Bush Healthplan Update

This is just a quick update on my previous post. This Christian Science Monitor article summarizes things well. Ultimately, it sounds like this plan has no chance as it was presented. But, I'm happy the president finally addressed the issue and put it on the table. I agree that it doesn't seem fair that those without health care are forced to spend their after-tax dollars if they want health care while those receiving discounted plans from their employer are more fortunate. So, I think he made a good point there.

However, I see two primary issues. First off, it penalizes those in states where it costs more for coverage because the cap is the same for all. That number should be adjusted so someone in a more expensive state isn't further penalized (with taxes) for receiving essentially the same plan as someone in a lower cost state who actually receives a deduction. Secondly, it sounds like they are pushing people to deductible plans. In other words, you pay the first $500 or $1,000 out of pocket, and then they start covering you. The problem with this is it discourages preventative care. I know I'd be less likely to get a checkup if I knew it would be $500 out-of-pocket after the visit and blood work. And, we know preventative care is cheaper in the long run. Of course, unnecessary visits should be penalized.

So, kudos to the president for finally putting this on the table. Ultimately, given the efficiency and positive health indicators in other industrialized nations with national health care, I'd like the nation to examine something along those lines. In India, surgeons perform several times as many surgeries per day as American doctors. This "manufacturing-like" process sounds like a bad thing right? Well, it isn't. Their doctors make fewer mistakes during surgery. Obviously, that's an extreme example. But, despite the scare tactics, many western nations with "socialized medicine" spend half as much per capita while boasting better health statistics.

And, maybe some progress is being made at a state level in the United States. Massachusetts requires coverage, while California looks like they are going to do the same. Hopefully this will force cost reductions so America is no longer a cash cow for much of the pharmaceutical and health care industries.

Attention to Health Care from the Current Administration?

Yes, it's true. Suddenly, after the health care topic has been largely ignored during President Bush's tenure, it's receiving real attention. On Tuesday, the president will announce his plan for tax deductions to encourage those without health care to purchase it. It appears that those who share the costs at work will also qualify for this incentive.

Is this a major step? I'm not sure yet--we'll have to hear the details. The administration claims that 80% of those with employer-based plans will benefit in the end despite some plans being taxable under this proposal. But, I'll be interested in hearing the real breakdown.

Regardless of it, it's nice to see the topic getting attention. Anything that can boost the number of those with health care will boost our economy and our nation's health. Currently, many are discouraged from getting preventative care which is extremely costly in the long run. It's amazing how previously ignored topics suddenly gain traction when two parties have some power.

Barack Obama's New Book

Barack Obama finished The Audacity of Hope a little while back. I've gotten around to taking the book out of the library, and I must say I'm extremely impressed with his understanding of the current situation and his vision moving forward. Here's a really great quote from the book, one I really believe is right on the money:

Republicans are fighting the last war, the war they waged and won in the eighties, while Democrats are forced to fight a rearguard action, defending the New Deal programs of the thirties.

Neither strategy will work anymore. America can't compete with China and India simply by cutting costs and shrinking government--unless we're willing to tolerate a drastic decline in American living standards with smoke-choked cities and beggars lining the streets. Nor can America compete simply by erecting trade barriers and raising the minimum wage--unless we're willing to confiscate all the world's computers.

But our history should give us confidence that we don't have to choose between an oppressive, government-run economy and a chaotic and unforgiving capitalism. It tells us that we can emerge from great economic upheavals stronger, not weaker. Like those who came before us, we should be asking ourselves what mix of policies will lead to a dynamic free market and widespread economic security, entrepreneurial innovation and upward mobility. And we can be guided by Lincoln's simply maxim: that we will do collectively through our government, only those things we cannot do as well or at all individually or privately.

In other words, we should be guided by what works.

He then prescribes a number of realistic fixes. Well, perhaps not realistic with all of the special interests in our political system. But, fiscally, they are realistic. I'll let you take the book out of your library instead of trying to summarize it in a precious few sentences. Ultimately, I've found a potential presidential candidate that I can really get behind.