pudge's Journal: Geithner and Wrongthink

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner was on Meet the Press with David Gregory today, and Gregory asked him, regarding the health insurance bills, "there is going to be a heavy burden on the middle-class through health care by taxes going up, by premiums going up. It will affect the middle-class."

Geithner responded, "You know, I don't think that's the way to look at it. The--our tax--our healthcare system today imposes enormous burdens not just on businesses, but on families. There are very high hidden costs to our current system. And the best way to add to our long-term deficits, and the best way to add to those burdens is not reform health care today."

Gregory: "But it doesn't answer the question about premiums going up with an individual mandate and taxes going up on so-called Cadillac plans and other parts of this bill as they're moving their way through the process that would increase taxes."

And then Geithner again: "Right. Again, I don't think that's the right way to think about it. I think you have to look at the entire system today and the cost that presents. And if you look at those..."

Gregory: "Well, why isn't that the right way to look at it if that's the reality of what the legislation would do?"

Geithner: "No."

No.

Seriously. This is what he said.

If you are firmly in the middle class, recognizing significantly increased health care costs due to the Democrats' plan -- even though this is the reality you face -- you shouldn't think about it that way.

Ignore reality. Trust in Obama, instead.

Now, maybe Geithner meant (and stated poorly) that is not the reality. A moment later Geithner apparently denied that the Democratic plan calls for tax hikes. If that is what he meant, he's a liar, of course, because everyone knows Gregory was exactly right: the proposed mandates and taxes on "Cadillac plans" will increase costs for many people at all income groups, except the poor.

I don't think Geithner was lying in that way: I think he was trying to reframe the issue to say, the tax cuts aren't the point; rather, look at how great this bill is (except for the parts you dislike)!

And if you choose to focus on the parts you dislike, well, "that's not the right way to think about it."

Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.

Can't possibly be worse!

[mwlewis]

I'm hearing more people saying things like, "Well, it can't be worse than what we've got!" These people have never observed Congress in action, clearly. But I suspect that they've stumbled on the "right way to think about it."

Whatever happened to better?

[Qzukk]

What I want to know is, what happened to the way insurance used to work? You know: exclusions for conditions that you already had when you signed up, so that a guy with cancer could at least get coverage for broken legs or the swine flu? That's how insurance companies handled people waiting until they were sick to get insurance. Now? They seem hellbent on feeding the media as many stories as possible about patients with some insignificant medical history (like acne [time.com] (and no, that's not a hypothetical [healthpolicyproject.org])) h

Re:

[mwlewis]

What happened is that the states won't allow that sort of thing. This is just like the financial crash. The roles of governments get ignored, and private industry, operating within the rules and according to the incentives of government, gets the blame.

Just unprepared...

[Bill Dog]

...and unpracticed, compared to the spin meisters we're all used to seeing. See also Sarah Palin, as McCain's new running mate. See also esp. Robert Rubin early on in Bill Clinton's admin. That's back when I used to watch the Sunday morning political talk shows (or rather just the great David Brinkley), and I remember him being refreshingly different and candid and straightforward compared to the usually booked fare. And I also remember the change he quickly went thru on subsequent appearances, as handlers

Re:

[pudge]

...and unpracticed

And revealing.

At least Geithner got the theme (or certainly one of the major ones) right of his boss's administration.

Exactly. The theme is to ignore the harm caused to individuals, and focus on the supposed net benefits.

And to play devil's advocate for a moment, think of (non-elective) surgury -- you could choose to focus on the parts you dislike, like the pain afterwards, but if it's something you really need, then that indeed is not the right way to think about it.

Sure. But this IS elective. We have elections and everything. :-) Although for Geithner, yes, it isn't. He is given a "mandate" to push this plan.

So to me the issue is really, is Obama and co. like what he/they had accused doctors of during this debate: chopping off appendages and doing other horrific procedures on the patient totally unnecessarily, just to get what they personally desire.

LOL.

Re:

[mwlewis]

Exactly. The theme is to ignore the harm caused to individuals, and focus on the supposed net benefits.

The debate is typically framed as an optimization effort, but the objective keeps changing. Either we're trying to reduce costs, increase coverage or improve overall health. It's a completely stupid way to approach this, which explains why politicians chose it. The current proposals may increase coverage, but to the detriment of the other two.