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
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FairTax
Impartial information on this subject seems to be hard to find. The implicit problems tend to be completely ignored.
"The Federal juggernaut is incapable of doing anything efficiently." You righties seem to think corporations in the private sector are incapable of error, and our government is always wrong"
The government is grossly ineffecient. Corporations are not perfect, but they at least have an incentive to run more effeciently, whatever their "profit" status. Corporations cannot sustain themselves if they run a deficit for a significant amount of time. Our government continues to get deeper into debt and gives no incentive to its employees to use the creative skills they possess to make it better. If you are innovative in the corporate world, there is a reward. If you are innovative as a civil servant you are not rewarded, and in the military you could be considered insubordinate.
Stacy, I agree with you except on one point. The military is the one branch of the government that is 10-15 years ahead of the other agencies in program management, change management, human performance, best business practices and believe it or not efficiencies on many levels. Innovation is highly encouraged and rewarded. Are there exceptions to the rule? You betcha! But overall, the DOD manages its money and programs far better than the other agencies.
My husband spent 28 years in the military, 4 years working for the DOD as a civilian and now works for another agency. I could tell you stories that would set your hair on fire as how things work in this other agency. The DOD is light years ahead and many agencies don’t show the least bit of interest in changing and the majority fight it tooth and nail.
Mary QT: "if you think health care is expensive now, wait til it is free" hits it squarely on the nail. The fraud and abuse will put medicare fraud and abuse today in a favorable light by the time the government mishandles yet another government program. All we need to do is open our eyes to how this administration provided extremely costly "bandaid solutions" to prop up the auto industry and our banks. This is an administration in way over their heads to insure that we have economic security for our children and grandchildren. They simply cannot add and subtract which then promotes the theory that they really don’t care. Perhaps "flatlining" our economy is their real agenda. We all know what the end result of that will be and for what purpose.
It will be the American people who push the Obama administration out of the White House in 2010 and 2012. It won’t be Rush Limbaugh. It won’t be Glenn Beck. It will concerned Americans across the country who say, "No More Obama Government Control and No More Wreckless Spending." We need an administration we believe in and trust. We need a leader who leads. We need to show our fear, concern and love of American by casting our vote.
And why, Ms Sayler, would you imagine ANY company would risk private capital to run businesses that were not allowed a profit? You attack the very underpinnings of our economy.
Assume you own a grocery store. Would you bother with merchandising, advertising, sales, accounting, etc., if you KNEW you would have no profit?
Why on earth would ANYONE want to be in business with a no-profit rule?
It would seem most liberal thinking is that every single phase of life should be furnished those who "don’t" by those who "do" by taking what doers have earnred, and giving it to the remains of society.
It’s sick. It’s un-American. And most conservatives will fight it till they die.
HANG the liberal cause.
Laurel - what usually happens with legally non-profit organizations is that they take all their "surplus" (not allowed to call it profit, which it really is) and pay huge leadership salaries and bonuses. Also they end up with extremely expensive surroundings. All this does is deny public participation in profits. We have a perfect example of this where I live….a huge medical center, "non-profit," which makes a tremendous amount of money, and sinks all the surplus into its executive salaries, bonuses, extras, extravagant office and buildings.
Non-profit is definitely not the answer. It certainly hasn’t reduced medical costs there.
Regence BlueCross/Blue Shield in my state is a non profit. Their rates are about the same as my current carrier Healthnet.
It all depends on the make up of the group as to the cost. If all your members are older more costly people with health issues the overall cost of the group is higher even if they are not making a profit. You have to have a majority of younger healthy ( less costly) members to cover the cost of the older group.
Some here seems to have no clue as to how a pool of members works in the insurance business. If it is cheaper to op out than there will not be enough money in the pool to pay for the expenses for those older folks.
What some here also seem to think is that those with insurance pay nothing for their own care. The only people paying nothing are on public assistance.
I currently have a 50% copay and a $3500 deductable. That means I will have to pay $3500.00 per year out of pocket…BUT after that deducatable they pay 100%. The premiums are pretty high $ 350. per person) due to our age but my 20 something son and his wife pay $218.00 per month for BOTH of them. They pay slightly less for their cable tv/internet.
Priorities….
Nice explanation, S.J. Much of the problem is, I think, too many who could afford to pay their own way if they choked up on something else less critical are looking for a free ride. Even Medicare coverage is a minimum of $200 monthly for a couple, then supplemental (which is pretty well necessary since Medicare has so many "gaps") runs another $300 monthly.
Like you said…..priorities…
Well, Sara, I guess the grocery stores don’t have all that lobbying expense. If our corrupt Washington Congress would outlaw lobbyists’ contributions to them, they could likely lower their 2-3% profit margin.
Regardless their talk of "evil insurance companies" they’re still in bed with them.
Another reduction of profit margin would come if the Washington powers that be would allow insurance companies to sell across state lines.
Profit margin is figured the same for all businesses, Callie — income vs expense — insurance companies have huge profit margins even after "expensing" lobbying costs, high salaries, etc.