I'm sitting here, watching clip after clip of this "debate" on health reform, and I guess you could say I've had all I can stands and I can't stands no more... (apologies to Popeye, but also thinking maybe we should be mounting a campaign to send a few crates of spinach to Senate Dems...)
Anyway, I'm hoping someone can explain to me how/why the title of this diary is not being blanketed across every airwave and internet tube in the nation.
Health care costs are killing the American economy because of the burden they place on companies and labor.
Why this is and has not been the single most repeated theme in this "debate"?
Why are we allowing dishonest people like the GOP and Joe Lieberman to take control of the message?
Getting health care costs under control is the most important plank in rebuilding the American economy and therefore, jobs.
I know some Dems have offered at this argument. But it always gets diminished, by both other valid arguments, as well as tea-bag swill and douchebags like Aetna Joe.
AARP gets it:
Layoffs triggered by health care costs
Small-business managers say the steep and constant rise in health care costs has other pernicious effects:
* It triggers discrimination against older workers. One employer was shocked to learn his health insurance premium went up 40 percent when he added one healthy worker in her 40s to a small staff of workers in their 30s. "If insuring older workers is so much more expensive," he asked, "why would any small business hire them over younger workers?"
* It discourages firms from offering health care insurance at all, especially if their direct competitors don’t offer health care.
* It locks in workers to jobs they no longer want, because they fear they won’t be able to duplicate their current health benefits if they leave to join another firm or start their own business.
* It forces employers to think twice about hiring new workers. "My health care costs are so high, I’m reluctant to hire someone," says Christine Chin Ryan, who develops customized software for energy conservation and efficiency. Ryan says an employee with a family would cost more than $20,000 for health care coverage, "and that would really hit my bottom line."
(block quote from AARP article here.)
Obama gets it, or at least "got" it at some point:
The findings in the report point to large economic impacts of genuine health care reform:
* We estimate that slowing the annual growth rate of health care costs by 1.5 percentage points would increase real gross domestic product (GDP), relative to the no-reform baseline, by over 2 percent in 2020 and nearly 8 percent in 2030.
* For a typical family of four, this implies that income in 2020 would be approximately $2,600 higher than it would have been without reform (in 2009 dollars), and that in 2030 it would be almost $10,000 higher. Under more conservative estimates of the reduction in the growth rate of health care costs, the income gains are smaller, but still substantial.
* Slowing the growth rate of health care costs will prevent disastrous increases in the Federal budget deficit.
* Slowing cost growth would lower the unemployment rate consistent with steady inflation by approximately one-quarter of a percentage point for a number of years. The beneficial impact on employment in the short and medium run (relative to the no-reform baseline) is estimated to be approximately 500,000 each year that the effect is felt.
* Expanding health insurance coverage to the uninsured would increase net economic well-being by roughly $100 billion a year, which is roughly two-thirds of a percent of GDP.
* Reform would likely increase labor supply, remove unnecessary barriers to job mobility, and help to "level the playing field" between large and small businesses.
(block quote from WhiteHouse.gov here.)
New America Foundation adds:
If the United States is to maintain competitive in the global economy, health coverage should not rely primarily on employer financing. Thus, government and individuals will have to share more of the burden.
Note the "government" in that statement, as in needing to take on more of the financial burden...
(NAF article here.)
And the list goes on and on...
So, why is it that the GOP is being allowed to disingenuously take the "jobs, jobs, jobs" tack in this debate? Their offer at "reform" is a tragic joke that will only enrich major contributors to the problem - themselves, insurance companies, and their lobbyists, while insuring fewer people, and not doing a damn thing to lower costs or create jobs.
Why is this not the point of the spear in this fight?
Health care reform = jobs recovery.
Health care reform = jobs recovery.
Health care reform = jobs recovery.
Health care reform = jobs recovery.
Health care reform = jobs recovery.
Health care reform = jobs recovery.
Health care reform = jobs recovery.
Health care reform = jobs recovery.
Health care reform = jobs recovery.
Health care reform = jobs recovery.
Health care reform = jobs recovery.
Health care reform = jobs recovery.
Health care reform = jobs recovery.
Health care reform = jobs recovery.
Health care reform = jobs recovery.
Health care reform = jobs recovery.
Health care reform = jobs recovery.
Health care reform = jobs recovery.
Health care reform = jobs recovery.
Health care reform = jobs recovery.
Health care reform = jobs recovery.
Health care reform = jobs recovery.
Health care reform = jobs recovery.
Health care reform = jobs recovery.
Health care reform = jobs recovery.
Health care reform = jobs recovery.
Health care reform = jobs recovery.
I mean, come on already...
Update: I must add that the traction that any GOP or false Democrat is currently gaining in their opposition to health care reform is being gained directly because of the jobs crisis. And they are gaining traction. STOP this blunder. Stop giving away control of the issue by ignoring a blatant weakness in tactics/strategy. Health care reform is a jobs recovery bill.