5-Hour Energy: A Success Equal Parts Caffeine, Chemistry and…
How State Taxes Put a Bigger Pinch on the Poor
The best strategy for President Obama and congressional Democrats regarding health care reform may be to "go it alone" -- to pass a bill that has Democratic Party support, with maybe one or two Republicans.
Further, the era of bipartisan cooperation is over, if it ever really began. The U.S. Congress is as polarized as it ever has been in the post-World War II era, with ideologues dominating each party. President Obama's effort to forge a post-partisan politics was admirable, but it did not get very far, largely due to a Republican Party that's dominated by a conservative base, but also due to a Democratic Party committed to largely liberal goals.
Because of the Republican Party's conservative base -- which opposes the plan on numerous counts -- the GOP has no interest in seeing health care reform succeed. The Republicans want health care reform and the Obama administration to fail -- regardless of the impact of either failure on the nation's economy -- with the hope that voters will blame the failure on Obama and Democrats and reelect the Republicans to majority status in Congress in 2010.
Obama, a formidable public official and campaigner, and the Democrats have built up considerable momentum, due to the failures of the Bush administration and a political cycle that has swung back in the party's favor. Republicans want to reverse these trends, and to do so they've cast aside any notions of cooperating with Democrats for the good of the nation. For the Republican Party, the current goal is clear: ruin the Obama presidency and end Democratic majorities in the House and Senate.
For the above reason, Obama and congressional Democrats should craft health care reform legislation that achieves as many reform goals as can be passed by the party, aided by perhaps a one or two Senate Republicans. (It's unlikely that any House Republicans will vote for health care reform bill whose goal is universal health care.) The bill should subsidize health insurance premiums for poor and lower-income individuals and families, seek increased efficiencies in Medicare and Medicaid to lower health care-related federal spending, and pass other programs that lower health care premium costs, including a public health care plan to increase health insurance competition. If a public plan cannot pass, Obama and Democrats should seek to establish health care cooperatives that would come close to achieving the same competitiveness goal.
Bipartisanship is unattainable in current climate
Moreover, recent history should demonstrate to the Democrats the futility of working with the Republican Party, at least on this important issue. When Obama sought Medicare cost reductions, Republicans charged him with hurting the quality of care for senior citizens; when he sought greater access, Republicans charged him with proposing legislation that would increase federal spending. In other words, no matter what Obama has proposed, Republicans have simply criticized it -- hardly the stuff of bipartisanship. And to-date, the Republicans have not offered a health care reform plan that includes universal health care and that subsidizes the cost of insurance for lower-income citizens. Hence, Republican statements that they want health care reform to pass have to be viewed as disingenuous at best, and an outright fraud at worst.
Further, the town hall debates in August included some of the worst examples of public expression since the tumultuous late 1960s/early 1970s debates over the controversial Vietnam War. In a patently false assertion, Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin claimed that health care reform would lead to "death panels" that would determine the life/death of senior citizen patients -- an assertion repeatedly voiced at town hall debates. U.S. Sen. Tom Grassley (R-Iowa), in another ludicrous statement, said he would be there to prevent health care reformers from "pulling the plug on grandma." And of course, numerous debates degenerated into shouting matches and/or contrived disruptions -- hardly the stuff of enlightened discourse in an advanced democracy.
Although President Obama and the Democrats will be a clear loser if health care reform is not passed, the nation will lose as well, and in a big way.
Democratic Party voters are counting on their party making health care accessible to all. Anything less, and a key constituency, liberals, with be offended; the party will also lose support among at least a segment of Independent voters who also favor universal health care. Political science research tells us and history demonstrates that when these two groups are offended, their voter turnout declines. In the 2010 congressional election, that could result in the loss of up to 20 Democratic seats in the House, and 3 to 5 seats in the Senate.
But the nation, including investors and taxpayers, will be big losers, as well. That's because, absent health care reform, the same system that has health care costs ballooning across the services spectrum -- private, corporate, public -- will continue, with terrible economic and fiscal consequences.
Given the structural changes occurring in the U.S. economy, not taking steps to rein in spiraling U.S. health care costs is irrational. It's also bewildering to the rest of the modern, industrialized world.
- -
Financial Editor Joseph Lazzaro is writing a book on the U.S. presidency and the U.S. economy.
Goldman Earnings Sink After Buffett Dividend
Johnson & Johnson's Income Falls 23%
Burberry Shares Leap on Sales Update
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
9-12-2009 @ 12:08PM
Viewtiful Jason2 said...
Agreed. If the Republican Party as a whole just wants to be a road block, then fine. The democrats have not need for them. They were elected because we wanted them there to agree with the president. However, sicne the Democratic Party has become "The Big Tent", as it were, there is bound to be some discourse within the party. Everyone needs to get on the same page and just pass something. Anything. Whether the whole Reform or in parts, public option, or tougher regulation, we need something. As the president indicated in his speech this week, the plan wouldn't even take into effect for another 4 years, we can barely take what we have now. So get moving. And frankly, I don't care if eventually the middle-class will need a marginal tax increase, I'll get over it.
9-12-2009 @ 12:30PM
Brian Sherman said...
This article is the most partisan, anti citizen, unconstitutional, misleading, idiotic piece of rhetoric I've ever read. The Dems in the Bush administration never filibustered any of Bush's expansions of government, they were hardly bi-partisan, scorning him at every corner. However this clown writing the article would have a government that has bankrupted medicare, medicaid, soc. sec., the post office and devastated our economy, now control healthcare which is a considerable portion of our economy. That alone should make you shudder when you think men like this are given a voice. Hitler said (paraphrasing) in Mein Kampf that citizens seldom believe that their leaders will do things to hurt them. We have been thrashed with government intrusion and we keep looking for hope and change when its right in the constitution that is basically ignored by all politicians.
9-12-2009 @ 12:39PM
Felipe M. Palacio said...
Have you look closely at the democrats in congress and senate? They are rubber stamps and more like zombies in continuos vertical-headshaking to their party orders and ready to jump on anyone who disagrees with them and the propose "change".
9-12-2009 @ 3:16PM
thedude said...
I have watched Obama disseminate his Health Care propaganda and I have seen how a large percent of the Congress reacts like puppets to Nancy Pelosi. I can honestly say that not one word of what Obama has said would rectify the cost of health care in the US. He isn't proposing to rebuild health care, he is proposing an overhaul of who earns the profits on the cost of administering health care. Currently all the profits go to private industry and Democrats just can't accept losing such an incredible financial windfall to companies that are primarily owned and controlled by Republicans.
Democrats do not like the fact that there is an aspect of any US citizen’s life that isn't absolutely controlled by the government.
Obama claims that his plan will not cover illegal aliens. That is an absolute lie, how does he expect these illegals to receive health care? Does he expect them to be turned down at the ER doors? I don't think so! Does he expect them to pay cash? I don't think so! There are a minimum of 5 million illegals currently in the country although real world estimates put this number closer to 20 million.
Obama claims that insuring the 40 million individuals currently without health care coverage would cost an estimated $1 trillion ($1 trillion we do not have to spend) The fact is this cost estimate is at least 30% low and only accounts for coverage, it doesn't actually account for the fact that many of these uninsured would actually need treatment. The cost of treating just 1% of these individuals (an obvious low ball estimate) at the average cost of health care today would add another $800 billion to the cost of Obamas plan.
Obama claims that a government program would be run more efficiently and inexpensively than private insurance. Give me one instance where the government has saved money, been more efficient and provided better results than the private sector (Hint - There is no occurrence in the history of government)
Republicans do not oppose health care reform. They oppose the middle class being taxed to subsidize those who refuse to work and as such can not afford health care.
The real solution is to approach it from the medical practitioner sector. One place to start would be to provide scholarships to high achieving students with the understanding that they will work for less money in exchange for not having to pay off student loans.
Also work with pharmaceutical company patenting law to reduce the cost of drug development and lowering the total costs of prescriptions.
There are 1000 ways better than Obamacare to improve the health care industry. Obama isn't smart enough to figure them out and I have neither the time nor inclination to explain them to you
The US is still trying to pay off intiatives launched by FDR. The legislation Bill Clinton put into place has been dogging us since the first WTC bombing and now Obama is trying to continue that legacy of spending. The US can not afford being "ruled" by Democrats. I stress the word "ruled" because you are encouraging Obama to ignore Conservative/Republican opinions and that is certainly not government. At least not government defined in the US Constitution.
9-12-2009 @ 5:01PM
jb said...
You state Obama's bi-partisan efforts on health care reform have been admirable... you have got to be kidding! There hasn't been even one occasion of a real bi-partisan effort, on anything, since Obama was sworn in... only the empty and rhetorical claim of doing so. It's really too bad... the 'Change' that most people voted was based on the hope for a truly honest, resourceful and thrifty government. Instead, we ended up with another politican as president, and a Congress, with the most partisan, selfish and dishonest agenda this country has seen in decades. I'm and Independent...
9-12-2009 @ 5:41PM
ij70 said...
I wonder if Democrats will loose majority in Congress after 2010 congressional elections.
9-13-2009 @ 3:13AM
Johnny said...
I thought i was at bloggingstocks.com to read about financial issues and I somehow wound up on huffingtonpost.com.
Why do people trust government to run big projects when they have never been able to in the past?
Government by design does not do things efficiently, politicians are incentivized to run programs at a loss, and recoup it through more taxation.
My health insurance is ok, not great, but at least my insurance company is not going bankrupt.