What are health care insurers so afraid of? Are they afraid of socialism or are they afraid of capitalism? One of the three top priorities of the Obama administration is to bring health care reform to the United States. Insurance, pharmaceutical, and general health care costs are out of control and costing the country and the consumer billions annually. Along with increased efficiency through electronic record keeping and medical infrastructure improvements, Obama wants to offer public plans for citizens to purchase through the Government. The American Hospital Association and the lobbying firm, America’s Health Insurance Plans, have offered their support for reigning in health care costs. However, lobbyists are at work to persuade Congress to not allow for the public plans. Blue Cross and Blue Shield has begun to re-use Harry and Louise style ads to scare the public into thinking that Government run health care would be disastrous. Harry and Louise ads from the Clinton era told the public that Government health care would result in immovable patient lines and the Government telling the patient which doctors they can see. Contemporary insurance providers could run the attack ads against themselves for denying coverage for certain procedures, disgustingly confusing bureaucracy, and stipulated covered doctor.
Are health care insurers trying to protect the people from socialism or are they trying to protect themselves from capitalism. First and foremost, the Government will not be nationalizing current health care insurers nor controlling health care decisions. The current providers are on-board with Government assistance to control prices and increase efficiency but they are not comfortable with Government insurance plans. They aren’t legitimately sacred of socialism.
Health care insurers are scared of capitalism. The private sector fears their possible lack of capabilities to compete with a Government run insurance plan. The proposed Government actions are expected to lower all private insurance plans as well as provide for tax breaks to employers who provide private health care to employees. These should help BRING consumers to the private insurers. Lower insurance costs should also soften the blow of a likely increase in taxes to pay for this and other programs. It can be assumed that private costs will be more expensive than Government plans; however, the private should have nothing to worry about if they feel they can provide superior coverage as they insinuate in their TV ads. Those who are currently happy with their providers will most likely not switch to the public plans.
The proposed actions provide another option for Americans, specifically those who need something more practical for their financial situations. Current insurance providers will not be controlled by the Government and they will be open to internal change to compete with the Government plans. If they cannot compete in price, they can compete in quality. Are they afraid that Government health care will actually be well run and no one would want private insurance any more? As long as the people have a choice, this is capitalism. Capitalism is a legitimate fear if you are on the losing end, but they have no one to blame but themselves.
Friday, May 22, 2009
Friday, May 15, 2009
Obama's Hypocrisy
This will be my first criticism of President Obama. I first saw it in The Economist in an article “An Offer You Can’t Refuse” . Then I saw George Will sight the same article in The Washington Post. George Will takes it to a level I am not going to touch because I believe it raises a Democrat/Republican hypocrisy that I just don’t want to get into. I just want to discuss Obama’s policy hypocrisy.
The purpose of the bank bailout is to start the flow of credit once again by cleaning up the current mess. This country’s economy is based on credit which is essential to investment and economic development. Business owners rely on credit to increase internal investment acting to increase production, labor and numerous other methods to develop their business. Consumers rely on credit to borrow the money they need to purchase various expensive goods (i.e. houses, cars, education etc.). Consumer credit and business credit are essential to one another. Without this flow of credit, economic and consumer growth is stunted. The Obama administration has spent billions of dollars in order to clean up the largest banks in America, hoping to free up capital for lending. The Federal Reserve has also dropped interest rates to a record low to promote borrowing. Borrowing and lending money is the primary goal of the administration to get the economy moving.
The auto industry bailout by the Obama administration seems to be counterproductive for promoting industry investment. Chrysler’s secured creditors will be receiving 28 cents to the dollar for a claim totaling $7 billion. These secured creditors supplied cheaper funds to Chrysler for more secure claims if the company were to experience difficulties. The United Auto Workers union will receive 43 cents on the dollar with claims totaling $11 billion. The union members will receive a greater return even though contractually, the secured creditors were to have a stronger guarantee.
I feel George Will is correct by saying this is corruption. Unions can usually be tied to Democrats and I think there is something a little fishy about Obama’s decision. George Will’s article mainly discusses Obama over-reaching his power and abandoning the Constitution. (The hypocrisy of George Will’s criticism at this point in time while remaining relatively silent during Republican years is mind blowing and I can’t even begin to write about that whole issue!). Personally I think this issue is more significant for its ideological hypocrisy. Confidence in the system is a major component for this economic recovery. If lenders cannot have confidence in contractual obligations, they will be less likely to lend. When the Government favors one group over another (common) by braking contractual obligations (uncommon), confidence in our system is damaged. It is important to remember that lenders are not necessarily rich fat-cat individuals but actually commonly an investor representing everyday people and families trying to get involved in the investment markets. The administration’s decision to break and misconstrue Chrysler’s obligations has directly impacted the confidence and pocketbooks of Chrysler’s secured lenders, but more importantly he has indirectly hurt the confidence of lenders everywhere.
Disclaimer: I feel like I need to add a disclaimer here. I by no means am an economist. I do not pretend to understand every aspect of the bailouts, neither bank nor auto. But I do have confidence in Barack Obama. These articles point out that he is not going to be perfect and that shady actions are going to take place, I just hope he doesn’t do so many questionable things without full explanation to the people.
The purpose of the bank bailout is to start the flow of credit once again by cleaning up the current mess. This country’s economy is based on credit which is essential to investment and economic development. Business owners rely on credit to increase internal investment acting to increase production, labor and numerous other methods to develop their business. Consumers rely on credit to borrow the money they need to purchase various expensive goods (i.e. houses, cars, education etc.). Consumer credit and business credit are essential to one another. Without this flow of credit, economic and consumer growth is stunted. The Obama administration has spent billions of dollars in order to clean up the largest banks in America, hoping to free up capital for lending. The Federal Reserve has also dropped interest rates to a record low to promote borrowing. Borrowing and lending money is the primary goal of the administration to get the economy moving.
The auto industry bailout by the Obama administration seems to be counterproductive for promoting industry investment. Chrysler’s secured creditors will be receiving 28 cents to the dollar for a claim totaling $7 billion. These secured creditors supplied cheaper funds to Chrysler for more secure claims if the company were to experience difficulties. The United Auto Workers union will receive 43 cents on the dollar with claims totaling $11 billion. The union members will receive a greater return even though contractually, the secured creditors were to have a stronger guarantee.
I feel George Will is correct by saying this is corruption. Unions can usually be tied to Democrats and I think there is something a little fishy about Obama’s decision. George Will’s article mainly discusses Obama over-reaching his power and abandoning the Constitution. (The hypocrisy of George Will’s criticism at this point in time while remaining relatively silent during Republican years is mind blowing and I can’t even begin to write about that whole issue!). Personally I think this issue is more significant for its ideological hypocrisy. Confidence in the system is a major component for this economic recovery. If lenders cannot have confidence in contractual obligations, they will be less likely to lend. When the Government favors one group over another (common) by braking contractual obligations (uncommon), confidence in our system is damaged. It is important to remember that lenders are not necessarily rich fat-cat individuals but actually commonly an investor representing everyday people and families trying to get involved in the investment markets. The administration’s decision to break and misconstrue Chrysler’s obligations has directly impacted the confidence and pocketbooks of Chrysler’s secured lenders, but more importantly he has indirectly hurt the confidence of lenders everywhere.
Disclaimer: I feel like I need to add a disclaimer here. I by no means am an economist. I do not pretend to understand every aspect of the bailouts, neither bank nor auto. But I do have confidence in Barack Obama. These articles point out that he is not going to be perfect and that shady actions are going to take place, I just hope he doesn’t do so many questionable things without full explanation to the people.
Thursday, May 7, 2009
Rush to finish
Over the past few days there has been talk of the Republican “listening tour” in Virginia. The “listening tour” was spearheaded by Eric Cantor of Virginia’s 7th District. The “listening tour” was headlined by himself as well as Mitt Romney and Jeb Bush. All three of them several times have acknowledged the importance of the “listening tour”. Why do I keep saying “listening tour” and using quotes? Because now the language is changing. Rush Limbaugh on his radio show said that the Republican Party does not need a “listening tour”, but instead a “teaching tour”. He says that instead of the party listening to its constituents and adapting; it should instead be informing the constituents of true Conservative principles. For a party that was up in arms, yelling that Obama was “preachy” and “professorial”, I hope they are quick to see that it has now become a Conservative plank to “teach” and not to “listen”.
Whether you are a Democrat or a Republican, you should be offended when a party leader says elected officials of the party shouldn’t be listening to their constituents to better address the needs/wants of the people. But this type of language is safe for Rush to use since he is not an elected official. Eric Cantor, just as other GOP leaders have in the past few months, has backpedaled and bowed down to the party leader Rush Limbaugh, saying that the “listening tour” is not really a “listening tour” (hence the quotation marks). Why are the Republican officials listening to Rush, a talking head, and not their constituents? Rule No. 1 for a politician should be that when their constituents are not being represented to their liking, they risk loss of support and may be removed in the next primary election or, even worse for the party, the general election.
The United States is a republic where officials are elected to represent the people. The people elect their officials to make decisions in the best interest of the constituents. NOT IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE IDEOLOGY. Defending an ideology to the death risks losing both the ideology and the party. I personally would rather be alive with only one leg than dead with both. It is doubtful a “listening tour” would turn these hard Conservatives into bleeding heart liberals, but it is highly likely it would increase the Republican base, promote reelection, and keep their ideology and principles alive. A small change now would prevent the even larger change that will be needed if the party and people separate much more.
Whether you are a Democrat or a Republican, you should be offended when a party leader says elected officials of the party shouldn’t be listening to their constituents to better address the needs/wants of the people. But this type of language is safe for Rush to use since he is not an elected official. Eric Cantor, just as other GOP leaders have in the past few months, has backpedaled and bowed down to the party leader Rush Limbaugh, saying that the “listening tour” is not really a “listening tour” (hence the quotation marks). Why are the Republican officials listening to Rush, a talking head, and not their constituents? Rule No. 1 for a politician should be that when their constituents are not being represented to their liking, they risk loss of support and may be removed in the next primary election or, even worse for the party, the general election.
The United States is a republic where officials are elected to represent the people. The people elect their officials to make decisions in the best interest of the constituents. NOT IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE IDEOLOGY. Defending an ideology to the death risks losing both the ideology and the party. I personally would rather be alive with only one leg than dead with both. It is doubtful a “listening tour” would turn these hard Conservatives into bleeding heart liberals, but it is highly likely it would increase the Republican base, promote reelection, and keep their ideology and principles alive. A small change now would prevent the even larger change that will be needed if the party and people separate much more.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
