(An edited version is posted on The Enterprise Blog.)
In a New England Journal of Medicine article, Getting the Facts Straight on Health Care Reform, MIT’s Jonathan Gruber writes:
One common refrain of opponents of reform is that it represents a government takeover of health care. But reformers made the key decision at the start of this process to eschew a government-driven redesign of our health care system in favor of building on the private insurance system that works for most Americans. The primary role of the government in this reform is as a financier of the tax credits that individuals will use to purchase health insurance from private companies through state-organized exchanges.The sentence in bold begs the question of how Professor Gruber defines “primary.” The House and Senate bills would:
- Mandate that individuals obtain at least minimum coverage specified by the government.
- Specify allowable “levels of coverage” and the types of services that must be covered.
- Prohibit health insurance underwriting, require coverage of preexisting conditions, prohibit premiums based on health status, and substantially limit premium variation in relation to age, thus mandating higher premiums for the young and/or healthy.
The bills would substantially cut Medicare Advantage reimbursement, cut Medicare hospital reimbursement, and create an Independent Advisory Board that could order further cuts in Medicare spending unless blocked by specific legislation.
The list could go on and on. Reasonable people might regard these changes as representing a “government-driven redesign of our health system.”