Posts tagged with: health care reform

church busImages of Mississippi needing federal assistance are iconic. Robert F. Kennedy’s 1967 trip to Mississippi’s Delta region produced images of poverty not unlike LBJ’s War on Poverty tour. Jennifer Haberkorn has written a piece at Politico titled, “Obamacare enrollment rides a bus into the Mississippi Delta.” Her snooty lede to the story reads: “In the poorest state in the nation, where supper is fried, bars allow smoking, chronic disease is rampant and doctors are hard to come by, Obamacare rolls into town in a lime green bus.”

It appears the author believes Obamacare could bring the good news of salvation if only Mississippians skeptical of the federal government would let it. Haberkorn writes:

The effort in Mississippi illustrates the obstacles the health law must overcome in many parts of the country, particularly in deeply conservative areas where antipathy toward Washington mixes with challenges of geography, education and general skepticism or ignorance of the Affordable Care Act. High rates of poverty and disease — which mark much of this state — don’t necessarily aid recruitment. Add the strident opposition of GOP leaders and enrollment gets that much tougher.

Haberkorn cherry picks a couple of positive stories where heavily subsidized consumers will save money under the Obamacare program, but totally ignores a major component of all the skepticism with the plan. Obamacare premiums in Mississippi are the third highest in the nation, only surpassed by Alaska and Wyoming. As of September 2013, a mid range plan cost $448 monthly, with costs expected to rise. (more…)

Blog author: ehilton
Friday, March 14, 2014

Todd Wilemon

Todd Wilemon

Admittedly, “stop being poor” sounds a bit like “let them eat cake.” The remark was made by Todd Wilemon, a managing director at NYSE Euronext, when he was asked what people should do if they could not afford health insurance. “Stop being poor,” was his answer.

Callous? Crude? Mean? Not really. Kevin D. Williamson explains how the ineptly-named Affordable Care Act isn’t providing insurance for all who can’t afford it.

Appropriating a certain amount of money and labeling it “health care for the poor” is not the same thing as providing poor people with access to doctors, hospitals, and medicine. It is easy to move money from one pocket to another, which is how we manage to spend a figure approaching a half-trillion dollars per annum on Medicaid with very little to show for it in terms of better health outcomes for poor people. In Tennessee, Medicaid alone spends about $10,000 annually for every poor person in the state, and poor Tennesseans of retirement age or older already have access to Medicare.

We spend the money, but we do not get the health care.

Why not? Because there aren’t enough doctors, there are too many doctors who won’t accept Medicare, and all the subsidies and mandates in the world aren’t going to fix that. The solution? Stop being poor.


In my blog post yesterday about our statist healthcare system and the need for more economic freedom, I referenced a NYT piece by Scott Gottleib and Zeke Emmanuel and argued that if their rosy view of America’s healthcare future has any chance of coming true, we’ll need far more economic freedom in the system than currently exists. Now Greg Scandlen has a sobering essay at the Federalist challenging the NYT piece, taking particular issue with their pointing to Massachusetts as a hopeful model and for suggesting that nurse practitioners will help make up the difference once Obamacare starts driving up demand for healthcare services.

Gottleib’s and Emmanuel’s argument had other elements, including a call for increased economic freedom for the healthcare industry, but on the Massachusetts point, Scandlen’s response appears devastating. In a nutshell, he notes that Massachusetts passed Obamacare-style reforms beginning seven years ago and now has much longer appointment waiting times than the rest of the country, despite having far more physicians per capita than the national average. Read the piece and the helpful data tables here.

The official White House website says that all Americans will now have access to affordable medical care, and that small business owners need not worry about rising costs:Unemployment-line-640x245

The proposal will also provide tens of billions in tax credits for small business owners to make insurance coverage more affordable. Small businesses will also have a new option of purchasing insurance through the exchanges. By pooling their resources in the new insurance marketplace, small business owners will lower their costs and have the same choices that big corporations and unions enjoy.

That’s all well and good, but as the National Bureau of Economic Research sees it, we may end up with less people working. In a paper published this month, three of the think tank’s researchers concluded, “Our results appear to indicate that the soon-to-be-enacted health-care reform may cause substantial declines in aggregate employment.” What does that mean? Small businesses aren’t going to go for the “pooling” option; they’ll just hire less people, and provide less people with health insurance. (more…)

The Affordable Care Act, more commonly known as “Obamacare”, is a strange law from the perspective of economic theories of insurance markets. Still, one can see where its designers were starting from. The individual mandate may be onerous from a liberty standpoint, but it makes sense if you understand that insurance markets are vulnerable to a phenomenon known as the “death spiral.”

The idea behind the death spiral is based on the recognition that insurance is a risk management scheme. Insurance companies, despite their best efforts, are less knowledgeable about its customers’ health than are their customers. As such, the prices an insurance company charges are based on the average risk that a customer will need care. (more…)

Fr. Hans Jacobse

On the Observer blog (and picked up on Catholic Online), Antiochian Orthodox priest Fr. Hans Jacobse predicts that the Supreme Court’s Obamacare ruling will, “by the middle of the next generation” lead those who worked for this program — or ignored the threat — to be “cursed” by their own children. “The children will weep by the waters of Babylon, unearthing old movies and books of an America they never knew,” Jacobse writes.

Antonio Gramsci, that great architect of the coming oppression was a shrewd man. He understood that the overthrow of the great liberal tradition would be a journey that would take generations. It would require a long march through the cultural institutions, overthrowing line by line and precept by precept those bedrock moral values upon which the freedom of men was first defined and later codified into law. Today the children of the great people of the Magna Carta, of English Common Law, the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution worship instead pleasure, safety, and wealth.

The God of Abraham has been forgotten, the same God who freed Abraham from the delusion of polytheism and the Israelite from the tyranny of Egypt, who gave man a Gospel from which insights into the nature and dignity man was drawn, and whose teachings unleashed a creativity that brought healing and light into a world in ways that would astonish the prophets and philosophers of old. And in that forgetting, we embrace a darkness the depth of which most of us do not yet perceive.

Read “The Republic is Finished and the America We Knew is Gone” on the American Orthodox Institute’s Observer blog.

See the response to this article by Fr. Gregory Jensen at AOI.

In response to the Supreme Court ruling on Obamacare’a individual mandate, National Review Online launched a symposium — a roundup of commentary — which posed the following question: “What’s next for both conservatives and the Republican party on health-care reform?” Acton Research Director Samuel Gregg contributed this analysis:

Leaving aside the arguments that will continue about the SCOTUS ruling on Obamacare, one response of those who favor free markets and limited government must be for them to start preparing themselves for what will eventually happen, regardless of the results of the 2012 presidential election. And that’s Obamacare’s eventual economic demise. The economic track record of socialized medicine is very clear. Sooner or later, it implodes. Britain’s National Health Service is a perfect example. Even Sweden has realized that socialized medicine (and generous welfare states more generally) are unaffordable in the long term, and it has begun allowing private providers into its health-care market. In short, Obamacare’s essential economic unfeasability and extensive bureaucratization of health care (not to mention its disproportionately negative impact on the poor) will become all too clear in time. When that happens, conservatives must have off-the-shelf plans ready to go in order to restore sanity to the asylum of socialized medicine.

However, it’s also plain that conservatives, beyond citing the raw economics of real health-care reform, must ballast their case against socialized medicine with moral and cultural arguments. Far too many conservatives and free marketers critique socialized medicine almost solely in terms of efficiency and effectiveness. Economic analyses and arguments are important, but not many people will put everything on the line for a calculus of utility. Instead, critics must draw attention to the ways in which socialized medicine (1) saps personal responsibility, (2) facilitates the spoiled-brat entitlement mentality presently reducing much of Europe to an economic laughingstock, and (not least among such concerns) (3) creates an impossible situation for those of us who on grounds of faith and reason cannot and will not participate in schemes that legally require us to cooperate in other people’s choices for moral evil.

We can win numerous economic arguments. In some respects, that’s actually the easy part. But until we decisively shift — and win — the moral debate, the battle will be uphill all the way.

Read other viewpoints on NRO’s “What’s Next for the Opposition?”