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
I came to Taiwan to pursue my degree thinking that Taiwanese are “friendly,” but I was welcomed by Taiwanese classmates laughing at my friend’s name, Maria (瑪莉亞). At the time, I could not understand why they were mocking the name of Jesus’ mother. Later, I learned that “Maria” had become a stereotype — a shorthand for Filipino migrant workers. That was because many Filipino women in Taiwan, especially those who became house helpers, happen to have that name. With the rapidly increasing number of foreigners coming to Taiwan to work or study, more Taiwanese are interacting, socializing and forming relationships with
Whether in terms of market commonality or resource similarity, South Korea’s Samsung Electronics Co is the biggest competitor of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC). The two companies have agreed to set up factories in the US and are also recipients of subsidies from the US CHIPS and Science Act, which was signed into law by former US president Joe Biden. However, changes in the market competitiveness of the two companies clearly reveal the context behind TSMC’s investments in the US. As US semiconductor giant Intel Corp has faced continuous delays developing its advanced processes, the world’s two major wafer foundries, TSMC and
The recent termination of Tibetan-language broadcasts by Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) is a significant setback for Tibetans both in Tibet and across the global diaspora. The broadcasts have long served as a vital lifeline, providing uncensored news, cultural preservation and a sense of connection for a community often isolated by geopolitical realities. For Tibetans living under Chinese rule, access to independent information is severely restricted. The Chinese government tightly controls media and censors content that challenges its narrative. VOA and RFA broadcasts have been among the few sources of uncensored news available to Tibetans, offering insights
We are witnessing a sea change in the government’s approach to China, from one of reasonable, low-key reluctance at rocking the boat to a collapse of pretense over and patience in Beijing’s willful intransigence. Finally, we are seeing a more common sense approach in the face of active shows of hostility from a foreign power. According to Article 2 of the 2020 Anti-Infiltration Act (反滲透法), a “foreign hostile force” is defined as “countries, political entities or groups that are at war with or are engaged in a military standoff with the Republic of China [ROC]. The same stipulation applies to
RSS