To quote Bill Clinton, "it's the Economy".
And the Economy is complicated, which is why you have to work through the market, but policies still matter because people want to work and are always seeking policies that they believe will help them. And eventually, within a reasonable period of time, people either expect to see an improvement in their situation or they will vote for the other party. So policies get one or maybe two or three, election cycles to show something.
Link to Voter TurnOut Analysis
Rural Reality
And as Trump will find out, if he hasn't already, the combination of politics and the economy is way more complicated than the real estate business.
Trump is an Agent of China
Of course, someone from China just overpaid to own his family home. But I think someone else is the beneficiary of that trade.
Wednesday, March 29, 2017
Friday, March 24, 2017
Democrats, Start talking about the changes you want to make to Obamacare
We all know some things need to change, particularly in areas where there is only one insurance company offering policies to those looking on the Exchanges.
Start a discussion.
Start a discussion.
Thursday, March 23, 2017
Could This Interview Finally Convince the Voters that Impeachment is a Necessity NOW!!!
From a Politico article about a Time Magazine interview with King Donald. He is completely delusional.
"In a wide-ranging interview with Time Magazine, President Donald Trump defended his prior controversial statements on wiretapping, voter fraud and an array of other issues, claiming that he has ultimately been proven right time and time again."
“I’m a very instinctual person, but my instinct turns out to be right,” Trump told Time’s Washington bureau chief Michael Scherer in an interview conducted Wednesday and published Thursday morning. “I tend to be right. I’m an instinctual person, I happen to be a person that knows how life works.”
Tuesday, March 21, 2017
The Federalist Posts An Idea for Health Insurance
And it is worth exploring.
The basic idea is that the government would provide an umbrella catastrophic health insurance plan for everybody. In this vision, it would include payments for pregnancy care. So, in essence it would kick in at a deductible or max-out-of-pocket of $5,000 (this is unstated in the description) or cover certain specific types of situations.
Then people would buy private insurance or self-insure everything below that max-out-of-pocket amount.
It isn't Medicare for all, but the author believes it is cheaper than American Health Care Act which is cheaper (because it covers fewer people) than Obamacare, and in the process it would provide Catastrophic Insurance for everyone.
That is an idea worth exploring from a die hard Conservative.
Link to Federalist column
Meanwhile, NYS GOP Congresspeople ignore my letter to them and instead of focusing on making health insurance affordable for their constituents, they cut a deal with GOP House Leadership to forbid NYS from forcing counties to share in the cost of Medicaid, while leaving NYC with that obligation. I don't know how other states share Medicaid costs, but if NYS is singular in this approach, this change may not be all bad, but it does mean income tax rates in NYC state will not be going down. And the pressures from Dementia Care will be a more forthright issue in this state. I would not want to be on the NYS Death Panel deciding when to evict Grandma out into the snow in Utica when she blows through her maximum expenditure provided by the Federal Government.
I know of this division and what it means to county finances because of my mother. Delaware Country didn't want to pay for her dementia long term care. So they sued my Father to spend down more than required by the law of the land and our lawyer won the case forcing them to do so.
The basic idea is that the government would provide an umbrella catastrophic health insurance plan for everybody. In this vision, it would include payments for pregnancy care. So, in essence it would kick in at a deductible or max-out-of-pocket of $5,000 (this is unstated in the description) or cover certain specific types of situations.
Then people would buy private insurance or self-insure everything below that max-out-of-pocket amount.
It isn't Medicare for all, but the author believes it is cheaper than American Health Care Act which is cheaper (because it covers fewer people) than Obamacare, and in the process it would provide Catastrophic Insurance for everyone.
That is an idea worth exploring from a die hard Conservative.
Link to Federalist column
Meanwhile, NYS GOP Congresspeople ignore my letter to them and instead of focusing on making health insurance affordable for their constituents, they cut a deal with GOP House Leadership to forbid NYS from forcing counties to share in the cost of Medicaid, while leaving NYC with that obligation. I don't know how other states share Medicaid costs, but if NYS is singular in this approach, this change may not be all bad, but it does mean income tax rates in NYC state will not be going down. And the pressures from Dementia Care will be a more forthright issue in this state. I would not want to be on the NYS Death Panel deciding when to evict Grandma out into the snow in Utica when she blows through her maximum expenditure provided by the Federal Government.
I know of this division and what it means to county finances because of my mother. Delaware Country didn't want to pay for her dementia long term care. So they sued my Father to spend down more than required by the law of the land and our lawyer won the case forcing them to do so.
Sunday, March 19, 2017
Sunday Musing's
Steven King, the say anything Congressman from Iowa, wants Caucasians to have more babies. He also wants to abolish the EPA. Meanwhile, in China, which has seen widespread pollution increase over the last 30 years, there has been a sharp drop in the fertility of Chinese men. So, while it is a coincidence, it is at least likely there is a link as heating food in plastic containers in a microwave has been shown to leach a substance from the plastic to the food and that substance reduces sperm count in men. So if a lot of conservatives agree with Steve King on the need to improve fertility, then they should support the mission of the EPA. But they don't. Is that Hypocrisy or Ignorance? I suspect it is a bit of both.
Meanwhile, there were two good op-ed's on potential reforms to the health insurance design of the U.S.A. Unfortunately, one written by a Scandinavian and one written by a GOP pundit, both highlight the need for a different path from both ObamaCare and TrumpCare, one built around a form of a single payer plan. Links are below.
Link to Ross Douthat on Singaporian Health Insurance
Link to The effective Finnish approach to Health Insurance
Meanwhile, someone finally unveiled some key statistics about where U.S. health care $ go.
As I wrote previously, 50% of Medicaid $ cover the care for elderly dementia patients.
Now I see that 84% of medical spending is for the 50% of the population with at least one chronic condition such as Rheumatoid Arthritis, Diabetes, and who knows what else. 50% of medical spending is for 16% who have 3 or more chronic conditions. 50% of the highest cost 10% receiving Medical Care this year will be in the same category next year. It the GOP wants to really deal with the problem, they would sanction euthanasia for these people. But they are against euthanasia and prefer to simply force these people to spend money they don't have on care they cannot afford. Which is simply a different form of death panel. Maybe the painkilling epidemic is a GOP design on a form of death panel to deal with these type of costs. But that would require thought, knowledge and a level of thinking never seen in politicians.
Link to worthwhile WAPO column
Meanwhile, there were two good op-ed's on potential reforms to the health insurance design of the U.S.A. Unfortunately, one written by a Scandinavian and one written by a GOP pundit, both highlight the need for a different path from both ObamaCare and TrumpCare, one built around a form of a single payer plan. Links are below.
Link to Ross Douthat on Singaporian Health Insurance
Link to The effective Finnish approach to Health Insurance
Meanwhile, someone finally unveiled some key statistics about where U.S. health care $ go.
As I wrote previously, 50% of Medicaid $ cover the care for elderly dementia patients.
Now I see that 84% of medical spending is for the 50% of the population with at least one chronic condition such as Rheumatoid Arthritis, Diabetes, and who knows what else. 50% of medical spending is for 16% who have 3 or more chronic conditions. 50% of the highest cost 10% receiving Medical Care this year will be in the same category next year. It the GOP wants to really deal with the problem, they would sanction euthanasia for these people. But they are against euthanasia and prefer to simply force these people to spend money they don't have on care they cannot afford. Which is simply a different form of death panel. Maybe the painkilling epidemic is a GOP design on a form of death panel to deal with these type of costs. But that would require thought, knowledge and a level of thinking never seen in politicians.
Link to worthwhile WAPO column
Friday, March 17, 2017
1 Out of 2 Medicaid $ is Spent on Dementia Care
Thank you to a Senator who I heard with that statistic.
50% of Medicaid $ are spent on taking care of Dementia patients. When the GOP starts making block grants to states so they can allocate $ in the best way, will they also allow the states to legalize Euthanasia and establish Death Panels to decide which dementia patients are euthanized or allowed to be supported by the State's Medicaid funds?
I can make a case for that given that at the other 50% of $ are generally going to working people who pay some taxes and are executing necessary jobs in the economy. Or they are children who have the potential to be whatever.
RyanCare supports Death Panels is the only conclusion I can reach. Does Sarah Palin also now support Death Panels given that they will be run by Republicans as opposed to Democrats?
Anyway, David Brooks take on it today is worthwhile to read.
Brooks on how the budget abandons the Campaign Themes
50% of Medicaid $ are spent on taking care of Dementia patients. When the GOP starts making block grants to states so they can allocate $ in the best way, will they also allow the states to legalize Euthanasia and establish Death Panels to decide which dementia patients are euthanized or allowed to be supported by the State's Medicaid funds?
I can make a case for that given that at the other 50% of $ are generally going to working people who pay some taxes and are executing necessary jobs in the economy. Or they are children who have the potential to be whatever.
RyanCare supports Death Panels is the only conclusion I can reach. Does Sarah Palin also now support Death Panels given that they will be run by Republicans as opposed to Democrats?
Anyway, David Brooks take on it today is worthwhile to read.
Brooks on how the budget abandons the Campaign Themes
Thursday, March 16, 2017
Why Insurance Competition Will Not Lower the Price of Health Insurance
Real Conservatives, as opposed to "Trumpian's" believe in every part of their rational self that the consumer cost of Health Insurance will go down if you simply free up the market from government regulation of the product. They absolutely believe that if went down this path, health insurance would be affordable for every working person.
But insurance provided by the private sector insurance market only works if the insurance companies make a profit after they cover their costs. Life Insurance is the easiest for the industry to make a profit because the statistics, required overhead and investment returns work in a synergy that produces a product that can be constructed in a variety of ways to satisfy consumer demand and be affordable. It is a very useful product but one that many lower wage people do not buy because they don't have the money for it. And non-working people do not have any either. But both of those classes of people need and demand medical care from hospitals if their is no other place for them to go.
The unfortunate truth about insurance is there are systemic issues that effect the relationship between affordability and profitability. Car insurance illustrates this. Inflation drives the cost of car insurance. RSL has unfortunately over the last 10 years had 3 incidents with her car. She damaged the under section when she hit some black ice in Vermont and went into the ditch. Repair bill as I recall was $3,000. She damaged the bumper when she misjudged an icy pile of snow pulling out of street parking. Repair bill $1,500 as I recall. And last year, she lightly rear ended a van coming off the Saw Mill Parkway onto the Cross County. The van had little damage because it was moving forward. Our car had $6,000 of damage to the hood, grill and bumper. As a result of this her car insurance now costs $1,900 a year. I have no accidents, but my car insurance costs $1,100 a year. A few years ago we were both paying about $800 a year.
I know that if we had lower cost cars we would pay less in car insurance. And if we lived somewhere else we might have lower cost car insurance. But the fact remains that the damage in the 1st incident cost $3000 less to fix than the last incident because of inflation in the car repair business. Inflation can not be competed away and it drives up the cost of insurance because investment returns cover inflation everywhere in the process except in the actuarial necessity that premiums from the consumer cover the 95% to 100% of the expected losses. Shareholders would actually prefer that be 100% or 102%, and anything below 100% has to be covered by investment returns.
How is health insurance going to be affordable when almost any little illness causes $200 to $300 in Dr' bills plus another $100 in lab fees? Easy repairs to limbs cost $5,000 to $10,000 and sometimes more. Cancer, if treatment is successful, runs $50,000 to $100,000. And then there are the chronic illnesses like Diabetes, Lubus, MS, etc that cost at a minimum a few thousand $ a year.
We live in a society that had decided patients and Dr's get to decide on treatment. Even the current Head of HHS believes that. What that means is sick people get treated and the health insurance has to pay for it. And as I will lay out below, that is why competition will not lower the price of Health Insurance and if people cannot afford Health Insurance, they will end up in hospitals for treatment as uninsured people, and then we all pay for that somehow because hospitals need to be breakeven at worst.
My only insight into how the law of large numbers works on this dynamic is the state of the individual market in NYS before ObamaCare. No exclusion for pre-exsisting conditions and zero deductibles with the usual co-pays generated a $1,500 a month cost per person, which allowed the insurance company a profit. $3,000 a month for a couple equals $36,000 a year.
Now under ObamaCare, that cost is now roughly $5,800 a year with a $7,000 deductible/max-out-of-pocket per person with an insurance company profit. I expect to pay about $1,000 of that deductible so my total cost for one is $6,800 a year or $13,600 for a couple.
NYS has a fairly vibrant market for health insurance but that is the base line cost. How is competition going to reduce that when the insurance companies that are here are already working with the Dr's, Lab's, and hospitals to reduce the cost of visits for those with insurance. I know from speaking with Dr's that they are being squeezed and working to make up income on volume. The only way insurance competition can reduce costs is by reducing coverage or making some users pay more for what they want in their policies. And inflation in medical services can only be covered by increases in premiums. That is the way the private sector insurance market works.
And if the insurance companies want to manage that inflation they have to limit what they cover and that in particular puts a focus on new treatments that are very expensive, so the insurance companies essentially create death panels to limit their exposure to new treatments.
There is delicate balance that any insurer must manage when it comes to new treatments. But the reality is cancer is far more treatable today than it was 20 years ago. Who knows what improvements will come with other illnesses? Someone has to pay for new treatments or they will not develop to the point where they are useful to more people and covered.
That of course leads us to the issue of how can we as a society cover new treatments but keep the overall cost of health care within some budget. Conservatives like to focus on the growth in Medicaid rolls and tend to focus on the needs/cost of the poor. But the fact is that much of the growth in Medicaid costs comes from long term care for elderly dementia patients who spend down their resources and then go on Medicaid. I hate to be harsh, but as long as our society does not view euthanasia for dementia patients as acceptable, this will be an expense for Medicaid. So, either we pay this cost or we have to have a process for killing dementia patients. And dementia patients end up in hospitals costing money to be fixed up and sent back to the Long Term Care facility. There is circle of expense here that looks to me like a legal Ponzi Scheme for the Medical Treatment Business.
So,without euthanasia and death panels, private sector companies cannot control their costs and that is why competition will not make health insurance affordable for all levels of income.
Any Health Insurance Plan that wants to provide health insurance for everyone has to be Universal and if it is not, you either pass the cost of the uninsured receiving care onto the insured market or you have to deny such people any treatment that they cannot afford to pay for and you will have the poor dying in the streets as they did 200 years ago.
So, what do I support. Leave those with employer paid health insurance in the private insurance market. Leave Medicaid expanded for people who make 138% of the poverty level. And let anyone over the age of 26 who is in the individual market have access to a Medicare policy. If you are under 65, pay a premium equal to the full cost of the Medicaid policy for a basic level policy and if you want something better pay the full cost of the Medicare policy.
Thank you for reading this if you get this far.
But insurance provided by the private sector insurance market only works if the insurance companies make a profit after they cover their costs. Life Insurance is the easiest for the industry to make a profit because the statistics, required overhead and investment returns work in a synergy that produces a product that can be constructed in a variety of ways to satisfy consumer demand and be affordable. It is a very useful product but one that many lower wage people do not buy because they don't have the money for it. And non-working people do not have any either. But both of those classes of people need and demand medical care from hospitals if their is no other place for them to go.
The unfortunate truth about insurance is there are systemic issues that effect the relationship between affordability and profitability. Car insurance illustrates this. Inflation drives the cost of car insurance. RSL has unfortunately over the last 10 years had 3 incidents with her car. She damaged the under section when she hit some black ice in Vermont and went into the ditch. Repair bill as I recall was $3,000. She damaged the bumper when she misjudged an icy pile of snow pulling out of street parking. Repair bill $1,500 as I recall. And last year, she lightly rear ended a van coming off the Saw Mill Parkway onto the Cross County. The van had little damage because it was moving forward. Our car had $6,000 of damage to the hood, grill and bumper. As a result of this her car insurance now costs $1,900 a year. I have no accidents, but my car insurance costs $1,100 a year. A few years ago we were both paying about $800 a year.
I know that if we had lower cost cars we would pay less in car insurance. And if we lived somewhere else we might have lower cost car insurance. But the fact remains that the damage in the 1st incident cost $3000 less to fix than the last incident because of inflation in the car repair business. Inflation can not be competed away and it drives up the cost of insurance because investment returns cover inflation everywhere in the process except in the actuarial necessity that premiums from the consumer cover the 95% to 100% of the expected losses. Shareholders would actually prefer that be 100% or 102%, and anything below 100% has to be covered by investment returns.
How is health insurance going to be affordable when almost any little illness causes $200 to $300 in Dr' bills plus another $100 in lab fees? Easy repairs to limbs cost $5,000 to $10,000 and sometimes more. Cancer, if treatment is successful, runs $50,000 to $100,000. And then there are the chronic illnesses like Diabetes, Lubus, MS, etc that cost at a minimum a few thousand $ a year.
We live in a society that had decided patients and Dr's get to decide on treatment. Even the current Head of HHS believes that. What that means is sick people get treated and the health insurance has to pay for it. And as I will lay out below, that is why competition will not lower the price of Health Insurance and if people cannot afford Health Insurance, they will end up in hospitals for treatment as uninsured people, and then we all pay for that somehow because hospitals need to be breakeven at worst.
My only insight into how the law of large numbers works on this dynamic is the state of the individual market in NYS before ObamaCare. No exclusion for pre-exsisting conditions and zero deductibles with the usual co-pays generated a $1,500 a month cost per person, which allowed the insurance company a profit. $3,000 a month for a couple equals $36,000 a year.
Now under ObamaCare, that cost is now roughly $5,800 a year with a $7,000 deductible/max-out-of-pocket per person with an insurance company profit. I expect to pay about $1,000 of that deductible so my total cost for one is $6,800 a year or $13,600 for a couple.
NYS has a fairly vibrant market for health insurance but that is the base line cost. How is competition going to reduce that when the insurance companies that are here are already working with the Dr's, Lab's, and hospitals to reduce the cost of visits for those with insurance. I know from speaking with Dr's that they are being squeezed and working to make up income on volume. The only way insurance competition can reduce costs is by reducing coverage or making some users pay more for what they want in their policies. And inflation in medical services can only be covered by increases in premiums. That is the way the private sector insurance market works.
And if the insurance companies want to manage that inflation they have to limit what they cover and that in particular puts a focus on new treatments that are very expensive, so the insurance companies essentially create death panels to limit their exposure to new treatments.
There is delicate balance that any insurer must manage when it comes to new treatments. But the reality is cancer is far more treatable today than it was 20 years ago. Who knows what improvements will come with other illnesses? Someone has to pay for new treatments or they will not develop to the point where they are useful to more people and covered.
That of course leads us to the issue of how can we as a society cover new treatments but keep the overall cost of health care within some budget. Conservatives like to focus on the growth in Medicaid rolls and tend to focus on the needs/cost of the poor. But the fact is that much of the growth in Medicaid costs comes from long term care for elderly dementia patients who spend down their resources and then go on Medicaid. I hate to be harsh, but as long as our society does not view euthanasia for dementia patients as acceptable, this will be an expense for Medicaid. So, either we pay this cost or we have to have a process for killing dementia patients. And dementia patients end up in hospitals costing money to be fixed up and sent back to the Long Term Care facility. There is circle of expense here that looks to me like a legal Ponzi Scheme for the Medical Treatment Business.
So,without euthanasia and death panels, private sector companies cannot control their costs and that is why competition will not make health insurance affordable for all levels of income.
Any Health Insurance Plan that wants to provide health insurance for everyone has to be Universal and if it is not, you either pass the cost of the uninsured receiving care onto the insured market or you have to deny such people any treatment that they cannot afford to pay for and you will have the poor dying in the streets as they did 200 years ago.
So, what do I support. Leave those with employer paid health insurance in the private insurance market. Leave Medicaid expanded for people who make 138% of the poverty level. And let anyone over the age of 26 who is in the individual market have access to a Medicare policy. If you are under 65, pay a premium equal to the full cost of the Medicaid policy for a basic level policy and if you want something better pay the full cost of the Medicare policy.
Thank you for reading this if you get this far.
Wednesday, March 15, 2017
Just Wondering, Is the GOP Imploding?
That's a strong statement and no matter what happens, I don't expect the Democrat's to capture hardcore GOP voters without an Economic message that will appeal to them.
But, when I read newspapers in GOP districts from states that expanded Medicaid, I see GOP congressman discussing their concerns that TrumpRyanCare doesn't create a system that will work for the working poor and lower middle class when it is fully implemented. Because these peoples jobs almost certainly do not last forever, and may or may not provide them with health insurance, they move on and off of Medicaid over time. TrumpRyanCare would not cover them once they left the rolls in 2020.
Meanwhile, hard core Conservatives who dominate the alt-right media channels are against anything that falls short of a full repeal of ObamaCare and a return to misery for many that the pre-ObamaCare generated.
Reading the WAPO today was like reading war stories with words as the weapon of choice.
It is too much too hope for, perhaps, but is it possible the GOP cracks up over the American Health Care Act, aka TrumpRyanCare, and cannot be stitched back together before the 2018 election and the voters actually decide they want to throw the bums out and elect a Democratic Congress?
Maybe that thought will make my dreams more pleasant tonight.
But, when I read newspapers in GOP districts from states that expanded Medicaid, I see GOP congressman discussing their concerns that TrumpRyanCare doesn't create a system that will work for the working poor and lower middle class when it is fully implemented. Because these peoples jobs almost certainly do not last forever, and may or may not provide them with health insurance, they move on and off of Medicaid over time. TrumpRyanCare would not cover them once they left the rolls in 2020.
Meanwhile, hard core Conservatives who dominate the alt-right media channels are against anything that falls short of a full repeal of ObamaCare and a return to misery for many that the pre-ObamaCare generated.
Reading the WAPO today was like reading war stories with words as the weapon of choice.
It is too much too hope for, perhaps, but is it possible the GOP cracks up over the American Health Care Act, aka TrumpRyanCare, and cannot be stitched back together before the 2018 election and the voters actually decide they want to throw the bums out and elect a Democratic Congress?
Maybe that thought will make my dreams more pleasant tonight.
Tuesday, March 14, 2017
Purity vs Irony
That seems better than Purism vs Ironism.
Anyway, David Brooks study of philosophy has finally found a path back to reality. It is a bit funny that he published his column today as RSL has gotten politically active (beyond voting) and I went to an ACLU teach in event on practical ways to be involved. At the end, many people bolted and a few stayed on to talk, as well was partake in the wine and vittles the host had provided. As anyone who knows me, wine and munchies are all I need to be the last one at a party.
The discussion meandered around, but I finally got to make my point that Democrats need to find ways to back off on social issues, and I specifically mentioned the issue of baking cakes for a gay wedding. We went quickly to the difficult issue of how is religious discrimination against gays different from white discrimination against blacks. At one level, I agree it is not. Thankfully, the sponsor, who is am attorney, made a coherent case that constitutionally protection of religious belief is on an equal footing with an individual's right to buy something from someone. And if the latter person has alternative places to make their purchase, they have not been harmed. What makes this situation different from racism is that is conducted on an individual level and not at a societal/legality level.
In fact, I can now see the logic why Orthodox Religious people feel their religion is not being respected and I certainly understand why they would vote that issue over any economic issue that caused them harm. If a Democrat wants some of their votes, the discussion must be moved off of religion.
If Democrat's wants to win in a district where a significant number of voters are religious (which is a significant part of the country), they have to acknowledge that once social issues have been won at the societal/legal level, you stop trying to do anything beyond protecting the issue at that level and you let individuals figure it out at the very local level. If there is some rude behavior and sensitivities are harmed, well that occurs in life and we all have to get over it and move on with our life. Buy your wedding cake at a place that welcomes your business.
Anyway, David Brook's column on this issue is worth reading.
The Benedict Option
Anyway, David Brooks study of philosophy has finally found a path back to reality. It is a bit funny that he published his column today as RSL has gotten politically active (beyond voting) and I went to an ACLU teach in event on practical ways to be involved. At the end, many people bolted and a few stayed on to talk, as well was partake in the wine and vittles the host had provided. As anyone who knows me, wine and munchies are all I need to be the last one at a party.
The discussion meandered around, but I finally got to make my point that Democrats need to find ways to back off on social issues, and I specifically mentioned the issue of baking cakes for a gay wedding. We went quickly to the difficult issue of how is religious discrimination against gays different from white discrimination against blacks. At one level, I agree it is not. Thankfully, the sponsor, who is am attorney, made a coherent case that constitutionally protection of religious belief is on an equal footing with an individual's right to buy something from someone. And if the latter person has alternative places to make their purchase, they have not been harmed. What makes this situation different from racism is that is conducted on an individual level and not at a societal/legality level.
In fact, I can now see the logic why Orthodox Religious people feel their religion is not being respected and I certainly understand why they would vote that issue over any economic issue that caused them harm. If a Democrat wants some of their votes, the discussion must be moved off of religion.
If Democrat's wants to win in a district where a significant number of voters are religious (which is a significant part of the country), they have to acknowledge that once social issues have been won at the societal/legal level, you stop trying to do anything beyond protecting the issue at that level and you let individuals figure it out at the very local level. If there is some rude behavior and sensitivities are harmed, well that occurs in life and we all have to get over it and move on with our life. Buy your wedding cake at a place that welcomes your business.
Anyway, David Brook's column on this issue is worth reading.
The Benedict Option
Friday, March 10, 2017
David Brooks further Outlines the Battle Lines
I'm going to have to reread this to try and have an idea of what campaign themes the Democrats can use to keep the base mollified while attracting back rural FDWVFT.
FDWVFT: Former Democrats Who Voted For Trump
Link to Brooks "The GOP Health Care Crackup"
FDWVFT: Former Democrats Who Voted For Trump
Link to Brooks "The GOP Health Care Crackup"
Thursday, March 9, 2017
Is King Donald's Administration Imploding?
Perhaps on the policy front. Click through on the link to Jennifer Rubin's column today. I have to admit for someone who is a conservative (she hated everything Obama and loved everything Bush II), she has consistently stood against King Donald.
Link to column explaining why the White House has no concrete policies in motion
Link to column explaining why the White House has no concrete policies in motion
Wednesday, March 8, 2017
GOP Health Insurance: Bring Back State Run Death Panels
The cruelty of the GOP towards people without wealth is stunning. I know they think society cannot afford to reward lackadaisical and irresponsible behaviors, but for people to participate in society in a responsible way they have to have hope and a stake in our system. The greed grab going on in the GOP agenda with everything aimed at reducing taxes on the 1% is unbelievable.
Today's 1st section of the paper was a mind-blowing insight into this cruelty. Legal immigrants crossing the border into Canada fleeing this land that used to welcome the tired, hungry and poor. Now they take a taxi to the border, hop a creek and welcome the warmth of a Canadian Border Patrol car. There was no story about the breaking up of families because one parent is not here legally, but the rest are. Where is the GOP angst about single parent families and the less than optimal societal behavior that results (in their mind) from single parent families? Where is their focus on family values? In the gutter of hypocrisy. The only family values that matter to them is prohibiting things they do not agree with, and trashing family values that they oppose.
And then I moved on to analysis of the GOP Health Insurance. Back in the good old days before the ACA, States determined which procedures they would cover for people on Medicaid. That generally did not involve new technology. So as new procedures and process developed for serious illness, people on Medicaid were denied access to this new stuff. So when you have a block grant to the states for Medicaid, states will be forced by the design of the system to develop death panels. Where is Sarah Palin when you need her. I guess this falls into the gutter of hypocrisy for some GOP leaders.
Link to column explaining Necessity of Death Panels in GOP Construct
Link to Editorial highlighting Cruelty and loss of insurance coverage in GOP Construct
Link to Ross Douthat Explaining a Political Fatal Flaw in GOP Health Insurance
Today's 1st section of the paper was a mind-blowing insight into this cruelty. Legal immigrants crossing the border into Canada fleeing this land that used to welcome the tired, hungry and poor. Now they take a taxi to the border, hop a creek and welcome the warmth of a Canadian Border Patrol car. There was no story about the breaking up of families because one parent is not here legally, but the rest are. Where is the GOP angst about single parent families and the less than optimal societal behavior that results (in their mind) from single parent families? Where is their focus on family values? In the gutter of hypocrisy. The only family values that matter to them is prohibiting things they do not agree with, and trashing family values that they oppose.
And then I moved on to analysis of the GOP Health Insurance. Back in the good old days before the ACA, States determined which procedures they would cover for people on Medicaid. That generally did not involve new technology. So as new procedures and process developed for serious illness, people on Medicaid were denied access to this new stuff. So when you have a block grant to the states for Medicaid, states will be forced by the design of the system to develop death panels. Where is Sarah Palin when you need her. I guess this falls into the gutter of hypocrisy for some GOP leaders.
Link to column explaining Necessity of Death Panels in GOP Construct
Link to Editorial highlighting Cruelty and loss of insurance coverage in GOP Construct
Link to Ross Douthat Explaining a Political Fatal Flaw in GOP Health Insurance
Tuesday, March 7, 2017
Fatal Flaw in House GOP Health Insurance Proposal
In my mind the biggest problem with the ACA, aka Heritage Foundation/RomneyCare/ObamaCare, is that for people who are not on Medicaid/getting a subsidy to pay for health insurance, it is expensive for most people who do not have employer paid health insurance.
But remember the old system wasn't inexpensive. When I last worked in 2011, I was paying roughly $400 a month for health insurance with a 3,000 or 4,000 deductible and a higher max out-of-pocket. My friend, RedStateVT, was in the individual market paying roughly $200 a month for a family policy, but with a 25,000 deductible/max-out-of-pocket. And the Federal Government was paying $billions to hospitals to compensate them for providing health care to people with no health insurance, while they jacked up the price to insured people for the same reason. In our economy, everyone needs to cover their costs at a minimum. That remains true today.
So, now we see the House GOP plan. People with pre-existing conditions get health insurance at the same price as everybody else if they have maintained insurance coverage. And people without pre-existing conditions can go uninsured with no penalty and sign up for health insurance when they are good and ready at no penalty if at that moment they do not have a pre-existing condition. Do you really think people will not game this system to sign up for health insurance when they know they have something coming up? Do you really think the Hospitals will not have to deal with uninsured patients who come in after an accident? Do you know that cancer can strike anyone of any age at any time, potentially, and where will they go for treatment?
I know the GOP thinks the later group should suffer financially for their folly, but lets get on to the fatal flaw.
Tax Credits are only a benefit if you work and occur in the 1st 4 months of the year following the year in which you are seeking health insurance. In the current system, with the requirement that everybody have health insurance, where the insurance company can make a profit in NY costs a full paying individual $500 a month with a $6,000 deductible, max-out-of-pocket.
How is a $4,000 tax credit in April following the year of cash out-flow going to motivate a low/middle income person to pay $6,000 (individual) to $12,000 (family) plus deductibles when they make $40,000 a year pre-tax, 28,000 after-tax and have to pay for rent, food, car, clothes? No one will pay 40% of their take home for health insurance no matter what the tax credit is.
And once you have uninsured who is going to subsidize the hospitals for their treatment?
And what happens when the tax credit expires in 2020 or whatever the House GOP stuck in the bill?
Their plan is not a functional plan that will maintain coverage for everyone who has it today nor will it lower the price of health insurance for those who are full payers today.
To quote King Donald, "Health Insurance is unbelievably complicated." My reaction to that was, where has he been if he just figured that out? And he calls himself the smartest person he knows. He is delusional, but any more ranting on that point will have to wait for another time.
But remember the old system wasn't inexpensive. When I last worked in 2011, I was paying roughly $400 a month for health insurance with a 3,000 or 4,000 deductible and a higher max out-of-pocket. My friend, RedStateVT, was in the individual market paying roughly $200 a month for a family policy, but with a 25,000 deductible/max-out-of-pocket. And the Federal Government was paying $billions to hospitals to compensate them for providing health care to people with no health insurance, while they jacked up the price to insured people for the same reason. In our economy, everyone needs to cover their costs at a minimum. That remains true today.
So, now we see the House GOP plan. People with pre-existing conditions get health insurance at the same price as everybody else if they have maintained insurance coverage. And people without pre-existing conditions can go uninsured with no penalty and sign up for health insurance when they are good and ready at no penalty if at that moment they do not have a pre-existing condition. Do you really think people will not game this system to sign up for health insurance when they know they have something coming up? Do you really think the Hospitals will not have to deal with uninsured patients who come in after an accident? Do you know that cancer can strike anyone of any age at any time, potentially, and where will they go for treatment?
I know the GOP thinks the later group should suffer financially for their folly, but lets get on to the fatal flaw.
Tax Credits are only a benefit if you work and occur in the 1st 4 months of the year following the year in which you are seeking health insurance. In the current system, with the requirement that everybody have health insurance, where the insurance company can make a profit in NY costs a full paying individual $500 a month with a $6,000 deductible, max-out-of-pocket.
How is a $4,000 tax credit in April following the year of cash out-flow going to motivate a low/middle income person to pay $6,000 (individual) to $12,000 (family) plus deductibles when they make $40,000 a year pre-tax, 28,000 after-tax and have to pay for rent, food, car, clothes? No one will pay 40% of their take home for health insurance no matter what the tax credit is.
And once you have uninsured who is going to subsidize the hospitals for their treatment?
And what happens when the tax credit expires in 2020 or whatever the House GOP stuck in the bill?
Their plan is not a functional plan that will maintain coverage for everyone who has it today nor will it lower the price of health insurance for those who are full payers today.
To quote King Donald, "Health Insurance is unbelievably complicated." My reaction to that was, where has he been if he just figured that out? And he calls himself the smartest person he knows. He is delusional, but any more ranting on that point will have to wait for another time.
Monday, March 6, 2017
Trump Blames Obama, What is Trump Hiding?
Donald Trump thinks he can go back to the well and pull up another falsehood that will somehow save him. After all, he made his political mark by accusing President Obama of being born in Kenya, not a citizen and being a Muslim. Trump has barely admitted that all of that was wrong. Now, in some desperate move, he accuses Retired President Obama of directing that Trump Tower be wiretapped.
It is a base fact that for that to happen would require a Judge to authorize such thing based upon some evidence that illegal actions were taking place in such a location. In other words, either King Donald is making something up out of thin air to distract from something he is trying to hide, or there were illegal actions taking place somewhere in the Trump Tower.
Neither is pretty condition for the President of the United States to be in.
When will the GOP Congress have enough of this? I for one am ready for President Mike Pence so we can do back to arguing over policies, not crap like this.
Meanwhile, Trump wants Congress to investigate this falsehood. While they are at it, why don't they investigate President Obama's birth certificate? Why don't they investigate Donald Trump's tax returns? Why don't they pass some laws? This Congress cannot chew gum and walk at the same time.
It is a base fact that for that to happen would require a Judge to authorize such thing based upon some evidence that illegal actions were taking place in such a location. In other words, either King Donald is making something up out of thin air to distract from something he is trying to hide, or there were illegal actions taking place somewhere in the Trump Tower.
Neither is pretty condition for the President of the United States to be in.
When will the GOP Congress have enough of this? I for one am ready for President Mike Pence so we can do back to arguing over policies, not crap like this.
Meanwhile, Trump wants Congress to investigate this falsehood. While they are at it, why don't they investigate President Obama's birth certificate? Why don't they investigate Donald Trump's tax returns? Why don't they pass some laws? This Congress cannot chew gum and walk at the same time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)