Why is Obama spending more time on healthcare instead of job creation
Pretty soon the problems of America will squarely be President Obama's problems. The percentage of Americans who believe the President inherited our current problems with the economy is steadily dropping.
So what should the President do? How about focusing on job creation rather than healthcare? And when I say "creation" I actually mean creation, not this amorphous jobs "saved" metric.
Voters are saying in recent polls that deficit reduction is more important than healthcare reform. Yet we're hearing much more from the Administration about healthcare than we are about the deficit.
But of course, healthcare reform seems to be some type of "Waterloo" that the media has made out to be a defining moment of the President's agenda. But ramming through an expensive bill that doesn't really do much to cut healthcare costs will just make his polling numbers lower.
Voters would like to see compromise on key points of healthcare to reduce costs, while the Democrats' plan is very much focused on expanding coverage. Many voters want something passed but less than a majority approve of the current bill. Most people would prefer a less costly bill that incrementally improves coverage, provides reform for pre-existing conditions and experiments with tort reform and competition along state lines.
So what should the President do? How about focusing on job creation rather than healthcare? And when I say "creation" I actually mean creation, not this amorphous jobs "saved" metric.
Voters are saying in recent polls that deficit reduction is more important than healthcare reform. Yet we're hearing much more from the Administration about healthcare than we are about the deficit.
But of course, healthcare reform seems to be some type of "Waterloo" that the media has made out to be a defining moment of the President's agenda. But ramming through an expensive bill that doesn't really do much to cut healthcare costs will just make his polling numbers lower.
Voters would like to see compromise on key points of healthcare to reduce costs, while the Democrats' plan is very much focused on expanding coverage. Many voters want something passed but less than a majority approve of the current bill. Most people would prefer a less costly bill that incrementally improves coverage, provides reform for pre-existing conditions and experiments with tort reform and competition along state lines.
Advertisement
The president doesn't control the government's purse strings; Congress does.
November 13, 2009 9:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Really? So is he just a puppet then? I guess he has nothing to do with the shape of the healthcare bill (and its costs) or the cap-and-trade bill (and its costs)? I guess he just sits back and doesn't do anything.
I guess then we can fire the President's budget director, since he must not have any role to play since the President doesn't have a role in the budget process.
November 13, 2009 10:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
First, instead.They aren't mutually exclusive
Second,if they were, lack of health care kills 150 americans every day.
Third
Voters elected Obama to do what he thought was right not what they happened to refer on a particular Friday evening.
November 13, 2009 10:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
They may not be mutually exclusive but healthcare seems to be getting more of the President's attention when most Americans would prefer he fix the economy, help job creation and control the deficit. I didn't say that they are mutually exclusive. But I did ask in the title why he is favoring healthcare over the economy/deficit.
Forget about what they "elected" him to do. That was a year ago and things are constantly changing. The polls say what they want him to do right now given the current circumstances we are facing as a nation. I don't think people voted for him to do "what he thinks is right". They voted for him based on the promises he made during his campaign. Big difference.
November 13, 2009 10:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
We've each made our points. See you on another issue.
November 14, 2009 10:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bill Ferrin, what is your handle at Free Republic? I would love to read what your unrestrained id writes. Thanks in advance.
November 14, 2009 1:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
I have no idea who Bill Ferrin is nor do I spend time at Free Republic. If you'd like to discuss the points I made in the post, I'd be happy to.
November 14, 2009 10:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
A couple of points unrelated to each other:
First, your title refers to job creation but your text to deficit reduction. In the long term, there is some concordance between the two, but in the short term, they are antithetical. Deficit reduction requires that money be made less available, while job creation in this deep recession requires more money to be put into the hands of consumers so as stimulate purchases and thus the need for employers to hire more workers.
The second point relates to your pseudonym, MiddleClassBill. I wonder how many TPM participants you believe are not members of the "middle class". Many of us would argue that our values, when they relate to conflicts between middle income families and the most wealthy, favor the former, whereas yours favor the latter. When there is no conflict, of course, we would not want to take sides simply for the purpose of being confrontational.
November 14, 2009 12:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nice takedown, Fred.
It also should be pointed out that MCB's style is to make some drive by accusation that Obama either isn't doing enough in a given policy area or his prescription is the wrong one. Like the knee-jerk obstructionists that make up the Republican party, Bill claims he agrees that with Obama that government needs to get involved in aspects of the American economy that are failing its citizens (today, it's jobs and health care).
Yet, beyond band-aid measures that won't solve the underlying problems (see the Republican health care plan) or simply more tax cuts that will again not solve the problems AND will increase the deficit (see Republican prescriptions for job creation), the Republicans are not making an honest effort to help.
So, Bill, my question to you is: what are your solutions? You claim these problems need fixing, yet Obama is either not doing enough or doing it wrong. It's easy to throw spitballs from the peanut gallery (not to mention your incredible laziness in simply linking to an ideologue from the right with whom you agree), but, offering solutions that actually solve these problems you agree need solving, not so much.
November 14, 2009 1:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Many people, including two people in the NY Times op-ed, have made the comment that Obama should be more focused on job creation.
My "solution" is that he should be more focused on job creation than healthcare and cap-and-trade. We should be doing things that help small business, not hurt them. Instead we should be giving tax breaks and other incentives to small businesses that encourage them to grow and hire people. Instead the administration is focused on saving the big banks and big businesses. But the small business owners I speak with are too worried about future changes in healthcare and cap-and-trade that have discouraged them from making any long-term hiring or expansion plans.
I wrote about it here. http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/middleclassbill/2009/11/houston-we-have-a-problem----u.php#comments
November 14, 2009 4:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
'My "solution" is that he should be more focused on job creation than healthcare and cap-and-trade. We should be doing things that help small business, not hurt them. Instead we should be giving tax breaks and other incentives to small businesses that encourage them to grow and hire people."
Blah, and blah, and blah. Pretty high on pablum and pap, completely devoid of specifics.
Like I said, all you advocate are stupid Republican solutions to problems that don't exist. Our current economic problems have exactly ZERO to do with the tax rate on your mythical hero, the "small business owner," who is already given a myriad of way to evade taxes.
November 15, 2009 2:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
I try to speak to others with respect, even when I disagree with their points. You don't seem to have the same priorities.
Specifically, I would:
1. Put healthcare and cap-and-trade on hold until unemployment is under 8%. No small business owner would hire somebody today when they don't know how healthcare and cap-and-trade will run up their costs.
2. If you don't like #1, then I would scrap the healthcare surtaxes because they will kill any job creation that's possible from small businesses. Pelosi's surtax will likely put us into a double-dip recession in 2011.
Let's also have a two-year suspension of the payroll tax holiday to put money directly in people's pockets. And if it's viewed as long-term people might change their habits rather than just getting a one-time rebate check in the mail. Those were a disaster under Bush.
The only way out of this recession is to create an environment where small business can thrive. Government spending does not increase GDP over time. It is temporary non-productive stimulus. It takes private investment to create jobs and increase productivity.
November 15, 2009 5:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
What have I said that implies I favor the wealthy? Just because I want the government to get out of the way and let the economy recover on its own doesn't mean that I favor the wealthy. Wanting Obama's first priority the economy and job creation doesn't mean I favor the wealthy.
November 14, 2009 4:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
My read of things goes this way: Back in the post WWII period, the government convinced industry to cover health care costs for their employees. This was done through the private insurance industry. Currently, the insurance industry eats up 33 cents out of every health care dollar purely for administration. This is only the tip of the iceberg, because the policies of the last 30 years by the insurance industry has forced doctors and hospitals to increase their administrative staff to deal with the increased paperwork and the need to fight back against the insurance industry to get paid. All of this is pure waste. The current WHO ratings of health care around the world rate US health care as 37th in the world. However it is number one in one respect and that is we spend more on health per capita than any other country. The highest rated health care systems in the world are all government run health care systems which cover all of their citizens.
But here is the real issue, one which is never discussed: In most of the health care systems that we are competing against in the world, the onus of paying for it is not so heavily placed on industry. This means that US industry is at a significant competitive disadvantage because of the higher health care costs in the US. This pushes industry to relocate in other countries that have lower health care costs for employees and makes industries operating in the US less competitive in the world markets.
Now, the current bills coming out of congress and the senate will probably not address the core issue here and that is the very large leech that is sucking the lifeblood out of our health care system: the insurance industry. The level of corruption in both parties will make sure that the insurance industry makes even more money and sucks more out of the system. It will be billed as a great victory.
Real health care reform will create more jobs and make US industry more competitive but we won't get it until we deal with the egregious corruption in our representative form of government.
Your real question should have been: why could the US government find the political will to funnel trillions into the bank bail out but not find the money to create jobs on Main St? One answer: corruption.
November 14, 2009 12:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree that there are problems associated with employer-based health insurance, but that is to some extent an accident of the way our system evolved. Some other nations also involve employers in the insurance system, although not in exactly the same way we do. Much of the problem resides in the fact that employers can offer employees a health insurance contribution, which is tax-free, in lieu of a higher wage, which would be taxable. Fixing this would require employer health insurance benefits to be taxable, but there is enormous resistance to this, mainly from the unions.
The 33 percent overhead figure is an overstatement. It is in the 15-18 percent range, including profits (profits average about 3-4 percent of total premium dollars and less than 2 percent of total U.S. healthcare costs). Most of the excessive costs of healthcare reside outside the insurance sector, but rather in the duplicate or unecessary facilities, tests, procedures, and specialty referrals within the healthcare system itself, driven by a fee for service paradigm that rewards excess. Some of the reform proposals take a small step toward rectifying this excess, but much more will be needed.
Although the problem of cost is more a healthcare problem than an insurance problem, inequities such as denial of coverage to those who need it most (e.g., individuals with pre-existing conditions), recissions, caps on payments, etc. - are an insurance industry problem, and the reform proposals do a good job addressing these.
November 14, 2009 1:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fred, what percentage of the health care money taken in by the insurance industry actually goes to provide real health care?
November 14, 2009 6:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fred here's a quote from "Physicians for a National Health Program" citing a New England Journal of Medicine Study claiming the 30% figure. I wonder what your source was for the 15-18 percent figure. I suspect that the 30 % figure includes the health care provider administrative costs to deal with the insurance industry. A much fairer measure in my opinion since administrative costs do not result in actual care for patients.
The estimate that total administrative costs consume 31% of U.S. health spending is from research by Drs. David Himmelstein and Steffie Woolhandler and published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 2003. The figure would undoubtedly be higher today. Insurance overhead accounts for a minority of the overhead. Much more occurs in physicians’ offices, hospitals, and nursing homes - driven by our current fragmented payment system.
November 14, 2009 7:44 PM | Reply | Permalink