Heavy Stuff

Here's an interesting article on the heft of potential presidential candidate, and New Jersey governor, Chris Christie, including a discussion about how odd it is that someone's weight is still fair game for ridicule.

Be Careful What You Wish For

This is a timely topic, what with the presidential campaign ongoing and all. In a recent opinion piece in Investor's Business Daily, David Gratzer, senior fellow at think tank The Manhattan Institute, discusses the fact that the guy who started nationalized health care in Canada, Claude Castonguay, is now trying to save his country from the failings of a system known to be worse at taking care of its people than its pets.

"What would drive a man like Castonguay to reconsider his long-held beliefs? Try a health care system so overburdened that hundreds of thousands in need of medical attention wait for care, any care; a system where people in towns like Norwalk, Ontario, participate in lotteries to win appointments with the local family doctor."

Canadian Health Care We So Envy Lies In Ruins, Its Architect Admits

I Think This Is Campaign Issue #2 (After Iraq)

From Fortune Magazine -

Why McCain Has the Best Health-care Plan

"Here's where [McCain's plan] gets interesting. Employers would no longer be able to buy more health care with $9,000 of their employees' money than the workers could buy on their own. The raison d'être for corporate health benefits would vanish. Employers have another compelling reason to pass the ball to the employee: While wages are rising around 3% ayear, their health-care costs are growing at three times that rate. 'I predict that most companies would stop paying for health care in three to four years,' says Robert Laszewski, a consultant who works with corporate benefits managers. Hence, an employer that pays $9,000 for your benefits would simply pack an extra $9,000 a year into your paycheck. (Why? Because in a competitive labor market, companies would have to hand over that cash to employees or risk losing them.) So you'd have $6,000 after tax, plus the $5,000 family credit, to buy insurance. That's $11,000 in new cash that employees can set aside for health care."

"The [Democrat] standard benefits package isn't just a bad idea because it will substantially raise the cost to taxpayers. It will also make it virtually impossible for Americans to buy insurance tailored to their needs. Suppose you're one of those 25-year-olds. You probably don't want to spring for a full-blown plan that covers old-age diseases like Alzheimer's and would rather save some money and go with a low-premium, high-deductible plan. But the Democrat approach requires that any competing plans be "actuarily equivalent" (Clinton's term) to the federal employee plan - which translates as a generous minimum standard for health insurance. 'With that mandate, you rule out high-deductible plans,' says Gruber. 'It would make it very difficult to design one that would qualify.'"

"The Democrat proposals have some additional drawbacks. First, the Dems want to heavily regulate the insurance industry by limiting everything from profits to marketing expenses. If the earning power of insurers is determined by federal regulators, their pricing will be too, and thus they will evolve into the equivalent of public utilities. Would you rather have medical prices set by fiat or by nationwide market competition?"

"Second, the Democrat plan exacerbates the fundamental problem in the American health-care system, which is that no one has any incentive to care about price. (How much is that MRI center charging for your ankle scan? Who cares? Just hand over the $50 co-pay and never you mind.) Creating a huge new medical superstructure would shift far more spending to third-party providers, chiefly the federal government, giving consumers even less incentive to concern themselves with the price of an MRI - or any other service, from an elective wart-removal procedure to a life-saving heart bypass. 'The Clinton and Obama plans would enormously increase total health-care spending, but disguise the extra costs by shifting them to taxpayers,' says John Sheils of the Lewin Group, a research firm that does statistical modeling for health-care plans."

It's the State of Health Insurance, Stupid

If you're not old enough to remember the 1992 presidential campaign (when Bill Clinton was elected over the single-term, elder George Bush), then you might be offended by the title of this post. Please don't take it personally, stupid.

The Kaiser Network today posted a comprehensive summary of Barack Obama's recently formulated healthcare proposal. There are links to major news publications about the candidate's proposal, summaries of editorials about it, and even links to radio coverage of the subject. You may draw your own conclusion.

Republicans have been conspicuously silent during the most recent healthcare debate. I look forward to hearing about the plans that will most certainly highlight HSAs and the larger consumer directed market.