|
Here's what John Kerry says he'll do to improve health care (from a speech in Iowa posted to his web site):
So we're going to save money on healthcare by lowering insurance costs -- by having the government pay for any cases which cost an insurance company over $50,000. Passing the bill right back to ... us, the taxpayers and customers, again. Only with extra costs added by the government. If every Iowan is paying $1,000 out of $4000 for each of these cases, it means they'll now have a $3000 insurance bill -- and probably be paying an extra $2000 in taxes! You can't get something for nothing. Talk about favors for "special interests"! He'll be taking taxes of which amount to more than 25% of the total cost of health insurance and giving it to insurance companies, at taxpayer expense! Alarmingly, it looks like this might create an incentive for insurance companies to move "marginal" cases into the more costly category. If it looks like a guy's bill might be $42,000, there is an incentive here to leave him in the hospital until the bill passes $50K, adding yet another $8,000 to what the taxpayer (who is probably also an insurance customer) has to pick up. If an insurance company can do this, it will drive it's average costs down, and make it appear to offer a lower-cost insurance product to customers than competitors who do not -- so the pressure will be for everyone in the industry to start doing this. Undoubtedly, that'll give some future Democrat ammuntion for then complaining about the "corrupt" insurance industry, and his need to put it under more governmental control, or eliminate it altogether -- when perverse government incentives caused the problem in the first place! Kerry says he'll fight medicare fraud. That's good, if true. (How much will that save us?) Yet Kerry also promises here that he'll give us much more benefits from "the government" (e.g. from us) and also slash bureaucracy. I guess he's counting on our desire to have it both ways. But sadly, there's no such thing as a free lunch. You think healthcare is expensive now? Just wait until it's "free"! Thanks to Steve Verdon for the heads-up. UPDATE 10/31: It appears the goalposts have changed a little, but the fundamental problem remains. This is finally getting some dicussion. Anonymous person: The $2000 was a guestimate. According to Star Parker, author of "Uncle Sam's Plantation", only 22% of the cost of welfare goes to it's intended recipients -- at this efficiency, this would mean more than additional $4000 in taxes to pay out the $1000 to the insurance company, meaning Kerry would make our $4000 average cost into $7000. On the other hand, a more efficient private charity will put anywhere from 30% to 90% of your cash towards the actual intended recipient. I decided to be chariable, pick a middle figure, and treat Kerry's proposed bureaucracy as a low-efficiency private charity (at 50%, meaning each $1 paid costs an additional $1), rather than using Welfare, the Pentagon, the Department of Education or any of the other notoriously inefficient government bureaus as a model. Using numbers from real government bureaus would, I very strongly suspect, result in a higher number than the extra $1000 I hypothesized. Even if only 10% processing costs were added (typical of most efficient charties), we would all still be paying more ($100) for this "real savings" Kerry is offering us. Posted by: Tim on February 4, 2004 01:55 AM Tim, thanks for pointing me to this post! Being from Taxachussets, I'm all too well-aquainted with Kerry/Kennedy "I'm gonna get you something for nothing, sort of" promises. What galls me though is how many of my "neighbors" believe this crap without questioning it. Even those who don't--who may flat-out hate the guy's positions--will support him through the election because, well, HEY, he's a hometown guy! As with the Red Sox, people from this Godforesaken state (and I just live here, thank heaven I wasn't born here and didn't grow up here) have such an exaggerated sense of misguided, mindless loyalty, lemmings are hanging their heads in shame by comparison. But what do I expect? We also have some of the worst public schools in the nation (which is beyond ironic considering we have the greatest number of "Institutions of Higher Learning" per capita in the country). It's a two part process with the Dems: 2. Keep the dumb populace poor by jacking taxes up so high that they are perpetually bitter and angry and in "need" of someone to blame (namely the government) for not helping them out And the irony to end all ironies is that the same brain-dead morons who trashed parts of the city and even killed a kid in "celebration" of the "Pats" winning last Sunday refer to themselves (or at least puff out their chests when others refer to them this way) as the "Northeastern Elite." Every time I think about the fact that I'm probably stuck in this region for life, I want to cry. Posted by: Deb on February 5, 2004 04:13 AM Add your two cents...
The comment rules will apply. Please post only once. |
I think you are on the right track. I am a big believer that when you get the incentives wrong, everything breaks down. And this approach is seriously getting the incentives wrong.
The only thing I can say that you've written might be a little iffy is:
"If every Iowan is paying $1,000 out of $4000 for each of these cases, it means they'll now have a $3000 insurance bill -- and probably be paying an extra $2000 in taxes!"
I suspect you are right, but I'm interested in where you came up with the number. Just guestimating? Or is there some math involved...
Posted by: on February 3, 2004 11:17 PM