Health care reform to create 4 million jobs? Is Pelosi nuts?

400,000 jobs immediately

OK. Maybe I'm the moron, but I'm beginning to wonder about the competence of Nancy Pelosi. The other day Nancy claimed that the current health care reform package will create 4 million new jobs, 400,000 of them almost immediately.

While many of the new jobs would be in health care, according to Pelosi, others would be in private industry - both related and unrelated to health care, I can only assume, because I only have a fraction of her full comments.

Regardless, I have to ask, seriously?

First, let's start with the health care jobs. Today, one might argue our health care system is filled with too many jobs in the form of redundancy and compartmentalized bureaucracy. That's one reason why the idea of a single health payer system is an appealing idea. Such a system, in theory, could help reduce this redundancy and over-lapping bureaucracy with a simpler more efficient system.

Of course, the insurance industry could also agree on standards, with the help of the government, to reduce this redundancy with intelligent, web-enabled standards.

So, the question becomes, who typically does a better job: big bureaucracy or big business?

To be honest, I'm not sure. In fact, I'm not sure either ever really does a great job. However, perhaps an analogy can shed some light on my confusion. I know many teachers. Most of them believe in the insurance reform package and a government run health care system. Yet, ironically, they hate the bureaucracy of the completely government-funded LA School District. But won't government run health care lead to a similar kind of bureaucracy that these teachers hate so much?

But, back to the jobs. Is the reform bill really creating new health care jobs, or simply replacing old insurance jobs with new government (and better paying I'd bet) jobs? Likewise, in the interim, who is paying the salaries of these new jobs? The government? With what? More treasury bonds that we'll practically have to beg China to buy?

Perhaps, eventually, these 400,000 jobs will reduce redundancy and costs, yet how much will they cost in the interim? 400,000 x $60,000 x 5 years certainly isn't chump change, and that's probably a very conservative estimate. Still, are they really new jobs, or just new jobs replacing old jobs? How much bang for the buck are we really getting? Then again, maybe a few hundred billion spent on health care jobs is nothing compared to wasted health care costs.

Nonetheless, what happens after these people have been on the dole for a few years, reducing redundancy, and they realize the sooner they end redundancy, the sooner they no longer have such a great paying job and such great benefits?

Second, Pelosi also goes on about how reducing health care costs will create a more dynamic economy and a more dynamic entrepreneurial environment. In essence, I agree, the idea seems to have some merit. However, won't health care reform, minimally, lead to more economic hardship in the short term in the form of more national debt and more taxes, particularly in the short term, without any real gains for many years? That's been my understanding of the CBO's work on the matter thus far.

Thus, at least in the interim, won't we simply be replacing one hardship with another? Moreover, can really create a dynamic entrepreneurial business environment with increased corporate taxes?

Sure you can say we'll keep taxes low on small businesses, until they become successful. Then we'll tax the crap out of them. Well, then why would any business want to be too successful? Better yet, why not develop new forms of ownership that enable successful companies to be broken up into smaller companies so that they don't become too successful in the eyes of the tax man?

Isn't Congress infamous for such loopholes?

Ultimately, it seems to me that Congress should listen to the polls. There are reforms that can be passed today, they just can't be passed as part of some huge health care bill. We the people simply do not believe that Congress knows everything and acts solely for the benefit of the people. Besides, anytime Congress has rushed industry-changing reform they've always included massive pork and ridiculous loopholes.

Yes, America needs health care reform, but when there is so much distrust, that reform must be slowly rolled out, especially initially. And, honestly, fixing the health care system will be no easy fix. Honestly, most of the costs are driven by our fear of death and our poor health habits. Can nationalization or a single-payer system really cure those ailments? I'm pretty sure even President Obama has expressed the same sentiment.

Isn't it time for an honest conversation about health care and its problems?