StubbornFacts
Stubborn Facts
Stubborn Facts

Navigation

User login

Subscribe via RSS

Resources

The latest from our partner, the PoliGazette

Blog Roll

Universal Health Care...

Submitted by Tully on Tue, 07/10/2007 - 11:15am

...is failing to deliver when tried on a state basis. And for most of the obvious reasons. Ezra Klein takes a look:

Why the "laboratories of democracy" can't achieve universal health care

Washington State, for instance, opted for a Clintonian-style program. In 1993, it passed the Washington Health Services Act, which sought to tame the excesses of health markets and use the state’s regulatory powers to mandate universal coverage, force insurers to offer comprehensive benefit packages at affordable prices, and pool purchasing power so all residents could buy in. Because the insurers would rebel against this scheme to rip apart their business model and end their ability to price out the sick while attracting the well, the state demanded that all insurers who wanted access to Oregon’s market become certified through the state—that way, they couldn’t undercut the program. But the insurers took a harder line than expected and instantly rebelled against the arrangement; many went so far as to cease doing business in the state. Others instantly jacked up premiums, creating total chaos. The next year, the Republican revolution washed over the statehouse, and by 1995 the new GOP majority had repealed most of the plan’s elements, including the parts forcing insurers to participate. By 2000, not a single insurer remained in the now-voluntary system. Today, 13 percent of Washington’s population is uninsured, compared with just over 10 percent in 1992. The state spends 12 percent of its gross state product on health care, just 1 percent less than the national average.

Other states have had similar experiences, even when there was no Republican-led backlash.

Like Hawaii’s experiment, TennCare seemed to work, at first. A few years after its inception, it covered a quarter of Tennessee’s population. But it ultimately met with exactly the same fate as Hawaii’s program. A fiscal downturn created greater need and insufficient tax revenues. Costs increased. When voters rejected a tax hike, the state began cutting benefits. By 2005, Democratic Governor Phil Bredesen had dissolved much of the program, leaving more than 300,000 Tennesseans without coverage. “I say to you with a clear heart,” said Bredesen, “that I’ve tried everything. There is no big lump of federal money that will make the problem go away.”

Stumbling over the truth without breaking stride

Remarkable that Klein should recognize so clearly the dependence of government-run health care on the local form of government-- that what works in one place won't necessarily work in another-- without it making the slightest dent in his conviction that the European schemes he favors can't fail here.

Yep. Thinks that bumping

Yep. Thinks that bumping things up an order or two of magnitude will make somehow it feasible. All the problems the states have apply just as much to the national government. He even figures out the only real advantage to mandated insurance schemes (capturing the money of the healthy uninsured) such as the Massachusetts plan, while missing the glaring faults of that plan.

The bottom line is that it is, and always has been, about how we ration health care, because we will and must ration health care. Limited supply, unlimited demand. We can pick up some efficiencies here and there and narrow some inequalities, but we'll still ration.

I'd hesitate to call the

I'd hesitate to call the ability to overcharge the healthy an "advantage"; even if the state does, for some reason, want the money of this generally young and, therefore, not very wealthy group-- well, there's always taxation.

Since the Massachusetts program offers multiple plans, they have in fact had to allow premiums to vary considerably with age to avoid the well-known problems with community rating, even going so far as to set up a separate tier for singles 26 and under. Anyone interested in seeing the results can go here and experiment with putting in different birth years.

I'd hesitate to call the

I'd hesitate to call the ability to overcharge the healthy an "advantage"; even if the state does, for some reason, want the money of this generally young and, therefore, not very wealthy group-- well, there's always taxation.

No argument on the characterization, but it's an "advantage" to the state and the politicians in that they can claim they have covered those "uninsured" (which constitute a goodly chunk of the total uninsured) and in that they can show a net system "profit" in so doing. They also get to make demagogic noises about making people pay their "fair share" and so on. Every mandatory-coverage plan I've seen depends on the funding from that group to subsidize premiums for the rest of the plan. Their estimates of how much the plan will gain are usually overly optimistic, being based on the assumption that said group will continue to be minimal users after coverage begins.

But those people as a group in fact made a fairly rational choice in the first place to be self-insured, and previously consumed health-care services in a cost-conscious fashion. Once forced into coverage that primary cost motivation loses force, and they begin using services like everyone else, or even more so, trying to recapture their "money's worth" from their mandated premiums. The only real "savings" for the plan is the lower catastrophic care costs associated with this captured healthier demographic--and even that savings is somewhat illusory. The system was already paying for them, it's just now getting some partial premiums in exchange.

Resembles other insurance models

Because the insurers would rebel against this scheme to rip apart their business model and end their ability to price out the sick while attracting the well, the state demanded that all insurers who wanted access to Oregon?s market become certified through the state?that way, they couldn?t undercut the program.

As I recall, the same thing happened in Massachusetts with auto insurance. Since companies are now required to take on a certain number of high-risk drivers, insurance premiums are the highest in the nation (despite lower-than-average accident rates, and, I believe, commuting distances).

Recent comments

Advertisements
StubbornFacts.us does not endorse the content of any advertisement

Featured Movie

Syndicate

Syndicate content

Who's online

There are currently 0 users and 2 guests online.