Everyday Low Prices
Joshua Green has a fascinating article about Wal-Mart and the national health care debate in the June issue of The Atlantic. Wal-Mart workers' low wages and inability to get health care make them frequent occupants of the TANF and Medicaid rolls. So states, who pay the lion's share of these social nets, are fighting back. Maryland, for example, implemented a law requiring all companies who employ more than 10,000 workers in the state to spend at least 8% of their payroll on employee health care. Wal-Mart is the only employer whom the law affects.
As a result of the Maryland law and other proposed laws like it, Wal-Mart executives are beginning to find the idea of national health care less distasteful. This corporate support, Green argues, is exactly what might be needed to pass some sort of a national health care plan.
My casebook from my Administrative and Regulatory State class last semester summarizes a lot of empirical work indicating that the best factor for predicting whether a given law will pass is not the level of support it has, but rather the level of opposition it has. So, for example, we give more foreign aid to Israel not because of the overwhelming strength of the Jewish lobby, but because of the absence of any real pro-Palestinian lobby. [The reason, in short, is that our legislative system has a lot of places--sometimes called vetogates--in which a small but determined group can derail a proposal.] If this research is accurate (I know I'm asking you to take my word for it), Green's argument holds only if he assumes that Wal-Mart and other big businesses are the primary obstacle to national health care.
Are they? Obviously libertarians will still oppose national health care, but libertarians aren't a major force to be reckoned with in American politics. Religious conservatives probably aren't entirely opposed to the idea. But what about doctors? I suspect they're opposed to the idea. Right now our federal government is spending half a trillion dollars more than it takes in each year. Adding more spending in the form of a national health care plan will only increase the pressure to cut spending elsewhere. (Of course, when the Iraq war tapers off, our deficit will fall some.) A natural target for politicians at that point will be those doctors earning 6-figure salaries from Uncle Sam. So 2 questions: Are doctors as a group opposed to national health care? And if so, how substantial is their opposition?
As a result of the Maryland law and other proposed laws like it, Wal-Mart executives are beginning to find the idea of national health care less distasteful. This corporate support, Green argues, is exactly what might be needed to pass some sort of a national health care plan.
My casebook from my Administrative and Regulatory State class last semester summarizes a lot of empirical work indicating that the best factor for predicting whether a given law will pass is not the level of support it has, but rather the level of opposition it has. So, for example, we give more foreign aid to Israel not because of the overwhelming strength of the Jewish lobby, but because of the absence of any real pro-Palestinian lobby. [The reason, in short, is that our legislative system has a lot of places--sometimes called vetogates--in which a small but determined group can derail a proposal.] If this research is accurate (I know I'm asking you to take my word for it), Green's argument holds only if he assumes that Wal-Mart and other big businesses are the primary obstacle to national health care.
Are they? Obviously libertarians will still oppose national health care, but libertarians aren't a major force to be reckoned with in American politics. Religious conservatives probably aren't entirely opposed to the idea. But what about doctors? I suspect they're opposed to the idea. Right now our federal government is spending half a trillion dollars more than it takes in each year. Adding more spending in the form of a national health care plan will only increase the pressure to cut spending elsewhere. (Of course, when the Iraq war tapers off, our deficit will fall some.) A natural target for politicians at that point will be those doctors earning 6-figure salaries from Uncle Sam. So 2 questions: Are doctors as a group opposed to national health care? And if so, how substantial is their opposition?
posted by Garrett at 10:52 PM
2 Comments:
Most doctors I know oppose national health care, although doctors as a group have little political savvy and tend not to mobilize.
Anybody know how strong the AMA is in Washington?
Our Senate majority leader is a doctor; so is the chairman of the Democratic National Party (though I suspect only 1 of them would oppose a national health care plan).
Post a Comment
<< Home