Obama thinks outside the box on health care, energy conservation

March 2, 2006

Sen. Barack Obama’s proposed deal with American auto manufacturers seems like the kind of innovative idea we expect from him. And as a policy matter, it makes a lot of sense.

Trying to jump-start gains in auto fuel efficiency after decades of inaction, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., is proposing an unusual swap for the Big Three U.S. carmakers: Washington would pay some of Detroit’s multibillion-dollar health costs in exchange for it making cars that get higher gasoline mileage.

The federal government would pay 10 percent of the $6.7 billion in annual health costs for retirees that are weighing down General Motors, Ford and Chrysler if they’ll commit to building more fuel-efficient cars, Obama proposed in a speech Tuesday before a panel at the National Governors Association conference. He called it a “win-win proposal for the industry.”

Fuel economy standards for cars are at 1985 levels and many believe Congress should just force Detroit to make more fuel-efficient vehicles. The industry, meanwhile, says the changes would be too expensive, especially as they struggle with health care costs. Fine, Obama tells manufacturers, we’ll help with health care and you boost fuel standards.

Kevin notes, accurately, that “more fuel-efficient cars” is not exactly a specific prescription and, upon close examination, Obama’s plan — raise CAFE standards by 3% a year over the next fifteen years, starting in 2008 — is fairly “moderate.”

But that’s not a criticism. Obama is approaching a lingering problem in a new way, which happens to be both practical and progressive. “It’s wonky and earnest, it has bipartisan appeal, it has pork appeal (lots of farmers in Illinois), and what’s more, it’s genuinely worthwhile,” Kevin said. “And it’s a damn sight more than President Bush has put on the table, that’s for sure.”

Agreed. I’d also add that it helps push the conversation about nationalized health care just a little further. Once the government is helping to relieve the auto industry of some health care costs, a) Detroit won’t want to go back to the old system once 2025 rolls around; and b) other industries may be willing to make similar, innovative deals in exchange for reduced corporate health care costs.

It’s a win-win-win. I can only hope other Dems take the proposal seriously.

One other thing to like about this is it’s the camel’s nose under the tent for the idea that a way for big industry to solve its health care cost dilemmas is to get the government involved. Now normally I wouldn’t be in favor of encouraging the private sector to slough off its responsibilities. But in this case since where we want to get to is single payer, and this sort of deal might get through the thick skulls in Detroit that they don’t really need their health care cost headaches, and maybe single payer could save their industry.

Also this stabs at the Republican meme that the government can’t play a positive role anywhere.

Plus we get more fuel-efficient cars. Sweet.

  • Sorry, while clever, I think it’s anemic in terms of
    the problems we’re facing. He ought to say that
    the government will provide national health insurance
    at long last, and in return, auto companies will
    develop a vastly improved fleet of efficient vehicles.
    And we ought to tax the hell out of the real pigs
    instead of subsidizing them. Hummers, indeed.
    Have we lost our minds? Yes.

    I do not think we have time for pathetic incremental
    steps in changing from a global community of fossil
    fuel gluttons to one that uses alternative energy. Let’s
    hope I’m wrong, because the consequences will be
    devastating, catastrophic, otherwise.

    Meanwhile, the big story today is Bush’s nuclear
    deal with India. Bush’s “victory” is being ballyhooed
    all over the place. Takes care of that pesky Katrina
    story. Of course, they were already using that
    WMD argument – nothing new here. It was all
    known before. Story over.

  • Single payer.

    Afraid if we start this incremental stuff, the companies and states that are leaning toward single payer now will decide this much messier and less equitable solution sounds better.

  • “He ought to say that
    the government will provide national health insurance
    at long last, and in return, auto companies will
    develop a vastly improved fleet of efficient vehicles.
    And we ought to tax the hell out of the real pigs
    instead of subsidizing them.”

    Sure, and then the deal goes nowhere, with Obama’s political career following. This might not be everything we could hope for, but it’s a clear step in the right direction. Let’s not throw up our hands in disgust because we can’t achieve all of our policy objectives in one fell swoop.

  • The car companies are in a world of hurt, and while they claim that health care is the killer, it’s only one of many things hurting them. Lack of innovation and inability to compete in the car markets is hurting. Man cannot live on trucks/SUVs alone.

    Good start, though – keep thinking of things like this and sooner or later something good will come of it. At least someone is trying…

  • Look, we can criticize Obama’s incrementalism and not solving the problem in one stroke. Whoopee. The bottom line is that the Republican-controlled Congress is not going to take on a Dem junior Senator’s plan no matter how good.

    Obama is planting seeds. When GM files for bankruptcy, some people will remember hearing about a Democratic plan to ease GM’s woes – wonder if that would have helped? And it presents steps to a single payer health care system in a positive light.

    Good job. Somebody in the Democratic Party is thinking long term. Now your mission, dear reader, should you choose to accept it, is to spread the meme.

  • I like a politician who talks about real problems in a way that demonstrates his/her grasp of their interconnectedness.
    News flash Signs of intelligent life found in in Washington!!!

  • Re: incrementalism

    Roe v. Wade is currently hanging by a thread. Odds are good it won’t survive. How did the right bring it to this point? By insisting that any proposal other than a full overturn wasn’t good enough? Or did they chip away at it relentlessly, year by year, eventually moving the people in place to take it down completely?

    The key to big change is to both keep the main goal in mind as well as to take every small victory along the way and put it in the bank.

    Don’t be afraid of incremental stuff. Just don’t ever be satisfied with it once you get it.

  • Obama’s plan probably violates a few treaties with the EU and Japan and WTO. While innovative in thinking the plan will be hard to implement in today’s “free trade” environment. But I think that will come out in congressional hearings if they are ever held.

    My vote is for a single payer healhcare system available to all. It can be acheived if the national will is there. We spent $300 billion in Iraq so far on a president’s whim. Imagine Clinton using an equal amount on his healthcare whim.

    Do the single payer system and increase a number of environmental standards across multiple industries at the same time. The resulting spur to our economy will help bring a balance to the national budget as an additional consequence of us getting serious about our health and environment.

  • I like Obama’s idea for a number of reasons, not least of which is that it will send Grover Norquist and his ilk into purple-faced apoplexy. But the big benefit in terms of the political battle (and what isn’t related to the political battle these days) is that it offers people the first real hint at the differences in what the two parties offer for the future.

    Do they want to continue with Republican domination (perpetual war, staggering deficits, rampant corruption, incompetence and disdain for the public on a truly Biblical scale)?

    Or would they prefer the Democratic option which offers ways to actually help people with their problems and provide relief to the suffering American economy, as well?

    Just a hunch, but there may just be a whole bunch of people out there who would be willing to give Plan B a try. What have they got to lose?

  • Sorry but this idea starts at anemic and goes all the way to destructively horrible. Why should we subsidize General Motors and not General Mills or General Dynamics or General Tso’s Chinese Restaurant on the corner? General Motors should build more fuel efficient cars for one of two reasons–either it will win them more market share as fuel costs rise and customers want them or the government forces them to do so for the good of the country. Period. Employees and some retirees of big business and government already enjoy better and cheaper health care options than other workers and retirees. This just adds to the egregious disparity. It’s corporate welfare that, rather than being a stepping stone to national health insurance, will postpone it for good as big contributors step up one by one to suck at the national tit while small biz and the unemployed go without. Obama should spend his time gathering a coalition of large influential businesses who are at a competitive disadvantage due to our outdated, unfair health care system and have them demand national health insurance for ALL. Why not use power to speak to power instead of slicing them off to get theirs separately. That’s corporate welfare that defeats our goals, not postpones them. Unless these businesses feel the pain and see what’s in their interests here, there will never be health care for all. If it’s good for General Motors…

    • Comments are closed.