How much is “affordable” health care?

image Uwe Reinhardt posted this insightful Economix post last week in which he bores in on the key issue to be resolved in reforming the U.S. health care finance system:

I could easily offer every American family a health insurance policy it could afford, simply by varying judiciously the annual deductible, the coinsurance rate, upper limits on items ostensibly covered by the policy and exclusions from coverage of sundry services or products ó for example, mental health services or certain specialty drugs.

The policy might be a sham; but it sure would be cheap.

Health insurance is just a means by which needed health care can be made ìaffordableî to Americans when they fall ill. Therefore the proper target of health policy should be the familyís total outlay on health care, including out-of-pocket spending. That total outlay on ìneeded health careî should be made ìaffordable.î

Which requires us to define concretely, for practical purposes, what we mean by ìhealth careî and ìaffordable,î pedantic as that may sound. Politicians should be forced to be utterly clear about it. [.  .  .]

President Obama could make this idea practical by using a visual device such as the table [above]. In that table ìdisposable incomeî is defined as all personal income from whatever source minus all personal income tax payments and other government deductions. The numbers are annual.  .   .   .

Professor Reinhardt makes a good point about the disingenuous nature of health insurance. As I noted here, most forms of health insurance ñ particularly the employer-based kind — insulate consumers from understanding the truce cost of their health care choices. As a result, most consumers ñ and virtually all legislators in Washington ñ have no idea on what amount of health care costs are ìaffordable.î Most insureds are pleased that someone else is footing the bill and simply donít want to lose that perk.

Health insurance is largely the product of bad governmental policy (wage controls during World War II) and, as is often the case with such policies, there are unintended consequences that are even worse than the misdirected governmental policy. In this case, we have two generations of Americans who have been largely insulated from needing to know the true cost of some of their most fundamental choices and needs in life.

Such ignorance is now hindering reform of the fractured U.S. health care finance system.  But any health care finance reform that does not rely at least in part on reigniting a consumer market to control costs will likely be even more expensive and less satisfying than the current system.

The common sense of civil unions

church20and20state This WaPo article from last week on a recent WaPo/ABC News poll was interesting:

.  .  . opinions nationwide remain closely divided, but two-thirds of all Americans now say gay and lesbian couples should be able to have the same rights as heterosexual couples through civil unions.

In a new Washington Post-ABC News poll, 47 percent say gay marriages should be legal, with 31 percent saying they feel that way "strongly." Intensity is stronger among opponents, however: overall, half say such marriages should be illegal, including 42 percent who say so strongly.

Civil unions draw broader support. Two-thirds now say they favor allowing gay and lesbian couples to form civil unions that would give them many of the same legal rights as married couples.

Frankly, this is one of those contentious political issues for which there appears to be a simple solution. But implementing the solution will take some clear thinking, which is in short supply these days in our legislative circles.

The bottom line is that the state has no business being involved in the ìmarriage business.î That should be left to churches, some of which will approve gay marriages and some of which will not.

On the other hand, the state should provide for civil unions between same-sex and opposite-sex couples to promote societal stability through conferring the same rights relating to property, family, inheritance, etc. that are presently conferred through the institution of civil marriage.

For practical and legal purposes, such civil unions would be the same as civil marriages. And, as the poll numbers above reflect, most folks donít have a problem with providing the same contractual and legal rights to gay couples through civil unions as opposite-sex couples presently enjoy through civil marriage. However, because most states presently only provide for civil marriage, the use of the term ìmarriageî becomes a hot button issue that provokes needless opposition to the implementation of the civil union concept in regard to same-sex couples to promote legitimate societal interests.

Thus, the solution is to have the state get out of the marriage business entirely and provide civil unions to opposite-sex and and same-sex couples. Many couples would still choose to get married in religious ceremonies, which is fine. But a couple that does not have access to marriage in a church would no longer be deprived of the legal and contractual rights that most states presently confer upon only married couples.

It sure seems as if this solution would solve the primary legal issues relating to continued state bans on gay marriages. Moreover, it would relegate the debate on marriage between same-sex couples to the churches and extract it from the political arena.

Whatís not to like about that?

Happy Valentine’s Day

The lads sure did exude charisma, donít you think?

Roberts on the bailout

Don’t miss George Mason University economic professor Russ Roberts’ lucid, four minute statement to a House Committee condemning the federal government’s bailout of large financial institutions. The written statement is here. As I’ve been saying all along, it’s not rocket science.

Milton Friedman on freedom, capitalism and colonialism

Got to love the way Friedman ignores the contentious introduction to the questions and maintains the integrity of intellectual discourse. H/T Almost Chosen People.

Lifestyle Nutritionists

In this clever sketch, That Mitchell and Webb Look channel the mentality behind the legislation discussed in yesterdayís post.

More misdirected Nanny energy

obesity_4 Does anyone really think for a moment that this legislation is going to have any meaningful impact on its intended purpose:

The Obama administration will begin a drive this week to expel Pepsi, French fries and Snickers bars from the nationís schools in hopes of reducing the number of children who get fat during their school years.

In legislation, soon to be introduced, candy and sugary beverages would be banned and many schools would be required to offer more nutritious fare. [.   .   .]

The legislation would reauthorize the governmentís school breakfast and lunch programs. It aims to transform the eating habits of many of the nationís children and teenagers,  .   .   . 

No word yet on whether the legislation is also going to attempt to bar students from going to the neighborhood grocery or burger stand after school and buy the Pepsi, French fries and Snickers that the do-gooders wonít let them buy during school.

On the other hand, an initiative that really might generate some beneficial health changes ñ such as providing each studentís family lower health insurance premiums in return for family members maintaining a non-obese weight ñ remains illegal under applicable governmental regulatory schemes.

We really do find creative ways to waste time and energy, donít we?

Final QB Ratings

saints_drew_brees1 Dave Berri just posted his final NFL quarterback ratings for the 2009 season, which are always interesting.

Schaub moved up into the top quarter of NFL QBís, but he has a ways to go before he is playing on the level that Rivers and Brees played on this past season. Interestingly, there is a big drop off in production between Schaub at no. 8 to  Roethlisberger at no. 9.

Except for the truly great ones, QBís are notoriously inconsistent from season to season, especially in comparison to basketball players and hitters in baseball. For example, Favre went from the 27th ranked QB last season to no. 4 this past season! Thatís due primarily to the more complementary nature of football. Stated another way, itís hard to be a productive QB when laying on oneís back or running for oneís life.

Thus, statistics really donít tell us much about NFL QBís (except when that QB is as bad as David Carr) other than the fact that a particular QB performed well this season does not necessarily mean that he will do so again next season.

Are you listening, Chron cheerleaders

The wisdom of Will

georgewill Tax simplification has been a frequent topic on this blog. So, I was enthused to see George Will knock the ball out of the park in describing the U.S. income tax system while addressing the issue in his WaPo Sunday column:

ìToday’s tax system was shaped by sadists who were trying to be nice: Every wrinkle in the code was put there to benefit this or that interest.î

The proposals that Will addresses would do more for the American economy than virtually any other proposal on the table at this point. Unfortunately, the proposals have virtually no chance of being implemented.

So it goes.

Super Bowl XLIV Primer

nfl Too much is written about the Super Bowl each year, so it is increasingly difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff. The following are a few pieces that will provide a good primer for this yearís contest:

This Hank Gola/NY Daily News article provides a wonderful overview of the colorful history of the New Orleans Saints, including the eminently forgettable Charlton Heston flick, Number One.

I tend toward being a stathead, so this Football Outsiders post provided the requisite statistical analysis of the matchup between the Saints and the Colts. The bottom line ñ itís a pretty darn even matchup.

If reading that post chloroformed you, Larry Ribstein lucidly explains why he doesnít even watch the Super Bowl.

Iíve noted before that we tend not to appreciate the fact that Colts QB Peyton Manning may be the all-time greatest NFL quarterback and certainly is one of the top three. This Judy Batista/NY Times article updates Manningís superb legacy while noting that his excellence is more a product of preparation, discipline and insight than physical tools. Also, check out this cool graphic on how Manning makes a split second read of the defense.

Finally, this equally interesting Greg Bishop/NY Times piece notes the not well-known fact that under-sized Saints QB Drew Brees ñ who has had one of the best four-season runs of any QB in NFL history ñ is actually one of the best athletes in the NFL. Brees explains in the video below how his San Diego-based personal trainer put together a fitness protocol that helped Brees recover from a devastating shoulder injury and prepares him for the grueling NFL season: