Academic

Health Care and the Election--Stuntz

By David Skeel and Bill Stuntz

Health care may be the most heavily covered domestic issue in the current presidential race.  But the coverage has been lousy.  E.g.:  If I understand correctly, McCain's health care proposal would make employer-provided health insurance much more costly (by taxing the relevant benefits), but would also make individually purchased health insurance much cheaper (by providing a substantial tax credit).  Is it a good idea to shift from employer-provided care to the purchase of insurance by individuals and families?  You won't find the answer in the New York Times or on cable news shows.

I can think of one reason why the answer might be a resounding "yes."  We're entering an economic slowdown.  Anything that spurs job creation is a big plus.  And shifting the cost of health care away from employers makes the creation of medium-to-high-income jobs substantially cheaper.  That has to be good news for the economy, and good news for the competitiveness of American businesses.

Could be, there are good responses.  And maybe the issue has been well covered, and I've just missed it.  If not, this may be one more piece of evidence that the press is in the tank for Obama.  Seems to me, this is a lot more important than Sarah Palin's clothing budget.

Full post as published by Less than the Least on October 29, 2008 (boomark / email).