Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Economy
In reply to the discussion: Weekend Economists and the Accidental President December 13-15, 2013 [View all]Demeter
(85,373 posts)18. The Backroom Deal That Could've Given Us Single-Payer MUST READ!
http://truth-out.org/news/item/20595-the-backroom-deal-that-couldve-given-us-single-payer
It's not so much that Obama "sold us out" to a powerful constituency, but that he picked the wrong powerful constituency. A quick look at the financial details reveals that health insurance nationalization was always the real "path of least resistance."
Back in March 2009, leaks from the White House made it clear that a single-payer health insurance system was off the table as an option for health care reform. By doing so, the President had ruled out the simplest and most obvious reform of the disaster that is US healthcare. Instituting single-payer would have meant putting US health insurance companies out of business and extending the existing Medicare or Medicaid to the entire population. Instead, over the following weeks the outlines of the bloated monstrosity known as Obamacare emerged; an impossibly complicated Rube Goldberg contraption, badly designed, incompetently executed, and whose intended beneficiaries increasingly seem to hate.
The decision to abandon the nationalization of perhaps the most unpopular companies in the US is correctly attributed to the fundamental conservatism of the Obama White House, and its unwillingness to take on the health insurers, pharmaceutical companies, or any interest group willing and able to spend millions lobbying, hiring former politicians, and donating to campaigns. Obamas wimpiness, his need to always take the path of least resistance, became common tropes among the American left. Obamacare, liberals claim, is the best possible reform that couldve been wrangled out of the health insurance industry.
But were the many backroom deals that make up Obamacare really an easier alternative to nationalization? A look at the financial details reveals the opposite conclusion. In strictly financial terms, nationalization would have been the easiest way forward, costing relatively little and delivering immediate savings while making access to health care truly universal. Politically, Obama could have counted on the support of a unlikely ally of progressive causes: health insurance shareholders, the theoretical owners of those very companies who would have been relieved of their then-dubious investments with a huge payout...buying out the entire health insurance industry at an enormously generous premium of, say, 100 percent, would have cost the Treasury $240 billion about 2 percent of 2009 gross domestic product. And this figure is highly inflated premiums for buying out well-established companies rarely exceed 50 percent and are usually closer to 20 percent. Also, I am valuing the dubious claims of non-profit policyholders on par with the more vigorously-enforced property rights of for-profit shareholders.Other than the big smiles on the faces of health insurer shareholders across the country, what would have been the US Treasurys payoff for writing a $240 billion check? Once again, the numbers are simple, and startling. US private insurance, whether for-profit or otherwise, may well be the most wasteful bureaucracy in human history, making the old Gosplan office look like a scrappy startup by comparison. Estimates of pure administrative waste range anywhere from 0.75 percent to 2.6 percent of total US economic output...
MORE AT LINK...AND DAMNING AT THAT
It's not so much that Obama "sold us out" to a powerful constituency, but that he picked the wrong powerful constituency. A quick look at the financial details reveals that health insurance nationalization was always the real "path of least resistance."
Back in March 2009, leaks from the White House made it clear that a single-payer health insurance system was off the table as an option for health care reform. By doing so, the President had ruled out the simplest and most obvious reform of the disaster that is US healthcare. Instituting single-payer would have meant putting US health insurance companies out of business and extending the existing Medicare or Medicaid to the entire population. Instead, over the following weeks the outlines of the bloated monstrosity known as Obamacare emerged; an impossibly complicated Rube Goldberg contraption, badly designed, incompetently executed, and whose intended beneficiaries increasingly seem to hate.
The decision to abandon the nationalization of perhaps the most unpopular companies in the US is correctly attributed to the fundamental conservatism of the Obama White House, and its unwillingness to take on the health insurers, pharmaceutical companies, or any interest group willing and able to spend millions lobbying, hiring former politicians, and donating to campaigns. Obamas wimpiness, his need to always take the path of least resistance, became common tropes among the American left. Obamacare, liberals claim, is the best possible reform that couldve been wrangled out of the health insurance industry.
But were the many backroom deals that make up Obamacare really an easier alternative to nationalization? A look at the financial details reveals the opposite conclusion. In strictly financial terms, nationalization would have been the easiest way forward, costing relatively little and delivering immediate savings while making access to health care truly universal. Politically, Obama could have counted on the support of a unlikely ally of progressive causes: health insurance shareholders, the theoretical owners of those very companies who would have been relieved of their then-dubious investments with a huge payout...buying out the entire health insurance industry at an enormously generous premium of, say, 100 percent, would have cost the Treasury $240 billion about 2 percent of 2009 gross domestic product. And this figure is highly inflated premiums for buying out well-established companies rarely exceed 50 percent and are usually closer to 20 percent. Also, I am valuing the dubious claims of non-profit policyholders on par with the more vigorously-enforced property rights of for-profit shareholders.Other than the big smiles on the faces of health insurer shareholders across the country, what would have been the US Treasurys payoff for writing a $240 billion check? Once again, the numbers are simple, and startling. US private insurance, whether for-profit or otherwise, may well be the most wasteful bureaucracy in human history, making the old Gosplan office look like a scrappy startup by comparison. Estimates of pure administrative waste range anywhere from 0.75 percent to 2.6 percent of total US economic output...
MORE AT LINK...AND DAMNING AT THAT
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
65 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Five simple steps to financial freedom for women BY [i] Suzanne McGee and Alice Finn [/i]
Demeter
Dec 2013
#5
Hmmm. Jesuits... ¿Has the IMF also gone neo-Franciscan? ... A few recent snippets:
Ghost Dog
Dec 2013
#15
The New Advocates of Inequality want to take us back to the middle of the 19th century
Ghost Dog
Dec 2013
#45
Dent, Faber, Celente, Maloney, Rogers – What Do They Say Is Coming In 2014?
DemReadingDU
Dec 2013
#16
End of US quantitative easing at the beginning of 2014 at the latest (LEAP/E2020 May 2013)
Ghost Dog
Dec 2013
#29
No, the Budget Deal Isn't a "Compromise" (NOT AN EQUITABLE ONE, ANYWAY) By Patrick Caldwell
Demeter
Dec 2013
#26