Today, in his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "The Chutzpah Caucus" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/06/opinion/krugman-the-chutzpah-caucus.html?_r=0), Paul Krugman again attacks those who call for austerity (yawn . . .) and claims that governments engaged in stimulus can "change course in the future."
Stimulus? It's only a small part of the problem. As prophetically observed by the Social Security Advisory Board in September 2009 (http://www.ssab.gov/documents/TheUnsustainableCostofHealthCare_508.pdf):
"[W]e are acutely aware that over the next 20 years, the United States population will become significantly older as the baby boom generation leaves the workforce and enters retirement. However, an aging population is not the whole story. Health care costs are growing across the economy, and many of the same factors that are spurring overall health care growth, whether new technologies or inefficient delivery systems, are also driving up the cost of Medicare and Medicaid to unprecedented levels. The burden of health care costs on the country as a whole will continue to grow unless and until we alter the efficiency and efficacy of our health care systems.
For these reasons and more, we believe that it is essential that policymakers take action to restrain the rising cost of health care in ways that also lead to better quality of care. It is an issue that is at the very heart of the long-term economic security of the American public. It is urgent that action be taken and the time for action is now."
Will Obamacare prove a panacea vis-a-vis concerns over spiraling health care costs? I don't think so. As observed by a recent Huffington Post article (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/26/obamacare-medical-claims-costs_n_2956986.html):
"Insurance companies will have to pay out an average of 32 percent more for medical claims on individual health policies under President Barack Obama's overhaul, the nation's leading group of financial risk analysts has estimated.
. . . .
While some states will see medical claims costs per person decline, the report concluded the overwhelming majority will see double-digit increases in their individual health insurance markets, where people purchase coverage directly from insurers.
The disparities are striking. By 2017, the estimated increase would be 62 percent for California, about 80 percent for Ohio, more than 20 percent for Florida and 67 percent for Maryland. Much of the reason for the higher claims costs is that sicker people are expected to join the pool, the report said."
Or, as the Democratic Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus more recently said of Obamacare (see: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/17/max-baucus-obamacare_n_3101801.html):
"I just see a huge train wreck coming down."
Does this sad story have a silver lining? Absolutely: President Obama is destined to make economic history. As observed by Krugman in today's opinion piece:
"The key measure you want to look at is the ratio of debt to G.D.P., which measures the government’s fiscal position better than a simple dollar number. And if you look at United States history since World War II, you find that of the 10 presidents who preceded Barack Obama, seven left office with a debt ratio lower than when they came in. Who were the three exceptions? Ronald Reagan and the two George Bushes. So debt increases that didn’t arise either from war or from extraordinary financial crisis are entirely associated with hard-line conservative governments."
And so, in another three and a half years, Barack Obama will become the first Democratic president since World War II to leave office with a debt ration higher than when he came in.
Congratulations to all . . .
No comments:
Post a Comment