The Republican Health Plan

The biggest mistake Hillary Clinton made 15 years ago was not endorsing Bob Dole’s health bill, which had more than 40 Republican co-sponsors. The Dole bill would have given her 70% to 80% of everything she wanted anyway, to say nothing of creating a huge bipartisan lovefest. Democrats would have held the Congress in 1994….. and, well, you get the picture.

Barack Obama is about to repeat that same mistake. The smartest thing Obama could do is endorse a bill [summary] sponsored by Sens. Tom Coburn (R-OK) and Richard Burr (R-NC), along with Reps. Paul Ryan (R-WI) and Devin Nunes (R-CA), [hereinafter called the Coburn bill]. Here’s why:

  • Independent analyses estimate the Coburn bill would cut the number of uninsured in half, the same result that is expected under Obama’s plan.
  • The Coburn bill is revenue neutral — requiring no net increased taxes or spending; whereas Obama’s plan will cost $1.5 trillion over 15 years and maybe more – even though they both achieve the same goal. (I’ll explain this truly fascinating result in a future Alert.)
  • The Coburn bill makes coverage more universal by shifting tax benefits from those who earn more to those who earn less — precisely what Obama has committed to from the get-go.
  • The Coburn bill liberates millions of poor people from Medicaid rationing and gives them access to the same kind of insurance middle-income families have, whereas Obama’s plan would do to reverse.
  • The Coburn bill gives people strong incentives to control costs and they might actually work, whereas Obama’s $150 billion a year in extra spending will almost certainly add to health care inflation.

In some ways, this is the most “liberal” proposal on the table made by the most conservative senator on Capitol Hill; and it achieves all of Obama’s goals as well or much better than Obama’s own plan!


Why Not Me?

Since the Coburn plan is very similar to John McCain’s health plan, which I have discussed here, here and here, I won’t dwell on details — other than to explain two main features which are not well understood and which Mark Pauly and I proposed in a Health Affairs article more than a decade ago.

The Refundable Tax Credit. Right now the federal government encourages private health insurance primarily through the tax system — handing out as much as $300 billion in tax subsidies every year. Every dollar in health insurance premiums paid by an employer is excluded from employee income and payroll taxes. Take an employee in the 25% income-tax bracket. After avoiding that tax plus state and local income taxes plus the 15.3% (FICA) payroll tax, the tax exclusion for a middle-income family is worth almost 50 cents on the dollar. To make things even better, employees can often pay their share of the premium with pretax dollars as well.

But this system is extremely arbitrary. There is virtually no tax relief for people who work for the 40% of employers who do not provide insurance, for part-time workers or people not in the labor market, or for anyone else who for any reason must buy his own insurance. According to the LewinGroup, families earning $100,000 a year get four times as much tax relief as families earning $25,000. The biggest subsidy goes to those who least need it, and who probably would have purchased insurance anyway. The system is also wasteful. People can always lower their taxes by spending more on health insurance, and there is no limit to how bloated a health plan can be.

Under the Coburn bill, no longer would employers be able to buy insurance with pretax dollars. These payments would be taxable to the employee, just like wages. However, every individual would get a $2,300 credit (and every family would get $5,700) to be applied dollar-for-dollar against taxes owed.

The Coburn bill does not raise taxes, nor does it lower them. Instead, it takes the existing system of tax subsidies and treats everyone alike, regardless of income or job status. All health insurance would be sold on a level playing field under the tax law, regardless of how it is purchased. The impact would be enormous. For the first time, low- and moderate-income families would get just as much tax relief as the very rich when they purchase health insurance.

The Coburn bill would also encourage all Americans to control costs. The tax credit would subsidize the core insurance that everyone should have. It would not subsidize bells and whistles (marriage counseling, acupuncture, etc.) as the current system does. Since employees and their employers will be paying for additional coverage with after-tax dollars, everyone will have an incentive to compare the value of extra health benefits to the value of other things money can buy. When patients eliminate health-care waste, they will get to keep every dollar they save.

In addition:

The tax credit would be refundable. People could apply $2,300 per person or $5,700 per family to the purchase of health insurance, even if they do not owe any income taxes.

The credit would be advanceable. Families would not have to wait until April 15 the following year to get their credit. They could obtain the subsidy at the time the insurance is purchased.

The credit would be transferable. Insurance companies and other intermediaries would be able to help families obtain their credit and apply it directly to health-insurance premiums.

Health Savings Accounts. Although the bill allows any excess tax credit (not used for insurance premiums) to be deposited in a tax advantaged Health Savings Account (HSA), this will happen very rarely. The reason: for most people, the tax credit will barely cover the cost of catastrophic insurance — leaving nothing extra for HSAs or anything else. As a result, the tax advantaged HSA will wither on the vine.

Still, I expect health savings to grow dramatically. The reason: since premiums for additional third-party insurance will be paid with after-tax dollars, third-party insurance and self-insurance will be on a level playing field under the tax law. Nobody will pay an extra dollar in premiums if it makes more sense to put that dollar in a savings account. The deposits to ordinary savings accounts will be made with after-tax dollars and any interest earned will be taxed at the rates applicable to other capital income. In addition, these accounts will be completely flexible — unlike the current, highly regulated HSAs.

Making the Coburn Bill Better. Having praised the bill to the hilt, let me acknowledge that it is not perfect. It could be improved in three ways:

  1. Create Roth IRAs. Ideally, after-tax deposits to a medical savings account should grow tax free — for the same reason that earnings on reserves of insurance companies accumulate tax free. They should be treated under the tax law the same way Roth IRAs are treated. [See further explanation here.]
  2. Commit to Safety Net Institutions. Hospitals fear they will be required to take care of the uninsured without the resources to do so. The answer: The Coburn $2,300/$5,700 amounts should be pledged to health care, not to just private insurance. If people choose not to be insured, the amounts should be made available to safety net institutions in their vicinity. [See further explanation here and here.]
  3. Encourage Personal and Portable Insurance Instead of Managed Competition. Last year’s version of the bill allowed buying insurance across state lines and encouraged a national market. This year’s version is completely different. It encourages states to set up highly regulated markets (called health insurance “exchanges”), patterned after the Federal Employees Health Benefit Program — exactly what Hillary Clinton wanted to create for the whole nation a decade-and-a-half ago. Michael Cannon at Cato has objected to this feature, as have others. My own analyses of the undesirable consequences of managed competition are explained here.The sponsors of this legislation are right to be concerned with the problem of pre-existing conditions. However, as I explained in another context, the answer is personal and portable insurance. If people own their own insurance and take it with them when they switch jobs or move into and out of the labor market, the problem never arises. It is for this reason that states should be encouraged to experiment with ways to transition to portability.

    By contrast, managed competition exacerbates the difficulties of pre-existing conditions and makes the problem much worse than it otherwise would have been! Managed competition not only gives health plans strong incentives to attract the healthy and avoid the sick, post-enrollment it gives health plans strong incentives to overprovide to the healthy and underprovide to the sick!

The encouragement of a health insurance exchange parallel to the employer-based system is yet another reason why Obama should endorse the Republican plan. The opposition has fundamentally accepted his vision of a market for insurance. In both the exchange and at work, the price system will be completely suppressed. In the market for risk, no one will ever face a real price for anything.

Comments (18)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Joe S. says:

    This is a huge improvement over what we are likely to seen from Obama and the congressional Democrats.

  2. Ralph F. Weber says:

    But John,

    Common sense only works in TX, not DC.

  3. Diana Furchtgott-Roth says:

    Thanks, John.

  4. Chad Harris says:

    I think both are non-starters in light of what California is doing. It would not surprise me to see things delayed into August to see how the dust settles. I think Cali is licking their chops to dump 2.5 million people into the arms a federal health safety net and we could see a run on the health insurance bank by other weak states that now have a way to unload their expensive merchandise. In Arizona the medicaid/medicare arm has 20,000 cab rides a month for people they fear will miss their doctor appointments. We are better off paying for people to have good health behavior, then blowing cash on these government programs. If my son needs straight A’s to drive, he magically gets straight A’s

  5. Juan O. says:

    Congress would have to defeat Obama’s health care plan first, before they’ll even consider something as reasonable and straightforward as the Coburn Bill.

    Of course, you are right on this: Obama could shortcut EVERYTHING by endorsing the Coburn bill. Obama would end up with most of what he wants anyway. A majority of Republicans and Democrats would support. However, the tax writing and earmark committees in Congress would be left with nothing to show for their time.

  6. Charlie says:

    I might have to become a worshiper of the Obamesiah if Barack actually chose to endorse such a common sense proposal.

    However, Juan O. is probably correct that the money throwing proposal will have to be defeated before the Coburn bill will receive attention from the supporters of big intrusive government programs.

  7. Donald Devine says:

    John, I never criticize the wisdom of my major teacher on health matters(you)but this is a small matter–and in this case I was there. While you are correct on your main point, it was not Dole’s bill but John Chafee’s. Dole told me directly he was going to sign on because it would not allow Clinton or Chafee to make a deal without his approval which he implied would not be forthcoming (at least easily). More important, it would be humiliating for the Clintons on their number one priority to sign on to a bill co-sponsored by the Republican Senate Leader and possible 1996 opponent–thus making it virtually certain they would not do so. If the Chafee bill did not have Dole on it they well might have made a deal with Chafee. Of course, you are correct in that if the Clintons simply accepted the Chafee bill as was, Dole would have been trumped and would have been forced to support a bad bill. I tried to talk Dole out of it but he turned out to be correct on the tactics. All the best and thanks for your great Health Alerts.
    Keep up the great work, Don

  8. David McKalip says:


    You seem to imply that HSA’s would disappear as we know it. Would HSA’s still exist as a pre-tax investment product IN ADDITION to the tax credit for health insurance of $2,300/$5,700?

    How do you answer critics that say $5,700 is not enough to buy a family health insurance plan?

    Don’t you think the Health Insurance Exchange is exactly what Obama wants?

  9. John Goodman says:

    [response to David McKalip]

    Tax advantaged HSAs would still be available but deposits plus premiums could not exceed the amount of the Coburn tax credit. Therefore, deposits would be rare. People would instead use ordinary savings accounts (not tax advantaged).

    Your tax subsidy today doesn’t pay for your entire health insurance cost and that’s a good thing. Coburn concentrates the subsidy so that it covers core (catastrophic) insurance that we want everyone to have and leaves people free to purchase any extra with their own (after tax) dollars.

    Yes. Obama wants a health insurance exchange. And other than employer coverage there won’t be any insurance outside of the exchange.

  10. Bob says:

    John, you say people will buy first dollar (HSA) insurance with after tax dollars–doesn’t make sense, unless your Roth IRA-like insurance idea is put in the bill.

    And you say that “In both the exchange and at work, the price system will be completely suppressed. In the market for risk, no one will ever face a real price for anything.” I must be slow or not reading correctly so please explain why we should then be for the Coburn bill, which I thought looked terrific.

  11. Bart says:

    John, could you at some point explain what “Encourage Personal and Portable Insurance” really means? I thought I had a vague idea from reading Coburn’s summary, but then I saw these comments from the CBO counsel on Galen’s site.

    What, then, does Coburn do other than give the states permission to do what they could already do? If not mandades, does “encouragement” mean funding?

  12. John Goodman says:

    Response to Bob:

    See my resonse to David McKalip on HSAs.

    The law does not allow employers to charge their employees premiums that reflect their true health status and therefore the true expected cost they add to the employer’s insurance pool when the employees are first hired. Basically everyone is charged the same premium, regardless of expected costs. Obama will impose this same requirement in the exchange.

  13. John Goodman says:

    Response to Bart:

    Coburn’s bill does not create true portability, although it is a step in the right direction.

    Portable insurance is insurance that is owned by the employee (even if the employer pays some or all of the premium). The insurance, therefore, travels with the employee when he switches jobs or goes in and out of the labor market.

  14. […] The bill would provide a refundable, advanceable tax credit to apply to the purchase of health insurance. It is not a net overall tax increase or decrease; it just redistributes the tax break (as to people who don’t pay income or payroll taxes) and puts an upper limit on it. John Goodman writes that the bill would cut the number of uninsured in half while remaining revenue neutral; in contrast, the Obama plan would require an increase of $1.5 trillion in spending over 15 years for the same reduction in the uninsured. […]

  15. Michael Major says:

    Why limit the amount of HSA deposits to the Coburn tax subsidy? Let HSA amounts remain where they currently are, add a provision that when the citizen reaches eligibility for Medicare, the accumulated account balance may be raided tax free for retirement living expenses. Result? Available dough to pay for routine care not covered by catastrophic indemnity coverage PLUS a strong incentive to self-ration.

  16. John J. Fisher says:

    This is great and I really like your suggested changes to the Coburn bill.

    Is Coburn receptive to your proposed changes?

    How many Republican Senators (and who) and how many Republican Congressmen (and who) have signed on to support such a bill?

    Are their any Democrats currently willing to sign on (who) ?

    Why is your proposal/Coburn’s not getting more public attention?

    There were over a million frustrated and angry Americans in Washington on 9-12 (I was one of them), how do we get this to their attention/support. With a well defined and more importantly well supported alternative such as this, if we can get enough public notice focused on it, it should really help in defeating Obamacare.

    What is the RNC’s position on this, why are they not adopting it as the Republican alternative?

  17. RG says:

    Sorry Dr. Goodman you are wrong again, like usual. HSA Insurance is available for $2,000 a year for a 30-year-old couple and 2 children in most states. So the $5,700 Federal tax credit would pay 100% of the premiums plus put $3,700 in the families tax-free HSA.

    Wither on the vine. That’s a loser mentality.

    How can you always be so wrong?


  18. tiffany outlet says:

    Oakley Sunglasses Oakley Sunglasses Outlet Cheap Oakley Sunglasses Oakley Sport Sunglasses Oakley Polarized Sunglasses Karen Millen Outlet Karen Millen dresses Karen Millen UK Karen Millen dress Monster Headphones Beats By Dre Monster Beats Beats By Dr.Dre Beats By Dre James NFL Jerseys Cheap NFL Jerseys NFL Jerseys Wholesale Dallas Cowboys Jerseys New Orleans Saints jerseys Cleveland Browns Jerseys prada outlet prada handbags prada handbags outlet prada shoes prada sunglasses Tiffany Outlet Tiffany and Co Outlet Tiffany Jewelry Outlet Tiffany Co Outlet Tiffany Bangle tiffany outlet shop