1st, let me say I do not support a marginal tax rate (State & Federal) above 46%, which is where it is now in most high tax states. (NY's 7% + (93% * 39%) + 1.5%) = 45%) You need to keep more than 50% of your marginal wages to feel good about paying the 46% to the government.
So, if you are going to do something about Income Inequality it has to be through tax reform. Tax Reform is also the only way to address unfair taking advantage of the tax system to avoid paying one's fair share schemes. I am, of course, speaking about the so-called carried interest that allows hedge fund labor to be paid current income as "capital gains". So these master's of the universe pay 15% or 20% while other forms of wages get taxed as high as 39% by the I.R.S.
I go down this path because Robert Solow wrote a very interesting piece in the current issue of The New Republic (you have to be a subscriber to read it, there are no freebies for magazine articles on-line) reviewing and adding to the work of Thomas Piketty on the inequality of wealth in the world over time.
This inequality has and will continue to increase after being reduced by 2 World Wars and the Depression. Notice, the book focuses on inequality of wealth by economic classes and notes how normal and inevitable the existence of this inequality will be. The real question is how should society view such inequality and put parameters around it.
The goal is not to eliminate it, but to bring about a fairness in funding society and incentives that help the most people achieve economic security. A feeling that there was a lack of fairness in TARP and a sense of economic insecurity is what lays behind the founding of the Tea Party.
There can be no income for the masses without the capital of the upper class. So confiscating this capital is not a path to be pursued. The issue is how to create a system that is globally competitive and rewards effort.
Grover Norquist and his anti-every tax crowd are just trying to protect the existing wealthy in some application of the Ann Rand theories, which, not surprisingly, have been bastardized by the current GOP. She believed in ultra-capitalism, but also was a supporter of women's rights.
So, what would tax reform look like.
1st, equalize the tax treatment of health insurance for individuals and company provided health insurance to incentivize the cessation of employer provided health insurance. That would help equalize the cost of labor in the U.S. with the rest of the world and promote the return of manufacturing jobs to the U.S.
2nd, reduce the burden on income tax to pay for government by instituting a tax on consumption. That would also encourage savings once income has exceeded a base level of costs. Such a base level of costs, might also have a very low income tax rate.
3rd, make corporate tax rates real. Right now various tax incentives offset so much tax that corporations pay little and substantial earnings get frozen overseas and not repatriated for investment in US assets or distribution to shareholders. This is perverse. Corporate taxation has lost all its rationality.
4th, Over 50% of the population makes too little to save very much. They no longer get pensions other than Social Security. A low tax rate on savings does not provide them with any incentive to save. The top 10% of the U.S. population controls 70% of all capital. They also earn 11.6% of all the income. However, in calculating that, I started with the known fact that the top 1% get 10% of all the income. So, the rest of the the top 10% (91st to 99%) get only about 10% in total of the income received by the top 1%. That is a stunning inequality even at the top, but we are a capitalistic society so we should not be bothered by that distribution. That is how society values labor. What we should be concerned about is fairness in supporting the government and what policies we are encouraging.
These super income people do not need encouragement to save. Our subsidizing them through lower taxes on capital gains and dividends are not encouraging anything that creates jobs in mega corporations. We need a tax reform that limits capital gains and dividend preferential tax rates to those who have income and whose investments are in smaller businesses (perhaps limited to non-C Corporation entities) which employ people. The bottom line of Piketty and Solow's work is we need a tax reform that reduces the preferential tax rates aimed at wealth creation and owned by the wealthy. Keeping them for the less wealthy would encourage and provide the means for the less wealthy to save.
5th, the next 50 years will not enjoy the growth of the last 50 years. There is too much capital, there is no low cost labor shock to come from another well educated economy, and productivity gains are now reducing wage gains and are going completely to capital. The benefits of all this flow completely to the wealthy. They need to pay their fair share so tax rates on the less wealthy can be reduced to allow the less wealthy to save for retirement, which is now one big unfunded mess as pension plans have been eliminated. That is not simply a problem for the poor, it is a problem for much of the middle class and might encompass as much as the 70% of the population that earns less than $85,000 a year, which is not much for a family in an urban area.
6th, raise the minimum wage to a be a livable wage. No one working 50 hours a week should be in poverty, but that will not help the millions of people who make substantially more than the minimum wage but are not saving for retirement because too much middle income money goes for taxes when the wealthy get all the tax subsidies.
Tax reform is the only way to address this. I am sorry Dave Camp (R - Michigan) is retiring because I think he gets it. Most politicians do not.
Monday, April 28, 2014
Sunday, April 27, 2014
Surprise, Greed Behind the Tea Party
No wonder the small people are angry. Tea Party leaders pay themselves hundreds of thousands of dollars while spending only a little on supporting campaigns. And the best they can say is "Raising money from small donors is expensive".
Link to article on Tea Party Finances
However, the really destructive thing about GOP politics is the way it fosters hate and furthers belief in incorrect facts.
The SuperPAC machine behind the GOP has convinced poor West Virginians that if they sign up for Medicaid, they will face a government run death panel. The Talk Radio hit men and Tea Party Senators would have you think Cliven Bundy is a patriot when he is a dead beat who wants to line his own pockets at the expense of every taxpayer. And the gun nuts who showed up to support him, are chickensh*t Timothy McVeigh wanna be's. What I saw of them on TV, they are all Type 2 Diabetes candidates who will burden Medicare with their costs.
I am now so angry at the GOP lie machine, that I doubt I will ever consider voting for a GOP candidate again, even if the Democrats nominate a Bernie Sanders clone.
Link to article on Tea Party Finances
However, the really destructive thing about GOP politics is the way it fosters hate and furthers belief in incorrect facts.
The SuperPAC machine behind the GOP has convinced poor West Virginians that if they sign up for Medicaid, they will face a government run death panel. The Talk Radio hit men and Tea Party Senators would have you think Cliven Bundy is a patriot when he is a dead beat who wants to line his own pockets at the expense of every taxpayer. And the gun nuts who showed up to support him, are chickensh*t Timothy McVeigh wanna be's. What I saw of them on TV, they are all Type 2 Diabetes candidates who will burden Medicare with their costs.
I am now so angry at the GOP lie machine, that I doubt I will ever consider voting for a GOP candidate again, even if the Democrats nominate a Bernie Sanders clone.
Saturday, April 26, 2014
The Incongruence of the GOP & 34 Years of Trickle Down Economics has not helped Rural America
When politicians do not denounce hate within the ranks of their supporters it implicitly condones such thoughts through silence.
It long ago (in political terms) became fashionable for Tea Party types to believe that the President was not an American, was a Muslim, and is a Socialist hell bent upon depriving Americans of their perceived Freedoms. None of this is, was or ever been true and the GOP leaders know it.
So what happens when Cliven Bundy gets together some gun toting domestic terrorists who want nothing more than to blow the head off some Federal Agents? Republicans of various sorts, including Senators and Representatives, rush to praise these people as true patriots demonstrating (with automatic weapons) their right to fight for Mr. Bundy's belief that he does not have to pay grazing fees to the Federal Government for his cattle's chomping grass grown on Federal land. The fee by the way is $1.30 per cow per month.
Why are gun toting white people more patriotic than me or any other white Democrat? Why are they more patriotic than an African American or a Hispanic who joined the military or work hard and pay taxes? Why are they more patriotic than an Asian who has fled here to avoid Communism, dysfunctional government or possesses a simple desire to achieve their life's happiness in the U.S.A. and manage to get a green card?
The Tea Party does not have a monopoly on patriotism and to support such beliefs without denouncing the hatred that underlies that is destructive to our society.
The GOP has long wrapped themselves up in the flag. But the government has been after Cliven Bundy to pay his grazing fees for 20 years. That includes the Bush II administration, which has been completely abandoned by the GOP for even the good things he tried to do.
The GOP says that the Democrats play the race card too often. But the GOP is trying to shrink the African American voter pool with various gimmicks to discourage African American voting. Charles Blow lays out how trivial GOP arguments are saying slavery wasn't so bad (which for some reason GOP supporters and some politicians keep discussing). Charles Blow today nails why there is nothing they can say that is positive about slavery in the U.S.A. 170 years ago.
Link to Charles Blow column
Discussion of the Supreme Court decision on Affirmative Action in college admissions has caused me to rethink what colleges should be trying to do. They need to be thinking how they get able students from the poor and lower middle class into a debt free college experience without regard to race. Perhaps one reason why this Tea Party hatred for people of color exists is they do not see economic opportunity for their children in their rural community. Rural America is largely struggling in almost every state and I think what the Democrats need to continue to do is focus the income inequality debate on the commonality between rural poor and urban poor. ObamaCare is trying to bring health insurance to both communities over GOP objections. We have had 34 years of trickle down economic policy and through out that time, rural America has just continued its economic degradation. The smart kids move to bigger towns and their kids don't move back.
It long ago (in political terms) became fashionable for Tea Party types to believe that the President was not an American, was a Muslim, and is a Socialist hell bent upon depriving Americans of their perceived Freedoms. None of this is, was or ever been true and the GOP leaders know it.
So what happens when Cliven Bundy gets together some gun toting domestic terrorists who want nothing more than to blow the head off some Federal Agents? Republicans of various sorts, including Senators and Representatives, rush to praise these people as true patriots demonstrating (with automatic weapons) their right to fight for Mr. Bundy's belief that he does not have to pay grazing fees to the Federal Government for his cattle's chomping grass grown on Federal land. The fee by the way is $1.30 per cow per month.
Why are gun toting white people more patriotic than me or any other white Democrat? Why are they more patriotic than an African American or a Hispanic who joined the military or work hard and pay taxes? Why are they more patriotic than an Asian who has fled here to avoid Communism, dysfunctional government or possesses a simple desire to achieve their life's happiness in the U.S.A. and manage to get a green card?
The Tea Party does not have a monopoly on patriotism and to support such beliefs without denouncing the hatred that underlies that is destructive to our society.
The GOP has long wrapped themselves up in the flag. But the government has been after Cliven Bundy to pay his grazing fees for 20 years. That includes the Bush II administration, which has been completely abandoned by the GOP for even the good things he tried to do.
The GOP says that the Democrats play the race card too often. But the GOP is trying to shrink the African American voter pool with various gimmicks to discourage African American voting. Charles Blow lays out how trivial GOP arguments are saying slavery wasn't so bad (which for some reason GOP supporters and some politicians keep discussing). Charles Blow today nails why there is nothing they can say that is positive about slavery in the U.S.A. 170 years ago.
Link to Charles Blow column
Discussion of the Supreme Court decision on Affirmative Action in college admissions has caused me to rethink what colleges should be trying to do. They need to be thinking how they get able students from the poor and lower middle class into a debt free college experience without regard to race. Perhaps one reason why this Tea Party hatred for people of color exists is they do not see economic opportunity for their children in their rural community. Rural America is largely struggling in almost every state and I think what the Democrats need to continue to do is focus the income inequality debate on the commonality between rural poor and urban poor. ObamaCare is trying to bring health insurance to both communities over GOP objections. We have had 34 years of trickle down economic policy and through out that time, rural America has just continued its economic degradation. The smart kids move to bigger towns and their kids don't move back.
Sunday, April 20, 2014
Consumer Reports Says 19 mm People Have Benefited From ObamaCare
And I will give credit where credit is due. Heritage Foundation/RomneyCare/ObamaCare is working. It is a market based solution that provides health insurance to every citizen, if each state does what it is supposed to do.
What did Consumer Reports find:
8 mm people enrolled through exchanges.
5 mm people bought individual plans directly off the exchange.
Medicaid and CHIP added another 3 mm people.
3mm young people stayed on their parent's policy.
Total 19 mm people have improved their health insurance situation thanks to Heritage Foundation/RomneyCare/ObamaCare.
And that 19 mm doesn't count the people in Massachusetts who got health insurance through RomneyCare.
And just think how large the total would be if certain large states had expanded Medicaid to take advantage of the Federals government's generosity in providing subsidies for the working poor, who Republicans say they want to help, but don't want to provide health insurance for them. I though the GOP wanted to encourage people to work so they won't be takers.
And that does not count the mm's people who can now look for better jobs because they don't have to stay in their job to get affordable health insurance. They can start their own business like I am and thousands of people are doing just that. That is job creation and the capitalist system at its best. Policies that work to encourage the small individual to improve their situation and not be a slave to the big companies that can afford to pay all the campaign contributions to the GOP.
What did Consumer Reports find:
8 mm people enrolled through exchanges.
5 mm people bought individual plans directly off the exchange.
Medicaid and CHIP added another 3 mm people.
3mm young people stayed on their parent's policy.
Total 19 mm people have improved their health insurance situation thanks to Heritage Foundation/RomneyCare/ObamaCare.
And that 19 mm doesn't count the people in Massachusetts who got health insurance through RomneyCare.
And just think how large the total would be if certain large states had expanded Medicaid to take advantage of the Federals government's generosity in providing subsidies for the working poor, who Republicans say they want to help, but don't want to provide health insurance for them. I though the GOP wanted to encourage people to work so they won't be takers.
And that does not count the mm's people who can now look for better jobs because they don't have to stay in their job to get affordable health insurance. They can start their own business like I am and thousands of people are doing just that. That is job creation and the capitalist system at its best. Policies that work to encourage the small individual to improve their situation and not be a slave to the big companies that can afford to pay all the campaign contributions to the GOP.
One Little Radio Ad, So Much to Detest
Please read this column, it is so accurate about the b*llsh*t that is feeding the partisan divide in this country and aims to profit from it.
Link to Dallas Morning News Column
And while I am on crapola this morning, remember that the Common Core was sponsored by state leaders of both political parties and was simply aimed at improving No Child Left Behind which was a Bush II administration concept passed with strong bipartisan support in Congress. I know little about the Common Core, but I do know some basic standards about what schools should be teaching at each grade level is necessary. It was short comings in the public schools that caused us to send our very able son to a private school so he would be challenged. The public school did not have the money to focus on this in elementary school.
Politics is always about the money.
Link to Dallas Morning News Column
And while I am on crapola this morning, remember that the Common Core was sponsored by state leaders of both political parties and was simply aimed at improving No Child Left Behind which was a Bush II administration concept passed with strong bipartisan support in Congress. I know little about the Common Core, but I do know some basic standards about what schools should be teaching at each grade level is necessary. It was short comings in the public schools that caused us to send our very able son to a private school so he would be challenged. The public school did not have the money to focus on this in elementary school.
Politics is always about the money.
Saturday, April 19, 2014
What Does Putin Want?
When considering the Ukraine, it is important to remember where this all started. The now ousted President Yanukovych was running the country into the ground financially. We now know he was also stealing vast amounts of wealth at the same time. Putin rescued him because he wants The Ukraine to be a compliant state within the Russian orbit, as it has been for centuries. He does not want it to be part of the EU or NATO, although I am not sure what value NATO has any more as I cannot imagine anyone wanting to have a war with Russia or they with us. We still have Mutually Assured Destruction capacities so you would think we could all just agree to get along. Which is why I am writing this blog.
Getting along means figuring out what Putin wants and then trying to figure out a way to negotiate freedom for those who want it in the Ukraine and servitude to Moscow for those who want it. Sometimes borders must change to accommodate the wishes of those who live there, something most of the West wants for Tibet, but China does not and you would think China would be supporting the Ukraine on this point; but they are not.
As with so many things in politics, logic, consistency and truthfulness are severely lacking in autocratic style governments, no matter how they dress it up with elections.
Back to the main point. The Ukrainian people ousted a corrupt and incompetent leader. They did so through their legislative and constitutional processes which responded to the protests in the streets. The protests may have created sufficient fear, but in the end it was not the people who forced Yanukovch to flee, it was a constitutional process. They are going to have an election to replace him on a long term basis.
But this is scary to Putin who doesn't seem to understand that no matter what happens in the Ukraine, Russia will still have it's military might and if the EU doesn't do something to diversify its energy, Russia will continue to have the EU over a barrel with its reliance on Gazprom natural gas. Putin doesn't want NATO next door to Russia.
So it would seem to be fairly straight forward to help the Ukraine clean up its government, stabilize its finances, modify its borders, while getting Russia to support the idea of a Free Tibet.
But would that make Putin happy? I don't think Putin can be a happy man. In his heart, he is a power hungry bully who is playing a very long game. He has robbed his preferred side in Ukrainian politics of 1mm voters by taking over Crimea. Given the historic closeness of Ukrainian elections, this is not good for his preferred side, which is why some of the other "Russian" cities in the East, want to go over to Russia. However, this will just decrease the natural support for a political party in the Ukraine that favors Russia relations over EU relations. In more ways then one, Putin is pushing the Ukraine toward the West.
Putin should watch out for what he wishes. Yanukovych didn't pay his Gazprom bill because he was too corrupt and used the money to keep his supporters happy. Now Yanukovych supporters are unhappy, and want to be part of Russia. I think they want their free lunch to continue. So Putin is basically welcoming free loaders back into his energy subsidized free loading population. That cannot be good for Russia's long term economic development, but it is pretty clear to me, long term economic development is not Putin's priority.
So I believe, Putin is on a path to becoming Russia's very own Yankovych, but it won't happen soon and I think that is what Putin fears. In the meanwhile, I have no idea what Putin wants except some vague concept of putting the USSR back together again and that does not seem very democratic to me. We will have to see which peoples believe that is a good idea and whether they are sufficient in number to prevent or accomplish that. And the West needs to reduce its energy dependence on Russia, so we stop subsidizing this form of instability. Putin is betting the West cannot achieve that. Just as the Saudi's have bet that the Developed World cannot wean itself off of Islamic Oil and are content to continue to subsidize Islamic Terror.
You would think the GOP would support anything that reduces the price of oil, but they are so in the pocket of the energy industry, they cannot and are only left with spending money we don't have on military adventures aimed at supporting the energy industry (and our economy because without energy, we don't have our standard of living).
Getting along means figuring out what Putin wants and then trying to figure out a way to negotiate freedom for those who want it in the Ukraine and servitude to Moscow for those who want it. Sometimes borders must change to accommodate the wishes of those who live there, something most of the West wants for Tibet, but China does not and you would think China would be supporting the Ukraine on this point; but they are not.
As with so many things in politics, logic, consistency and truthfulness are severely lacking in autocratic style governments, no matter how they dress it up with elections.
Back to the main point. The Ukrainian people ousted a corrupt and incompetent leader. They did so through their legislative and constitutional processes which responded to the protests in the streets. The protests may have created sufficient fear, but in the end it was not the people who forced Yanukovch to flee, it was a constitutional process. They are going to have an election to replace him on a long term basis.
But this is scary to Putin who doesn't seem to understand that no matter what happens in the Ukraine, Russia will still have it's military might and if the EU doesn't do something to diversify its energy, Russia will continue to have the EU over a barrel with its reliance on Gazprom natural gas. Putin doesn't want NATO next door to Russia.
So it would seem to be fairly straight forward to help the Ukraine clean up its government, stabilize its finances, modify its borders, while getting Russia to support the idea of a Free Tibet.
But would that make Putin happy? I don't think Putin can be a happy man. In his heart, he is a power hungry bully who is playing a very long game. He has robbed his preferred side in Ukrainian politics of 1mm voters by taking over Crimea. Given the historic closeness of Ukrainian elections, this is not good for his preferred side, which is why some of the other "Russian" cities in the East, want to go over to Russia. However, this will just decrease the natural support for a political party in the Ukraine that favors Russia relations over EU relations. In more ways then one, Putin is pushing the Ukraine toward the West.
Putin should watch out for what he wishes. Yanukovych didn't pay his Gazprom bill because he was too corrupt and used the money to keep his supporters happy. Now Yanukovych supporters are unhappy, and want to be part of Russia. I think they want their free lunch to continue. So Putin is basically welcoming free loaders back into his energy subsidized free loading population. That cannot be good for Russia's long term economic development, but it is pretty clear to me, long term economic development is not Putin's priority.
So I believe, Putin is on a path to becoming Russia's very own Yankovych, but it won't happen soon and I think that is what Putin fears. In the meanwhile, I have no idea what Putin wants except some vague concept of putting the USSR back together again and that does not seem very democratic to me. We will have to see which peoples believe that is a good idea and whether they are sufficient in number to prevent or accomplish that. And the West needs to reduce its energy dependence on Russia, so we stop subsidizing this form of instability. Putin is betting the West cannot achieve that. Just as the Saudi's have bet that the Developed World cannot wean itself off of Islamic Oil and are content to continue to subsidize Islamic Terror.
You would think the GOP would support anything that reduces the price of oil, but they are so in the pocket of the energy industry, they cannot and are only left with spending money we don't have on military adventures aimed at supporting the energy industry (and our economy because without energy, we don't have our standard of living).
Thursday, April 17, 2014
Fox News is Dishonest and a Propaganda Organization
I know I am not the 1st person to make this observation, but I was subjected to Fox News (cable version) this morning and the choice was to either suffer or not eat breakfast, so I suffered.
The story they were covering was a poll as to whether people believed President Obama lied about various things. The %'s that did believe he lied were something like 60% of Republicans, 41% of independents and 16% of Democrats. Then Fox News went to state the things that the President has allegedly lied about, only they did not say allege. They stated as absolutes that the President is lying about any number of things.
Now I know for a fact based on many different news reports that Fast and Furious was started by the ATF in 2006. I doubt very much anyone in the Bush White House was aware of this and I do not hold them responsible for it. But Fox News says when Obama states this, he is lying. They say it started it in 2009 even though it blew up in October 2009 and various ATF documents and people say they had been working on it for years (i.e. 2006). How does a news organization blatantly lie about something while accusing someone they disagree with of lying? It is just dishonest and I really don't think Fox News can be looked at as a news organization. It is a Propaganda Organization, worthy of being something the KGB would dream up for Russia.
Other things, they said Bush was lying about was something about Bengazi, ObamaCare numbers, and a few other things that I cannot recall.
I just don't understand how our tradition of honest news organizations has become so perverted within Fox News. Unfortunately, this spills over into my view of the Wall Street Journal and the Dow Jones News Service, all owned by NewsCorp.
I was almost nauseous listening to this sh*t being broadcast by Fox News, and I am appalled by the fact that I know there are people who watch this and believe what they are saying because they are a news organization and we are trained from youth to believe that news organizations are objective. Not everybody learns otherwise as they age. I wish I could put NewsCorp out of business, but all I can do is avoid their newspapers and not watch their TV channels.
The story they were covering was a poll as to whether people believed President Obama lied about various things. The %'s that did believe he lied were something like 60% of Republicans, 41% of independents and 16% of Democrats. Then Fox News went to state the things that the President has allegedly lied about, only they did not say allege. They stated as absolutes that the President is lying about any number of things.
Now I know for a fact based on many different news reports that Fast and Furious was started by the ATF in 2006. I doubt very much anyone in the Bush White House was aware of this and I do not hold them responsible for it. But Fox News says when Obama states this, he is lying. They say it started it in 2009 even though it blew up in October 2009 and various ATF documents and people say they had been working on it for years (i.e. 2006). How does a news organization blatantly lie about something while accusing someone they disagree with of lying? It is just dishonest and I really don't think Fox News can be looked at as a news organization. It is a Propaganda Organization, worthy of being something the KGB would dream up for Russia.
Other things, they said Bush was lying about was something about Bengazi, ObamaCare numbers, and a few other things that I cannot recall.
I just don't understand how our tradition of honest news organizations has become so perverted within Fox News. Unfortunately, this spills over into my view of the Wall Street Journal and the Dow Jones News Service, all owned by NewsCorp.
I was almost nauseous listening to this sh*t being broadcast by Fox News, and I am appalled by the fact that I know there are people who watch this and believe what they are saying because they are a news organization and we are trained from youth to believe that news organizations are objective. Not everybody learns otherwise as they age. I wish I could put NewsCorp out of business, but all I can do is avoid their newspapers and not watch their TV channels.
Wednesday, April 16, 2014
Union is #1 and I am reminded how hard weight control is
My alma mater, a small school of 2200 students, which competes in Division 3 in all sports but ice hockey, decided some time ago to compete in Division 1 ice hockey. Union College does not give athletic scholarships, so it is not surprising that for many years they had mediocre results as the better athletes went for a free education.
For the last few years, Union has had a sufficient group of players to win their league (ECAC which includes the Ivy League schools, Colgate and fellow Division 3 members of the Liberty League that also play Division 1 Ice Hockey). Union also made the NCAA playoffs these last 3 years.
This year, they went all the way and are Division 1 National Champions. Very exciting for we sports fans who by attending a Division 3 had zero expectation of ever rooting our school to a Division 1 Championship. I went out of my way financially to attend the Championship game. It was very exciting to lose oneself in a rooting experience that turned out to be successful. The glow of joy has yet to leave my inner core.
I must note at the same time, Clarkson Women's Hockey Team also won the Division 1 championship. Clarkson, like Union, RPI, and St. Lawrence, are all Division 3 schools playing Division 1 ice hockey. So congratulations to the Clarkson lady's and alumni. I am sure they are just as proud of their team as we Union fans are. And unlike the B.C. stars who were drafted and went immediately to their NHL team, Union's came back to campus to finish their degrees and start their pro careers this summer.
What does weight control have to do with this? I was at my goal weight a week ago. Then RSL and I had some great Italian food (no points control there) and I went to Philadelphia for the game. We are trained from youth to eat food at sporting events that is not weight control friendly as you age. Meat, bread, cheese, nacho's, alcoholic drinks and I know I am leaving some out. Then you have to sober up for the drive home, stop at a diner and eat some more while you drink your coffee. I am not at my goal weight anymore and I resent having to exert self-control.
Self-control is something any fun loving American hates. But that desire, and poverty, are behind the obesity epidemic in the United States. Having self-control is terribly difficult when it comes to eating, and our society has ingrained within it many occasions where having no self-control is encouraged. It takes a real effort to exert that self-control and the poorer you are, the less likely you are to have sufficient happiness to fuel the desire to make the effort.
I am not optimistic that anything will prevent obesity, and the diabetes that inevitably results from it, from crushing our medical insurance system. I hope that is not the case, but until the Tea Party supports the idea that the government should encourage good behavior, it is a hopeless case. There is nothing wrong with Michael Bloomberg's portion control for one serving, but he was ridiculed by the extreme right for it. Nothing in his proposal said an individual could not go back for a second order.
Anyway, I am happy in spirit from Union's victory and resentfully, back on my diet counting my points reminded how my internal training makes this process one of inevitably moving higher and lower; without ever being able to just eat the way I really would if RSL was not encouraging me to be at my goal weight.
For the last few years, Union has had a sufficient group of players to win their league (ECAC which includes the Ivy League schools, Colgate and fellow Division 3 members of the Liberty League that also play Division 1 Ice Hockey). Union also made the NCAA playoffs these last 3 years.
This year, they went all the way and are Division 1 National Champions. Very exciting for we sports fans who by attending a Division 3 had zero expectation of ever rooting our school to a Division 1 Championship. I went out of my way financially to attend the Championship game. It was very exciting to lose oneself in a rooting experience that turned out to be successful. The glow of joy has yet to leave my inner core.
I must note at the same time, Clarkson Women's Hockey Team also won the Division 1 championship. Clarkson, like Union, RPI, and St. Lawrence, are all Division 3 schools playing Division 1 ice hockey. So congratulations to the Clarkson lady's and alumni. I am sure they are just as proud of their team as we Union fans are. And unlike the B.C. stars who were drafted and went immediately to their NHL team, Union's came back to campus to finish their degrees and start their pro careers this summer.
What does weight control have to do with this? I was at my goal weight a week ago. Then RSL and I had some great Italian food (no points control there) and I went to Philadelphia for the game. We are trained from youth to eat food at sporting events that is not weight control friendly as you age. Meat, bread, cheese, nacho's, alcoholic drinks and I know I am leaving some out. Then you have to sober up for the drive home, stop at a diner and eat some more while you drink your coffee. I am not at my goal weight anymore and I resent having to exert self-control.
Self-control is something any fun loving American hates. But that desire, and poverty, are behind the obesity epidemic in the United States. Having self-control is terribly difficult when it comes to eating, and our society has ingrained within it many occasions where having no self-control is encouraged. It takes a real effort to exert that self-control and the poorer you are, the less likely you are to have sufficient happiness to fuel the desire to make the effort.
I am not optimistic that anything will prevent obesity, and the diabetes that inevitably results from it, from crushing our medical insurance system. I hope that is not the case, but until the Tea Party supports the idea that the government should encourage good behavior, it is a hopeless case. There is nothing wrong with Michael Bloomberg's portion control for one serving, but he was ridiculed by the extreme right for it. Nothing in his proposal said an individual could not go back for a second order.
Anyway, I am happy in spirit from Union's victory and resentfully, back on my diet counting my points reminded how my internal training makes this process one of inevitably moving higher and lower; without ever being able to just eat the way I really would if RSL was not encouraging me to be at my goal weight.
Thursday, April 10, 2014
Ignorance and Public Policy
Yesterday I saw a summary of a poll conducted by Survey Sampling International and commissioned by 3 Political Science professors.
People were asked "Where is the Ukraine?" and "Should the U.S. intervene in the Ukraine with our military?"
The findings.
Only 16% of the sample identified the Ukraine accurately on a map and the median error was 1,800 miles off. The Ukraine is the largest country in Europe and even if you could not locate it exactly, a smidgen of intelligence would have you locate it on the border of Russia. 1,800 miles puts it roughly in Portugal to the West, Finland to the North, Kazakhstan to the East and Sudan to the South.
The ability to identify it correctly went down with age going up so we cannot blame the current state of the school systems. Correct identification also went up with level of schooling but only 21% of college graduates were correct. Men (20%) did better than women (13%) and Independents (29%) did better than Democrats (14%) and Republicans (15%).
Now only 13% of Americans support the concept of sending the U.S. military to the Ukraine, but of those that do support it, there is a high coloration with identifying the Ukraine on the map with a larger error, rather than a smaller error, with a 95% confidence level.
In other words, the greater the ignorance of reality, the more willing they were to belief the neo-con politicians who have advocated putting boots on the ground in the Ukraine.
Ignorance leads to bad policies and politicians with an ax to grind take advantage of that ignorance.
I noticed an article but didn't keep track of it, showing how Halliburton profited immensely (as so did Dick Cheney's "Blind" Trust holding his Halliburton shares) from the BORROWED War on Terror.
And the GOP continues to campaign on policies that are bankrupting this country as a bipartisan group of politicians rolled back a cut in Medicare Advantage insurance company subsidies. This was in the Senate where the GOP could have stood on principle for something necessary and they punted. How can we ever make progress on Medicare if the GOP will not deal with the truth?
People were asked "Where is the Ukraine?" and "Should the U.S. intervene in the Ukraine with our military?"
The findings.
Only 16% of the sample identified the Ukraine accurately on a map and the median error was 1,800 miles off. The Ukraine is the largest country in Europe and even if you could not locate it exactly, a smidgen of intelligence would have you locate it on the border of Russia. 1,800 miles puts it roughly in Portugal to the West, Finland to the North, Kazakhstan to the East and Sudan to the South.
The ability to identify it correctly went down with age going up so we cannot blame the current state of the school systems. Correct identification also went up with level of schooling but only 21% of college graduates were correct. Men (20%) did better than women (13%) and Independents (29%) did better than Democrats (14%) and Republicans (15%).
Now only 13% of Americans support the concept of sending the U.S. military to the Ukraine, but of those that do support it, there is a high coloration with identifying the Ukraine on the map with a larger error, rather than a smaller error, with a 95% confidence level.
In other words, the greater the ignorance of reality, the more willing they were to belief the neo-con politicians who have advocated putting boots on the ground in the Ukraine.
Ignorance leads to bad policies and politicians with an ax to grind take advantage of that ignorance.
I noticed an article but didn't keep track of it, showing how Halliburton profited immensely (as so did Dick Cheney's "Blind" Trust holding his Halliburton shares) from the BORROWED War on Terror.
And the GOP continues to campaign on policies that are bankrupting this country as a bipartisan group of politicians rolled back a cut in Medicare Advantage insurance company subsidies. This was in the Senate where the GOP could have stood on principle for something necessary and they punted. How can we ever make progress on Medicare if the GOP will not deal with the truth?
Sunday, April 6, 2014
Ross Douthat is Correct
Today he presented a coherent case that the political debate on health care will continue for decades. Although in one respect he was focused on Heritage Foundation/RomneyCare/ObamaCare, he was really discussing the reality that we have a huge unfunded liability in Medicare and really need the Grand Bargain that Obama and Boehner tried to craft a couple of years ago.
Unfortunately, you cannot solve Medicare without solving Medicaid and the cost that uninsured individuals place on Medicare. How do the uninsured transfer costs to Medicare? By going to the hospital where they have to be treated and having their uncollectible debts become part of the cost structure that the insured (and that includes those on Medicare) must cover so that the hospitals stay in business. Even thought he Republicans will not admit it, this requirement that hospitals have a moral and legal obligation to treat the uninsured socialized the finances of the hospitals. And that moral/legal obligation was codified by the 1980's GOP lead Congress and signed by Ronald Reagan.
So a rational debate about end of life care is essential if this runaway cost structure is to be efficiently contained. And we have to pay for the government we want. That means some rational debate about the government's finances. And to have a rational debate, you need cordiality in Congress. And today's partisanship politics in Congress precludes cordiality.
Link to Douthat column
Other parts of the health care that need to be debated are the rights of everyone to have access to every treatment. Where are the limits on what the safety net will provide? Most of the developed world has decided everyone will have access to the every treatment under the guise of a single payer health insurance system. And any rationing is either done through queuing or the ability of the rich to obtain treatments outside the system. Here in the U.S., it is done through access to health insurance and if you cannot afford health insurance, you suffer until it is serious enough to put you in the hospital.
That is immoral and costly, which is why the Heritage Foundation designed RomneyCare/ObamaCare the way they did. Given the hippocratic oath, health care has had a moral basis since the Greeks, and you would think every American would want a moral health care system as a goal.
The real problem is the Republicans have not been honest with their voters. They still promulagate a supply side belief that lower taxes will allow us to grow into a no tax system. But individual taxes are the largest source of government revenues and cannot go to zero. We must pay for many things the government does and repay some of the debt that we borrowed by deficit spending going back 50 years under administrations of both parties and Congresses led by both parties.
This is the only thing Bernie Sanders have ever said that I agree completely with:
Unfortunately, you cannot solve Medicare without solving Medicaid and the cost that uninsured individuals place on Medicare. How do the uninsured transfer costs to Medicare? By going to the hospital where they have to be treated and having their uncollectible debts become part of the cost structure that the insured (and that includes those on Medicare) must cover so that the hospitals stay in business. Even thought he Republicans will not admit it, this requirement that hospitals have a moral and legal obligation to treat the uninsured socialized the finances of the hospitals. And that moral/legal obligation was codified by the 1980's GOP lead Congress and signed by Ronald Reagan.
So a rational debate about end of life care is essential if this runaway cost structure is to be efficiently contained. And we have to pay for the government we want. That means some rational debate about the government's finances. And to have a rational debate, you need cordiality in Congress. And today's partisanship politics in Congress precludes cordiality.
Link to Douthat column
Other parts of the health care that need to be debated are the rights of everyone to have access to every treatment. Where are the limits on what the safety net will provide? Most of the developed world has decided everyone will have access to the every treatment under the guise of a single payer health insurance system. And any rationing is either done through queuing or the ability of the rich to obtain treatments outside the system. Here in the U.S., it is done through access to health insurance and if you cannot afford health insurance, you suffer until it is serious enough to put you in the hospital.
That is immoral and costly, which is why the Heritage Foundation designed RomneyCare/ObamaCare the way they did. Given the hippocratic oath, health care has had a moral basis since the Greeks, and you would think every American would want a moral health care system as a goal.
The real problem is the Republicans have not been honest with their voters. They still promulagate a supply side belief that lower taxes will allow us to grow into a no tax system. But individual taxes are the largest source of government revenues and cannot go to zero. We must pay for many things the government does and repay some of the debt that we borrowed by deficit spending going back 50 years under administrations of both parties and Congresses led by both parties.
This is the only thing Bernie Sanders have ever said that I agree completely with:
Friday, April 4, 2014
Long Term Unemployed: There is no one stop solution
This is a piece I have been wanting to write for a while, but it took the alternative of taking my Income Tax test for my CFP course on the subject to motivate me down this path. I may fail this tax test, not because I don't understand the concepts, but because my 60 year old brain cannot retain all the details.
Anyway, a combination of a Fox Business blathering on about how the Obama Administration polices are responsible for the slow recovery in jobs with a story in the NY Times about a the long term unemployed in Boston helped my find my train of thought.
The NY Times article highlighted a 57 year old Ivy League undergrad with an MBA from the University of Chicago (my alam mater) who lost his job 13 months ago. And he cannot find a full time job, so he has stitched together 3 part-time jobs that together fail to add up to his unemployment insurance. I don't know if the guy has kids in college, but somehow he blew through his savings over the last year, so clearly he didn't downsize his spending fast enough. I am quite sure that with a 30 year track record and his clear motivation to work, the issue holding this guy back is (i) his age and (ii) a perception that he will insist on a higher salary than a younger person. I suspect the latter is not reality, but the former is reality.
I don't know how many people over 50 are in the long term unemployed but I suspect it is a majority. Some of these people definitely have the ability to continue to contribute like my fellow alum, but many probably are not as skilled (and now we include all the long term unemployed) and were wasted by a final job stop in a position that technology, globalization or a lack of demand has eliminated. Their skills are all over the map. What will get them back into the workforce is a shortage of workers that creates demand all over the map.
So, the criticism of the Obama Administration policies is inappropriate. When a real estate bust occurs, there is not one country that hasn't taken 5 to 10 years to work through the problem. The U.S. is no different. In fact we have done better than most other countries because of TARP and the 2009 stimulus. But that stimulus ran out 2 years ago and was not completely focused on infrastructure spending where there is the biggest bang for the buck. The GOP has made sure that no additional dollars be spent on infrastructure and now the Road Building Fund is nearly bankrupt. The only thing the government can do now is increase infrastructure spending. That will give jobs to young and middle aged construction workers and their spending will help create some jobs for older people. Lord knows that between decaying bridges, decaying roads and decaying underground pipes, there is lot to be repaired.
However, what it will not completely do is create the groundswell of demand that will create a shortage of workers. That takes young people forming families and spending money on houses. And this generation of young people has too much student debt and many suffer from a lack of opportunity to get career jobs. Until they pay down there debt and finally land in their career job, they will not provide that necessary source of demand for solid economic growth. So tax cuts like the GOP propose will only send money to the wealthy who have no need to spend more. The only thing that can help all this is a national effort to fix our infrastructure.
It used to be politicians of both parties supported this. But not today and not in the last 14 years.
Anyway, a combination of a Fox Business blathering on about how the Obama Administration polices are responsible for the slow recovery in jobs with a story in the NY Times about a the long term unemployed in Boston helped my find my train of thought.
The NY Times article highlighted a 57 year old Ivy League undergrad with an MBA from the University of Chicago (my alam mater) who lost his job 13 months ago. And he cannot find a full time job, so he has stitched together 3 part-time jobs that together fail to add up to his unemployment insurance. I don't know if the guy has kids in college, but somehow he blew through his savings over the last year, so clearly he didn't downsize his spending fast enough. I am quite sure that with a 30 year track record and his clear motivation to work, the issue holding this guy back is (i) his age and (ii) a perception that he will insist on a higher salary than a younger person. I suspect the latter is not reality, but the former is reality.
I don't know how many people over 50 are in the long term unemployed but I suspect it is a majority. Some of these people definitely have the ability to continue to contribute like my fellow alum, but many probably are not as skilled (and now we include all the long term unemployed) and were wasted by a final job stop in a position that technology, globalization or a lack of demand has eliminated. Their skills are all over the map. What will get them back into the workforce is a shortage of workers that creates demand all over the map.
So, the criticism of the Obama Administration policies is inappropriate. When a real estate bust occurs, there is not one country that hasn't taken 5 to 10 years to work through the problem. The U.S. is no different. In fact we have done better than most other countries because of TARP and the 2009 stimulus. But that stimulus ran out 2 years ago and was not completely focused on infrastructure spending where there is the biggest bang for the buck. The GOP has made sure that no additional dollars be spent on infrastructure and now the Road Building Fund is nearly bankrupt. The only thing the government can do now is increase infrastructure spending. That will give jobs to young and middle aged construction workers and their spending will help create some jobs for older people. Lord knows that between decaying bridges, decaying roads and decaying underground pipes, there is lot to be repaired.
However, what it will not completely do is create the groundswell of demand that will create a shortage of workers. That takes young people forming families and spending money on houses. And this generation of young people has too much student debt and many suffer from a lack of opportunity to get career jobs. Until they pay down there debt and finally land in their career job, they will not provide that necessary source of demand for solid economic growth. So tax cuts like the GOP propose will only send money to the wealthy who have no need to spend more. The only thing that can help all this is a national effort to fix our infrastructure.
It used to be politicians of both parties supported this. But not today and not in the last 14 years.
Thursday, April 3, 2014
What I learned from Marco Polo (the Book)
From 1271 to 1295, Marco Polo, his father and his uncle traveled from Venice to Mongolia (and around Asia) and back. This was a dangerous trip. The really amazing thing is that the father and uncle did it twice. That they did that is now well known because Marco's tale is the one that was written down and has since been substantiated by examination of historical Chinese writings. There are many little takeaways from this book, but I will highlight the ones that are relevant to thinking about our society today.
In no particular order:
Travel can be dangerous. The silk road was not an easy road. There were bandits, disease, lack of water in places, and high peaks to cross in Afghanistan. They could have disappeared on this travel and never been heard of again.
Power requires the support of the community and the leader must support the community. The Polo's travels were during the reign of Kublai Khan. He was the grandson of Ghenkis Khan. The empire stretched from S.E. Asia (loose control) and the boundaries of China (tighter control) to the western steppes of Russia. The Khan allowed Religious Freedom and basically believed all religions were appropriate. They of course were brutal on their enemies, but rewarded their supporters with gems, money and food. They acknowledged and co-opted local leaders. They fed the poor and believed in state charity. Marco wrote "Kublai Khan would provide sufficient grain for an entire year when there was famine." The people worshiped Khan as a God as their lives depended on him.
Perhaps this is what Putin is trying to become.
But this was not a democracy. A perceived betrayal of the leader would result in a horrendous death. Methods described included four horses, with a rope tied to a different limb of a man, walking away from the center in 90 degree angles. Or stuffing a man's mouth with human excrement and then tying his mouth shut. Polygamy seemed to be the right of every ruler and women had no rights except to serve their man. They were respected if they lived by the rules.
Denial of the truthfulness of the Polo's tale was rampant when they returned. Initially, their identity was in doubt as they reclaimed their homes after 24 years absence. But their wealth of gems (protected from bandits by being discreetly tied within their clothes) bought them acceptance. (And it remains true today that money beings accolades and a voice that is heard, poverty does not get a voice). As Marco described Asian inventions, the stories were greeted with disbelief and only accepted over time (what will likely happen with global warming).
The things that Marco introduced the use of to Western Europe were critical for the Renaissance, which, without them, probably would have been delayed. He brought back: paper money, how to use coal as fuel, how to make glass and eyeglasses, which led to telescopes and the revelation that the earth revolved around the sun and might not be flat. There were 200 years between Marco and Galileo, so technology certainly evolves faster today. Polo brought back gun powder. The Polo's were the first step on the path of globalization.
Many of the great places then are archaeological digs today. How does a great city disappear? Well, change in the availability of water creates stress that cannot be overcome. Lack of a political power to protect creates stress that cannot be overcome. Disease and lack of food similarly.
My takeaway in terms of the current Republican message is that they either have a messaging problem or they are trying to overturn history. The Khan's respected the poor as people because they needed that political support even when they were not a democracy. They needed the poors' sons for soldiers and not as soldiers for their enemies. Can a political party succeed in the long term if they do not deal with all citizens fairly? I doubt it.
That is my assessment of the Republican party today. I am not sure they believe all citizens should be dealt with in a fair manner. I think all they care about is protecting the rights and financial well being of those with money. They represent the people who reaccepted the Polo's only when they showed they were wealthy. Of course, Venice was corrupt as could be and met it's demise militarily because it could not raise a sufficient military to ward off its enemies. The poor did not see the other side as the enemy and avoided military service. Whereas they were keen to support the Khan's though multiple generations.
The current U.S. Supreme Court does not see the corrupting influences of money. Some of the "conservative" justices are not the students of history they state they are and they are certainly as "activist" as their supporters accuse the Warren Court of being. I guess activism is in the eye of the beholder.
In no particular order:
Travel can be dangerous. The silk road was not an easy road. There were bandits, disease, lack of water in places, and high peaks to cross in Afghanistan. They could have disappeared on this travel and never been heard of again.
Power requires the support of the community and the leader must support the community. The Polo's travels were during the reign of Kublai Khan. He was the grandson of Ghenkis Khan. The empire stretched from S.E. Asia (loose control) and the boundaries of China (tighter control) to the western steppes of Russia. The Khan allowed Religious Freedom and basically believed all religions were appropriate. They of course were brutal on their enemies, but rewarded their supporters with gems, money and food. They acknowledged and co-opted local leaders. They fed the poor and believed in state charity. Marco wrote "Kublai Khan would provide sufficient grain for an entire year when there was famine." The people worshiped Khan as a God as their lives depended on him.
Perhaps this is what Putin is trying to become.
But this was not a democracy. A perceived betrayal of the leader would result in a horrendous death. Methods described included four horses, with a rope tied to a different limb of a man, walking away from the center in 90 degree angles. Or stuffing a man's mouth with human excrement and then tying his mouth shut. Polygamy seemed to be the right of every ruler and women had no rights except to serve their man. They were respected if they lived by the rules.
Denial of the truthfulness of the Polo's tale was rampant when they returned. Initially, their identity was in doubt as they reclaimed their homes after 24 years absence. But their wealth of gems (protected from bandits by being discreetly tied within their clothes) bought them acceptance. (And it remains true today that money beings accolades and a voice that is heard, poverty does not get a voice). As Marco described Asian inventions, the stories were greeted with disbelief and only accepted over time (what will likely happen with global warming).
The things that Marco introduced the use of to Western Europe were critical for the Renaissance, which, without them, probably would have been delayed. He brought back: paper money, how to use coal as fuel, how to make glass and eyeglasses, which led to telescopes and the revelation that the earth revolved around the sun and might not be flat. There were 200 years between Marco and Galileo, so technology certainly evolves faster today. Polo brought back gun powder. The Polo's were the first step on the path of globalization.
Many of the great places then are archaeological digs today. How does a great city disappear? Well, change in the availability of water creates stress that cannot be overcome. Lack of a political power to protect creates stress that cannot be overcome. Disease and lack of food similarly.
My takeaway in terms of the current Republican message is that they either have a messaging problem or they are trying to overturn history. The Khan's respected the poor as people because they needed that political support even when they were not a democracy. They needed the poors' sons for soldiers and not as soldiers for their enemies. Can a political party succeed in the long term if they do not deal with all citizens fairly? I doubt it.
That is my assessment of the Republican party today. I am not sure they believe all citizens should be dealt with in a fair manner. I think all they care about is protecting the rights and financial well being of those with money. They represent the people who reaccepted the Polo's only when they showed they were wealthy. Of course, Venice was corrupt as could be and met it's demise militarily because it could not raise a sufficient military to ward off its enemies. The poor did not see the other side as the enemy and avoided military service. Whereas they were keen to support the Khan's though multiple generations.
The current U.S. Supreme Court does not see the corrupting influences of money. Some of the "conservative" justices are not the students of history they state they are and they are certainly as "activist" as their supporters accuse the Warren Court of being. I guess activism is in the eye of the beholder.
Wednesday, April 2, 2014
Voter Turnout is the Key to November
Why do I write this now? Because I am sick of reading Republican forecasts that ObamaCare will bring some catastrophe down around us (exactly what it will be is never stated) and it must still be repealed to right some wrong. Never mind, they refuse to say how they intend to provide health care to the masses and keep it affordable. Some specifics, please.
I just don't get it. Over 7 mm people now have health insurance through the exchanges that Paul Ryan wants to use for Medicare. Something like 3 mm people under 26 are now on their parent's insurance policies. Something like 3 mm people have signed up for Medicaid directly and an unknown number of million people (but lets say 3mm ) signed up for affordable health insurance policies directly from the insurance companies without any subsidy (like me). You would think Republicans would be welcoming the success of of providing affordable health insurance to millions of people so they can get affordable health care. After all, this program was designed by the Heritage Foundation, a Republican think tack and 1st implemented by Governor Romney, a Republican governor and Presidential candidate.
One thing I am sure of is that if the Republicans control the Senate after November, there will be budget vote gutting ObamaCare in 2015 (why Republicans want to kill the affordable health insurance for over 16 mm voters is beyond my comprehension) and the President will veto it. We will be in another budget gridlock and for all I know another government debt default crisis.
So if you care about having affordable health insurance and you live in swing state, please help get voters organized to turn out in November.
I just don't get it. Over 7 mm people now have health insurance through the exchanges that Paul Ryan wants to use for Medicare. Something like 3 mm people under 26 are now on their parent's insurance policies. Something like 3 mm people have signed up for Medicaid directly and an unknown number of million people (but lets say 3mm ) signed up for affordable health insurance policies directly from the insurance companies without any subsidy (like me). You would think Republicans would be welcoming the success of of providing affordable health insurance to millions of people so they can get affordable health care. After all, this program was designed by the Heritage Foundation, a Republican think tack and 1st implemented by Governor Romney, a Republican governor and Presidential candidate.
One thing I am sure of is that if the Republicans control the Senate after November, there will be budget vote gutting ObamaCare in 2015 (why Republicans want to kill the affordable health insurance for over 16 mm voters is beyond my comprehension) and the President will veto it. We will be in another budget gridlock and for all I know another government debt default crisis.
So if you care about having affordable health insurance and you live in swing state, please help get voters organized to turn out in November.
Tuesday, April 1, 2014
Paul Ryan's Medicare Plan: I might be able to support it.
Before, I get to Congressman Ryan's plan, let me discuss the meanness and idiocy of the hypocritical drivel that comes out in anti-ObamaCare commentary.
Let me quote a commentary that I feel is typical.
Let me quote a commentary that I feel is typical.
"The fact that the vast majority of the 6 million sign ups (a little short of the 48 million people that were uninsured 2 years ago, not to mention those who had insurance but lost it due to Obamacare) are the leeches to the system and hardly any of the people that Obamacare desperately NEEDS to survive (the healthy, young workers to are dumb enough to put way more money into the system as they will ever get out) are dumb enough to accept the extortion is a good indication that it will implode once the leeches start using the service.
And then there is the sticker shock those leeches will get when they realize that the El-Cheapo plans they signed up for have HUGE co-pays and deductibles and the bill they get the first time they visit a doctor will be higher than they thought it would cost even without insurance. So they will never go back."
First, why celebrate the fact that uninsured people for one reason or another chose to remain uninsured? It is quite possible that many of these people live in states that chose not to expand Medicaid and these are low income working people whose employers could never afford to pay for medical insurance.
Second, why are lower income people "leeches"? Are you only worthy of having health insurance if you are educated and sufficiently positioned to get a job that provides health insurance? What about the ideal that all people are created equal in the eyes of the government?These tea party types are very selective in how they view the constitution. What about the long time worker who gets laid off in their 50's and needs to buy an individual policy because no big time company will hire them? It smacks of corporate greed. "I am done with you as an employee, so just enjoy your life until you get sick, run out of money and die."
Third, insurance is not an investment that you get a return on every year. It is protection against the unexpected and is there to protect you from financial ruin, not financial expense. It is prudent. These comments seem to promote the concept of adverse selection that leads to the insurance companies ruin if they do not price for it and, if they do price for it, you have to be rich to afford the insurance.
Fourth, everyone has deductibles and co-pays. What type of insurance does this commentator want. No deductibles or co-pays? That doesn't exist any more.
All of this adds up to the reasons that the Heritage Foundation designed ObamaCare the way they did. It is also exactly what Paul Ryan wants to change Medicare to. I need to see the details, but I might be able to support Mr. Ryan's change to Medicare, if it is really Medicare Advantage for all, which is really ObamaCare for Medicare. A little straightforward candor on the part of Congressman Ryan acknowledging that ObamaCare is a good way forward for all health insurance might gain him some progress in advancing his Medicare reform. Medicare is sinking the government's finances and if he wants to pass the buck on the last 90 days of life issue to the insurance companies (and they are willing to take), so be it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)