If any of our dear readers feel up to writing an article
on the possible discovery of the Higgs-Boson particle, perhaps one of the most significant
scientific advances since Einstein’s Theory of Relativity or even Newton’s Law
of Gravity, please do so and it will be included in the blog. It
has, on occasion, been referred to as the "God" particle, which might
be an interesting point of departure for a writer. Send it as an
attachment to riart1@aol.com. Material on other less esoteric subjects will also be thankfully welcomed. And this week, incidentally, our
alligator is on vacation, being replaced by a visiting butterfly.
JL
Paying the Bill for Health Care … and Paying for a Few Other
Things as Well.
Why is No One Smiling?
Let’s
address the most important part of the health care “debate.” Actually, it pertains to many other aspects
of government too, but because the cost of health care is so significant,
dealing with that topic is the key to solving other problems as well.
The United States of America is the richest country in the
world. We spend a greater portion of our
wealth on health care than any other nation does. Yet, there are many in this country who are
not getting adequate health care. I
believe tht health care is a “right” and not a “privilege” available just for those
who can afford it. That’s what the
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is all about. It doesn’t solve all of our problems, but it
is a giant step in the right direction.
Most
advanced industrialized nations have a single payer government run health care
plan, similar to what our country provides only to seniors in the form of
Medicare. Obamacare, which is how its
opponents derisively refer to the Act, doesn’t go that route but instead tries
to get everyone insured via the private marketplace and at the same time, tries
to control some of the excessive costs of health care. Mandating that everyone be included in the
plan, or pay a tax penalty, is a step toward making it possible for insurance
companies to operate in the Act’s environment because healthy people as well as
people with medical problems will pay the same for their insurance.
This
“tax” will only be paid by those people who do not have personally-purchased
nor employer-provided nor government-provided health insurance, and lacking any
of these, have not availed themselves of the coverages that will be available
from insurance companies for them, regardless of health. This “tax” is on those who Mitt Romney back
in 2006 in Massachusetts called “free-riders.”
I call them “freeloaders.” The G.O.P.
claim that this is an additional tax on all Americans is pure malarkey. It is a tax on those who increase your
hospital bills and your insurance bills (or those of your employer) when
the cost of their care is passed on to you. I have no problem with a tax being imposed on
such individuals who often erroneously believe that their present youthful good
health will last forever, and would rather spend their money in more personally gratifying
ways.
This
“tax” will only be paid by those people who do not have personally-purchased
nor employer-provided nor government-provided health insurance, and lacking any
of these, have not availed themselves of the coverages that will be available
from insurance companies for them, regardless of health. This “tax” is on those who Mitt Romney back
in 2006 in Massachusetts called “free-riders.”
I call them “freeloaders.” The G.O.P.
claim that this is an additional tax on all Americans is pure malarkey. It is a tax on those who increase your
hospital bills and your insurance bills (or those of your employer) when
the cost of their care is passed on to you. I have no problem with a tax being imposed on
such individuals who often erroneously believe that their present youthful good
health will last forever, and would rather spend their money in more personally gratifying
ways.
Critics
also claim that Obamacare will cut five hundred billion dollars annually from
Medicare. What they don’t tell you is
that this amount supposedly will not come from reducing benefits for seniors,
but rather, from getting rid of Medicare fraud and effecting economies in how
health care is delivered by its providers. But these are very ambitious goals,
and will be difficult to accomplish.
If a program which enables dependent children to remain on their
parents’ health insurance policies to age 26, which eliminates lifetimes caps
on benefits, which eliminates Medicare's Part D "doughnut hole" on prescriptions, which allows individuals to get health insurance regardless of
pre-existing medical histories and which sets up the exchanges to enable
insurance to be available for all to purchase deserves to be mocked as
“Obamacare,” its supporters should start to accept that name for the program
and start calling it “Obamacare” themselves, turning a word of derision to a
word in which to take great pride.
The “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act,” or just the
“Affordable Care Act” may be the law’s tongue-twisting correct name, but as
Americans come to recognize its enormous benefits, they may end up just
sticking with that catchy name, “Obamacare,” once its undeserved pejorative associations
fade away.
But
let’s get down to the nitty gritty! And
this will be very uncomfortable! Balloons are about to be punctured. The Affordable Care
Act will cost an enormous amount of money.
Bad news: I believe that the anticipated
savings will not occur to the degree
anticipated. Also, medical
science will advance, developing new ways to fight disease, which will be
extremely costly to develop and ultimately administer. Not far down the
road, the true cost of Obamacare will be recognized and the actuarial
assumptions upon which it is based revised significantly upward, cost-wise. This is something that Republicans talk about
but to which most Democrats close their eyes.
Thus, additional revenues (a polite word for more taxes) will be
needed. This is the real reason for
Republican opposition to Obamacare; it is their mantra that increased taxation,
which would fall heavily upon the wealthy, creates economic stagnation making investment
funds unavailable, creating unemployment and economic hardship. This
is why Republicans oppose Obamacare.
Get one thing straight:
The G.O.P., so long as it is dependent for votes upon its troglodyte, Grover
Norquist-pledge-signer right wing, would oppose motherhood, apple pie and Santa
Claus if being for these things meant an increase in taxes!!!
Mitt Romney was happy with the same plan in Massachusetts. The entire Republican leadership was happy with it when the alarming alternative was a single payer plan such as “Medicare for Everybody” which some Democrats were advocating. Recognizing the effect Obamacare will ultimately have on taxes is the sole reason for their opposition.
Mitt Romney was happy with the same plan in Massachusetts. The entire Republican leadership was happy with it when the alarming alternative was a single payer plan such as “Medicare for Everybody” which some Democrats were advocating. Recognizing the effect Obamacare will ultimately have on taxes is the sole reason for their opposition.
The
first sentence of the second paragraph of this article reads: “The United States of America is the richest country in the
world” and goes on to point out that we spend more on health care than
any other nation, but still don’t make it available to everyone. How can this be? The answer is the distribution of
wealth.
Unless someone is old enough to be on Medicare or poor enough to be
on Medicaid, the source of their health care is health insurance purchased by
their employer or by themselves. Often, an employer cannot afford to provide
this and more often, an employee cannot either.
So to change this, some sort of wealth
redistribution will be needed. Now, that sounds like a Marxist dirty word to many but really, all it means is
that tax increases will be necessary, but only on the income of those who can
well afford to pay them. A number
frequently bandied around defines this group as those with incomes in excess of
$250,000. It also may mean a reduction
in taxes on businesses below a certain size, but an increase for those above a
certain level. Actually, some say that increasing
the rate at which capital gains are taxed (the wealthy will not like that),
bringing it up to the marginal rate for ordinary income, and at the same time
eliminating corporate taxes entirely, might work. No matter how it is
sliced however, additional revenue will be needed and the country must
recognize that with the understanding that it will come from those who can most
afford to pay it.
But the wealthy are not the only ones who will have to pay the
bill. Those receiving health care will
have to expect higher co-payments and deductibles, most likely keyed to income.
This will certainly creep into the Medicare program initially but
eventually spread to “Obamacare” as well.
Certain discretionary procedures very well might not even be
covered. The burden will have to be
shared by all since right now, it is clear that we do not have the financial
resources properly lined up to pay for Obamacare down the road, despite what
the Administration says. The nation certainly
has the wealth to pay for making health care a right for all Americans, and not
just a privilege for those who can afford it, but the money is just not in the
right place. Taxation is the way to get
it there.
Extend this reasoning to Social Security, unemployment benefits, food
stamps and all other programs comprising our economy’s safety net. Include the military budget. Include farm subsidies. Include running our schools. Include updating our infra-structure. Include government employees’ pensions. It
goes on and on, at all levels of government and although our nation has
the wealth to pay for these things, and more, the money is not in the right
place to do so.
Up
to now, we have been borrowing to pay our way, but those days seem to be over
with the National Debt reaching astronomical heights. The wealthiest nation on the planet should
not have to go down that path, “maxing out” credit card after credit card. We shouldn’t have to borrow, when we can tax
those who can well afford to pay a little more and will not be any the worse
off for it, and at the same time, to keep tax increases reasonable, all of us
can learn to expect a little less from our government.
Bottom
Line: The answer is increased taxes on
those who can afford to pay, and an acceptance on the part of the recipients of
government benefits and services that they will have to plan on receiving less
over the years. Everyone will suffer a little, but in the end, we all will
benefit. How Obamacare is ultimately
funded will establish a benchmark for establishing a pattern for paying for much
of what government does in the future.
Why is no
one smiling?
Jack Lippman
Jack Lippman
Solving the
Chronic Unemployment Problem:
Unemployment
is going to be with us for a long, long, long time. Labor is cheaper overseas and it takes less
labor domestically to make things, grow things and do things in our
ever-expanding technological world!
Many posts ago I referred to this as “strategic” unemployment and
advocated it being used as a tool. Let
me go back to that idea.
The
two ways to remedy unacceptably high permanent unemployment rates were (1)
mandatory retirement at 55 of all workers and (2) a maximum workweek of 30
hours. That would create more jobs.
While the retirement age is not a flexible tool, the workweek hourly
maximum is. Imagine if the government
could, on a quarterly basis, fix a maximum number of hours than anyone could
work. Dropping the maximum work week
from 40 to 37 hours, nationwide, with no overtime being permitted, would require
hiring employees. That three hour drop
might drop the unemployment rate a full percentage point. Every three months, depending on the
unemployment rate, that maximum could be adjusted. If we had a 35 hour maximum workweek with no
overtime allowed, would the unemployment rate be below 6%? I wonder.
Of
course, employers would have to pay more employees as they hired them, but they
would be paying for fewer hours worked per employee so it would balance out,
hopefully. Of course, take home pay
would initially drop, but as the economy recovered from the reduced
unemployment with greater consumer spending, more jobs would be created, raises
would ultimately follow, and of course, government outlays such as unemployment
benefits could be reduced. Is this idea
worth a try? (Perhaps some university
or government economists might construct a “model” to test it out! They do sillier things.)
JL
George The Third
in Arizona
George III and the Arizona State Capiol
Yes,
I did re-read the Declaration of Independence which was included in the prior
posting. Go back and check it out and
see that one of the complaints specifically raised against George the Third in
our Declaration of Independence back in 1776 concerned immigration, a topic
still in the news today. The Declaration
included these words:
He has endeavoured
to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the
Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage
their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of
Lands.
This
has meaning for us today, as my annotations below indicate:
He has endeavoured
to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the
Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners (Despite much open
land, it appears that the British wanted to keep inhabitants out, even if they
were to become “legal.”); refusing to pass others to
encourage their migrations hither (Looks like the British were
against any laws which might make it easier for immigrants, even if they
remained “aliens,” to get here), and raising the
conditions of new Appropriations of Lands (This translates, in
today’s socio-economic world, into raising the conditions by which immigrants
might qualify for “benefits,” one of which in those days was free land).
Looks like George the Third
would fit well into the Republican Party, particularly in Arizona.
If immigration
were not to be encouraged, how would all of the labor which thirteen basically
agricultural colonies required be accomplished, one might ask?
Of course, the British wanted their Colonies
to be economically successful, but they did not want the colonists to increase
in number and power along with that success. Immigration would have
strengthened the Colonies politically as well as economically so the British
were against it. They didn’t need it because
back in those days, slavery still existed.
So long as slaves could be imported to do
the work, the British were against “the (further) population of these States,” which
would strengthen the political position of the Colonists. It took another 89 years for slavery to be
abolished here, finally resolving the problem from a Constitutional
standpoint. But all that is water under
the bridge, or over the dam, if you prefer.
The Declaration also includes a reference to
our British brethren, from whom we were separating, stating that we were ”Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.” And
so it remains.
JL
Sid's Corner
My Muse
Sid Bolotin
I have a personal muse
Not any of the nine in Greek mythology
Mine is flesh and blood, ever on call
Email, telephone, in person
To prod, comfort, dissect, and brainstorm
Encompassing virtues of all nine ethereal ones
For consultation regarding
My poetry, stories, essays
Intelligent, articulate, caring, motivating
Whatever needs be caressed
Responses to my oft times sharing of “The Writer’s
Almanac”
Are like mutually savoring fine wine
And most importantly, blanketing me
With encouragement
Also, be aware that www.Jackspotpourri.com is now available on your mobile devices in a modified, easy-to-read, format.
Our family of web sites includes: www.computerdrek.com - www.politicaldrek.com - www.sportsdrek.com - www.healthdrek.com.
Check all of them out, find out what “drek” really means and feel free to submit your thoughts and articles for publication on these sites, which, while still “under construction,” already contain some interesting content.
Additional new material will continue to be posted on www.politicaldrek.com until the Presidential election. New material will resume being added to the other three “drek” sites after November of 2012.
Jack
Lippman
* * * * * *
* * *
To send this posting to a friend, or enemy for that matter, whom you
think might be
interested in it, just click on the envelope with the arrow on the
"Comments" line directly below.
No comments:
Post a Comment