So there’s been lots of back and forth in both THCB and Don Johnson’s BusinessWord about the uninsurance issue. Take a look at my comments alone to understand some of the issues involved.  And randomly enough it’s "Cover the Uninsured Week".  The irony of Orrin Hatch, a crypto-fascist from the wonderful state of Utah, being one of the Senators kicking off the week is just too delicious to forgo a mention. But the real issue and the reason to care is that, if you don’t have access to health insurance, your care and your health will be worse. In fact CDC data show that millions of uninsured adults forgo needed treatment for chronic health conditions. And of course who pays when they do show up for the treatment they need when these conditions have got worse? They do with their pain and those of us who are taxpayers or insured pay with our money.

Meanwhile Don fails to answer my question about what’s the difference between subsidies for the uninsured and more taxation, other than saying that universal insurance would not answer the question for the poor and the uninsured!!  That’s just ridiculous and is patently untrue.  If health care was free at the point of use, people wouldn’t not get it for cost reasons nor would they be beholden to huge debts because of it — those are by far the two worst symptoms of uninsurance. But he does raise the real politik situation when he says that:

What is the greater good here, take care of the 93% of Americans who
are insured today or the 7% who are uninsured for a year or more? I
think I know how the insured and their representatives in Congress will
vote.

And that’s the problem. So long as the majority (actually only 80%)
perceive their plight to be divorced from the minority, and no one
gives a tinkers cuss about the poorer 20%, we end up with what we
have.  Of course in reality we’re all mostly getting a worse deal than
we perceive and we’d be better off financially in a universal system that had built in cost constraints. So we are not seeing a "greater good". But then again hiding information from us is what the system’s all
about.

So yesterday I poked a little at Don Johnson from the Businessword in an article called What’s wrong about Don Johnson? Like the sporting gent he is, Don has replied in kind. So please go over there and read it first, then come back.

As is his right (after all I had called him mean) Don was somewhat feisty in his post.  I’m not going to get into the rights and wrongs of invading Iraq, other than to point out that it showed that we could as a nation come up with $100bn a year  if we felt it was important. I’m not ever going to comment on Don’s lack of understanding about what it means to be left-wing–after all he didn’t have the benefit of a Cambridge education on the subject and I did! I’m not even going to say much about his desire to get all those uninsured immigrants out of the country, although for a guy who runs a parenting magazine I assume Don knows something about parents employing cheap labor as nannies– but suffice it to say that the illegal immigrants are not flooding over the border to get cheap health care (although the Canadians are seeing that phenomenon to a minor extent). I’m not even going to ask Don to explain how the government by definitively regulating the price and purchase quantity of something in a particular way when pressured into it by a strong lobbying group (in this case raising doctors fees under Medicare) is creating a "market" when the determination of price and quantity by buyers and sellers without the interference of a third party is the hallmark of a market, as understood by generations of free-market conservatives who railed at government interference from FDR’s time onwards.

Instead I’m going to pose a simple question for Don to answer. He claims the problem is that a relatively small number of people (some 7% of the population) are uninsured for a full year or more.  That is roughly true.  But what Don doesn’t mention is that over 80 million people or more than 25% of the population are uninsured for up to 4 months in a two year period. Furthermore, once you are uninsured, if you have a chronic health condition becoming insured again is very hard and very expensive. But let’s ignore all that and let’s ignore the hordes of Latin Americans overrunning our country and stealing those $4 an hour jobs from the Americans queuing up to pick vegetables and work in meat packing plants.

Instead given the current state of the market for the individual in which family insurance can run up to $1000 a month for those without health conditions, how does Don propose to enable (and force) poorer families and sicker individuals to buy insurance without giving them a subsidy (i.e. taxing someone else)? And how is that taxation different than what I suggest we need to get to universal (and compulsory) health insurance?

Krugman’s series on health care continues in the NY Times and no doubt Don Johnson (over at BusinessWord) will be fulminating over this too. Don got a little offended when I called his stance mean. Don is a sensible guy and understands health care well, even if we disagree on on policy and politics.  So what do I mean by "mean".  Let’s ignore the fact that Don thinks that moderate social democrats like Krugman and Uwe Rhienhardt are the hard left — any observer of real politics would be giggling at that one.  I mean have they seriously suggested nationalizing health care delivery? No. Let alone nationalizing steel, autos, oil, and even agriculture.  (Yup, Don, that’s what the "hard left" from Lenin to Bevin did.  By his standards FDR was a Bolshevik).  But let’s look at Don’s opinion:

"I guess it’s ‘mean" to advocate regulated free markets that:
1. Help us have the lowest unemployment levels and lowest income taxes.
2. Give people who take the time to become educated, find rewarding jobs and seek out health care providers they like the freedom to spend their money on health care, if they think that’s important.
3. Try to minimize the role of centralized governmental planners who’ve never successfully created a health care system that cares for everyone in the country and makes everyone happy.
4. Give everyone incentives to earn the money needed to buy the best health care they can afford.
5. Not force wage earners to pay for the health care of strangers who could buy their own insurance if the politicians weren’t so good at giving everyone else’s money away in exchange for votes of the unthinking left."

The problem with this rhetoric is threefold. First, even if one accepts that we have "regulated free markets" in the rest of the economy and all those commies in Europe, Canada and Japan don’t, no one can seriously maintain that health care is a regulated free market like, say, buying groceries. It fails all of Adam Smith’s sniff tests for being in a state of perfect competition, and any serious student of the subject only has to read another Princeton hard lefty Paul Starr to know that the combination of vigorously pursued professional hegemony and third-party payment has left us with a system run by providers of various types, mostly for their own benefit.  So health care isn’t a regulated free market and people aren’t in a position to "spend their money on health care, if they think that’s important" the way any rational economist would understand–even if the vast majority of people didn’t have third party payment to cover that spending — which they do.

Second, Mark Pauly, a health care economist who is in Don’s camp wrote a hysterical piece in Health Affairs a few years back suggesting the reason we were so inefficient in our health care spending and spent so much on it, was that we were so efficient in the rest of the economy —  and could therefore afford to act like drunken sailors when it came to health care. I never understood why just because we had (apparently) lots of money to spare because we are a rich and productive nation, we should spend it all on a very inefficient health care system rather than, say, on Frappuchinos, education for first graders, or invading foreign countries which don’t have anything to do with us. There is no rational connection between the overall economy and how we choose to allocate resources to health care.  How we allocate resources to health care, and how much we allocate, is largely a political question. It’s directly political (in the 50% that the government pays for) and indirectly political in how (in order of importance) the government treats the taxation of health benefits, how it controls the industry’s pricing and capital spending, how it encourages its citizens to allocate their resources, and how it allows lawyers to persuade doctors (and doctors to persuade doctors, and drug companies to persuade doctors) that more care rather than less care is better. What any of that has to do with overall productivity in the economy escapes me. Finally while it may be a nice idea that health care is a luxury good that consumers will buy on the margin in preference to other luxury goods, that is not how we’re buying it yet and won’t be for quite some time.

But the third issue is where I call Don mean. Politically we have a straight choice.  We know that the costs of the health care system fall disproportionately on the poor and the sick.  And we also know that access to health insurance coverage is lower among those groups. Suggesting that people could voluntarily buy health insurance but just aren’t doing so is in my opinion total BS, and appears to be backed up the the opinions of America’s employees who are desperate to maintain their health benefits from their employers. Further we know that those without health insurance struggle mightily with the costs of care, and many more of them are in trouble than their equivalents in other countries where their access to coverage is subsidized by those people paying those high taxes that Don obsesses about (something else that needs to be refuted in another post).

You may recall that in the last couple of years we’ve had the ability give big tax cuts to the rich, and to spend nearly $100bn a year invading Iraq. The money that went on either of those political initiatives would have easily covered expanding health insurance coverage for those at the bottom end of the social ladder. In general you’re either for this or you’re against it.  And I think that, knowing the consequences of not having insurance on the health and wealth of those without it, to take the "against" position is mean.

As if this one couldn’t be seen coming a mile off.

When you have nothing to say about an issue, change the numbers. In the 1980s the Thatcher government in Britain reduced the number of unemployed at a stroke by changing the way they counted them. If you were not eligible to collect benefit because, say, your husband or wife earned too much, then — Hey Presto! — you weren’t unemployed any more, even if you’d been laid off and couldn’t find a new job. Now we hear that the Administration is saying that the CPS apparently overcounts the number of uninsured.
And this is from the clowns who brought us guarantees that WMDs were in Iraq and that the invasion of said nation would be paid for by the oil revenue, as our soldiers would be greeted with sweets and flowers. And we should trust them over decades of decent research by the census bureau why?

Oh, and Thatcher changed the counting to try to stop the unemployment number going over the political sensitive 3 million number.  But for all her efforts it went over that number under the new counting system within a few months anyway.  And anyone who doesn’t think we’ve got a crisis going on in uninsurance here either has never tried to buy health insurance in the individual market, or just doesn’t get out enough.