rssReframing the Health Reform Debate
Tuesday, June 02, 2009 at 10:23 am
- 4 Comments
This morning, Democratic leaders will join White House officials to release a report outlining the economic case for enacting health care reform ASAP. In advance of that release, Christina Romer, who chairs the White House Council of Economic Advisers, penned an op-ed for Yahoo! News outlining the argument:
Health care reform is more than a social imperative – it is an economic necessity. A new study by the President’s Council of Economic Advisers demonstrates that the current American health care system is on an unsustainable path. Without health care reform, American workers and families will continue to experience eroding health care benefits and stagnating wages caused by the pressure of escalating health insurance premiums. And without reform, rising spending on Medicare and Medicaid will lead to massive and unsustainable Federal budget deficits.
Years of diagnosis on the ills of the U.S. health system have produced no cure. Health care expenditures in this country are currently 18 percent of GDP and, without change, will keep rising, until they account for nearly one-third of our total output by 2040.
None of this is news, of course. Health care experts have warned for years that medical spending is rising at rates that would swamp the economy in a few short decades. Still, it’s a clever strategy.
Supporters of an overhaul of the nation’s health care system have been screaming for years about the failure of a system that would leave more than 45 million Americans — roughly one in six — without health coverage. That is, they’ve been focusing on the health and social implications of inaction — to no avail. Largely the inaction is symptomatic of the lobbying prowess of the medical-industrial complex, but it’s surely significant that most of those 45 million people lacking insurance are of low and moderate incomes — not the type of folks who hold enormous sway in Washington.
By re-framing the health policy debate as an economic issue affecting everyone, Democrats are hoping to rally the type of popular support they’ll certainly require to pass such sweeping reforms.
4 Comments
Comment posted June 2, 2009 @ 1:17 pm
Interesting to see the forward-looking numbers from CEA calculating how much the proposed 1.5% cost trend deceleration could save American families in the future (if the 1.5% reduction can be enacted, which is of course the hard part). Over the last five years, such a deceleration, if enacted, would have reduced a family's healthcare cost by $3,095 total. For more information, go to http://www.healthcaretownhall.com.
Pingback posted June 2, 2009 @ 2:33 pm
[...] Mike Lillis at The Washington Independent: None of this is news, of course. Health care experts have warned for years that medical spending is rising at rates that would swamp the economic in a few short decades. Still, it’s a clever strategy. Supporters of an overhaul of the nation’s health care system have been screaming for years about the failure of a system that would leave more than 45 million Americans — roughly one in six — without health coverage. That is, they’ve been focusing on the health and social implications of inaction — to no avail. Largely the inaction is symptomatic of the lobbying prowess of the medical-industrial complex, but it’s surely significant that most of those 45 million people lacking insurance are of low and moderate incomes — not the type of folks who hold enormous sway in Washington. [...]
Comment posted June 2, 2009 @ 8:17 pm
Interesting to see the forward-looking numbers from CEA calculating how much the proposed 1.5% cost trend deceleration could save American families in the future (if the 1.5% reduction can be enacted, which is of course the hard part). Over the last five years, such a deceleration, if enacted, would have reduced a family's healthcare cost by $3,095 total. For more information, go to http://www.healthcaretownhall.com.
Comment posted June 18, 2009 @ 8:31 pm
All I can say, is I am rooting for universal health care. The greater society just is not that concerned with the lower income citizens of this country. And those of lower income feel disenfranchised and powerless. They shouldn't have to feel that way in such a “rich” country. The rest of the Western World has more of a sense of social responsibility. This doesn't have anything to do with being on welfare and being lazy and not taking responsibility for oneself. It is about having a good education (if one wants it) and good healthcare so an individual has a greater chance of being a secure, productive person in the society. As things are now—we are defeating ourselves by leaving a large segment of our population needy and less productive. Greediness rules. It is all about me, when it should be all about us!!
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
