The Governator announced a “Universal Health Care” scheme. It’s “in quotes” because I’m, to say the least, “skeptical.”
First up we go with Ezra Klein’s post–I was really waiting for him to post something on this, and he finally got around to it. I should link to his stuff more often. I like Ezra’s analyses, and he just posts so damn much, I can’t keep up with it all. Ezra’s roundup is nice, but he gives the governor too much credit. Ahnold’s 4% funding plan will never pay for itself. (But okay, I like the community rating too. This means that insurance companies could only determine premiums by age and location, not other factors.)
The somewhat-obligatory, of-course-Graham-will-post-this piece from Don McCanne, single-payer advocate and former-physician turned health policy wonk. Rips apart the 4% funding scheme. Shout out to my man Don, strong work.
The obligatory Matthew Holt article, which I was also waiting for. Another good analysis.
My favorite thus far (sorry, above 3!) is this one, by Sentinel Effect, a blog I’m not familiar with, but maybe should start reading more. He divides things up by pros and cons, winners and losers. (Maybe my mind has just become so full that it prefers to think in bullet points now.) Makes a good argument that the “85% of health care dollars must go to actual health care” is a perverse incentive for the insurers to just raise their rates in order to keep their total administrative costs the same. My bugaboo: I think doctors will definitely be losers; I don’t think they will be “stuck with fewer unpaid bills,” as the uninsured currently will probably have the minimal, $5,000-deductible coverage, and they will probably just forego seeing a doctor anyway.