Paul Krugman: Gold-Plated Indifference
economistsview.typepad.com
President Bush's Saturday radio address was devoted to health care, and officials have put out the word that the subject will be a major theme in tomorrow's State of the Union address. Mr. Bush's proposal won't go anywhere. But it's still worth looking at his remarks, because of what they say about him and his advisers.
On the radio, Mr. Bush suggested that we should “treat health insurance more like home ownership.” He went on to say that “the current tax code encourages home ownership by allowing you to deduct the interest on your mortgage... We can reform the tax code, so that it provides a similar incentive for you to buy health insurance.”
Wow. ... Going without health insurance isn't like deciding to rent an apartment instead of buying a house. It's a terrifying experience... The uninsured don't need an “incentive” to buy insurance; they need something that makes getting insurance possible.
[...]
The only people the Bush plan might ...[help] are the people we're least concerned about — affluent, healthy Americans who choose voluntarily not to be insured ... while in the process — whaddya know — giving many other high-income individuals yet another tax break. ...
Mr. Bush is also proposing a tax increase ... on workers who, he thinks, have too much health insurance. The tax code, he said, “unwisely encourages workers to choose overly expensive, gold-plated plans. The result is that insurance premiums rise, and many Americans cannot afford the coverage they need.”
Again, wow. No economic analysis I'm aware of says that when Peter chooses a good health plan, he raises Paul's premiums. And look at the condescension. Will all those who think they have “gold plated” health coverage please raise their hands?
[...]
What's really striking about Mr. Bush's remarks, however, is the tone. The stuff about providing “incentives” |
