President Obama's Path to Greatness: Health Care As Stimulus
President Obama will have a historic opportunity to establish himself as a truly great president in his first days in office. He can take advantage of the current economic crisis to announce plans to jump start national health care insurance. Extending health care insurance can be an effective stimulus that will provide an immediate boost to the economy.
More importantly, it will provide the same access to health care that people in other wealthy countries have long taken for granted. For this accomplishment, President Obama will rank alongside Presidents Roosevelt and Lincoln as one of the nation's truly great presidents.
The backdrop is straightforward. Economists from across the political spectrum are now calling for a large stimulus package to limit the economy's decline and the rise in unemployment. The consensus is in the range of 2.0-2.5 percent of GDP, or $300 billion to $400 billion a year.
This level of agreement among economists is encouraging, but the reality is that it is difficult to effectively spend $300 billion to $400 billion a year on short notice. There are some no-brainers that belong in any stimulus package: aid to state and local governments, extended unemployment benefits, and extra money for food stamps and home heating oil assistance. This is money that will be quickly spent, boosting the economy, while helping those hit hardest by the downturn.
A stimulus should also include increases in infrastructure spending, which will come about by moving plans forward for projects already on the books. There should also be a substantial green component, involving retrofitting homes, businesses and other buildings, which will reduce our energy use.
However, after we get through this list, the sum total for the stimulus package is probably still in the neighborhood of $150 billion a year, at best half of the targeted sum. This is the gap that will be filled by extending health care coverage.
As a basic outline, the government can give a substantial tax credit (e.g. $3,000) to employers who cover workers for the first time in 2009 and 2010. It can also offer a tax credit covering most, or all, of any additional payments by employers who increase their coverage.
This means that an employer who picked up the workers' share of insurance payments, or got a better plan, would have much of the cost reimbursed by the tax credit. Credits can also be given to individuals who are either self-employed, unemployed, or not otherwise covered through their employer.
If 20 million workers get coverage through this tax credit, that would cost $60 billion. If another 60 million get an average of $1,000 in additional health care benefits, this would cost another $60 billion. If we also throw in funding to reduce the health care burden for Medicare beneficiaries, for example by $1,000 each, this will cost roughly $40 billion. The total cost would be $160 billion a year, a reasonable target for the stimulus package.
At the same time that this health stimulus is enacted, we should open up the Medicare system, allowing all employers and individuals the option to buy into a Medicare-type plan. This is important, because a well-working public sector plan will be important to controlling costs over the long-term.
After 2010, the tax credits would be cut back, with the goal being a system of subsidies that pay the full cost for low-income people, but phase out at higher income levels. It will also be important to use the Medicare-type plan and other tools to squeeze waste out of the system, since controlling health care costs is essential to sustaining a healthy economy over the long-term.
Extending health care coverage in this way is effectively eating dessert before dinner, but this is exactly what we want to do to counter the recession. It is important that we spend money now to boost the economy. We will be getting double-value if this stimulus can be spent usefully toward meeting a longstanding goal, like providing national health care insurance, rather than just buying things at the mall.
Fixing the health care system so that costs are effectively contained will be a long and difficult political battle. Powerful interest groups, like the insurance and pharmaceutical industries will use all their power to obstruct this effort. The health care system's waste is their profit.
However, we should be reassured by the fact that every other country has managed to more effectively contain their costs. Average per person health care costs in other wealthy countries are less than half as high as in the United States, and they all enjoy better health care outcomes.
Over the long-run the task of containing health care costs is clearly doable. The question for President Obama now is whether he is prepared to take the big leap toward being a truly great president. This opportunity may not come again.















Before we get another stimulus package, lets make absolutely sure that it will be the cure.
If the housing problem isn't addressed first, the rest of the ideas may fail
The plan, below will need some upfront cost to implement, but the results will pay for themselves in quick order.
The problem with our economy can be solved with common sense, Economics 101
People are losing their savings that they put into the equity of their homes. Until we address that problem, we will continue to have financial malaise
The Government is currently borrowing with Treasury rates between .02%
and 4% (30 year fixed). The Government then lends that money at 5%
(i/o). Assuming 90% of homeowners make their payments, the Feds would/could actually make money. Plus the fees up front, increased home
sales, decreased foreclosures, the Fed could actually make money, Similar, in that respect, to the AIG bailout.
Also, homeowners will SPEND the additional $600 they have every month on paying down debt, buying cars, SAVING, etc.
The only way to stabilize housing is to reduce supply and increase demand(Econ 101).
Decrease Supply - Allow homeowners to refi into an i/o loan at 5% REGARDLESS of loan to value.
Increase Demand - 5% interest only for purchases (reduce the "new" Fan/Fred fees).
We have to get away from thinking "5% is a low rate". The Fed Funds Rate is 1%, we are in deflation, 5% is probably still too high, but it
is a decent starting point.
This plan will immediately reduce foreclosures, stimulate demand for housing, provide jobs, increase revenue to the states, etc. It will solve a lot of the major issues facing the Country.
The stock market professionals will feel if the stock market goes south for another 3 years(they needed $1T after 11 months of declining stock prices...try having your savings go down for 4 years and economists expecting a continuation of the trend).
Housing prices will be affordable when rates move lower...prices have dropped far enough, they need to be met at their current levels with considerably lower rates.
Some of this was pointed out in the thread
Actually, Homeowner Relief Should Be About Fairness
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/10/31/actually_homeowner_relief_shou/index.php#comment-3270102
November 4, 2008 5:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let's not count our chickens before they hatch. Although we're all praying, pleading and sure that Sen. Obama will win tonight - we shouldn't go out and already declare him victor.
We have a long night ahead of us.
But I do agree with you on your points. :)
November 4, 2008 7:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Direct relief to homeowners on their mortgages would go a long way toward stimulating the economy. Also slashing the defense budget both in the short and long term to provide funds that are better spent on almost anything else, but there are plenty of urgent domestic needs that could be addressed with the money. I like the idea you propose, but let's not forget these other things as well.
November 5, 2008 1:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
If I understand Keynesian pump-priming correctly, the theory is that when the economy is suffering from a less than optimum utilization of capital assets and/or labor -- and the economy is in equilibrium -- deficit spending can raise the level of economic activity.
Notice, though, that the factors of production must be in a state of underutilization.
Before Baker calls for deficit spending directed toward paying for medical services, he must show that the factors of production in the field of health care are underutilized -- that doctors and nurses are sitting around twiddling their thumbs, that hospitals are dark, etc. -- and that increasing demand for their services will put them to work.*
More likely his plan will only put more money in their already bulging pockets, money they will save.
* Unless we can convince unemployed construction workers to take up heart surgery -- possible although some of their patients may object.
November 5, 2008 2:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Describing health insurance for everyone as an economic stimulus whose benefit can be tracked by conventional means is probably not going to be easy to support.
It could become the Democrats' Iraq "The plan will pay for itself in under two years and hospital executives will meet us with flowers" scenario.
I like Dean's idea, but in order to sell it, we will need to talk about taking a long term perspective and tracking what people will DO with the money/flexibility/security that universal health insurance will provide. Economic benefit will be provided by the following:
Immediate leveling of the playing field and relief for poor and middle class people who are currently paying a larger share of their income for health insurance if they have it at all.
Stress reduction--a benefit that's hard to measure economically, but some aspects include freedom to seek a better job without worrying about healthcare, and freedom to start one's own business or work for a smaller company than the corporate giant you normally work for. (I wonder about the extent to which corporations stifle competition by offering healthcare to those who would not have it if they started a competitor company.)
Freedom to move.
Also, I don't know if this is a benefit or not--but if more people can start and run their own businesses, they will be able to write more off their taxes and derive the benefit of that. This may have the unexpected effect of driving up wages because it will be more lucrative to work for oneself rather than take a minimum wage job at Walmart. Companies may have to pay higher wages to get employees. Who knows?
I think it would be important to talk about universal health insurance as a way of stimulating PEOPLE, which will have a positive effect on the economy.
*******
It's also impossible to overstate the importance of cutting the cost of healthcare, aside from the issue of providing insurance to cover it. Perhaps the family doctor ought to be replaced by the family nurse? Or nurse practitioner? The truth is that most illnesses are pretty easy to diagnose--and we pay a real premium by requiring a physician to diagnose them.
November 5, 2008 11:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
It will also be important to use the Medicare-type plan and other tools to squeeze waste out of the system, since controlling health care costs is essential to sustaining a healthy economy over the long-term.
What about the paperwork? My father was on Medicare and the amount of billing readouts he got was pretty staggering. I’ve seen a figure of 40% of total costs. Surely it’s an area in which to exert downward pressure, but this was Medicare! The downward pressure on costs exerted by Medicare would seem to have room for improvement. Paper doesn’t heal patients after all, it only facilitates their healing (not a bad thing, but...).
November 5, 2008 9:07 PM | Reply | Permalink