creators.com opinion web
Liberal Opinion Conservative Opinion
Joe Conason
Joe Conason
11 Feb 2012
White Nationalists Share Spotlight With GOP at CPAC

If the Conservative Political Action Conference can be expected to accomplish anything more than angry bellowing,… Read More.

2 Feb 2012
The High Cost of Romney's Scorching Victory

Mitt Romney's convincing victory in the Florida primary erased his earlier defeats and perhaps any serious … Read More.

26 Jan 2012
Mitch Daniels: Bombast From the Past

Why the Republicans chose Mitch Daniels — the Indiana governor who once thrilled right-wing pundits as … Read More.

Pushed To the Margins, Finally

Share Comment

At the brink of global ruin, many Americans suddenly seem willing to consider sensible ideas that were always deemed unthinkable, and to reject foolish notions that were once deemed brilliant. Soon we may be mature enough to observe how other developed countries address problems that have baffled us for generations.

Nationalizing major banks, temporarily at least, is a radical notion that today looks far more prudent than handing over hundreds of billions of additional dollars to the clowns and crooks who wrecked the financial system. Privatizing Social Security, which meant turning over another trillion dollars to the Wall Street geniuses whose reckless greed drove us into penury, no longer appears so alluring. Even a few repentant right-wingers — notably including Alan Greenspan, the former "maestro" of money — now gaze dolefully into the mirror and wonder where they went so wrong. (Here's a hint: The trouble began during those lonely evenings spent perusing the addled works of Ayn Rand.)

So as President Obama convened his "fiscal responsibility summit" and then delivered his first address to Congress, the voices of free-market fundamentalism were muted in Washington, if not on cable television. The anticipated onslaught against Social Security from those claiming to represent future generations did not materialize at the Obama summit — and neither did the presidential capitulation that liberals had feared. Instead, the White House wonks insisted on discussing the actual threat to America's future solvency, namely the swelling price of health care for the retiring generation of baby boomers and its effect on Medicare and Medicaid.

The problem with these programs, which have done so much to improve the health of America's poor and elderly, is neither the size of the boomer cohort nor even their impending geezerhood. The problem is the rate of cost increase per beneficiary, according to a landmark study released two years ago by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (and described with admirable clarity by Ezra Klein on the American Prospect website on Feb.

23).

Respected across the political spectrum for the accuracy and relevance of its data, that liberal think tank happens to be the former professional home of Peter Orszag, the Obama administration's budget director. The center's insights into federal spending will inform policy at the highest level — which means that reforming the way we finance and deliver medicine will be central to this government's fiscal planning. Although there are many other matters that must be addressed if we are ever to regain control of deficits when economic growth resumes — from the abuse of tax shelters by the super-rich to the absurd rip-offs by military contractors — the biggest money is in the health sector.

But how can we cope with rising costs when we have yet to achieve the basic national goal of providing universal coverage? Perhaps now Americans will look abroad and notice that other countries provide quality care to all of their citizens, spending less than half what we do and achieving better outcomes.

In the coming decades, countries in Europe, as well as Canada and Japan, will be able to invest their resources in energy and education, while we try to figure out how to borrow enough to keep our hospitals open. What they all have in common is that they do not devote a huge proportion of their health spending to the profits of insurance companies — and they negotiate budgets with health providers, such as pharmaceutical companies.

The superior performance of these alternatives is at long last coming to the attention of the mainstream media, which has so long ignored it.

As always, Congress will resist change on behalf of the insurance and pharmaceutical lobbies, preferring to do nothing. But perhaps in the coming years, the public will realize that such feckless politicians should be told to go do nothing somewhere else.

Joe Conason writes for the New York Observer (www.observer.com). To find out more about Joe Conason, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2009 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.


Comments

3 Comments | Post Comment
Sir;...Wouldn't revolution be cheaper than trying to make failed capitalism work??? You cannot calculate the cost of the damage capital has done to this society... Pro business nut heads talk about wealth creation; but usually they mean the wealth they have levered out of the hands of working people.... I would like now to hear their latest figures.... What has happened now to all of that wealth they have created???I know what has happened to a lot of other wealth, investments, jobs, family farms, homes.... We have spent our loot on interest, and have nothing left for prinicipal.... And we have been living on borrow because our wages have been depressed, and that too was all part of the story of wealth creation....The thing is; what you said of Mr. Greenspan and Ayn Rand is true of many of those sorts... That is as close as many people have gotten to philosophy... The individual is all... Well, now we see that individuals have societies too... We see that individuals are outlaws, and that morals are the point at which every person joins their society.... Mr. Greenspan said that the ideology of forty years had failed him... That is not a quotation; but he was not alone in guiding his life by ideologies... The whole country has been guided by ideology... Whether you call it Christianity or Capitalism it is all much of the same thing, a bunch of good ideas intead of a living hand on the tiller...We need to break free of good ideas... We need people in government with the intelligence to see good ideas all played out in their minds so people can avoid disaster... But best, is to find forms that work, and to be willing to break free of our forms when they clearly do not work...Human history is the history of changing forms/ideals... No perfect form has yet been discovered...No form has been found that some one would not turn to their own personal benefit...Since no one can stop forms from being corrupted, people have to feel free to reform their societies, or their economies, and even their religions if need be...People do it all the time... Marriage is a form too... If that does not work out, people start over.... We need to start over.... Thanks...Sweeney
Comment: #1
Posted by: James A, Sweeney
Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:28 PM
First of all it is not exactly a massive triumph of liberal ideology when it takes a time of great crisis for these changes you propose to even be considered. America has always been, and continues to be a nation steeped in the classical liberal mode of thought.
You speak of universal health care and financial central planning as if they were completely free from flaws. Central planning has many, which I am sure have been numerated before by people far more capable than me. One issue I would like to raise is the ideology which accompanies centralized banks and universal health care carries many other things with it, including a host of problems. In France the same line of thought that leads to central banks has also lead to labor laws which stifle the job market. In Germany there are a host of people in their late 20s and early thirties who continue to go to school because they have little or no job opportunities in their fields. A centralized, egalitarian state has a myriad of disadvantages which you conveniently look over. If you can honestly say that the European model is better when considering not only the advantages, but the disadvantages as well, and also factor in the differences in logistics when comparing countries of different sizes, then please say so, but don't present such a one sided view and then speak of its obvious superiority.
Comment: #2
Posted by: bohstedt1
Sat Feb 28, 2009 2:57 PM
Insurance should be limited to private property, something a person's health is most assuredly not. There is no more need for health insurance to be placed between a patient and a health care provider than there is a need for a pimp between yourself and your love interest.
Comment: #3
Posted by: michael nola
Sun Mar 1, 2009 7:53 PM
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:

Please allow a few minutes for your comment to be posted.

Enter the numbers to the right:  
Creators.com comments policy
More
Joe Conason
Feb. `12
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
29 30 31 1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 1 2 3
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month
Judge Napolitano
Judge Andrew P. NapolitanoUpdated 16 Feb 2012
Austin Bay
Austin BayUpdated 15 Feb 2012
Michelle Malkin
Michelle MalkinUpdated 15 Feb 2012

22 Oct 2011 What Romney's Religion Reveals About His Politics

11 Dec 2008 Dangerous Bias Against Detroit

24 Feb 2011 Yes, America Still Needs Unions