We are spending 16.2 percent of our GDP on healthcare. In the other industrial countries they are spending something like 10-12 percent. Obama is trying to sell his healthcare bill this time around by saying focusing on insurance companies and blaiming them for rising costs. But where is his committment to get costs down to what Europe pays? Has obama promised to get healthcare spending down to 10-12 percent of GDP in the United States?
Well we know that answer to this question is no. So really it seems he mailly want to move government into a management role where it dictates healthcare in this country. Without getting costs down to 10-12 percent of GDP what we have left is pretty much a power grab. We don’t want cost control, we want a cost cut down to 10-12 percent of GDP.
Obama has sold us on healthcare reform primarily as a cost saving measure but he never committed to a solid cost metric. So why should he be surprised that the public and not wild about transfering power to him in return from nothing.
CBO – Preliminary Analysis of the President’s 2011 Budget
“Under the President’s budget, debt held by the public would grow from $7.5 trillion (53 percent of GDP) at the end of 2009 to $20.3 trillion (90 percent of GDP) at the end of 2020. As a result, net interest would more than quadruple between 2010 and 2020 in nominal dollars (without an adjustment for inflation); it would expand from 1.4 percent of GDP in 2010 to 4.1 percent in 2020.”
At the risk of pointing out the obvious again — there are two deficit problems with different answers. Part of the problem is cheap goods from overseas and the answer to that is clearly modest import tariffs or something equivalent. But tariffs are evil? Yeah, so what? Exporting jobs is better? Until economists learn something about economics — which may not happen for centuries — we are going to be stuck with sub-optimal solutions.
The other problem is our need for ten million barrels a day (on average) of foreign petroleum. We can find a bit more domestic oil. And we should, but the chances that we can close a 10Mbpd gap with domestic production are very slim. I’m guessing we can do maybe 2-3Mbpd if we are lucky. Keep in mind that we need to find a lot of oil to replace declining current production and that our needs are truly staggering. So we need to conserve and switch fuels.
But if “conservatives” are fantasizing when they think we can drill ourselves out of our petroleum problem, “liberals” who think we can solve all our problems by sticking up a few windmills, mounting a few solar panels, and subsidizing public transport are equally detached from reality. Truth is that we need to do a large number of things — many of which are going to be inconvenient or unpopular. And that the government, not the market — which will solve the problem brutally someday if we are not careful — is going to have to manage the effort,
If you were actually interested in cutting US health costs. you’d be advocating single-payer since that’s about the only idea out there where there is a plausible case for significant cost reductions in a relatively short time frame.
Demanding the impossible and refusing to act until it is achieved is not the act of a man of high character.
We are spending 16.2 percent of our GDP on healthcare. In the other industrial countries they are spending something like 10-12 percent. Obama is trying to sell his healthcare bill this time around by saying focusing on insurance companies and blaiming them for rising costs. But where is his committment to get costs down to what Europe pays? Has obama promised to get healthcare spending down to 10-12 percent of GDP in the United States?
Well we know that answer to this question is no. So really it seems he mailly want to move government into a management role where it dictates healthcare in this country. Without getting costs down to 10-12 percent of GDP what we have left is pretty much a power grab. We don’t want cost control, we want a cost cut down to 10-12 percent of GDP.
Obama has sold us on healthcare reform primarily as a cost saving measure but he never committed to a solid cost metric. So why should he be surprised that the public and not wild about transfering power to him in return from nothing.
This trade report was released on March 1:
2010 Trade Policy Agenda and 2009 Annual Report
http://www.ustr.gov/2010-trade-policy-agenda
http://www.ustr.gov/about-us/press-office/press-releases/2010/march/kirk-comments-2010-trade-policy-agenda
The President will give an export speech on Thursday:
Obama to push next week for doubling U.S. exports
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6244A520100305
Followed by a Presidential trip to Australia to promote the Trans-Pacific Partnership:
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-02-28/obama-trip-may-alter-u-s-misperception-of-asean-ministers-say.html
http://www.straitstimes.com/BreakingNews/Asia/Story/STIStory_497227.html
The trade policy of the US is to export US technology and jobs and import borrowed dollars.
What is wrong with the picture?
Aside from exporting the US’ productive base?
Ya, what ISLM said.
We currently import about 98.5% of our shoes. The mighty US cannot even put shoes on its own children.
The train has left the station on light and medium manfacturing.
At least the Chinese should quit sending us poisoned medicine and toxic drywall.
Keep throwing your talking points.
We want value for our money.
save_the_rustbelt
We currently import about 98.5% of our shoes. The mighty US cannot even put shoes on its own children.
We don’t make shoes in Masschusetts. The south stole that buisiness from us years ago.
Related issue:
CBO – Preliminary Analysis of the President’s 2011 Budget
“Under the President’s budget, debt held by the public would grow from $7.5 trillion (53 percent of GDP) at the end of 2009 to $20.3 trillion (90 percent of GDP) at the end of 2020. As a result, net interest would more than quadruple between 2010 and 2020 in nominal dollars (without an adjustment for inflation); it would expand from 1.4 percent of GDP in 2010 to 4.1 percent in 2020.”
Preliminary Analysis of the President’s 2011 Budget
CBO
March 5, 2010
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/112xx/doc11231/index.cfm
Letter to Honorable Daniel K. Inouye
Chairman, Committee on Appropriations
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/112xx/doc11231/03-05-apb.pdf
Budget Projections
http://www.cbo.gov/budget/budproj.shtml
Combined OASDI Trust Funds
March 2010 Baseline
By Fiscal Year, in Billions of Dollars
http://www.cbo.gov/budget/factsheets/2010b/OASDI-TrustFunds.pdf
2009-2020 PRIMARY SURPLUS:
19 -29 -21 -13 -4 5 4 -5 -19 -36 -57 -77
*Primary Surplus is the surplus excluding interest paid to the trust fund.
I find the lack of reader interest in trade policy and outcomes astonishing. The readership at AB must have changed.
At the risk of pointing out the obvious again — there are two deficit problems with different answers. Part of the problem is cheap goods from overseas and the answer to that is clearly modest import tariffs or something equivalent. But tariffs are evil? Yeah, so what? Exporting jobs is better? Until economists learn something about economics — which may not happen for centuries — we are going to be stuck with sub-optimal solutions.
The other problem is our need for ten million barrels a day (on average) of foreign petroleum. We can find a bit more domestic oil. And we should, but the chances that we can close a 10Mbpd gap with domestic production are very slim. I’m guessing we can do maybe 2-3Mbpd if we are lucky. Keep in mind that we need to find a lot of oil to replace declining current production and that our needs are truly staggering. So we need to conserve and switch fuels.
But if “conservatives” are fantasizing when they think we can drill ourselves out of our petroleum problem, “liberals” who think we can solve all our problems by sticking up a few windmills, mounting a few solar panels, and subsidizing public transport are equally detached from reality. Truth is that we need to do a large number of things — many of which are going to be inconvenient or unpopular. And that the government, not the market — which will solve the problem brutally someday if we are not careful — is going to have to manage the effort,
***We want value for our money.***
If you were actually interested in cutting US health costs. you’d be advocating single-payer since that’s about the only idea out there where there is a plausible case for significant cost reductions in a relatively short time frame.
Demanding the impossible and refusing to act until it is achieved is not the act of a man of high character.