In a New York Times op-ed article, “We Can Be Healthy and Rich,” Ezekiel Emanuel writes about the impact of the health care system on our larger economy and points out that there are many vested interests in the status quo of high health spending.
These high health costs are not geared toward the public good, but rather the economic impact of the massive spending.
He rightly states:
“Health care is about keeping people healthy or fixing them up when they get sick. It is not a jobs program.”
According to the Council of Economic Advisers, reducing health care costs by just 1 percentage point every year would lead to a 4 percent increase in G.D.P. by 2030. In today’s dollars, that would mean an extra $600 billion for our economy and an extra $7,000 for the average family.
Various comments by readers illustrate many views on his article and a number of additional perspectives.
I’m a little distrustful of someone who shares genes with Rahm. He has been billed as brilliant and also as a poseur. I don’t know what to think. Sometimes his ideas make sense, sometimes not so much…
Seems a bit rosy but in general it lines up with everything that I’ve read about the AHCA. There’s no real drag on the economy and most of the dirt being kicked up is from special interest groups rallying constituents who, in reality as you pointed out in your other post, are actually the ones that need it the most.