Krugman: Health reform made simple

[ProSense]

August 1, 2009, 4:37 pm

Health reform made simple

Kudos to the Times for a story that, for once, emphasizes the remarkable unity of vision health reformers are showing, rather than the squabbles that are an inevitable part of passing major legislation.

The essence is really quite simple: regulation of insurers, so that they can’t cherry-pick only the healthy, and subsidies, so that all Americans can afford insurance.

Everything else is about making that core work. Individual mandates are a way to prevent gaming of the system by people who don’t sign up until they’re sick; employer mandates a way to hold down the on-budget costs by preventing a rush by employers to drop insurance; the public option a way to create effective competition and hold costs down further.

But what it means for the individual will be that insurers can’t reject you, and if your income is relatively low, the government will help pay your premiums.

That’s it. Any commentator who whines that he just doesn’t understand it is basically saying that he doesn’t want to understand it.

[jwirr]

1. As usual Krugman hit the point. Still hoping for single payer but will

be glad if this passes.

[defendandprotect]

2. Medicare for All is the simplest . . . Everyone in, No one out --

We already have it and it's ready to go -----------------

[patrice]

3. + the Kucinich amendment to make it possible for individual states to go Single Payer if they choose

[defendandprotect]

4. Love Kucinich -- !!!

[patrice]

5. Yes! this States' Single Payer amendment is a brilliant move.

[anonymous171]

6. Is that going to make it into the bill?

If so I am totally voting for Kucinich in 2012 (if he runs again.)

[Cleita]

7. This will still be very expensive for the govt. to maintain.

Part of the idea of Medicare for all was to eliminate the profit that the insurers must deliver to Wall Street. The Massachusetts plan, which is what health care reform is developing into, costs over $6,000 per year per person. Medicare could deliver the same benefits for half the cost. I hope someone actually gets an actuarial study on Medicare for all or single payers vs. the corporate welfare system presently being cooked up in Congress.

[bjobotts]

8. Sorry but that mandates everyone must pay private ins premiums subsidized or not

[bjobotts]

9. And we have no say over private ins.Can't fire 'em. Gov run overhead is 3%, private 30%

[bjobotts]

10. Medicare for all is so much simpler.Just change part D so we can bid for drug prices.

[bjobotts]

11. We'd save so much we could even get dental included.Screw the profiteers.

[jeanpalmer]

12. Totally ignores the problem of providers

gaming the system for profit. Which is a big problem, happens all the time. May be a bigger problem than overcharging insurance companies.

Staying with an insurance system, whether it's government-run or privately run, also retains huge inefficiencies. How can an insurance system hold down costs when it requires a extra layer of bureacracy and does nothing to distinguish between legitimate provider billings and illegitimate ones that are designed to pad the bill?

Much better solution -- government-health care. Gets rid of the billing system altogether. No insurance and no-profits for the providers. Apparently, Krugman can't contemplate a government-run health care system, will go with the pseudo free market choice instead.