Wondering if anyone has actually read obama’s book?

Todays wsj reports that obama is proposing a healthcare plan funded by increased taxes on the rich. This is consistent with his book where he argues that the rich need to start paying their fair share of taxes.

While I’m in agreement that the wealthy can afford to pay more, I worry about this line of thinking from an economics point of view. Taken to an extreme we reach a state of socialism or communism. Even marginal shifts in that direction have proven over time to hurt the economy.

Reagan proved in the 90’s that ‘supply side’ economics works. the us govt, now the world’s single largest employer, is the least efficient organization on the planet. I would guess that for every additional dollar we give in taxes 30 cents makes it to an intended purpose.

Its great that obama wants the country to unite and address real problems like healthcare. I just wish he had a better understanding for economics. He could attack the same problem by leveraging free markets. He could offer tac breaks and incentives for businesses that provide better healthcare. If he can figure out how to incent walmart to cover its 1m workers that would be a great start and possibly a repeatable model.

Why do we always have to choose between social lunacy and economic stupidity?
Sent wirelessly via BlackBerry from T-Mobile.

One thought on “Wondering if anyone has actually read obama’s book?

  1. Mark how can you call the same system every other rich nation has (national healthcare) economic stupidity?
    I encourage you to do a good-faith review of the system that such scandalously socialist nations such as Taiwan have and then report back as to whether it really is that dangerous.
    Obama leaves the insurance co’s in the loop, which misses the point. We pay more for less care now, for a lot of reasons one of which is the 20% of healthcare dollars the insurance co’s skim off of the system. The problem is that insurance as a business wants to insure the healthy, not the sick. So the poor and sick end up going to hospitals and getting free care on the gov’t dime. Turns out if you just admit the obvious which is that hte government WILL NOT let people die in the streets and provide some minimum level of healthcare then it can be done more cheaply and efficiently via single-payer. It is pro-growth since it gets private companies out of the ever-messier health insurance quagmire, and even pro-risk taking since lots of people have to stay in lame jobs because they or their families need the healthcare. Also, the “bad actors” such as Wal-Mart who refuse to provide adquate healthcare no longer get to be free riders. Theres lots of other options to cut costs once you go to single-payer including hardball cost negotiations with the pharma co’s.
    yes taxes will go up. Saying its just “on the rich” is obscuring the point, it likely will need to include some kind of payroll tax. Essentially the gov’t is saying to industry that it will take the burden of providing basic healthcare off of industry’s hands. People are free to go buy enhanced coverage, and private pay for various stuff the basic level of care doesn’t provide.
    I’m sure theres lots of ways to structure it such that it doesn’t crush innovation in the healthcare industry. Basically its just telling healthcare insurance industry “thanks we’ll take it from here” with regards to basic coverage. The healthcare insurance industry is just not cutting it for basic coverage.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s