Trade Health Care for More Stimulus?
The weekend “victory” in the Senate has Pyrrhic written all over it as 2000 pages of proposed legislation is on its way to being held hostage by the likes of Joe Lieberman, Mary Landrieu, Blanche Lincoln, Ben Nelson et al. What we have now is an abortion of a bill that will only get worse as the back-alley bargaining goes on.
Here’s a radical idea for the President of Change: Take most of it off the table until after next year’s elections and put your full weight behind another stimulus that would speed up economic recovery, create jobs and shove it down the throats of Republicans who are using the incoherence of health care reform to confuse Americans who are terrified about the economy.
“Most economists I talk to,” Paul Krugman writes today, “believe that the big risk to recovery comes from the inadequacy of government efforts: the stimulus was too small, and it will fade out next year, while high unemployment is undermining both consumer and business confidence.
“Now, it’s politically difficult for the Obama administration to enact a full-scale second stimulus. Still, he should be trying to push through as much aid to the economy as possible. And remember, Mr. Obama has the bully pulpit; it’s his job to persuade America to do what needs to be done.”
It would take political guts for the President, after all his talk about the urgency of health care reform, to take most of it off the table temporarily and put the effort and money into turning the economy around.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
10 Responses to “Trade Health Care for More Stimulus?”
Getting people to see the doctor more often for regular checkups, which is what the Public Option would do in its most profitable function, would stimulate the economy hugely. Imagine if all the 40 million + who have been avoiding getting checkups for lack of coverage, suddenly started flowing into clinics across the country?
From the lowly front desk clerk to the PAs, nurses and MDs and every function inbetween [and folks, there are a lot of them], and supporting industries for medical products, there would be a rise in employment and business products.
So the stimulus to the economy and the Public Option are the same package as it turns out.
And we would be lucky enough to re-visit health care reform in another 16 years, no thank you.
Here's a novel idea, maybe we could just not spend a bunch of money on new things right now.
Spending the money that I pay to the government in taxes in order to pay the bill for another's health care is not stimulating the economy. It is robbing Peter to pay Paul. Also, because the amount of taxes that I will have to pay annually will increase if the new healthcare package passes, I will have less money to purchase things for myself and my family which will negatively stimulate the economy.
It is not that the Obama administration has been asleep on this angle, it is just that they may have at least a minimal understanding of economics.
Here is a radical idea, let the taxpayer keep their own money and spend it as they see fit, stimulating the economy in the areas where consumers will support. Maybe with this stimulation more people will be back to work and can afford healthcare.
“From the lowly front desk clerk to the PAs, nurses and MDs and every function inbetween [and folks, there are a lot of them], and supporting industries for medical products, there would be a rise in employment and business products.”
There's a well-documented severe shortage of General practitioner MDs out there right now, which isn't going away anytime soon. Most family doctors are working 80 or more hours per week, and wanting to quit the treadmill. The AMA will fight hard to keep, just as they fought for the power to create shortages in the first place.
The health care packages that congress is considering all have the root problem: they are attacking the end costs but not the underlying causes. This isn't by accident, nor by oversight.
“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largess from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years. These nations have progressed through this sequence: “from bondage to spiritual faith; From spiritual faith to great courage; From courage to liberty; From liberty to abundance; From abundance to selfishness; From selfishness to apathy; From apathy to dependence; From dependence back into bondage.”
– Alexander Frazier Tytler, 1776
No. Shallow as well as unmerited.
“maybe we could just not spend a bunch of money on new things”
That makes too much sense. It also gets in the way of health care “reform,” namely “sweetners” to “stimulate” reluctant votes. Mary Landrieu and her suitors have effectively set a “floor” on what a “reluctant” vote for “reform” will cost, at approximately 300 million. Half a billion on final legislation, per “reluctant” Dem vote, won't surprise me at all.
Meanwhile:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125928189292865…