The conventional wisdom is that it would be political suicide for President Obama to undertake any new controversial policy initiatives until Congress approves some form of health care reform. In fact, Mr. Obama said that he will not tackle the immigration issue until 2010 — is is doubtful that either the Mexicans or the Canadians will be pleased and given that projections of the size of the deficit seem to be increasing, he may not have the luxury to wait.
In the U.S., politics has increasingly taken on the characteristics of advertising. Our attention spans have decreased. We are now surrounding by gadgets must of us barely understand how to use.
Soundbites, rather than good policy or a sense of equity drives the political discourse. What that means is that powerful interest groups push their agenda at the extent of a majority of the public.
President Obama probably was too busy reading when he was younger than to have the time to watch much television. He probably put his spare time into his school’s debate team and studied the world’s greatest speech-makers. That may be a shame.
To regain the initiative, he should announce that he will give up his current health care insurance paid for by the U.S. taxpayer and choose one of the health care options he proposes. Then he should dare all members of Congress who failure to support his final proposal for public health to the do same. They will have the choice to pay out-of-pocket, see if they can be covered by their spouses coverage, or search for private insurance. Many of our older senators may find their premiums high and have trouble with pre-existing conditions.
I am perplexed when I attempt to understand what motivates those who oppose health care reform. The U.S. is the only industustrialized country in the world without a public health system. Part of this is because most Americans are allergic to taxes — which frankly are not too burdensome when compared with other countries where we might want to live.
On television, we can see new advertisements with horror stories about delays some people have endured waiting to have an operation performed. Yes, this is indeed a tragedy. But many Americans have no opportunity to have any operations performed. What is not discussed in the commercial is that (i) it is now possible to procure private health care in Canada and (ii) the Canada’s doctor shortage in part can be attributed to individuals who after receiving a subsidized medical education at Canadian taxpayers’ expense move to the States to earn money.
President Obama fears imposing new income taxes on all but the wealthiest 2-3% of the population. He should realize that there is a large pool of other people who could be a good source of tax revenue and they would welcome the opportunity to do so — undocumented workers (or for those who prefer — illegal immigrants). At present, many of these people are vulnerable to unscrupulous employers who violate applicable employment laws.
It would take great courage to propose addressing the immigration era at a time of high unemployment. Leadership demands courage. If the 10-12 million undocumented workers in the U.S. paid all the taxes they were obligated to (not just sales and excise tax), we would discover a whole pool of money that this country could use to fund the stimulus program and reduce the deficit.
It wasn’t so long ago that both Republicans and Democrats were considering programs that would impose a fine of a couple of thousand dollars on undocumented workers who can prove they had lived in the States for a number of years, worked at jobs and had not committed any crimes. In exchange, they would have the legal right to remain in the coutnry. This was a reasonable proposal at the time and remains so to.
Let such people have a means to get a green card (and their children under 18 a chance to get U.S. citizenship). These workers would certainly have to contribute to payroll taxes, and in some cases state income and property taxes. Some may even be lucky enough to have the privilege of paying federal income taxes.
Many fear that to do so would reduce wages. That is indeed a legitimate concern. The answer is to make the minimum wage a living wage and increase it automatically (without the needs for Congress to pass a law), when the real cost of living increases. Since the CPI is flawed as it does not adequately take into account the cost of housing, food and transportation, we need another measure.
Also, make it easier for workers to organize unions. In the 1950s and ’60s, it was the unions who were concerned with the condition of the common man. They might with time develop the clout to fight special interests. Unions have gotten a bad rap in this country. Unlike the European countries, the U.S. does not have a labor code to protect worker rights, as a result we have a great need for unions. Not all union leaders were corrupt nor were all tied to organized crime.
Perhaps the above changes might produce a dynamic where it would be feasible to establish a national health care system (incorporating private insurers if it makes economic sense). While personally, I have a hard time completing some insurance forms and understanding why some things are being reimbursed while others are not, private health insurers are supposed to be more efficient than a single payer system. That might be true, but why not think of allowing citizens of each state to but into their state workers’ insurance plans (possibly even some employers might do so). This is one idea that might make health care more affordable, but the debate has become a vehicle for rhetoric, rather than problem solving.
