Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

No Cost Controls Without Coverage Expansions

"As a practical, political matter," writes Paul Krugman, "controlling health care costs and expanding health care access aren’t opposing alternatives — you have to do both, or neither." That "practical, political," is an important distinction: You could, in theory, cut costs without expanding coverage. You just can't do it in practice. Krugman explains:

Why does meaningful action on medical costs go along with compassion? One answer is that compassion means not closing your eyes to the human consequences of rising costs. When health insurance premiums doubled during the Bush years, our health care system “controlled costs” by dropping coverage for many workers — but as far as the Bush administration was concerned, that wasn’t a problem. If you believe in universal coverage, on the other hand, it is a problem, and demands a solution.

Beyond that, I’d suggest that would-be health reformers won’t have the moral authority to confront our system’s inefficiency unless they’re also prepared to end its cruelty. If President Bush had tried to rein in Medicare spending, he would have been accused, with considerable justice, of cutting benefits so that he could give the wealthy even more tax cuts. President Obama, by contrast, can link Medicare reform with the goal of protecting less fortunate Americans and making the middle class more secure.

The other point here is that because the votes of the vast majority of Democrats are essentially assured on health-care reform, the anxieties of the few swing votes at the edge of both parties end up getting a lot of media coverage. But if you tried to do cost control without coverage, you wouldn't be worrying about getting Ben Nelson and Joe Lieberman aboard. You'd be worrying about the 40 senators to their left.

The crucial votes -- the Ted Kennedys and Henry Waxmans and Jay Rockefellers and Chris Dodds of the world -- are not interested in making painful changes to the health-care system that are not leavened by policies to cut the number of uninsured and protect people from the vagaries of the insurance market. To achieve those priorities, they might be willing to make substantial changes to also cut costs and make sure coverage is affordable. But you don't get one without the other.

By Ezra Klein  |  July 24, 2009; 5:22 PM ET
Categories:  Health Reform  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: What's Going on in the House (or Is Health-Care Reform Becoming a Prisoner's Dilemma?)
Next: Obama on Education


Right- so we are supposed to believe that the leftmost 40 senators will be willing to hold the line on healthcare spending once coverage is expanded when they have fought tooth and nail to oppose cost saving measures in the past? You are flatly admitting that Democrats do not at all care about controlling healthcare. They haven't been willing to control the costs of healthcare when just 15% of the population is covered and thats going to be magnitudes worse once 100% of people are covered.

Posted by: spotatl | July 24, 2009 5:40 PM | Report abuse

Utter nonsense. If you could lower prices far enough that mere mortals could afford it, then obviously you wouldn't need to expand coverage.

The only "political" obstacle is that politicians derive power from people who can't afford things on their own.

More shilling from Ezra.

Posted by: whoisjohngaltcom | July 24, 2009 6:13 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company