Way back in 2010, immediately after Obamacare was rammed down our throats, I put together four guiding principles for a counter-offensive.
One of my goals was to help people understand that the problem was far greater than Obamacare. Indeed, the so-called Affordable Care Act was merely another step on a long (and very bad) journey to healthcare statism.
The way to think of Obamacare is that we are shifting from a healthcare system 68 percent controlled/directed by government to one that (when all the bad policies are phased in) is 79 percent controlled/directed by government. Those numbers are just vague estimates, to be sure, but they underscore why Obamacare is just a continuation of a terrible trend, not a profound paradigm shift.
Two years ago, I elaborated on this thesis and even put together a couple of charts to emphasize the point.
Obamacare was enacted in 2010, and it was perceived to be a paradigm-shifting change in the healthcare system, even though it was just another layer of bad policy on top of lots of other bad policy. Immediately after the legislation was approved, I offered a rough estimate that we went from a system that
was 68 percent dictated by government to one that was 79 percent dictated by government. …all of the same problems still exist, but now they’re exacerbated by the mistakes in Obamacare.
My numbers were just vague approximations, of course, but I think the basic premise was spot on.
And my theory is still accurate. But you don’t have to believe me.
Writing for the Washington Examiner, Philip Klein makes the critical point that repealing Obamacare wouldn’t result in a free-market system.
Instead, we’d be stuck with the pre-Obamacare system that was decrepit because of already-existing programs, mandates, regulations, and other forms of intervention.
…repeal is not enough. Even if simple repeal were politically obtainable, Americans would still be left with a broken healthcare system. Government regulations would still be stifling competition and individual choice and government healthcare programs would still be driving the nation’s unsustainable long-term debt problem. If Republicans achieved repeal without agreeing on a way to reform healthcare along free market lines, it’s inevitable that Democrats would eventually lead another overhaul of the system that would grant even more power to the federal government.
Philip is totally correct.
Before Obamacare, we had a system that didn’t work very well because of government. But in a horrifying example of Mitchell’s Law, many people decided that more government was the solution to the problems already caused by government.
Hence, we got so mis-named Affordable Care Act.
But if Obamacare is repealed, we’ll simply be back in the same unstable situation. And Philip is right that the statists will then simply argued for a different type of government expansion. Probably single payer, notwithstanding all the horror stories from places such as the United Kingdom.
Some may argue at this point that it doesn’t really matter because Obama is in the White House with a veto pen, so critics have a couple of years to figure out their next step.
Maybe, but it’s also possible that the Supreme Court will (for a change of pace) make the right ruling on a key Obamacare case later this year. And this would probably force policy makers to re-open the law.
…a Supreme Court decision expected by late June could invalidate Obamacare subsidies for millions of Americans. If Republicans don’t have an alternative ready, congressional leaders will be under tremendous pressure to pass a simple “fix” that would allow the subsidies to continue to flow, thus further entrenching Obamacare before a Republican president theoretically is able to act in 2017. For these reasons and many others it’s important for Republicans to unite around an alternative to Obamacare.
Philip (who has an entire book on this issue) then proceeds to categorize Obamacare critics as being in three different camps on the issue of how to proceed.
The first approach comes from those who believe that fully repealing Obamacare is probably unrealistic, but who still see an opening to reform the overall healthcare system in a more market-oriented direction. I call this the Reform School. The second approach comes from a crowd that believes full repeal is a necessity, but can only occur if opponents of the law create a market-friendly alternative with enough financial assistance to make health insurance widely available to those Americans who want to purchase it. I call this the Replace School. And finally, there is a third approach, which advocates repealing the law, returning to pre-Obamacare levels of taxes and spending, and then using that clean slate as the basis to overhaul the system in a free market manner to bring down costs. I call this the Restart School.
Since I focus on fiscal policy issues rather than healthcare, I don’t know if there are substantive – or merely strategic – differences among these three groups.
But I will say (assuming you actually want to solve the problem) that at some point you have to deal with the government programs and interventions that have given us a third-party payer crisis.
So I will reiterate what I wrote back in 2010 as part of my proposed counter-offensive.
The only way to fix healthcare is to restore the free market. That means going back to a system where people pay out-of-pocket for most healthcare and use insurance to protect against genuine risk and catastrophic expenses. The time has come to reduce the size and scope of government. …Change Medicare into a system based on personal health accounts and shift all means-tested spending to the states. …the flat tax is ideal from a healthcare perspective since it gets rid of the healthcare exclusion in the tax code as part of a shift to a tax system with low rates and no double taxation.
This video, narrated by Julie Borowski for the Center for Freedom and Prosperity, looks at the Obamacare/third-party payer issue.
And if you want to examine some of the component issues of healthcare reform, we have videos on Medicaid, Medicare, and tax reform.
[…] refers to how the tax code’s exclusion for fringe benefits leads both employees and employers to use health insuranceas a way of not only covering large, unexpected costs, but also as a way of pre-paying for health […]
[…] to how the tax code’s exclusion for fringe benefits leads both employees and employers to use health insurance as a way of not only covering large, unexpected costs, but also as a way of pre-paying for health […]
[…] the issue. I also recommend this clever cartoon video that explains third-party payer and this video from the Center for Freedom and Prosperity. And this Reason video on how costs are lower when […]
[…] That’s why I like the Cadillac tax, even though it was part of the terrible Obamacare legislation. […]
[…] very persuasive arguments by Tim Carney that government-run healthcare (or, to be more accurate, expanded government control of healthcare) was creating a feeding frenzy for additional sleaze in […]
[…] aggregate impact, there’s a strong case to be made that government intervention – via spending, tax breaks, and price controls – wreaks the most havoc with the health […]
[…] Direct and indirect healthcare subsidies have created a huge third-party payer problem and led to high costs and inefficiency. […]
[…] financed by someone other than the consumer, this is a major problem. One that I’ve written about many, many […]
[…] Though it’s important to understand that government involvement doesn’t just cause fiscal damage. All these programs and policies contribute to the “third-party payer” problem, which exists when people make purchases with other people’s money. Such a system is a recipe for inefficiency and rising prices since consumers generally don’t care about cost and providers have no incentive to be efficient. And since government figures show that nearly 90% of health care expenditures are financed by someone other than the consumer, this is a major problem. One that I’ve written about many, many times. […]
[…] financed by someone other than the consumer, this is a major problem. One that I’ve written about many, many […]
[…] by someone other than the consumer, this is a major problem. One that I’ve written about many, many […]
[…] then added another layer of intervention to the existing mess. By my rough calculations, that costly boondoggle took the country from having a system that was 68-percent controlled and […]
[…] then added another layer of intervention to the existing mess. By my rough calculations, that costly boondoggle took the country from having a system that was 68-percent controlled and […]
[…] real answer, as Julie Borowski explains in this video, is unraveling all the government interventions that caused the problem in the first […]
[…] I wrote yesterday (and have pontificated about on many occasions), the main problem with America’s healthcare system is that various […]
[…] real answer, as Julie Borowski explains in this video, is unraveling all the government interventions that caused the problem in the first […]
[…] break it, you buy it – Government intervention had screwed up the system well before Obamacare was enacted, but people now blame the 2010 law (and the Democrats who voted for it) for everything that goes […]
[…] via Our Healthcare Policy Problem Is Much Bigger than Obamacare […]
[…] Entitlement – Federal subsidies have resulted in higher costs and inefficiency in health care and higher education. Trump now wants to cause the same problems in childcare. This won’t end […]
[…] I hardly think it was a game-changing reform, even if it isn’t repealed. Government was already deeply enmeshed in the healthcare sector before Obama took office. Obamacare simply moved the needle a bit further in the wrong […]
[…] I hardly think it was a game-changing reform, even if it isn’t repealed. Government was already deeply enmeshed in the healthcare sector before Obama took office. Obamacare simply moved the needle a bit further in the wrong […]
[…] though remember that repealing Obamacare is just the first step if you want a genuine market-based healthcare […]
[…] though remember that repealing Obamacare is just the first step if you want a genuine market-based healthcare […]
[…] part of tax and entitlement reform, by all means let’s shift to a system where we address the third-party payer crisis by having most health care expenses directly financed by consumers (reserving insurance for large, […]
[…] especially like the last part of that excerpt — which is why we need to go well beyond simply repealing Obamacare if we want to restore market forces to the health care […]
[…] especially like the last part of the excerpt. Which is why we need to go well beyond simply repealing Obamacare if we want to restore market forces to the healthcare […]
[…] especially like the last part of the excerpt. Which is why we need to go well beyond simply repealing Obamacare if we want to restore market forces to the healthcare […]
[…] especially like the last part of the excerpt. Which is why we need to go well beyond simply repealing Obamacare if we want to restore market forces to the healthcare […]
[…] especially like the last part of the excerpt. Which is why we need to go well beyond simply repealing Obamacare if we want to restore market forces to the healthcare […]
[…] really is. Sort of financial market version of the government-caused third-party payer problem in health care and higher […]
[…] really is. Sort of financial market version of the government-caused third-party payer problem in health care and higher […]
[…] whether a President Trump would make good reforms of bad reforms (i.e., would he move the “health care freedom meter” in the right direction or wrong […]
[…] fight between good guys and bad guys. It’s a tactical disagreement among people who realize that government intervention has screwed up our healthcare systemand don’t fully agree on how to get the toothpaste back in the […]
[…] fight between good guys and bad guys. It’s a tactical disagreement among people who realize that government intervention has screwed up our healthcare systemand don’t fully agree on how to get the toothpaste back in the […]
[…] between good guys and bad guys. It’s a tactical disagreement among people who realize that government intervention has screwed up our healthcare system and don’t fully agree on how to get the toothpaste back in the […]
[…] intervention has messed up the healthcare sector, leading to needlessly high prices and massive […]
[…] intervention has messed up the healthcare sector, leading to needlessly high prices and massive […]
[…] intervention has messed up the healthcare sector, leading to needlessly high prices and massive inefficiency. Fixing the mess won’t be easy […]
[…] intervention has messed up the healthcare sector, leading to needlessly high prices and massive […]
[…] many Americans, I’m suffering from Obamacare fatigue. Before the law was implemented, I repeatedly explained that more spending and more intervention in the health sector would worsen a system that already […]
[…] is, unfortunately, quite similar to the problems we have in the United States thanks to pervasive government intervention, which has caused a huge third-party-payer […]
[…] encourage over-utilization, inefficiency, and insensitivity to price. That’s true for health care and higher education, just as it’s true for […]
[…] The health care exclusion is left untouched, largely because the two lawmakers understand that phasing out that preference is best handled as part of a combined tax reform/health reform proposal. […]
[…] The health care exclusion is left untouched, largely because the two lawmakers understand that phasing out that preference is best handled as part of a combined tax reform/health reform proposal. […]
[…] The health care exclusion is left untouched, largely because the two lawmakers understand that phasing out that preference is best handled as part of a combined tax reform/health reform proposal. […]
[…] Mike also reminds us that we’ve had five decades-plus of government-run healthcare. […]
[…] Our Healthcare Policy Problem Is Much Bigger than Obamacare […]
The Democrats/Progressives have a vision. It is blurry and misguided, but it is a vision of central control, doing the right thing, and somehow working out a solution after they have total power. Why go into the details before you have the power to implement each and every detail with the appropriate penalty?
The Republicans have a vision of weakening the plans of the Dems/Progs while diverting funding to their special interests. This is a no-win strategy which insuures maximum participation with minimum boat rocking.
Both parties see the public in majority as mindless, self-interested, and grasping. They may be right, in which case there is no hope. A mindless majority is going to sell themselves down the river for a free ice cream cone.
If they are wrong, a slim hope, then the Republicans are not going to change anything without their own strong vision. Even I don’t feel like voting for people not smart enough to propose their own solution in detail. It is tiring and useless to support people who can only weakly oppose the bad plans of the Democrats.
The Republicans are correct to oppose those plans, but are correct in an ineffective and repulsive way.
I favor H.L. Mencken’s observation: Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.
The Republicans are not going to win the public with their strategy of hanging back, not offending anyone, and winning only because the Dems screw up. Even if they win, they have built no support for a better system. So, may the Democrats win, and may the public get what they think they want, good and hard.
Reblogged this on Brian By Experience.
Sorry, the video link above was incorrect. Here’s the one on Healthcare:
Third party payer is horrible, when government is the third party; but insurance companies have been corrupted by the presence of Medicare, Medicaid and Obamacare subsidies, so they also make lousy third parties.
There are five problems that must be addressed by an adequate healthcare solution:
1. Healthcare costs are lumpy and unpredictable. A family can coast along and get hit with a one-time or chronic healthcare incident. To combat that, there must be access to pooled resources, to smooth one-time costs or to cap family expenditures at a reasonable level.
2. Many of the costs in #1 can be avoided by following a healthy, low risk lifestyle. Insurance contributes to moral hazard, so a significant portion of costs of high risk activities and lifestyle must fall back on the individual to decrease moral hazard.
3. Some form of universal healthcare is optimal, since a system with “free riders” will fall apart. Government can play a part here by providing funds for all citizens to pay for minimal healthcare. Support that can be lost by earning additional income creates dis-incentives, so all should receive funds. This can be paid for by dollar-for-dollar reductions in Medicare and Medicaid support and by the elimination of the healthcare tax deduction.
4. Support for those with “pre-existing conditions” must continue. Once we have achieved universal healthcare, there will be no new additions, so need for this support will decline over time.
5. With patients paying their own healthcare costs, we must deal with the knowledge mismatch as to “best practice” and cost. Patients need unbiased resources for information and the ability to receive best pricing.
My answer to these problems is “Group Self-Insurance”. The following YouTube video gives more information:
[…] And if you want to examine some of the WAIT, THERE’S MORE… […]
[…] By Dan Mitchell […]