On this slow Sunday when all three NY teams may well go down to defeat and I may or may not be screaming at the TV (although if I watch one more Curtis Granderson strikeout I may commit hari kari), I am reminded about the real difference between Romney and Obama.
First, Nicholas Kristof highlights the importance of everyone being compelled to buy health insurance. This long time friend of his did not and now his $500,000 plus cancer treatment bill is being absorbed by the system. Romney refuses to say how he will control costs but he is bound and determined to end Obamacare and not try to find a way to end the problem of the uninsured. We cannot control health care expenditures without ending the problem of the uninsured. The uninsured get sicker because they don't go to the Dr sooner. Early treatment of cancer might cost $100,000 and be successful so the individual returns to a productive life and pays back some of that expense through their health insurance premiums. Late treatment costs as much as $500,000 and more potentially and likely results in death with no repayment from the individual. And when such expensive treatment is not paid for, somewhere else in the system prices are raised and we all pay for it.
Link to Kristof article
There is also an article in the Times about how the 1%'s focus on preserving their wealth through a focus on lower taxes is destroying upward mobility. And there is an article about a hard working woman who finds her profits going down because her city's economy is in a long term decline and she doesn't know what she can do to reverse it. Both stories reflect political realities, but neither brings into the discussion the real issue at play here.
Link to "The Self Destruction of the 1%
Link to 2nd story
The real issue is globalization of everything. The cost of doing business in the U.S. is too high relative to the rest of the world. Costs are rising in the rest of the world and eventually, this will reverse and jobs will come back to the U.S. but it will not help today's workers who cannot compete in the Global Economy. So what can be done for these people?
There is no magic bullet. But universal health care would be a good start. If we control the cost of health care, there will be more $ left over in employed people's wallets to spend on something else. That will create jobs through the multiplier effect.
Spending $ to update our decaying infrastructure would also be a good start to employ construction workers who are not working. This will create job through the multiplier effect.
Making sure our schools educated people to compete in the Global Economy is critical as well. Support community colleges. They are the market answer to control the ever rising price of college.
But the fiscal deficit must be cured over the intermediate term or debt will swamp the ability of the government to meet its obligations. This means some form of Simpson Bowles must be passed. This means revenues must be raised. Romney has said he will not raise revenues. Obama will raise revenues in a fair manner. The 1% are competing in the Global Economy and doing fine. They can afford to pay more. In fact, the top 10% or 20% of the population is competing in the Global Economy and doing well enough to pay more in taxes. But there must be expenditure control as well. Simpson Bowles suggest a mix of 1/3 revenue 2/3 expenditure cuts. Something in that neighborhood is the right answer.
Romney's policies will be heartless. When people do not have health insurance, they make poor decisions. Only by preserving Obamacare will we proceed down a productive path to finding balanced economic growth and preserving the social mobility contract that is so important to the psychology of the country.
No comments:
Post a Comment