Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsBruce Bartlett: A Conservative Case for the Welfare State
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/25/a-conservative-case-for-the-welfare-state/#more-158917
Republicans are now using the fiscal impasse to try to raise the age for Medicare and reduce Social Security benefits by changing the index used to adjust them for inflation. They know that such programs will be easier to abolish in the future if the number of people who qualify can be reduced and benefits are cut so that privatization becomes more attractive.
This is foolish and reactionary. Moreover, there are sound reasons why a conservative would support a welfare state.
<snip>
In a new paper for the New America Foundation, Professor Lindert summarizes his findings. He points out that there are huge efficiencies in providing pensions and health care publicly rather than privately. A main reason is that in a properly run welfare state, benefits are nearly universal, which eliminates vast amounts of administrative overhead necessary to decide who is entitled to benefits and who isn't, as is the case in America, and eliminates the disincentives to work resulting from benefit phase-outs.
<snip>
Thus, for no more than the United States already spends through government, we could have a national health-insurance system equal to that in Britain. The 7.6 percent of G.D.P. difference between American and British total health spending is about equal to the revenue raised by the Social Security tax. So, in effect, having a single-payer health system like Britain's could theoretically give Americans 7.6 percent of G.D.P. to spend on something else--equivalent to abolishing the payroll tax.
This is a powerful conservative argument for national health insurance.
Republicans are now using the fiscal impasse to try to raise the age for Medicare and reduce Social Security benefits by changing the index used to adjust them for inflation. They know that such programs will be easier to abolish in the future if the number of people who qualify can be reduced and benefits are cut so that privatization becomes more attractive.
This is foolish and reactionary. Moreover, there are sound reasons why a conservative would support a welfare state.
<snip>
In a new paper for the New America Foundation, Professor Lindert summarizes his findings. He points out that there are huge efficiencies in providing pensions and health care publicly rather than privately. A main reason is that in a properly run welfare state, benefits are nearly universal, which eliminates vast amounts of administrative overhead necessary to decide who is entitled to benefits and who isn't, as is the case in America, and eliminates the disincentives to work resulting from benefit phase-outs.
<snip>
Thus, for no more than the United States already spends through government, we could have a national health-insurance system equal to that in Britain. The 7.6 percent of G.D.P. difference between American and British total health spending is about equal to the revenue raised by the Social Security tax. So, in effect, having a single-payer health system like Britain's could theoretically give Americans 7.6 percent of G.D.P. to spend on something else--equivalent to abolishing the payroll tax.
This is a powerful conservative argument for national health insurance.
Comment by Don McCanne of PNHP: Thank you, Bruce Bartlett, for perhaps the greatest Christmas gift of all - a rationale for why we all have to join together to provide health care for everyone.
(The 2003 NEJM article cited is that of PNHP co-founders Steffie Woolhandler and David Himmelstein, plus Terry Campbell of the Canadian Institute for Health Information.)
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
4 replies, 1493 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (12)
ReplyReply to this post
4 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Bruce Bartlett: A Conservative Case for the Welfare State (Original Post)
eridani
Dec 2012
OP
except private companies wouldn't make money on it, & people would be more secure. so no go.
HiPointDem
Dec 2012
#1
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)1. except private companies wouldn't make money on it, & people would be more secure. so no go.
Faryn Balyncd
(5,125 posts)2. "This is a powerful conservative argument for national health insurance."
Bartlett hits it out of the park again.
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)3. K&R Just this would go a long way toward healing this nation.
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)4. Bartlett is 100% right, but the Republicans are NOT Conservatives, anymore.
They are a coalition of Christo-Fascists and Libertarian nuts.