Every table in the Sheraton Hotel ballroom in downtown Seattle was filled last night for the Washington Policy Center's Annual Dinner. The keynote speaker was Ben Stein, author, lawyer, economist, actor, and a speechwriter for the Nixon administration. He reminded us that Nixon proposed a health care plan during his tenure. Stein noted that Nixon's plan was based on private rather government-sponsored insurance, and that it would have provided subsidies to low income individuals and small businesses. In many ways it was similar to the current proposals, although it contained no individual mandate. We have learned a lot since Nixon proposed his plan, and I think it would be subject to many of the same defects of the current proposals, the two most significant being that the moral hazard problem is not sufficiently addressed and the government defined benefit would drive the system towards a high degree of regulation. You can read about Nixon's plan in his own words here.
Washington's Policy Center's website is a great resources. You can find their publications on health care policy here.
Posted by Carter Mackley at October 07, 2009 02:16 PM | Email ThisThe nations with the lowest cost, highest quality health care have more government regulations than not. I have a long-standing disagreement with your "moral hazard" concerns. I think that the over-use of medical services is driven by providers not patients. If providers get paid for every unnecessary MRI, then of course they're going to over-utilize services as we see today. The solution is not making MRI an unaffordable tool for patients.
A market simply necessitates that certain things be unaffordable for certain people. In matters of health, there is not just an economics "moral hazard" but a true life-and-death moral hazard.
Posted by: John Jensen on October 7, 2009 02:47 PMTim and Sen Patrick Moynahan (sp?) had many good things to say about Nixon's progressive social agenda.
Posted by: Andy on October 7, 2009 03:20 PMI suspect that if Nixon's health plan had been enacted the state of our health system would look a lot like Canada's does now. There are good things about the Canadian system, and not so good things. The lines for elective surgery in Canada are getting longer and longer. I actually think both countries can do better with a more consumer-centered system.
Posted by: Carter Mackley on October 7, 2009 03:33 PMSystems that rely on non-government administration, but heavy regulation, such as France, Germany, and Switerzland not only cost much less than us, and deliver as good if not better results, but do not have significant issues with waiting lines nor rationing.
If the solution to waiting lines or rationing is a form of waiting line and rationing called "affordability," we have to understand that the approach is less consumer-center and more wealth-centered.
Posted by: John Jensen on October 7, 2009 03:48 PMBHO also seems to be tolerant of rogue regimes (i.e. Iran, Venezuela, Cuba and more recently Russia). He defends their rights and apologizes to them about our behavior in other administrations. He is good at that, but the last thing he will defend is American sovereignity. Think about it - look at the policies he supports.
Posted by: KDS on October 8, 2009 06:25 PM