Aug 24 2009, 10:54AM
Daily Chart: Joe Lieberman's Case Against Health Reform
Every once in a while there is a potentially self-refuting argument floating around the public debate. Consider the curious case of Senator Joe Lieberman, on the complicated subject of health-care reform (via Think Progress):
Morally, everyone of us would like to cover every American with health insurance but that's where you spend most of the trillion dollars plus, or a little less that is estimated, the estimate said this health care plan will cost. And I'm afraid we've got to think about putting a lot of that off until the economy is out of recession. There's no reason we have to do it all now.The argument is that we can't afford to pay for health-care reform in the middle of a recession. When Joe says "the estimate," I assume he is referring to the Congressional Budget Office cost estimate of the America's Affordable Health Choices Act. So I thought I would make a quick chart of how those costs will phase in:
As you can see, the real costs do not phase in until 2013. So there are three possible ways to make sense of Lieberman's argument. (1) Lieberman thinks the recession will extend into 2013. (2) Lieberman is referring to a cost estimate that no one else has seen. (3) Lieberman's argument is self-refuting: It makes no sense even if you accept his premise that we shouldn't pay for health-care reform in the middle of a recession.
I vote for (3). But there is, of course, no reason to accept his premise.
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://correspondents.theatlantic.com/mt-42/mt-tb.cgi/13784
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Daily Chart: Joe Lieberman's Case Against Health Reform:
» Joe Lieberman’s Case Against Healthcare Reform from The Moderate Voice
Does it add up — or not?
SHARETHIS.addEntry({ title: "", url: "" });... [Read More]
» Joe Lieberman’s Case Against Healthcare Reform from The Moderate Voice
Does it add up — or not?
SHARETHIS.addEntry({ title: "", url: "" });... [Read More]
Obama wants to cover the 40 million uninsured!
These folks can't afford the insurance or co-payments.
Let's test Obama.
There are 43 million on Medicare.
We know the cost of Medicare to the States and Federal Government right now.
Obama needs to make Trust account for 100% of the payments including co-pays and out of pocket for the CURRENT recipients, AND he needs to reduce the costs as he says he can.
Do that and then come back in a couple of years and show us the savings and I guarantee the Public Option will pass!
HOWEVER, since he is full of BS he will fail and costs will continue to rise.
PUT UP OR SHUT UP!!
We already pay for much of the care to the 40 million uninsured, since by law they must be treated when they show up at a hospital emergency room. The hospital absorbs the cost of their treatment, and recoups it through raising its prices for those who can pay.
So what would you rather pay for? An emergency amputation of a cut that has gone gangrenous, or the cost of getting the cut taken care of and stitched?
What would you rather pay for? An amputation of a foot for diabetes, or insulin?
Have you ever been to an emergency room? Do you have any idea what the cost of being treated in an emergency room is compared to a doctor's office?
Moreover, when comparing the cost of Medicare to a public option, consider that:
"Medicare, the health insurance program for the elderly, spends nearly 30 percent of its budget on beneficiaries in their final year of life. Slightly more than half of Medicare dollars are spent on patients who die within two months."
http://www.thirteen.org/bid/sb-howmuch.html
Obviously, you won't have nearly those expenses with a younger and healthier population.
So you are the one full of BS, and guess who should be the one to shut up?
Oh yeah. Lets take our time we don't want to rush into anything. Let's see, the Clinton administration tried to reform health care in 1993. That makes it 16 going on 17 years that we have had to do this. If we don't do it now it will never get done. If we can spend trillions and trillions of dollars on Iraq, we can afford a measly 1.3 trillion or so to make sure Americans have health care. Remember the Constitution said Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Health Care means life to a lot of people.
Edge: Your math is right on, but you've missed a few details. Under the current situation, 100% of the 'uninsured' receive 'free' (to them) emergency care. This is the most expensive, and least effective care available. If we redirect our taxes through an insurance plan, the same people would receive more effective treatment, be healthier, for less money. They would be better able to get a job and pay taxes. And we protect the greater population from communicable diseases; ask any parent about grade school.
Opposing taxes is understandable, but we have a choice between paying high insurance premiums or a smaller tax, for the same or even better coverage. Paying less makes sense, even if it's called a 'tax'.
BHO gets a little boring with the figures, but he does spell it all out.
The real question we should be asking is "What value does an insurance company add to health care?". I haven't heard a good answer to that, have you?
Edge: Your math is right on, but you've missed a few details. Under the current situation, 100% of the 'uninsured' receive 'free' (to them) emergency care. This is the most expensive, and least effective care available. If we redirect our taxes through an insurance plan, the same people would receive more effective treatment, be healthier, for less money. They would be better able to get a job and pay taxes. And we protect the greater population from communicable diseases; ask any parent about grade school.
Opposing taxes is understandable, but we have a choice between paying high insurance premiums or a smaller tax, for the same or even better coverage. Paying less makes sense, even if it's called a 'tax'.
BHO gets a little boring with the figures, but he does spell it all out.
The real question we should be asking is "What value does an insurance company add to health care?". I haven't heard a good answer to that, have you?
Nice chart. Possibly it refutes Lieberman's point (though I think massive projected deficits, even if a few years in the future, are a harbinger of tax increases and affect behavior today and could well extend the recession). But if your average taxpayer sees that chart -- costs growing and growing, the deficit expanding and expanding -- it will simply end the debate and health care reform will be d-e-a-d. You sure you want to put it out there?
Your chart tracks closely a plan two UCLA profs have recommended for phasing in public coverage by gradually opting everyone in to Medicare.
That's right -- I just said we should think about expanding Medicare. If you want to know why that option actually makes a lot of sense, read this:
http://www.newdeal20.org/?p=4220