't carry insurance but could pay for it (mostly young and healthy) and people who are eligible for Medicaid/Medicare but haven't signed up. So, does the Kennedy-Dodd bill help 16 million people who couldn't afford insurance buy it? Or does it provide subsidies for people who could have purchased insurance without them? Or finally round up people who could've have been on benefits for years, but for whatever reason haven't signed up. To my mind, the "problem" is that there is a group people who are too poor to pay for any health insurance, but none of the solutions being marketed appear to target this band of the 45-50 million currently without a private plan or enrolled in a government program. I've seen the number of people too poor to afford a policy estimated at about 8-10 million. I think we could subsidize some very nice private insurance plans for those folks at far less than the $1.3 trillion proposed.
What I have seen is a lot of self-serving crap. This evening's article about how Democrats propose to pay for the $1.3 trillion cost of the Kennedy-Dodd bill (which, even if it manages to actually achieve its projected aim, would only cover 16 million of the estimated 45-50 million currently not enrolled in Medicare/SCHIP/a private plan*) may take the cake:
To pay for the legislation, Baucus has signaled he intends to propose a tax on health insurance benefits for individuals with the costliest health insurance coverage, possibly plans with premiums totaling more than $15,000 between employer and employee combined. Obama campaigned aggressively against the idea when Republican rival Sen. John McCain proposed it during last year's presidential campaign.
While the president has recently signaled flexibility on the issue, Dodd criticized it for potentially penalizing individuals and families at a time they are under financial pressure. "I'm not attracted to that idea," he said.
Other senators, allied with organized labor, have also expressed opposition, although Baucus has told reporters he could exempt health benefits included in union contracts from the tax.
Oh. My. Goodness. Why not just cut out the middle man and put a box on next year's tax form that says "Did you vote Democrat last November? If no, please pay tax on your health benefits."
I know, I know. If I'm appalled by shamelessness, I shouldn't have moved to DC. But still, the audacity of it all is astounding.
* Super-special bonus on that anemic 16 million? We have no idea which 16 million are going to pick up coverage. Of the 45-50 million, it is estimated that 10-15 million are illegal immigrants, who are not going to be covered under any plan. So we're really talking about 30-40 million who don't have coverage, which includes people who don't carry insurance but could pay for it (mostly young and healthy) and people who are eligible for Medicaid/Medicare but haven't signed up. So, does the Kennedy-Dodd bill help 16 million people who couldn't afford insurance buy it? Or does it provide subsidies for people who could have purchased insurance without them? Or finally round up people who could've have been on benefits for years, but for whatever reason haven't signed up. To my mind, the "problem" is that there is a group people who are too poor to pay for any health insurance, but none of the solutions being marketed appear to target this band of the 45-50 million currently without a private plan or enrolled in a government program. I've seen the number of people too poor to afford a policy estimated at about 8-10 million. I think we could subsidize some very nice private insurance plans for those folks at far less than the $1.3 trillion proposed.