By Doug Badger and Jamie Bryan Hall
The Daily Signal, October 28th, 2019
More than 99% of Americans have access to health coverage, regardless of their income or official medical condition. The overwhelming majority of those lacking insurance could have obtained coverage but did not enroll. Policymakers need to understand the distinction between lack of coverage and lack of access to coverage. […]
By Robert E. Moffit, Ph.D, and Nina Schaefer
The Heritage Foundation, July 29, 2019
Promises like “If you like your health plan, your employer-based plan, you can keep it,” shouldn’t be trusted. So-called “public option” proposals are nothing less than single payer on the installment plan, and will erode private and employer-sponsored health coverage in America, just like “Medicare for All.” […]
By Scott W. Atlas
The Wall Street Journal, July 16, 2019
A public option is not a moderate, compromise proposal. Its inevitable consequence is the death of affordable private insurance. Government insurance options mainly erode, or “crowd out,” private insurance rather than provide coverage to the uninsured. Jonathan Gruber, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology economist credited with designing ObamaCare, showed in 2007 that when government insurance expands, six people go off private insurance for every 10 people who go on public insurance. And the public option would cause premiums for private insurance to skyrocket because of underpayment by government insurance compared with costs for services.
By Seema Verma
The Washington Post, July 24, 2019
As the administrator of the two largest public health-care programs in the country, Medicare and Medicaid, I can say these programs face major fiscal challenges. Those who seek to expand them do so because of their expected lower price tag on premiums. But there’s a simple explanation that makes the low cost considerably less alluring: Public programs pay health-care providers less than private payers. Low prices imposed on doctors and hospitals can’t stop health-care costs from rising. Someone has to pay the bill—namely, Americans who purchase their coverage directly or through their jobs. In turn, this causes doctors and hospitals to attempt to make up the lost revenue by charging higher prices to private insurers, resulting in higher health insurance premiums for everybody else. […]
By The Editorial Board
The Wall Street Journal, July 17, 2019
Joe Biden’s new health-care plan is supposed to show his moderation, but there was strong pushback from Sen. Bernie Sanders who wants a full single payer system. If you cut through the spin, the only debate Democrats are having is whether to eliminate private health insurance in one blow or on the installment plan. Biden supports a new government insurance plan that would “compete” with private insurance. We use quotation marks since a government insurer with zero cost of capital and political backing starts with an unbeatable advantage. The public option would undercut competitors on price, stiff providers with low reimbursement rates, and crowd out private insurance over time. Voila, single payer! […]
By Editorial Board,
The Wall Street Journal, July 1, 2019
The Trump Administration published a final rule giving businesses a new option to help employees get the health coverage of their choice. The new Health Reimbursement Arrangement (HRA) rule allows an employer to give a worker tax-exempt dollars to buy a health-insurance plan in the individual market. The practical effect of the new rule is to extend the tax advantage for employer health care to individuals who purchase their own insurance. The Trump Administration predicts that over time some 800,000 employers will offer HRAs to more than 11 million workers and their families. Some 800,000 would otherwise be uninsured. […]
By Grace-Marie Turner
Forbes, June 13, 2019
The Trump administration’s new HRA rule undoes an Obama administration action that forbade workers from using HRA funds to purchase health insurance policies offered outside their workplace. “President Trump’s new rule undoes this misguided restriction” that reduced choices for workers and especially for small businesses, White House economist Brian Blase explains. The new accounts have the potential to be transformative, much as 401(k)s were for retiree benefits, giving employees more control and portability with their health coverage. […]
By Mark V. Pauly
American Enterprise Institute, June 7, 2019
Prof. Pauly also details how government shapes a much larger share of spending than the faction it finances directly. He tabulates the share of government-affected spending in 2016 and shows it is nearly 80% of all spending—“not leaving much in the unfettered, market-based category.” The federal government finances nearly 55% of all “explicit and implicit” health spending, he reports–from Medicare, the federal share of Medicaid, ACA subsidies to tax preferences for employer-based health insurance. But it controls much more through regulations and mandates on alleged private plans. He suggests that policy proposals involving block grants to the states and greater flexibility could lead to better-targeted subsidies and more market competition. […]
By Jennifer Steinhauer
The New York Times, June 5, 2019
The Department of Veterans Affairs on Thursday will begin allowing a broad section of its nine million enrollees to seek medical care outside of traditional VA hospitals, the biggest shift in the American health care system since the passage of the Affordable Care Act nearly a decade ago. Previously, veterans facing a wait of 30 days or more for an appointment at their closest VA health care center could seek private care. Under the new policy, that waiting time would be reduced to 20 days, with the goal of 14 days by 2020. The new measurement is expected to greatly open private-sector medical care to veterans in both rural communities and high-traffic urban areas, a goal conservatives have long pushed, especially after a 2015 scandal over hidden waiting lists for care. […]
By Stephanie Armour
The Wall Street Journal, June 2, 2019
Americans cited health care as the top issue for the federal government to address, ahead of the economy, immigration, national security and other issues in a new Wall Street Journal/NBC News survey. The financial burden of health care was of particular concern for American families, according to a new Gallup poll released last week, trumping worries linked to wages, college expenses, housing and taxes. As such, health reform presents an opportunity for both major parties heading into the 2020 presidential election. The state of health coverage is the one issue for which a big chunk of the polarized electorate could become amenable to whomever they see as offering the best prospect of a permanent solution, irrespective of political party.