Gov. Schwarzenegger writes a prescription for disaster

On Monday, Arnold Schwarzenegger presented his proposal for reducing the number of Californians who lack health insurance. His proposal is almost indistinguishable--except in details--from that of the Democrats who dominate the California Assembly and Senate.

The Democrats tend to favor solutions involving regulations, government spending and taxes, and Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata's proposal--the main contending Democrat plan--hits the trifecta. It would require employers to provide health insurance; give them the option of paying a tax instead of providing health insurance; and increase spending by expanding both the Medi-Cal and Healthy Families programs, which provide care to low-income children--including children of illegal immigrants and the disabled.

Mr. Schwarzenegger's solution hits the trifecta also. He would require employers with 10 or more workers to provide health insurance or pay a 4% tax on all wages covered by Social Security: Look for employers with 10 to 12 employees to get creative about outsourcing. And look as well, as Harvard economist Jonathan Gruber has documented, for wages to fall in firms that offer health insurance because of the mandate. Gov. Schwarzenegger would throw in a 2% tax on doctors and a 4% tax on hospitals to help fund Medi-Cal, California's name for Medicaid. And he would expand Medi-Cal to adults earning as much as 100% above the poverty line and to children, even those here illegally, in poor and middle-income families. He hopes, by doing this, to shift $5 billion of Medi-Cal's annual cost to the federal government.

There are two problems with such solutions. First, they infringe on economic freedom, preventing, in Robert Nozick's phrase, "capitalist acts between consenting adults." Second, government solutions rarely work.

Why doesn't increased government power tend to solve the problem of the uninsured? There are two main reasons. First, when government provides health insurance, many people who take advantage of it drop their own privately provided health insurance. In a 1996 article in the Quarterly Journal of Economics, Harvard economists David M. Cutler and Jonathan Gruber found a 50% "crowding-out effect." As the federal Medicaid program expanded, for every two people who gained insurance through Medicaid, one dropped private health insurance. Although this is a net addition of one, the costs to taxpayers are much higher than expected because now half of the newly covered, instead of paying their own way as they previously did, become wards of the state.

Second, of the 46 million or so people without health insurance at any given time, about 45% will have health insurance within four months. This is one of the main findings of a 2003 study by the Congressional Budget Office, "How Many People Lack Health Insurance and for How Long?" That shouldn't be surprising in a country where most private health insurance is employer-provided and most unemployment spells last 11 weeks or less. Solutions that involve government mandates on employers or employees will, therefore, miss connecting with about half of the people who are uninsured at a given point in time.

But what if the governor could solve some of the problem by making health insurance cheaper? He can--not by regulating more, but by deregulating. Let me explain. In the last few decades, state governments, the main regulators of health insurance in the individual and small-group markets, have mandated coverages for many kinds of health care. According to the Council for Affordable Health Insurance (CAHI), a pro-market association of insurance carriers, there were 1,843 state mandates in 2006. Among the most common, and most expensive, mandates are chiropractic care, treatment for alcoholism and drug abuse, and mental health benefits. California's government mandates coverage for all of the above, as well as for many other benefits, including, for example, infertility treatment--a very expensive benefit.

Abolishing these mandates would allow people who don't want to be covered for these things to buy cheaper insurance, while still allowing those who want them to buy and pay for them. Would such an approach work? That's like asking whether, if the government currently required new cars to have CD players, eliminating that requirement would lower the price of a car. Of course it would work.

It is important, though, not to overstate its benefits. The gain to Californians from abolishing these mandates would not be huge. CAHI compiled data from America's Health Insurance plan and eHealthInsurance for the individual market and from the federal government for the small-group market and found that in 2003, although California had more mandated coverages than all but six other states, it had among the lowest insurance rates for individual health insurance policies ($1,885 versus a top rate of $6,048 for New Jersey.)

The reason, explains CAHI, is that in other ways California is much less regulatory than many other states. It does not, for example, require guaranteed issue on individual policies--which drives up premiums by forcing insurance companies to supply policies to all comers, regardless of health status. Yet the governor's proposal would reverse this somewhat and prevent insurance companies from saying no because of age and health.

California should not, contra Gov. Schwarzenegger, do new regulatory harm; rather it should repeal existing regulations that cause harm--so as to make health insurance even more affordable.

There is one other way to deregulate: The California government could allow any Californian to buy health insurance from any willing insurer in any state and be subject to the regulations of that state. That way, people could shop for the degree of paternalism they want. If they want insurance from a state that requires many coverages, they could do so and pay the high premiums that result. If they want bare-bones coverage, they could do so also. The result would surely be that some of the current uninsured would buy insurance. Were I in the market for individual insurance and given the choice, I would not bother paying for coverage for alcohol or drug abuse.

If a version of Gov. Schwarzenegger's plan passes, the only thing certain is that there will be more regulation, more government spending and more taxes. A better path would be to deregulate, and thus achieve some increase in the number of insured--without new spending or taxes or regulation

Source






EU FORCES BRITISH AMBULANCES TO WAIT FOR TEA

Ambulance crews in Brighouse could be forced to finish their tea breaks before turning out on an emergency call thanks to new EU rules. Staff working at ambulance stations in West Yorkshire are among those who will be affected by the changes which staff have described as 'madness'.

If paramedics receive a call to a road traffic accident or someone taken ill at their home the new rules mean they are officially supposed to complete their meal break before responding to the emergency call. Paramedics in other parts of the country where the new ruling has been adopted have warned lives will be lost.

In some parts of the country ambulance services have opted out of the European Working Time Directive that enforces breaks. If a major accident happened outside an ambulance station and staff were on the first part of their meal break it would technically mean they could not be asked to help.

Operations director for Yorkshire Ambulance Service, John Darley, said a letter was sent out to all front line staff at the beginning of December informing them of changes to rotas and meal breaks. 'These changes are aimed at unifying the staff in North, East, South and West Yorkshire who joined together on July 1, 2006 when Yorkshire Ambulance Service - YAS was formed. 'Only West and South Yorkshire staff will be affected by the rota or meal break changes - with a protected meal break being introduced for the first time in West Yorkshire. Staff in North and East Yorkshire will continue with their current rota and meal break arrangements,' he said.

But John Durkin, GMB branch secretary for YAS, said the aim of the ambulance service was to save lives and he felt professionalism would outweigh the new ruling. 'Brighouse is very fortunate to have professional staff whose main aim is to help people,' said Mr Durkin. He said the meal break issue was among other changes currently being discussed.

Just days before Christmas hundreds of ambulance workers were warned of possible redundancies in the Yorkshire area. Around 400 staff working for YAS were told of changes that were being made to ensure a more efficient service. But Mr Durkin said the changes would have a knock on effect on patient care. He criticised the service for its 'insensitive' handling of the situation which he said had been done without any consultation. 'The staff who are affected back up the front line workers. It will affect patient care,' he said

Source

***************************

For greatest efficiency, lowest cost and maximum choice, ALL hospitals and health insurance schemes should be privately owned and run -- with government-paid vouchers for the very poor and minimal regulation. Both Australia and Sweden have large private sector health systems with government reimbursement for privately-provided services so can a purely private system with some level of government reimbursement or insurance for the poor be so hard to do?

Comments? Email me here. If there are no recent posts here, the mirror site may be more up to date. My Home Pages are here or here or here.

***************************