Federal Healthcare for All
Washington Post columnist David Broder discusses a report from the Committee for Economic Development that seeks to trash the employer-based health insurance system. They want the federal government to purchase everyone’s health insurance. He mentions legislation along these lines by Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR), and Sen. Robert Bennett (R-UT). There is also support for this approach from Sen. John McCain and Sen. G. Voinovitch.
One problem with all of this is that CED titles their report (in part) “Affordable Health Care for All” but the report is all about health insurance, not health care. Nothing in any of these proposals would reduce the cost of healthcare for anyone. Primarily this is intended to shift the cost of health insurance from employers to the federal government and to individuals (thru increased costs and loss of tax advantages).
It has been argued that employers are in the best position to affect the cost of healthcare--even if they haven’t done much to date. One factor driving healthcare costs is that people get sick. Who is more interested in the health of workers than their employers? Certainly not the federal government. (I work for them. Trust me.) One example cited is the Federal Employees Benefit program (FEHB), where I buy my health insurance. Their huge purchasing power gives the fed a strong bargaining position with insurance companies, but they do nothing to reduce the cost of healthcare. There is no effort by FEHB to improve the health of employees. No effort to ensure that those over 50 have screening for colon CA. No attack on obesity. True, individual agencies have sporadic Health Fairs and episodic spasms at promoting diet or exercise. But there is no organized systematic effort. More importantly, there is no effort to reduce the cost of individual healthcare services. The FEHB does not promote price competition for hernia repairs--or any other healthcare service.
On the other hand, employers do this. At least some do. Walmart pinches pennies pretty hard, but they have active programs to improve the health of individual employees. When employees are healthy, they come to work. When their families are healthy, employees are happier at work.
In another publication, the CED espouses four “Common Sense Principles” for healthcare (paraphrased):
1. Every person must have health insurance coverage. This is a popular theme, but watch for details on how it will be financed.
2. Individual have a responsibility to maintain and protect their health. Yes, they must have information, preventive care, and chronic disease management. But what do you do when they fail to act responsibly?
3. We must improve the value for every healthcare dollar. Under this heading, they mention slowing the growth of health costs, but offer no plan to achieve this.
4. Business, governments, and individuals should all contribute to managing and financing healthcare. Yes, but we’re already doing that. They advocate a stronger role for Government. (Maybe after they finish in Iraq.)
Finally, the CED advocates “getting serious about healthcare reform” and moving “past traditional habits.” Sounds like Disruptive Innovation. Let’s hear more.
One problem with all of this is that CED titles their report (in part) “Affordable Health Care for All” but the report is all about health insurance, not health care. Nothing in any of these proposals would reduce the cost of healthcare for anyone. Primarily this is intended to shift the cost of health insurance from employers to the federal government and to individuals (thru increased costs and loss of tax advantages).
It has been argued that employers are in the best position to affect the cost of healthcare--even if they haven’t done much to date. One factor driving healthcare costs is that people get sick. Who is more interested in the health of workers than their employers? Certainly not the federal government. (I work for them. Trust me.) One example cited is the Federal Employees Benefit program (FEHB), where I buy my health insurance. Their huge purchasing power gives the fed a strong bargaining position with insurance companies, but they do nothing to reduce the cost of healthcare. There is no effort by FEHB to improve the health of employees. No effort to ensure that those over 50 have screening for colon CA. No attack on obesity. True, individual agencies have sporadic Health Fairs and episodic spasms at promoting diet or exercise. But there is no organized systematic effort. More importantly, there is no effort to reduce the cost of individual healthcare services. The FEHB does not promote price competition for hernia repairs--or any other healthcare service.
On the other hand, employers do this. At least some do. Walmart pinches pennies pretty hard, but they have active programs to improve the health of individual employees. When employees are healthy, they come to work. When their families are healthy, employees are happier at work.
In another publication, the CED espouses four “Common Sense Principles” for healthcare (paraphrased):
1. Every person must have health insurance coverage. This is a popular theme, but watch for details on how it will be financed.
2. Individual have a responsibility to maintain and protect their health. Yes, they must have information, preventive care, and chronic disease management. But what do you do when they fail to act responsibly?
3. We must improve the value for every healthcare dollar. Under this heading, they mention slowing the growth of health costs, but offer no plan to achieve this.
4. Business, governments, and individuals should all contribute to managing and financing healthcare. Yes, but we’re already doing that. They advocate a stronger role for Government. (Maybe after they finish in Iraq.)
Finally, the CED advocates “getting serious about healthcare reform” and moving “past traditional habits.” Sounds like Disruptive Innovation. Let’s hear more.
