If I hear one more time...

Image via Wikipedia

...that President Obama is taking on too much I'm going to go nuts. Why in the world does the executive branch have so many branch's in it if not to handle more than one thing at a time? Why in the world does the legislative branch have committee's and sub-committee's if not to handle more than one thing at a time?

Let's take health care reform. Somehow not doing anything makes sense because of the current economy and the economy is all that President Obama should be focused on. We hear this from countless analysts, pundits, news anchors, etc. Now yes, neither party's leadership is talking about doing nothing even if a lot of Republican's, elected officials (not the leaders or more senior members) and media pundits alike, have made the case it can't be done now.

Both parties have agreed on anywhere from 75-90% of how best to lower costs -ways that have been talked about for decades. Health care reform isn't starting from ground zero, countless health reform bills have been written over the years and we've already seen potential reform bills given to the CBO. Now it may not happen as quickly as President Obama has asked for but the fact is, based on how far the reform debate and various bills have come, this isn't out of the realm of possibility nor somehow counter productive to the growth of the economy.

Now time will tell which version of health care reform will pass and how good or bad it'll be for the country but when health care represents 1/6 of the U.S. economy, focusing on health care is focusing on the economy.

Drew Altman, Ph.D., President and CEO of Kaiser Family Foundation added a key perspective on his blog:

But the number itself could use some perspective. Expressed as a ten-year cost, one trillion dollars is a big, perhaps scary number. But we are also talking about reforming one sixth of our economy, and over the next ten years it would represent about half of one percent of projected GDP, under three percent of projected health spending, and about two and one-half percent of total federal spending. That is still a lot, and some may legitimately value other national priorities more highly, including deficit reduction, but in return we would reform health care, cover the bulk of the uninsured (projected by CBO to reach 54 million by 2019 and by others to go higher), and give Americans peace of mind about their health insurance.

Read more...

If you care about health care...

...then here are a few things you must watch and/or read. All of these things should help greatly clarify each canidates plans.
Thanks to the New England Journal of Medicine you can watch McCain's chief health policy adviser Gail Wilensky and David Cutler, a Harvard economist who helped put together the Obama plan debate and explain each canidates policies. The video is remarkable for their clarity on this complex issue and for their civility. I would urge anyone who cares about this vitally important issue to watch and/or read.
Here is the video and transcript
 This break down of the two candidtes plans.
 Critique of Obama's plan by Joseph Antos of American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank.
 Critique of McCain's plan by David Blumenthal of a liberal Health Policy Institute at Massachusetts General Hospital

Read more...

Interesting health care tidbit...

...from an LA Times blog:

On Sept. 16, the journal Health Affairs offered a web exclusive with a critique
of the Obama healthcare plan, saying its costs are unsustainable, and one of the McCain plan, saying the number of uninsured could grow from 45 million to 60 million in the next five years. Another article in the journal suggests that America's healthcare system could benefit from a mixing and matching from each of the plans.

So both candidates have bad healthcare plans?

They said employers would be less likely to offer coverage if they knew their workers could get it elsewhere. In all, the authors projected that 20 million people would lose their employer-sponsored insurance under McCain's plan, while 21 million people would gain coverage through the individual market — little more than a wash...And as monthly insurance premiums rise and the tax break stays the same, even that gain would erode...Another concern is that insurers would gravitate to states with less onerous coverage requirements. For example, 29 states insist insurers in the individual and small group market cover cervical cancer screenings. They could locate in states without such requirements.

The Democrat would set up a kind of government-run shopping mall that would negotiate prices and benefits with private insurers. One choice would be a government-run plan. No participating company could turn someone away because of pre-existing cancer, heart disease or diabetes. Nor would someone have to pay a higher monthly premium based on those conditions...The government would subsidize the cost for many who buy coverage through this exchange. But analysts say using third parties to subsidize the cost of a product exacerbates health inflation. Consumers and providers act as if any service that might yield some value should be covered...Obama would also require all but small businesses to make a "meaningful" payment for health coverage of their workers or contribute a percentage of payroll toward the cost of the public plan offered through the exchange.

Read more...