John Goodman on health legislation prospects

He writes (email newsletter, I can’t find a web link),

This is a $3 trillion industry and basically all the special interests want to keep the basic structure of Obamacare. Each wants to get rid of its own Obamacare tax. But they want to keep the taxes on everyone else. That’s the main reason why the Obamacare revenues will stay in the system and there will be almost no federal health reform.

My takeaway is that the optimistic case for the bill is that it will allow the states to go in separate directions on health care, and perhaps in some states more market-oriented approaches will have an opportunity to succeed. The pessimistic case is that the health care system will remain a kludge, and the next time the Democrats are in power they will institute single payer.

But the single payer that we get will be much uglier than what other countries have, because of the power wielded by the provider interest groups. In fact, don’t be surprised if it turns out that the health insurance companies stay smack dab in the middle of our version of “single payer.”

This entry was posted in Economics of Health Care, public choice. Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to John Goodman on health legislation prospects

  1. djf says:

    “In fact, don’t be surprised if it turns out that the health insurance companies stay smack dab in the middle of our version of ‘single payer.’”

    Yes, and when that happens, the Democrats and their media mascots will boast about the insurance industry’s support for single payer as evidence that the Democrats are better stewards of “capitalism” than the Republicans. Bromides about FDR “saving” capitalism will be thrown around. Etc.

    Meanwhile, the Democrats’ wealthy donors and media spokes-stooges will be able to buy their way out of the system to which they have cheerfully condemned the rest of us.

  2. asdf says:

    “and perhaps in some states more market-oriented approaches will have an opportunity to succeed.”

    Which states and what approaches would you expect to see that were “market oriented”?

    • Andrew' says:

      We should have a “Venezuela Boys” project for Mississippi.

      Hehe, I guessed and then checked to make sure I was right.

      For a chuckle, Google “states with lowest life expectancy” but pause after typing “lowest”.

      • Andrew' says:

        Except that I meant Chicago Boys and it was Chile. Whatever.

        • Andrew' says:

          Alabama is close enough, and the Mises Institute is in Auburn. Then we could catch some big football if they are smart about scheduling.

          • Andrew' says:

            It is such a simple problem, really, when you think about the fact that people are only arguing about money. It is not something complicated like actual health.

  3. Andrew' says:

    As I like to repeat until I get a response, we already spend more government dollars on healthcare than almost any country.

  4. steve says:

    “and perhaps in some states more market-oriented approaches will have an opportunity to succeed.”

    Any state that wanted to take a more market oriented approach could have done so any time int he last 30 years. None have tried.

    Steve

Comments are closed.