Never mind that both Obamacare and Ryancare look to competition among private insurers to enhance consumer choice, encourage innovation and hold down prices. Or that under the health reform law and both the Ryan and Obama 2012 budget plans, a cap would be set on the annual growth in per beneficiary spending under Medicare. Democrats want us to believe that a system of “managed competition” that is fair and effective for working-age Americans would somehow turn into an unmitigated disaster for anyone older than 65.
Yes, there is a lively debate to be had over whether Medicare spending should be allowed to grow only as fast as inflation, as Ryan proposes, or at the rate of GDP growth plus 1 percentage point, as Obamacare requires, or at GDP plus 0.5 percent, as the president proposed in his latest deficit-reduction scheme. And we can surely have a spirited discussion about whether the methods used to limit that spending growth should be determined by private insurance companies, a panel of health-care experts appointed by the federal government, or a combination of the two. But as the old saying goes, then we are no longer arguing about the principle — we’re just haggling over the price.
Steven Pearlstein is a Pulitzer Prize-winning business and economics columnist at The Washington Post.
Archive
I’m not the first person to notice the hypocrisy. Simon Lazarus noted it for Slate, Greg Mankiw did in the New York Times, and the Wall Street Journal editorial page has been all over it, as has my colleague Ezra Klein. And what has been the impact on the debate? None, as far as I can tell. Both parties have their stories and their outrage, and they’re sticking to them.
Which brings me back to Brooks and his protest over the state of political discourse. I share his frustration, but I’ve decided to deal with it a bit differently.
This is my last weekday column for The Post and nearly my last as a Post employee. After more than 23 years as an editor, a reporter and a columnist, I’m about to take up a new career as a professor at George Mason University, where I’ll explore new ways to teach basic economic principles to undergraduates. In recent years, there’s been a widespread recognition that too many people have graduated without the economic literacy that they now require to do their jobs, manage their lives and participate in a democracy as informed citizens. I like to think I’ve helped to address that problem, along with many other business and economic journalists, but the evidence of our success is spotty. At GMU, I’ll be taking a different approach to the same challenge.
I’ll continue to write a weekly column for The Post’s Sunday Business section, in which the focus will be on the companies, industries and markets where interesting and exciting things are happening in spite of the increasingly stale and partisan debates on economic policy here in Washington. Although economic policy is important, I’ve never bought the idea that the economy is a machine whose operation is controlled by powerful men twirling dials and pulling levers in corner offices in Washington and on Wall Street. In reality, it’s more complicated, unpredictable and fun than that.
So while others are doing the necessary work of chasing after the latest budget deal or commenting on the latest outrage from the presidential debate, I’ll look to reconnect with the people, companies and competitive dynamics that drive the economy — local, national and global. Although the subjects and the angle of view may be different, I trust you’ll find the same open-minded curiosity, passion and edgy candor. The transition may get a bit rocky and I may be unable to resist the occasional policy screed, but I hope you’ll continue to tag along each Sunday, in print or online.
Loading...
Comments