Tuesday, May 29, 2007

Obama's Health Plan

Widely expected, Sen. Barack Obama introduced his universal health plan today at a speech in Iowa. There is nothing particularly new or inventive about the plan. It would retain private insurance for those who can afford to pay or have employer provided health care. Those without health insurance would get a subsidy based on a sliding scale. Obama would pay for it by "taxing the rich."
Obama said his plan could save the average consumer $2,500 a year and bring health care to all. Campaign aides estimated the cost of the program at $50 billion to $65 billion a year, financed largely by eliminating tax cuts for the wealthy that are scheduled to expire. President Bush wants to make those cuts permanent.

"The time has come for universal, affordable health care in America," Obama said in a speech in Iowa City, at the University of Iowa's medical school.

While Obama's plan is aimed at expanding coverage, he said cutting costs was also essential.

"We have reached a point in this country where the rising costs of health care has put too many families and businesses on a collision course with financial ruin and left too many with no coverage at all," Obama said. "This cost crisis is trapping us in a vicious cycle."
All three front running candidates have a preference for universal health care, through different mechanisms, but paid for in much the same way, through taxes (although Obama calls his the ending of tax breaks for the rich, it is still a tax increase).

The problem with all three plans and indeed any plan designed to increase coverage or reducing costs is that the American health "insurance" industry is not really insurance, but a third party payor system. The only difference is that the payer is a private insurance company and not the government.

Insurance is protection against catastrophic costs or costs beyond the means of most people to pay. A good example of true (or at least truer insurance) is homeowner's insurance. Homeowner's insurance covers damage caused by fire, storms, burglary, faulty construction or just household accidents, like pipes bursting or (as in my case) the wash machine springing a rather nasty leak. What homeowneer's insurance doesn't cover is maintenance, like lawn care, or everyday maintenance items.

But American health insurance pays for the everyday maintenance items like going to the doctor for a visit because you have the sniffles. The fact that most Americans only pay between $5 and $20 for a visit to the doctor's office (which the doctor charges between $50 and $80 on average) means that most of a doctor's bill is covered by insurance. Because the actual out of pocket cost is hidden for maintenance items, people consume more healthcare. The more healthcare they consume, the more the "insurance" company pays out and the more it must take in to cover the added payouts.

The never-ending spiral leads to higher healthcare spending, and higher premiums, pushing more and more people out of the insuranble realm.

The only way to cut healthcare costs over the long term is to change the way in which health insurance really works and go back to a true insurance system. Under a true insurance system, individuals have to pay out of pocket for maintenance visits. They can claim insurance coverage only after a certain deductible is reached, say $250 or $500 or whatever that individual is comfortable with.

4 comments:

TurbineGuy said...

"The only way to cut healthcare costs over the long term is to change the way in which health insurance really works and go back to a true insurance system. Under a true insurance system, individuals have to pay out of pocket for maintenance visits. They can claim insurance coverage only after a certain deductible is reached, say $250 or $500 or whatever that individual is comfortable with."

What about people who can't afford this?

Also, wouldn't this discourage preventive medicine, which has been shown in itself to reduce overall healthcare costs?

Anonymous said...

Sounds great to me

Unknown said...

Parentalcation,

Do you not do preventative maintenance on your house or car just because it might cost too much? Do you not for instance, reguarly do maintenance on your car's engine, brakes and other systems in order to prevent costlier incidents? Do you not maintain your home's plumbing and electrical systems in or to prevent more costly repairs later?

Insurance for your home and auto assumes a certain level of car to be performed out of pocket. Why then is health insurance different? Healtch are is no more of a right than owning your own home or car (contrary to what people think).

As for people who can't afford it? I am not suggesting we force everyone onto private health insurance at rates they can't afford. There is a place and role for Medicaid and Medicare in our system.

Health insurance needs to be that, insurance, not a third party payer program.

TurbineGuy said...

Matt,

I think your house and car comparison is faulty for several reasons. 1. most preventive house and car maintenance can be done by the average person, unlike medicine. 2. Many people do ignore preventive maintenance on their cars and suffer for it.

I am going to partially disagree with you on healthcare being a right. Actually, I agree that right now its not a right, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be.

After living for 12 years in Europe and witnessing decent universal healthcare, my opinion has been forever changed. Its one of my last liberal beliefs.