Controlling health care costs should not be done on the backs of the working poor by mattsteinglass
October 18, 2009, 12:06 am
Filed under: Health, Libertarianism

Megan McArdle writes that the claim “We will control health care costs, because we have to”

is a disturbingly common argument heard when one points out that the costs of the domestic programs we have are so far impervious to cost control.  Apparently, it is safe to enact a program that is going to blow a 10-gauge hole in the Federal budget, because the mere fact that we can’t currently afford to pay for it will force us to, um, do something.

Both the House and the Senate health care reform bills pay for themselves, according to the CBO. So it’s not clear what program Megan thinks will “blow a 10-gauge hole in the Federal budget.” But here’s the broader point: the US is going to have to shrink the amount the government pays for health care. This is true whether or not we create universal health insurance, because growth in Medicare and Medicaid costs will bankrupt the government otherwise over the next 2 decades. The question is who will pay for this shrinking of the amount we pay for health care. Under the current system, the following groups are paying for it: the working poor, who are gradually being priced out of the private health insurance market but don’t qualify for Medicaid. And the sick, who are slowly being kicked out of private health insurance at any point where insurers can find a legal loophole that enable them to kick them out. To be more precise, then, it’s the unlucky sick who are paying, those who get fired while sick, whose business go bankrupt while they’re sick, who filled out something wrong on a form that gets their coverage rescinded, etc.

This is an unacceptable way to pay for the rising cost of health care — by denying coverage to the working poor and the unlucky sick. Before we decide how we’re going to cut government spending on health care, we have to ensure that everyone in the country has health insurance. And the method of saving money should not be, by and large, to cut services to the poor. We in the US believe that no one should go without health insurance or basic, decent health care because they are too poor to afford it. That’s why we have Medicaid and Medicare. It is utterly irrational to continue to guarantee large overpayments to seniors on Medicare Advantage while the working poor are gradually forced to go without health insurance entirely. We need to set up a system that guarantees that everyone gets health insurance. Then we can start making cuts, once there’s a way for such cuts to be shared by everyone, on the basis of solidarity, rather than just cutting the throats of the working class.


4 Comments so far
Leave a comment

[…] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Dr. Ardie Singh, Tweets Tube. Tweets Tube said: Controlling health care costs should not be done on the backs of the working poor […]

Pingback by Tweets that mention Matt Steinglass - Accumulating Peripherals – Controlling health care costs should not be done on the backs of the working poor - True/Slant --

Agreed. Though as one of the “sick” and soon-to-be-uninsured, I guess I’m a tad biased.

Comment by Lily Q

Yikes. Details?

Comment by Matt Steinglass

Check out the Illinois Supportive Living program as a model for health care reform. The program benefits both the state as well as adults 65 and older of all incomes who need some help to maintain their assistance. For every person who takes advantage of the Supportive Living Program, the state is saving at least 40% of what it would cost the state if that person were in a nursing home. The older adult who cannot afford assisted living has a much better option than struggling alone at home or moving to a nursing home. The payment plan is highly equitable for both the resident and the state. The state requires the resident to pay privately for as long as the resident has the financial resources (income and/or assets)available to do so. If at the time of occupancy or at any time in the future, the resident does not have the financial resources to pay privately, the resident pays to the extent that the resident is able and the state only is making up the difference. So long as the older adult needs help to maintain their independence, does not require nursing home care, and financially qualifies for Medicaid, the resident is eleigible for fianncial assistance from the state, but only to the extent that it is needed.

Comment by rickbanas

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: