IBJNews

Study: Health reform would be drag on Indiana economy

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
On The Beat Industry News In Brief

If one of the more liberal health care reform proposals becomes law, Hoosier taxpayers would have to spend $425 more per person every year for the next decade, according to a study released Aug. 4 by Florida-based conservative policy group Arduin Laffer & Moore Econometrics.

The burden of those extra costs would slow the growth of Indiana’s economy 4.4 percent over the next decade compared with its expected growth if nothing were changed, the study concluded.

The study is a rare attempt to predict, at a state level, the impact of current health care reform proposals. It pins its whole analysis on this claim: that the main factor driving growth in health care costs has been the steady growth over 40 years in government financing of health care.

The Arduin Laffer & Moore study cites 2007 research by MIT economist Amy Finkelstein. She calculated that the creation of Medicare in 1965 has since been responsible for at least 40 percent of the growth in health care spending.

Indianapolis health care consultant Les Zwirn said the study reflects just one more shot in the ideological battle between free-market conservatives and Medicare-for-all liberals when the real debate in Washington is more in the center.

“The reality is, neither of these approaches will likely be enacted by Congress,” Zwirn, who is executive director of Better Healthcare for Indiana, wrote in an e-mail. “What is likely to pass is something in between.”

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. How can any company that has the cash and other assets be allowed to simply foreclose and not pay the debt? Simon, pay the debt and sell the property yourself. Don't just stiff the bank with the loan and require them to find a buyer.

  2. If you only knew....

  3. The proposal is structured in such a way that a private company (who has competitors in the marketplace) has struck a deal to get "financing" through utility ratepayers via IPL. Competitors to BlueIndy are at disadvantage now. The story isn't "how green can we be" but how creative "financing" through captive ratepayers benefits a company whose proposal should sink or float in the competitive marketplace without customer funding. If it was a great idea there would be financing available. IBJ needs to be doing a story on the utility ratemaking piece of this (which is pretty complicated) but instead it suggests that folks are whining about paying for being green.

  4. The facts contained in your post make your position so much more credible than those based on sheer emotion. Thanks for enlightening us.

  5. Please consider a couple of economic realities: First, retail is more consolidated now than it was when malls like this were built. There used to be many department stores. Now, in essence, there is one--Macy's. Right off, you've eliminated the need for multiple anchor stores in malls. And in-line retailers have consolidated or folded or have stopped building new stores because so much of their business is now online. The Limited, for example, Next, malls are closing all over the country, even some of the former gems are now derelict.Times change. And finally, as the income level of any particular area declines, so do the retail offerings. Sad, but true.

ADVERTISEMENT