Where’s the Defibrillator? Universal Healthcare is Under Cardiac Arrest.
Now that Congress has passed a bailout package faced valued at $700 Billion (more like $1 Trillion plus, after everything considered), where does this leave the potentiality of a universal health care system?
Probably in the dumps.
This is extremely unfortunate, because the prospects of a universal health care system was one of my primary voters for the upcoming election. Now that so much money has been guaranteed to financial institutions and banks, the chances that even more will be guaranteed for an overhauled health care system seem dismal, at best. The Institute of Medicine calculates that a universal health care system would costs the U.S. anywhere between $34-$69 billion every year, plus whatever additional expenses are incurred due to design parameters. Basically, the estimated costs is unknown, but is expected to be many billions of dollars. This is many billions that Congress will be unlikely to support. However, I don’t think it’s the actual amount that will prevent any type of comprehensive health care deal from passing, it’s the necessary political capital needed to garner support and push through Congress.
What is political capital anyway? Well, it used to mean an actual seat in government; however, the phrase has evolved into meaning something like the power conferred by the populace upon a leader or politician in office. Political capital is earned by an individual’s virtues, promises, and actual policies passed. George W. Bush, for example, has little to zero political capital; especially now, since he’s a lame duck president.
Although I think the political capital conferred upon presidential candidate Barack Obama and most of the Democrats in or running for office was once extremely high, I’m awfully afraid it has diminished –or will in the coming days–to levels not conducive to making or passing a comphrehensive health care reform bill. Such an immense overhaul of the current system would take every once of political capital available. With economic malaise present and even more on the horizon, I doubt that people are going to demand more or better coverage. Instead, they are going to look for solutions to the economic crisis. It is indeed an unfortunate coincidence that the severe economic downturn we’re experiencing has come at a time when comprehensive health care reform seemed on top of the agenda for the probable 44th President of the United States.
1) This title is so long it is going to totally screw up the recent comments feed.
2) I hate the fact that you are probably right about the chances for healthcare. Still, I think there is a chance, and certainly more of a chance with Obama than with McCain.
3) The overall costs of the system to the country would be relatively small because it would help lower costs for everyone and it would make the entire system more efficient. Still, I understand it would cost money up front that will be harder to find post-bailout.
Yeah, 1 is probably true, but I like my title.
As for 3, I don’t think it would make the system more efficient. In fact, it would make it much more complex, because it would become bureaucratic (which is always a mess). However, I think health care, like education, is a service that should be paid for (and probably operated) by the government.
Also, do you have any numbers on how much it would raise taxes by? (and what total number, in terms of expense, is being used in the calculation.)
One of the biggest source of savings should be digitalizing records and transitioning away from old, inefficient paper records. Also, broadening the base of customers who buy into a particular insurance system lowers the price because it diffuses risk across a larger population. Finally, the government does not need to make a profit, give stock options, dividends, or many of the other typical expenditures that add cost to insurance costs.
I can check on the numbers because I remember Obama and Clinton going back and forth on the eventual cost back in the primary. Neither one anticipated any significant tax increase for the American people.
if troops come home and the fed is abolished, then i will consider it (for a second). until then, its economically unfeasible.
Perhaps there is an upside. Selling something in the range of 70 billion doesn’t seem quite so difficult when Washington seems to be throwing around hundreds of billions with ease. Add to that the very real possibility of an Obama (electoral college) landslide and 58-60 Senate seats and it seems more feasible.
Economic distress and volatile employment also strengthens the case for universal coverage because people will be more concerned about being severed from their employer-based health insurance. It will all depend on the depth of the crisis, but I think the odds of at least some improvement in the current system (better regulation of insurability standards?) are quite good.
I think there will be some type of reform for the pricing and availability of health care to small businesses. It’s small businesses that are hurting the most from the spiking of rates due to high costs claims and the extremely harmful effects of adverse selection.
I like that David’s first point was that the long title is going to “screw up” the recent comment widget.
I for once agree, a little, with Jesse. Ending the war in Iraq would help pay for health care.
I also believe that the huge economic problems we’ve recently faced make the health care crisis even larger. The less money the average American has to spend on food, the less money they have to spend on health care. I’m willing to be that a large portion of those who have no health insurance find it less and less plausible to go to a doctor or hospital when ill or injured because they are too busy trying to save up for next week’s groceries.
First of all Steve, I am a fan of the title–despite the havoc it “does” to the recent comments feed… :)
Also, I do think we have the money to get this accomplished–I just think it will take a whole lot of reapportioning the money and rearranging priorities. Of course this will include pulling out of Iraq,as previously mentioned, but not just that. I think an improvident amount goes into pork barrell spending… and I think that maybe (empasis on the maybe…) we could cut that down some (but I do doubt that… no line item veto).
I also do not think that anything will be done to the scale that Democrats want it to be done in Obama’s first term, shall we be lucky enough to have him as President. If his Health Care idea becomes a reality, in any sense, I would say it would happen in his second term.
lol. pork-barrel spending
i am curious….how will the people control the executive branch if they can’t even keep a lid on their own congressman?
i bring that up only because pork should be defined. from what i can tell, it concerns how money is approporiated. each congressperson has the duty to appropriate money for their district. this is consitutional.
and what about the fact that not everyone needs health care (all the time), as Block points out, you don’t have insurance for oil changes or plumbing, just accidents…..the problem with healthcare is that its expensive.
as terrible of a thing it is to say, this might be an opportunity to show good money managing skills in the government. it might help the debt/deficit and we might move closer to a balanced budget. i understand healthcare is an extremely important priority, and i’m not trying to undermine that but i guess what i’m trying to say, in layman’s terms is ‘first things first, hoss’
andrew, what might might help? i missed something…
all I’m saying is maybe we simply don’t have the money for public healthcare, but i’d also like to add I’m not an expert on America’s budget.
i wish we did, it would make our nation better.
40% of the total budget is quite a bit of monies.
um, yeah..well…you don’t have to be an expert to know that we are in the hole trillions of dollars.
just curious how one could raise their standard of living and be in massive debt at the same time without resorting to criminal behavior.
just to make point again, (i made it a while ago on this site somewhere) domestic policy is a slave to monetary and foreign policy.
http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/174884
“Within the next month, the Pentagon will submit its 2009 budget to Congress and it’s a fair bet that it will be even larger than the staggering 2008 one. Like the Army and the Marines, the Pentagon itself is overstretched and under strain — and like the two services, which are expected to add 92,000 new troops over the next five years (at an estimated cost of $1.2 billion per 10,000), the Pentagon’s response is never to cut back, but always to expand, always to demand more.”
Does anyone listen to Jesse? I mean, no offense, but have you noticed that no one ever responds or appears to care about your comments? I’m just saying…
hey nino, i already wrote about that on my blog, thanx.
i just don’t think many people are able to respond because in contrast to the mainstream my views are radical and therefore not widely known or accepted. but i don’t mind, i think an educated public is the best and i don’t see many others introducing the views that i am, so i am just trying to add to the body of knowledge. what people do with it, i do not know. ignorance doesn’t help anyone, but that’s their own problem.
maybe i am wasting my time, and maybe not. its good practice at least. if everyone here on this website continues to venture down a political road these topics, insights, and facts will surface at some point. i may not be mainstream, but i am definitely not alone in my general viewpoints.
besides….celebrate diversity right?! why preach to the choir?
haha…made you look! lol
I read them, when time permits (sometimes the links are a bit much). I know other people do too. I think sometimes it’s hard to reply to Libertarian idealism, though (as you suggest, Jesse). I do agree with some of what you say; however, it’s just hard to imagine the Federal Reserve being abolished.
Regardless, it’s good to have diversity of opinion on the blog. It would get really boring, really fast, if everyone always agreed.
And, as you said Jesse, it’s good practice.
You are aware that the actual cost is less that $700 billion right? There are houses and businesses to back up those notes. They may not sell for actual cost if foreclosed, but they will get about 75% out of them. Don’t forget the people who are good on their word and will pay back every penny. Sometimes a little research helps the argument.
Regardless, it’s good to have diversity of opinion on the blog. It would get really boring, really fast, if everyone always agreed.
Diversity of informed, coherent opinion is indeed nice. If everyone agreed it would get boring really fast, true, but comments that consistently and repetitively fail to engage with reality get tiresome. Maybe this is one reason why political theories not rooted in accurate observation (ie, extreme forms of idealism, whether it is libertarian or communist) amuse me, at most.
Jeff, no one knows how much it will end up costing–it’s all really speculative at this point. I have no idea where you’re getting this 75% return rate. If that’s the case, this isn’t a crisis at all. Also, people aren’t going to be paying back “every penny” on a home they’ve already foreclosed on.
I would expect to get a good chunk back, but I haven’t heard any real analysis. 75% doesn’t seem unreasonable because, as Jeff says, there is underlying value to these bad mortgages that the government is buying.
Do you have a link to any articles with that kind of analysis? I would be very interested.
But this is all besides the point. I was discussing political capital, not the actual costs (real or perceived) of the bailout plan.
Perhaps there is a 75% return rate, that would be fantastic. However, the political capital for any other big money bills are shot.
Let me also add that I know that the government isn’t going to spend all that it guarantees. But when it comes to perception and political capital, what is actually spent doesn’t always matter.
What about Kolby’s point from above: “Selling something in the range of 70 billion doesn’t seem quite so difficult when Washington seems to be throwing around hundreds of billions with ease. Add to that the very real possibility of an Obama (electoral college) landslide and 58-60 Senate seats and it seems more feasible.”
It’s an optimistic way to look at the situation. However, I don’t see Washington justifying a plan that would potentially take up 40% of the national budget on the grounds that $700 billion has already been spent. Not only does that sound like an implausible case, it seems irrational.
I would also add that Washington isn’t “throwing around billions of dollars at ease.” At ease wasn’t the mood of the bailout deliberations.
political capital…hmm…consider this:
“The middle class will be shorn of wealth in this debt crisis. While their aggregate wealth still remains large, their political power relative to that wealth is small. The mechanisms for confiscating middle class wealth are direct taxation, inflation, and fire sale purchase of their assets as they become increasingly distressed.
(thanx to jay roberts)
makes sense to me. i am not concerned with politicians’ capital so much as my own. besides, most of them have a bad credit rating by my calculation.