Economists Tout Health Care Reform In Letter To Obama

First Posted: 11-17-09 07:16 PM   |   Updated: 11-17-09 11:53 PM

What's Your Reaction?

In a boost to the Obama administration's efforts to frame health care reform as an economic boon, a group of 20 health economists sent a letter to the White House on Tuesday touting the fiscal results of passing reform legislation.

The group lists four specific elements of reform as crucial to controlling costs and righting the fiscal trajectory of the health care system's overhaul. They include making legislation deficit neutral (which describes both the House and Senate version of reform), including an excise tax on high-cost insurance plans (which is part of the Senate's version of reform, but not the House's version), creating an independent Medicare commission (also in the Senate bill), and general changes to the delivery system.

There is, notably, no mention of a public option for insurance coverage, which is estimated by other analysts as a major price saver in the health care system. But the note from the group of economist could give a needed boost to those conservative Democrats who are already skittish about the costs and size of congressional reform efforts.

As the economists write: "we believe that it is important to enact health reform, and it is essential that health reform include these four features that will lower health care costs and help reduce deficits over the long term. Reform legislation that embodies these four elements can go a long way toward delivering better health care, and better value, to Americans."


econ -

The list of signatories is below:

Dr. Henry Aaron, The Brookings Institution Dr. Kenneth Arrow, Stanford University, Nobel Laureate in Economics Dr. Alan Auerbach, University of California, Berkeley Dr. Katherine Baicker, Harvard University Dr. Alan Blinder, Princeton University Dr. David Cutler, Harvard University Dr. Angus Deaton, Princeton University Dr. J. Bradford DeLong, University of California, Berkeley Dr. Peter Diamond, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Dr. Victor Fuchs, Stanford University Dr. Alan Garber, Stanford University Dr. Jonathan Gruber, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Dr. Mark McClellan, The Brookings Institution Dr. Daniel McFadden, University of California, Berkeley, Nobel Laureate in Economics Dr. David Meltzer, University of Chicago Dr. Joseph Newhouse, Harvard University Dr. Uwe Reinhardt, Princeton University Dr. Robert Reischauer, The Urban Institute Dr. Alice Rivlin, The Brookings Institution Dr. Meredith Rosenthal, Harvard University Dr. John Shoven, Stanford University Dr. Jonathan Skinner, Dartmouth College Dr. Laura D'Andrea Tyson, University of California, Berkeley
In a boost to the Obama administration's efforts to frame health care reform as an economic boon, a group of 20 health economists sent a letter to the White House on Tuesday touting the fiscal result...
In a boost to the Obama administration's efforts to frame health care reform as an economic boon, a group of 20 health economists sent a letter to the White House on Tuesday touting the fiscal result...
Report Corrections
 
Comments
155
Pending Comments
0
View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
Page: 1 2 3 4  Next ›  Last »   (4 pages total)
Show: 
mbsq   01:47 PM on 11/18/2009
Most of you commenters have a real anti-intellectual stand on this. You must love Sarah Palin.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
avocats   01:06 PM on 11/18/2009
What a waste of time and paper. None of this is new and none of this is specific. I can say health care reform requires (1) better care and (2) lower costs. That's correct, but not helpful.

Deficit-neutral--saying that is a no-brainer. HOW does one accomplish that goal?

Excise tax on high-cost insurance plans? How exactly is that going to increase wages? How many wage earners are now (or ever were) on the receiving end of high-cost plans? None I know.

Ah, Medicare commissions--there are more "independent" Medicare commissions floating around than you can shake a stick at. What will this do different? Congress stilll has to vote on proposals and it never does the right thing.

Outcomes research. Ah yes, more research. Great for research institutions, takes decades, has little or no effect on real care.

NOTHING that has been proposed in the current competing bills does much at all to change anything. This is a shell game.

The fact that a bunch of prominent economists were persuaded to put their names to a document that says "please make health care beteer and cheaper" is discouraging. This is the incredibly superficial treatment of the issue we encounter everyday in the dumbed-down media.
mbsq   01:42 PM on 11/18/2009
You don't understand this issue. How does the tax result in increased wages? Because it sets up a system where the employer finds it cheaper to offer more wages as reward rather than pricier health plan. Basic economics. If you don't understand the need for results-based compensation of doctors then you don't understand the problem with healthcare in america at all. You are now an enemy of reform, good job.
dobriyden   12:15 PM on 11/18/2009
Just read Dr. Arrow's book "Social Choice and Individual Values" and his view on collective decision. This guy is a Marxist. This should make everyone of us disregard this "backing".
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
Buddy McCue   12:30 PM on 11/18/2009
Who says he's a Marxist? I'm not finding that.
mbsq   01:43 PM on 11/18/2009
Whoa, excuse me? When Arrow talks about collective decision he's talking about voting, and the mathematical problems that accompany it. It's not Marxism-- it's not even a value judgment.
dnegri   12:13 PM on 11/18/2009
Yeah, but when the insurance companies find that "economist" that they're looking for to proclaim that reform will kill jobs, you know he will get most of the media coverage.
sneez54   11:44 AM on 11/18/2009
If there was another country letting 100 0f its citizens die everyday for something that can be stopped, American's would be upset.
In what country do they insist its citizens pay for the governments unconditional healthcare coverage, but yet won't cover 46 million of those that have paid for governments coverage? America!
The day we don't have to have a jar, for donations, at checkout counter to save another humans life - will be a great day for humans.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
contradiction   11:58 AM on 11/18/2009
I like you. I like what you stand for. Fanned my friend... fanned.
photo
youhavebeenhad   11:29 AM on 11/18/2009
Just like my screen name states. You Barry supporters have been had
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
Buddy McCue   12:30 PM on 11/18/2009
What a thoroughly convincing argument!
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
joetherealist   02:47 PM on 11/19/2009
And how incredibly clever of you, your screen name is also your philosophy. Good thing you pointed that out, us stoopid librulz would probably have missed your point. For a moment there I almost became a Palin supporter.

snark/off
ddDinah   11:25 AM on 11/18/2009
NO MANNOGRAMS FOR WOMEN....the first DEATH PANEL DECISION....
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
avocats   01:12 PM on 11/18/2009
Aw, come on, at least TRY to be serious here. No one said NO MAMMOGRAMS. They said regular mammograms could wait until age 50, instead of starting at age 40. And that doesn't keep anyone from GETTING a mammogram. My insurance still pays for them at earlier ages, and if it didn't and I thought I needed one, I'd get one and pay for it. That is a far cry from DEATH PANELS. And if you think these decisions aren't being made every day (or over the past 60 years), you're clueless.
photo
honoursplendor   12:24 PM on 11/19/2009
Unfortunately, your logic defeats dear ddDinah.
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
joetherealist   02:33 PM on 11/19/2009
Did I just hear the sound of ddDinah's head exploding?
Eclipser   10:55 AM on 11/18/2009
First, we need to fix the problems we already have and then we need to make improvements.
My husband was injured at work two years ago. This is his first injury claim in 33 years. The doctor confirms and recommends surgery, the judge agrees and yet the insurance company is again legally allowed to procrastinate, in the name of filing an appeal ( 7 months ago).
We kept our end of the bargain. We carried/paid the insurance companies for 33 years. If our government officials can’t persuade the insurance companies to keep their end of the bargain, then how do they expect to convince me that they have something else worthwhile to offer that the insurance companies will honor?
The biggest irony: My husband has since been told by the company, that because he was unable to return to work after a year, he no longer has a job. And, because he no longer has a job we are now required to carry Cobra Insurance which, out of pocket, costs us about 200% more. So, we have to pay more to the insurance company even though they refuse to allow him the treatment of his injury which we've already paid for.
I fail to see how our government officials can turn a blind eye and stand before us pretending to present us with any promise of a public or private health care system when they haven’t resolved the real problems of our current health care system. Greed.
photo
youhavebeenhad   11:16 AM on 11/18/2009
If he was injured at work, then why isnt this a wokmens comp issue? I can understand why YOUR insuarnce company is balking
Eclipser   12:15 PM on 11/18/2009
You are absolutely right, Sorry it didn't read exactly right, I was limited by word count and had to delete parts of the story.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
contradiction   12:03 PM on 11/18/2009
I don't know what state you reside in, but this is, as 'youhavebeenhad' states, a workers' compensation issue. Workers compensation insurance coverage should have been administrating your husband's benefits (not that they are any less of a bag of do.uches). If on disability, it is illegal for an employer to terminate employment. I'd get off of the blogs and get on the phone with an attorney. Workers' Compensation attorneys are free to applicants - the state pays for them - no excuses!
Eclipser   12:12 PM on 11/18/2009
That's what you would think, but that's not how it is. Not yet. In this system you wait, 2 years and counting.
photo
Pearlswan   01:10 PM on 11/18/2009
There is a loophole in the law that allows a company to fire a worker who has been temporarily disabled for a year if the job market/economic environment is unfavorable. Companies are permitted by law to streamline their payrolls and unload dead weight to make them more competitive. Few workers realize that this loophole exists because notices posted at workplaces state that it is illegal to fire an injured worker who has an active worker's compensation case with the employer.

The WC system is notoriously slow. I've been waiting now since 2005 to be rehabilitated and returned to work. I need treatment and retraining but its been a consistent 3-D response by the insurance company: Delay-Deny-Defend. They delay treatment by denying authorization and then the worker is forced to defend their need for treatment in court. Even then, there are many tricks the insurance companies use to ignore court orders for treatment. Worst of all--there is no reimbursement for lost wages, which can amount to years of lost income due to the system's dysfunction that keeps the injured worker frozen in legal limbo for years. No kidding.
Gadema   10:34 AM on 11/18/2009
We need to, Used Some Stimulus Funding from the Healthcare Reform Process, to Build Smart/Intelligent Infrastructure Services for Healthcare IT, Smart Grids, Transportation Systems, and Broadband. The Smart/Intelligent Infrastructure Services will Enabled, New Jobs Creation ,and Economic Recovery.

For decades, Microsoft's Desktop Applications have Increased Productivity, Efficiency, and Costs Savings in the Work Place.

Proper Deployment of Health Information Technology (HIT) Solutions and Training can Increased Productivity (i, e, medical data mining/warehousing, risks treatment, service dellivery), Efficiency (i, e, medical errors, rreddundant and inapproopriate care), and have a Costs Savings of around 20-30% of our Annual Healthcare Expenditures ($2.4 Trillions).

The Engine of Economic Growth in this 21st Century is "Broadband." We can start by, Deploying a pure Packet-based, All Optical/IP, Multi-Service National Transport Network Infrastructure, using Ethernet throughout this National "Network of Networks." This "Network of Networks" can then Connect all Optical Islands, Nationwide.

The Investment in this National "Network of Networks", in addition, to New Jobs Creation and Economic Recovery, can also Serve as a Business Driver for: e-Healthcare, e-Commerce, e-Education, Energy Syystems, Transportation Systems, Social Networking, Entertainment, etc.

This type of Investment is like the Investments that were made in the past, in the Electrifiication of Rural Areas, and the National Transportation Inter-State Highways, which Increased Productivity, and our GDP.

Please See: www.gkquoquoi.blogspot.com for Summary Deeployment Plan, NHIN.

Gadema Korboi Quoquoi
President & CEO
COMPULINE INTERNATIONAL, INC.
photo
Ducksworthy   10:25 AM on 11/18/2009
The signatories are the stars of health economics in the US. Next up, Professor Dweeble P. Rostitute form the University of Bumfuk, Texas will release a study, paid for by the Chamber of Commerce, disproving these elite establishment economists (nattering nabobs in Sprio Agnew's famous phrase) and showing that health reform is bad and in a theoretical tour de force, that evolution, global warming and gravity are liberal myths.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
CTSnowman   10:13 AM on 11/18/2009
Why do we have to be so damn proud in this country? Why can't we accept and adopt the policies that are and have been working in other countries. Single payer is the way to go and anyone with a few brain cells knows it.
photo
youhavebeenhad   11:18 AM on 11/18/2009
Fine and dandy. How do we pay for it. England subsidizes theirs with $8 a gallon gas and a 12% VAT
Jupitersky   12:15 PM on 11/18/2009
That's the easy part really. We already are paying for it we just need to change how we pay for it and what we pay for. My property tax dollars go to local hospitals for emergency care for the uninsured. My federal tax dollars go toward subsidies to big health care insurers and pharmecuetical companies. My premiums, that I pay out of pocket- 31% of those go to big health care insurers profits and administrative costs. Only 2/3rds of the money I directly spend on health care goes to the people who actually provide it. Then if I lose my job I lose my coverage and cannot afford insurance and likely medical treatment.

Paying for it seems to be the #1 priority. If you properly address the other goals and design reform for who it's supposed to benefit rather than lobbyists and big business, the costs will take care of themselves.

Lastly, we'll incur huge debt to fight wars and bail out big banks but won't spend on the health care of our citizens. It's about priorities not about money. We have the resources.
mikefarinha   11:50 AM on 11/18/2009
And people with more than a few brain cells knows that single payer is unsustainable.
photo
honoursplendor   12:25 PM on 11/19/2009
Explain why.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
CTSnowman   10:05 AM on 11/18/2009
Funny how if a car full of teabaggers show up somewhere the MSM and HP are all over it yet I never saw this. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_pgJorPuiMA&feature=channel
Grammy3   09:17 AM on 11/18/2009
I have a question regarding the Stupak Amendment.

Since we won't permit tax money to be used for a procedure some taxpayers consider immoral, will we be able to apply this same reasoning to those of us who consider war immoral?
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
CTSnowman   10:14 AM on 11/18/2009
Spot on!
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
joetherealist   02:42 PM on 11/19/2009
Yes! And to honor you for your brilliant idea, we shall call it The Grammy3 Amendment...

Fanned, needless to say.
photo
prettyinpink   09:13 AM on 11/18/2009
Agreed that we need to change the current system.

Reject the plan currently put forth.

Dean of Harvard Med School says so too.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704431804574539581994054014.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_sections_opinion
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
CTSnowman   10:10 AM on 11/18/2009
Thanks for the link.
photo
honoursplendor   12:26 PM on 11/19/2009
So one Dean trumps the rest?
phasor   08:39 AM on 11/18/2009
ALL large economy countries on the planet have non-profit, government supported health insurance, except the U.S.

Non-profit health insurance costs less, is moral, is universal, is widely popular by the population, is the right thing to do.

Twitter Edition