The House Health Care Reform Bill Less Expensive than Bush’s Tax Cuts

According to a new report by the Citizens for Tax Justice, current health reform efforts–which have an expected price tag of around $1 trillion for ten years–will cost significantly less than Bush’s tax cuts, which cost an estimated $2.5 trillion over the same period.

As the report notes:

“[M]any of the lawmakers who argue that the health care reform legislation is “too costly” are the same lawmakers who supported the Bush tax cuts. Their own voting record demonstrates that health care reform is not a matter of costs, but a matter of priorities.

“It’s difficult to see how the Bush tax cuts could provide us with two and a half times the benefits of health care reform. In 2010, when all the Bush tax cuts are finally phased in, a staggering 52.5 percent of the benefits will go to the richest 5 percent of taxpayers. President Bush and his supporters argued that these high-income tax cuts would benefit everybody because they would unleash investment that would spark widespread economic prosperity. There seems to be no evidence of this, particularly given the collapse of the economy at the end of the Bush years.”


Obama’s Plan to Contain Health Care Costs for Health Care Reform May Hit a Snag

Obama has pledged to reduce health care costs by $2 trillion over the next decade as part of his proposal to reform the United States health care system.

Obama’s pledge may have hit a snag in the form of U.S. antitrust laws, which prohibit unfair business practices (including collusion to set prices).  To read more about it, click here.

Literature Review: Recent Scholarly Works in Global Health Law

The Limits of Health Care Reform

Ani B. Satz
Emory University – School of Law

Alabama Law Review, Vol. 59, 2008

In this Article, I argue that many of the shortcomings of health care in the United States can be linked to the inherent limitations of the dominant paradigms of health care distribution. These approaches seek to provide a threshold level of services to everyone (basic minimums) or to ration services among covered patients. Over seventy years, both approaches have consistently failed to cover a sufficient number of individuals, to provide adequate basic health care, and to control costs. Further, basic minimum and rationing approaches, which restrict access to health care services to meet budget constraints, are particularly ill-suited to address patient demand for innovative medical services or to account for the benefits of modern, predictive technologies. The limitations of these dominant distribution schemes become clear when examining their theoretical foundations. Contractarian approaches, from which basic minimum schemes are derived, cannot address resource drain and patient demand for a broad range of basic health care services, including some forms of high technology. Rationing, a consequentialist approach, has the potential to accommodate a broad range of basic health care services, but it employs restrictive eligibility criteria. Rationing schemes using Quality Adjusted Life Year measurements discriminate against those of advanced age and with poor health status and rely on a narrow scale of well-being that makes trade-offs between health care and other goods difficult. In place of paradigms derived from contractarian and cost-utility frameworks, I propose a new legal paradigm-Basic Capability Equality of Health Care (BCEHC)-which both considers patient demand for a broad range of basic health care services and operates within budget limitations. Under BCEHC, individuals would have access to all clinically effective services-traditional and high technology-that support basic health care. Operating under insurance budget limitations and with physician guidance, individuals would make trade-offs and choose from among these goods to maximize their health.

Available at SSRN.