Jonathan Cohn Breaks Down HCR's Savings for Families

Right here: The Senate Bill Saves Families Money.

h/t Ezra Klein

Why can't Republicans support health-care reform?

Ezra Klein asks Is this why Republicans can't support health-care reform? This being that health care premiums will go up because we'll be insuring all those high-cost folks we don't insure now. We've been down this road before. The comment I left:

Under our current system, the $10 folks are not necessarily uninsured. In fact, they're quite likely already on Medicare. The un-insured include a whole lot of people in the $2 range (young adults, for example). So, I think the whole argument that it's the cost side that will drive up premiums is bogus. It makes me crazy when I hear people talking about how much more expensive it will be to cover everybody when many of the most expensive to insure (the elderly) are already covered.
That being said, I do think premiums will go up, because without some kind of regulation of premiums, the individual mandate will allow insurers to raise prices, especially if there's no public option and so, no competition in a lot of places.

So it's still a big mystery why Republicans won't support health care reform. Here's my list of suspects:
- Must oppose Obama, no matter what he does! Obama's for puppies? We're against 'em. Never liked them in fact! Puppies are known socialists! {translation: Republicans have painted themselves into a corner by continually feeding their far-right base red meat; now that's all that's left, and they must be fed, or the Republicans will get zero votes in the mid-terms}
- Health insurance campaign donations. {not that the congressional Democrats don't also get this money; you may note their somewhat tepid enthusiasm for reforming health-care; but the topic is the Republicans}

I think that's a fine list and I vote for all of the above! For the record, I support single payer.

David Frum is a genius . . . oh, wait

In Four simple steps to health care reform, heard on Marketplace last night, David Frum makes the case that what we really need to do is reform individuals, not health care. He makes some good points, and also an excellent point he did not, I think intend. First the good points. Individual actions matter. He is a genius. That must be why he gets paid the big bucks. If people smoked less, ate less, exercised more, etc. blah-blah-blah. You already know all this, right? He does add some useful numbers about savings we could realize if people acted as if they really cared about their health, which I'm too lazy to fact check. Let's concede the point. All right?
Then we can move on to the excellent point:

Our infant morality statistics are awful, worse than Cuba's. It's these infant deaths that pull down American life expectancy overall. Once Americans reach 65, American life expectancy ranks a respectable 9th in the world.

Why so many infant deaths? The shockingly high American incidence of premature birth: about one baby in eight. And the most important causes of premature birth are controllable: smoking during pregnancy, drinking, drugs, maternal overweight, and sexually transmitted diseases.

We all want wider health access and a more rational health-care system. But a big obstacle to a better system is our expectation that doctors, hospitals, and machines will save us from the harms we do to ourselves.

Hmm, if we're so crappy at taking care of our health when we're younger, why do we do so well once we reach that magical age of 65? "Say, isn't that the age at which that socialized health system called Medicare kicks in?" I hear you ask (it's a fair question: not everyone gets this point). The answer of course, is yes, yes it is. Coincidence? Hah-ha. Maybe.

Naturally, correlation does not mean causation, and the fact that seniors do so well in the US, comparatively, could be due in part to other factors. Also, this isn't to say that taking better care of ourselves is a bad idea. I'm just sayin'. Medicare works.