Last Friday's Seattle Times carried the disappointing news that the Obama-Pelosi-Reid health insurance plan would increase costs under this headline: Health Care Fix: Budget Buster? (The on-line version has a tamer headline, perhaps because they weren't limited to a single column.)
The headline repeats a common mistake, identifying the problem as health care. And sometimes one sees an even worse mistake. The Friday Wall Street Journal used this headline for the story: Budget Blow for Health Plan.
What we are arguing about is not health care, much less health, but health insurance, how we pay for health care. We need to get the headlines right, need to be clear about what we are arguing over because there is little reason to expect that the Obama-Pelosi-Reid plan would improve our health care, and almost no reason to expect that the plan would improve our health.
Some will find those assertions surprising. But there is strong evidence to support both, from variations in longevity, and from formal experiments. In the first of those two posts, I gave my best guess as to why this should be so.
So there are very large differences among groups in the United States, but one can not explain those differences with income alone, and having health insurance doesn't do much for your longevity. Or, putting the two together, the amount of health care a person can buy doesn't make much difference in a person's longevity.
Why would this be so? Here's my best guess: The things that make the most difference in longevity are almost all cheap. Safe water, vaccines, antibiotics, and nutritious diets do not cost much, at least in the United States. On the opposite end, heart bypass surgery is enormously expensive, but doesn't seem to make much difference in longevity.
The Obama-Reid-Pelosi plan would extend health insurance to some of the uninsured — many of whom do not want that insurance. (They may be wrong to prefer to be without insurance, but anyone who cares about liberty will think twice before depriving them of their choice in the matter.) It appears to be intended to destroy most private health insurance over time, though I will admit that the details are unclear to me, not having read the thousands of pages in the principal bills.
Subsidizing insurance for those with moderate incomes (the poor are already mostly covered by Medicaid or Medicare) can be justified on redistributionist grounds. (Though some of those with moderate incomes may prefer cash, instead of subsidized insurance.) And forcing those who prefer not to have health insurance to buy it may be good for them. But there is no reason to expect that the immense sums that we will have to spend to achieve these goals would have a significant effect on our health, or a measurable effect on our longevity.
We are arguing, not about health, or even health care, but about health insurance, and our headlines should reflect that fact. Since I don't expect many headline writers to take my advice, I urge you to do the corrections yourself. When you see "Health Care" in a headline over an article on the Obama-Pelosi-Reid plan, correct that to "Health Insurance". For example, here's how I would fix that Seattle Times headline: Health Insurance Fix? Budget Buster!
Cross posted at Jim Miller on Politics.
(What might make a difference in longevity? Among other things, encouraging people to exercise.)
Note to commenters: There are already four open posts on this subject, so I will leave this one closed. If you have something that absolutely must be said about this post, put it in the public section, or email me.
Posted by Jim Miller at July 19, 2009 02:44 PM | Email This