“Could you kindly explain these socialist ideals that you talk about? They’re nowhere to be seen at present. All right, maybe somebody’s botched the experiment, but when and where can we expect to see them; what do they amount to, eh? Socialism, of whatever variety, is a sort of caricature of the Gospel message. Socialism promotes only equality and a full belly, and that only by means of coercion…you’ll find equality and full bellies in any good pigsty! What a tremendous favor they have bestowed on us! Equality and plenty! Give us a moral society!”
One of my favorite Americans has long been Russ Roberts due to his towering intellect and the fact that he is a classically liberal/libertarian economist. Perhaps most importantly, he is a kind and thoughtful human being who can conduct an intellectual conversation without falling prey to outrage, which seems to be a lost art in today’s zeitgeist. I highly recommend his podcast EconTalk. In a recent episode, he did a rare monologue on the topic of our current divisive civil discourse in which he attributes our collective descent to a large degree on the information revolution and how we consume and relate to media, and even more troubling – how tribalism leads us as people to not be all that interested in objective truth so much as confirming our own views and biases and feeling outraged at a faceless enemy. He also indicates that today’s society at large lacks the ability to look at information with a healthy degree of skepticism.
In the interest of brevity I skip to his conclusions of how we can improve this situation as individuals while recommending listening to the full episode to get the depth and richness that only a full listen can provide. Still, his practical steps to take are worth posting as a summary for those who can’t devote an hour to the show:
- Humility – In Roberts’ words – We don’t know everything we think we do. I’ve learned to enjoy saying, ‘I don’t know.’ Admitting ignorance is bliss. Recognize, as Shakespeare suggested, ‘There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy.’ Roberts is careful to point out with this topic that humility has its own risks if there is something that should be taken on with passion. Again, in Roberts’ words – “There ares some things we know. So we should stand by our principles. But we should be humble and aware of the possibility that some of those principles may not be correct.”
- Follow people on Facebook and Twitter who you don’t agree with, but try to make sure they are people who are relatively civil, or you risk sparking your own anger and outrage.
- Hold your anger for a day. This is a common theme from Roberts and one I have personally benefited from and adopted. I stand by it. If you feel anger and outrage coming into a post – hold it for a day and return to it. Almost every time I have either decided not to post the comment by modifying it or just ignoring it. It’s all right to ignore and not respond to outrage!
- Spend less time on the Internet, more time with human beings. This is my favorite of the advice Roberts gives.
- Try to notice when you enjoy outrage. “Just be aware of the fact that you may have that personality trait. I think many of us do. Then, when you find yourself feeling the sweetness of that anger, to realize that that’s a very unhealthy emotion, and that you should keep an eye on it.”
The Compelling Case for Change
Every individual in this country has a personal story of how they have witnessed dysfunction and brokenness in our American health care system. All 300 million+ Americans have in the very least suffered a really screwed up and indecipherable bill (or set of bills from an uncoordinated system for the same service) with little price transparency and with lack of clarity on what services were actually offered and why. Many of us have been subjected to the extremely frustrating lack of coordination across systems, forcing us to attempt to connect the pieces together. A depressing amount of us have even witnessed ourselves or a loved one being harmed by a medical error or a health system acquired infection. A doleful companion to these visible operational challenges is the fact that we are all increasingly paying inordinately growing sums, over $3 trillion and counting, into health care, while getting increasingly little in return. The 18th Century Scottish philosopher, economist, and essayist David Hume once observed of public debt that, “It must, indeed, be one of these two events; either the nation must destroy the public credit, or public credit will destroy the nation. It is impossible that they both can subsist, after the manner they have been hitherto managed…” One can easily substitute Hume’s concerns with public debt to its modern American equivalent of health expenditures to develop the same sense of urgency. In fact, as the above graphs on cumulative projections of American health care costs and government spending on health entitlements reveals, public credit and health care expenditures are inextricably linked, unsustainable, and crowding out all other areas of government expenditure as well as crowding out what we as consumers would otherwise prefer to spend our dollars on. As will be discussed later, the great tragedy is that we are pouring money into reactive systems of care that do little ultimately to increase our quality of life and life span. It is largely non-value added money that is siphoned off from other valuable areas of the economy. This has to change.
We have a crisis on our hands, and it will take a concerted and united effort combined with a sense of urgency to destroy it. Lately, I have been drawing a tremendous amount of inspiration and sense of personal urgency through the reading of David Goldhill’s Catastrophic Care: Why Everything We Think We Know about Health Care Is Wrong. For those like myself who are industry insiders, consider this a scathing and devastating indictment that we need to absorb, comprehend, and become devoted in our own little corners to remedying. Think of this book as the prosecution’s case against our industry. Do we have a defense? If not, how do we respond? Otherwise, I am afraid that the unsustainable industry as it stands today will be forced to deal with remarkable disruption and disintermediation when consumers and/or governments finally do revolt and demand change of a significant magnitude that will by then be required. Complacency should cease to be an option. For those who believe they are woefully inadequate to the task of understanding the complexity of health care (this group does not have to be mutually exclusive from the previously mentioned one of industry insiders), consider this book a remarkably easy layman’s guide that details what ails our health care system and why it should matter to you. In short, I find this book to be highly accessible and critical for all Americans to read. If it does not apply to you as a prosecution’s case, then it should easily apply to you as an easy to read and understand textbook that covers the range of issues that you as a consumer and voter should be familiar with as it relates to our broken health care systems.
The Prosecution’s Case
In of itself, Goldhill’s introduction is packed with enough vignettes and charges to make one think and feel deeply about the industry. Beginning with the visceral experiences, he presents his own personal stories of fears, frustration, and loss in the forms of how his son and father experienced health care. The former is a tragicomic string of inefficiencies, complacency, and poorly performing systems through an appendectomy, the latter a much more unfortunate set of circumstances that culminated in a hospital acquired infection and ultimately death. Along the way, Goldhill observes both technical and life-saving brilliance incongruously combined with administrative and operational incompetence. His pointed question, which should be our industry-wide challenging refrain is, “why does therapeutic excellence often exist side by side with such backwardness?”
It isn’t just the performance aspects of our health care system that causes alarm. The other side of the formula is the price of health care. It would be one thing if we could say, “sure, it’s bad, but at least it’s cheap!” But with health care creeping up on 20% of GDP, that is appallingly and depressingly not the case. Here is a thought experiment: what would be going on in the streets and in the media if we woke up tomorrow to $15.00 per gallon gasoline prices? I dare say this would inevitably become the subject for major political and social upheaval. And yet, this is exactly the type of inflation that has occurred over the last few decades in American health care. The critical distinction is that the dramatic inflation has been hidden from us, even though it still has just as significant of an impact to our bottom-line, take-home cash. In the book, Goldhill uses the simple example of a woman named Becky who works at his company: “Becky will actually contribute over $10,000 into American’s health care system this year – most of it through payments she is not aware of…even if we somehow tame the explosive growth in health care costs (literally reducing cost growth to zero), our system already assumes that Becky will pay well more than $1.2 million over her lifetime. And that’s assuming she never has a major illness, in which case she will almost certainly pay much more. Becky is pouring far more money into our health care system than she imagines.” Indeed, I would add that this out of sight and out of mind aspect of funding health care access is the primary reason we have increasing take home pay inequality in America, as I covered in a separate blog post.
“Why does therapeutic excellence often exist side by side with such backwardness?”
The Foundational Industry/Government Error
Goldhill articulates what he believes to be the primary culprit in our combined system of rising costs and operational backwardness – a funding and care selection model he indicates is defined by what he calls “Surrogates.” In this group, you could lump commercial insurers as well as government models such as Medicare and Medicaid. Goldhill observes that, “The dominant health insurance model requires us to turn over our role as consumers to what I call Surrogates: private insurers, Medicare, and Medicaid. The theory is that only the Surrogates have enough knowledge to control excess care, enough market power to discipline rising prices, and enough vested interest in our health to drive greater safety and quality. But the past fifty years suggest the theory is wrong; the Surrogates themselves create many of the incentives for bad behavior in health care…American health care relentlessly expands the definition of medical need, engages in administratively complex and nontransparent practices, and overinvests in expensive technologies because these actually serve the institutional (and financial) needs of the Surrogates. Conversely, the health care industry underinvests in service, safety, and efficiency, because these are not the Surrogates’ priorities (even if they are our priorities).” Of course, there is a lengthy history here on how we got to this point of over-reliance on Surrogates, some of which is covered in a separate post, where I will admit to relying heavily on Milton Friedman, and another separate post where I borrow heavily from Dr. Michael Accad’s wonderful Alert and Oriented blog.
The Insulated Island of Health Care
A large part of the appeal and readability of Goldhill’s account is that his analogies, connections, and consistently simplistic and relatable terms he coins keeps the reader engaged and understanding of typically complex themes. One such term is “The Island of Health Care.” Any time you see this, you know you are entering into the zone of incomprehensible and nonsensical ways of doing and defending the ways in which health care operates. On this topic, Goldhill levels these charges:
Health care experts often make confident, absolutist assertions that appear truly ridiculous when held up to the mirror of the world outside health care. For example, they write about how technology is inexorably driving up the cost of care, often while working on a powerful laptop for which they paid a few hundred dollars. The secretary of health and human services says that catastrophic health insurance isn’t real insurance because it doesn’t pay for routine expenses; apparently, she’s never had an auto or homeowner’s policy. Truly brilliant analysts argue that health care can never be a normal industry because the need for care is so concentrated that in any given year roughly 70 percent of care is used by only 10 percent of the population. But a far greater concentration of spending in any given year is the rule for almost every other universally-consumed expensive good or service; surely, they know that we don’t use insurance to pay for purchases of homes, cars, weddings, and college educations?……Sure a person hit by a bus or having a heart attack has a unique ‘demand curve’ for medical services. But the fact that some health care is truly urgent doesn’t mean that all of it is…most care is no longer of this type; the biggest share we spend on health care now goes toward identifying and managing long-term conditions…Yet this new reality as barely intruded into the way we think about, pay for, and manage care. It’s like organizing the entire care-service business to protect us against only the possibility of a tire blowout on a highway……Forget the rhetoric: our health care system isn’t an example of ‘socialism’ or ‘profit-driven medicine.’ In fact, it is such a strange beast, I’m not even sure we have an appropriate label for it. The best analogy might be the Galapagos Islands, set so far offshore from the mainland of industry evolution and economic laws that is has produced odd, anomalous creatures of policy and regulation.
The “Imperial” Health System
“Imperial Health System” is another one of Goldhill’s lexicographical innovations. What I enjoy most about this section is his focus on what actually matters to our health, largely forgotten and neglected in all of our political rhetoric and tug of war – our society and our lifestyles. This is what health care industry parlance is increasingly calling “Population Health,” although a fair amount of this term is still very much being used for inside the four walls of the hospital activities. Speaking of the Imperial Health System, Goldhill states that, “of the 34 rich countries in the OECD, the United States ranks a low 27 in life expectancy. Whenever a new study on comparative life span is published, most commentators draw conclusions about the weaknesses of our health care system, especially our unique lack of guaranteed universal access. Many note that we rank low in life expectancy (and other measures of general health) ‘despite’ spending so much more on care than any other country. This casual and universal conflation of health care and health represents the greatest triumph of imperial health care – a true hijacking of language. Despite all truly extraordinary achievements of medicine – and its promise for our future – health care remains a relatively small factor in determining life spans. We know what really matters in both length of life and physical well-being: income and education; minimization of smoking and substance abuse; diet and exercise; family life and public safety. The reason Swedes, Japanese, and Italians live so long isn’t their (very different) health care systems; it’s that they live like Swedes, Japanese, and Italians. And the reason Americans and Britons are on the lower end of longevity rankings isn’t our (again very different) health care systems. It’s that we live – and eat and exercise – like Americans and Britons.”
One interesting tidbit that Goldhill serves up is the fact that although he is a lifelong Democrat, his stance on the Affordable Care Act is that it doubled down on everything that already existed that was wrong with health care. His skepticism is made evident when he indicates that, “The whole bill is based on the fundamentally weird (but apparently bi-partisan) idea that ever more expensive health care can somehow be made affordable to all by clever financial engineering. The ACA is less a reform of our health care system than an extension of its past principles to their logical end.”
Like it or not, health care is an industry…
It may seem jarring and unseemly to think of institutions chartered with providing life-giving and life-saving care as also an industry focused on making money, but this is a reality and I would argue is a benevolent, not a malevolent force and we need to use it even more and in more transparent and consumer-driven ways. I could do a whole section on the fact that industry combines the virtue of profit-making prudence with many other virtues such as generosity, justice, mercy, etc., but for expediency I direct the interested reader to check out Deirdre McCloskey’s book Bourgeois Virtues for more on that topic. For his part, Goldhill states that, “We may not like thinking of health care as an industry, but it is one. Roughly 15 million Americans now earn their living from health care; forty-eight of the Fortune 500 largest companies are in the health business. The majority of people in this industry are motivated by a desire to do good, to help others. But they are also driven by their economic incentives. As a business, health care has done very well by the conventional wisdom that care is fundamentally different from everything else (can you imagine anyone proposing with a straight face that antitrust laws be suspended so that a region’s oil producers, refiners, and distributors be allowed to cooperate to achieve lower prices? Well, that’s essentially the premise behind Accountable Care Organizations, a key structural reform in the ACA
The reason Swedes, Japanese, and Italians live so long isn’t their (very different) health care systems; it’s that they live like Swedes, Japanese, and Italians. And the reason Americans and Britons are on the lower end of longevity rankings isn’t our (again very different) health care systems. It’s that we live – and eat and exercise – like Americans and Britons.”
…so we need to create true consumers for the industry to function properly
This post has the great risk of parting the reader into a natural left versus right camp, but one benefit of Goldhill’s book is that I sincerely believe he is trying to find and articulate a consumer-driven solution that might appeal to both the sides of the left/right political spectrum. Goldhill consistently returns to the necessary role of consumers making decisions in the market in any industry, and no less so than in health care. He holds up the example of Singapore above all as the health care model he appreciates the most. There is a role for insurers there, but they are not the comprehensive surrogates that they have become in America. In other words, they actually function like insurance companies. Singapore subsidizes health care funding for the poor, but the consumers themselves make decisions on how to spend those dollars across all income spectrums. The contemporary equivalent of this in American policy debates would be funded health savings accounts for Medicare and Medicaid. To these ends, Goldhill strikes his balance between left and right forces here, and adds his observations on just how bad for consumers this market is today. Here is one health care consumer analogy that Goldhill pulls out that would be amusing if it were not so tragically true of how health care interacts with consumers: “Can you imagine taking your care to a body shop and, moths later, receiving a separate bill from the guy who reattached the fender? And the shop saying it couldn’t discuss the matter with you? The real premise behind restoring the primacy of customers is to force providers to chase us with lower prices, fewer errors, and better service. On the Mainland, we actually do relatively shopping around; sellers offering discounts and better service find us. It’s our current Surrogate-driven system that forces us to do the work and get pre-approval for reimbursement, to discover which facility is good at which treatments, to find a doctor, to coordinate the work of specialists, to negotiate price, to uncover safety records. Simply put, health care performs badly because it can get away with it.”
I really like this point about sellers here. Too often, health care experts make the point that consumers are not educated enough to make their own decisions. This assumes that consumers have to be perfectly informed, and since they can’t be, they might as well rely entirely on the Surrogates. Goldhill makes the point that we don’t have to be perfectly informed for a functioning market. In a consumer-driven market, sellers will be forced to innovate on the marketing and outreach and customer services aspects as well on the actual performance of their business. They will have it in their interests (of survival) to educate and inform the consumers. Competition will be driven by pricing and outcomes transparency. Only in this type of market paradigm will we see prices hurtle down and outcomes increase.
The ACA is less a reform of our health care system than an extension of its past principles to their logical end.
The Policy and Industry Changes Required
The health care mess is so complex and is several layers thick that there are many ways to propose consumer-driven corrections. Many of these that I am personally favorable to were highlighted in the early days of Paul Ryan’s “Better Way” set of plans for health care reform. Goldhill lays out his own proposals that I think have the merits of threading the left/right needle that might make it politically feasible. Much remains to be seen on what will come out of the united GOP’s ACA repeal and replace plans, and Goldhill’s ideas preceded the contemporary debates by a few years and may not have any impact on the debate. Still, given the choice between the status quo (assuming failure of the GOP to move replace all the way through), I would take Goldhill’s prescriptions, including government oversight and management of some forms of catastrophic insurance, any day of the week. The important factor is that the majority of the market should move to consumer-driven decision-making, which is the benefit of a Health Savings Account driven reform model. In Goldhill’s words, “…to recognize that change is inevitable and unpredictable; choice, dynamism, and competition of ideas (and business models) are essential to progress. Ironically, in the one service where the potential human benefit from innovation is greatest – health care – all our impulses have been to enact policies that impede choice, competition, and all the dynamism they unleash….Creating a more prominent role for consumers doesn’t mean eliminating that of the government’s: it means making consumers, rather than industry, the government’s partner in pursuing health policy. Even in Singapore, government plays an essential role in health care. Critics often label this attempt to rebalance forces as ‘free-market health care.’ Well, this book proposes national cradle-to-grave catastrophic health insurance, mandatory health savings accounts, large-scale health grants for the needy, rigorous enforcement of price transparency and antitrust legislation, and a national health database. Only on the Island of Health Care could this be described as ‘free market.'”
This effectively means allowing government a role in ensuring that the person who has that urgent accident or that fatal disease are well-taken care of. It also means that the much more significant impact consumer, the one with diabetes and heart failure, begins to be a conscious consumer of how they interact with and the value they get out of the health system. Furthermore, it starts to provide the much-needed incentives to both consumers and health care industry players to actively seek and reward healthy lifestyle choices in much more meaningful ways than the current policy of tinkering at the margins with value-based payments.
For the industry’s part, much of the current market direction and focus is on interoperability of systems, cognitive computing/artificial intelligence, predictive analytics, and preventive care. Let’s hope that the bulk of these efforts and industry innovation focuses less around volume targeting and billing/revenue optimization (where much of “innovation” has occurred in the recent past) and more around the health, wellness, and fabric of our community/social determinants of health that matter. Let Americans become more like the Japanese and Swedish, and let’s slay this health care monster, before it slays us.
Given the tremendous amount of focus on income inequality these days and the common knee-jerk reaction to push harmful and counterproductive wealth redistribution policies as a palliative, it is timely and important that Mark Warshawsky of the Mercatus Center at George Mason University recently published a working paper exploring the largely heretofore ignored impact to earnings inequality of employer-based healthcare coverage as a component of total compensation.
The punchline is this: healthcare coverage costs have consistently risen faster than wages for most Americans over the past four decades. Given that healthcare coverage is relatively equal across the income ranges (it is roughly the same cost to an employer to cover a family of four in the lower 30th decile of earners as that of a family of four in the highest 10th decile of earners), rising healthcare costs will harm and encroach more grievously on the employer’s ability to increase take home earnings for lower income earners. In other words, increasing healthcare costs, even if growing at the same rate for lower income workers as higher income workers, will eat up more of a percentage of total compensation and restrain actual take-home earnings for lower income workers. Furthermore, most studies, including the high- visibility and high impact to public policy book by Thomas Piketty, Capital in the Twenty-first Century, have used after-tax earnings data to compare wealthy and poor, resulting in loud alarm bells on inequality. The impact? Politicians across the globe, including President Obama, declared income inequality the defining issue of our time, but based upon partially constructed data! Warshawky’s research more appropriately focuses on total compensation, which provides a more comprehensive assessment of what is going on, and in this picture is revealed a more tightly coupled growth between the income poles. This is not to say that inequality in earnings is not a problem we should address, it is more to say that policies to address it should focus on the actual cause – which is not the perceived ability of the wealthy to extract wealth at the expense of the poor, but a direct result of the pernicious impact of rising healthcare coverage costs that crowd out earnings growth for those in lower income categories.
Warshawsky uniquely pulls directly from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, which provides a full assessment of the total compensation aspects of American workers. Contrast that with most studies’ data sources from the IRS and Social Security that only include cash earnings, and one develops an understanding that Warshawsky has the superior data set. In previous research using BLS data from 1999-2006, Warshawsky was able to demonstrate that if it had not been for increases in healthcare coverage costs, earnings growth between income levels would have been roughly the same. In order to understand and present the data more clearly and in layman’s terms, I have taken Warshawsky’s data and plugged in and extrapolated where I could while backing into implicit assumption numbers on baseline earnings, healthcare coverage costs, and fringe benefits for middle decile income and comparing them to top 1% incomes from 1999-2006. The patterns revealed are that while overall total compensation increased in the same percentage range over the course of seven years (34% for middle income earners and 36% for high income earners), the differences were more substantial and divergent within the earnings and healthcare coverage components of total compensation. Whereas for middle income earners wages increased only 3.5% per year, wages increased by 4.4% per year for high-income earners. This may not seem like much for any given year, but over time the differences become pronounced – over the course of seven years, the compounded gain for high income earners was 35% growth in take home earnings compared to only 27% for lower income earners. The key constraint in earnings growth for middle income earners is the fact that healthcare coverage costs rose much faster as a percentage of total compensation – rising at an annual rate of 9.9% compared to a more modest 6% for higher income levels. As Warshawsky indicates, this meant a rise in healthcare coverage as a percentage of total compensation for middle income earners from 7.2% in 1999 to 10.4% by 2006. In comparison, higher wage earners saw a modest increase of 4.0% to 4.3%.Graphs 1 and 2 visually show the impacts. While the slopes of the topline are similar between the two income groups (both rising at annual rates just over 4%), the relative mix of earnings, healthcare coverage, and fringe benefits is dissimilar; healthcare coverage costs are constraining earnings increases for middle income earners. Graphs 3 and 4 represent the percentage of total compensation aspects of the different components of total compensation, further visual evidence of the forces at play here – healthcare coverage increases for middle income earners takes up a larger percentage of total income and constrains earnings growth.
For anyone interested in a more fulsome review of the examples and scenarios I have created on top of Warshawsky’s values, I have attached the spreadsheet at health-care-costs-inequality. The detailed numbers simply provide another view in support of what Warshawsky states in the working paper, “Though rising healthcare costs eat away at wage growth for everyone, the effects will be largest for the working and middle classes because their healthcare costs are so large relative to the rest of their compensation package.”
In the rest of the paper, Warshawsky provides empirical evidence updates dating through 2014 using the same BLS approach as well as discussing supporting and conflicting studies. The conclusion is the same as the data above that cuts off in 2006, so I won’t drone on at length on it here. The policy implications are much the same as well – relief from healthcare coverage costs and decoupling health insurance from employer-based coverage, allowing American citizens to demand and receive higher wages with which they can then decide how to spend will do more for the lower and middle classes than any economically distorting wealth redistribution program.
Since I think that most news is overblown fluff, I have little sympathy for the endless pieces about “What we’ve learned about the world in 2016.” Against the background of all of human history, 2016 taught us next to nothing. If you just discovered that horrible people often gain vast political power with widespread popular support, you’re in dire need of remedial history. If you’ve just discovered that politicians’ personalities matter at least as much as their policy views, you’re in dire need of remedial political science. If you’ve just discovered that demagogic appeals to national identity work, you’re in dire need of remedial psychology. I am only a messenger.
Still, if you compelled me to articulate what I learned in 2016, here is the most I’ll admit.
1. American voters are at the moment even more irrational than I thought they were in 2015.
2. Republicans are at the moment even more nationalist than I thought they were in 2015.
3. Democrats are at the moment even more socialist than I thought they were in 2015.
From Economist Bryan Caplan from George Mason University at his Econlog blog. I concur!
“There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.” – Benjamin Disraeli
The L.A. Times provides a nice set of cherry picked data to justify the Affordable Care Act. The author is also fond of the word fatuous to describe Republican plans to repeal and replace Obamacare, so I feel compelled to maintain usage of the word my thoughts on the matter.Ignoring the long descent that healthcare has been on for decades now, and then claiming that slowing the growth rate of healthcare spend, while it still moves above the general rate of inflation and much of the decrease in observed to expected growth is related to the recession, is analogous to giving a kid a blindfold and a bat and told to hit the piñata in the tree in your backyard, meantime you have tied the piñata to a forest in the park two miles away. When the kid swings and misses, you take the blindfold off and tell him to try again, and declare success when he at least swings level at the air. The point being, even if Obamacare impacted these selective statistics, it is still miles from being where it needs to be.
To wit, there is many citations of costs decreasing, but the author conveniently ignores that those costs are going back up and projected to once again hit their stride of 6% a year, double the rate of inflation, for the foreseeable future. The recession was a temporary halt in healthcare spend, so it is really convenient to leave that fact out. Consider that in 1946 the average inflation adjusted hospital stay was $30 per day whereas today it is an astounding $2,200, a 70-fold increase. Trumpeting a modest decrease in this awful record is quite a bit like missing the forest for the trees.
Plus, while there is a lot of current debate about the tactics of repeal and replace given the slim Senate majority and how to use arcane Senate rules on budget reconciliation, Paul Ryan and others have come up with plans on replacing Obamacare, all under the banner of the Better Way moniker, which I detail in further detail elsewhere. Apparently this journalist is too lazy to look that up. But yes, I do hope that Republicans don’t take the risk of getting repeal without replace and do both at once. I honestly am not holding my breath given Republican ineptitude in the past.
It’s nice that the uninsured rate is going down, but of course a federal mandate to buy health insurance upon pain of hefty tax penalties is going to increase insurance rates. Would you praise a parent who upon their child spilling a drink or dropping food forced them to do 40 push-ups before eating again and then declaring to Facebook, “my child can do 40 pushups!”? No, I think not. At any rate, the real question is whether this metric on its own is the most important one and decoupled from the irrefutable evidence that healthcare costs and insurance premiums continue to skyrocket at a double-digit pace. Plus, recent research from economist Mark Warshawsky indicates that skyrocketing health insurance premiums have held down take home wages, as health insurance coverage has gone up for the lower and middle classes as a percentage of their total compensation from 4% to 12% in just a couple of decades – meaning they are not getting raises in take home pay because it is getting swallowed up in health insurance. Since inequality is a focus these days, look at the failures in our government run healthcare system as a main culprit.
If we are concerned with people not seeing the doctor, providing a stipend for catastrophic insurance and flexible Health savings accounts would have done the same thing without the enormous bureaucratic bloat that has led to skyrocketing premiums. And uncompensated care is an important gap to close, but this is all a bunch of cost shifting. What used to be covered through disproportionate share payments at the county and state levels, where great board oversight could be applied with local knowledge, is now being soaked up by cross-subsidies through the federal tax code – out of sight, out of mind, no accountability, and requiring hospitals to create a new administrative burden to work through the ACA and all its complexity.
This also ignores the many blatant failures of Obamacare, which I helpfully capture here. https://wordpress.com/post/gymnasiumsite.wordpress.com/117
The American Enterprise Institute recently published a thought-provoking and helpfully brief primer on how Medicaid funding works, what it means to shift to state block grants, and why politically such a move will be tremendously challenging.
Alas, something much more radical would actually give the poor better access and would drive the competition in the marketplace that would start to incent health care delivery systems and insurers to compete for their dollars. To wit, why not simply focus on an individual income basis and fund catastrophic insurance for unexpected events (what insurance is designed to do in every other industry save healthcare) complemented with funding for a flexible with annual rollover features Health Savings Account? This seems to me to be the ultimate path out of Medicaid and all of its challenges, such as those raised in this post. It would provide purchasing power directly to individuals, get them out of narrow networks defined by states, and remove the massive costs of administering programs through federal and state bureaucracies.
Turning on the nightly news, whether it be local or global, is bound to be an exercise in depressing futility. Whether it is a twelve car pileup, the local restaurant who failed its health exam, a case of road rage, a corrupt politician caught with his hands in the proverbial pot, despair and protest over Trumps’ latest tweet, acts of terrorism, or perhaps even the more provincial annual outrage over the grinch who stole Christmas by taking the yard inflatable Santa and his reindeer out of someone’s yard. For sure, the element of the depravity of mankind is ever with us, but that should not stop us from celebrating and recognizing that the times we live in are better than ever on a tremendous amount of fronts.
Take for instance the “Notable and Quotable” section out of today’s Wall Street Journal, in which Johan Norberg points out that since 1990, actual poverty, defined as living on $1.9 per day or less and adjusted for inflation and local purchasing power parity, has fallen from 37 percent of the world population to less than 10 percent today. That’s a rate of 138,000 people escaping poverty every day.
In a more fulsome article on the subject within The Spectator back in August of 2016, Norberg elaborates on the points of the golden age we live in and the reasons for people’s doom and gloom pessimism.
If you think that there has never been a better time to be alive — that humanity has never been safer, healthier, more prosperous or less unequal — then you’re in the minority. But that is what the evidence incontrovertibly shows. Poverty, malnutrition, illiteracy, child labour and infant mortality are falling faster than at any other time in human history. The risk of being caught up in a war, subjected to a dictatorship or of dying in a natural disaster is smaller than ever. The golden age is now…
…Look at 1828, when The Spectator was first published. Most people in Britain then lived in what is now regarded as extreme poverty. Life was nasty (people still threw their waste out of the window), brutish (corpses were still displayed on gibbets) and short (30 years on average). But even then things had been improving. The first iteration of The Spectator, in 1711, was published in a Britain whose people subsisted on average on fewer calories than the average child gets today in sub-Saharan Africa.
Karl Marx thought that capitalism inevitably made the rich richer and the poor poorer. By the time Marx died, however, the average Englishman was three times richer than at the time of his birth 65 years earlier — never before had the population experienced anything like it.
Fast forward to 1981. Then, almost nine in ten Chinese lived in extreme poverty; now just one in ten do. Then, just half of the world’s population had access to safe water. Now, 91 per cent do. On average, that means that 285,000 more people have gained access to safe water every day for the past 25 years.
But what about the plights facing the world of today? Norberg’s advice is sound:
Times have been rough since the financial crisis, yet for all the talk of Americans ‘left behind by globalisation’, median income for low- and middle-income US households has increased by more than 30 per cent since 1970. And this excludes all the things you can’t put a price on, such as advances in medicine, an extra ten years of life expectancy, the internet, mass entertainment, and cleaner air and water…
…Parts of the world are falling to pieces but fewer parts than before. Conflicts always make the headlines, so we assume that our age is plagued by violence. We obsess over new or ongoing fights, such as the horrifying civil war in Syria — but we forget the conflicts that have ended in countries such as Colombia, Sri Lanka, Angola and Chad. We remember recent wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, which have killed around 650,000. But we struggle to recall that two million died in conflicts in those countries in the 1980s. The jihadi terrorist threat is new and frightening — but Islamists kill comparatively few. Europeans run a 30 times bigger risk of being killed by a ‘normal’ murderer — and the European murder rate has halved in just two decades.
But inequality is growing faster than ever, you might retort. I am going to refute much of notions of how many studies focus on inequality and why they are flawed in a post later on this week, but for now I will point back to an earlier post as to why this is the wrong focus. Also, just as a gentle reminder – the politics of envy and the urge to give government power to address it is beset with problems. Namely, envy of a neighbor who has a mansion is just that, a base and unvirtuous feeling. He can do nothing further to me than invoke feelings and emotions. In contrast, the government leveler with the monopoly of violence can do far more harm.
My favorite person and big thinker discovered over the last couple of years has to be Deirdre McCloskey. The clear and convincing manner in which she writes as well as the almost inhuman way in which she has command of economics, literature, history, philosophy, religion, sociology, to name but a mere few, makes her defense of free markets, open societies, equality of the law and opportunity (as opposed to equality of outcomes) palpable and a tremendous delight to read. I have posted elsewhere detailing some of the key ideas in her latest book, Bourgeois Equality, but for those who want a Cliff’s Notes version, fortunately McCloskey has provided it in the form of a New York Times op-ed in what Economist Dan Mitchell has called “the most compelling article of 2016” in his International Liberty blog.
McCloskey provides a helpful reminder that growth and lifting people out of poverty, not inequality per se, is what our focus should be on:
….will we really help the poor by focusing on inequality?
Anthony Trollope, the great English novelist, gave an answer in “Phineas Finn” in 1867. His liberal heroine suggests that “making men and women all equal” was “the gist of our political theory.” No, replies her radical and more farseeing friend, “equality is an ugly word, and frightens.” A good person, he declares, should rather “assist in lifting up those below him.” Eliminate poverty, and let the distribution of wealth work.
Economic growth has been accomplishing exactly that since 1800. Equality in the most important matters has increased steadily, through lifting up the wretched of the earth. The enrichment in fundamentals for the poor matters far more in the scheme of things than the acquisition of more Rolexes by the rich.
What matters ethically is that the poor have a roof over their heads and enough to eat, and the opportunity to read and vote and get equal treatment by the police and courts. Enforcing the Voting Rights Act matters. Restraining police violence matters. Equalizing possession of Rolexes does not.
Going further, McCloskey explains the futility of the focus on equality of outcomes:
A practical objection to focusing on economic equality is that we cannot actually achieve it, not in a big society, not in a just and sensible way. Dividing up a pizza among friends can be done equitably, to be sure. But equality beyond the basics in consumption and in political rights isn’t possible in a specialized and dynamic economy. Cutting down the tall poppies uses violence for the cut. And you need to know exactly which poppies to cut. Trusting a government of self-interested people to know how to redistribute ethically is naïve.
Another problem is that the cutting reduces the size of the crop. We need to allow for rewards that tell the economy to increase the activity earning them. If a brain surgeon and a taxi driver earn the same amount, we won’t have enough brain surgeons. Why bother? An all-wise central plan could force the right people into the right jobs. But such a solution, like much of the case for a compelled equality, is violent and magical. The magic has been tried, in Stalin’s Russia and Mao’s China. So has the violence.
From there, McCloskey draws a creative conclusion on why people are sentimental and psychologically drawn to socialism. She observes that people make connections about central planning and sharing learned in the home and from there taking an illogical leap that government enforced sharing is therefore of the same moral equivalence.
Many of us share socialism in sentiment, if only because we grew up in loving families with Mom as the central planner. Sharing works just fine in a loving household. But it is not how grown-ups get stuff in a liberal society. Free adults get what they need by working to make goods and services for other people, and then exchanging them voluntarily. They don’t get them by slicing up manna from Mother Nature in a zero-sum world.
McCloskey lands with the defense of and the superiority of the classical liberal model:
It is growth from exchange-tested betterment, not compelled or voluntary charity, that solves the problem of poverty. In South Korea, economic growth has increased the income of the poorest by a factor of 30 times real 1953 income. Which do we want, a small one-time (though envy-and-anger-satisfying) extraction from the rich, or a free society of betterment, one that lifts up the poor by gigantic amounts?
We had better focus directly on the equality that we actually want and can achieve, which is equality of social dignity and equality before the law. Liberal equality, as against the socialist equality of enforced redistribution, eliminates the worst of poverty. It has done so spectacularly in Britain and Singapore and Botswana. More needs to be done, yes. Namely, more growth, which is sensitive to environmental limits and will require a proliferation of rich engineers. Let them have their money from devising carbon-fixing techniques and new sources of energy. It will enrich all of us.
To borrow from the heroes of my youth, Marx and Engels: Working people of all countries unite! You have nothing to lose but stagnation! Demand exchange-tested betterment in a liberal society.
Some dare call it capitalism.
While 2016 was indeed a bleak year for classical liberals, represented largely by the political success of the unfrotunate combination of economic populism and economic nationalism/protectionism, McCloskey’s article represents the ideal of a well-articulated defense of classical liberalism/libertarianism that are extemely important – now more so than ever.