Plan Obama
Posted by Jason Apollo Voss on Jan 12, 2009 in Blog | 2 commentsAnother post.
Today almost-President Barack Obama announced plans to create 212,000 jobs by creating digitizing healthcare records for the nation over the next 5 years. This suggestion is an effort to help revive the economy and it appears that it is being met with skepticism from the press. Part of the skepticism is that the task is extremely technical in nature. Another source of skepticism is the $75-$100 billion that it is expected to cost to achieve the goal. Additionally, it is thought that there is a shortage of skilled labor to be able to execute the plan.
My belief is that this plan is an excellent one. Look at the birds that can be slain with one stone:
- economic stimulus
- jobs created that are skilled labor, not unskilled
- better and cheaper healthcare
- a new digital platform for healthcare that could serve as the foundations for an interconnected healthcare system going far into the future
- an early step toward nationalized healthcare (shock! horror! fear!)
- an estimated $200-$300 billion per year saved on healthcare
My gut feeling about the unenthusiastic response is that we Americans have gotten used to the idea of these “mythological-like” policies coming from our Presidents. They usually are ready made for the media with fancy-schmancy names and……..no substance. Treacle. So kudos to Obama for actually suggesting something that is friggin‘ practical, if not glamorous. We need leaders interested in doing the hardwork of getting the country back on more sound footing.
As to the complaint that the task is technically difficult…please! In 1961 the U.S. was issued a challenge by the Kennedy administration to put a man on the moon by the end of the decade. Very little of the technology necessary really existed at the time, yet in 8 years the task was accomplished. Here, all of the technology already exists. The problem is that doctors are typically technology averse when it comes to backoffice stuff. Again…..please! Thousands of grumpy doctors need to get with the 21st Century.
As to the complaint that there is a shortage of people with the right skills…please! That is the very heart of the plan as economic stimulus: create new skilled positions for hundreds of thousands of people that helps transform their lives and careers, and ultimately, the future of the Country. Would you rather spend $75-$100 billion bailing out the U.S. auto industry that has been uncompetitive for 30+ years and bailing out a sleazy banking and investment industry that has done everything possible for the next dollar? I think it is obvious that those are not productive dollars spent.
Probably the biggest complaint is that the benefits of this plan are unknowable ahead of time. But that is always the case with any endeavor, no matter the size of it. As I said immediately above, I am very certain that this $75-$100 billion is better spent on digitizing healthcare records than it is on handouts to the troubled auto and banking industries.
Soapbox dismounted!
I hope that you all have a wonderful day!
Jason
Hey Jason,
I love the idea of creating skilled, high-paying jobs from the stimulus plan. Their money will trickle down to create the less skilled jobs anyway. I would also love to see some of these skilled jobs and innovation in the building industry (I’m a capitalist environmentalist building consultant with a day job as facilities manager) to reinvigorate construction and reduce energy use. Ed Mazria’s Architecture 2030 plan will be a huge mental leap for most people, but I think a plan even that aggressive is achievable.
My other thought, from a conversation with my brother the other day, is that we should be bailing out the winners with TARP money, not the losers. I read an article linked from Fark how Subaru was one of the only car companies to increase sales in 2008. I’d like to bandy about the idea of giving GM’s bailout to Subaru, with the string attached of, say, increasing workforce by 5-10% in the next 2 years. Let a good company with a good product hire the people that get laid off from a bad company with a bad product. The workers even get to stay in the same industry, hardly any retraining required.
In general I want to tax what is bad, not subsidize what is good. Let the company that promoted Hummer and killed EV 1 in the face of rising fuel costs die. Perhaps that is just my econ 101 talking, and I don’t understand the complexity of the current situation. Any of this making sense, or am I off my rocker?
Hello Nate,
I am in agreement with every statement that you made of which I am familiar – I am unfamiliar with Ed Mazria, but will now look him up. Thanks for drawing my attention to it.
Also, I am a huge believer in monetary incentives as an effective motivator of change. I can barely get through to my step-daughter (a more stubborn beast than Citigroup I assure you), but she responds to economic incentives awarded for good school work.
When I first started off in my career I was immediately told that most of my compensation would be incentive based and awarded for good performance at my Fund. I was skeptical that it would affect me, because, in general, I am not motivated by money. But to my honest and profound surprise I responded and my work changed because of it.
So your suggestion of incentivizing the good companies to do more of the same and better work, and to not subsidize stinkers, is an excellent one. Heck, I wish I had thought of it! I have been opposed to bailouts because they short-circuit the mechanism of capitalism. Good risks are rewarded, bad risks are not. Anything other than that is a huge waste of resources.
Thank you Nate for your excellent comment and keep ’em coming!
Jason