Reverse Robin Hood Why is John McCain wrong on health care? Think credit cards.
Posted Monday, May 19, 2008, at 4:33 PM ETIf enacted, this proposal would cause a shift along the lines seen in the credit-card industry. Like the Citibank of old, New York insurers would have little incentive to continue doing business under New York's laws. Insurance companies can make bigger profits by offering different policies to different people based on separate assessments of risk rather than charging everyone the same, as a state like New York requires. An insurer operating under Arizona law would be able to offer healthy New Yorkers a cheaper policy than an insurer working under New York law that has to price policies the same for everyone.
Is that a good thing or a bad thing? In the credit-card industry, there's a pretty decent argument that the old usury laws restricted access to credit, even among people who needed it and could use it well. And competition among card issuers has led to a proliferation of rewards programs—frequent-flyer miles, hotel discounts—that work nicely for people who pay their bills in full and on time. There's also a classic libertarian argument for deregulating credit cards: MasterCard never put a gun to anybody's head.
The problem is that without consumer protections, companies use pricing practices, like teaser rates, to attract cash-strapped families and then slap those families with interest rates of 35 percent or higher plus penalties of $35 a month. Rates can double or triple without notice, even if you never miss a payment. Credit-card use and bankruptcy rose together for years (until the 2005 federal bankruptcy legislation), and last year, banks made $40 billion in plastic profits. For families drowning in debt (often from health expenses, by the way), a credit card may be the only life raft—but in the memorable words of Elizabeth Warren and Amelia Tyagi, authors of The Two-Income Trap, the raft turns out to be made of cement.
With the individual market for health care, the libertarian argument fails on its own terms: Sick people can't get coverage they can afford. It's as though the rafts are reserved for people who already have life preservers. Americans with pre-existing conditions—cancer, asthma, diabetes, and the like—would need to pay even more than they do today. Through no fault of their own, more of them would end up without insurance. Meanwhile, insurers would improve their own profits by offering targeted policies to people with the fewest health expenses. As with the history of credit cards, it's Robin Hood in reverse. Apart from the obvious injustice, this approach could add to spiraling health costs. The sickest 10 percent of Americans are already responsible for 70 percent of the nation's health expenses. When more such Americans go uninsured, skip checkups, and land in the emergency room, they end up costing taxpayers more.

In a national economy, there's often a good argument for standardizing rules across state lines. Smart reforms of the credit-card industry wouldn't reinstate the old regime of state regulations; they'd provide national protections against practices like raising rates for people who are paying their bills on time. In health care, federal law already sets a very low floor of protections for individuals who lose coverage. But many people don't benefit, because they don't already have coverage, don't qualify, or can't afford their new premiums. Sensible reforms in the market for individually purchased health insurance would apply New York-style rules nationally and then do more to bring down average costs: bringing small businesses into risk pools with individuals, using mandates or automatic enrollment to expand those pools, and deploying tax subsidies to make coverage more affordable.
What makes no sense is to neuter state regulations while putting nothing in their place. That will leave the sickest people, who drive the sickness of our health system, in more trouble than then are in now. Letting South Dakota regulate America's credit-card industry hasn't worked out so well. Letting Arizona do the same for health insurance would be worse.
- Today's Headlines
- Bill Clinton Agrees To Disclose Guacamole Recipe
Thu, 04 Dec 2008 14:00:35 -0500 - Bush Dragged Behind Presidential Motorcade For 26 Blocks
Thu, 04 Dec 2008 10:00:22 -0500 - Evander Holyfield Claims His Quest For Severe Brain Damage Keeps Him Fighting
Thu, 04 Dec 2008 07:00:56 -0500 - » More from the Onion
Closet CentristGerson | With his cabinet picks, Obama disappoints the ideologues.
Marcus: Was Summers Right?Topic A: A Confirmation Battle?
- Ignatius: Could Mumbai Happen Here?
- Meyerson: President Bush's Final Fiasco
- Parker: I Twitter, Therefore I Am
- Toles: This Just In | A Capitol Welcome
- Today's Headlines
- How Boomers Are Redefining Retirement
Thu, 04 Dec 2008 21:02:36 GMT - How Boomers Are Redefining Retirement
Thu, 04 Dec 2008 21:02:36 GMT - Hirsh: The Missing Link on Obama's Economic Team
Thu, 04 Dec 2008 20:54:32 GMT - » More from Newsweek
- Today's Headlines
- In The Fitness Spirit
Wed, 3 December 2008 17:52:11 GMT - King James in the Garden?
Wed, 3 December 2008 19:09:13 GMT - Farewell, Odetta
Wed, 3 December 2008 15:31:44 GMT - » More from The Root
Don't the Detroit CEOs Realize Their Companies Are Already Dead?
Slate's New Advice Column About How To Make the World Better
Notre Dame's Charlie Weis Is Still the Worst Football Coach in the Universe
What Are "Ultra-Orthodox" Jews, Anyway? And Why Are They in Mumbai?
Introducing Eliot Spitzer's New Slate Column About the Economy
Does It Make Sense To Pay Your CEO $1?




