Costs must be addressed and mal-practice insurance is a major cost. Failure to address this cost makes any attempt at “reform” a waste of time. I go so far as to allow patients to hold care providers harmless. The cost to educate our medical professionals must also be addressed.
He can’t ask doctors to accepted fee reductions on their services without helping them cut expenses. Reducing malpractice insurance premiums by capping awards is a great first step.
Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) admits that the goal is to destroy private health insurance. Obooba said more or less the same thing while campaigning.
The govt plan will set maximum payments schedules for all services.
The private carriers will be overcharged to make up for the loss.
Private companies have to raise their premium rates to make up for it.
Obooba complains that private insurance is getting more expensive.
Citizens shop around for cheaper private insurance.
Smaller companies go outa beusiness, and employers are dropping private plans in favor of the govt subsidized plan that need not make a profit.
Eventually there is the govt plan and maybe 2 or 3 private companies that are so regulated that they serve as nothing but claims processors – until they go belly up leaving only OboobaCare as the Health Rationing Service.
This will cost about one $1M per American per year when it all shakes out.
Alternative: if you want CastroCare, move to Cuba.
Obama is saying the right things. This will pass and it should. The insurance industry doesn’t want to sell insurance to those who are presently uninsured, so the Fed. gov’t should and will. If they can’t compete well then “they reap what they have sowed”.
You’re absolutely on point. Read this from today’s WSJ:
Health Reform and Competitiveness
Article Comments (17) more in Opinion »Email Printer
Friendly Share: Yahoo Buzz ↓ More
facebook
MySpace
LinkedIn
Digg
del.icio.us
NewsVine
StumbleUpon
Mixx
Save This ↓ More
Text
Democrats have spent years arguing that corporate tax rates don’t matter to U.S. competitiveness. But all of a sudden one of their favorite arguments for government-run health care has become . . . U.S. corporate competitiveness. Political conversions on this scale could use a little scrutiny.
“Businesses now recognize that if we don’t get a handle on this stuff then they are going to continue to be operating at a competitive disadvantage with other countries,” President Obama recently remarked. “And so they anxiously seek serious reform.”
Sure enough, many business leaders who should know better have picked up the White House theme. “You won’t fundamentally solve the problems in business until you solve the problem of spiraling health-care costs, which is driving everybody crazy,” said Google CEO Eric Schmidt the other day.
Messrs. Obama and Schmidt need to brush up on their economics. Employers may write the checks to the insurance companies, but workers still pay for the coverage they get from those employers. The total cost of an employee is what matters to businesses, and fringe benefits are as much a part of compensation as cash wages. When health costs rise, firms don’t become less competitive, as if insurance were lopped out of profits. Instead, nonhealth compensation drops. Or wages rise more slowly than they otherwise would.
A recent study from none other than the White House Council of Economic Advisers notes exactly this point: If medical spending continues to accelerate, it expects take-home pay to stagnate. According to the New York Times, White House economic aide Larry Summers pressured CEA chairman Christine Romer to make the competitiveness argument, “adding that it was among the political advisers’ favorite ‘talking points.'” Ms. Romer pointedly retorted, “I’m not going to put schlocky arguments in there.” How the schlock gets into Mr. Obama’s speeches is a different question.
It’s certainly true that the U.S. employer-based insurance system can dampen entrepreneurial spirits. There’s the “job lock” phenomenon, in which employees fear leaving a less productive job because they’re afraid to lose their health benefits. Another problem is that insurance costs more for small groups than the large risk pools that big corporations assemble, meaning that it’s harder to form new businesses that can offer policies. But all this is really an argument for developing the individual health insurance market, where policies would follow workers, not jobs.
As for the competitiveness line, it’s nonsense for most companies. The exceptions are heavily unionized businesses like auto makers that have locked themselves in to gold-plated coverage, especially for retirees. They have a harder time adjusting health costs and wages. Other companies might get a bit more running room in the short run if government assumed all health costs a la the single-payer systems of Western Europe. But over time the market would clear — compensation being determined by the demand for and supply of labor — and wages would rise. Or they might not rise at all if health-care costs are merely replaced by the tax increases necessary to finance Mr. Obama’s new multi-trillion-dollar entitlement.
This is where the real competitiveness argument is precisely the opposite of the one pitched by Messrs. Obama and Schmidt. Consider the European welfare states, where costly entitlements and regulations make it extremely expensive to hire new workers. The nearby table lays out the tax wedge, the share of labor costs that never reaches employees but instead goes straight to government. In Germany, France and Italy, the tax wedge hovers around 50%, in part to pay for state-provided health care.
By contrast, the U.S. tax wedge was around 30% in 2008, according to the OECD. In other words, the costs of providing insurance would merely be converted into a larger wedge, which would itself eat into compensation. This is why Europe has tended to have higher unemployment and slower economic growth over the past 30 years.
If Democrats really want to increase U.S. competitiveness, they could look at the corporate income tax, which is the second highest in the industrialized world and a major impediment to U.S. job creation when global capital is so fluid. Or drop their proposals to raise personal income-tax rates, which affect thousands of small- and medium-size businesses that have fled the corporate tax regime as limited liability companies or Subchapter S corporations. Or cut capital gains rates, which deter risk taking and investment. Or rethink their plans to rig the rules in favor of organized labor by doing away with secret ballots in union elections.
On all these issues and more, Democrats want to increase, not reduce, the burdens on U.S. business. Their health-care line is, per Ms. Romer, “schlocky” political spin.
Excellent, thanks. The reason healthcare is spiralling upward in cost in Medicare/Medicaid. Because providers can’t make a profit on their services to Medicare & Medicaid patients, they gouge private insurers to make up the difference.
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
How is the rat race or did you move on?
Costs must be addressed and mal-practice insurance is a major cost. Failure to address this cost makes any attempt at “reform” a waste of time. I go so far as to allow patients to hold care providers harmless. The cost to educate our medical professionals must also be addressed.
He can’t ask doctors to accepted fee reductions on their services without helping them cut expenses. Reducing malpractice insurance premiums by capping awards is a great first step.
The truth behind the headline.
http://www.topix.com/us-house/janice-schakowsky
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_050409/content/01125113.guest.html
Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) admits that the goal is to destroy private health insurance. Obooba said more or less the same thing while campaigning.
The govt plan will set maximum payments schedules for all services.
The private carriers will be overcharged to make up for the loss.
Private companies have to raise their premium rates to make up for it.
Obooba complains that private insurance is getting more expensive.
Citizens shop around for cheaper private insurance.
Smaller companies go outa beusiness, and employers are dropping private plans in favor of the govt subsidized plan that need not make a profit.
Eventually there is the govt plan and maybe 2 or 3 private companies that are so regulated that they serve as nothing but claims processors – until they go belly up leaving only OboobaCare as the Health Rationing Service.
This will cost about one $1M per American per year when it all shakes out.
Alternative: if you want CastroCare, move to Cuba.
Obama is saying the right things. This will pass and it should. The insurance industry doesn’t want to sell insurance to those who are presently uninsured, so the Fed. gov’t should and will. If they can’t compete well then “they reap what they have sowed”.
The private companies cannot compete with the govt, since the govt is backed by infinite taxes and printing presses!
Please move to Cuba right now. Get out if you don’t like it here!!! Why should the rest of us get screwed for your ignorance?
Al,
You’re absolutely on point. Read this from today’s WSJ:
Health Reform and Competitiveness
Article Comments (17) more in Opinion »Email Printer
Friendly Share: Yahoo Buzz ↓ More
facebook
MySpace
LinkedIn
Digg
del.icio.us
NewsVine
StumbleUpon
Mixx
Save This ↓ More
Text
Democrats have spent years arguing that corporate tax rates don’t matter to U.S. competitiveness. But all of a sudden one of their favorite arguments for government-run health care has become . . . U.S. corporate competitiveness. Political conversions on this scale could use a little scrutiny.
“Businesses now recognize that if we don’t get a handle on this stuff then they are going to continue to be operating at a competitive disadvantage with other countries,” President Obama recently remarked. “And so they anxiously seek serious reform.”
Sure enough, many business leaders who should know better have picked up the White House theme. “You won’t fundamentally solve the problems in business until you solve the problem of spiraling health-care costs, which is driving everybody crazy,” said Google CEO Eric Schmidt the other day.
Messrs. Obama and Schmidt need to brush up on their economics. Employers may write the checks to the insurance companies, but workers still pay for the coverage they get from those employers. The total cost of an employee is what matters to businesses, and fringe benefits are as much a part of compensation as cash wages. When health costs rise, firms don’t become less competitive, as if insurance were lopped out of profits. Instead, nonhealth compensation drops. Or wages rise more slowly than they otherwise would.
A recent study from none other than the White House Council of Economic Advisers notes exactly this point: If medical spending continues to accelerate, it expects take-home pay to stagnate. According to the New York Times, White House economic aide Larry Summers pressured CEA chairman Christine Romer to make the competitiveness argument, “adding that it was among the political advisers’ favorite ‘talking points.'” Ms. Romer pointedly retorted, “I’m not going to put schlocky arguments in there.” How the schlock gets into Mr. Obama’s speeches is a different question.
It’s certainly true that the U.S. employer-based insurance system can dampen entrepreneurial spirits. There’s the “job lock” phenomenon, in which employees fear leaving a less productive job because they’re afraid to lose their health benefits. Another problem is that insurance costs more for small groups than the large risk pools that big corporations assemble, meaning that it’s harder to form new businesses that can offer policies. But all this is really an argument for developing the individual health insurance market, where policies would follow workers, not jobs.
As for the competitiveness line, it’s nonsense for most companies. The exceptions are heavily unionized businesses like auto makers that have locked themselves in to gold-plated coverage, especially for retirees. They have a harder time adjusting health costs and wages. Other companies might get a bit more running room in the short run if government assumed all health costs a la the single-payer systems of Western Europe. But over time the market would clear — compensation being determined by the demand for and supply of labor — and wages would rise. Or they might not rise at all if health-care costs are merely replaced by the tax increases necessary to finance Mr. Obama’s new multi-trillion-dollar entitlement.
This is where the real competitiveness argument is precisely the opposite of the one pitched by Messrs. Obama and Schmidt. Consider the European welfare states, where costly entitlements and regulations make it extremely expensive to hire new workers. The nearby table lays out the tax wedge, the share of labor costs that never reaches employees but instead goes straight to government. In Germany, France and Italy, the tax wedge hovers around 50%, in part to pay for state-provided health care.
By contrast, the U.S. tax wedge was around 30% in 2008, according to the OECD. In other words, the costs of providing insurance would merely be converted into a larger wedge, which would itself eat into compensation. This is why Europe has tended to have higher unemployment and slower economic growth over the past 30 years.
If Democrats really want to increase U.S. competitiveness, they could look at the corporate income tax, which is the second highest in the industrialized world and a major impediment to U.S. job creation when global capital is so fluid. Or drop their proposals to raise personal income-tax rates, which affect thousands of small- and medium-size businesses that have fled the corporate tax regime as limited liability companies or Subchapter S corporations. Or cut capital gains rates, which deter risk taking and investment. Or rethink their plans to rig the rules in favor of organized labor by doing away with secret ballots in union elections.
On all these issues and more, Democrats want to increase, not reduce, the burdens on U.S. business. Their health-care line is, per Ms. Romer, “schlocky” political spin.
Printed in The Wall Street Journal, page A12
Joe,
Excellent, thanks. The reason healthcare is spiralling upward in cost in Medicare/Medicaid. Because providers can’t make a profit on their services to Medicare & Medicaid patients, they gouge private insurers to make up the difference.
Check it out:
Dems in retreat on OboobaCare
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/06/17/dems-retreating-on-healthcare/
If you like the WSJ, you’ll love http://www.hotair.com.
The reason healthcare is spiralling upward in cost ->is