It never occured to me that Mike Huckabee had a prayer (pun intended) of becoming a serious contender for the Republican presidential nomination. So, I haven’t bothered to do a post on his health care views.
Now that he has won the Iowa Republican caucus, and will probably win in South Carolina as well, I guess his health care views are worth a look. Huckabee doesn’t have a detailed health care reform plan, but his website outlines his general position:
The health care system in this country is irrevocably broken, in part because it is only a “health care” system, not a “health” system.
We don’t need universal health care mandated by federal edict.
We do need to get serious about preventive health care.
I advocate policies that will encourage the private sector to seek innovative ways to bring down costs.
I value the states’ role as laboratories for new market-based approaches.
When I’m President, Americans will have more control of their health care options, not less.
As President, I will work with the private sector, Congress, health care providers, and other concerned parties to lead a complete overhaul of our health care system.
Our health care system is making our businesses non-competitive in the global economy. It is time to recognize that jobs don’t need health care, people do, and move from employer-based to consumer-based health care.
I like Huckabee’s positions on mandates and employer-based insurance. And his rhetoric about the private sector is good. Talk is cheap, however, and Huckabee’s positions have been pretty “fluid.”
Nonetheless, to the extent that they can be taken seriously, Huckabee’s health care views are considerably more sensible than anything offered by the Democratic presidential candidates.
Comments 17
Impressively vague
Posted 04 Jan 2008 at 8:21 am ¶I agree with drmatt. Huckabee’s comments are very impressively vague.
However, moving from “employer-based to consumer-based health care” makes me very nervous. This indicates to me that all Huckabee and his supporters are really interested in is helping corporations become richer while health care becomes a luxury only the rich will be able to afford. Consumer-based health care only ensures that health care in America remains the way it already is: nothing more than big business.
No one should have to die because they can’t afford health care yet, that is what happens in America. We need a system that will take care of all Americans, regardless of whether they can afford health care or not. Health care should be a humanitarian service and not a luxury item.
Posted 04 Jan 2008 at 1:13 pm ¶“Moving from “employer-based to consumer-based health care” makes me very nervous.”
Moving away from the employer-based system, combined with deregulation, would make health insurance LESS expensive. It would also make it more portable.
Posted 04 Jan 2008 at 1:29 pm ¶Please quote the multitude of times that insurance companies have “lowered” premiums, you are living in la la fantasy land if you think changing to consumer based is going to lower the cost of anything. (PS send me a post card, I am dying to see the post mark of “la la fantasy land)
Posted 04 Jan 2008 at 1:47 pm ¶I agree with drmatt again. I don’t believe that deregulation will ensure lower health care costs if the insurance companies have anything to say about it. Deregulation will just free them up to gouge us to their hearts’ content.
Posted 04 Jan 2008 at 2:01 pm ¶The insurance companies wouldn’t reduce premiums voluntarily. They would be forced to do so by competition.
Employer-based health insurance is, in reality, just part of your salary. Its only advantage is its pre-tax feature, which only benefits people who make a relatively high salary. If your annual salary is relatively low (say $30 thousand) you don’t get any benefit because a marginal increase in salary won’t increase your tax liability.
So, if health insurance were decoupled from employers and the state-to-state barriers were removed from the insurance market, you would make out better by taking the additional money in your paycheck and buying the cheaper policy that competition (between insurers in a national market) would make available.
Posted 04 Jan 2008 at 2:04 pm ¶Nope, That is not what would happen at all. First you would be cheri picked, if you had good health and no social or genetic risks you might get a good deal, that is who the insurance companies would compete for. and unlike other insurance your premiums would go up every year as you get older (and become a bigger health risk) your premiums would go up. Finally, nobody would really know what they were getting until they tried to use it. Did you ever read an actual policy? there are more loop holes than coverage. Not to mention, in the name of profits, doctors and hospitals would be paid less, increasing access problems. There has already been a major decrease in the number of people going into the field of medicine despite the almost constant population growth.
Posted 04 Jan 2008 at 2:39 pm ¶I agree with Catron. As it stands, competition in healthcare insurance market is limited because the consumers of health care services are shielded from the costs. It is just too difficult for a company to move 10, 100, or 1000 people all to a new plan. But if the individuals made their choices individually, there would be more competition.
If a healthcare consumer could shop for insurance the way they buy other products and services, then prices would behave as they do for those products and services.
Posted 04 Jan 2008 at 3:12 pm ¶Which is precisely why I can get a Plasma television for under $900, which used to cost over $6000. Competition forced retailers of these products to lower prices, for fear of losing business to another provider, at a lower price.
Whether insurance policies are cheap or expensive, the fact remains that health care in America is a business. Insurance companies are interested only in making money and the health of people is not a concern for them. Deregulation or not, insurance companies will continue to take our money and then deny medical care and services.
Posted 04 Jan 2008 at 3:19 pm ¶Sorry Rich, cant compare to plasma TV, the plasma TV people dont care what you do with it, the health insurance people care what you do with your health and will adjust the price according to how they risk stratify you, in which case you will have many different prices for the same insurance, not like typical economics when subjected to competition where the prices come into close proximity to each other for the same quality product. The TV sales man doesnt ask your age, family history, social habits, etc. then price your tv accordingly….poor comparison, even you can see that.
Posted 04 Jan 2008 at 3:51 pm ¶Indra, you are right, as long as we continue to allow health care to be a “for profit” endeavor, profits will matter and people wont, and when the come head to head the answer will be f**k people there is money to be made.
‘Which is precisely why I can get a Plasma television for under $900, which used to cost over $6000.’
No - the main driver in consumer electronics is volume production and lower component prices as the technology is developed. And there can never be the kind of perfect health insurance market you envisage as people are not as simple as TVs and your society is so vastly unequal that there cannot be universally affordable products offering equal care.
Posted 04 Jan 2008 at 4:53 pm ¶“and your society is so vastly unequal that there cannot be universally affordable products offering equal care.”
I never suggested that. If there were universally affordable products and universally equal care, there would be no competition. Sorry, your counter argument ignores my premise.
And lower component prices and volume production aren’t the only story. If there was only one manufacturer of even the cheapest of components (to produce), the prices would be much higher.
As for asking questions about gender, employment, etc., there are markets other than health insurance that do this, such as the credit market, and life insurance. Life insurance companies compete on product variation and price, taking all of those things into account. In order to see this, you must get over the notion that health care is an entitlement.
[BEGIN RANT]
Unfortunately in this country, we are becoming increasingly “entitled,” with a sense that everything should be provided by the government, or if not priovided for, than “failure,” in whatever form, should be insured against by Big Brother. You are not allowed to make poor financial decisions on your mortgage, the government will bail you out. You cannot make poor health decisions, the government will protect you from yourself (see cigarettes and trans-fats). This is just another symptom of cradle-to-grave mentality, including gov’t bail outs against bad mortgages, and the idea that any “bad” thing that might happen is a cause to search for the responsible party and an attorney.
People should have the opportunity to select their own coverage, not be at the whim of an employer, if they happen to have one. Employers (particularly small business) should not be held hostage by insurance companies with whom they are unable to negotiate because of an intertia against change. While Huckabee’s proposals may seem vague, any market-based approach could be no less vague. The market cannot be controlled, and still be a “free market.”
[END RANT]
I really have no expectation of convincing Marc, or drmatt, or Indra, FWIW.
Posted 04 Jan 2008 at 7:24 pm ¶You have missed my premise, which is that your comparison is POOR, it is nothing like buying a television. As far as credit cards and life insurance goes, once you use them the cost doesn’t go up, not true with health insurance,the more you need it the more you cost.
Posted 05 Jan 2008 at 6:22 am ¶As far as your Rant goes, you forget one very important premise. The government “is” the people, in which case if the people want health care it is thier (our) right and entitlement, that is a purpose of a government for the people by the people, this is not a government for business by business.
In regards to mortgages, take a look at what happened, so called professionals inflated the market value of peoples houses so that they could loan money in the name of profit, if we dont have some sort of oversight this is what happens, because business is so well represented the people are taken advantage of. I have no issues with free market but you cant let them do what they want. Mortgage company told me my house was worth 250K, but when the chips where down and I had to sell, two year on the market and the best offer I got was 180K!!!! not even close, who benefited? So go ahead and put your life and health in the hands of people who are in it for profit, ant let me know how it is going when you are diagnosed with a disease that is no fault of yours how it is going? see how the free market works for you when you get RA, MS, ALS, stroke, heart attack, you know when you actually need the coverage. Then you can talk.
“The government “is” the people, in which case if the people want health care it is thier (our) right and entitlement”
Great!
I want food, expensive food, and I want you all to pay for it. We should all have a car. The government should pay for it. Lets vote on it! A car in every garage! I want one that costs more than I make in 2 or 3 years, OK! We should all get that.
I want all of my utilities paid for. In fact, I am going to quit my job, since I am entitled to everything I need and the gov’t is going to pay for it. Yea!
I don’t think you could argue that those are not things that all people want, and yet the gov’t is not providing them.
Posted 05 Jan 2008 at 9:40 am ¶Yes of course you are missing the basic premise again. read yoiur response, I, I, I, I. whereas we are talking about “we” the people. and if “we” the people decided all those things should be provided through the government, and “we” the people were willing to pay for it, then “we” the people should have it.
Posted 05 Jan 2008 at 12:10 pm ¶Our founding fathers gave the public a great deal of credit in deciding what they do and dont need, i.e a car in every garage? maybe we should all get a garage first, in anycase the population with it’s collective intelligence would see that as wasteful and low on the priority list (I hope). Try not to substitue what you want, or think is right for the will of the “we” the people, it is important.
More on the Huckaclown here:
http://disinter.wordpress.com/2008/01/05/huckabee-full-blown-nuts/
Posted 06 Jan 2008 at 1:33 am ¶On one hand, he supports Christianity while on the other hand he promotes socialized medicine. Sound like an “old time” Democrat.
Posted 08 Jan 2008 at 3:17 pm ¶Post a Comment