Obamacare Will Be a Budget Buster
Does anyone think that a huge new entitlement program will lead to lower budget deficits? Sounds implausible, yet proponents of government-run healthcare claim this is the case according to the official estimates from the Congressional Budget Office and Joint Committee on Taxation.
To use a technical phrase, this is hogwash. This new 6-1/2 minute video, narrated by yours truly, gives 12 reasons why Obamacare will lead to higher deficits – including real-world evidence showing how Medicare and Medicaid are much more costly than originally projected.
By the way, this video doesn’t even touch on the mandate issue, which Michael Cannon explains is not being counted in order to make the cost of government-run healthcare less shocking.
Filed under: Government and Politics; Health, Welfare & Entitlements; Tax and Budget Policy
Yes, Mr. President, a Free Market Can Fix Health Care
At his White House forum on health reform back in March, President Barack Obama offered:
If there is a way of getting this done where we’re driving down costs and people are getting health insurance at an affordable rate, and have choice of doctor, have flexibility in terms of their plans, and we could do that entirely through the market, I’d be happy to do it that way.
In a new Cato study titled, “Yes, Mr. President, a Free Market Can Fix Health Care,” I take up the president’s challenge and explain that markets are indeed the only way to achieve those goals. I also explain how Congress can remove the impediments that currently prevent markets from doing so:
- Give Medicare enrollees a voucher (adjusted for their means and health risk) and let them purchase any health plan on the market,
- Reform the tax treatment of health care with “large” health savings accounts, which would give workers a $9.7 trillion tax cut (without increasing the deficit) and free them to purchase secure coverage that meets their needs,
- Free consumers and employers to purchase health insurance across state lines (i.e., licensed by other states), which could cover up to one third of the uninsured,
- Make state-issued clinician licenses portable, which would increase access to care and competition among health plans, and
- Block-grant Medicaid and the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, just as Congress did with welfare.
Unlike the president’s health care proposals (which, as Victor Fuchs explains, would merely shift costs), these reforms would reduce costs, expand coverage, and improve health care quality – without new taxes, government subsidies, or deficit spending.
Would a free market be nirvana? Of course not. But fewer Americans would fall through the cracks than under the status quo or the government takeover advancing through Congress.
There is a better way.
(Cross-posted at Politico’s Health Care Arena.)
Filed under: Cato Publications; General; Health, Welfare & Entitlements
Universal Coverage Means ‘Willing to Let You Die Sooner’
I cannot disagree with Uwe Reinhardt’s response to my previous post at National Journal’s Health Care Experts blog. But his response bears clarification and emphasis.
Improving “population health” generally means “helping people live longer.”
To paraphrase, Reinhardt then writes:
If helping people live longer were our objective in health reform, we could do better than universal coverage. But health reform is not (solely or primarily) about helping people live longer. It is (also or primarily) about other things, like relieving the anxiety of the uninsured.
I applaud Reinhardt for acknowledging a reality that most advocates of universal coverage avoid: that universal coverage is not solely or primarily about improving health.
Will Reinhardt go further and acknowledge that, since universal coverage is largely about some other X-factor(s), that necessarily means that advocates of universal coverage are willing to let some people die sooner in order to serve that X-factor?
(Cross-posted at National Journal’s Health Care Experts blog.)
Filed under: General; Health, Welfare & Entitlements
Nice Insurance Company. Shame If Anything Were to Happen to It.
Just days after the health-insurance lobby released a report criticizing the Senate Finance Committee’s health care overhaul (for not expanding government enough!), Democrats and President Barack Obama lashed out at health insurers, threatening to revoke what the Government Accountability Office calls the insurers’ “very limited exemption from the federal antitrust laws.”
Democrats say they’re motivated by the need to increase competition in health insurance markets. Right.
According to Business Week:
David Hyman, a professor of law and medicine at the University of Illinois College of Law and adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute…considers it unlikely that repeal would fundamentally change the nature of the market. While it might increase competition in some markets, he says, it could actually decrease it in others, such as those where small insurers survive because they have access to larger providers’ data. Changes to the act could therefore hurt smaller companies more than larger ones, he says.
Because the act doesn’t outlaw the existence of a dominant provider but simply prohibits collusion, says Hyman, a repeal would fall short of breaking up existing market monopolies that are blamed for artificially inflating prices. The current move against [the] McCarran-Ferguson [Act], he says, “has more to do with the politics of pushing back against the insurance industry’s opposition to health reform than it does with increasing competition in health-insurance markets.”
Combined with what The New York Times described as the Obama administration’s “ham-handed” attempt to censor insurers who communicated with seniors about the effects of the president’s health plan — the Times editorialized: “the government’s Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services had to stretch facts to the breaking point to make a weak case that the insurers were doing anything improper” — it’s hard to argue that this is anything but Democrats threatening to use the power of the state to punish dissidents.
When Republicans were in power, dissent was the highest form of patriotism. Now that Democrats are in power, obedience is the highest form of patriotism.
Filed under: Cato Publications; General; Government and Politics; Health, Welfare & Entitlements; Law and Civil Liberties
False Accounts of Massachusetts’ Health Reforms
Recent editorials in both the Boston Globe and The New York Times contained some staggering falsehoods about the cost of Massachusetts’ health reforms. Here is a poor, unsuccessful letter I sent to the editor of the Globe:
The editorial “Mass. bashers take note: Health reform is working” [Aug. 5] states that “the cost to the state taxpayer” of the Massachusetts health reforms is “about $88 million a year.” That claim is unquestionably false. The cost to state taxpayers is 19 times that amount, while the total cost is 24 times that amount.
The Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation explains that the $88-million figure represents not the total cost to the state government, but the average annual increase in the state government’s costs. Worse, the editorial completely ignores new spending by the federal government and the private sector, which account for 80 percent of the law’s cost.
According to Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation estimates, health reform will cost at least $2.1 billion in 2009. The total cost to state taxpayers is at least $1.7 billion and growing. (The fact that other states’ taxpayers bear the balance should not be a source of pride.)
One wonders how such a falsehood comes to appear on a leading editorial page.
And one I sent to the Times:
“The Massachusetts Model” [Aug. 9] understates the cost of the Massachusetts health plan.
The editorial claims, “the federal and state governments each pa[y] half of the added costs, or about $350 million” in 2010. The Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, which generated that estimate, assumes that Massachusetts will eliminate $200 million in subsidies to safety-net hospitals next year. Given that those hospitals are currently suing the Commonwealth and exerting political pressure to increase such payments, those assumed cuts are hypothetical. More certain is the foundation’s estimate that the on-budget cost will reach $817 billion in 2009.
Yet the foundation’s estimates also show that the law (1) pushes 60 percent of its cost off-budget and onto the private sector; (2) costs about three times the $700 million that the editorial suggests, and (3) is covering 432,000 previously uninsured residents at a cost of about $6,700 each, or $27,000 for a family of four. That’s more than twice the average cost of family coverage nationwide.
The editorial admonishes that “the public should demand an honest assessment, from critics and supporters” of the Massachusetts health plan. Indeed.
A fuller response to these spurious claims may be found here.
I wish I could run a newspaper, so I could print false stuff and then not correct it. Oh wait, I do blog…
Filed under: Cato Publications; Health, Welfare & Entitlements
Market Bets that ObamaCare Won’t Cut Costs
According to Don Johnson of The Health Care Blog:
Speculators seem to be betting that a watered down health insurance reform bill won’t hurt health insurers, hospitals, drug makers or medical device and supply manufacturers.
Stocks for almost all of these health sectors and for exchange trade funds that track health stock indexes turned higher last week.
In other words, those with real money at stake don’t believe that health reform will hurt the firms that make a living off of America’s highly inefficient health sector — President Obama’s assurances notwithstanding.
Johnson provides seven possible explanations for this development, including:
3. If the very liberal Coastal Democrats who lead Congress and most of the five committees drafting health insurance legislation want to get the support of Democrats from Western, Midwestern and Southern states, they’ll have to up Medicare payments to providers in those states. This is bullish for hospital chains, which operate mostly in the fly-over states…
6. Proposals to tax millionaires to pay for covering the uninsured and increasing benefits for others are in trouble, if not dead on arrival. The economy’s in no shape to be stalled by tax hikes, and there appear to be enough Democrats opposed to the tax to stop it.
7. While the so-called Blue Dog Democrats are stalling health insurance reform for economic and ideological reasons, the Congressional Black Caucus has made it clear that it won’t support a bill that the Blue Dogs will support. Throw in the opposition by anti-abortionists who don’t want the legislation to use taxpayers money to pay for abortions, and you have a pretty complex political problem for President Obama, Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA). While the Speaker claimed Sunday that she has the votes to pass health insurance reform, few believe her.
Yet Another Reason to Slow Down Health Reform
In support of his health plan, President Obama yesterday repeated one of his favorite alarmist claims:
If we don’t act, 14,000 Americans will continue to lose their health insurance every single day.
Really? Does the president mean to suggest that number of uninsured Americans (estimated to be 46 million) would double in nine years, and employment-based health insurance would vanish — without anything to replace it — within 32 years?
Or is the president not giving us the whole truth?
My Question for the President
President Obama will hold a press conference tonight to answer questions about his health care reform proposal. This is what I would ask him:
Mr. President, during your campaign, you said, “I can make a firm pledge…Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase.” You also said that “no one will pay higher tax rates than they paid in the 1990s.”
Your National Economic Council chairman, Larry Summers, has written that employer mandates “are like public programs financed by benefit taxes.” Under the House health reform bill, an uninsured worker earning $50,000 per year, with no offer of coverage from her employer, would face a 15.3-percent federal payroll tax, a 25-percent federal marginal income tax rate, an 8-percent reduction in her wages (to pay the employer penalty), plus a 2.5 percent uninsured tax. In total, her effective marginal federal tax rate would reach 50.8 percent.
Do you stand by those pledges, and would you therefore veto any employer mandate or individual mandate as a tax on the middle class?
(Add it to the questions I posed here and here.)
Filed under: Health, Welfare & Entitlements; Tax and Budget Policy
Sen. Kennedy’s Budget-Breaking “Reform” Bill
It appears that the Obama administration has decided to disown the venerable Senator. No wonder. The Congressional Budget Office estimated the ten-year cost of Sen. Kennedy’s bill at $1 trillion, but admitted that its analysis was incomplete.
Now the consulting group HSI Network, LLC comes foward with an estimate of $4 trillion:
The Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) have proposed a health reform bill called the Affordable Health Choice Act (AHC) that seeks to reduce the number of uninsured and increase health system efficiency and quality. The draft legislation was introduced on June 9th, 2009. The proposal provided adequate information to suggest what the impact would be of AHC using the ARCOLA™ simulation model. AHC would include an individual mandate as well as a pay or plan provision. In addition, it would include a means-tested subsidy with premium supports available for those up to 500% of the federal poverty level. Public plan options in three tiers: Gold, Silver and Bronze are proposed in a structure similar to that of the Massachusetts Connector, except that it is called The Gateway. These public plan options would contain costs by reimbursing providers up to 10% above current reimbursement rates. There is no mention of removing the tax exclusion associated with employer sponsored health insurance. There is also no mention of changes to Medicare and Medicaid, other than fraud prevention, that could provide cost-savings for the coverage expansion proposed. Below, we summarize the impact of the proposed plan in terms of the reduction on uninsured, the 2010 cost, as well as the ten year cost of the plan in 2010 dollars.
HELP Affordable Health Choices Act
- Uninsurance is reduced by 99% to cover approximately 47,700,000 people
- Subsidy – Tax Recovery = Net cost:
- $279,000,000,000 subsidy to the individual market
- $180,000,000,000 subsidy to the ESI market with
- Net cost: $460,500,000,000 (annual)
- Net cost: $4,098,000,000,000 (10 year)
- Private sector crowd out: ~79,300,000 lives
HSI figures that a lot more people will take advantage of federal health insurance subsidies, driving costs up far more than indicated by the CBO figure. (H/t to Phil Klein at the American Spectator online.)
Of course, no one knows what the bill would really cost in operation. But the history of social insurance and welfare programs is sky-rocketing expense well beyond original projections. Go back and look at the initial cost estimates for Medicare and Social Security, and you will run from the room simultaneously laughing and crying.
Health care reform would be serious business at any moment of time, but especially when the country faces $10 trillion in new debt over the next decade on top of the existing $11 trillion national debt. And with the $100 trillion Medicare/Social Security financial bomb lurking in the background, rushing to leap off the financial cliff with this sort of health care legislation would be utterly irresponsible.
Filed under: Health, Welfare & Entitlements; Tax and Budget Policy
GOP Health Care Alternative: Not as Bad as Advertised
Like my colleague, Michael Cannon, I was convinced by the staff summary and general spin accompanying the Republican health care bill introduced by Sens. Tom Coburn (R-OK) and Richard Burr (R-NC), and Reps. Paul Ryan (R-WI) and Devin Nunes (R-CA) that the bill headed, albeit more slowly, down the same road to government-run health care as expected Democratic proposals. However, a closer reading of the actual bill shows that, while there are still reasons for concern, it may be much better than originally advertised.
First, it should be pointed out that the centerpiece of the bill is an important change to the tax treatment of employer-provided health insurance. The Coburn-Burr-Ryan-Nunez bill would replace the current tax exclusion for employer-provided health insurance with a refundable tax credit of $2,300 per year an individual worker or $5,700 per year for family coverage. This move to personal, portable health insurance has long been at the heart of free market healthy care proposals. The bill would also expand health savings accounts and make important reforms to Medicaid and Medicare.
And, the bill should receive credit for what it does not contain. There is no individual or employer mandate. (I could live without the auto-enroll provisions, but they look more obnoxious than truly dangerous). There is no government board determining the cost-effectiveness of treatment. There is no “public option” competing with private insurance. In short, the bill avoids most of the really bad ideas for health reform featured in my recent Policy Analysis.
Other aspects are more problematic. The authors still seem far too attached to the idea of an exchange/connector/portal. The summary implied that states would be required to establish such mechanism. In reality, however, the bill merely creates incentives for states to do so. Moreover, I have been repeatedly assured that the bill’s authors are aiming for the more benign Utah-style “portal,” rather than the bureaucratic nightmare that is the Massachusetts “connector.” Still, I would be more comfortable if the staff summary had not singled out Massachusetts as the only state reform worthy of being called “an achievement.”
And, if states choose to set up an exchange, a number of federal requirements kick in, such as a requirement that at least one plan offered through the exchange provide benefits equal to those on the low cost FEHBP plan. There is also a guaranteed issue requirement.
Elsewhere, there are also requirements that states set up some type of risk-adjustment mechanism although the bureaucratic ex-post option that I criticized previously, appears to be only one option among many for meeting this requirement. And, I wish the authors hadn’t jumped on the health IT bandwagon. Health IT is a very worthy concept, but one better handled by the private sector.
And, if we should praise the bill for what it doesn’t include, we should criticize it in the same way. The bill does not include one of the best free market reform proposals of recent years, Rep. John Shadegg’s call for letting people purchase health insurance across state lines.
The bills (there are minor differences between the House and Senate versions) run to nearly 300 pages, and additional details, both good and bad, may emerge as I have more opportunity to study them. But for now, the bill, while flawed, looks to have far more good than bad.
The Coburn-Burr-Ryan-Nunes Mandate-Price-Control Bill
Today, Senators Tom Coburn (R-OK) and Richard Burr (R-NC), along with Reps. Paul Ryan (R-WI) and Devin Nunes (R-CA) announced that they will introduce a health care reform bill. If my reading of the bill summary is correct, their bill would:
- Mandate that states create a new regulatory bureaucracy called a “State Health Insurance Exchange,”
- Mandate that all plans offered through those exchanges meet federal regulatory standards,
- Mandate “guaranteed issue” in those exchanges,
- Mandate “uniform and reliable measures by which to report quality and price information,”
- Impose price controls on those plans by prohibiting risk-rating,
- Launch a government takeover of the “insurance” part of health insurance, by means of a “risk-adjustment” program intended to cope with the problems created by price controls, and
- Fall just short of an individual mandate by setting up (mandating?) automatic enrollment in exchange plans at “places of employment, emergency rooms, the DMV, etc.” — essentially, trying to achieve universal coverage by nagging Americans to death.
Needless to say, I am troubled.
The bill summary is self-contradictory. On the one hand, it lists “No Tax Increases” as a core concept. Do its authors not know that imposing price controls on health insurance premiums imposes a tax on healthier-than-average consumers? And where do they think the money for “risk-adjustment” payments will come from? Heaven?
The bill sponsors seem to want to cement in place the monopoly regulation that currently exists at the state level — when they’re not encouraging Congress to take over that function. Have they abandoned their colleague Rep. John Shadegg’s (R-AZ) proposal to allow for competitive regulation of health insurance?
And if Massachusetts created an “exchange” on its own, why do other states need federal legislation?
The bill includes some ideas for which I have more sympathy, like its tax-credit proposal and expanding health savings accounts.
But the above provisions would sow the seeds of a government takeover of health care — so much so that The Washington Post’s Ezra Klein is salivating:
The word of the day is “convergence.” That — and that alone — is the definitive message of the conservative health reform alternative developed by Sens. Tom Coburn (Okla.) and Richard Burr (N.C.), as well as Rep. Paul Ryan (Wisc.). For now, some of the key provisions are about as clear as mud. The plan’s changes to the tax code, in particular, are impossible to discern. So I’ll do another post when I can get some clarity on those issues. The politics, however, are perfectly straightforward.
A superficial read of the Patients’ Choice Act — which I’ve uploaded here — would make you think you’re digging into a liberal bill. A fair chunk of the rhetoric is lifted straight from Sen. Ted Kennedy’s office. “It is time to publicly admit that the health care system in America is broken,” begins the document. “Health care is not a commodity in the traditional sense,” it continues. “States should provide direct oversight of health insurers to make sure they are playing by fair rules,” it demands. The way we pay private insurers in Medicare “wastes taxpayer dollars and lines the pockets of insurance executives,” it says. Elsewhere, it praises solutions that have worked in several European countries.”
And though it’s still too early to say how the policy fits together, it’s clear that many traditionally Democratic concepts have been embraced. To put it simply, the plan wants to encourage a version of the Massachusetts reforms — which it calls a “well-known, bi-partisan achievement of universal health care” — in every state. There are some differences, of course. The plan doesn’t have an individual mandate. It doesn’t have an obvious tax on employers. But it strongly endorses State Health Insurance Exchanges. And that, for Republicans, is a radical change in policy.
This idea — present in every Democratic proposal but absent in Arizona Sen.John McCain’s plan — would empower states to create heavily regulated marketplaces of insurers. The plans offered would have to “meet the same statutory standard used for the health benefits given to Members of Congress.” Cherrypicking would be discouraged through risk adjustment, which the PCA calls “a model that works in several European countries.” The government would automatically enroll individuals in plans whenever they interacted with a government agency and states would be able to join into regional cooperatives to increase the size of their risk pool.
In essence, Coburn, Burr, and Ryan are abandoning the individual market entirely. Like Democrats, they’re arguing that individuals cannot successfully navigate the insurance market, and they need the protection of government regulation and the bargaining power that comes from a large risk pool. This is literally the opposite approach from McCain, who attempted to unwind the employer-based insurance and encourage families to purchase health coverage on the individual market. The core elements of this plan, in other words, make it the same type of plan Democrats are offering. A plan that enlarges consumer buying pools rather than shrinks them. It’s pretty much exactly what I’d expect a Blue Dog Democrat to propose. And it’s further evidence that the argument over health reform is narrowing, rather than widening. And it’s narrowing in a direction that favors the Democrats.
Filed under: Cato Publications; Health, Welfare & Entitlements
On Taxing Employer Health Benefits
Democrats in Congress are reportedly considering taxing employer-provided health insurance benefits as a way to pay for their health care reform plan. And, even though he brutally attacked John McCain for something similar (see below) during the campaign, President Obama may now go along with the idea.
Much of the media coverage around the idea has equated this tax hike with the McCain plan and other proposals by advocates of market-based health reform over the years that would shift the tax break from employer-provided insurance to individual insurance. However, there is an important distinction. The market-based proposals would have taxed employer-provided health benefits (treating them as taxable compensation), but would have provided workers with a deduction or credit for purchasing insurance regardless of whether they receive it through work or pay it on their own. The result, for all but a handful of workers with the most expensive gold-plated employer plans, would have been tax neutral. In fact, many workers would receive a net tax cut. The shift in tax treatment was simply part of a larger strategy to move from a system of employer-provided insurance to one where health insurance was personal, portable, and owned by workers.
The plan being discussed by Congress, on the hand, is simply a tax hike. It is not revenue neutral—it is a $1 trillion tax increase that will fall heavily on the middle-class. It is designed not to change the system, but simply to raise revenue.
That’s a very different thing!
Why Can’t the Destroyers Just Get Along?
A friend comments on my “How Does It Feel to Be at the Table Now?” post thus:
I think there is a pyschological element at work here a la Atlas Shrugged — many of the Washington lobbyists who were here in 93-94 feel repentant of having killed health reform back then and don’t want another 15 years of being considered “bad people” in Washington cocktail party circles. So they genuinely want to be “part of the solution” this time. The hard part is selling that to the folks who pay their salaries!
How Does It Feel to Be at the Table Now?
On Monday, the Obama administration held a well-publicized love-fest with lobbyists for the health care industry. It turns out that rather than a “game-changer,” the event was a fraud. And the industry got burned.
At the time, President Obama called it a “a watershed event in the long and elusive quest for health care reform“:
Over the next 10 years — from 2010 to 2019 — [these industry lobbyists] are pledging to cut the rate of growth of national health care spending by 1.5 percentage points each year — an amount that’s equal to over $2 trillion.
By an amazing coincidence, $2 trillion is just enough to pay for Obama’s proposed government takeover of the health care sector.
Yet The New York Times reports that isn’t the magnitude of spending reductions the lobbyists thought they were supporting:
Hospitals and insurance companies said Thursday that President Obama had substantially overstated their promise earlier this week to reduce the growth of health spending… [C]onfusion swirled in Washington as the companies’ trade associations raced to tamp down angst among members around the country.
Health care leaders who attended the meeting…say they agreed to slow health spending in a more gradual way and did not pledge specific year-by-year cuts…
My initial reaction to Monday’s fairly transparent media stunt was: “I smell a rat. Lobbyists never advocate less revenue for their members. Ever.” The lobbyists are proving me right, albeit slowly. (Take your time, guys. I don’t mind.)
Filed under: Cato Publications; Government and Politics; Health, Welfare & Entitlements
More on that Massachusetts ‘Model’
Amid reports that the Obama administration, congress, and some conservative groups still consider Massachusetts to be a model for health care reform, the New York Times reveals that despite assessing insurers and hospitals, raising the penalty on noncompliant businesses, increasing premiums and co-payments for consumers, and raising the state tobacco tax, the program’s financing remains unsustainable.
Massachusetts has significantly reduced the number of people in the state who lack health insurance. However, it has not achieved, nor does it expect to reach, universal coverage. (The best estimates suggest that more than 200,000 state residents remain uninsured). And, significantly, roughly 60 percent of newly insured state residents are receiving subsidized coverage, suggesting that the increase in insurance coverage has more to do with increased subsidies (the state now provides subsidies for those earning up to 300 percent of the poverty level or $66,150 for a family of four) than with the mandate.
The cost of those subsidies in the face of predictably rising health care costs has led to program costs far higher than originally predicted. Spending for the Commonwealth Care subsidized program has doubled, from $630 million in 2007 to an estimated $1.3 billion for 2009.
Now the state is turning to a variety of gimmicks to try to hold down costs, including possibly cutting payments to physicians and hospitals by 3-5 percent. However, the Times quotes health reform experts who have studied the Massachusetts system as warning “the state and federal governments may need to place actual limits on health spending, which could lead to rationing of care.”
The more one looks at the Massachusetts “model,” the stronger the argument for keeping the government out of health care.
Len Nichols Is Wrong: This Debate Is about Socialized Medicine
Over at “The New Health Dialogue Blog,” my friend Len Nichols writes:
I am disappointed to hear the health reform conversation devolve once again into a contrived debate about a single payer, government-run health system. This is an old dispute about “socialized medicine” and one that has already been settled in the minds of a critical mass of policymakers.
A couple of things strike me about his post.
First, this debate is obviously about socialized medicine, and to argue anything else is absurd. We have a president who advocates single-payer. That president just held a health care summit to which he invited other single-payer advocates, but not a single free-market advocate. As I explain in this paper, all the bluster about “public-private partnerships” is an intellectually dishonest smokescreen. Nichols and other members of the Church of Universal Coverage hate the term “socialized medicine” not because it inaccurately describes their policies, but because it accurately describes their policies and rankles a large segment of the American public. Rather than adjust their policies, they are trying to convince the public that policies generally considered socialist really aren’t.
Second, this “old dispute” obviously has not been “settled in the minds of a critical mass of policymakers.” If that mass of opinion were truly critical, then (by definition) the fact that some are crying “socialized medicine” wouldn’t bother Nichols at all.
I think I’ll shoot my friend an email and invite him to speak at a Cato Institute policy forum where we can discuss whether President Obama is trying to move us closer to socialized medicine.
Cato on Facebook
Cato on Twitter
Cato on YouTube
Cato Tweets