Michael Cannon, Director of Health Policy Studies at the CATO Institute gives recommendations for alternatives to the public option.

“If you reform the tax treatment to employer sponsored health insurance so that workers can control the $10,000 of their earnings that employers now control, and they can take that money and buy secure coverage from any source,” said Cannon. “If you let people purchase insurance from across state lines, that could cover one third of the uninsured, without any new taxes or new government subsidies.” (0:29)

 

 Standard Podcast [0:29m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

Michael Cannon, Director of Health Policy Studies at the CATO Institute, says that even with the opt-out provision, the public option will dominate the health insurance marked.

“It doesn’t matter when states have to exercise their opt-out method, and whether there’s an opt-in or opt-out method, it will take over the market place.” (0:37)

 

 Standard Podcast [0:37m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

Michael Cannon, Director of Health Policy Studies at the CATO Institute, denies that the trigger option is a fair compromise in the health care reform debate.

“The trigger option will set unrealistic, unattainable goals for private insurance, with the expectation that private insurance will not be able to meet it,” Cannon told TRNS. “It’s not a question of whether the trigger will be pulled, as when it will be pulled.” (0:38)

 

 Standard Podcast [0:38m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

Michael Cannon, Director of Health Policy Studies at the CATO Institute blasted the public option Tuesday as a “ruse.”

“The President and his allies in Congress want to create a new government run option for people under 65, but it’s not a public option because the program will drive private insurers out of business, despite offering an inferior product,” said Cannon. “What they call a public option is not really an option. So it’s a ‘ruse.’” (0:42)

 

 Standard Podcast [0:42m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

Michael Cannon, Director of Health Policy Studies at the CATO Institute, condemned the recently proposed opt-out provision added the public option as ‘political suicide’ for state officials.

“What Governor or state official is going to say, ‘I know you’re tax dollars are subsidizing this government program, but I’m not going to let you get your tax dollars back by participating in that program?’ That would be political suicide for state officials,” Cannon told TRNS (0:42)

 

 Standard Podcast [0:42m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

By Laura Smith – University of New Mexico/Talk Radio News Service

Michael Cannon, Director of Health Policy Studies at the CATO Institute, said today that it would be “political suicide” for states to choose to opt-out of the public option plan.

Democrats in Congress, led by Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.), are pushing for an opt-out provision within the public option, or government-run health insurance plan, as a way to demonstrate to states that they will not be forced to partake in the plan.

Referring to the public option plan as “Fannie Med,” Cannon said that Reid and others are using the opt-out provision as a way of putting pressure on states to subscribe.

“The taxpayers in each state are going to have to be subsidizing Fannie Med. And what Governor or state official is going to say ‘I know your tax dollars are subsidizing this government program, but I’m not going to let you get your tax dollars back by participating in this program?’ That would be political suicide for state officials. And supporters of Fannie Med know it would be political suicide,” Cannon said.

Cannon argued that supporters of an opt-out provision are merely interested in finding way for the government to seize more control of the nation’s healthcare system, and nothing more.

“They are counting on this to get their proposal through Congress and they know that it’s not going to inhibit the new government program’s ability to drive private insurers out of business,” Cannon said.

Cannon said even proponents of the public option plan are aware that it would crush competition in the marketplace, and echoed the theory that President Barack Obama favors the public option plan because it would lead to single-payer health insurance in the U.S.

“What they call public option is not really a public option. That’s a ruse,” he said.

Cato Institute Senior Fellow Michael Tanner argues that health care reform must involve targeted actions or it will not help the people who need it the most. Tanner says it is better to focus on people who cannot afford health insurance, rather than create a program that tries to insure everyone. (0:30)

 

 Standard Podcast [0:30m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

By Laura Woodhead – Talk Radio News Service

Lacking insurance is often voluntary and does not cause poor health, economics and health experts said Monday. Speaking at a forum held by Cato Institute, the panel argued that the often quoted number of 47 million grossly overestimates the problem of those who cannot afford health insurance in the United States.

Micheal Tanner, Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute, argued that it was important not to focus on “hard cases” when it comes to making health care policy. He explained that many uninsured Americans choose to be so voluntarily, and estimated that only about 5 million Americans fall into the category of being involuntarily uninsured for 2 years or more.

“You always get this impression that the uninsured is composed of people who are middle class, working two jobs, have seven kids all of whom are handicapped and suddenly they both lost their jobs and both lost their health insurance, will never see it again and will probably die in the next few months. The reality is vastly different,” Tanner said, adding that many people choose not to have health insurance even though they can afford it.

Former Congressional Budget Office Direcrtor Dr. June O’Neill said it was important to look at factors besides lack of health care that contribute to health issues. O’Neill said that if you compare the mortality rates of those with health insurance to those that are involuntarily uninsured, those with health insurance live longer. However, O’Neill argued that variables such as smoking, obesity and income contribute more to this statistic then does a lack of insurance.

“When one hears about how lack of insurance causes death, you might think about all the other things that we could do to help people improve their health” she said.

Echoing this sentiment, Tanner said that there was no evidence to suggest that giving people health insurance will make them healthier.

“We tend to equate in this debate the idea that health insurance equals health care which equals health.” Tanner said. “We can think of a lot more things that would have a greater impact on the health of the nation than providing health insurance.”

“We need to take a deep breath, step back and try to get this right rather than get it through quickly,” he said.

Michael Tanner, CATO Institute’s Head of Health Care and Social Security Research, says that if Congress taxed all Americans’ employer provided health insurance, it would 2.3 trillion over the next decade, but that it would not be likely and could promote a “tax revolt” (0:24)

 

 Standard Podcast [0:24m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

Michael Tanner, CATO Institute’s Head of Health Care and Social Security Research, speaks about the current draft of health reform legislation, including the House of Representatives’ proposed payroll tax hike and how the legislation may cost over $3 trillion. (0:49)

 

 Standard Podcast [0:49m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download