Health Policy Languages, and Other Links

When I talk to the health policy community I always speak disfluently.

Why not have evidence-based government?

This year’s tax return determines next year’s ObamaCare subsidy.

Roofer’s union changes its mind: ready to repeal ObamaCare.

Republicans find something in ObamaCare they like: the high risk pool.

Comments (13)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. David Hogberg says:

    The piece on evidenced-based government is a real treat. Apparently Tankersly and Matthews believe that politicians will listen to data more than voters when it comes to funding decisions.

  2. Politics Debunked says:

    re: “evidence based government”

    Obviously they don’t like people seeing the evidence of government failure, e.g. it fails the poor as well as taxpayers (based on data from the Census bureau and other sources like Brookings and CRS):

    http://www.politicsdebunked.com/government-fails-the-poor
    “Official US Census poverty figures show about 46 million people have been living in poverty the last couple of years, the most ever. The 15% poverty rate is tied for the highest it has been since 1965. The problem isn’t lack of funding.

    $195 billion would have been needed last year to simply give everyone enough money to bring their income above the poverty level.
    $1030 billion at least was spent on federal anti-poverty programs (including state funding put into those programs).”

    One approach is to introduce competition into the system. e.g school vouchers are promoted to force government competition, similarly a 100% tax credit for charity (rather than merely a deduction) could force government to compete. Obama gave more to charity than he paid in taxes, even he didn’t donate his money to the government social programs he runs. Yet he wants to reduce the tax deduction. Details, data links, and variations on the theme are explored on that page.

  3. Politics Debunked says:

    Also they have trouble dealing with evidence (as you all know re: healthcare), they make unrealistic projections based on the information they do have. e.g. the Social Security projections (and the Medicare projections that rely on may of the same assumptions) aren’t based on credible analysis of the evidence of trends.

    They give implication it can forecast GDP out to 2090 more accurately than other entities can for 2-5 years, in fact more accurately than it is measured (based on the GDI-GDP statistical discrepancy), i.e. they ignore the evidence even when engaging in the pretense of using it (ala Hayek’s nobel lecture on the “pretense of knowledge”).

    This page below goes into gory detail of the many ways SSA ignores evidence, e.g. that labor force participation rates are dropping as even their fellow government entity the BLS forecasts. They have a track record of being far off in projections, but despite that evidence, act as if their worst case figures were a credible worst case, for instance:

    http://www.politicsdebunked.com/article-list/ssaestimates
    “The 1950 annual SSA report projected US population in 2000 to be worst case 199 million, best case 173 million. In reality it turned out to be 282 million, 42% above their highest projection. Imagine if their real costs turn out to be 42% higher than their current projections”

  4. Singh says:

    @ Health policy and disfluently

    If we just knew how to be more fluent in our discussion on health care, then perhaps we may be able to solve it a bit. However, it is a hotmess as usual.

  5. Harley says:

    The Roofers Union wanting to Repeal Obamacare is sort of like the KKK harassing Westboro Baptist Church.

    Which is happening btw.

  6. Patel says:

    @ Evidence Based Government

    I love the idea of having an evidence based government, however, I have a feeling that this is not going to happen any time soon.

  7. Jacob Druisdael says:

    Wasn’t there a post yesterday about how evidence based medicine wasn’t working as well as people pretended it was?

  8. Khan says:

    @ Evidence Based Government

    That is an interesting concept, if this becomes reality, it will be interesting to see what kind of grade we give the government.

  9. Sandeep says:

    @ This year’s tax defines Obamacare subsidy

    This is a scary concept, think about it, once ObamaCare balloons even more, you are going to have the case where they are going to tax people even more to provide more subsidy.

  10. Raj says:

    @ Taxes and ObamaCare

    Taxes, Taxes and more Taxes. When will this every stop! So annoying!

  11. Saket says:

    @ Republicans like something in ObamaCare

    “The Obama administration announced earlier this year that it would suspend enrollment in the PCIP, citing cost concerns.” Classic. But lets be real, majority of the health care costs are high because the same group of people with critical condition have to use it alot of times. I do think it is important we find a better way to treat this population.

  12. Tommy Beyer says:

    “Why not have evidence-based government?”

    Actually, evidence-based intervention through policy is being implemented in other countries. It has done wonders in South Africa recently in regards to child poverty and I think it could be a very useful standard for policy in the US and help de-fund unnecessary programs and fund those that are really effecting change.

  13. Tommy Beyer says:

    “This year’s tax return determines next year’s ObamaCare subsidy.”

    I really hope we don’t end up like Greece, Spain, Cyprus and those ensuing in Europe. Therefore, we really need to get our fiscal house in order.