The Huckabee Plan
Sam Stein listens to Mike Huckabee’s radio commentary so you don’t have to and Ezra Klein pulls out this remark:
I want to see improvements in health care, too. But I think a better way to honor Ted Kennedy would be to ensure that every American has access to the latest private health care, as good as what senators receive.
What’s interesting is that though you sometimes hear conservatives toss this kind of line off, they never really bore deep down and try to formulate it into a plan. But you could really do this. Senators don’t get private health care from magical fairies, they’re enrolled in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program just like lots of other people. Indeed, the federal government is the largest employer in the United States. This is a form of government-provided health insurance that just happens to be provided exclusively to civilian workers in the federal government. But it could be provided to more people.
The way it works is that since the federal workforce is so giant, they’re able to attract a large number of different competing insurance plans. On top of that, the government heavily subsidizes premiums. You can download this PDF and see the rates charged to non-USPS workers (Postal Service workers are subsidized at a higher rate) for fee for service plans. You can get a “basic” plan from Blue Cross Blue Shield for $92.44 per month ($216.48 for a family). But that’s not buying you $92.44 per month of insurance, it’s buying you $369.72 per month of insurance—the federal government is picking up the rest of the tab. For the price of $3,327.84 per year per individual or $7,793.4 per family we could extend this offer to everyone in the country.
Alternatively, there’s the Blue Cross Blue Shield “standard” package. That costs $152.06 per month for an individual or $356.59 per family. In subsidies, the federal government shells out $4,047 a year for an individual and $9,166.56 for a family.
And as I say, we could really do this. You could write a law that says that all Americans will have the right to purchase insurance on these terms with this rate of government subsidy. But you’d obviously have to raise taxes to cover the cost. You’d have to raise taxes quite a bit. And you wouldn’t achieve anything in terms of “bending the curve” or getting long-term costs under control. That said, I’m not personally opposed to the idea of higher taxes and I sort of sympathize with the view that we should do access first and cost control later. So if Mike Huckabee or other conservative legislators is serious about the idea of giving all Americans access to the same health care options U.S. Senators enjoy then I would applaud their effort to write some serious legislation to that effect.
But frankly it’s extremely hard for me to imagine the GOP getting behind the kind of tax increases that would be involved. How much are we talking about? Well, currently health care spending accounts for 17.6 percent of US GDP. About 36 percent of that is accounted for by private health insurance. And in FEHB, federal subsidies for 72 percemt of the premiums. So 72 percent of 36 percent of 17.6 comes to the idea of new federal spending of about 4.56 percent of GDP per year. In other words, about $631 billion dollars in the first year, with costs rising after that (NB this is almost certainly an underestimate since universal FEHB would likely inspire many people to buy more generous subsidies coverage). As I say, abstracting away from political reality I’m not sure that’s such a terrible idea. Slap a 5 or 6 percent VAT on the country and give every American generous health insurance. But I’m pretty sure Mike Huckabee doesn’t actually favor that course of action. Or if he does, it deserves to be articulated in a much more worked-out way than some offhand comment. Which is an awful lot of words and pixels to have just wasted on point out that Huckabee is basically an empty suit who doesn’t know what he’s talking about, but, damnit, congress has been out of session forever.
30 Responses to “The Huckabee Plan”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
September 1st, 2009 at 12:20 pm
How does the portion of government employees health care paid for by the government compare to the share of private sector health insurance paid for by the employer.
In other words, isn’t the share paid by the government about the same paid by corporations as in private corporate plans?
September 1st, 2009 at 12:20 pm
So gov Huckabee agrees that we need a public option.
Awesome, now could he get the rest of his republican friends on record.
September 1st, 2009 at 12:26 pm
Republicans like Huckabee can lie through their fucking teeth because they know Democrats are a pack of rabbits who will NEVER call them on.
Has ANYONE seen the Democrats shouting to rooftops that Republicans controlled Congress for 14 years, controlled the White House for 8 years and did not a single thing to provide healthcare to the millions without it?
September 1st, 2009 at 12:30 pm
What strikes me about recent Republican efforts, even if they’re successful in scaring or bamboozling people, is how untethered they are to anything Republicans actually believe in. No cuts to Medicare? A senior citizens bill of rights? Extending senatorial health care to everyone? Maybe it sounds good, and maybe it doesn’t, but it has absolutely nothing to do with Republican principles of individual responsibility, free market operation, and limited government role.
This is very different from what the Democrats were arguing during the Social Security privatization debate. Sure, the Democrats were just trying to halt Bush’s efforts and they declined the opportunity to “offer their own plan” except that their plan was . . . Social Security. Which was in decent shape already. All they had to do was argue what they actually believed.
This is more like how the Democrats (in the past at least) would argue about the military. Instead of taking the Republicans on about real national security issues, there was always a tendency to fall back into their comfort zone, like veterans’ health care and a GI bill of rights. Extending themselves a tiny bit, they might haltingly suggest that the soldiers should get more armor (although that took them perilously close to the idea that soldiers actually would have to fight).
For a long time, the Republicans got their way on national security because the public trusted them more and didn’t want to put these issues in the hands of the Democrats. I trust that our Democratic leadership will take full opportunity in the coming weeks and months to remind the public of whom they trust on health care and why. This will be especially important as the charade of bipartisanship in the Finance Committee negotiations ends and the newspapers and the beard-stroking/process loving crowds tut tuts about the illegitimacy of a single-party bill.
September 1st, 2009 at 12:32 pm
So we’ll have to spend 4.6% of GDP on the Huck plan (if he’s serious, which he isn’t), but we’ll probably net out ahead. How much of GDP are individuals and employers spending on their current plans? How much on out of pocket expenses? I think every analysis of health care proposals needs to include this information. You make it sound as though this 4.6% will be on top of everything else. I know it’s not intentional, but that’s the way people will read it.
September 1st, 2009 at 12:34 pm
How can someone have the AARP on their side and STILL be fucking it up?
Because the Democrats think that the way to win is to argue over how they will surrender BEFORE battle is even joined.
From http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20090901/us_time/08599191976200
“Many observers are puzzled by the level of anger and vitriol senior citizens have been directing toward their besieged elected representatives during recent health-care town halls.
But no one can be more surprised, or put in a more uncomfortable position, than the organization that supposedly represents their interests, AARP. The 40 million–member advocacy group, after all, signed on early as a key supporter of President Obama’s health-care-reform plan, and now it finds itself on the defensive, scrambling to win back much of its own membership.
“A year ago, it seemed obvious that AARP would be for health reform,” says the group’s legislative-policy director David Certner. “Our membership as far as we could tell was quite ginned up about health-care reform.”
Since then, members’ views have apparently shifted. At least 60,000 AARP members quit the organization between July 1 and mid-August specifically because of its pro-reform stance, and the organization’s online message boards are littered with anti-reform posts.
….
t’s not hard to see how seniors got spooked, which to some degree is an indictment of AARP, not to mention the Democrats. Sarah Palin and other conservative opponents have helped fuel rumors that the House health-reform bill calls for the establishment of “death panels” to decide when to cut off medical care for seniors. (This is not true – the House bill includes a provision to reimburse doctors who provide voluntary end-of-life counseling to patients.) Judging by comments at town-hall meetings, the elderly are also fearful that Democratic proposals would take funding away from Medicare to pay for coverage for Americans who don’t currently have health insurance. This is not entirely untrue; Democratic proposals call for spending money to help insure the uninsured, alongside targeted reductions in Medicare reimbursements to doctors and hospitals and major funding cuts to Medicare Advantage, which allows seniors to buy private insurance with federal dollars. Most health-policy experts, however, believe these cuts are necessary for the program to remain financially solvent.”
September 1st, 2009 at 12:35 pm
Slap a 5 or 6 percent VAT on the country and give every American generous health insurance.
Or make it a 6 or 7 percent payroll tax, with or without a VAT to make up the difference. Which is what they do in other countries with actual healthcare systems.
September 1st, 2009 at 12:36 pm
“…I sort of sympathize with the view that we should do access first and cost control later.”
Absolutely. Once we have universal health insurance in this country, trying to take it away will be like trying to take away Medicare or Social Security. And there’s plenty of saving to the economy just from (a) increasing the efficiency of private insurance by getting rid of the bureaucracy aimed at denying coverage (b) avoiding use of hospital emergency rooms for care that could be provided in much cheaper ways (c) decreasing loss of wages and productivity due to preventable illness. We can worry about further savings later.
September 1st, 2009 at 12:38 pm
Look, I know many European countries have a VAT, but that doesn’t mean that it’s a good idea. It’s incredibly regressive.
September 1st, 2009 at 12:38 pm
Matt, honeychild, I think you need a vacation.
September 1st, 2009 at 12:38 pm
So WHY are Democrats losing the battle to the MINORITY REPUBLICANS??
From the same article cited in 6:
“Unfortunately for Democrats, these nuanced points are not easily translated into sound bites, further evidence of why Democrats are currently losing the public-relations battle.
Meanwhile, Republicans have been capitalizing on the moment, suddenly presenting themselves as the defenders of a government health-care program they have spent years attacking. Republican National Committee chairman Michael Steele published an Op-Ed in the Washington Post on Aug. 24 titled “Protecting Our Seniors,” and the RNC issued a press release on Aug. 28 titled “Real Solutions for Seniors.”
Edward Coyle, executive director of the Alliance for Retired Americans, a union-affiliated pro-reform advocacy group that represents some 4 million seniors, says the “solo drum beat” from the opposition has so far successfully drowned out its and AARP’s message. “Frankly, the other side has done a better job of raising issues that are of concern to seniors,” he says. “I think the right word to use about seniors right now is confused.”
———–
I waiting for some dumbshit to patronizing explain “3-D chess” to me
September 1st, 2009 at 12:40 pm
Current proposals are too complicated. Medicare for all, or same insurance as your senator, would be much simpler, and therefore an easier sell.
Think of the number of times you’ve heard something like ‘why can’t we get the same healthcare as our senators.’
If cost is a concern, how about the ability to negotiate with providers, limits on patent protection and easier licensing of non-US doctors. Competition is a wonderful thing.
September 1st, 2009 at 12:47 pm
When Huckabee says “every American [should have] access to the latest private health care,” he means it in the same way that every American has access to a Ferrari. Sure, you might not actually be able to afford it, but since they can’t stop you from walking into the dealership, you’ve got “access.”
September 1st, 2009 at 12:48 pm
David Yaseen @5, exactly. There’s a similar argument when it comes to taxes. I don’t mind if mine have to go up five percentage points, if in exchange I get back the money I currently pay into my employer-sponsored health plan, since it’s a break-even. Heck, if I also get some of what my employer has to pay for that plan (not guaranteed, obviously), I’d come out ahead.
September 1st, 2009 at 12:50 pm
I totally agree. We should just give everyone in the country the ability to enroll in the same coverage program that the Senate gets. Write that bill up tonight.
My only worry is that the Republican position will eventually contain so many oxymorons that it will rip a hole in the space-time continuium and destroy us all.
September 1st, 2009 at 1:00 pm
We KNOW why the Democratic Caucus and Obama have been so silent for the past 6 fucking MONTHS. They are not planning on promoting healthcare reform — they are planning on promoting whatever half-ass deal the insurance companies PAY them to promote.
Except the deal ain’t worked out. Which kinda puts them on a strategic disadvantage — they are gagged because they don’t yet know what Sellout they will be trying to sell.
If the insurance companies can drag this on long enough they will not only kneecap healthcare reform — they won’t have to pay the Democrats anything. Well, aside from those donations Max and Ben have already scooped up.
Strategically, of course, the insurance companies just have to discredit the Democratic Caucus and Obama enough that an infuriated Progressive movement decides to fuck the Democrats next year. Even if the Republicans don’t regain control, a crippled Democratic Caucus with much smaller minorities will be far easier to coerce, manipulate and control.
Given that the Democrats are such pathetic cowards with huge majorities in both the House and Senate, one can only imagine what they will be like with things closer to 50-50.
We KNOW that Reid, Obama and Rahm are supporting the Blue Dogs. Because otherwise Obama and the Democratic Caucus would be making clear to Ben and Max that the great states of Nebraska and Montana are going to be suffering horribly over the next 4 years from the acts of their Senators. They have NOTHING in the way of Electoral votes so there is no downside to turning them into a fucking economic Dust Bowl.
September 1st, 2009 at 1:25 pm
The average employer subsidy is 76-77%. The Fed. government pays between 74% and 75%.
September 1st, 2009 at 1:30 pm
Why shouldn’t the U.S. Government offer this plan to everybody even without the subsidy? The government insurance pool is big and could get bigger, reducing costs further and adding significant bargaining power with medical and drug providers.
Oh, and throw in an employer mandate, surely getting heath insurance at the federal government rate will be a good deal for all but the largest, youngest employers.
September 1st, 2009 at 1:36 pm
Converting the FEHB to a National Insurance Exchange available to all would make sense. I don’t see why it necessarily follows that enabling to people to buy their policies through the FEHB would mean that they be similarly reimbursed like feds are. Wouldn’t a more logical conclusion be that they pay the whole premium?
September 1st, 2009 at 2:23 pm
The average employer subsidy is 76-77%. The Fed. government pays between 74% and 75%.
Yeah, the subsidy level is similar. The difference is that FEHB makes more/better insurance options available to people than what you get in most jobs. Also the growing cost of the employer subsidy doesn’t depresses wages in the public sector because compensation rates are set by law (such-and-such rule for increasing wages and such-and-such rule for insurance) rather than through the market fixing total compensation.
September 1st, 2009 at 2:29 pm
The average employer subsidy is 76-77%. The Fed. government pays between 74% and 75%.
If this is true the net cost is a net positive.
September 1st, 2009 at 3:39 pm
Didn’t John Kerry propose doing the exact seem thing. Don’t get me wrong, Huckabee does say a lot of stupid stuff, I just don’t see it here.
September 1st, 2009 at 3:46 pm
Hire more bureaucrats?
September 1st, 2009 at 6:58 pm
“But I think a better way to honor Ted Kennedy would be to ensure that every American has access to the latest private health care, as good as what senators receive.”
That’s great! Call it the ‘Huckabee Plan.’ The new meme.
Quote this often. Ask your Representative/Senator, especially if Republican, how he stands on it: “Sen.Huckabee proposed last Thursday to allow every American to enroll in the Senate’s health insurance plan (Federal Employees Health Benefits Program).”
Then quote the above. Then continue: “Would you support the Huckabee Plan? Why not?” And wait for them to deny its existence.
Unfortunately the mainstream media will never ever report any of this. They never ever show conflicting quotes from Republicans.
September 1st, 2009 at 8:44 pm
Yes, as someone said above, Kerry did propose doing something along these lines in 2004.
The Republicans opposed it, calling it a “government take over of health care.”
September 1st, 2009 at 10:03 pm
RE: Don Williams
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MjYJ7zZ9BRw
Now I just need to find a flick about a guy named “Hector…”
September 2nd, 2009 at 10:34 am
The government already picks up close to $200 billion a year in tax subsidy for employer-based health insurance premiums. So the net tax increase would be closer to $400 billion a year than to $600+ billion.
September 2nd, 2009 at 10:51 am
this is still a massive FAIL.
everybody who can easily afford a new $150/month bill, raise your hand! soooo, the well-to-do, who AREN’T generally having these problems with health and bankruptcy in the first place, will be the people who can afford this. people who don’t have insurance due to their inability to pay, will still have the same problem. you have to really have no idea what life is like for the non-wealthy to think that people out there can all just en masse pick up a new $150/month bill. it is not within most people’s ability to do so.
September 2nd, 2009 at 3:58 pm
[...] of congress purchase health insurance via the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program which we had occasion to discuss yesterday. This operates, essentially, the way the Health Insurance Exchange works in the major reform [...]
September 4th, 2009 at 11:03 pm
onceler, If you can’t afford 150.00 a month, or roughly 35 dollars a week you don’t deserve health insurance. I am tired of those of you with nothing sucking the money out of my pockets claiming you are entitled to it.