Progressive Economist Laura D’Andrea Tyson defends Obamaonomics, heavy on the Mao.
Posted by danishova on March 9, 2009
It’s hard to know where to begin, but just for the heck of it, I’ll pull this paragraph out of the hat:
Those who stand to lose from these changes are already protesting. But like the 28% limit on deductions, these savings are fair and reasonable ways to finance the twin goals of achieving universal health-care coverage and moderating the growth of health-care spending. The rising cost of health care per patient not just for Medicare and Medicaid but throughout the health-care system is the principal driver of the government’s long-term deficit and debt problems. For more than 40 years, this cost has grown much faster than the overall economy and if the current rate continues, by 2050 Medicare and Medicaid will account for about 20% of GDP, and the national debt will soar to 300% of GDP. These are unsustainable outcomes. Health-care costs must be contained through significant investments in health information technologies, disease management techniques, and wellness and prevention programs. And these investments must begin now. The stimulus package contains over $20 billion for such investments and they are major priorities in the budget.
So, the way to keep the GDP from being swallowed up by health care costs is to… expand government financed healthcare? Do they honestly think that “disease management techniques” and “wellness prevention programs” will significantly “prevent” disease, aging, and… death? For the few who do benefit from these programs, will the “savings” really be enough to cover the cost of Universal Health Care? Will this require, say, putting trans-fat meters and cigarette smoke detectors in everyone’s homes?
I guess you have to be a “progressive” for this to make sense, but I do get the sense that they plan to “manage disease” by telling a lot of elderly people to suck it up and live with their diseases. Gotta make room for the next generation, dontcha know.
At least she’s honest about the cost of carbon emission taxes on each and every one of us:
Critics of a cap-and-trade system are correct when they claim it will raise the prices of goods and services whose production and use emit carbon. That’s exactly the point: Higher prices are necessary to encourage energy efficiency and the development of renewable energy, to discourage carbon emissions, and to reduce the societal costs of global warming.
You know, Laura, call me crazy but I think the direct “societal costs” that will result from drastically reducing the expendable income of all Americans, which Obamaonomics all but guarantees, are far more costly to society than the wildly theoretical “societal costs of global warming”.