Another gimmick they're playing is to cut $200B+ in health care spending from the bill that they intend to pass as a separate bill. Combined, the 2 bills push the overall spending well into the red. But they can go on TV and say, "THE bill (big one) is budget neutral."
OMG! That could lead to healthier, more productive citizens and a robust economy! We've got to stop this madness!
Not that I'm disputing his facts, but it's hard to totally take him seriously with his other credentials... Senior Staff Economist for President George H. W. Bush’s Council of Economic Advisors. Director of Domestic and Economic Policy for the John McCain presidential campaign
http://www.leighbureau.com/speaker.asp?id=344 Former Director, Congressional Budget Office. Fellow, Council on Foreign Relations. Fellow, Peterson Institute for International Economics. Economist Douglas Holtz-Eakin speaks with unmatched authority on economics of public policy in all areas—government fiscal and monetary policy, economic policy, trade, healthcare, and entrepreneurship, to name a few. Dr. Holtz-Eakin has a long and distinguished career of public service as an economic advisor to policy makers. He was appointed to the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, a 10-member commission that Congress established to investigate the causes of the financial crisis and the collapse of major financial institutions. He served as the sixth Director of the Congressional Budget Office, the government's main number cruncher, where he won universal respect as a fine, nonpartisan economist. He also served for 18 months as Chief Economist for the President’s Council of Economic Advisors under President George W. Bush and for two years as Senior Staff Economist for President George H. W. Bush’s Council of Economic Advisors. Douglas Holtz-Eakin served as Director of Domestic and Economic Policy for the John McCain presidential campaign. He has also recently been Senior Fellow at the Peter G. Peterson Institute for International Economics, the Director of the Maurice R. Greenberg Center for Geoeconomic Studies, and the Paul A. Volcker Chair in International Economics at the Council on Foreign Relations. Dr. Holtz-Eakin has held academic appointments at Columbia and Princeton Universities and was Trustee Professor of Economics at the Maxwell School, Syracuse University. At the Maxwell School, he served as Chairman of the Department of Economics and Associate Director of the Center for Policy Research. He has advised several state governments and was principal investigator for several federal government agency research initiatives. Special Program: A Debate on Health Care In this timely, fireworksy and yet substantive program, Douglas Holtz-Eakin debates Matt Miller on how best to reform health care in America. Douglas Holtz-Eakin is the former economics and domestic policy advisor to John McCain, a former Congressional Budget Office director, and a Fellow of the Peterson Institute for International Economics. Miller is a Fortune contributing editor, a former Clinton White House advisor and author of the provocative new book, The Tyranny of Dead Ideas. Holtz-Eakin and Miller will question each other's assumptions and proposals and challenge the audience to decide for themselves what course would best serve their organizations, the nation and its citizens. lively and illuminating clash of perspectives will also reveal some surprising common ground, suggesting where the contours of bipartisan progress might be possible. Areas of Expertise Health Care Energy policy, global warming, environmental policy Displaced worker policy, labor market adjustment Social Security Economic forecasting The economics of public policy Entrepreneurship Entrepreneurship & U.S. foreign policy Tax policy American competitiveness Globalization Foreign investment and national security Health Care Health care is the preeminent policy issue of our time: how can we make sure that all our citizens get the care they need in ways that they as individuals and families and we as a society can sustainably afford? We cannot continue as we are, but where lies the path forward? Dr. Douglas Holtz-Eakin approaches the problem as a seasoned economist who is deeply familiar with the role policy plays in shaping reform. He offers audiences insights into the market context for healthcare reform and ideas for how we should pay for healthcare, provide better care and control rising costs. And he urges an incremental strategy for healthcare reform—a series of deliberate, moderate—and correctable—fixes that will cause less disruption, gain more popular acceptance and match the political realities surrounding the issue. Because nobody would get a big fix right. Globalization Resistance to globalization is increasing even as globalization itself continues apace. The problem is that it supports capital while pushing downward on workers’ incomes. As a solution, Dr. Holtz-Eakin proposes to use globalization’s positive strengths to offset its weakness: give people who rely for their livelihood solely on their labor some capital to work with. We should support people with low incomes by giving them meaningful capital investments, using public funds when necessary. Topics Healthcare Globalization Economic Overviews—the U.S., Europe, Asia, India Credentials President, DHE Consulting, LLC Member of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission Former Senior Fellow, Peterson Institute for International Economics Council on Foreign Relations—(formerly) Director of the Maurice R. Greenberg Center for Geoeconomic Studies and the Paul A. Volcker Chair in International Economics Former Director, Congressional Budget Office (2003-2005) Former Chief Economist, President’s Council of Economic Advisors—.George W. Bush (2001-2002) Former Senior Staff Economist, President’s Council of Economic Advisors—George H.W. Bush (1989-1990) Director of Domestic and Economic Policy, McCain/Palin 2008 Formerly Chairman & Trustee Professor of Economics and Associate Director, Maxwell Center for Policy Research, Syracuse University Academic appointments at Columbia and Princeton Faculty research fellow and research associate, National Bureau of Economic Research Advisor to several state governments; principal investigator for several federal government agency research initiatives Honors Morris and Edna Zele Award for Outstanding Achievement in Policy Research and Public Service (2006) TCW Fellow, American Council for Capital Foundation (1998) Research Dr. Holtz-Eakin’s research makes him an extremely valuable speaker in the areas of economic policy and entrepreneurship and the economics of the estate and gift tax. He has an ongoing interest in tax policy, the economics of aging, and the political economy of growth. His recent research has centered on the economics of fundamental tax reform, productivity effects of public infrastructure, and income mobility in the U.S.
Depends what to optimize. Since you only want to optimize one parameter: the number of people with healthcare with no regard to cost, sustainability or freedom, it is easy. We could do that tomorrow.
Again, it's not about what I want to optimize. What do you want to optimize, and how much time would that take? barfo
Let's start by optimizing how much money lawyers get from suing doctors for doing their jobs the best they can. Can't do that, the lawyers are big donors to Obama and the rest of the party in charge.
CBO says tort reform would have a minimal impact on healthcare costs. If I remember, they said that in 2002 and 2006. So that takes no time. Next? barfo
Why is it not about what you want to optimize? Should I just assume that you will take whatever Obama and Pelosi tell you that you need and assume it is optimized? If not, then you should be asking yourself the same question you are asking me. As for how much time it would take, it depends on what is considered completion (it will likely never be "complete"). However, I would like to see exploration of incremental changes, or state level legislation, which could be done more quickly than these multi-trillion dollar bills.
Dude, I'm the one asking the question here. Blazerboy said we should take more time, and I asked how much time. In the three posts following, he fails to answer that question, despite my repeating it for him. And you accuse me of avoiding a question? Try to pay a little more attention. barfo
I already know my answer, that's why I asked for your answer. Ok. I'd argue that this bill is incremental, but I suppose it is possible to be even more incremental. On the other hand, I'd like to see the problem fixed before the sun goes supernova, so too much incrementalism isn't really a good thing. barfo
Could there be a worse time for this kind of legislation. People are hurting finacially and the mood of the nation is fragile. If I understand it right, this is legislation to be implemented in the future. Still, the psychlogical aspect it has and the tension I see this raising . . . is now the time for this? The administration has rushed thing in the past. I thought it was justified given the urgency of the matter (US and world economy was hanging in the balance). But this time . . . can't we form a no nonsense subcomittee (chaired or supervised by Clinton) to take on the impossible task of healthcare and come up (after letting all the ideas marinate for a year or two . . . or after the 2nd term) with a well thought out (albeit painful) answer to all this. I haven't been following it and maybe this has all happened, but from an outside non-following politics perspective, it all feels very forced and rushed right now. I personally hope enough attention is being paid to the Middle East and keeping competitive in the world economy.
Congress has been debating and modifying these bills for months now. Before that, years of groundwork were done. Our senator, Ron Wyden, has been working seriously on healthcare reform for many years now. Plenty of others have too. And let's not forget that when we tried this the last time ("HillaryCare"), that was sixteen years ago. It's not that no one was thinking about it for the past sixteen years. It's that the Republican majority didn't want to deal with it, so actually doing something about it had to wait until now. barfo
Yes, the silly little game called "asking people what they meant by what they posted". Whereas you aren't playing any silly little games, are you? barfo
I think there's a pretty clear record on who posts seriously and who tries to avoid issues by being clever. I'm sorry if you don't like me identifying and calling out your tactic.
The last time someone challenged a mod on here like that they were given a week long vacation from this place.
