Since assuming the US presidency earlier this year, Barack Obama’s primary legislative focus has been reforming the financing of health care. Yet his proposals are meeting strong opposition from fiscally conservative Democrats as well as from Republicans, owing to their potential impact on future fiscal deficits. Because those deficits are the primary cause of the nation’s current-account deficit — and thus of global imbalances — the health-care debate’s outcome will affect governments and investors around the world.
About 85 percent of all Americans are now covered by some form of health insurance. All individuals over the age of 65 are eligible to be insured by the federal government through the Medicare program. Low-income families (and those whose income and assets are depleted by high medical costs) are covered by the Medicaid program, which is financed jointly by the states and federal government. Many uninsured get free care in emergency rooms of public and private hospitals and receive free care for chronic conditions in those same institutions.
In the most recent budget, the federal government’s outlays for Medicare next year are projected to be more than US$500 billion, while Medicaid will cost taxpayers more than US$250 billion. Private health insurance is generally provided by employers, which is encouraged by treating employer payments for health insurance as a tax-deductible business expense while not including the value of that insurance as taxable income to employees. That rule reduces income and payroll taxes by more than US$200 billion.
In short, an overwhelming majority of Americans are insured, with government a major financer of health care. But there remain about 54 million individuals who are not formally insured, and some insured individuals still face the risk of financially ruinous medical costs if they have very expensive medical treatment.
Obama campaigned on the goals that everyone should have health insurance, that high medical costs should not bankrupt anyone and that increased efficiency in the production and delivery of care should slow the overall growth of health-care costs. But, rather than producing a specific proposal, he left it to Congress to design the legislation.
Several competing plans emerged from the different congressional committees that have jurisdiction over the issue. The leading proposal, produced by the Senate Finance Committee, fails to achieve any of Obama’s goals. It would cut the number of uninsured roughly in half, but would still leave about 25 million people uninsured — with the threat of ruinously high medical bills deterring them from getting care.
There is also no clear plan to slow the growth of health-care costs. As a sign of their support for the administration’s goals, the pharmaceutical industry and the hospital industry have together promised to reduce costs by a total of about US$20 billion a year — a token amount, given government health spending of roughly US$1 trillion and total health outlays of more than US$2 trillion.
The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that the Senate Finance Committee plan would cost about US$800 billion between now and 2019. Most of this increased cost would, in principle, be financed by US$215 billion in taxes on high-premium insurance policies, and by about US$400 billion in cuts in payments to physicians and hospitals that provide services to older patients in the Medicare program.
If the cost and financing estimates are accurate, and if Congress does not change any of these provisions in the future, the CBO’s calculations imply that the Senate Finance Committee plan would reduce fiscal deficits between now and 2019 by US$49 billion, less than 1 percent of the projected deficits of more than US$7 trillion.
There is a strong risk that this legislation would ultimately add to the fiscal deficit. Increasing the number of insured by 35 million and broadening protection for some who are now insured implies increased demand for health care, which could raise the cost of care paid for by the government, as well as by private health-care buyers.
In addition, both sources of financing are uncertain. Taxes on high-premium insurance policies would lead many employees and employers to shift their sources of tax-free income from these health-insurance benefits to other forms of untaxed compensation. If they do this, the government would not collect the additional revenue from the insurance companies, employers or employees.
Similarly, the proposed cuts in payments to providers of services to Medicare patients are unlikely to receive the necessary congressional support in future years, especially if it turns out that doing so would reduce the volume of services, rather than just providers’ incomes. There is a long history of legislating such spending cuts, only to reverse them in subsequent years.
In considering the fiscal implications of Obama’s health proposals, it is important that the current legislation would still leave 25 million individuals without insurance. How much would it cost to insure them if the gross cost is now projected at US$800 billion for the easier-to-insure 35 million? And how could that cost be financed if the proposed taxes on existing health policies and the reductions in Medicare outlays have already been used? Closing that gap could add more than US$1 trillion to the government’s cost over the next 10 years.
It is clear that there is a significant danger that the current legislation would add substantially to future US deficits — and establish a precedent for even more expensive expansions of health care in the future. This would come on top of the currently projected fiscal deficits in both the near term and over the coming decade — and before a demographic shift substantially raises the cost of Social Security and Medicare.
Surprisingly, the bond market still seems almost oblivious to this risk. But holders of US debt worldwide have every reason to be concerned.
Martin Feldstein, a professor of economics at Harvard University, was chairman of president Ronald Reagan’s Council of Economic Advisors and president of the National Bureau for Economic Research.
COPYRIGHT: PROJECT SYNDICATE
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS