We could call it Bush Care, but perhaps Bush Doesn’t Care would be more accurate. It cuts at the underpinning of the current system without offering an effective alternative. It completely ignore the prevalence market failure in the market for health insurance. The only goal it serves is ideological. It pushes people into the individual market which fails to serve those who need it most. It’s for those who would rather believe the market is always preferable to social insurance, despite clear evidence to the contrary.
Additional Notes on 1/22 Column, “Gold-Plated Indifference.” – Krugman – NYT Web Journal
Now here’s the thing: in the name of consumer-directed health care theory, Bush is proposing changes that would essentially encourage people to move into the individual market — which wastes a lot of money, and doesn’t and can’t work for those most in need — while undermining the employer-based system, which isn’t wonderful but is still essential. In particular, healthy high-income people would be encouraged to drop out of employment-based plans, leaving behind a sicker risk pool, driving up rates, and pushing employer-based care in the direction of an adverse selection death spiral. The plan we’re supposed to learn about tomorrow doesn’t sound big enough to have catastrophic effects, but it’s a step in the wrong direction.
