Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Health-care reform fantasy draft

David Leonhardt is much more down on the House bill than I am. But I agree with all of his proposed improvements. I'd like to see a final bill that looks more like the House bill on the coverage and affordability side, and more like the Senate bill on the revenue and delivery-system reforms side.

By Ezra Klein  |  November 11, 2009; 2:05 PM ET
 
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Why Pharma likes health-care reform
Next: The populist politics of financial regulation

Comments

We already have a wonderful model for how to avoid such interference. It’s called the Federal Reserve. The Fed is charged with setting interest rates based on economic conditions, not politics.


I can't believe Leonhardt wrote that with a straight face. He couldn't have. The FED isn't political? Well then WHY have they been holding down interest rates for years so that everybody and their grandmother can own a home who can't afford it and CAUSED the housing bubble in the first place???

Posted by: visionbrkr | November 11, 2009 2:18 PM | Report abuse

According to some sources (http://www.bls.gov/opub/cwc/cm20050624ar01p1.htm is an example), 76% of all hospitals are non-profit. When considering health care reform, the fact that most hospitals are non-profit (that is, they have no shareholders to reward with profit) seems to escape understanding.

Those portions of both the House and the Senate proposal which address hospital profits are simply ineffectual. As noted earlier today, the pharma and equipment suppliers, along with health care workers, account for most cost: hospitals and insurers (and their shareholders, if any) are not.

Posted by: rmgregory | November 11, 2009 2:20 PM | Report abuse

It is time for the Senate to implement all 6 of these things.

It is time to act.

Posted by: maritza1 | November 11, 2009 2:39 PM | Report abuse

Those portions of both the House and the Senate proposal which address hospital profits are simply ineffectual. As noted earlier today, the pharma and equipment suppliers, along with health care workers, account for most cost: hospitals and insurers (and their shareholders, if any) are not.

and its amazing that democrats have aligned themselves with the most profitable industries and can still claim to be the "party of the people". Seriously??

Posted by: visionbrkr | November 11, 2009 3:35 PM | Report abuse

I agree with Leonhardt and Ezra that the House bill is deficient in its attention to control of health care costs. It is also true that the Senate bill is deficient, compared with the House bill, in its protection of low income and middle class people from exclusion from health care and from the risk of bankruptcy due to health costs.

Let's combine the good features and get rid of the bad features in both bills. If we get a bill taking a serious approach to control of costs and a serious approach to protection of Americans who are at risk in the current health care system, we will have a good start. Of course we will be back fixing things at the margins, and perhaps with some more major fixes, but that always happens.

I for one would give up the weak public plan in the House bill in exchange for the strengths the House bill has in protecting Americans and for the list Leonhardt offers.

Posted by: PatS2 | November 11, 2009 4:32 PM | Report abuse

When is Gruber going to release his report ("Implications of the JCT Score of the High-Cost Insurance Tax") which all the pro-reform forces seem to have but nobody else can get???

Gruber apparently asserts that in 2019 the excise tax will reduce employer spending on health benefits by 6%--and that this will result in a commensurate (1:1) increase in wages. Even if that's true--which I doubt--it's a SIGNIFICANT NET LOSS TO THE WORKER for whom Uncle Sam was previously chipping in the tax deduction.

If this isn't just a backdoor middle-class tax increase, what would be the harm in letting employees "cash out" their benefits as Wyden has suggested?

And in regard to IMAC--I've said this before--the idea that we would implement comparative effectiveness BEFORE we have basic cost control strategies in place is laughable. Sure it's a great idea, but so is restricting Goldman Sachs to traditional banking activities. Who's going to make them?

Posted by: bmull | November 11, 2009 4:39 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company