Former Congressional Budget Office Director Doug Holtz-Eakin says Monday during a conference call that the House’s healthcare bill is not deficit neutral and will not be fiscally sustainable over time. (0:13)
Former Congressional Budget Office Director Doug Holtz-Eakin says Monday during a conference call that House Democrats are using gimmicks to fabricate the actual costs of their health care legislation. (0:25)
by Julianne LaJeunesse- University of New Mexico
Officials from various health care groups agreed on Monday that controlling costs and tackling health coverage for Americans with pre-existing medical conditions is going to require the masses. The issues were debated at a forum hosted by House Health Care Caucus Chairman U.S. Rep. Michael Burgess (R-Texas), who said that the the goal of the discussion was to figure out “how to affect [healthcare reform] without interfering with people’s freedoms and their rights in the process.”
President and CEO of America’s Health Insurance Plans Karen Ignagni started off by saying that “we as a community support reform.” Ignagni, whose organization represents over 1,300 companies that sell health insurance, added that her industry would like to guarantee coverage to all Americans, would like to end pre-existing condition limitations and exclusions, end gender differentiation, and no longer require health status ratings.
However, she argued that without both young and elderly Americans in the insurance pool, reform will make the system worse, citing unsuccessful examples of state mandated insurance as the basis for AHIP’s conclusion. She suggested that in addition to looking at mandated insurance, Congress should also address budget and fairness questions within reform.
“To what extent should people, who have no choice but to be in the pool, subsidize folks that decide to wait until they absolutely need coverage to get in?” asked Ignagni. “That’s a societal question, it’s a fairness question… and it’s a very important question… [and] the third issue is the budgetary imperative.”
Former Congressional Budget Office Director Doug Holtz-Eakin also raised fiscal questions about the Senate and House bills, saying neither will bend the health care cost curve.
“The entitlement that’s set up in the House program grows at 8 percent a year as far as the eye can see… faster than this economy will grow, faster than tax revenues will grow and thus is a fiscal risk in addition to not being a step forward in health care reform,” Holtz-Eakin said. “Oddly enough, the Senate bill, that was delivered by the Senate Finance Committee, also has an entitlement that grows at 8 percent per year…and thus fail[s] the fundamental test of lowering the growth rate of health care costs.”
Holtz-Eakin said that the health insurance industry could achieve a better business model if it adopted intervention practices such as prevention and early disease detection, which he said “would pay off over a life cycle.” He added that a business model that does so would reward quality.
On the issue of costs, Janet Trautwein, CEO of the National Association of Health Underwriters, was less open to removing pre-existing conditions without a more diverse pool of insured people.
“People with those pre-existing conditions use more health care…if we have only sick people in the pool, then we have defeated our purpose of affordability. And that is why we have a problem with the way in which pre-existing conditions may be removed from policies today.”
Former Congressional Budget Office Director Doug Holtz-Eakin says during a conference call Monday hosted by the Galen Institute that while healthcare reform is needed, Congress is not writing a bill that will improve the health care system. (0:29)
Former Congressional Budget Office Director Doug Holtz-Eakin says, during a conference call Monday hosted by the Galen Institute, that a public option will not aid in solving the fundamental problems of health care, and if it were to reimburse on the basis of medicare payment rates it would only add to the problem. (0:25)
Former Congressional Budget Office Director Doug Holtz-Eakin says Monday, during a conference call hosted by the Galen Institute, that the public option is not a necessary component of the healthcare reform debate and will not solve the fundamental problems with America’s health care system. (0:16)
Former Congressional Budget Office Director Doug Holtz-Eakin said Monday, during a conference call hosted by the Galen Institute, that an increase in competition between health insurance carriers is needed and that a public option will not help in that regard. (0:26)
By Leah Valencia, University of New Mexico- Talk Radio News Service
Former Congressional Budget Office Director and George W. Bush economic adviser Doug Holtz-Eakin said Monday that a public option will not solve the fundamental problems in the U.S. health care system, warning lawmakers that it would ultimately present the same problems as Medicare.
“Public plans are not going to be able to negotiate any more effectively with every local hospital and doctor in a geographic area than private insurers,” Holtz-Eakin said during a conference call hosted by the Galen Institute. “Indeed they might negotiate worse.”
Holtz-Eakin said that the options for a public plan had a remarkable resemblance to Medicare, and if it were to reimburse on the basis of Medicare payment rates, it would only add to the problem.
“Medicare payment policies are one of the problems with the American health care system,” he said. “It is not something we want to spread more broadly throughout the system, it is something we want to move away from.”
Holtz-Eakin noted that the other widely discussed option to run a public plan like a private insurance company would not increase competition because it would be too difficult for the government to politically cut out select hospitals.
“That leads us right to the solution ‘let’s have more competition in the insurance market and that has nothing to do with a public option’,” he said. “It is something we do not need in the debate. We need real reform.”
The McCain-Palin campaign says the Obama-Biden campaign’s tax plan will have a downward effect on Social Security solvency by giving Americans credit for their payroll tax liability. The campaign’s Senior Policy Adviser Doug Holtz-Eakin said the Obama campaign plans to relieve Americans of payroll taxes, and by doing would “rob Social Security indirectly,” because payroll taxes finance social security, as well as medicare.
Former U.S. Senator Dan Coats (R-Ind.) said, “The rhetoric and record of Barack Obama clearly supports higher taxes and more spending…At a time of financial crisis that we’re all going through right now, the idea of raising taxes is counter to what virtually every economist who has ever written, or studied, or analyzed the situation would recommend. You don’t raise taxes in a fiscal downturn”. Holtz-Eakin explained that the impact of raising taxes hurts small businesses first, who generate “80 to 90 percent of new jobs in America.”
Former Senator Coats added that another one of the main differences between the McCain-Palin campaign and the Obama-Biden campaign is that McCain supports the use of coal in the mid-west, where Coats says there are abundant coal resources and new clean coal technologies.
The McCain-Palin campaign’s Senior Policy Adviser Doug Holtz-Eakin explains why he thinks the Obama-Biden campaign’s tax plan will have a downward affect on Social Security solvency.
