Health Care Reform = A Stimulus Every Year

Much of the criticism against the recently-signed economic stimulus package focused on the cost. At roughly $800 billion, the package was worth 5% of the country's whole GDP last year. Surprisingly, that is less than what America overpays every year on health care. As a nation, we literally waste over $800 billion every year. If we adopt any one of the health care systems used by the dozens of first world nations with universal health care, we would save the equivalent of one stimulus package a year.

What do Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom have in common?

They all have longer life expectancies than the United States. They all have lower infant mortality rates than the United States. They all have universal health care, and they all pay dramatically less for health care.

In 2005, the United States spent 15.2% of its GDP on health care-- the most of any industrialized world. Switzerland (the second highest among industrialized nations) spend only 11.4% of its GDP on health care. The industrialized nations listed above spent on average 9.3% of their GDP on health care. That is 6% less than in the United States-- or the equivalent $830 billion. If our health care costs were in line with the rest of the first world, we would save the equivalent of one stimulus package a year. Because of the scale of our country, we may never be able to make our health care system as efficient as Luxembourg or Finland. We should be able to at least reduce our spending to match that of Germany, France, or Switzerland. Even achieving that modest goal would save our country over half a trillion dollars a year.

The Rich Irony, Part 4: Campaign Finance Reform

Barack Obama has decided to forgo public campaign financing, despite saying earlier that he wanted to preserve the public campaign financing system. The rich irony is that now the Republicans are all over Obama for going back on his promise to take public campaign financing.

For years the Republicans have been rallying against campaign finance reform. They have spoken against, voted against, filibustered against, and campaigned against campaign financing reform. In fact, it was John McCain's support for the McCain-Feingold bill that created much of the bad blood within his own party. Now that for the first time in decades Democrats have a fundraising advantage, many Republicans are crying crocodile tears.

The irony does not stop there. The numerous campaign reform activists on the left are remaining conspicuously silent while Barack Obama becomes the first candidate since Watergate to back out of the public finance system. In a single day, Obama has done more to undermine the public campaign financing than all the PAC's and 527's combined, and the silence on the left is deafening.

The greatest irony of all is the reaction of John McCain. McCain is taking public financing not because of some deep-seated principle; if that were the case, he would not have opted out of public financing (in a legally questionable manner) during the primary. John McCain is taking public financing because he needs to. There is no way that McCain can match Obama's fundraising, so he needs to take a government handout. That is the rich irony. John McCain, a hardcore free trade capitalist, needs the government to intervene to even the playing field.