Paul Krugman is surprisingly right on with a large part of his most recent column. Specifically: “The motivation for the AHIP report seems to have been the decision by the Finance Committee to weaken the penalties for individuals who don’t sign up for insurance, even as it retains regulations requiring that insurers offer the same policies to everyone, regardless of medical history. The industry worries that some people will game the system, remaining uninsured as long as they’re healthy, then signing up when they get sick.
This is, believe it or not, a valid concern. Many health-care economists believe that a strong individual mandate, requiring that almost everyone sign up, will be needed to make health reform work. And the Finance Committee probably did weaken the mandate too much. But AHIP, apparently unable to help itself, didn’t stop there. Instead, the report threw every anti-reform argument the authors could think of at the wall, hoping that something would stick…But the insurers wanted it all…by overreaching, they may have ensured that they won’t get it.”
Generally, I don’t take too seriously what Krugman writes. However, in this piece, he is absolutely correct regarding AHIP’s overreach on its report last week. The report SHOULD have concentrated specifically on the weakened mandate, the violation of the Democrat/insurance industry deal and the higher costs therein for the insurance industry (and, thus, consumers) should it keep its end of the bargain without Democratic support- but AHIP left itself vulnerable to criticism by spreading itself too thin. Too, the report was released on Tuesday, October 13, the same day as the Senate Finance Committee vote on Chairman Baucus’ mark. Released on that date with a concise, pointed argument against the weakened mandate, the report is a dagger in the side of health reform. Released on Tuesday with a flailing, “hope-something-sticks” attack…it’s a public relations boon to health reform proponents, and the public option in particular, as John Graham of the Pacific Research Institute points out.
Oh, and George Will’s newest column rocks.
October 18th, 2009 at 8:52 pm
George Will’s column points out the follies of Obama’s failed attempts at stimulating the economy, noting that the unemployment rate will undoubtedly top 10% soon, and that the administration’s only plan for financing the $9 Trillion in new debt it estimates it (the administration itself) will generate over the course of the next 10 years is to borrow it from China.
A slight problem I’ve noted on more than one occasion of plans to solve debt problems by going deeper in debt for extended periods of time is that at some point people who have been loaning you money get tired of doing it, for some reason or other. At that point, they can get testy about it. All China, and other international creditors, has to do is stop loaning us money, and there IS NO PLAN B. Think about that.
October 18th, 2009 at 10:07 pm
I really don’t get this place, Krugman was a decent macroeconomist and then he became
a polemicist right around the time
he was a consultant for Enron, and
was taken in by a false trading floor. Why should we give Obama the benefit of the doubt on any of this, has he earned it on the
stimulus, on cap n trade, on what
we know of the health care bill.
October 19th, 2009 at 10:12 am
The Catastrophic Option
By Ross Douthat
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/19/opinion/19douthat.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print
October 19th, 2009 at 12:30 pm
Yes, the only way to come close to paying for the baucus bill or socialized medicine generally is thru a personal mandate, i.e. confiscatory, job and wealth killing tax.
A personal mandate is the anti-thesis of liberty.
Now, we could pay for health insurance without facist laws if we would get rid of the state monopolies and get tort reform and then with the drop in premiums, take care of the rest thru smaller safety net progtams and charity.