Economist Jared Bernstein thinks so. In his book “Crunch: Why Do I Feel So Squeezed?” (Berrett-Koehler Publishers, 2008), Bernstein argues that growth in per capita income (less taxes and healthcare spending) is already flattening out and based on current trends will actually turn south in 2044.
“As we near the point where income minus the cost of health care flatten or even falls, excessive, wasteful health spending inexorably crowds out our ability to invest in or pay for other stuff we want and need,” Bernstein writes. In other words, reform will be driven by pure economics. That said, Bernstein admits change will be incremental. “We’ll get to large-scale reform, but it will occur through chaining together a bunch of small-scale steps. We won’t see Medicare for All anytime soon, but we might see it for selected age groups, like children or those nearing retirement.”
But why single-payer versus some type of market-driven reform? Because, Bernstein writes, “health care is different from commodities in some fundamental ways….If a hungry person shows up at a supermarket without money, he doesn’t get fed. But if a sick person shows up at the hospital without insurance, she does get treatment. And the rest of us end up paying for it.”
Bernstein’s bottom line: “When we fix this, and I think we may…be poised to take a serious run at it, some folks will receive less health care than they do today. But many others will receive more, and if we get it right, we’ll all benefit from the establishment of a system that covers everyone and does so in a way that doesn’t metastasize into an inoperable tumor.”
Hey, even Harry and Louise are calling for reform more than a decade after helping kill the Clinton’s universal healthcare proposal. Now that’s want we call “incremental change.”
Subscribe in RSS Reader
