Response to "Universal Healthcare a MUST DO!!"

I disagree with the blog “Universal Healthcare a MUST DO!!” The primary issue is that we must make healthcare affordable, not that the government is obligated to pay for healthcare for everyone. We must regulate the health insurance industry to make premiums and medications affordable. Too often, the medical insurance companies do not reimburse physicians adequately for the work that they perform, but they charge huge premiums for the right to insurance coverage. The result is that in Texas, 25% have no medical insurance. Single parent households are choosing to pay for college rather than pay for their children’s medical insurance. This issue will only worsen as our economy continues to suffer. However, by adopting a national socialist healthcare system, similar to that of England, we will overload our physician capacity and provide a mediocre healthcare process for our citizens. Right now the United States has an enviable healthcare system, with some of the best research and treatment facilities in the world. England on the other hand, has huge waiting lines for basic treatment and is not considered cutting edge on any medical diagnosis. We do not want to bankrupt our healthcare system and eliminate all the progress we have thus far made towards medical research. A higher regulated healthcare industry would allow greater healthcare coverage and limit the huge profits generated by insurance companies.  

It's Time To Come Home

A good deal of Obama’s public support during the election process centered on his pledge to bring our troops home. We participated in a war that has nearly bankrupted our financial system, without regard to what it would ultimately do to our armed forces. We have not only hurt the reputation of our men at arms, but we sacrifice thousands of lives in a war where there is no clear victor. As we begin to withdraw our troop support, it is critical that we leave that nation in the hands of capable nationals who are ready and able to defend themselves. Obama has promised an orderly withdraw after training the Iraqi military to defend in our absence. The Middle East is a hotbed of terrorist activity and we must continue to support the eradication of that type of anarchy.  It is also important that our service men and women understand how proud we are of their efforts to defend democracy and freedom throughout the world. Too many have sacrificed too much in the fight for freedom in Iraq. We have depleted our military operations around the world, sacrificing both lives and equipment as we have nearly single-handedly financed this war for the rest of the world. Going forward, we must concentrate our efforts on securing our own borders and focus on the safety of our citizens. As the world’s biggest champion of human rights, the United States is often regarded as the military for all. It is important that we use diplomacy and the strength of the United Nations to manage our foreign policy in future years. 

In The Market For A Better Banking Plan

The editors of “In the Market For a Better Banking Plan” are evaluating the Obama administration’s financial bail out package, which was announced this week. It appears to be a nonpartisan evaluation aimed at educated investors. The article is fairly complex in its terminology and has both positive and negative feedback. The authors are complimentary of the administration’s focus on cleaning up the balance sheets of non-bank financial firms. However, it is critical of the authority given to the Treasury to oversee this process. Not only do they think an independent third party would have been more effective than the Treasury’s management of this process, but they are highly suspect of the ultimate outcome being positive for the American taxpayer. The structure tends to reward private investors in positive outcomes and leaves toxic assets in the laps of taxpayers. An additional criticism is that current accounting rules make it difficult for some of the weaker financial institutions to maintain a healthy balance sheet. If these firms were able to maintain current asset values through these difficult economic times they would be in a much healthier position coming out of the recession. But because they have to adjust asset values that have temporarily declined in value, it gives the impression of weaker assets even though this might be a temporary situation. The authors also question the administration’s bailout structure as being too easy on Wall Street. They believe the public-private partnership tends to allow these Wall Street firms the opportunity to continue to make obscene fortunes. They would rather see an orderly process of bankrupting the insolvent firms, ultimately costing the taxpayers less money.

While I agree that Obama’s bailout plan is not without risk, there is greater harm that could come to our financial system with additional failures of these non-bank institutions. In order for our economic recovery to gain traction, investors must have increased confidence in the value of financial assets. Because Government backed assets are viewed as the safest investment, the bailout package provides the confidence investors are looking for to move forward in a recovery.

Mr. Obama's Foreclosure Plan

In “Mr. Obama’s Foreclosure Plan” the author targets the American homeowner as his intended audience. The article appears to have been written by a democrat dissatisfied with President Bush’s pro-business stance during the last eight years. The author’s position is backed by some valid points related to the funding made available in Obama’s stimulus plan. He has evidently researched this topic and is an educated editorialist.

            The main point of the article is the author’s concern that while Obama is clearly supportive of the hardships facing struggling homeowners to pay their mortgages; he is skeptical that the plan goes far enough. The author applauds the nearly $75 billion of the stimulus package that will be used as incentive payments for banks to modify the terms of mortgages for at risk home owners. He is also pleased that these estimated 4 million families will have lower home payments and be able to afford to stay in these properties. The author likes the fact that Obama’s plan puts pressure on lender’s who are not readily willing to work with delinquent homeowners, by insisting on modifications through court orders. This is in direct opposition to the previous administration’s reluctance to get involved in decisions between homeowners and lending institutions.

            However, even though Obama’s plan tends to protect the American homeowner, the recent valuation decline in real estate prices nationally has eliminated much of the equity homeowners have accumulated over the years. If some of these struggling homeowners find themselves unemployed, or with a serious illness, they not only won’t be able to pay their mortgage, they could be left with an asset that has no value. It is in those situations that bankruptcy is the only viable option left. It is here that the author believes President Obama must be strong on bankruptcy reform legislation, so that the American homeowner is protected from foreclosure. With the powerful lobby of the mortgage and banking industry, Obama faces a difficult fight to favor borrowers seeking bankruptcy protection. 

Tax Cuts VS. Government Spending

Our government has two choices when it comes to stimulating our economy. They can either make tax cuts, which will give money back to the people (consumer), which the government hopes they will spend and put back into the economy. Or they can increase government spending, which will put money back into the economy by funding projects, but in turn will continue to increase our government deficit and lead to inflation. Which way will be more effective in providing the best stimulus for the economy? The Government fears people will choose to save the money they’re receiving from tax breaks, so then it’s all on the Government’s back to get the economy stimulated. So, if we’re relying on the Government to stimulate the economy, they have to do this by continuing to borrow money (by issuing treasury notes), which leads to inflation, and we’ll see interest rates rise, and all of that debt becomes very expensive. Even though the government has to print the money to spend the money, which creates more debt, it still gets the money back in the economy, creating more jobs and circulating profits. If we don’t stimulate the economy, the bigger fear is that we enter a period of deflation, where the value of everything declines. In that situation we would have record unemployment, catastrophic real estate foreclosure rates, and a further collapse of the financial markets.  Therefore, as Eggertsson points out, the lesser evil and best economic advantage is to support government spending.

http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/10/tax-cuts-vs-government-spending/?scp=2&sq=government&st=cse