Healthcare

January 20, 2006 RSS Feed Print

The advance word is that the Bush administration, unable to get Congress to vote on Social Security individual investment accounts, is going to try to get congressional action on healthcare this year. The administration never came out for a specific Social Security plan, and it may not come out with a specific healthcare plan, either. But it might endorse something like the proposals put forward in the Wall Street Journal and in a short book by John Cogan and Daniel Kessler of the Hoover Institution and Glenn Hubbard, dean of the Columbia Business School and chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers in the first Bush term (subscribers only).

In the Journal they advance three specific proposals: (1) Make out-of-pocket healthcare expenses deductible for people with health insurance. (2) Allow insurers to sell health insurance nationwide, free of state coverage mandates. (3) Set caps on pain and suffering damages in medical malpractice cases. But their target is really broader: what they call "the most misguided U.S. healthcare policy — the exemption of employer-provided healthcare from income and payroll taxation." This tax exemption was established in World War II, when the reach of the federal income tax was expanded so as to include for the first time the great bulk of workers; wartime wage controls made it hard for employers to attract scarce labor, but the exemption allowed them to attract some by paying for health insurance. That means that health insurance tends to be tied to employment and that more than 80 percent of healthcare costs are paid by someone other than the person receiving care. Hence, Cogan, Hubbard, and Kessler say, a system that "is excessively costly and wasteful."

Their proposals are intended to move healthcare in a market direction. Their opponents on the left would like to move toward more government provision. Usually when there is such conflict the political marketplace produces inertia. But the rising percentage of national income accounted for by healthcare produces strong incentives for change. It seems unlikely that Congress will produce major healthcare legislation in 2006. But it's something worth keeping an eye on.

Reader Comments

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

Michael Barone

Michael Barone

U.S. News Weekly

Subscribe Today

Order the new U.S. News Weekly digital magazine at a special low introductory price!

Michael Barone is a senior writer for U.S.News & World Report and principal coauthor of The Almanac of American Politics. He has written for many publications—including the Economist and the New York Times.

Thomas Jefferson Street Blog

Barack Obama's $5.6 Billion Valentine's Day Tax

An Americans for Tax Reform report shows the federal tax burden on love.

It's Too Early to Write Off Either Rick Santorum or Mitt Romney

Barack Obama and John McCain traveled unlikely paths to their nominations in 2008.

On Contraception Mandate, Obama Blunders Into the Culture Wars

Obama's contraception "compromise" is a gimmick that voters will see right through.

Why Mitt Romney Can't Sell Himself to Conservatives

Voters want to know if they can trust Mitt Romney.

Americans Deserve Political Freedom from the Catholic Church

Church leaders could not have been less gracious towards Obama's surrender on contraception.

What the Catholic Contraceptive Debate Is Really About

Today's debates about contraception and inequality are intertwined in that the bring up the question of morality.

Why the Catholic Contraception Controversy Is a Phony Battle

The Catholic Church is asking the Obama administration to do something it cannot do itself: limit birth control use.

Obama’s Contraceptive 'Compromise' Doesn't Pass the Smell Test

The so-called "accommodation" on contraceptive coverage reinforces the administration's commitment to its pro-choice agenda.