Wednesday, October 31, 2012
Hit the Link and Play the Game
I doubt there is anyway to do this without making corporate health insurance subsidies taxable income or a value added tax. This is why Romney numbers don't add up. And I wonder if he could get a GOP House to even bring them out of committee.
Balance the Budget the Romney Way
Society & Economic Policy
This post is going to be a struggle to keep clear because my thoughts are not fully developed.
Link to Article that Inspired this
The article outlines the societal outcomes that have arisen from the pressures of globalization. The new information for me in particular is how much worse we are in certain measures versus many other developed countries. We spend less on early childhood education and have much more inequality in the success of education across this land than other countries do. Combine that with globalization and you have the growth in income inequality.
I have benefited from globalization and my education made me well equipped to compete. I hope that I have imparted that advantage on my child. Time will tell, but it looks good so far. I believe in personal responsibility for parenting and education, but I also believe that as a country we should benchmark ourselves against other countries and think seriously about why we may be falling behind and what should be done about that.
For the last 30 years, Supply Side Economics has dominated Economic Policy. Tax Policy has favored capital over labor. Most of my thought process thinks leaning in this direction is healthy and would have resulted in our having widespread solid economic growth. It is possible that the Great Recession skews current measures and the interactions on a longer term basis are in a sounder position, but I am not so sure given the length of the trends.
In particular, the ability of the wealthy to convert ordinary income to capital return is not fair and working for income should be treated fairly by economic policy.
What is most interesting about many rich people is that they volunteer to give their wealth to charity as they age. But many of them do not want to pay higher taxes that would support paying for early education for the masses. Wouldn't it be better to give them skills so they don't need charity as they age?
I know reality is complex, but I have to conclude this ramble with the one thing I know is different between the U.S. and the countries that rank higher in quality of life societal measures. Universal Health Insurance paid for by individuals and neither tied to employment nor paid by the employer. Obviously we do not have that in the U.S.
What would such a system look like?
Individuals would pay for their own health insurance. It would look like health insurance today but with the government paying some portion of the health insurance rather than the employers.
Health Insurance would be portable as you move from job to job. No More Cobra.
The same Health Insurance coverage across state lines.
National Medical Malpractice policy, no more shopping for jurisdictions, with a focus on payment for incompetence not innocent mistakes. I know that is complicated but I really believe people should not look to or become rich off of insurance claims. Particularly, when a Dr had good intentions. Reform of this should address the situation where tests are given simply to provide defense from malpractice lawsuits.
You can leave the providers of health care in the private market. There is no need to employ everyone as in Socialized Medicine. Competition on being cost competitive there should be encouraged.
So, what am I advocating? Tax policies that level the playing field between capital and labor. Reduce and eliminate as much as possible tax subsidies and use that revenue to reduce tax rates preserving that element of supply side economics. National Health Insurance. And some focus on raising education standards for those in rural and lower income areas. And I am saying vote for moderates of both parties who understand this need for balance.
Link to Article that Inspired this
The article outlines the societal outcomes that have arisen from the pressures of globalization. The new information for me in particular is how much worse we are in certain measures versus many other developed countries. We spend less on early childhood education and have much more inequality in the success of education across this land than other countries do. Combine that with globalization and you have the growth in income inequality.
I have benefited from globalization and my education made me well equipped to compete. I hope that I have imparted that advantage on my child. Time will tell, but it looks good so far. I believe in personal responsibility for parenting and education, but I also believe that as a country we should benchmark ourselves against other countries and think seriously about why we may be falling behind and what should be done about that.
For the last 30 years, Supply Side Economics has dominated Economic Policy. Tax Policy has favored capital over labor. Most of my thought process thinks leaning in this direction is healthy and would have resulted in our having widespread solid economic growth. It is possible that the Great Recession skews current measures and the interactions on a longer term basis are in a sounder position, but I am not so sure given the length of the trends.
In particular, the ability of the wealthy to convert ordinary income to capital return is not fair and working for income should be treated fairly by economic policy.
What is most interesting about many rich people is that they volunteer to give their wealth to charity as they age. But many of them do not want to pay higher taxes that would support paying for early education for the masses. Wouldn't it be better to give them skills so they don't need charity as they age?
I know reality is complex, but I have to conclude this ramble with the one thing I know is different between the U.S. and the countries that rank higher in quality of life societal measures. Universal Health Insurance paid for by individuals and neither tied to employment nor paid by the employer. Obviously we do not have that in the U.S.
What would such a system look like?
Individuals would pay for their own health insurance. It would look like health insurance today but with the government paying some portion of the health insurance rather than the employers.
Health Insurance would be portable as you move from job to job. No More Cobra.
The same Health Insurance coverage across state lines.
National Medical Malpractice policy, no more shopping for jurisdictions, with a focus on payment for incompetence not innocent mistakes. I know that is complicated but I really believe people should not look to or become rich off of insurance claims. Particularly, when a Dr had good intentions. Reform of this should address the situation where tests are given simply to provide defense from malpractice lawsuits.
You can leave the providers of health care in the private market. There is no need to employ everyone as in Socialized Medicine. Competition on being cost competitive there should be encouraged.
So, what am I advocating? Tax policies that level the playing field between capital and labor. Reduce and eliminate as much as possible tax subsidies and use that revenue to reduce tax rates preserving that element of supply side economics. National Health Insurance. And some focus on raising education standards for those in rural and lower income areas. And I am saying vote for moderates of both parties who understand this need for balance.
Tuesday, October 30, 2012
Why ObamaCare Matters to me Personally
Yesterday, in the middle of Hurricane Sandy blasting us with wind, I found a voice mail from a nice lady in Empire Blue Cross Blue Shield's customer service department informing me that my wife's claims for her continuing chemotherapy were being denied because the cancer was a pre-existing condition. The exclusion for such claims runs for a year and then would be covered.
Now the Affordable Health Care Act and NY State Law already make this illegal if you have had insurance up until the time you became covered by Empire, which we did. However, although we had provided evidence of such insurance during the application process, that evidence of insurance went to the sales group in Roanoke, VA and apparently did not make it into the records of the Claims Department somewhere in NY. I think it is in Albany but who really knows in this modern world of the internet.
More nice ladies told me to fax said evidence of insurance, which I had in a file, and then found the fax in the system and advanced it to the next stage. Bottom line, $36,000 of claims that I will have to pay, if Empire does not, are at stake here. Empire has contrived to stall, delay and deny responsibility for payment of this every step of the way. This process started in July and will still take another 60 days for the provider to receive payment.
What if I hadn't saved the proper paperwork after sending it in with the application? What if I were a senior citizen with diminished mental capacity? This is why we need one universal health insurance system. Our old insurance company had all the information and was paying. Our COBRA period ran out and we were forced into the individual health insurance market with a different insurance company. Yes, Empire will eventually pay but only because we had the sense to save some paperwork.
Clearly, Empire has a process here that tries to protect themselves from paying things they do not have to, but in that process, they spend a lot of employees time on things that only delay payment, not prevent it. That imposes unnecessary costs onto the health care system.
Curascripts has higher working capital charges because Empire has not paid them. The Dr's office has higher working capital charges because they have not been paid. Empire has higher operating expense because they need more customer service representatives to speak with people like me and the claim's review process has more people reviewing the same claim multiple times. The next review of this claim will be the 4th one. All these higher expenses are paid by us in higher insurance premiums and provider charges. None of these expenses would occur under a universal health insurance system.
Romney Ryan want to turn Medicare into a private health insurance system that will place the elderly with their reduced mental capacities into a system that is a challenge for younger people to manage. The only result of this will be some of the elderly (and maybe at some point in life, every elderly person) abstaining from health care because they won't know how to manage the insurance coverage and think they have to pay for it, which they cannot afford to. Then they will end up in the hospital when they collapse. It will not reduce the cost of health care for the system because the last 90 days of life are the most expensive and more people will end up in hospitals for their last days.
We have Universal Health Insurance in Medicare and we should have it for people of all ages.
The current system is a nightmare when you get caught up in it.
Now the Affordable Health Care Act and NY State Law already make this illegal if you have had insurance up until the time you became covered by Empire, which we did. However, although we had provided evidence of such insurance during the application process, that evidence of insurance went to the sales group in Roanoke, VA and apparently did not make it into the records of the Claims Department somewhere in NY. I think it is in Albany but who really knows in this modern world of the internet.
More nice ladies told me to fax said evidence of insurance, which I had in a file, and then found the fax in the system and advanced it to the next stage. Bottom line, $36,000 of claims that I will have to pay, if Empire does not, are at stake here. Empire has contrived to stall, delay and deny responsibility for payment of this every step of the way. This process started in July and will still take another 60 days for the provider to receive payment.
What if I hadn't saved the proper paperwork after sending it in with the application? What if I were a senior citizen with diminished mental capacity? This is why we need one universal health insurance system. Our old insurance company had all the information and was paying. Our COBRA period ran out and we were forced into the individual health insurance market with a different insurance company. Yes, Empire will eventually pay but only because we had the sense to save some paperwork.
Clearly, Empire has a process here that tries to protect themselves from paying things they do not have to, but in that process, they spend a lot of employees time on things that only delay payment, not prevent it. That imposes unnecessary costs onto the health care system.
Curascripts has higher working capital charges because Empire has not paid them. The Dr's office has higher working capital charges because they have not been paid. Empire has higher operating expense because they need more customer service representatives to speak with people like me and the claim's review process has more people reviewing the same claim multiple times. The next review of this claim will be the 4th one. All these higher expenses are paid by us in higher insurance premiums and provider charges. None of these expenses would occur under a universal health insurance system.
Romney Ryan want to turn Medicare into a private health insurance system that will place the elderly with their reduced mental capacities into a system that is a challenge for younger people to manage. The only result of this will be some of the elderly (and maybe at some point in life, every elderly person) abstaining from health care because they won't know how to manage the insurance coverage and think they have to pay for it, which they cannot afford to. Then they will end up in the hospital when they collapse. It will not reduce the cost of health care for the system because the last 90 days of life are the most expensive and more people will end up in hospitals for their last days.
We have Universal Health Insurance in Medicare and we should have it for people of all ages.
The current system is a nightmare when you get caught up in it.
Sunday, October 28, 2012
If Only Obama had said this in Debate 1
Low Taxes do not help the rich. Low taxes help the super rich, the 1%; not the vast majority of those who are well off but depend on a vibrant middle class to buy their goods and services. That middle class has been harmed by the bursting of a real estate bubble caused by a lack of regulation and the hollowing out of our education system and infrastructure.
Link to Robert Frank who inspired that thought
Policies matter. Income inequality in the U.S. has been a long time coming and will take a long time to be overcome. The reasons for this trend are complex and based in a combination of economic comparative advantage with capitalism's ruthless pursuit of the highest return on capital. The only thing government can do is create a set of policies that allow each American to improve their own personal comparative advantage.
The Democratic set of policies is focused on balancing the budget in a fair manner. Yes, we will cut expenses in many places, but we also do so in a manner that preserves the government's ability to meet its obligations to retirement benefits, helping those who need help and spending to support education and infrastructure. To do that, we need to raise revenues from those who can afford to pay.
The Republican set of policies that supposedly will address economic inequality use disproven myths as their basis of truth and they are not true.
"America is the land of opportunity". Not for those who do not benefit from parents who can afford college. When I was a youth, my middle class parents could afford to pay for a private college education without my borrowing any money. Today, I estimate my parents would be making $80,000 to $90,000 or roughly take home of $58,000 after tax and health insurance. How could they afford to pay even the $25,000 that a public college costs let alone the $50,000 that a private school costs? Is it any wonder that students today have thousands of dollars of debt when they graduate and the debt repayment delays their participation in the middle class spending patterns. Now the Community Colleges of America cost less and do a wonderful job preparing people to participate in the economy. But public education must prepare children uniformly to be well prepared for such an education and global competition. That is why democratic policies will continue to provide financial support for education. Most kids cannot borrow the money from their parents, Governor Romney.
"Trickle-down Economics works". If it works so well, why is the comparison of my family's place in time the truth?
"The rich are the job creators". Yes and no, entrepreneurs create jobs, but not every rich person is an entrepreneur. Converting fees earned by a firm for managing money into bonuses that for most Americans are ordinary income taxed at 28% but for such private equity and hedge funds get capital gains treatment at 15% is simply unfair. I support tax reform that equalizes income tax rates for types of activity. No rich person will fail to hire someone who produces incremental return on equity just because the equity return gets taxes at 28%, not 15%. That $ of incremental return will still add to the overall profitability increasing the wealth of the job creator.
"The cost of reducing inequality is so great it will kill the economy". If there is no middle class, where will economic growth come from?
"Markets are self-regulating and efficient". The housing bubble fueled by asset securitization was supposedly sound because the market was self-regulated and efficient. Now we are dealing with the worst economic collapse since the Great Depression. Never again will Wall Street greed sink the economy and force unprecedented fiscal and monetary policy!
Democrats will improve regulation, we will balance the budget in a fair manner while cutting expenses in a fair manner. Corporate handouts through the tax code will not be immune from cuts.
Joseph Stiglitz who inspired that piece
Democrats are pro-life while believing that each woman has the right to choose whether a particular set of circumstances is right for the upbringing of a child. Abortion should be rare and undertaken only when an individual woman believes she has no other choice. But the government has limited rights to control such choice because time is of the essence when a woman faces such choice and it must be between herself, her family and her doctor.
Republicans claim they are pro-life but their policies focus on only the unborn. Their sanctity of life is focused on the unborn but not protecting that child from being shot by a semi-automatic weapon, or getting medical treatment if their parents cannot afford health insurance. What about the sanctity of life for the elderly for their lifetime of contribution to society and providing them the health care and social security they have paid for?
Why do only the unborn get the right to be protected from government policy? What about the living's right to be protected from government's policy or have government policy protect their sanctity of life. Democrats see the need for balance in all of this. The Republicans want to force women to carry children borne of violent acts by deviant fathers with questionable genetic makeup and then abandon the living to vagaries of the market. That is what the privatization of medicare and social security means. The elderly, when they have diminished mental capacity, will have to figure out how to afford their health care and their investments, when more than a few could not do it well when they were at full mental capacity.
Thomas Friedman Inspiration
While President Obama lost his chance to say all of this in Denver, I hope you will be convinced that his reelection is of critical importance so that economic policy balances the needs of the rich and the middle class, the budget is balanced in a fair manner, that medicare and social security are fixed without conversion from what we know, that Obamacare is implemented without delay and fixed where it needs to be, and that woman's rights to make individual decisions for themselves are respected.
Link to Robert Frank who inspired that thought
Policies matter. Income inequality in the U.S. has been a long time coming and will take a long time to be overcome. The reasons for this trend are complex and based in a combination of economic comparative advantage with capitalism's ruthless pursuit of the highest return on capital. The only thing government can do is create a set of policies that allow each American to improve their own personal comparative advantage.
The Democratic set of policies is focused on balancing the budget in a fair manner. Yes, we will cut expenses in many places, but we also do so in a manner that preserves the government's ability to meet its obligations to retirement benefits, helping those who need help and spending to support education and infrastructure. To do that, we need to raise revenues from those who can afford to pay.
The Republican set of policies that supposedly will address economic inequality use disproven myths as their basis of truth and they are not true.
"America is the land of opportunity". Not for those who do not benefit from parents who can afford college. When I was a youth, my middle class parents could afford to pay for a private college education without my borrowing any money. Today, I estimate my parents would be making $80,000 to $90,000 or roughly take home of $58,000 after tax and health insurance. How could they afford to pay even the $25,000 that a public college costs let alone the $50,000 that a private school costs? Is it any wonder that students today have thousands of dollars of debt when they graduate and the debt repayment delays their participation in the middle class spending patterns. Now the Community Colleges of America cost less and do a wonderful job preparing people to participate in the economy. But public education must prepare children uniformly to be well prepared for such an education and global competition. That is why democratic policies will continue to provide financial support for education. Most kids cannot borrow the money from their parents, Governor Romney.
"Trickle-down Economics works". If it works so well, why is the comparison of my family's place in time the truth?
"The rich are the job creators". Yes and no, entrepreneurs create jobs, but not every rich person is an entrepreneur. Converting fees earned by a firm for managing money into bonuses that for most Americans are ordinary income taxed at 28% but for such private equity and hedge funds get capital gains treatment at 15% is simply unfair. I support tax reform that equalizes income tax rates for types of activity. No rich person will fail to hire someone who produces incremental return on equity just because the equity return gets taxes at 28%, not 15%. That $ of incremental return will still add to the overall profitability increasing the wealth of the job creator.
"The cost of reducing inequality is so great it will kill the economy". If there is no middle class, where will economic growth come from?
"Markets are self-regulating and efficient". The housing bubble fueled by asset securitization was supposedly sound because the market was self-regulated and efficient. Now we are dealing with the worst economic collapse since the Great Depression. Never again will Wall Street greed sink the economy and force unprecedented fiscal and monetary policy!
Democrats will improve regulation, we will balance the budget in a fair manner while cutting expenses in a fair manner. Corporate handouts through the tax code will not be immune from cuts.
Joseph Stiglitz who inspired that piece
Democrats are pro-life while believing that each woman has the right to choose whether a particular set of circumstances is right for the upbringing of a child. Abortion should be rare and undertaken only when an individual woman believes she has no other choice. But the government has limited rights to control such choice because time is of the essence when a woman faces such choice and it must be between herself, her family and her doctor.
Republicans claim they are pro-life but their policies focus on only the unborn. Their sanctity of life is focused on the unborn but not protecting that child from being shot by a semi-automatic weapon, or getting medical treatment if their parents cannot afford health insurance. What about the sanctity of life for the elderly for their lifetime of contribution to society and providing them the health care and social security they have paid for?
Why do only the unborn get the right to be protected from government policy? What about the living's right to be protected from government's policy or have government policy protect their sanctity of life. Democrats see the need for balance in all of this. The Republicans want to force women to carry children borne of violent acts by deviant fathers with questionable genetic makeup and then abandon the living to vagaries of the market. That is what the privatization of medicare and social security means. The elderly, when they have diminished mental capacity, will have to figure out how to afford their health care and their investments, when more than a few could not do it well when they were at full mental capacity.
Thomas Friedman Inspiration
While President Obama lost his chance to say all of this in Denver, I hope you will be convinced that his reelection is of critical importance so that economic policy balances the needs of the rich and the middle class, the budget is balanced in a fair manner, that medicare and social security are fixed without conversion from what we know, that Obamacare is implemented without delay and fixed where it needs to be, and that woman's rights to make individual decisions for themselves are respected.
Wednesday, October 24, 2012
The Tea Party and Typical Islamic Governance
are identical.
They feature absence of pluralism and the prevalence of "rule or die" politics -either my sect or party is in power or I'm dead.
This is dominant political feature in the Arab-Muslim world and the Tea Party.
Thank you Thomas Friedman for pointing this out.
They feature absence of pluralism and the prevalence of "rule or die" politics -either my sect or party is in power or I'm dead.
This is dominant political feature in the Arab-Muslim world and the Tea Party.
Thank you Thomas Friedman for pointing this out.
Tuesday, October 23, 2012
Obama 2.75 Romney 1.5
Last night goes Obama 1 Romney 0. I might have given Romney a .25 for acknowledging that the sanctions against Iran seem to be working, but he was so incoherent trying to hit his soundbites that he failed to deliver any themes about his grasp of foreign policy. I fear that he does not understand foreign policy or how diplomacy works. I am not sure Romney understands anything beyond power politics and trying that has possibly been the source of Obama's failures.
So overall Obama Biden wins the debates over Romney Ryan 2.75 to 1.5. I don't understand what President Obama was trying to accomplish in Denver and fear that may cost him the election as it seems the undecided voters decided that night and being the light thinkers that they are, stopped evaluating that night.
I will come back to undecided voters, the role of partisanship and Citizens United in my next blog whenever that may come to pass. It is not a relationship that bodes well for lowering partisanship.
So overall Obama Biden wins the debates over Romney Ryan 2.75 to 1.5. I don't understand what President Obama was trying to accomplish in Denver and fear that may cost him the election as it seems the undecided voters decided that night and being the light thinkers that they are, stopped evaluating that night.
I will come back to undecided voters, the role of partisanship and Citizens United in my next blog whenever that may come to pass. It is not a relationship that bodes well for lowering partisanship.
Monday, October 22, 2012
The Danger of Heightened Partisanship
I have been thinking about the closeness of our national elections and the power that gives to a small number of voters to control the overall policy of the country. This is the same dynamic that gave us Prohibition. Most jurisdictions where voters were given the chance to decide whether their political jurisdiction would be wet or dry voted down dry preferring to allow the legal and taxed sale of alcohol.
However, the anti-alcohol voters were single issue voters and if you were not for them, you were against them and the anti-alcohol votes could determine the winner of many elections. Thus, prohibition was passed.
Today, the electorate is roughly divided into 45% cores for each party. The remaining 10% cares about any number of issues and many are single issue voters. Taxes, abortion, women's rights, gun control, environment, retirement benefits and the list goes on.
The Presidential candidates have to both cater to their core and get them motivated to vote and pander to these single issue voters. This means that when we get into a situation where serious choices need to be made, we do not get an honest picture of what either candidate will do because they want to win the election and such victory will be determined by this 10% in the single issue category. So the candidates talk out of both sides of their mouth.
It would be far better to have a spirit of cooperation recognition that the views of the 45% that opposed you need to be respected so that problems can be addressed in a bipartisan manner. Then we can make prudent progress on our challenges and the minorities in the middle would not be dominating the majorities.
As for the remaining undecided voters, they apparently do not care about policies, but rather determine who they will vote for based upon some whim other than policy
However, the anti-alcohol voters were single issue voters and if you were not for them, you were against them and the anti-alcohol votes could determine the winner of many elections. Thus, prohibition was passed.
Today, the electorate is roughly divided into 45% cores for each party. The remaining 10% cares about any number of issues and many are single issue voters. Taxes, abortion, women's rights, gun control, environment, retirement benefits and the list goes on.
The Presidential candidates have to both cater to their core and get them motivated to vote and pander to these single issue voters. This means that when we get into a situation where serious choices need to be made, we do not get an honest picture of what either candidate will do because they want to win the election and such victory will be determined by this 10% in the single issue category. So the candidates talk out of both sides of their mouth.
It would be far better to have a spirit of cooperation recognition that the views of the 45% that opposed you need to be respected so that problems can be addressed in a bipartisan manner. Then we can make prudent progress on our challenges and the minorities in the middle would not be dominating the majorities.
As for the remaining undecided voters, they apparently do not care about policies, but rather determine who they will vote for based upon some whim other than policy
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)