While we're talking health care, this is a great point by Nathan Newman. Springboarding of Toyota's decision to build a new plant in Canada so as to take advantage of their lower health care costs (Canada's care saves employers $4-$5 an hour on each employee), Nathan writes:
Ironically, tightening trade rules increasingly disfavor direct government subsidies to industry-- the US and the EU are fighting before the WTO, arguing that US federal and state subsidies of Boeing and EU financing of Airbus are both illegal under trade agreements. The WTO just declared US subsidies to the cotton industry illegal under trade agreements.
Which means that providing national health care (like a strong education system) may emerge as one of the few legitimate subsidies governments can provide to encourage industry to locate in their countries. And the United States is increasingly finding itself in a terrible economic disadvantage internationally because it refuses to create a national health insurance system.
That's exactly correct. I've long thought some enterprising politician needs to sell national health care as part of a package aimed at fighting outsourcing. Rather than making this a moral crusade about treating the sick, make it an economic campaign to restore the competitiveness of the American worker. Bundle it with a variety of other programs like enhanced science/math spending and well-funded retraining programs and you should have a highly sellable package that attracts support on multiple fronts, at least from the general electorate.
