Health care reform

Heritage Foundation: Don't Blame Us for Obamacare

|

Heritage Foundation, where the party never ends.

"The Obama health-care law 'builds' on the Heritage health reform model only in the sense that, say, a double-quarter-pounder with cheese 'builds' on the idea of a garden salad, writes the Heritage Foundation's Robert Moffit. "Both have lettuce and tomato and may be called food, but the similarities end there." Moffit is objecting to President Obama's citation of Heritage research in support of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act:

It began when President Obama told "Today" show host Matt Lauer on March 30 that "a lot of ideas in terms of the exchange, just being able to pool and improve the purchasing power of individuals in the insurance market, that originated from the Heritage Foundation."

First, Heritage did not originate the concept of the health insurance exchange. Furthermore, the version of the exchange we did develop couldn't be more different than that embodied in this law…

For us, the health insurance exchange is to be designed by the states. It is conceived as a market mechanism that allows individuals and families to choose among a wide range of health plans and benefit options for those best suited to their personal needs and circumstances…

Under the president's law, however, the congressionally designed exchanges are a tool imposed on the states enabling the federal government to standardize and micromanage health insurance coverage, while administering a vast and unaffordable new entitlement program. This is a vehicle for federal control of state markets, a usurpation of state authority and the suppression of meaningful patient choice… This is probably not something President Obama gives a whit about, but we at Heritage do.

The other charge—repeated on this page and elsewhere—is that the federal individual mandate in Obama's health-care plan came from us.

For the record, we think that the law's federal mandate is unconstitutional…

Yes, in the early 1990s, we, along with other prominent conservative economists, supported the idea of such a mandate. It seemed the only way to solve the "free-rider" problem, in which individuals can, under federal law, walk into any hospital emergency room nationwide and rack up big bills at taxpayer expense.

Our research in the ensuing two decades has led us to realize our initial idea was operationally ineffective and legally defective. Well before Obama was elected, we dropped it.

Note that Reason too has flirted with the idea of the individual mandate, but the president refuses to give us a shoutout.

A couple points:

1. While a think tank needs to be conducting thought experiments, this is why it was always a fool's errand to try and compromise between the goal of universal health care and the system of insurance-based health coverage (and especially the satanic permutation of employer-based health insurance that Obamacare effectively renders immortal). In the few small cases where universal coverage could realistically be said to have occurred—as for example in Mayor Gavin Newsom's Healthy San Francisco program—it has happened because the provider moved outside of the insurance model entirely. You can argue about the success of such programs, or even whether universal coverage is a worthwhile goal. But insurance can not be and will never be the vehicle that gets you to universal coverage.

2. Conservatives gave health care reformers plenty of ammunition by harping on the serious but not life-threatening "free-rider" problem. By exaggerating the costs of uninsured patients, and particularly by presenting fanciful schemes wherein earlier care would prove cheaper than having people "forced to turn to expensive emergency room care," California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger was able to claim that his abortive 2007 universal coverage plan would end up saving the state money. No matter how hard Schwarzenegger's eggheads tried to monkey with the figures, those numbers never made a syringeful of sense, but the case was helped (unwittingly) by immigration hawks telling horror stories about illegal immigrants swamping emergency rooms. Fortunately Schwarzenegger's reform ended up failing anyway, but Obama went on to make the case that universal coverage would somehow end up saving money. It's like saying if you give a freeloader your credit card he'll stop costing you money. Sadly, in this case—possibly for the first time in history—the nation as a whole turned out to be even dumber than California.

Related: Tom Bosley: Stop confusing me with David Doyle.

NEXT: Recruiting Tool

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Note that Reason too has flirted with the idea of the individual mandate, but the president refuses to give us a shoutout.

    Fuck Off, Slavers.

  2. It’s like aying that if you give the free riders a free ride, they won’t be a free rider.

    1. Haha. That is a great point. The argument that the individual mandate solves the free-rider problem is just lunacy.

      1. Yes, but luckily no one is making that argument. They’re arguing that it solves adverse selection, not the free rider problem. There’s interplay between the two problems, but they’re different.

  3. No matter how hard Schwarzenegger’s eggheads tried to monkey with the figures, those numbers never made a syringeful of sense, but the case was helped (unwittingly) by immigration hawks telling horror stories about illegal immigrants swamping emergency rooms.

    This is especially comical considering that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act actively prohibits illegal immigrants from purchasing health insurance with their own money in the health insurance exchanges.

    1. That has the side benefit of keeping non-exchange markets alive.

      So, in theory, you could still buy insurance on the open market bypassing the exchange regulations.

  4. Methinks Moffit doth protest too much. It sounds like Obama’s QPC is in comparison to Heritage’s QP sans C than Heritage’s garden salad. Also, the QPC does not have lettuce and tomato, unless you count ketchup as tomato. Saying that you changed your mind on an idea is completely different from saying the idea did not originate from you. Heritage did the former and is claiming the latter.

    1. It’s entirely different to say:

      “Well, if you’re going to have mandatory issue and community rating, then you have to have the individual mandate or else the insurance death spiral kicks in,”

      and to actually argue that all three of those things are good.

      Heck, lots of libertarian economists (and I think Suderman) have argued that in the case of community rating and mandatory issue that the individual mandate is necessary.

    2. I count ketchup as a vegetable, so – close enough! Ketchup = tomato!

  5. We got our first love letter from management today. Our company will now have to cover dependents up to age 26 and lifetime benefits limits will be eliminated.

    The follow up is the cool part: This will benefit some of our employees, but all employees must bear the increased cost.

    Fuck Barak Obama, and fuck DanT/Scotch to death.

    1. I imagine we will be sending a lot more engineering offshore in the very near future.

      Consequences Dan/Scotch; there are always consequences.

      1. Consequences don’t matter. What matter is that you’re now paying your fair share.

    2. This will benefit some of our employees, but all employees must bear the increased cost.

      MARKET FAILURE!

      1. Some of our younger employees are just now figuring out that our catestrophic coverage option will go away in the future and that they will be paying substantial premiums instead of the zero they pay now.

    3. The idea of 26 year old dependents is fucking depressing.

      1. Still eligible to sponge off mom & dad four years out of college.

  6. Note to Tom Bosley. Charlie’s Angels was on for FIVE YEARS! Five fucking GREAT YEARS!

    http://www.brightlightsfilm.com/54/charlies.php

  7. Heritage Foundation’s building is pretty nice-looking, I must say.

    Also, a bad idea is still a bad idea, whether or not it originated from the Heritage Foundation, so what difference does that make, Obama?

  8. “The Obama health-care law ‘builds’ on the Heritage health reform model only in the sense that, say, a double-quarter-pounder with cheese ‘builds’ on the idea of a garden salad,[“] writes the Heritage Foundation’s Robert Moffit. “Both have lettuce and tomato and may be called food, but the similarities end there.”

    Where did he get the idea that (traditional) Quarter Pounders have lettuce? (I’ll cut him some slack on “tomato”, insofar as Quarter Pounders do come with ketchup as a standard topping.)

    1. Of course, I was in such a hurry that I didn’t notice originally that Mo beat me to it.

    2. Again – I can get to ketchup = tomato.
      So “close enough for government work”, as we say!

  9. Will people just stop squabbling over semantics and just start instituting this reform plan and ensure the millions of Americans who need health care actually get it? Politicians are more wishy washy than the Supreme Court: http://lawblog.legalmatch.com/…..eme-court/

    1. Was the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act repealed while we were all distracted by passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act?

  10. Under Health Care Reform, If you do not have medical insurance you can be penalized, but now you can easily find health insurance for your family under $40 http://ow.ly/1AqF1

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.