Where can There Be Compromise on Health Care

Legislatively, we are at an impasse on this topic, while many voters are agitating for a solution.   The Tea Party no doubt, while basically non-vocal at this stage, want a return to what we had before Heritage Foundation/Romney/ObamaCare while Progressives want a Single Payer Plan.  Neither is likely to see this Congress pass anything that will make them happy.  Which means they will be unhappy.

It would have been nice to see Congress really working on a solution that would solve the real source of unhappiness with HF/R/ObamaCare:  the high cost of health insurance and high deductibles. Unfortunately, high deductibles are the only way insurance companies can control the cost and if you reduce the deductibles, you will increase the cost, and vice versa.

A Michael Strain, who I believe is an economist on faculty somewhere, wrote a column for Bloomberg News on a possible path to bridging this impasse and bringing some real relief to the mass of voters on this issue.

HIs idea is the following:  Republicans need to acknowledge that universal coverage is the right goal, but it has to be affordable to both households and the government.   This means there has to be a carrot to get young people to buy insurance and there must be coverage for those with pre-existing conditions.  There must also be subsidies to make insurance affordable.

Democrats will need to acknowledge that catastrophic health insurance is health insurance and that to reduce this economic conundrum between premiums and deductibles, you need to bring some choice into the equation.  His idea is that preventive care and other forms of routine care, be the responsibility of the policyholders to pay. This is essentially what is already happening with the high deductibles.  The trick is to figure out a way to get make the total package affordable to the working poor and those with pre-existing conditions who end up in a high risk pool.

I would add to this, that long term care for elderly and long-term disabled, be separated from Medicaid so that there is a clear picture of what is basically a very different problem from what the cost of providing Health Care to the working poor.

The author's basic premise is that people need insurance for protection against Catastrophic health developments, but insurance cannot pay for all routine care, for those with money, and be affordable when some people will abuse that coverage.  That is where the Progressives must compromise in return for the acknowledgement that Universal Coverage will be obtained in the form of affordable catastrophic health insurance.

The trick of course will be what is the dollar value of catastrophic coverage for each income level.  A working middle class family will struggle with a value of $5,000 while an upper middle class person might be comfortable with a $25,000 value.  As a retired person, pre-Medicare, I don't think I would be comfortable with anything much greater than the $7,000 my current health insurance has as a max-out-of-pocket.  And that insurance is costing me almost $500 a month for myself.

Anyway, I ran this by RedStateVT and he saw merit in it.  I see merit in it.  Will politician's?  The author is not betting on it anytime soon.

Afghanistan & David Brook's Channels this blog

All I can say is after 15 years of military action not working to produce a successful nation, something has to be done about the broken state of Afghanistan.   And, yes, Pakistan, another basically failed nation, has to be part of the solution.  You can't fix Afghanistan if the Pakistani's don't control their own state, and groups like the Taliban are allowed to operate like a baby ISIS.  The Taliban flow back and forth across the border like Americans and Canadians cross their border.  And until Pakistan controls their border, there will be no military solution in Afghanistan.

So, Trump is right that their has to be a successful military in Afghanistan to fight the many radical Islamic groups that operate there and in Pakistan, and Pakistan needs to be part of the solution, but they also have to solve their issues.  Remember, Osama Bin Ladin hid in Pakistan for many years before being found.  And Pakistan sent terrorists to India.  I don't know if the Taliban can be a responsible negotiating partner, I am not sure they are interested in governing a country in a manner acceptable to the West and India/China.  But I am quite sure that we cannot defeat the Taliban as long as they can run back to Pakistan and regroup.  And that is the state of that part of the world today.

I am a part of Indivisible Westchester, but I am not as liberal as many who are in that organization.  Long time readers know I am open to the argument that market forces have a role in managing society.  What I am not open to is what I read about in this week's NYT book review.  James Buchanan, who won a Nobel Prize for his advocacy of the role for market forces as the most efficient form of managing society, also advocated a dark state of monied people doing what they can behind the scenes to prevent the democratic process from taking their wealth.  He was obviously prescient as that is pretty much what has developed in the U.S. with Supreme Court decisions by Justices who have undoubtedly read him and met with him.

In today's column, David Brooks advocates why moderation and listening to both sides of the traditional socialist/market force debate is necessary for society to move forward in a balance manner.  We are a long way from there today and there is no clear path for American politics to move from its current partisan path to a more moderate path.

Link to Brook's column on Moderates

Attn: Democrats, Trump Campaign Had an Economic Agenda & Other Musings

I will get to the Headline later on, but 1st I bring you an optimistic note.  Gail Collins column today says at least we won't have to take down any statues of Trump.  All we will have to do is figure out a way to get them off a lot of signs and buildings.

Meanwhile, Bret Stephens, who I know RedStateVT likes a lot, is now in, and may have been in longer, the Impeach Trump Now camp.  Strangely, Netanyahu, needed 3 days to come out against Nazi revivalists chanting the "Jews will not replace us".

Link to Bret Stephens, Impeach Trump Now column

I, like Bret Stephens, never believed Trump had the character to be President.  Trump doesn't have the character to lead a public company or any other bureaucratic organization.  His temperament is only suited to a family office or some similar personality driven/accommodating environment like a TV show.

But, apparently in all that Trumpian rhetoric there was an economic message that spoke to voters who have not been winners in the globalization economy of the last 30 years.  And within that message, there are issues that the Democrats need to think about and decide what policies they want to promote.

I can offer some suggestions to contemplate:  higher minimum wages that reflect age and cost of living; a border VAT tax on imports (if it complies with Trade Agreements), revenue neutral tax reform, a public health insurance option for people with pre-existing conditions, enhanced HSA allowances so people without earned income can contribute, streamlining regulations so they are simplified but retain effectiveness, and comprehensive compassionate immigration reform.


Good Explanation of Trump's Campaign Economic Agenda

What the H*ll is Going on in the U.S.A.

I have a lot of foreign readers and I know that is what you are asking.  It is also what my mind is asking and I have taken a lot of time to think about this before putting fingers to the keyboard.

The only answer is really what did you think a prominent promoter of the birther movement would really believe.  Trump is a racist for some reason and he believes in his heart that racists deserve respect for their views.  And he believes the alt-right view that there is an alt-left violent extremist movement.  While I will acknowledge that criminal acts occurred during the Inauguration demonstration, the fact is that was a small minority of the many thousands who have demonstrated against Trump on multiple occasions without any criminal acts.  In contrast, what are we to make of people who march at night with torches (a favorite KKK activity), throw their hands in the air with Heil Hitler salutes, and believe in white supremacy.

All you have to do is look at the historical horrors of Slavery, Apartheid, Nazi Germany, and Russia in repeated ways to know white people are not a superior race to any other race.  Human beings are all the same.  We can be honorable loving people or we can be horrible.  Asian cultures have had multiple genocides.  Africa has corruption, rampant criminality, and smaller genocides.  The Islamic world is full of examples of innocents being slaughtered in the name of religious piety.

The alt-right wants to return to a culture where white people reign supreme over other people.  They have no other goal, and Donald Trump believes in that goal for some reason.  That is why Trump was a birther during the Obama Administration.  That is why he was unfit to be President and I for one cannot fathom how any respectable Republican could justify putting this man in the White House so they could have a conservative Supreme Court and pass tax cuts for the wealthy.

This is a nightmare.  It is exhausting for those of us who live with this b*llsh*t every single day of the week.  And I don't understand how any respectable human being could work for this man. Anyone who does has a questionable character.

So my foreign readers, I know each of you has your own challenges in this area.  The world is a pretty f*cking ugly place right now because government has failed in the Islamic world, migrants are causing stress in the Western world, and people are fed up with this and listening to Alt-right candidates all over the place.  We need a global decency movement that can still deal with authoritarian thugs.