PrintJonathan Cohn has a good critique of the health insurance lobby's new "study" claiming that the Senate Finance Committee's health care bill will cause raise to skyrocket. Ezra Klein has a lot more. What I want to know is why they were able to find these devastating rebuttals and the Washington Post's Ceci Connolly didn't in her front page story. Obviously, Cohn and Klein are health care policy experts. But this begs the question of why there isn't more room for policy experts in the newspaper business.
In fact, I can't figure why a rigged study conducted by a dicredited group on behalf of a self-interested lobby ought to be the lead story in the Post. Clearly, the fact that the insurance lobby is openly fighting is an important story. But the substance of the report does not deserve the benefit of the doubt. Here is how the Post summed up this question:
Though open to dispute, the analysis is certain to raise questions about whether Obama can deliver on his twin promises of extending coverage to millions of uninsured Americans while also curbing skyrocketing health-care costs.
That's not the standard (or correct) way to cover dubious, self-interested claims by lobbyists.
COMMENTS (3)
The "standard (or correct) way to cover dubious, self-interested claims by lobbyists."
How pray tell does this sort of analysis apply to the millions and millions of dollars the insurance industry lobby funnels to Congress each election cycle? Or to Tim Geithner's speed dial buddies at the big banks on Wall Street?
At least at the Post there is enough of a gap between those who write the editorials and those who write the front page articles that the fake news is balanced with some honest to God real reporting.
Doesn't work that way in Congress and the White House though. Why, pray tell?
george
The "standard (or correct) way to cover dubious, self-interested claims by lobbyists."
How pray tell does this sort of analysis apply to the millions and millions of dollars the insurance industry lobby funnels to Congress each election cycle? Or to Tim Geithner's speed dial buddies at the big banks on Wall Street?
At least at the Post there is enough of a gap between those who write the editorials and those who write the front page articles that the fake news is balanced with some honest to God real reporting.
Doesn't work that way in Congress and the White House though. Why, pray tell?
george
Let's look at the facts-then you can worry about who's taking campaign contributions and are healthcare industry toadies:
There are states which have guaranteed issue and community rating laws on the books for individual policies. When you look at their premiums, you find:
Single policy: 50 state average, $2,600, those states, $5,300
Family policy: 50 state average, $5,800, those states, $11,000
Roughly double.
We also know, surprised JC and Ezra don't, that Professor Erik Gordon, of U of Michigan, weeks ago, computed increase in average premiums for all Americans once health care reform-guaranteeed issue and community rating is passed: $1,300 to $2,000 today (obviously, increasin ... view full comment
Let's look at the facts-then you can worry about who's taking campaign contributions and are healthcare industry toadies:
There are states which have guaranteed issue and community rating laws on the books for individual policies. When you look at their premiums, you find:
Single policy: 50 state average, $2,600, those states, $5,300
Family policy: 50 state average, $5,800, those states, $11,000
Roughly double.
We also know, surprised JC and Ezra don't, that Professor Erik Gordon, of U of Michigan, weeks ago, computed increase in average premiums for all Americans once health care reform-guaranteeed issue and community rating is passed: $1,300 to $2,000 today (obviously, increasing, over time with health care costs rising).
We get Ezra attacking the PW study because another group said they were wrong about tobacco. I guess that means that PW is wrong about everything and that the other group (Earnst) is right about everything. But Earnst hasn't commented on the PW premium study.
JC attacks the PW report claiming PW can't model the premiums-which is only JC's opinion. If he had read the PW report, he'd see that PW is using "the Hay Group-an actuarial and benefits consulting group". I guess the Hay Group are just biased and wrong also.
Remember, Obama said in his Joint Congress speech-free hospital health care costs the average family $1,000 in premiums. Never mind, that JC's preferred source, the Kaiser Family Foundation says that it's no more than $200-but the theory is the same. You add say 10 million people to Medicaid rolls-and more to Medicare reimbursement policies if you do the robust public option-because Medicaid and Medicare reimburse doctors and hospitals at around 25% of the cost that private insurance pays.......and you don't think there will be cost-shifting??? Why, when care is free, but not when repayment is significantly less.
I've been warning my progressive friends for weeks that the health care reform bill will impose significant costs on the private insurance system-especially the premiums paid by the 150 million or so of us covered by employee health policies. The fact that you progressives refuse to understand economics and the marketplace-and pretend this is last second posturing-is really silly.
Why shouldn't the Senate, then the House, and of course, the American public, know what the likely results of Obabacare is likely to be?
Finally, I'm still amused at the Baucus plan-the most pathetic effort at health care reform that I've ever seen-he totally ignores the Medicare physician reimbursement issue-which costs like $250 billion over 10 years-and pretends Congress will just reduct physician pay by $25 billion per year (this is for existing Medicare patients). When you add that-which will never pass-to the CBO cost of his bill, the progressives are stuck with: (a) a $1.1 trillion bill and (b) $170 billion deficit problem. It amuses that that Obama's budget increases deficit in 2019 by $800 billion over Bush's presidency baseline-and this is before health care reform (say, $200 billion per year there-remember-taxes start early and full implementation takes 5/6 years-just look at costs in 10 years!!!!)..........then he pretends that new taxes should be allocated to new health care spending! Why? Taxes are fungible-they are not allocated or attached to any specfic spending bill. So......thanks for the health care reform.
Unfortunately, this illustrates why trying to reform within the system is difficult to do. If you remove the ability of insurance companies to decline coverage for pre-existing conditions (likely to be expensive, although not necessarily catastrophic), but do not require everyone to get insurance, then the rates must go up because without the mandate some people will just wait until they get sick enough that they think they will come out ahead buying insurance. I don't know if the study is right or not, but without mandating universal coverage (or close enough to it), the whole model of solving this through insurance doesn't work.
Unfortunately, this illustrates why trying to reform within the system is difficult to do. If you remove the ability of insurance companies to decline coverage for pre-existing conditions (likely to be expensive, although not necessarily catastrophic), but do not require everyone to get insurance, then the rates must go up because without the mandate some people will just wait until they get sick enough that they think they will come out ahead buying insurance. I don't know if the study is right or not, but without mandating universal coverage (or close enough to it), the whole model of solving this through insurance doesn't work.