I'm on the air!!

So the wonderful folks over at NPR's Planet Money have used a question I asked them about one of my health bill's as part of their podcast yesterday. Very, very cool.

In response to their answer, I posted to them another question. Which became a sort of rant, then a suggestion. Here's what I wrote them:

I would just like to say thanks for putting my question up on the podcast yesterday. It was a real treat, and the answer was enlightening. I do have one follow-up question in response. If the insurance negotiates with the hospital on what amounts it will pay for given procedures, doesn't that validate the argument for a public option insurance plan? Costs will be kept in check because the public option will be able to negotiate prices just like the other insurance companies.

I think I'm in danger of going on a rant here but whatever, here goes. The more I think about the health care debate, the more uncomfortable I am with the idea that you should make a profit off of sick people. Let me be clear here. There is a huge difference between making a living off of sick people (paying doctors and nurses) and making a profit (paying dividends to stockholders, working to increase the stock value, etc). Why do we insist on making a profit? Is the argument that healthcare is so huge that the only way for a company to raise enough capital to deal with healthcare costs is to go public and sell shares? If so, then I think that means that since the necessary size is so huge, you either have to go public or use the government. But since I think that making a profit is not the best way to do healthcare, then that only leaves the government. But then this leads to another point: I have a 401(k) and a Roth. I expect to get a return on those investments, which means that I want to see profits from the companies that I am invested in. I could have some healthcare stocks in my 401(k), but I don't know that for certain. Now I have a dilemma, because I disagree with having healthcare be run as a profit entity, yet I want profit so that my 401(k) will grow. How do I deal with this conflict? I don't really know. Sure, I could find out what stocks I have and then dump the healthcare stocks, but that could mean that my pool of risk just got smaller, which is a bad idea for investing. What to do, what to do... I also work for a company that has a pension plan, but to get that pension, I have to work for this company for the rest of my life. Is that an option? Maybe. I'm 29 and have a long career ahead of me, and staying with one company might not always suit me. So the only hope of having retirement is through my 401(k) and Roth.

The tough part about all this is that the only people who can really answer these questions is me and you. Not Wall Street, who only seems to have short-term gains in mind. Not Congress, who seems to only think as far as the next election cycle. Us. Society at large. It's easy to be passive. Passive stockholder, passive voting citizen. It just feels that to me, the healthcare debate is touching on something that is much more than just keeping ourselves healthy. It is something fundamental about how we as a society want to move forward as citizens/investors. I've read Robert Reich's book "Supercapitalism", where he really examines this issue. I highly recommend this book. Hey, there's a thought: how about a Planet Money book club, where you guys read a book and then use a podcast or do an extra podcast to discuss your thoughts? There are lots of great books coming out about the crisis, like Andrew Ross Sorkin's "Too Big to Fail" and Henry Paulson's memoir.

So in closing, healthcare is huge and mysterious. I think the government will have to play a big role. I think that we as a society need to look at some fundamental issues that we have put ourselves in and make some tough, tough decisions. I think that Planet Money should have a book club. And thanks for putting me in your podcast, that was AWESOME!!

In other news, I just finished reading Michael Smerconish's book "Morning Drive: Things I wish I knew before I started Talking" It's a great read, and I found myself agreeing with him on most of his points. His best quote is at the end on page 257. Here is the quote:

Most importantly, I think the Republican Party needs to be more libertarian on social issues. Stay out of people's individual choices and for goodness' sake, stop being a party of litmus tests. How about we get a handle on stemming heterosexual divorce before telling same-sex couples how to lead their lives? Speaking of families, let's recognize that single-parent households pose more of a threat to safety than firearms. Why not have room in our tent for both pro-life and pro-choice views? Stop treating cells bound to a petri dish with the same rights and inherent dignities afforded to people. And let us resolve that never again will we stand for politicians trying to determine for any American what his or her end-of-life plan should be.

Speaking of politicians, I continue to believe that we need citizen politicians, not professionals. Two Senate terms and six in the House will ensure we get grounded folks who are capable of earning a living when they're not serving us. And when it comes to those elections, let's give up trying to regulate donations. Someone will always find a loophole. Let anyone spend whatever he or she wants, as long as there is full and immediate disclosure.

Then I read this completely stupid article in New Majority. Read it here. Then read my response, which I haven't yet decided if it's worth posting in the comments:

I think it is wrong to lay all these problem's at Obama's feet. He's not a dictator with absolute control. Implying that the stimulus is only 40% spent because of Obama misses out on how our government works. Obama didn't write the check. He proposed the bill and Congress passed it. Congress stipulated how and when the money would be spent. Obama signed that bill, but I think the Obama team went along with the delayed spending because they wanted to get something out ASAP. Compromising on when the money would go out was a risk that seemed worth it back when the legislation was passed. Remember that because of the stimulus spending so far, the number of unemployed would be even higher than it currently is. I want more of stimulus to be spent now, too. But our cozy, jobs-are-secure Congress disagrees, and so here we are. Banks are hoarding their cash because they are still thinking like we are in 2007 and that foreclosure is the best way to recoup the money from past-due mortgages. It's not Obama's fault that the banks are stupid and that it is in their best interest to modify these troubled loans. Instead they are giving themselves huge bonuses and claiming to be survivors of the recession. Give me a break. The banks don't need any more incentives. Why only focus on jumbo loans? Let's focus on the people who are just trying to stay afloat with a $200k to $300k loan. I agree that Obama should (dare I say it) take the gloves off and start playing hardball. The Copenhagen stunt was lame, but so what? It's time for conservatives and Republicans back off the criticism and offer good ideas and make compromises with Democrats and then actually vote YEA for those compromises. Being critical of Obama and not Congress is counter-productive.

National Affairs has a great piece on where capitalism stands in America right now. The end of the article wraps up nicely:

We thus stand at a crossroads for American capitalism. One path would channel popular rage into political support for some genuinely pro-market reforms, even if they do not serve the interests of large financial firms. By appealing to the best of the populist tradition, we can introduce limits to the power of the financial industry — or any business, for that matter — and restore those fundamental principles that give an ethical dimension to capitalism: freedom, meritocracy, a direct link between reward and effort, and a sense of responsibility that ensures that those who reap the gains also bear the losses. This would mean abandoning the notion that any firm is too big to fail, and putting rules in place that keep large financial firms from manipulating government connections to the detriment of markets. It would mean adopting a pro-market, rather than pro-business, approach to the economy.

The alternative path is to soothe the popular rage with measures like limits on executive bonuses while shoring up the position of the largest financial players, making them dependent on government and making the larger economy dependent on them. Such measures play to the crowd in the moment, but threaten the financial system and the public standing of American capitalism in the long run. They also reinforce the very practices that caused the crisis. This is the path to big-business capitalism: a path that blurs the distinction between pro-market and pro-business policies, and so imperils the unique faith the American people have long displayed in the legitimacy of democratic capitalism.

Unfortunately, it looks for now like the Obama administration has chosen this latter path. It is a choice that threatens to launch us on that vicious spiral of more public resentment and more corporatist crony capitalism so common abroad — trampling in the process the economic exceptionalism that has been so crucial for American prosperity. When the dust has cleared and the panic has abated, this may well turn out to be the most serious and damaging consequence of the financial crisis for American capitalism.

Paul Krugman answer's readers questions. Ezra Klein looks at an article in the NYT about where that hamburger you are eating comes from.

Ezra Klein then looks at how the current reform proposals look a lot like how the Dutch do their healthcare. As an aside, I think that claiming the only way to get reform is to create something that is 'uniquely American' is a load of bull. Who cares if the reform is like a European country's? I want something that works, not just something that is different.

Daniel Gross looks at how banks are screwing us again with high ATM fees. I hate banks.

David Frum declares the era of the Private Sector over. My response: So what? Didn't do too much for the middle class, so good riddance!