Wall Street Weekly | 10/30/2009 12:00 pm
Liz Peek: Grandiosity, Not Common Sense, Drives Health-Care Bill

Bears, Bulls, Chickens and Pigs: wOw’s Wall Street Weekly with Liz Peek (Week of 10/26)
Editor’s Note: Liz Peek is a financial columnist.The stock market cheered the resurgent economy yesterday, after losing ground for four days in a row. The 3.5% gain in real GDP was welcome but, since nearly half of the improvement came from the Cash for Clunkers program, I wouldn’t break out the bubbly quite yet.
ISI Group notes that economic recoveries historically mirror the extent of the downturn; the worse the falloff, the faster the bounce-back. They say that, given the recession-caused 3.8% collapse in GDP, the quarter should have jumped 10%. No one was looking for that kind of pop, given the debt load and job anxieties still weighing on Americans. Indeed, today’s report that consumer spending sank 0.5% in September (the biggest drop in nine months) underlines the fragility of the recovery. For further proof, just ask the 530,000 newly laid-off Americans that went looking for unemployment insurance last week.
HSBC’s economists had forecast 4% growth for the quarter. They were too bullish because they overestimated the government’s stimulus spending. The shortfall was in outlays from the cities and states, which unexpectedly turned down. This raises an interesting question, no doubt being asked by the 26 million Americans looking for full-time jobs. What ever happened to the stimulus program?
| We do not have to risk fundamentally weakening the health care currently found satisfactory by nearly 80% of Americans. |
If you’re wondering where our $787 billion went, visit the Recovery.gov website. The quick answer is … nowhere. Out of the entire program, only $173.2 billion has been paid out. Of the $14 billion in federal contracts awarded so far, for example, only a little over $2 billion has been received. There are some terrific projects that have received funding, though. My particular favorite is the $219,000 spent on a study of the sex lives of freshmen women at Syracuse University. You might prefer the "Week Mapping Radioactive Rabbit Feces With Detectors Mounted on a Helicopter Flying 50 Feet Over the Desert Scrub," which cost $300,000. If you’re a golfer, you’re probably thrilled with the $5,500 tax credit being applied to the purchases of golf carts.
Some of these projects make me chuckle, but the failure to create jobs for Americans is no laughing matter. A story in today’s Financial Times points out that "more than 8 out of 10 U.S. stimulus dollars spent on wind energy farms have gone to foreign companies." Cash that has gone to wind farms has funded 4,500 jobs overseas. Oops.
Well, after all, it’s the government, and no one expects perfection, or timeliness, or accountability. Then why in heaven’s name are we about to allow the government to interfere in our health care? It is inconceivable to me that Democrat leaders in the House and Senate and the Obama administration are bulling ahead with health-care legislation that Americans do not want, that we cannot afford and that is likely to detract seriously from the most pressing issue before us: putting people back to work.
Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and President Obama have reinvigorated the so-called "public option" based primarily on a couple of recent polls that say that Americans favor a government-run insurance program. Everyone should look up the actual WSJ/NBC poll that supposedly "green lighted" the public option. Early on, respondents are asked if the country is headed in the right direction. Over half (52%) say no, up from 43% in April. The sixth question asks people whether they approve (43%) or disapprove (48%) of the way Obama is handling health-care reform. In answering question No. 10, 48% of those surveyed say the government is doing too many things, while 46% say it is not doing enough. Responding to question 26, 42% said they think the president’s health plan is a bad idea, versus 38% who think it is a good idea, and in the follow-up 40% think that the legislation will make their health care worse (vs. 21% who think it will get better) and 47% think the cost will go up, while 13% think it will go down. Does this group sound enthusiastic about more government involvement?























268 Reader Comments (so far…) Sign In or Register to comment
Laurel….do you honestly think 2-3% is an outragious profit margin? That is what those "obscene" companies have left when they pay all the bills. Yet the Dem plans want to have the sky is the limit of coverage for free!
Liz is absolutely right!!!!! Personal responsibility has to come into play at some point. I would rather keep my money for fun stuff rather than pay deductables and co-pays but that is life. Insurance is suppose to be for catastrophic unexpected expenses. Responsible people put aside some money just in case for the out of pocket expenses that insurance does not cover…just like for your car, your home etc.
The only thing that I remember about the Nixon proposal is that Sen Kennedy fought against it and later wished he hadn’t done that. Kind of a …now I wish we would have passed that..
People and systems evolve with time, it is one of the beautiful principles of life. Right now we are having growing pains in our country. Whenever there is adversity it moves us forward, right now - this point in time is important, it is a teaching and growing opportunity. Where we end up will be interesting.
You refuse to line the pocket of a private company CEO..but expect the rest of the country to pay for 100% of your medical expenses???
My income has dropped 75%..I still find the money for health insurance because I cannot afford NOT to have it! The out of pocket expenses will be paid as soon as I am able.
Those in the poverty level with disabilities I have no issue with helping out… those that gamble with their health and live a life of drugs and alcohol not so much.
Stacy I am a HISTORY MAJOR. I love history and I don’t teach out of a textbook, that is reference material in my class. Funny that you bring up the unions because my Grandfather owned a machine shop and the union was always trying to unionize his shop. When he showed the union reps what his employees benefits and pay were the union backed off because my Grandpa paid better wages and provided better benefits than the unions did. The union also wrote about his shop in the union papers as a model of success and allowed him to advertise in the paper.
We have always been a mix of socialism and capitalism, but over the past few decades money has become king and thats why we are where we are today.
I’m no history major, but Sweden occurs to me. Historically, socialist governments have been successful much longer than our 235 year old democracy.