Forbes on FOX

New focus on health care spending

Senate GOP releases latest version of reform bill

 

DISCLAIMER: THE FOLLOWING "Cost of Freedom Recap" CONTAINS STRONG OPINIONS WHICH ARE NOT A REFLECTION OF THE OPINIONS OF FOX NEWS AND SHOULD NOT BE RELIED UPON AS INVESTMENT ADVICE WHEN MAKING PERSONAL INVESTMENT DECISIONS. IT IS FOX NEWS' POLICY THAT CONTRIBUTORS DISCLOSE POSITIONS THEY HOLD IN STOCKS THEY DISCUSS, THOUGH POSITIONS MAY CHANGE. READERS OF "Cost of Freedom Recap" MUST TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEIR OWN INVESTMENT DECISIONS.

NEW FOCUS ON SPENDING AS SENATE GOP RELEASES LATEST VERSION OF HEALTHCARE BILL

Steve Forbes:  Absolutely not, we've seen time and time again that throwing money at these things has not worked. The veterans administration spending has quadrupled between 2012 and 2015, 1,000 veterans died in the waiting rooms; huge scandal there. You look at ethanol studies have found no improvement in the environment despite tens of billions of dollars there. The worst one Liz is Medicaid over half a trillion dollars and the studies show that the more money they spend, the worse the outcomes for the patients. 

Bruce Japsen: Well here's the deal, if they're going to throw more money at it and I'm not opposed to spending more money, but it has to be spent upfront. So people are getting the right care, at the right place, at the right time and we're pursuing a value based approach that is focused on getting people well rather than waiting until they are sick in the emergency room which is what some of this opioid money is going to do.  It's not going to focus on the problem. 

Rich Karlgaard: It's not for two reasons, number one let's throw these doctors that are doing that in jail and throw away the key; they've helped create this problem. But number two this idea that moderate senators like Rob Portman of Ohio, and Lisa Murkowsky of Alaska can hold this whole bill hostage until they get an excess amount of money flowing into their state. In the case of Rob Portman, $45 billion over 10 years, that just, I just hate that.  

Mike Ozanian: I think it's terrible Liz. I think Republicans and the Democrats have both have abandoned capitalism and the free markets and that's the main problem. Both sides have horrendous proposals. As far as Medicaid is concerned, why in the world would you want to tie your health care system to an entitlement program with spending that's completely out of control?

Sabrina Schaeffer: Well Liz it's funny, I'm a mom and very often there are these studies that say stop throwing money at your kids and start spending more time with them.  And I think the same goes for public policy. Stop throwing so much money at education or healthcare, let the market allow for competition this is what drives innovation and drives down prices. I think Republicans have sort of forgotten about this except Senator Cruz who did suggest that we move away from the minimum essential benefits that's part of ObamaCare, that would allow for sort of a little bit more consumer choice, and that's maybe one upside of this bill.  

John Tamny: Well I think Mike's right; both sides on this subject are hopeless. You don't create markets by government spending more money. Markets quite simply are. And so the idea is if you want health care markets you get government out of the way, markets will form and then through competition in markets price for health care services will go down. The problem is Republicans and Democrats, health care is easy. 

DEFENSE SPENDING IN FOCUS AS US-LED COALITION WELCOMES IRAQ'S VICTORY OVER ISIS IN MOSUL

Mike Ozanian: This is a very, very important first step. Not just from a military perspective but also symbolically because of Mosul's importance historically in that region. It may also if done right serve as a blueprint for what can be done in Syria. 

John Tamny: I reject the very premise. Let's remember if we hadn't intervened in Iraq in the first place and pursued regime change ISIS wouldn't exist. ISIS is the result of what we did before. Why do we think vanquishing ISIS will lead to some peaceful new group leading it such that we're safer in the US?

Steve Forbes:  Well it's a perimeter defense. It's better to fight them over there, then to have them terrorize us over here. The big mistake in Iraq is that when we won there Barrack Obama gratuitously withdrew our troops 40,000 in 2011 and let ISIS and the country fall apart, ISIS rise up. So we've had six bloody years as a result of Obama's mistake he throw away what American soldiers had won. 

Rich Karlgaard: I think there's a bigger issue here too, and this has to do with the symbolism of this, you know Iran is watching this and Iran is looking to see if we're going to be the passive player that we were under the 8 years of the Obama administration or are we going to be newly aggressive or at least attentive to these problems. So I think there's a, we're sending a message not just to Syria, but to Iran, and Iran is the chief instigator of bad things in the Middle East.  

Sabrina Schaeffer: On the one hand I really want to be on the side of Steve and I also sympathize with what John is saying which is that we don't really know what's coming next. The real threat with ISIS sort of beyond the egregious human rights violations that they are committing is that there's people all over the globe now have are loosely associated with them who are committing acts of terror in their name. So I don't know that fighting them over there will necessarily keep us safer, but I don't think we can just turn a blind eye and hope it goes away on its own. 

Bill Baldwin: I think that despite some of the negatives that John Tamny alluded to, that there is a benefit to military victories. Followers of ISIS become a little less fanatic when they perceive they are being attached to a bunch of losers. So it does make a difference. 

REPORT: 42 PERCENT OF AMERICANS WANT THE GOVERNMENT TO FORGIVE ALL STUDENT LOAN DEBT

Rich Karlgaard: Colleges aren't the automatic good investment they used to be. You know college costs have gone up 3 times, the national income over the last 40 years you've ranted appropriately about that yourself Elizabeth and you have to be crafty about how you're going to spend your money on college, and spending a lot of money to go to Oberlin to learn hate for Western civilizations probably not a good return on investment. 

Bruce Japsen: I think the problem is there might not be enough options within higher education. I mean we have an issue of retraining workers in this country and we don't have enough options at the community college and trade school level. 

John Tamny: College used to be a good investment precisely because it was so difficult to get into and complete. It was never about what you learned. So long as everyone can get into college of course it's a lousy investment it has no value.  It has no credential. 

Sabrina Schaeffer: I think there's a lot of problems with our higher education system but I want to be careful not to fuel this anti-intellectualism that I do think is sort of taking over on the right. I think we have a lot of problems to solve, tuition is one of them and the government's to blame for that, but I don't think that learning and becoming a more educated person is a bad thing. 

Bill Baldwin: I think the claim that college pays for itself is fraudulent. The reason is, although grads do make a lot more money it's only because they're smart and persistent, going to college doesn't improve those traits. 

Steve Forbes: It depends on where you go and what you get and taking a hard look. One of the reasons why the cost is so expensive is the bloated administration thanks to government subsidies, there's no reason why it should take a kid six years to complete a school, and he could probably do it in three years. So if you could get good money for it, by the way having exposure to different areas of study, good thing, you never know what's going to happen in your life and you better have a good tool kit to face it.   

STOCKS THAT 'WORK FOR YOU'

Mike Ozanian: Amdocs

Bill Baldwin: Angie's List