Obamacare: How Good is It?
The video by John Stossel sheds some light on the answer, as does Cannon's article below.
The concern about rationing that Obama has dismissed, is that the
numbers do not add up otherwise.
One cannot increase care, expand coverage requirements, and also save money. The 10% spending increase over
the status quo forecast just seems too little, but that is what
CBO is telling us.
by Michael Tanner, Cato, May 2009
President Obama has made it clear that reforming the American
health care system will be one of his top priorities. In response,
congressional leaders have promised to introduce legislation by this
summer, and they hope for an initial vote in the Senate before the
Labor Day recess.
While the Obama administration has not, and does not seem likely
to, put forward a specific reform plan, it is possible to discern
the key components of any plan likely to emerge from Congress:
- At a time of rising unemployment, the government would raise the
cost of hiring workers by requiring employers to provide health
insurance to their workers or pay a fee (tax) to subsidize
government coverage.
- Every American would be required to buy an
insurance policy that meets certain government requirements. Even
individuals who are currently insured — and happy with their
insurance — will have to switch to insurance that meets the
government's definition of "acceptable insurance."
- A government-run
plan similar to Medicare would be set up in competition with private
insurance, with people able to choose either private insurance or
the taxpayer-subsidized public plan. Subsidies and cost-shifting
would encourage Americans to shift to the government plan.
- The
government would undertake comparative-effectiveness research and
cost-effectiveness research, and use the results of that research to
impose practice guidelines on providers — initially, in government
programs such as Medicare and Medicaid, but possibly eventually
extending such rationing to private insurance plans.
- Private insurance would face a host
of new regulations, including a requirement to insure all applicants
and a prohibition on pricing premiums on the basis of risk.
- Subsidies would be available to help middle-income people purchase
insurance, while government programs such as Medicare and Medicaid
would be expanded.
- Finally, the government would subsidize and
manage the development of a national system of electronic medical
records.
Taken individually, each of these proposals would be a bad idea.
Taken collectively, they would dramatically transform the American
health care system in a way that would harm taxpayers, health care
providers, and — most importantly — the quality and range of care
given to patients.
Michael D.
Tanner is a senior fellow with the Cato Institute and coauthor
of
Healthy Competition: What's Holding Back Health Care and How to Free
It (2007).