Last updated: October 1, 2013 7:22 pm
By Martin Wolf
Comments
America flirts with self-destruction
By Martin Wolf
The fallout of a US government default, particularly one that lasts, is beyond prediction
Is the US a functioning democracy? This week legislators decided to shut down a swath of the federal government rather than allow an enacted health law go into operation at the agreed moment. They may go further; if they do not vote to raise the so-called “debt ceiling”, they risk triggering default on US government debt – a fate far worse than the shutdown or fiscal sequestration. If the opposition is prepared to inflict such damage on their own country, the restraint that makes democracy work has gone. Why has this happened? What might be the result? What should the president do?
The first question is the most perplexing. The Republicans are doing all of this in order to impede a modest improvement in the worst healthcare system of any high-income country. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (known as “Obamacare”) is modelled on one introduced in 2006 in Massachusetts by then governor Mitt Romney. Its apparently criminal aims are to cover 32m uninsured people and ensure coverage of those with pre-existing conditions. True, the programme is complex. But it builds on a defective system. That most working people get insurance through their employers is an obstacle to labour market flexibility since it complicates decisions about leaving a job, particularly for people with chronic medical conditions. It is a form of serfdom.
Spending and outcomes, compared with other big high-income countries
ON THIS STORY
- Obama cancels Malaysia trip amid crisis
- Editorial Comment Decline and fall of republican politics
- US takes ‘extraordinary’ measures to pay bills
- Lex Medical taxes – own devices
- Video Shutdown on Wall St
ON THIS TOPIC
- Americans flock to health exchanges
- Global Market Overview Stocks shrug aside US shutdown
- US business struggles to make voice heard
- Tourists upset as national parks close
MARTIN WOLF
Compare the US health system to those of the other large high-income countries. The US spends 18 per cent of its gross domestic product on health against 12 per cent in the next highest spender, France. The US public sector spends a higher share of GDP than those of Italy, the UK, Japan and Canada, though many people are left uncovered. US spending per head is almost 100 per cent more than in Canada and 150 per cent more than in the UK. What does the US get in return? Life expectancy at birth is the lowest of these countries, while infant mortality is the highest. Potential years of life lost by people under the age of 70 are also far higher. For males this must be partly due to violent deaths. But it is also true for women. (See charts.)
The idea that one should close the government – or risk a default – to stop universal insurance, which other high-income countries take for granted, seems mad. Maybe this shows how much some Republicans loath Barack Obama. Half of the legislators who called on John Boehner, the Republican speaker of the House of Representatives, to defund the health law come from the old south. Its dislike of the federal government may be part of the explanation. Republicans might fear not that the programme will fail, but that it will work, cementing the credibility of government.
So what happens now? Shutdowns are relatively predictable. They have also happened before. Goldman Sachs notes that “the longest shutdown equivalent to the current situation occurred in 1995 and lasted five days”. Goldman estimates that about 800,000 federal employees will be put on furlough. Only activities funded by the specific route of congressional appropriations – about one-third of federal spending – will be affected; a little over half the activities within that category are likely to be exempt. In areas not exempt, employee salaries would be cancelled during the shutdown, but most procurement of goods and services would subsequently be made good. Yet this will still be a nuisance. Thus most analysts assume the shutdown will not last very long. Goldman estimates that a two-day shutdown would reduce growth in the fourth quarter by 0.1 percentage points at an annualised rate, while a week-long shutdown would cost 0.3 percentage points.
Now consider the debt ceiling. According to Goldman, without an increase in the ceiling, the Treasury would no longer be able to issue debt from October 17 and would deplete its cash by the end of the month. Much confusion exists about what would happen if the Treasury ran out of cash and could not increase its outstanding debt. The optimistic view is that it could meet its priorities, including debt service, by managing its payments. If so, no default need occur. Jack Balkin of Yale Universityargues just this. The pessimistic view is that managing its cash flows in such a way would be illegal and possibly impossible – not least because cash receipts fluctuate substantially. But the Treasury, playing a game of chicken, would argue the pessimistic case even if it believed it could cope.
At best, a failure to raise the debt ceiling would necessitate a sharp cut in spending. At worst, the US would default. Analysts at Bank of America Merrill Lynch argue that hitting the ceiling would require the US to balance its budget at once, cutting spending by about 20 per cent, or 4 per cent of GDP. That would push the US into another recession – even if there were no default. The consequences of an actual default, particularly one that lasted for some time, are beyond prediction. Unlike a shutdown, there is no precedent, for good reason. The notion is suicidal.
So what should the administration do? In a democracy, people overturn laws by winning elections, not by threatening the closure of government or even an outright default. It is impossible to run the government of a serious country under blackmail threats of this kind. Every time the administration gives in, it stores up more difficulty for itself. It has to stop doing so. Some argue that the 14th amendment of the constitution, which states that “the validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law ... shall not be questioned”, gives the president the power he needs to borrow, in order to redeem debt. But such a presidential action would be risky. The Supreme Court might side with the president, but a constitutional crisis could itself impair US ability to borrow on favourable terms. Again, the clever proposal to mint a trillion-dollar coin and use that as security at the Federal Reserve might also cause mayhem.
Playing chicken with credibly reckless people is always scary. But the administration cannot give in. I remain, like Winston Churchill, optimistic: the US will do the right thing in the end, though not before first exhausting all the alternatives.
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2013. You may share using our article tools.
Please don't cut articles from FT.com and redistribute by email or post to the web.
Please don't cut articles from FT.com and redistribute by email or post to the web.
You may be interested in
- Nairobi terror attack tests unity of multi-faith Kenya
- Brazil oil auction will be less fiercely contested than expected
Post your own comment
Sorted by newest first | Sort by oldest first
Multimedia
Tools
- Portfolio
- Topics
- FT Lexicon
- FT clippings
- Currency converter
- MBA rankings
- Newslines
- Today's newspaper
- FT press cuttings
- FT ebooks
- FT ePaper
- Economic calendar
1. The US system of democracy purposely gave the purse strings to fund the gov't to the House, not the Senate or the President; call it a balance of power if you will. Obama has rung up 6 trillion in new debt or more since taking office and we have no real results: 50 million on food stamps? There's progress! Job creation has been stymied because of his failed policies.
2. only 20% of the federal employees will be furloughed. They even did get together to pass a law allowing active military to be paid. How nice since retired generals still get their pensions.
3. ACA, aka, Obamacare, has way too many flaws, is ill conceived in many respects, and is NOT ready and they admit it. A delay for 1 year is the best action, rather than wasting billions to later admit it was wrong to bring a new product to market prematurely. Business 101!
4. 32 million uninsured will never be covered: over 25 states refused to expand Medicaid to do so. Why? Because the feds only said they'd pay most of it for 4 years and then the states are on their own. States would face massive tax increases since most have a balanced budget requirement by 2018.
5. Your "serfdom" comment is baloney: employees change all the time to new employers without any pre-existing condition issue. Most states require even small businesses ( greater than 5 or 10 employees) to cover them as well.
6. The key flaw in Obamacare is the lie perpetrated by the Whitehouse and the Senate dems that you can keep your insurance if you like it, you can get coverage for less than your monthly cell phone bill, etc...the reality, now that the emperor is wearing no clothes is that costs are going up 100% for most young people, under age 40, and in some cases 300%. Why? Because young people are being played as fools and their rates are loaded to subsidize the rates for old blokes. They are crying sticker shock already!
7. Lastly, the feds already run Medicare and it costs 10X more than promised when Americans were duped into it during Lyndon Johnson"s "Great Society" welfare state black hole creation in the '60's. If the feds could competently run anything, more Americans would support ACA. Look at our postal service: obsoleted by the internet and Fedex and UPS.
Most of us know what the ultimate cost of this charade will be: extremely high costs for healthcare and little access with long waits. Why do rich Canadians come to the US for critical care? Rhetorical question!
In the end, why should a whole generation of young Americans pay for something they do not need or want? Few males under 35 ever see a doctor. Now being told to pay $300-400/month for health insurance, in the worst states, is crazy. Oh, and I almost forgot: the exchanges are not ready and the income test for the tax subsidy to afford it is not working so they will use an honor system in year 1! LOL! Remember liar loans and stated income loans from the housing bubble? Even big labor has turned on Obama and his minions! Now that they finally read it after Pelosi said. "We have to pass it so we can read it and see what's in it!"
I think public misinformation is playing quite well to GOP's hand. If there is one thing the administration should do to help their case is to present concisely what the ACA is. I think the Internet and biased media played a great role in the misinformation.
It is not that I am specifically pro-Democrat, as I am especially alarmed by the allegations by Snowden and what the Obama administration knows about that. There is more juice in complaining Obama being Winston Smith's nemesis and Google's buddy then in complaining Obama flirting Marx and Lenin.
"Obamacare is socialist/communist"!! Enlightenment! Now we see the light. As the article points out: so was the Massachusetts health provision (but Republicans were not in arms over that one); so is healthcare in other advanced countries and their (democratic) citizens are not in arms over it. The very idea that everyone should be responsible only for their own needs goes so completely against the ideas of community and republic and democracy and even christian values (values republicans are always crowing about) that it's difficult to even believe a reasoning brain can't grasp what's in front its own nose. And lest you forget defense spending is also socialist/communist. Republicans are all in favour of that, nevertheless.
There's a brilliant Youtube video of Jimmy Kimmel on the streets of America asking people if they preferred the Affordable Care Act to Obamacare. [Obviosuly it's TV]. They were against Obamacare but wanted, wanted, wanted the Affordable Care Act. That's the level and quality of understanding amongst rank-and-file republicans. Zero. Its a tragedy for the rest of us in the West. Having built our expectations on the rationality and level-headedness of America to now be confronted with this gorgon. The silver lining is that Europe may finally awaken to the fact that leaning solely on Uncle Sam is not a smart strategy.
The popularity of the show makes clear that worldwide people, thinking rationally, feel that the lead character is inherently unfairly treated, and is therefore somehow ethically justified in turning to a life of increasing criminal activity to fund his treatment. The simple fact is that even the toothless reform of Obamacare would prevent this from being mirrored in reality.
Regarding the debt ceiling, the US fiscal deficit is less than 4% of GDP now, spending is running 15% ahead of tax revenues. Tax revenues are easily enough to cover the debt interest, and in the debt ceiling law payment of debt interest is senior to other government spending. Therefore if the US were to default it would be completely Obama's decision, it would be illegal and could be challenged by bond holders ultimately leading to the impeachment of Obama. Obama is sensible enough not to do this, the US teasury will just cut spending by 4% and honour its debt. If you look at financial market reaction this is the possibility that is being factored in equity markets are pulling back & bond prices rising the typical reaction when growth expectations are declining.
Forcing everyone to pay for insurance from someone is a lot better than establishing a government-run bureaucracy.
It is already the way it works for automobile insurance.
Requiring individuals to be responsible for their potential accidents or ailments is ensuring that others do not have to foot the bill. As I understand it, Obamacare is pretty much a socialist/communist solution.
The problem is that some people are denied any insurance. It is not because they do not want to buy them, but it is no one will sell to them because of existing ailments. People will not buy insurance when they think they need it. By the time they think they need it, it is too late. It is hard to blame the insurers themselves, who would sell a policy to high risk individual. It is only rational for insurers to refuse to do so, as insurers themselves are a for-profit business.
The only alternative, as Romney implemented, is to force everyone to buy at the beginning REGARDLESS of current health conditions. That is people with and without existing ailments all have to pay, and the for-profit insurers still get their premiums.
How I see infant mortality is more like a measure of the bang of buck we are getting for healthcare. US spends the most GDP per capita for healthcare in an advanced developed nation/region (this info is quoted in the article).
You are evading the reality that if the US does not get its financials in order, it will default as any other country. They are already printing money to finance their government--something they are likely unable to stop.
You mention "32m uninsured people". Why don't they buy health insurance--it is not so expensive? I do, and am happy with the options available here in the UK. I can understand a society seeking to solve the problem of those with pre-existing conditions, but that is hardly a reason to communize health care.
With all the talk of the uninsured, there is little discussion of the rights of doctors. Government health care effectively minimizes private practice, because the former is free, and those who have to earn their revenue in free market--always the best providers of goods and services--can not compete.
Of course you know this, as it has been demonstrated in every other instance of government monopoly.
The huge profits made by drugs companies, doctors and surgeons in the USA is the root cause of the problem!
Completely over done and over covered. Even Martin is in the game. Nothing, absolutely nothing dramatic is going to happen ..... so it's not worth covering in any depth! I suspect that "vested interests" are at play hoping for some wins on short positions, etc.... and that is rather sick!
And there were how many rich to be shorn in Mao' s China, not many and they would have long marched off to Taiwan ? What about it "being glorious to get rich", seems they switched policy in time to get where they are today thanks to Deng Xiaoping.
Personally I would arrest all the Tea Party activists and imprison them for terrorist offences. It's clear as you say that they have no respect for the Rule of Law and seek to subvert democratic government by illegitimate threats. A diet of stale prison bread and fetid water for 20 years might help them see sense. Lock them up now.
Dysfunctional "democracy" at work at the last Tea Party, with a bit of luck?
not from foreign investment but by redistribution of resources from the rich to the poor.
Even going privately the cost is about 12000 euros.The problem in the US is that every provider is profit driven.
Let them eat cake
Perhaps it is worth pointing out that Obama's ultimate responsibility is to the people he serves and not to a particular piece of legislation. He has to negotiate in order to minimise damage. It is his job.
So then the US system is certainly no worse than any healthcare system ever put in place by countries that call themselves socialist. In any socialist country, from the former USSR to China to say Cuba and Venezuela, anyone within the Party Nomenclatura gets proper treatment. The rest gets something else.
In Canada, N.B. the envy of the US Left, this system persists. Based on the Tommy Douglas socialist notions that infused the federal healthcare act of the 1960s that blue collar workers are the mainstay of the economy, blue collar workers, through Worker's Compensation, get preferential treatment and jump the cue, compared to anyone else.
My suggestion to you and other commentators, is to keep an eye on the very real effect of Obamacare on the structure of employment in the US. Based on what is transpiring, it is having the pernicious effect of employers transforming traditional full time jobs into part time sub-40 hour jobs in order to escape the burdens imposed on employers by Obamacare. That's a reality check.
Let us be thankful that we have a political system that is now a circus with clowns, elephants and asses, instead of the systems that exist in Lebanon, Egypt, or Syria to sort it all out - so far!
But with our 2nd Amendment "remedies", who knows?
Let's at least first correctly spell the name of the US President whose policies we so passionately endorse and defend, shall we?
Well said
So a bit of a civics lesson. The US is governed based on the principle of DIVIDED gov't. As a rule, we distrust central authority (some guy named George was the last straw) Not only do we divide the federal gov't between the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches, we also divide authority between the Feds and states. And within the states, authority is further broken down between state, and various local county and/or municipal gov'ts. In addition to that, this authority has always been designed to balanced will of the population vs. the will of different regions. Even 250 years ago, the rural folks didn't trust those in the east coast cities.
America is a big place and thus life much different between the coasts and the "fly over" country. People believe in different things. The folks who live close together have view that are pretty much the same as those in Europe (who coincidentally also live very close together) However, there are a lot of people in the vast spaces. And by the way, these are the areas with growing populations. Generally they don't want someone up to 2000 miles away telling them how to live their lives or spend their money. That is probably how they choose live where few others do.
In terms of daily life, the federal gov't has the least impact of all the branches. And if you don't like the way your local or state of gov't does things you can either vote to change them or move to a place that more suits the style of gov't you like. And if you have ever seen a map of voting patterns you will see that the country is pretty much split into lots of red with small (but highly populated) blue areas. The only people that federal gov't really does impact are those in the military, folks in Washington DC or those who get some sort of gov't check. Don't say infrastructure because that is done by local or state gov't albeit with the feds holding the funding (which they collected from gasoline sales tax) so they can retain control over the system.
So before you call them idiots or morons, consider the possibility that they might have different experience than you. That goes to both sides. In the end the Congress is generally representative of the people : 2 groups with very different lives and very different views on how they want to be governed. Thus we have stalemate. And this is unlikely to change any time soon.
The result is some fantasy about a prior condition, when things were right, a status quo ante, before Obama, before . . . before what? Perhaps this prior condition is contained in the constitution, in the founders' intentions; and the economy--if only government would just keep out of it--would work of itself. (But then how did we get to what is? A sort of fall from grace?)
My own view is that there are no real grounds for much optimism. The US has promised so much, the reality is so discordant, that delusion sets in. Perhaps the central event of US history is the civil war. Is it being celebrated? Could it be? Then remember that there are monuments to the Confederate dead.
In contrast, the Congressional Republicans are a dark lot with an unprecedented record of negativism and obstruction while being the worst kind of special interest toadies. But it's mostly that dark, pessimistic, obstructionist image that they are casting over the broad public perception of what the Republican party stands for and more ominously where it might be going. They are creating a perception that they are a group of people who cannot get along in a modern and changing world.
Where are the Republicans going? Most likely to the same place the California Republican party has already arrived at: deep in the minority, unable to attract and fund candidates with public appeal, an angry group sitting over at the far side of the legislative chamber mumbling "no" to the public business, ignored by voters.
Right now the Republican party is too strong, but after a couple election cycles, they will probably be too weak; not a credible minority, simply irrelevant.
"The Amateur" was not written by Bob Woodward. It was written by Edward Klein. But then again, when has the truth ever mattered to the tea baggers?
You lost so go take a look in the mirror. Quit acting like a spoiled kid attacking Martin Wolf and Barack Obama. That tactic isn't working so try something else. If you don't want healthcare then don't go to the Doctor.
It is a huge (and very common) mistake to compare a household economy with a nation´s economy. Within a nation, your spending is my revenue, not so in a household.
Your perspective is often tainted because you see issues from the left.
In your article you go on about the high cost of healthcare in the US. But Obamacare will not reduce the high costs – all it does it reallocate the high costs for others to pay. And the way it does this is complicated, inefficient and at odds with other economic goals. For example, by mandating that all companies with more than 50 fulltime employees must provide health care to their employees, those companies have now changed their hiring practices so that many employees are not allowed to work more than 29 hours a week – and be called full time employees. This is probably why the number of part time workers in the US has increased dramatically. There are many other unintended consequences of this bad legislation – which I doubt you have ever read. Or have you?? It is 33,000 pages long.
You would have us believe that the US government shutdown can be blamed on the “Tea Party” Republicans – but the reality is that it is Obama and his inability to negotiate and legislate (he can’t even get his own Democratic Senators to support his proposed gun legislation) that has caused this crisis. In Bob Woodward’s book “The Amateur” he lists Obama failures to govern and his disregard for the normal give and take of Washington. (If Obama was a CEO he would have been tossed out long ago for his failure to lead.) The Congressmen were elected too and Congress is doing its job by being a check and balance to bad legislation. Your argument that Obama should get his way because he won the election is ignorant of the US system of democracy.
You supported Obama’s election – and now you have to live with the outcome. History will regard him as one of the worst Presidents ever. Bad judgement and even worse leadership.
great column. What is beyond me is why are you even trying to argue with the tea party crowd a la Rockyusa?
on front page news. Maybe Boehner will defund the Supreme Court because he didn't get his way. John Roberts might not be amused.The only thing missing is one of those funny hats the Tea Party used to wear..What a way for his kids and grandkids to remember him by.They will remember the Afforabl Health care act though.
I offer an over-simplified analogy to complement Mr. Wolf's over-simplified analysis. Your spouse has, for many months, spent too much money on the joint credit card. Despite your best efforts to work through the problem, she (I am not discriminating) refuses to grasp the importance of living within ones means and not going broke. Your credit score has taken a hit and the standard of living that you are able to afford has eroded.
You finally put your foot down and tell her that if she doesn't come up with a clear plan to correct this problem in two months, you are not allowing her to go away for the weekend with her friends. She doesn't listen, and on the eve of her trip you take her credit card away. Martin Wolf writes a story about how you selfishly prevented your wife from going on a trip that everyone had already agreed to. Your wife calls her friends and blames you for ruining the weekend without taking responsibility for the real reason why she can't go.
It's not about healthcare. It's about stopping incompetent government from wasting my money. Thank you to those with the courage to stand up to this and hold Obama (who I regretfully voted for the first time) accountable. Shame on those who fail to take responsibility and act like this is some far right wing agenda.
"could it be that stupidity you refer to is on the left as well as the right?"
Sorry I must have misunderstood something or been misinformed. From all the news I read, I was under the impression that it was Republicans (running scared of the Tea Party) that, in MW's words, "want to close down the government in order to prevent this already enacted reform from going into effect"
You're telling me/us that this is the fault of another political group? That a "left wing" faction in the House that keeps attaching a series of measures that would repeal, defund or delay the health law?
I should add that there is already massive government spending on health insurance. Indeed the US government spends as much as most other developed countries on health. So the US already has a socialist system. The difference from everybody else's socialist system is that the US only covers parts of the population, leaving the rest of the population to the wolves. I simply don't see how anybody - I mean anybody - can defend such arbitrariness.
"The cause of this shutdown is a President who is determined to reinvent America by turning us into the equivalent of the EU that is on a moral, financial, and security death spiral."
What on earth are you talking about? The cause of the shutdown is a refusal by the Tea Party Republicans to allow an extremely modest reform, initially designed by the Heritage Foundation, aimed at providing universal health insurance AND coverage of prior conditions. The idea that it makes sense to close down the government in order to prevent this already enacted reform from going into effect is simply insane.
Of course, the view of Mr Obama you express was, in earlier times, expressed of Franklin Roosevelt and Lindon Johnson - and for vastly better reasons. Unlike Mr Obama, who would have been a liberal Republican 40 years ago, these two presidents really were radical reformers. So are you suggesting that Social Security and Medicare should be abolished? Have the courage of your convictions. Answer yes.
President Obama could raise the debt limit on his own by instructing the Treasury Dept to issue debt. The Congress would have to get an enforceable injunction from the Supreme Court to stop him. And Obama is commander in chief of the military so they follow his orders not the courts orders. Yes it might roil the financial markets but it would be fun to see the squabbling brats like you crushed.
By whose standards us the EU in a state of decay? A few years ago many people thought the EU would break up and look what happened
could it be that stupidity you refer to is on the left as well as the right?
and could it be that those on the left can never see their own faults because they KNOW they are right and their ends justify the means? and thats why they dont compromise.how can anyone say obama has been a good president? in truth he is an out right failure. his achievements are as poor as Ws
please do not try to tell me that nancy p is not consumed in loathing of everyone to the right of her in the same way the tea party hates the left
go on get real you are really seriously saying nancy and co are sane and the tea party are not?
i dont believe either group is very stable. the usa has a crap group of partisan politicians on both the right and the left. thats bad for us all. but the answer is not simply to move to the 3rd way left as advocated bt clinton and blair who were both more interested in personal wealth and dynasty than the electorate
It is not just one way traffic as you so blindly presume.Many mid income US citizens now travel to Europe and Canada to get private medical treatment which costs them a third or less of what they would pay in the US
This won't wash. Polls are now showing roughly 65 to 35% blame Republicans. We are witnessing the final death throes of the GOP. And don't doubt that this is what the tea party wants, because anyone not of the extreme right "was never a true republican anyway". Those senior republicans wringing their hands in despair at the lunatics running the party now deserve no sympathy. The lunatics took over because you didn't speak out loudly enough.
ISTM your invocation of partisanship demonstrates exactly the problem the US faces:
the Tea Party are so consumed in loathing for their political opponent that they are prepared to defy the demonstrable will of the US electorate, bring the country to a halt and cause untold to damage to the rest of the world. That is appalling politics and dreadful government.
All the commentary in the FT tonight is making that point. This is *not* a left vs. right argument. It is about the utter reckless stupidity of one political faction.
The cause of this shutdown is a President who is determined to reinvent America by turning us into the equivalent of the EU that is on a moral, financial, and security death spiral.
No thanks. And more power to those who have pulled the plug on this Through the Looking Glass government. Its about time.
I suppose the capitol water and electricity have been cut, its legendary cafeteria closed down
and its toilets uncleaned , Augia 's stables indeed
Still, volatility is our friend, who wants 10 and 15 point fluctuations when you can have 50 and 100! ;-)
so its only the republicans that are bad - that is the 1st mantra of the juvenile left, describe real issues in terms of good and bad
do you really believe that nancy and bill and hilary and barak are all just right and if the right faded away the usa would be a really wonderful place?
go on .. really?!
time to graduate
The way to change laws is to win elections, not by holding hostage the reputation and economy of an entire country.
By the end of Obama's presidency the Republicans will have been responsible for 16 years of self-harm to America; 8 years of war mongering and financial negligence by Bush administration, and 8 years of sabotaging the running of the democratically elected government.
Then, the graph Wolf reproduces shows that PUBLIC health spending in the US (Medicare, Medicaid, VA) matches that of France. The real lesson here is that the US spends far more than other countries.
OBAMACare addresses one problem (coverage) while leaving the other (national affordability) untouched apart from wishful thinking. While I applaud the extension in coverage (and the elimination of exclusions for pre-existing conditions), the cost of the whole system will continue to rise out of sight and towards national bankruptcy. That, I think, is an entirely legitimate gripe.
France, Italy, UK, Japan and Canada have better health care on average; that is, the health care a average citizen receives in those countries is better than what an average American citizen receives.
However, for the richest few, those who can afford literally anything, nothing beats American health care. Only the wealthiest foreigners go to the US for medical care.
So, so true that I had to repeat it again. I will continue to repeat it over and over again as we get through this idiotic behavior of both the Tea Party and the balance of Republicans who know better..
obama was over hyped from the moment he started to run for office to the moment he was awarded the noble prize for effectively being the first black president
he is supposed to be smart well maybe conventional harvard smart is not as smart as ronald regan smart
he is a coulda woulda shoulda president who lacks the interpersonal skills that a president needs to build bridges
he spends too much time playing golf and what is the betting he ends up richer than clinton and blair and soon starts to talk up one or both of his daughters as a future president?
You fail to mention that the Affordable Care Act/Obamacare Universal Healthplan is not affordable and is already hurting families. This bill was unpopular in the beginning and more unpopular now because it does not lower costs, but increases the burdens on those lucky enough to still have a job or jobs.
Full time jobs have been replaced with 29 hour jobs with no benefits - therefore, many families have to search for multiple jobs to meet their previous 55 hours a week to make ends meet.
Instead of lowering costs or utilizing efforts to offer more low cost Urgent Care Clinics, costs have skyrocketed.
The IRS who has the authority to repossess everything you own on a whim and is now in control of all your personal medical information.
Economic experts claim that the fallout will include 30-40 million people losing their medical benefits are forced into paying a tax penalty due to not being able to afford insurance. So what is the whole point of the bill?
I understand the points you are making.
That said, what we have is a stare down between a president who has a] the worst record of any modern president in terms of his relationship with Congress -bad to non existent- and b] has a verifiable track record of not being inclined to negotiate much of anything: my way or the highway, in other words.
In this stare down, the GOP knows -as does the president and the rump of the Democrats- that there exists a broad and consistent opposition to Obamacare -around 60% of those polled- which has been there from the outset of the project and which to boot, runs from the left of the Democrats to the right of the Republicans.
We all know how Reid and Pelosi railroaded this legislation through their respective parts of Congress -with 0% GOP support. If president Obama continues to maintain that his re-election was a reaffirmation of support for Obamacare, he's seriously out of touch with reality for on that particular issue, the GOP is the one that's on firm ground in terms of popular support.
The real question is not about whether it is reasonable to shut down parts of the US government on the grounds of Obamacare, but whether it is reasonable to continue to rack up deficits and the national debt the way the Obama administration -which said in passing, has not managed to get a single budget approved since just after the very beginning- has been doing.
On the pessimistic side, the apolitical Bill Miller said on CNBC this morning that a government default will make the aftermath of the Lehman bankruptcy look like a Sunday picnic. My view is that is the US government bond market fails, so will the 17 banks which now hold 70% of US deposits, every maojr crporation that lends its cash to Repos., and, even worse, the Federal Reserve itself
The Tea Party faction is now laying the strategy and tactics for the Republicans, which have entered a new and extreme version, GOP 2.0 If you will and like Mr. Wolf said they are losing the restraints that made Democratic government work.
If the Democrats back down in face of the approaching debt ceiling talks then the Republicans can say they have effectively eliminated Obamacare by postponing it indefinitely, in any case it is, i think, a move born of a certain hopeless desperation in view of their not favorable demographic future.
While you indulge in your fantasy of rolling back the U.S. to the 18th century, what else will you get rid of: modern sewerage and sanitation, along with Medicare, Social Security, etc.?
This will all be cleaned up within minutes the second the tea party can't sit on it's fat ass and complain about back pains, minorities and socialism.