Larry Kudlow: The government needs to pay 50% of healthcare costs

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Sort of like the lie that people are dying because they can't get care.

Take a look at this if you are interested in facts and history on the subject:
https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/catosletterv3n1.pdf

https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/whats-wrong-obamacare

This can't be stressed enough:
CBO: Full Repeal Would Cover More People than House GOP’s ObamaCare-Lite Bill
https://www.cato.org/blog/cbo-more-lose-coverage-under-obamacare-lite-full-repeal

It's basic economics. The less government the better the market works.

A troll is most certainly not interested in anything but a definite objective, and your answer will never satisfy it.

[r9etb]

Is there anything you can't use the Welfare clause to justify? Wouldn't it be worthwhile to give some thought to what the founders intended when they wrote that phrase. It's not a blank check. Amendments 9 and 10 still apply.

As noted above, the Founders disagreed as to the scope of that phrase.  Madison favored a more restrictive view, Hamilton a broader view.  The meaning is open to interpretation, in other words: even among the Founders themselves.

It took the USSC 150 years to decide that it was within Congress' discretion to define the true scope of the phrase (for good or ill).

In reality, we see those sorts of Constitutional fudges pretty much everywhere.  For example, the Constitution didn't authorize Congress to allocate money for the purchase of territory from other governments such as the Louisiana Purchase.  "Jefferson argued that a constitutional amendment was needed. He wrote in 1803, 'The General Government has no powers but such as the Constitution gives it… it has not given it power of holding foreign territory, and still less of incorporating it into the Union. An amendment of the Constitution seems necessary for this.'”  But the purchase went ahead regardless of its apparent unconstitutionality.

Even those things which seem unarguably within the proper realm of government fall into this apparent grey area.  For example, even the libertarians argue that levying taxes for the purpose of building and maintaining roads is within the proper scope of government action, but the Constitution itself refers only to "post roads," which were specific roads that connected post offices.  Most roads -- then and now -- do not fit that definition.  On the other hand, nearly everyone uses and depends on roads, and there is general acceptance that the government has legitimate interest in their maintenance.  It seems to me that the best defense of the practice is to invoke "general welfare." 

And so with health care.  One can make the argument that ensuring some level of health care to those who cannot otherwise afford it, is a legitimate concern of the government, in the form of promoting the general welfare.  The counter-argument is that charities could do the same, though I have serious doubts as to whether they actually could afford to do so, considering the sorts of costs Kudlow is talking about. 

[Idaho_Cowboy]

As noted above, the Founders disagreed as to the scope of that phrase.  Madison favored a more restrictive view, Hamilton a broader view.  The meaning is open to interpretation, in other words: even among the Founders themselves.

It took the USSC 150 years to decide that it was within Congress' discretion to define the true scope of the phrase (for good or ill).

In reality, we see those sorts of Constitutional fudges pretty much everywhere.  For example, the Constitution didn't authorize Congress to allocate money for the purchase of territory from other governments such as the Louisiana Purchase.  "Jefferson argued that a constitutional amendment was needed. He wrote in 1803, 'The General Government has no powers but such as the Constitution gives it… it has not given it power of holding foreign territory, and still less of incorporating it into the Union. An amendment of the Constitution seems necessary for this.'”  But the purchase went ahead regardless of its apparent unconstitutionality.

Even those things which seem unarguably within the proper realm of government fall into this apparent grey area.  For example, even the libertarians argue that levying taxes for the purpose of building and maintaining roads is within the proper scope of government action, but the Constitution itself refers only to "post roads," which were specific roads that connected post offices.  Most roads -- then and now -- do not fit that definition.  On the other hand, nearly everyone uses and depends on roads, and there is general acceptance that the government has legitimate interest in their maintenance.  It seems to me that the best defense of the practice is to invoke "general welfare." 

And so with health care.  One can make the argument that ensuring some level of health care to those who cannot otherwise afford it, is a legitimate concern of the government, in the form of promoting the general welfare.  The counter-argument is that charities could do the same, though I have serious doubts as to whether they actually could afford to do so, considering the sorts of costs Kudlow is talking about.

So using your line of thinking what isn't a general concern of government?

[Idaho_Cowboy]

A troll is most certainly not interested in anything but a definite objective, and your answer will never satisfy it.

Nah, he may have socialist leanings, but I don't think he's a troll. Seems pretty natural for folks to balk anymore at the concepts of personal liberty and personal responsibility.

[InHeavenThereIsNoBeer]

So using your line of thinking what isn't a general concern of government?

Wignut's manscaping thread?

[r9etb]

So using your line of thinking what isn't a general concern of government?

There are a lot of things that aren't, and as a general principle I include payment for health care as one of them.  The government should not be in the business of paying for health care for those who can afford it for themselves.

However, it often happens that general principles can run afoul of special cases.  In the case of health care, if there is a person who is truly unable to pay for treatment of a medical condition, there is a general moral consensus that the rest of us have an obligation to help them out -- whether through charity, or through government action.  I would argue that the consensus has long been for government action in this area, as it is seemingly (though probably not actually) the approach that incurs the least financial burden per capita.

I personally don't have much problem with the idea of a basic government safety net in the area of health care, mainly because it serves the common good and meets a commonly accepted moral standard.  That said, my ideal would be much different in terms of scope (much smaller) and methodology (such as means-tested subsidies working through EBT cards, rather than reliance on the Medicare/Medicaid bureaucracy). 

[r9etb]

Nah, he may have socialist leanings, but I don't think he's a troll. Seems pretty natural for folks to balk anymore at the concepts of personal liberty and personal responsibility.

Or maybe "he" just likes to think beyond the bumper sticker. 

[InHeavenThereIsNoBeer]

And so with health care.  One can make the argument that ensuring some level of health care to those who cannot otherwise afford it, is a legitimate concern of the government, in the form of promoting the general welfare.  The counter-argument is that charities could do the same, though I have serious doubts as to whether they actually could afford to do so, considering the sorts of costs Kudlow is talking about.

I would say things like universal access (and I have no opinion on the "voluntary" question) to vaccines for contagious diseases and some of the work of the CDC could be promoting the general welfare (though I'd have to look to see if the argument was for the general welfare of the STATES, which is not necessarily the same thing as the welfare of the people of the states).  Paying for treatment for individuals who are not contagious wouldn't make the(/my) cut.

I think Kudlow's on crack here.  He seems to say, "let's take the 5% who consume most health care costs and put them in a seperate pool to lower insurance costs for the rest, and then you can use the money you saved on insurance and pay more taxes to subsidize insurance/care for the 5%".

[Idaho_Cowboy]

There are a lot of things that aren't, and as a general principle I include payment for health care as one of them.  The government should not be in the business of paying for health care for those who can afford it for themselves.

However, it often happens that general principles can run afoul of special cases.  In the case of health care, if there is a person who is truly unable to pay for treatment of a medical condition, there is a general moral consensus that the rest of us have an obligation to help them out -- whether through charity, or through government action.  I would argue that the consensus has long been for government action in this area, as it is seemingly (though probably not actually) the approach that incurs the least financial burden per capita.

I personally don't have much problem with the idea of a basic government safety net in the area of health care, mainly because it serves the common good and meets a commonly accepted moral standard.  That said, my ideal would be much different in terms of scope (much smaller) and methodology (such as means-tested subsidies working through EBT cards, rather than reliance on the Medicare/Medicaid bureaucracy).

Thanks for clarifying. I think any actions along those lines should be kept well clear of insurance for the rest of the populace for reasons stated above. 

[Bigun]

The Constitution be damned!  Full speed ahead!

[Idaho_Cowboy]

Or maybe "he" just likes to think beyond the bumper sticker.

[r9etb]

I think Kudlow's on crack here.  He seems to say, "let's take the 5% who consume most health care costs and put them in a seperate pool to lower insurance costs for the rest, and then you can use the money you saved on insurance and pay more taxes to subsidize insurance/care for the 5%".

He's floating an idea that may or may not be good in itself. But on the big-picture side of it, he's quite correct.

What Kudlow's trying to figure out, is how to deal with the elephant in the room: that 5% who consume 50% of the health care money.  That's a huge number (if it's correct).

I think his idea is trying to wrestle three disparate considerations into a manageable whole:

1.  The moral principle that people should not be denied some level of treatment because of inability to pay.
2.  Find a way so that the costs for that segment of the population can be separated from those of the other 95%.
3.  Recognition  that it will be expensive.

I think Kudlow's argument is probably along the lines that the government, with its powers of taxation, is the only entity that can reliably raise the amount of money needed to handle it, and can do so at the lowest per capita cost; and if the government doesn't do it, some finite number of people will fall through the cracks.

[FS7]

He's floating an idea that may or may not be good in itself. But on the big-picture side of it, he's quite correct.

What Kudlow's trying to figure out, is how to deal with the elephant in the room: that 5% who consume 50% of the health care money.  That's a huge number (if it's correct).

I think his idea is trying to wrestle three disparate considerations into a manageable whole:

1.  The moral principle that people should not be denied some level of treatment because of inability to pay.
2.  Find a way so that the costs for that segment of the population can be separated from those of the other 95%.
3.  Recognition  that it will be expensive.

I think Kudlow's argument is probably along the lines that the government, with its powers of taxation, is the only entity that can reliably raise the amount of money needed to handle it, and can do so at the lowest per capita cost; and if the government doesn't do it, some finite number of people will fall through the cracks.

I call you a socialist because you advocate for socialism. I don't mean to insult - I only point out what I see. When you say that the government shouldn't pay for health care unless people can't afford it, you are advocating for the redistribution of wealth. This invalidates your premise - what you think is our moral principle is not at all relevant unless the federal government has the power specifically enumerated in the Constitution. If, as you argue, the "general welfare" wording applies to whatever Congress says it does, then we have an all-powerful federal government and the Constitution does not now (nor did it ever) have any meaning. This is why the Madison interpretation is correct.

That said, there is no elephant in the room any more than any other insurance is. Nobody would make the argument that we need to isolate the costs of those who have been in severe motor vehicle accidents from the automobile insurance pool, and nobody would argue that we need to isolate the costs of fire-destroyed homes from the home insurance pool. It is, by definition, a solved problem. This is what actuarial science is. It's not rocket surgery.

I just heard Mike Pence on the radio say that those with chronic conditions or other medical issues would be better served not in the private market but in state-run high-risk pools. This is a supposed conservative, and he's advocating directly against a free market solution so people who actually need medical intervention can be overseen by the same entity that has run Medicare, Medicaid, Tricare, and the VA in a way that makes an actual train wreck look like a work of art. You're advocating the same - not only are you saying that government is the answer, you're saying it's the ONLY answer. That's what makes you at the very least a statist.

To paraphrase Dr. Ian Malcolm, you have spent far too much time wondering if you COULD do something when you should have first wondered if you SHOULD.

This is not a problem for the government to "solve."

[r9etb]

I call you a socialist because you advocate for socialism. I don't mean to insult - I only point out what I see. When you say that the government shouldn't pay for health care unless people can't afford it, you are advocating for the redistribution of wealth. This invalidates your premise - what you think is our moral principle is not at all relevant unless the federal government has the power specifically enumerated in the Constitution. If, as you argue, the "general welfare" wording applies to whatever Congress says it does, then we have an all-powerful federal government and the Constitution does not now (nor did it ever) have any meaning. This is why the Madison interpretation is correct.

That said, there is no elephant in the room any more than any other insurance is. Nobody would make the argument that we need to isolate the costs of those who have been in severe motor vehicle accidents from the automobile insurance pool, and nobody would argue that we need to isolate the costs of fire-destroyed homes from the home insurance pool. It is, by definition, a solved problem. This is what actuarial science is. It's not rocket surgery.

I just heard Mike Pence on the radio say that those with chronic conditions or other medical issues would be better served not in the private market but in state-run high-risk pools. This is a supposed conservative, and he's advocating directly against a free market solution so people who actually need medical intervention can be overseen by the same entity that has run Medicare, Medicaid, Tricare, and the VA in a way that makes an actual train wreck look like a work of art. You're advocating the same - not only are you saying that government is the answer, you're saying it's the ONLY answer. That's what makes you at the very least a statist.

To paraphrase Dr. Ian Malcolm, you have spent far too much time wondering if you COULD do something when you should have first wondered if you SHOULD.

This is not a problem for the government to "solve."

What I get out of that word salad is that you cannot be trusted to understand, much less fairly represent, what other people are saying.  It's also pretty clear that you don't even understand your own arguments. 

Have a nice day.

[Fishrrman]

I've read some of the "conservative" arguments made in this thread regarding healthcare.

And... from a coldly ideological viewpoint, I would agree.

Seems to me, if we really, REALLY wanted a "conservative solution" to health care, we would outlaw ALL health insurance and make those in need of healthcare pay directly to those who provide it. No insurance. No "payer in the middle". A true free market.

No money ... no care.

But something gets in the way.
It's called Fishrrman's credo:
Reality is what it is. It is not what we believe it to be.

The reality I sense is that if the Republican argument for a "healthcare solution" ends up being the doctrinaire conservative responses ...
...then get ready for single-payer, because if Americans are forced to choose between the two, they'll chose what the democrats offer instead.

[InHeavenThereIsNoBeer]

Seems to me, if we really, REALLY wanted a "conservative solution" to health care, we would outlaw ALL health insurance and make those in need of healthcare pay directly to those who provide it. No insurance. No "payer in the middle". A true free market.

I don't see making a legimate (in theory) product/industry illegal is any more conservative than making it compulsory.  In a true free market, one is free to purchase hedges against risk if someone else is willing to sell them and the parties can agree to terms.  The only job of the government is to provide a just judicial system to enforce the laws we already have related to contracts, fraud, collusion, etc.

[rodamala]

And....?

And that's all she wrote.

[Suppressed]

The reality I sense is that if the Republican argument for a "healthcare solution" ends up being the doctrinaire conservative responses ...
...then get ready for single-payer, because if Americans are forced to choose between the two, they'll chose what the democrats offer instead.

 :thumbsup3:

[rodamala]

I've read some of the "conservative" arguments made in this thread regarding healthcare.

And... from a coldly ideological viewpoint, I would agree.

Seems to me, if we really, REALLY wanted a "conservative solution" to health care, we would outlaw ALL health insurance and make those in need of healthcare pay directly to those who provide it. No insurance. No "payer in the middle". A true free market.

No money ... no care.

But something gets in the way.
It's called Fishrrman's credo:
Reality is what it is. It is not what we believe it to be.

The reality I sense is that if the Republican argument for a "healthcare solution" ends up being the doctrinaire conservative responses ...
...then get ready for single-payer, because if Americans are forced to choose between the two, they'll chose what the democrats offer instead.

Insurance is a bad bet on the Blackjack table.

Truth is, if there were a free market, where consumers were ALLOWED to choose the level of care, the doctor they want, and simple window sticker pricing to compare, there would be no insurance need.  The cost of healthcare in a free market lowers over time.

I just want to know what will bring down the cost of healthcare... to Hell with insurance.

[Smokin Joe]

The government can't pay for anything.  They can only take resources away from the people to whom they belong and give it to someone else.

Exactly. The problem with their whole 'Robin Hood' gig is that Robin Hood robbed the tax collectors and gave some of the money back.

[Frank Cannon]

Now, why would you respond with an insult to someone answering your question?

Because he is an azzhole. Occam's Razor.

[geronl]

I think Kudlow's argument is probably along the lines that the government, with its powers of taxation, is the only entity that can reliably raise the amount of money needed to handle it, and can do so at the lowest per capita cost; and if the government doesn't do it, some finite number of people will fall through the cracks.

If Kudlow thinks the federal government is the most efficient way to distribute healthcare, he's nuts.

[FS7]

What I get out of that word salad is that you cannot be trusted to understand, much less fairly represent, what other people are saying.  It's also pretty clear that you don't even understand your own arguments. 

Have a nice day.

What I get out of your refusal to engage is an inability to defend your own position.

You argue with hand-waving and emotion and fold when challenged.

[Idaho_Cowboy]

Insurance is a bad bet on the Blackjack table.

Truth is, if there were a free market, where consumers were ALLOWED to choose the level of care, the doctor they want, and simple window sticker pricing to compare, there would be no insurance need.  The cost of healthcare in a free market lowers over time.

I just want to know what will bring down the cost of healthcare... to Hell with insurance.

If you want a fun experiment next time you need something minor done that won't kill you (ingrown toe nail or something) check the price of the care if you negotiate direct with the care provider vs. the price if you can get it covered by your insurance. Don't look at what you pay, look at the price the health care provider bills either you or the insurance company. Usually there is a massive difference.

I know from experience midwives(who typically aren't covered by insurance) are a lot cheap than an OBGYN in a hospital for catching babies. 

[r9etb]

If Kudlow thinks the federal government is the most efficient way to distribute healthcare, he's nuts.

I doubt he thinks that; however, it does have the sort of financial wherewithal that other entities don't.