Monday, January 18, 2016

Why we won’t see Single Payer Health Care for a long, long time

Krugman reads the tea leaves, and spells out why single payer health care isn’t coming soon [emphasis mine]:

Paul Krugman, Health Reform Realities

If we could start from scratch, many, perhaps most, health economists would recommend single-payer, a Medicare-type program covering everyone. But single-payer wasn’t a politically feasible goal in America, for three big reasons that aren’t going away.

First, like it or not, incumbent players have a lot of power. Private insurers played a major part in killing health reform in the early 1990s, so this time around reformers went for a system that preserved their role and gave them plenty of new business.

Second, single-payer would require a lot of additional tax revenue — and we would be talking about taxes on the middle class, not just the wealthy. It’s true that higher taxes would be offset by a sharp reduction or even elimination of private insurance premiums, but it would be difficult to make that case to the broad public, especially given the chorus of misinformation you know would dominate the airwaves.

Finally, and I suspect most important, switching to single-payer would impose a lot of disruption on tens of millions of families who currently have good coverage through their employers. You might say that they would end up just as well off, and it might well be true for most people — although not those with especially good policies. But getting voters to believe that would be a very steep climb.

What this means, as the health policy expert Harold Pollack points out, is that a simple, straightforward single-payer system just isn’t going to happen. Even if you imagine a political earthquake that eliminated the power of the insurance industry and objections to higher taxes, you’d still have to protect the interests of workers with better-than-average coverage, so that in practice single-payer, American style, would be almost as kludgy as Obamacare.

So we have to take a sideways approach, through incrementalism, slowly cutting costs through regulation and policy shifts, such as allowing the government to negotiate bulk prices for medicines.

And the Democrats can focus on other issues: climate change, financial regulations, lowering the costs of college, raising the minimum wage, and inequality. We don’t have the juice for a do-over. At least now.



from Stowe Boyd http://stoweboyd.com/post/137550121997