Demographics & Economics
OMB
Congressional Budget Office
The Federal Budget
U.S. Census Quickfacts
Inflation Calculator
CIA World Factbook
NationMaster
State Healthcare Facts
UN HDR stats
US Bureau of Economic Analysis
US Bureau of Labor Statistics
US CDC health stats
US DOJ Bureau of Justice Statistics
US DOJ crime stats
Constitution
The Constitution
The Founders' Constitution
The Avalon Project
The Federalist Papers
The antifederalist papers
Founding documents
Politics
ADA (liberal) Voting Records
ACU (conservative) Voting Records
Census Voter Turnout
Congressional Research Service
Memeorandum
NOW list of voting scorecards
PolitiFact
PorkBusters
Project VoteSmart list of voting scorecards
RealClearPolitics
Roll call votes--House
Roll call votes--Senate
Survey USA
WaPo Votes Database
Iraq/Terrorism
CentCom
Brookings Institute Iraq Index
Project on Defense Alternatives War Report
Nat'l Defense Univ Iraq
Nat'l Defense Univ Afghanistan
MERLIN, Nat'l Defense Univ Library Network
STRATFOR
Nat'l Memorial Inst for Prevention of Terrorism
West Point's Combating Terrorism Center
Politics blogs
Baldilocks
Blue Mass Group
Cadillac Tight
California Conservative
Jon Chait
Confederate Yankee
Crooked Timber
Democracy Project
Dinocrat
First Read
Gateway Pundit
GenerationPatriot
Horse Race Blog
Just One Minute
Hugh Hewitt
Michelle Malkin
Patterico's Pontifications
Power Line
Red State
RNCC blog
Scrappleface
Sister Toldjah
Talking Points Memo
The Blogometer
The Corner
The Next Right
The Moderate Voice
Think Progress
Wizbang
Moderate / centrist
Ambivablog
Bipartisan Rules
Booker Rising
Centerfield
Charging RINO
Donklephant
Liberal War Journal
Militant Moderates
The Buck Stops Here
The Glittering Eye
The Iconic Midwest
The PoliGazette
The Walrus Said
Legal & academic
How Appealing
Becker-Posner
Bench Memos
Concurring Opinions
Economists Do It With Models
Legalities
Prawfsblawg
SCOTUSblog
Sentencing Law & Policy
UCFB
The Volokh Conspiracy
Christian
Archbp Dolan: Gospel in the Digital Age
Bp Chris Coyne: Let Us Walk Together
ADW blog
Simon Dodd: Motu Proprio
Fr Zuhlsdorf: WDTPRS
Fr Longenecker: Standing On My Head
Elizabeth Scalia: The Anchoress
First Thoughts
Mirror of Justice
Rorate Cæli
Veritas Rex
Middle East & Muslim affairs
Eteraz
Iraq the Model
Lebanese Political Journal
Michael Totten
Michael Yon
General interest
Althouse
Ambiance
Chris Muir's Day by Day
Instapundit
IowaHawk
JAC
Professor Bainbridge
Prettier than Napoleon
Rachel Lucas
The Right Coast
Science Blog
Sippican Cottage
Whatever
...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
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).