What Schmoe Would Want to Turn Down $100 Billion a Year?

From the White House Council of Economic Advisers – those folks who defined the Economic Recovery Act as creating 3 million jobs – comes a new report that seeks to put a similar quantifiable elaborartion of health care reform’s boost to our economy.  Their calculations?  500,000 new jobs, an average increase of $2,600 for a family of four per year, and $100 billion a year for our academy.  Read ‘em and weep, forces of the status quo.

Say what you want about the President’s “above the fray” health care strategy with regards to the policy details in Congress, the Executive Branch knows how to use the bully pulpit.  In fact, it’s fair to say that Obama continues to redefine the politics of health care consistently week-by-week.  In past efforts, we’ve focused on the stigma of 50 million Americans without insurance or the frustration with private insurance.  Clearly, that’s only gotten us so far these many decades.  But the White House continues to define health care in economic terms, and in terms calculated to hit you in your wallet.  It’s not about “them.”  It’s about “you.”

That’s the context for this new report, which will be released tomorrow.  The $2,600 number for a family of four is not a huge surprise.  Since the days of the presidential primary, Obama has been promising a $2,500 average reduction in premiums per year.  That’s also the number he cited when AHIP, Pharma, the AMA and others pledged to find $2 trillion in savings.  The half a million jobs number and the $100 billion a year is presumably based not just on the growth of the health care industry, but the productivity of businesses who no longer have to contend with skyrocketing benefits costs, individuals who’d have some insurance portability and wouldn’t suffer from job-lock.  According to Christina Romer, “The net benefit minus the cost (of insuring the uninsured) is about $100 billion a year.”  Well, doesn’t this just completely steal the thunder from whatever the ultimate price tag for health care reform will be?

We’ll have to see the report to see how specific it gets.  Even if it’s not much, or even if it seems optimistic or vague, the policy is almost secondary to the politics.  Simply put, Obama now has a political frame that’s going to be tough to beat.  On the one hand, you have Obama and the reformers.  If you give them $150 billion a year to make health care reform happen, you’ll get a productivity boost to the economy of your money back +$100 billion, half a million jobs, and your own personal windfall of $2,600.  By 2030, the report will propose, the extra money and productivity per family will be $10,000… oh, and we’ll have no one without the care they need.  On the other hand, you have the proponents of the status quo, or “anything but this.”  According to the report, health care will jump from 16% to 34% of our economy by 2040, we won’t get any of the goodies in terms of jobs or productivity bonuses, and we’ll likely have 72 million uninsured (or more) by 2040.  Gosh, which of those sides do you want to be on?

I don’t know if the number-crunching in the ultimate report works out (although Roemer and company on the Council are as bright and respected as it gets), but this will likely turn the tables on the inevitable cries of “we can’t afford to do health care.”  The new rejoinder, as couched in the terms of the economic advisors, will be “So you’re saying we should turn down $100 billion per year?”

Let’s see if it sticks.

(Photo credit:  The Official White House on Flickr).