Yves here. There is so much tearing of hair and rending of sackcloth over Trump’s Super Tuesday romp that I figured I’d give you something a little different.
By Beverly Mann. Originally published at Angry Bear
Paul Krugman has been incessantly complaining about some Sanders supporters who accuse him and other high-profile Sanders critics, especially academics, of conflict of interest. The Sanders supporters allege all manner of self-interested reasons for the Sanders animus, much of it (including Krugman’s) expressed with vitriol.
Thorpe, a Clinton administration healthcare official, gets his Sanders’-single-payer-critique cred because he worked on the failed Vermont single-payer plan. Just before it was about to begin being implemented last year, the governor, a supporter of the plan, agreed to kill it because it became clear that its costs would significantly exceed former projections.
Weirdly, the failure of the Vermont plan is used, by Thorpe and others, as evidence that single-payer could not be cost-effective nationally. As if the tiny state of Vermont has the same contractual bargaining power, regulatory power, medical training funding power, and any other relevant power as the federal government has.
Thorpe recently made big news with a report that deconstructed the Sanders plan as little more than witchcraft in its cost savings and costs overall and in its costs to this or that entity—the federal government, the states, etc. But in a January 29 article published at Huffington Post, two healthcare economists, David Himmelstein and Steffie Woolhandler, both with credentials at least as impressive as Thorpe’s, deconstructed the Thorpe deconstruction as, well, odd in light of certain facts. Including several that Thorpe earlier had used.
Not to worry. Thorpe last week came up with a new headline grabber, this one likely intended to respond to us Sanders supporters who think Sanders would do better in November against Trump than Clinton would. (Or, it now seems likely, courtesy largely of elderly and middle-aged Southern African-Americans, will.) It is an issue that this week has become red hot now that it is likely that Trump will be the Republican nominee. And as of this week we Sanders supporters are no longer alone in thinking that Clinton is not quite the perfect candidate to compete against Trump. According to the NYT, the Clinton campaign itself now shares our concern. Which the Washington Post Wonkblog writer Max Ehrenfreund on February 25 summarized thusly:
Sanders estimates a middle-class family of four would pay an annual premium of $466 under his plan, with no deductible or co-pays. Less affluent households would pay less than that, or nothing at all.
But for at least 72 percent of households enrolled in Medicaid — in which someone is working — the costs of Sanders’s plan would exceed the benefits, according to an analysis by Kenneth Thorpe, a public-health expert at Emory University.
That figure includes 5.7 million households, or 14.5 million people — among them, 4.2 million Hispanic recipients and 2.5 million black recipients. The requirements for eligibility for Medicaid vary widely by state, so that group includes some households living in poverty as well as some that are modestly better off.
“The vast majority of low-income Medicaid workers, who are probably predominantly minority, are going to end up paying more in terms of payroll taxes, and aren’t going to receive really any financial benefits,” said Thorpe, a former Clinton administration health official.
Many lower-income people are already insured or eligible for insurance under Medicaid, at least in the states that expanded the program under President Obama’s healthcare reform. Many Medicaid beneficiaries also work, and those workers’ wages would likely decline due to the additional 6.2 percent payroll tax the proposal would levy on their employers.
The lengthy blog post is titled “Study: Bernie Sanders’s health plan is actually kind of a train wreck for the poor.”
That, presumably, is because of course Sanders could not, or at least would not, tweak the plan to remove the payroll tax for people qualify for Medicaid under current federal law. Because although the ACA is a very complex and very lengthy statute that took a year of drafting and amending to finalize, Sanders surely has thought of every possible issue and when that one came up he simply said, “Too bad.”
Sort of like Hillary Clinton, who regularly professes plans to build on Obamacare and move toward universal coverage for all—$10,000 deductibles? No prob.—but who never hints at what her building plans are, and, curiously, is never asked. Not by the likes of Thorpe or Krugman. And not by the likes of anyone else I know of.
But she’s definitely working on a plan for that move-toward-universal-coverage thing, and, as with the release of the transcripts of her highly-compensated speeches to large finance-industry and other big-corporate players, she’ll give us a hint about how she plans to do that the very minute after the Republican presidential candidates outline their plans to move toward universal healthcare coverage.
Or instead, she could refer us to Thorpe. Since he will again be a healthcare official in the Clinton administration.
UPDATE: Reader J.Goodwin and I just exchanged these comments in the Comments thread:
March 1, 2016 6:08 pm
Is there a reason we should anticipate that it would be significantly different than the Health Security Act?
I.e. larger federal subsidies and a stronger employer mandate than the ACA?
March 1, 2016 6:54 pm
I think it wouldn’t be anything at all, J.Goodwin. I think it’s outrageous of her to keep saying generically that she wants to build on the ACA without saying what she wants to do, yet criticize Sanders for his plan.
And I think it’s outrageous of the Hillary shillary economists brigade–Thorpe, but Krugman too, and probably others–for not mentioning that she has said nothing at all about what she has in mind, yet keeps saying she has, well, something in mind.
Then again, I don’t know why Sanders hasn’t pointed out that she’s taking a page out of the Republican playbook: just keep saying you plan to do something about the uninsured; just don’t say what that is.
Added 3/1 at 6:59 p.m.