Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Monday, March 26, 2007
Herman Cain :: Townhall.com Columnist
Universal Choice Can Fix the Health Care Roof
by Herman Cain
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


A simple change in the antiquated tax code would create an avalanche of universal choice in health care, instead of current proposals that produce universal dependence on government. Namely, the U.S. should eliminate the deductibility discrimination between employers and employees for health insurance premiums.

The ideal solution would be to replace the tax code with the Fair Tax, which essentially replaces the income tax with a consumption tax. But since few politicians with a bully pulpit have shown the moral or political courage to lead the sizeable Fair Tax movement, let's start with the second best approach, universal deductibility.

Universal deductibility of health insurance premiums by employers, employees, the unemployed, individuals and business owners would connect the consumer to health care costs. When people spend their own money, they spend it more wisely. Most people will purchase health plans they can afford, instead of expecting more benefits from their employer or the government.

The flagrant flaw in most of the ideas proposed by the presidential candidates is that they are variations of socialized health care.

Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards have all offered health care plans that eliminate individual choice and increase government mandates on employers, individuals and health care providers.

RomneyCare in Massachusetts is already experiencing a cost explosion. The only Republican to propose a market-based solution is Newt Gingrich, who has not yet declared his candidacy.

The proponents of socialized health care do not believe individuals and doctors possess the ability to make their own health care decisions. They would rather take advantage of what Steve Forbes recently described as "the abysmal ignorance of so many – including boatloads of business executives and entrepreneurs – about what it takes to bring rationality, productivity and lower prices to the U.S. health care market."

The greatest flaw of Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) and President's Bush's new proposal is that they are tied to the disastrously flawed tax code in the form of yet another tax deduction. These plans are improvements on the current discriminatory system, but they further complicate an already incomprehensible tax code.

The president's proposal, which allows deductibility of health insurance premiums, has a hidden "sneak-a-tax." Under the Bush plan, if your employer pays more than $15,000 for your annual health insurance premium, you pay tax on the excess coverage. Below that amount for a typical family, the plan provides only small, non-game-changing savings. Worse, the plan is not indexed to inflation. When inflation eventually catches up to the $15,000 deduction, families will suffer the same tax penalties posed by the Alternative Minimum Tax.

HSAs are another concept that was supposed to "move us in the right direction" of more affordability and accessibility of health insurance. HSAs have worked for many, but way too slowly as health care costs and insurance premiums have increased at annual double digit percentages. Continued...

1 2
| Full Article & Comments | Next >
Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author

Herman Cain is the National Chairman of the Media Research Center’s Business & Media Institute. He is the former president and CEO of Godfather’s Pizza, Inc., and currently is CEO and president of T.H.E. New Voice, Inc., a business and leadership consulting company.

Be the first to read Herman Cain's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.

More money, less bang
Do Americans pay more and get less from their health care bucks than similar countries?

A Google on some of the words quoted in "study" comments here led to:

http://www.cmwf.org/usr_doc/Schoen_natscorecard_chartpack_955.ppt

Slide number 58 shows two charts of money input to health care.

You can see a stripped version of the worst of the charts at:

http://www.cmwf.org/usr_doc/site_docs/annualreports/2006/msg_pres06.htm

For those who don't download .ppt files, slide 58 shows under the odd title, "Efficiency", graphs of several OECD nations' average spending and total percent of GDP spent for health care. The numbers for all the nations are clustered close together at the left end of the line charts in 1980. They all go up, with the US splitting from the others and going up much more, through 2004.

What the charts say: Apparently, either the US system changed in 1980 and beyond, or the others all changed, or both. Or maybe before 1980, the US was below the others and the lines simply crossed in 1980, giving someone an opportunity to create a clever graph. Or maybe the US was above the others before 1980 and simply did good in 1980. Whatever. Neither graph is on a log scale, as would certainly be appropriate for the spending graph, if not the %-of-GDP graph. I learned long ago that when someone feeds me a non-log graph for a log function they are either, (A) trying to fool me or (B) innumerate. But, let's cut 'em some slack here. They really did the sort of in-depth research that's necessary to run a non-market based, centrally controlled system.

BTW, one can intuit where the study producers are coming from. They have lots of race-based charts. And many of their metrics of "desired outcomes" are for universal access ... as opposed to, for instance, innovation pipeline diameter.


One very frustrating thing is that this study often alluded to big disparities among states - without showing them! This is reminiscent of the education studies that show how the US educational system is so bad relative to other nations - until you break out the states and find out that a US state is just fine if the state is "close to Canada". Or is Iowa. But not Mississippi.


So what are "desired outcomes"?

If the desirable outcomes are defined by those on one side of the debate, then there will be no surprise what system yields desirable outcomes. For instance, an oft-used desired outcome for health care systems is life span. Huh? Yeah, life span is easily measured, but are you excited about the differences between industrialized nations? Move to Japan and life longer? I don't think so. Would not a far better measure of outcome success be whether consumers of health care themselves think the outcome is better? Unfortunately, such a measure is rather hard to draw a bead on, isn't it? You could, for instance, say that if people are spending a higher percentage of their money on something, then that something is a big success - a desired outcome!

Apparently, no one has ever figured out a good way to measure whether people are satisfied with a socialist system. Heck, in non-socialist systems, no one has figured it out all that well. Don't believe that? Try pricing a new product. Without a dart board.


So, Mencken, posters here can be excused for ignoring this study's foregone conclusions. But, those on the market-oriented side of the debate should certainly get a clue from the study and put out their own "study" in which they define the inputs and desired outputs. People without fixed beliefs might then at least compare objectives.

Market-oriented people could, for instance, try to show that a market oriented system is best in a world where the "health care" of 1980 would be as unacceptable today as today's "health care" should be in 2030.


In the US there are states trying various wrinkles. One can't help but be hopeful that the facts will sort themselves out. People can still vote with their feet in the States.

Skunk in the cabbage patch
Cain wrote these two statements at the beginning and end of the article. I think they are key to his suggestion. They are: "Namely, the U.S. should eliminate the deductibility discrimination between employers and employees for health insurance premiums." AND "With a simple change in the current tax code to eliminate discriminatory deductibility for health insurance and eventually health care costs, free market dynamics can solve another problem that Clinton, Obama, Edwards and Romney want to make worse."
What is the discrimination, Mr. Cain? You'll pardon me if I take a big swing at it and miss. Me thinks you want to end employer paid health insurance premiums that are tax free to the employee. You want the employee to pay the premium and deduct the cost. That amounts to a rather large tax increase on those who have this benefit.
That's what I think you are really making a stink about, Mr. Cain. I don't like that!
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.