Markets in everything
By Tyler Cowen on Political Science
The deal with doctors could come at a steep price: a $250 billion fix to a 12-year-old provision in federal law intended to limit the growth of Medicare reimbursements. The American Medical Association and other doctors' groups have sought to change or repeal the provision, and they are likely to try to extract that as their price for boarding the Obama train, people tracking the negotiations said.
Wal-Mart, the nation's largest private-sector employer, agreed recently to support requiring all big companies to insure their workers. In exchange, Wal-Mart said it wanted a guarantee that the bill would not "create barriers to hiring entry-level employees" — in effect, code words to insist that lawmakers abandon the idea of requiring employers to pay part of the cost for workers covered by Medicaid, the government insurance plan for the poor.
"It's kind of a give-and-take, quid pro quo kind of environment," said Tom Daschle, President Obama's first choice for health secretary, who remains in touch with the White House on health care issues. "I think that the stakeholders wouldn't do this if they didn't think there was something in it for them."
...Over the past year, Mr. Baucus, Democrat of Montana, has strong-armed industry groups, warning them not to publicly criticize the process if they want to stay in negotiations.
Mr. Baucus, in turn, has said little about his talks with industry players. On Tuesday, he said only that he was "heartened" by how many groups were supporting the health care overhaul.
That's the NYT reporting, not The Weekly Standard. Here is much more.
How should I feel if Obama, or maybe Congress, threatened to re-zone my neighborhood -- unfavorably -- unless I support an active Afghanistan plan on my blog? (Should it matter if I've incorporated the blog as a business? As an association?) Should it help much if the intimidation against freedom of speech is for a benevolent end? If Republican Presidents had done something similar?
Might it be correct to call this "evil"? I have seen "evil" defined as "morally bad or wrong."
I do understand if people wish to extend health insurance coverage and see the Obama administration as the proverbial "only game in town." But surely some of them -- whether they admit it publicly or not -- must be wondering what it would take for them to jump off the train. Of course these deals are not unrelated to why health care reform -- if we get it -- won't in fact solve most of the major problems the sector faces. |
