Yes, David Brooks devotes a column to the health care bill in which he refers to the "trauma of the past two years." Wow, things must have been bad at the NYT's oped pages. Did Mr. Brooks have nightmares about death panels?
Mr. Brooks' trauma may explain why the column is so out of touch with reality. Brooks warns that:
"The number of people in those exchanges could thus skyrocket, especially as startup companies undermine their competitors with uninsured employees and lower costs."
What does Brooks think he is saying here? As it stands, start-ups already do not have any obligation to pay for their workers' health care. Furthermore, the absolute orthodoxy in economics (i.e. you are an idiot if you don't accept it) is that health care payments come out of wages, so the savings to employers from not providing health care should simply end up as higher wages, so how will the start-ups benefit in this picture?
More importantly, if President Obama's health care plan allows start-ups to be much more competitive domestically, won't they also be much more competitive internationally? And, this is a big problem?
Maybe the NYT should let Mr. Brooks go on leave until he recovers from his trauma.
(Only one link allowed per comment)