Sign in to wowOwow

Enter the email address that you used when registering at wowOwow.
The password field is case sensitive. Click here if you have forgotten your password.

Please register for wowOwow

Newsletter subscriptions
Sign up to receive wowOwow's weekly newsletter and get our best picks delivered right to your inbox. Our newsletter content is hand-picked by the wowOwow editorial team and provides the top features, news, and commentary from our site. Subscribing to our newsletter is free and safe. We will never share your email or other information with a third-party without your direct consent.
By registering, you indicate that you have read and agree
with our privacy policy and terms of service.

Wall Street Weekly | 10/30/2009 12:00 pm

Liz Peek: Grandiosity, Not Common Sense, Drives Health-Care Bill

© Shutterstock

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

C Hardy
Maggie - thank you!  But it still leaves so many questions un-answered.  If medicare is run so bad now why does anyone think the Govt can run this new healthcare?  Why not make medicare better and extend it to everyone who needs it NOW
By C Hardy on 10/30/2009 2:51 pm
Maggie W

C Hardy, you have a very good question.  Where we live influences our opinions about Medicare.  In many states, people are quite satisfied.  I am in Harris County ( Texas), home of the world famous medical center complex.  One would think that Medicare would flourish in HC but there is much waste ,and it often operates at a snail’s pace.  I have relatives in Central Texas, happy as clams with Medicare.  Yes, much needs to be done to make Medicare healthy everywhere.  If it was a total disaster in every state, it might be easier to clean it up.  But each state and even county needs a different diagnosis.  

I am really hoping this first reform will spawn other reforms and soon, such as our nation wide doctor shortage in primary care.  We have 27 counties in Texas without a PC doctor.  Those who are ill must travel to another county.  Also, there are too many pressures on doctors today from insurance, federal rules, and malpractice.  

Yes, there are too many questions and too few answers.

By Maggie W on 10/30/2009 3:25 pm
Belinda Joy

Liz, you pose the question, why are we going to allow the federal government to interfere in our health care? Given that your interpretation of the numbers from recovery.com = disaster.

Again I ask you and people who think as you do….what solutions are you offering up for people who don’t have coverage? For those who do have coverage but can’t pay their deductibles? For those who said "the hell with it" and went to the ER and now have bills they can’t afford to pay? What do you say to the millions who have filed bankruptcy and loss their homes because of medical bills they couldn’t pay? The college students and young workers who aren’t insured but need health services, what should they do?

You and people like yourself don’t want nor think the federal government should step in and help, leave it up to the individual states. Well, where do you think the individual states are going to get the income to provide the health insurance assistance? As you can see our entire nation has their hand out to the federal government to help provide for their respective communities. But I guess you hadn’t thought about that. Is the answer to simply continue to ignore the growing health care crisis and those in need until the system comes to a crashing halt and everyone is left without coverage?

You’re providing a lot of numbers that you yourself know are liquid. I am a Obama supporter, so if I wanted to I can quote all his top numbers from polls and ignore the low ones. But that wouldn’t be dishonest. Yet I see you have not problem in doing so as long as it fits your narrative.

You’re so bias, you allow the extreme hatred you have for Barack Obama to color everything you say and look at. As far as I am concerned you are Glenn Beck in a skirt. The WoW site has its very own Fox News slant on current events….and your beat is the financial news. Good for you Glenn….ummm I meant Liz.

By Belinda Joy on 10/30/2009 1:44 pm
Bonnie O

Belinda Joy -  Some poll numbers used by Liz in her article have also found there way into recent news coverage.  There is a WSJ/NBC poll asking about the direction of the country and the majority found the country is going in the wrong direction.  Rasmussen, an independent pollster, does daily tracking and the President’s numbers, though rising occasionally, are on a downward trend.  Most objections to the President relate to the economy and not to the War in Afghanistan.

Your comments are very harsh against Liz Peek, perhaps overly critical.  Your own bias in favor of the President might eschew your views.  It is difficult to locate political polls that do not slant the questions in order to achieve the desired results.  One must be forever vigilant.

By Bonnie O on 10/30/2009 2:18 pm
C Hardy

Belinda - I have said over and over what I feel the Govt can do NOW to take care of those Americans who are without coverage - extend Medicare to them NOW.  Stop waiting and do it!  Why not change and make better what we already have in place - why do we need something new?  People say Medicare isnt run very well - OK that is TRUE - who runs it - the Govt - so how the heck does the Govt think it can run another healthcare program? 

Those are all questions I have posed on this site that I have never gotten any answers to - I am not bias b/c I am one of those young families that struggle to pay healthcare bills and I have full coverage for myself and my daughter. Our deductible killed us this year so yes I know what its like to struggle.  I am currently on payment plans for 3 medical bills. 

SO please tell me why the Govt who cant run Medicare can run this new program? 

By C Hardy on 10/30/2009 2:30 pm
Belinda Joy

You don’t trust the government to run a government program…..Medicare. So your solution to the unemployed, uninsured and those who have insurance is to have the government fix medicare? What does that have to do with the millions of people who are not eligible for medicare, don’t have insurance or have insurance but can’t pay their premiums? Medicare and the problems inherent within it are only a fraction of the health care debacle.

This is a constant between you and me, I just don’t understand your thought process C Hardy.

By Belinda Joy on 10/30/2009 3:19 pm
Callie O
Belinda – I have no problem understanding what C. Hardy is saying.   The government says it can “fix” the Medicare program.  So they should FIX it, then extend the benefits to those qualified to receive them. (those disabled, too poor to buy insurance, etc.) If they’re not able to get a grip on Medicare, then they have no business progressing on to an even bigger program. The truth is, we ALL know government agencies (under ANY administration) are infamous for their inefficiency and waste. And as far as “saving jobs” those jobs have mainly been GOVERNMENT jobs, and some in education. Just today the report on “Cash For Clunkers” showed each car that went out cost the taxpayer $24,000.  The perfect illustration of a government program. It is already apparent the new “Nancy bill” is chock full of waste, pork, new taxes, etc.  And already the big lies are coming out about what is and is not contained in the bill.   Regardless of the bilge spewing out of Washington, there are many who will following this president right straight to hell.  And that’s exactly where he’s taking them.
By Callie O on 10/30/2009 4:51 pm
C Hardy
Belinda - the Govt needs to fix Medicare #1 and then extend it to those who are uninsured or can’t afford it.  It can be done - they are in charge of Medicare, extend it, make it available to those who need it.  Instead of bringing in a whole new plan - fix what we already have and make it better and more available.  Not sure what part of that you didnt understand…hope I clarified it for you B. 
By C Hardy on 10/30/2009 5:26 pm
Frannie Em

Belinda

There is a program for those too poor to afford medical care - it is called Medicaid.  I was on it as a child so I am very familiar with it.  My mother was on welfare for a few years after my father left since she could not support 8 children.  So I have experienced extreme poverty and the unfortunate medicaid system.  Hard to find a doctor, but had plenty of lousy dentists. 

It is people who work and own a home and make too much money to qualify for medicaid, yet cannot afford insurance, that are the ones in trouble.  Statistically, those are the ones that are falling through the cracks.  My sister-in-law is a dialysis nurse and all of her patients are on medicaid.  No insurance company will take them so they are on the government program, as they should be.  The trouble is, and she is an avid Obama supporter, but is totally against the Healthcare Bill, because the govt imposes charted medical standards that are unrealistic and limiting.  She knows when her patients needs more care or a procedure so they won’t get sicker, but because of the limits of the regulation, she can’t do it.  For instance, there are certain blood markers that have to be monitored for levels of different chemicals - let’s just say - salt and potassium when doing dialysis, if they don’t follow levels in the guideline set out by medicaid regulation you are not allowed to do procedures to benefit the patient.  The patient gets sicker and sicker when it could have been prevented - until they get sick enough to do the procedure.  She says it ends up costing lots more money than it would if they could do the procedure in the first place.  The long hand of government inefficiency deciding patient care does not work.  If I am in the same circumstances, I do not want that to happen to me, would you?  I don’t think so, but that is what it has gotten to, and that is what many are afraid of and why they oppose 1900 pages of ifs, ands, buts and maybes in the bill.  We will have to pay more, there is not doubt about it.  The CBO has now billed it at 1.5 trillion.  What a crock. 

Obama didn’t write this bill, the dems in congress did - that was where he lost control of the argument.   

By Frannie Em on 10/31/2009 11:56 pm
Belinda Joy

Frannie, clearly you and I see this issue very different.

The reason so many other civilized countries have universal healthcare for its people is to assure that EVERYONE has coverage. That no one is without it. Why that is viewed as socialism or communism by some is beyond me. Instead we have health insurance companies that deny coverage carte blanche’ and we (constituents - customers) don’t have a voice and choice in the matter. So your sister in law can complain and argue that the restrictions the federal government may impose on certain procedures pail in comparison to what is in place now, which is no coverage by insurance companies. How does she feel about that?

The federal government as it relates to not just health insurance (Medicare & Medicaid) but countless other programs, is replete with inaccuracies. The answer isn’t to do away with the programs, but instead repair and fix the problems. If I had to choose between a federal health insurance program that provided coverage to all (or most) and that of commercial insurance that denied coverage to most or many as we have now, I would take the federal coverage hands down. You clearly would not, but I would.

I’ve never been on welfare and wasn’t raised in a household where my father had to turn to the federal government to raise his kids, so I am not well versed on Medicaid as you are.  However I doubt seriously if it was a program that could cover the millions who are currently going without, that our nation would even be having a discussion about how best to offer coverage to everyone. It would simply be extended to all those in need. So Medicaid, although helpful to some, is not a panacea for the vast numbers in need of coverage.

The bottom line as I see it is we have to do something. It angers me to see and hear people speak of the federal government as a "us against them" issue. The federal government is suppose to represent us, our voice and desires collectively as a nation. It isn’t a bad thing to have big government in my opinion. As long as that big, bloated government works efficiently and in all our best interests. So for those who complain that various federal entities aren’t working well, I agree. Fix the problems. The issue at hand now is people like Liz Peek don’t like those in power so they are against anything and everything offered up by them.  And at the same time the Liz Peek’s of our nation aren’t offering any viable solutions.

By Belinda Joy on 11/01/2009 8:38 am
True Grit

Belinda, all those other "civilized’ countries have awful health care compared to Americans. They didn’t have the money for universal health care and neither do we. That is why our health care is superior.

In France 90% purchase private insurance although French workers pay 19% in taxes for health insurance.

 In Italy the average wait for a mammogram is 70 days.

In the UK, they have a mandatory 4 hour limit for admittance in the emergency rooms. In order to do so, they were waiting right up to the deadline and then admitted patients. Those patients then waited hours longer to be seen. The incentive for that being $1,000 paid of every patient admitted. This resulted in patient being admitted that did not need to be and unreasonable waiting periods for those that did. Only the government could figure out a way to get more money for worse service.

How about the hospitals in the Uk that do not wash the sheets between patient? They just turn them over. A government run health care with prescribe cheaper drugs that may not be as efficient, cut down on testing, reduce cost in any way possible. Oh, and there is a reason that the English have horrible teeth, the dental plan. 6% Decided to do self treatment, their dental coverage is a disaster.

According to the NICE rationing method used in the UK, if you have breast cancer the drug Tykerb is worth more than your life. They decide what which drugs and treatments are too expensive to extend your life. So called death panels are alive and well.

20% of British patients with colon cancer are considered incurable by the time treatment is available. They had been treatable upon discovery.

Beyond the fact that our health "care" would suffer, the costs will not be managable. In 1990, the government said that Medicare would cost $12 Billion, it actually cost $107 Billion in 1990.

Your big, bloated federal entity does not work well, never has. Socialism has failed in every way and health care is no exception. All other countries besides the United States have universal health care and America is fourth, with about 15% paid out of pocket.

Then you might want to consider that the U.S. has won the Nobel Peace prize for medicine in 36 out of the last 43 years. Yes, they actually did something to win. U.S. companies have developed half of all new medicines worldwide over the past 20 years. Keep in mind, we only represent 5% of the world’s population.

How about that universal health care in Greece? People resort to bribes because they need 5,000 general practitioners, yet have only 600.

Finally, Medicare turned down more proceedures than private insurance companies did.

Tort reform, National access to insurance companies, many things will easily bring down ALL of our health care costs without handing over our very lives to the government. All viable solutions.

Why, in light of these facts, is it so hard for some to understand that the oppositiion to this administration is not about the man, but is about the policy.

I suspect that it is so, because those that support him, do so because of the man and not the policy.

By True Grit on 11/01/2009 5:32 pm
STACY SEARS
BRAVO!!!!!
By STACY SEARS on 11/02/2009 4:00 am
macwoof woof

True Grit; another poster who doesn’t let the facts get in the way.   

signed another canadian who is tired of Americans shooting their mouths off without have any idea of what they’re speaking about.

 

By macwoof woof on 11/02/2009 11:41 am
True Grit

Nice Macwoof. Thanks for the personal attack.

No how about debating those facts?

No? I didn’t think so.

By True Grit on 11/03/2009 1:10 pm
Diana T

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/01/cit-bankruptcy-filed-us-w_n_341567.html

I am sending this to you again, Belinda, because the link didn’t insert correctly the first time.  I don’t think wow is the place to be reading reliable financial advice and news.

But then,  I just don’t post much anymore.

By Diana T on 11/02/2009 12:00 am