Health care can be form of stimulus
Incoming Health Secretary Tom Daschle is already talking health care reform. But can we afford something like universal health care right now? Scott Jagow talks to economics correspondent Chris Farrell.
Economics editor Chris Farrell (American Public Media)
More on Health, America's Financial Crisis
TEXT OF INTERVIEW
Scott Jagow: It appears former Senator Tom Daschle will be Barack Obama's Health Secretary. Yesterday, Daschle held a conference call with a thousand people to talk about ideas for health care reform. He wants to start building consensus grassroots style.
Time to visit with our economics correspondent, Chris Farrell. Chris, reform is obviously needed, but can we really afford something like universal health care with everything else that's going on in the economy?
Chris Farrell: First of all, this would be spending that would help out Main Street, the average worker. We're in this recession dated back to December, we all get the feeling that this recession is getting worse. And so all these workers losing their jobs. And guess what happens when they lose their jobs? They lose their health care -- their family loses their health care. And I know there's this thing called Cobra, which allows you to continue your health care plan. You ever looked at Cobra? You ever seen how much it costs?
Jagow: Yeah, it's really expensive.
Farrell: I mean, you've lost your job! And then you have to pay this amount of money to continue your health care so your family gets coverage? I mean, who designed this?
Jagow: So are you suggesting that we spend on health care as a stimulus package for the economy?
Farrell: Absolutely. AS a stimulus package for the economy, partly, it's the right thing to do. Rather than this notion that we can't do it, we can't afford it, an economic crisis provides the opportunity of two real benefits. It will be part of the fiscal stimulus, and it will help out those families. Think about families when they lose their job. You know what? You can't time when your kids get sick. And there's all kinds of costs. And what is it -- half of all bankruptcies revolve around medical illness? We have lots of uninsured as it is already? So this would really help people out. But it's not one of these notions that, well, we need people to shop more. No, we don't need people to shop more. But people need economic security, they need to feel better, they need to not have to worry about their children getting sick. This is a good fiscal stimulus package -- embrace it and go big.
Jagow: How much do you think it would cost to do this right, and not skimp on it so much that it doesn't improve the system?
Farrell: Well, Dean Baker's number that he uses, about $160 billion -- and that seemed like a reasonable number to me, and that's a reasonable number for a fiscal stimulus. I don't know how much more the economy could absorb in terms of those figures. It's using tax credits, a little bit of mandates, opening up Medicare, opening up Medicaid. Longer term, you set up a better system.
Jagow: I have to say, $160 billion a few months ago probably would have sounded like a lot more, but recently . . .
Farrell: Hahaha. That's right, what was the old famous quip from Everett Dirkson, you know, "Billion dollars here, a billion dollars there, and all of a sudden, you're talking real money."
Jagow: Chris Farrell, our economics correspondent. Thanks.
Farrell: Thanks a lot.
Comments
Comment | Refresh
From Oshkosh, WI, 12/06/2008
I wrote to both US Senators and my US Representative a few days ago, send each the same letter, save for the salutation. Briefly, I said I want National Health Care now. National Health Insurance is a total scam, and only postpones the inevitable single provider National Health Care.
From Las Vegas, NV, 12/04/2008
Yes, yes, yes. I wrote the President-Elect (and my congressional delegation) about this as both a stimulus and national security issue a few days after the election.
From Las Vegas, 12/04/2008
Yes, yes, yes. I wrote the President-Elect (and my congressional delegation) about this as both a stimulus and national security issue a few days after the election.
From Lake Forest, CA, 12/04/2008
The worst thing we can do is put together a "system" that nibbles around the edges and tries to placate the special interest (read: AMA, insurance companies). Both were against Medicare. What is needed is universal SINGLE PAYER health care. No, we don't have to copy other countries' systems. It can be patterned after what already exists here - Medicare and Champus. What is never mentioned is the difference in the administrative costs of Medicare (2-5%) and the multiple commercial insurance plans (15-40%). What also isn't mentioned is the added tax we put on our businesses by requiring them to shoulder the burden while their competitors don't. And folding Medicare into a larger statistical population makes much more actuarial sense. Much more to discuss, but you get the point. We could make this a win-win situation. And no, it is NOT socialized medicine any more than Medicare or Champus is!
From Phoenix, AZ, 12/04/2008
I would like to reinforce the comments of L. Pattison. I have lived in 4 countries: Sweden, Canada, the UK & now the US. Although I am the beneficiary of an employment supported health scheme I would happily choose the health care systems of any of those countries over the US system. In each of these nationalized systems we never had issues with long waits for needed care. Ultimately this is a function of the funding level, at any thing remotely approaching the US spending levels this would not be a problem. Further, we didn't have the hassle of fighting with insurance companies for coverage nor the insecurity of wondering what would happen if one didn't have a job.
Americans seem to be happy with a socialized education system so what is so scary about a centralized health care system?
From Atlanta, GA, 12/04/2008
The current situation is even worse than you portrayed it. Many millions of people don't even qualify for COBRA, even if they could afford it. You can't get it if your company has less than 20 employees (so arbitrary!), your company stops offering health insurance or goes out of business. There's really nowhere to turn except the brutal individual health insurance market. Just try that if you're 50 or 60! Let's move forward with a single payor system now!
12/04/2008
I'm from the UK, which has a great national health service - which costs the country much less than Americans spend as a % of GDP. Yes, in the UK sometimes you have to wait for non-urgent surgery, but no-one goes bankrupt or goes without needed care because they lost their job. And if you can afford it and want insurance to pay for additional private care without the government telling you what you can have, that's allowed.
Remember there are two industries we are talking about here: the health INSURANCE industry (the one with the big dollars to lobby Congress) and the health CARE industry (doctors, hospitals). Providing single-payer coverage to ALL Americans will surely result in a much more efficient system, with the stimulus going to the CARE part of the system.
P.S. and not having to spend hours on the phone to insurance companies to sort out why they didn't pay your valid claim (latest one for me: provider entered wrong TIN, claim denied as TIN not on in-network provider list!) will make everyone more efficient!
From CA, 12/04/2008
I am heartened to hear that top government officials are now beginning to draw the connection between economic security and health care security. Well before the current mortgage crisis, one of the top causes of personal bankruptcy was due to outrageous health care costs--and that includes people with insurance that just doesn't cover enough.
The health care insurance industry is waking up to smell the new policy direction and offering up plans that will help them maintain their presence. It is largely the wasteful, redudndant administrative costs and cost-first patient last ideology from a private sector-based system that has led to our current agregious problems. Those who understand the research know that a singl-payer system is the best bet for making health care efficient.
But if people fear this change or policymakers lack the political will, we can still make big strides with serious regulation making sure out-of-pocket costs are capped low, key prevention services are free and accessible, coverage is comprehensive, and benefits are not subject to arbitrary limits. For example, people with chronic conditions like MS don't stop needing physical therapy after 10 visits. I sit on the Federal Activism Council for the National MS Society. We've developed a set of health care reform principles that focus on the needs of individuals with chronic , long-term health care needs. It's available online at: http://www.nationalmssociety.org/government-affairs-and-advocacy/index.aspx
From Indianola, IA, 12/04/2008
I am stimulated by the idea of national health as a stimulus package, but are there other costs? How bad will insurance companies be hurt by this package? Do we really want to send our businesses the message that “we the people” may vote to eliminate your services? Are these concerns calculated in that $160 billion dollar figure? This could be cleared up with some explanations on how a universal health care package would be implemented under the Obama administration. -- A critically minded Democrat
From west Hollywood, CA, 12/04/2008
GOOD JOB Chris Farrell! You are SOOOOOoo right on this. Given I have had no job in sight for now well over 2 years, I threw myself into the healthcare reform issue and the movement for a SINGLE PAYER universal healthcare plan reading and attending hearings and doing what I can as an artist, filmmaker, and writer to further the efforts towards launching such a plan.
I study a number of the "healthcare" economists and all of the same folks we all listen to and read. You, however, made the important connection - strongly and succinctly and clearly.
In this time when we in America have been so drawn to the big 3 automakers and the bailout noise re this, I have YET to hear a reporter or economist, though, "help" Americans "remember" what Iaccocca had to say about universal healthcare. He was a supporter and noted that Japan's success in the auto industry was due in large part to universal healthcare in that country.
Please have a look at some of the films I've been making on the healthcare reform issue particularly here in CA:
http://www.youtube.com/user/humantoo
Post a Comment: Please be civil, brief and relevant.
Email addresses are never displayed, but they are required to confirm your comments. All comments are moderated. Marketplace reserves the right to edit any comments on this site and to read them on the air if they are extra-interesting. Please read the Comment Guidelines before posting.
You must be 13 or over to submit information to American Public Media. The information entered into this form will not be used to send unsolicited email and will not be sold to a third party. For more information see Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.