The reason many childhood diseases have been eliminated from the United States is simple: All schools, public and private, require immunizations. Children can't attend school without them. As a result of mass immunizations, once feared childhood diseases have been eradicated. This is an example of great health policy - complete coverage for the protection of everyone at the lowest cost.
That is why Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan must be out of their minds when Romney says, "When I'm elected president, my first day in office, I will repeal ObamaCare." The key to great public health is to cover everyone. Over the long term, it produces a better result at less cost.
If a "cover everyone" system is cheaper and healthier, why hasn't it been adopted until now? Health care didn't start out as a national program in the same way that Social Security did. As a result, health insurance came to be regulated by the states instead of the federal government. While health insurance companies have grown into corporations that transact business across state lines, state insurance departments don't regulate across state lines. Without a national health care policy, companies have held states hostage by unilaterally setting rates, defining coverages, and if state insurance departments refuse to accept the terms, companies pull out. As costs have escalated out of control, health insurance companies have become effective lobbyists, political contributors and no president has had the political will to take on the health insurance industry and establish a national health care policy.
The Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare) is not a government take over of the health care system, but rather a coordination of health care policy that sets minimum standards for consumers and insurance companies across the country. It fills the coverage gaps that private insurers have failed to address. Republicans readily accept such national policy coordination over the entire spectrum of business and industry. With health care costs approaching 20% of the entire economy, isn't a national health care policy needed?
Medicaid and Medicare are also big parts of the health care system, but the G.O.P. doesn't like those improvements, either. Republicans claim the Obama administration would cut 716 billion dollars from the Medicare program. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Obama administration would slow the future growth in Medicare costs by 716 billion without any cut in services to beneficiaries. Romney claims controlling costs in Medicare would force hospitals to refuse to accept Medicare. Again, not true. Any hospital which has accepted any federal funds for any purpose whatsoever is required by law to accept Medicare. Romney claims doctors will stop accepting Medicare. Again, not true. Physicians are already free to accept or decline any health plan. The real problem is not the lack of doctors who accept Medicare, it's a basic shortage of primary care physicians. Many primary care practices are closed to new patients, no matter what insurance plan they have. That will be made worse by Romney, who plans cuts to the student loan program, something which is essential to pay medical school costs that are nearly $250,000 for every graduate.
While the Obama administration has used some of the savings created by the Affordable Care Act to increase coverage to low income seniors, children and the disabled through Medicaid payments, Republicans have fought the adjustments. Republican governors have declined to accept funding increases even though they are fully paid
for by the federal government through 2016 and 90% funded through
2020. Romney would actually cut the program in half by 2030. Quoting the Congressional Budge Office: "Because of the magnitude of the reduction in federal Medicaid spending
under the (Romney/Ryan) proposal... states would face significant challenges in
achieving sufficient cost savings through efficiencies to mitigate the
loss of federal funding. To maintain current service levels in the
Medicaid program, states would probably need to consider additional
changes, such as reducing their spending on other programs or raising
additional revenues."
The Obama administration has done what no other president has been able to accomplish: put the nation on a course toward a national health policy that reduces costs and increases care. I'm sure Governor Romney agrees since he helped pass a nearly identical plan as governor of Massachusetts. But, candidate Romney doesn't - he's running for president.
And, that is a view from Missouri.
Tuesday, October 16, 2012
Monday, September 10, 2012
Walmart Logic
The Walmart near my home is a huge facility with 30 check-out stations. But, they only keep 3 or 4 lines open at any one time. How many times have I waited in line and thought, "Why don't they open more check-out lines?" The answer, of course, is demand determines the number of open lines. No business is going hire more workers than they need.
To hear Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan talk about pro-growth tax policy, you'd think that reducing corporate taxes is going to cause businesses to hire people. News Flash: Reducing corporate tax rates is not about increasing employment - it's about increasing profit and shareholder value.
But, wait! Maybe Romney is talking about cutting individual tax rates. Well, Romney says his plan for individual tax rates is a flatter and fairer system. That should offer no comfort to the middle class. But, Romney believes Obama is vulnerable on the unemployment issue, so he has been pushing pro-growth tax policy as a means to create jobs.
Here's what Ben Stein (noted economist and speech writer for Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford) had to say about Mitt Romney's position on the economy, "He has bought into what I think is a bit of nonsense about supply-side economics. He has bought into the idea that by cutting taxes, you automatically spur the economy. That would be wonderful if true, and it may be true, but there's no data that it's true,” he said. "And it certainly isn't true that by cutting taxes you spur the economy enough so you make up the lost tax revenue." (from Politico 8/31/12)
Economic growth is something of a chicken or the egg argument. Which comes first, do jobs create growth or does growth creates jobs? I'd like to talk about jobs - Steve Jobs. Let me use Apple, Inc., Wall Street's highest priced stock, as an example of how problematic the question of jobs actually is.
Apple employs 43,000 workers in the United States, but over 700,000 overseas. (Robert Reich in Salon 7/19/12). When you buy an iPhone, only 6% of the purchase price of an iPhone goes to American workers. The other 94% goes overseas where the iPhone is actually produced. What does Apple have to say about this: “We don’t have an obligation to solve America’s problems. Our only obligation is making the best product possible.” as an Apple executive told the New York Times. (Robert Reich in Salon 7/19/12) In other words, Apple's corporate responsibility extends only to it's shareholders.
In today's economy, it is new technology, like the iPhone for example, that produces growth. But, unless that technology results in increased jobs here at home, the only growth possible is shareholder value. It's education, research and development, producing new products and services in the United States, creating jobs up and down the supply chain - that's what creates growth. Romney's business experience is in eliminating jobs, not creating them. His ideas increase corporate profits at the expense of labor and do nothing to address long term, chronic unemployment.
The Obama administration created The Bring Jobs Home Act, which provided tax breaks for companies that bring jobs back to the United States and eliminated tax deductions for companies that move jobs overseas. Sponsored in the Senate by Debbie Stabenow (D- Michigan), it was a brilliant bill designed to promote jobs for American workers. Republicans, however, through a filibuster in the Senate, blocked the bill. Why? Mitch McConnell, the Republican Senate Minority leader, said it would threaten economic growth. Economic growth for whom? Executives and shareholders? The richest 1% of Americans?
As you can see, I have plenty of time to think while I'm in line at Walmart. On the way home the other day, I decided to call it Walmart Logic; the idea that tax cuts are going to increase employment. Republican tax cuts are designed to increase shareholder value and put more money in the pockets of the wealthiest among us.
And, that is a view from Missouri.
To hear Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan talk about pro-growth tax policy, you'd think that reducing corporate taxes is going to cause businesses to hire people. News Flash: Reducing corporate tax rates is not about increasing employment - it's about increasing profit and shareholder value.
But, wait! Maybe Romney is talking about cutting individual tax rates. Well, Romney says his plan for individual tax rates is a flatter and fairer system. That should offer no comfort to the middle class. But, Romney believes Obama is vulnerable on the unemployment issue, so he has been pushing pro-growth tax policy as a means to create jobs.
Here's what Ben Stein (noted economist and speech writer for Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford) had to say about Mitt Romney's position on the economy, "He has bought into what I think is a bit of nonsense about supply-side economics. He has bought into the idea that by cutting taxes, you automatically spur the economy. That would be wonderful if true, and it may be true, but there's no data that it's true,” he said. "And it certainly isn't true that by cutting taxes you spur the economy enough so you make up the lost tax revenue." (from Politico 8/31/12)
Economic growth is something of a chicken or the egg argument. Which comes first, do jobs create growth or does growth creates jobs? I'd like to talk about jobs - Steve Jobs. Let me use Apple, Inc., Wall Street's highest priced stock, as an example of how problematic the question of jobs actually is.
Apple employs 43,000 workers in the United States, but over 700,000 overseas. (Robert Reich in Salon 7/19/12). When you buy an iPhone, only 6% of the purchase price of an iPhone goes to American workers. The other 94% goes overseas where the iPhone is actually produced. What does Apple have to say about this: “We don’t have an obligation to solve America’s problems. Our only obligation is making the best product possible.” as an Apple executive told the New York Times. (Robert Reich in Salon 7/19/12) In other words, Apple's corporate responsibility extends only to it's shareholders.
In today's economy, it is new technology, like the iPhone for example, that produces growth. But, unless that technology results in increased jobs here at home, the only growth possible is shareholder value. It's education, research and development, producing new products and services in the United States, creating jobs up and down the supply chain - that's what creates growth. Romney's business experience is in eliminating jobs, not creating them. His ideas increase corporate profits at the expense of labor and do nothing to address long term, chronic unemployment.
The Obama administration created The Bring Jobs Home Act, which provided tax breaks for companies that bring jobs back to the United States and eliminated tax deductions for companies that move jobs overseas. Sponsored in the Senate by Debbie Stabenow (D- Michigan), it was a brilliant bill designed to promote jobs for American workers. Republicans, however, through a filibuster in the Senate, blocked the bill. Why? Mitch McConnell, the Republican Senate Minority leader, said it would threaten economic growth. Economic growth for whom? Executives and shareholders? The richest 1% of Americans?
As you can see, I have plenty of time to think while I'm in line at Walmart. On the way home the other day, I decided to call it Walmart Logic; the idea that tax cuts are going to increase employment. Republican tax cuts are designed to increase shareholder value and put more money in the pockets of the wealthiest among us.
And, that is a view from Missouri.
Tuesday, June 19, 2012
That's a Clown Statement, Bro!
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) in his comments about the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (health care act) called it "the single biggest step in the direction of Europeanizing America." Excuse me, Senator, but the language you're speaking came straight from Europe. Have you eaten any Italian food lately? The neoclassical style of the building you're working in? Straight from Europe. The guy who built it? French. The individual rights we have as Americans were derived from the Magna Carta. Senator, I'm sure you're praying every Sunday for an Obama defeat, but the church and the service you attend were patterned after European tradition. Even the American legislature you work for came out of the English parliamentary style. To suggest that American society is fundamentally different than Europe is a clown statement, bro.
American business and industry is supported by government subsidies and tax breaks which puts the United States more in line with the governments of China, Russia and most European countries. You protect nearly all those subsidies, Senator.
What would the G.O.P. do if they ever obtained a majority government again? Force Americans to put their social security into the stock market. Supporting American business and industry with Social Security money sounds like a lot like European style governance.
What about auto insurance? Requirements that drivers purchase private auto insurance sounds a lot like an individual mandate to me. State auto insurance funds for individuals who cannot access the private auto insurance market sounds a lot like requirements under the health care law, but Senator, you don't object when it comes to transportation.
It is the health care law, of course, that Senator McConnell is talking about in the above quote and if one believes health statistics, Europeans rank above Americans in nearly every health category. The Senator doesn't mention that. Of course, Senator McConnell's home state of Kentucky ranks nearly last in state rankings of public health, but he's not keen on pointing that out, either.
The Senator, himself, is in a pretty nice position. He has his government health care plan to take care of him and his family, unlike the people he represents who, according to statistics, rank high in percentage of uninsured. I haven't heard Senator McConnell offer to give up his government health plan or cut his cushy government pension in the face of budget cuts. Cut everybody else, but not me. That's a clown attitude, bro.
I suggest that in the real world, people like the Cobra plan when they're laid off; they like having their kids remain on health plans after the age of twenty-one; they like the elimination of discrimination due to pre-existing conditions. I also suggest that employers would like to be relieved of managing health insurance coverage for their employees. Of course, Senator McConnell doesn't live in the real world. He and his G.O.P. colleagues believe people go without health insurance by choice. That is a clown belief, bro
I suggest Senator McConnell's number one legislative agenda in Washington "to make Obama a one term president" is a clown agenda. He's completely devoid of new ideas about health care, tax policy, government debt or anything else. His one idea, which he repeats often, is cut taxes. What I'm saying is Senator McConnell sounds a lot like a clown, bro.
American business and industry is supported by government subsidies and tax breaks which puts the United States more in line with the governments of China, Russia and most European countries. You protect nearly all those subsidies, Senator.
What would the G.O.P. do if they ever obtained a majority government again? Force Americans to put their social security into the stock market. Supporting American business and industry with Social Security money sounds like a lot like European style governance.
What about auto insurance? Requirements that drivers purchase private auto insurance sounds a lot like an individual mandate to me. State auto insurance funds for individuals who cannot access the private auto insurance market sounds a lot like requirements under the health care law, but Senator, you don't object when it comes to transportation.
It is the health care law, of course, that Senator McConnell is talking about in the above quote and if one believes health statistics, Europeans rank above Americans in nearly every health category. The Senator doesn't mention that. Of course, Senator McConnell's home state of Kentucky ranks nearly last in state rankings of public health, but he's not keen on pointing that out, either.
The Senator, himself, is in a pretty nice position. He has his government health care plan to take care of him and his family, unlike the people he represents who, according to statistics, rank high in percentage of uninsured. I haven't heard Senator McConnell offer to give up his government health plan or cut his cushy government pension in the face of budget cuts. Cut everybody else, but not me. That's a clown attitude, bro.
I suggest that in the real world, people like the Cobra plan when they're laid off; they like having their kids remain on health plans after the age of twenty-one; they like the elimination of discrimination due to pre-existing conditions. I also suggest that employers would like to be relieved of managing health insurance coverage for their employees. Of course, Senator McConnell doesn't live in the real world. He and his G.O.P. colleagues believe people go without health insurance by choice. That is a clown belief, bro
I suggest Senator McConnell's number one legislative agenda in Washington "to make Obama a one term president" is a clown agenda. He's completely devoid of new ideas about health care, tax policy, government debt or anything else. His one idea, which he repeats often, is cut taxes. What I'm saying is Senator McConnell sounds a lot like a clown, bro.
Sunday, June 10, 2012
Socialism
Republicans often use the word "socialism" as a scare word like the word "communism" was used in the 1950's. Any proposed legislation by the Democrats is labeled socialism by the G.O.P. None of them define exactly what socialism means; they just want to make everyone afraid it. Here's what the word socialism means according to a dictionary:
A theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
As a practical matter, important segments of our society are highly socialistic if you judge them by definition, but people don't seem to be frightened by it. Why? The public has control of it. Take public utilities, for example, which are regulated by state commissions. Utilities, telecommunications, transportation, education and other large segments of our society are socialistic in the sense that there is a public interest in the quality and quantity of service, and at some level, public control of it.
Take a closer look at society's infrastructure, though, and you find that all those industries are public/private partnerships. A school district contracts with private companies for support services; state highway departments bid construction contracts to private industry, public electric companies contract with private suppliers for fuel, and so on. It is this balance of public interest and private enterprise that brings most infrastructure to our lives at the highest quality for the lowest cost.
In a time of financial stress, should public services be cut? The answer is maybe. When politicians cut government, they also cut the underlying private sector jobs that support them. However, budgets are about balancing revenue versus expenses so every aspect of government should be fair game.
However, Scott Walker, Republican governor of Wisconsin, took budget cutting one step farther. Governor Walker removed the rights of public employees to bargain. Mr. Walker survived his recall election largely by framing the issue as a budget debate, which it was not.
Governor Walker's actions were an attack on individual rights. If the governor were truly interested in budget cuts, he should have shown some leadership by asking the legislature to cut his own salary and benefits. He didn't because his actions were not about cutting budgets; they were about the elimination of individual rights.
Across the country, using the buzzwords like socialism and budget cuts, Republicans are rolling back the rights of individuals, whether it's voting rights, women's and minority rights, the right to free access to information, the right to free speech, the right to collective bargaining.
The next time a Republican says the word "socialism," grab your Bill of Rights and hang onto them. The G.O.P. wants to eliminate your individual rights.
Wednesday, July 13, 2011
Holding Hostage
As Republicans continue to reject any proposal to increase revenue to offset budget cuts in the current negotiation over raising the federal debt ceiling, it is hard to believe the G.O.P. is serious about deficit reduction. The GAO (General Accounting Office), the CBO (Congressional Budget Office), former Secretaries of the Treasury of both parties, scores of economists (including a Nobel Prize winner in Economics) and the bi-partisan Bowles-Simpson commission (National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform) have all concluded budget cuts alone will not balance the budget or pay down the national debt. The only way to solve the debt crisis is by raising government revenues while cutting spending at the same time. Democrats agree. President Obama and Congressional Democrats put forth a plan that cuts 4 trillion dollars from the federal budget and contains a mix of modest revenue increases which will balance the budget and put the nation on the fast track toward eliminating the national debt. Republicans, however, insist that Democrats agree to budget cuts without raising additional revenue; otherwise, the G.O.P. will force the federal government to default on it's debt obligations.
The Republican Party is being held hostage by a block of ultra right wing "Tea Party" Libertarians in the House of Representatives whose approach includes many radical ideas, like the legalization of recreational drugs and prostitution (Ron Paul, R-TX) and legalizing discrimination by race (Rand Paul, R-Sen. - KY). Equally disturbing are their ideas to dissolve many functions of the federal government, including the elimination of the Department of Education, the Federal Reserve, Department of Energy, the Internal Revenue Service, Medicaid and all welfare programs, privatizing Social Security, and forcing Medicare into the private health insurance market. The Republican Party has no intention of balancing the federal budget or solving the debt crisis. Their goal is to completely destroy the federal government, the economy and the social compact of the United States of America.
It is important to understand how the United States came to a debt crisis in the first place. Republican Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush quadrupled the national debt under 12 years of G.O.P. administrations. After four straight years of budget surpluses under the Clinton administration, Republican President George W. Bush turned surpluses into huge deficits, doubled the national debt in 8 years and led this nation into the worst depression since 1928.
Republicans believe that lower taxes lead to greater prosperity. However, recent history shows the opposite to be true. George W. Bush's tax cuts created neither jobs nor economic growth. During the Bush presidency, employment grew at a 0.9% annual average rate (CBS MoneyWatch 11/30/2010) compared with a 2.5% average rate for comparable periods since WWII. Median household income was lower in 2007 than in 2000. And, while Republicans claim to be defenders of small business, the Bush tax cuts were skewed to the super-rich and less than 2% of small business owners qualified for them (US News, August 10, 2010).
Senate G.O.P. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's favorite phrase, "job killing;" is used to justify Republican resistance to many Democratic initiatives, but especially raising taxes, as if there were jobs just waiting to be created if the government would lower taxes. Tax cuts, if they create jobs at all, create them in Asia where American multi-national corporations find lower employment costs and no environmental regulations. The Bush tax cuts of the last decade amounted to a huge jobs program for Asian countries. And, since interest rates in the United States have been at historic lows, tax cuts encourage investment outside the United States, not in it.
Republicans constantly complain about the high corporate tax rate in the United States. The marginal rate, at 35%, is one of the highest in the world, but, the actual (effective) corporate tax rate is one of the lowest (averaging 14%) due to thousands of tax credits, loopholes and givebacks in the tax code. General Electric, the nation's largest corporation, got a tax refund last year. In fact, these ten companies paid no tax at all last year: Exxon Mobil, Bank of America, General Electric, Chevron, Boeing, Valero Energy, Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, ConocoPhillips, Carnival Cruise Lines (Senator Bernie Sanders', I-VT, as published April 15, 2011 by MoveOn.org). A study in 2008 by the GAO found that 55% of American companies paid no income tax at all in at least one of the last seven years (New York Times, May 2, 2011). A bounty of subsidies, shelters and special breaks have made American multinationals “world leaders in tax avoidance,” according to Edward D. Kleinbard, a professor at the University of Southern California, who was head of the Congressional joint committee on taxes (NY Times, 5/2/11). Last year, corporate tax revenue dropped to 9% of federal income in spite of corporate profits hitting an all-time high in 2010.
Yet, Republicans have taken corporate tax loopholes, tax breaks and givebacks to corporations off the table in current budget negotiations. Republicans call this approach "pro growth" after a decade in which business and industry used these tax breaks to create no jobs and kept wages for the American worker flat. In some cases, Republican legislators have voted to keep tax breaks that benefit them personally. For instance, noted Tea Party Republican Michele Bachmann (R-MN), a G.O.P. presidential candidate, receives $250,000 per year in farm subsidies for her family farm. Kristi Noem (R-S.D), who won in 2010 on a platform of spending cuts, has received millions of dollars in federal farm subsidies over the last decade. It should be no surprise that Republican legislators refuse to cut farm subsidies, but favor cutting social programs instead.
If the United States is serious about solving it's debt crisis, we need legislators who are willing to put aside special interests, ideology, and partisan debate. President Obama, Vice-President Biden and other Democrats are doing just that. We need Republicans to do the same.
And, that is a view from Missouri.
The Republican Party is being held hostage by a block of ultra right wing "Tea Party" Libertarians in the House of Representatives whose approach includes many radical ideas, like the legalization of recreational drugs and prostitution (Ron Paul, R-TX) and legalizing discrimination by race (Rand Paul, R-Sen. - KY). Equally disturbing are their ideas to dissolve many functions of the federal government, including the elimination of the Department of Education, the Federal Reserve, Department of Energy, the Internal Revenue Service, Medicaid and all welfare programs, privatizing Social Security, and forcing Medicare into the private health insurance market. The Republican Party has no intention of balancing the federal budget or solving the debt crisis. Their goal is to completely destroy the federal government, the economy and the social compact of the United States of America.
It is important to understand how the United States came to a debt crisis in the first place. Republican Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush quadrupled the national debt under 12 years of G.O.P. administrations. After four straight years of budget surpluses under the Clinton administration, Republican President George W. Bush turned surpluses into huge deficits, doubled the national debt in 8 years and led this nation into the worst depression since 1928.
Republicans believe that lower taxes lead to greater prosperity. However, recent history shows the opposite to be true. George W. Bush's tax cuts created neither jobs nor economic growth. During the Bush presidency, employment grew at a 0.9% annual average rate (CBS MoneyWatch 11/30/2010) compared with a 2.5% average rate for comparable periods since WWII. Median household income was lower in 2007 than in 2000. And, while Republicans claim to be defenders of small business, the Bush tax cuts were skewed to the super-rich and less than 2% of small business owners qualified for them (US News, August 10, 2010).
Senate G.O.P. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's favorite phrase, "job killing;" is used to justify Republican resistance to many Democratic initiatives, but especially raising taxes, as if there were jobs just waiting to be created if the government would lower taxes. Tax cuts, if they create jobs at all, create them in Asia where American multi-national corporations find lower employment costs and no environmental regulations. The Bush tax cuts of the last decade amounted to a huge jobs program for Asian countries. And, since interest rates in the United States have been at historic lows, tax cuts encourage investment outside the United States, not in it.
Republicans constantly complain about the high corporate tax rate in the United States. The marginal rate, at 35%, is one of the highest in the world, but, the actual (effective) corporate tax rate is one of the lowest (averaging 14%) due to thousands of tax credits, loopholes and givebacks in the tax code. General Electric, the nation's largest corporation, got a tax refund last year. In fact, these ten companies paid no tax at all last year: Exxon Mobil, Bank of America, General Electric, Chevron, Boeing, Valero Energy, Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, ConocoPhillips, Carnival Cruise Lines (Senator Bernie Sanders', I-VT, as published April 15, 2011 by MoveOn.org). A study in 2008 by the GAO found that 55% of American companies paid no income tax at all in at least one of the last seven years (New York Times, May 2, 2011). A bounty of subsidies, shelters and special breaks have made American multinationals “world leaders in tax avoidance,” according to Edward D. Kleinbard, a professor at the University of Southern California, who was head of the Congressional joint committee on taxes (NY Times, 5/2/11). Last year, corporate tax revenue dropped to 9% of federal income in spite of corporate profits hitting an all-time high in 2010.
Yet, Republicans have taken corporate tax loopholes, tax breaks and givebacks to corporations off the table in current budget negotiations. Republicans call this approach "pro growth" after a decade in which business and industry used these tax breaks to create no jobs and kept wages for the American worker flat. In some cases, Republican legislators have voted to keep tax breaks that benefit them personally. For instance, noted Tea Party Republican Michele Bachmann (R-MN), a G.O.P. presidential candidate, receives $250,000 per year in farm subsidies for her family farm. Kristi Noem (R-S.D), who won in 2010 on a platform of spending cuts, has received millions of dollars in federal farm subsidies over the last decade. It should be no surprise that Republican legislators refuse to cut farm subsidies, but favor cutting social programs instead.
If the United States is serious about solving it's debt crisis, we need legislators who are willing to put aside special interests, ideology, and partisan debate. President Obama, Vice-President Biden and other Democrats are doing just that. We need Republicans to do the same.
And, that is a view from Missouri.
Sunday, May 22, 2011
Health Care and the Budget
The health care industry reminds me of the auto body repair business. If your car bumper needs to be repaired, the first question an auto body shop will ask is if you're paying out of pocket or using insurance. The reason? They will write a higher estimate if you're using insurance. Private auto body businesses know how to milk the system.
After an auto accident last year, my ex-wife had an MRI. The charge to the insurance company was $700. But, I go to the same MRI firm and pay $250 out of pocket for my son's MRIs (he's a baseball pitcher and has had several of them). No one would think of the health care industry as "scam artists" in the same way we often think of auto body shops; they are worse.
The next time, God forbid, one of your family members is in the hospital, ask to see an itemized list of charges. You will find $50 ibuprofen, $250 doctor visits, $400 per day room charges - a laundry list of inflated charges. Hospitals and doctors charge the insurance company inflated rates, the insurance company passes those costs on by raising premiums. The cycle is repeated over and over until the system is out of control. Everyone used to joke about the Pentagon paying $500 for a hammer, except that health care costs are no joke.
One might think it silly to defend such a system, but that's exactly what Republicans do under the "free enterprise" philosophy of government. The private sector unrestrained, according to the G.O.P., will solve ANY problem by itself. I have my own idea about free enterprise and it goes like this: A company, completely unregulated, will charge the HIGHEST price they can get away with. And, if you don't believe that, I know a lot of auto dealerships that would like to see you on their showroom floor.
What is free enterprise doing with health care? It is opening health clinics in drug stores with unqualified personnel that barely speak English. The person giving flu shots was the same person I saw the week before at the cash register. That, my friends, is unregulated health care.
That latest Republican health plan comes from Representative Paul Ryan under the disguise of budget cuts. Ryan's plan would end Medicare and Medicaid. If you're on Medicare, Ryan's going to give your $96 back (taken out of your social security check for Medicare) and expect you to buy private health insurance. It's impossible to find private health insurance for $96 per month.
Ryan's Medicaid plan is going to lower payments and, eventually, phase them out. Here's what you need to know about seniors and Medicaid: Most people in nursing homes use Medicaid because they run out of assets before they die and they have nowhere else to turn. Am I supposed to watch thousands of elderly people be denied entrance to nursing homes or indigent AIDS patients denied life saving drugs just so the Republicans can balance the budget without raising taxes?
There are solutions. Universal health care plans such as the Massachusetts plan continue to control costs by lowering premiums 20-40% and improve overall health by covering 98% of citizens. I'm not concerned with where solutions come from, whether free enterprise or government. But, free enterprise health care better offer me something more than a health clinic at the local drug store. That place sucks.
Paul Ryan's budget that ends Medicare and Medicaid is not a solution. It is a problem.
And, that is a view from Missouri.
After an auto accident last year, my ex-wife had an MRI. The charge to the insurance company was $700. But, I go to the same MRI firm and pay $250 out of pocket for my son's MRIs (he's a baseball pitcher and has had several of them). No one would think of the health care industry as "scam artists" in the same way we often think of auto body shops; they are worse.
The next time, God forbid, one of your family members is in the hospital, ask to see an itemized list of charges. You will find $50 ibuprofen, $250 doctor visits, $400 per day room charges - a laundry list of inflated charges. Hospitals and doctors charge the insurance company inflated rates, the insurance company passes those costs on by raising premiums. The cycle is repeated over and over until the system is out of control. Everyone used to joke about the Pentagon paying $500 for a hammer, except that health care costs are no joke.
One might think it silly to defend such a system, but that's exactly what Republicans do under the "free enterprise" philosophy of government. The private sector unrestrained, according to the G.O.P., will solve ANY problem by itself. I have my own idea about free enterprise and it goes like this: A company, completely unregulated, will charge the HIGHEST price they can get away with. And, if you don't believe that, I know a lot of auto dealerships that would like to see you on their showroom floor.
What is free enterprise doing with health care? It is opening health clinics in drug stores with unqualified personnel that barely speak English. The person giving flu shots was the same person I saw the week before at the cash register. That, my friends, is unregulated health care.
That latest Republican health plan comes from Representative Paul Ryan under the disguise of budget cuts. Ryan's plan would end Medicare and Medicaid. If you're on Medicare, Ryan's going to give your $96 back (taken out of your social security check for Medicare) and expect you to buy private health insurance. It's impossible to find private health insurance for $96 per month.
Ryan's Medicaid plan is going to lower payments and, eventually, phase them out. Here's what you need to know about seniors and Medicaid: Most people in nursing homes use Medicaid because they run out of assets before they die and they have nowhere else to turn. Am I supposed to watch thousands of elderly people be denied entrance to nursing homes or indigent AIDS patients denied life saving drugs just so the Republicans can balance the budget without raising taxes?
There are solutions. Universal health care plans such as the Massachusetts plan continue to control costs by lowering premiums 20-40% and improve overall health by covering 98% of citizens. I'm not concerned with where solutions come from, whether free enterprise or government. But, free enterprise health care better offer me something more than a health clinic at the local drug store. That place sucks.
Paul Ryan's budget that ends Medicare and Medicaid is not a solution. It is a problem.
And, that is a view from Missouri.
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
Acceptable Casualties
Seventeen percent of Americans suffered food poisoning last year resulting in death, sickness, and nationwide product recalls. In spite of this, 25 Republican senators voted against improving food safety in the last session of Congress. Republicans viewed the legislation, which passed and became law, as job killing, which it is clearly not. It is the lack of a safe food supply that is job-killing: Most of the western world refuses to buy U.S. beef products. While the rest of the world tests every piece of beef produced, the American beef industry violently opposes testing with the support of Republicans.
It is interesting the G.O.P. doesn't view the lack of food safety as people-killing. The G.O.P. propaganda machine ignores the facts about food safety and keeps churning out pro-business rhetoric - eliminate unnecessary regulations, lower taxes and get the government off the backs of business.
The truth is that food manufacturers consider food poisoning to be part of the cost of doing business. Their legal budget in any given year reflects the funding the company predicts it will need to fight claims. And, here is where Republicans can be a big help: passing legislation to limit tort awards.
In this sense, the food industry measures people's lives in dollars: The additional profits generated from reduced safety procedures and testing versus the cost of legal fees and awards won by plaintiffs years after all appeals have been exhausted.
The food industry loved the Bush administration. For eight years, Republicans cut the number of safety inspectors in regulatory agencies, installed industry professionals as heads of agencies and eased safety standards across the board. This left business and industry virtually policing themselves. Of course, George and Laura didn't need to worry - the White House tests every piece of food served. They just didn't feel everyone else deserved safe food products.
The G.O.P. considers the freedom of business to act unimpeded, in its own self interest, to be as important as an individual's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The Republican version of freedom is the anarchy of business; the right of business and industry to pursue unlimited profits at the expense of the individual. Our nation, defined by Republicans, is nothing more than a marketplace that balances itself through unregulated and unrestrained competition. That's not what I read in our founding documents. Our founding documents talk about personal freedom, not the freedom of large corporations.
Evidently, Republicans feel the seventeen percent of Americans who fall ill from food poisoning each year to be an acceptable casualty rate. Otherwise, Republicans would have voted in favor of food regulation. Republicans would do well to remember that the pursuit of corporate profit does not equal the pursuit of my individual liberty.
And, that is a view from Missouri.
It is interesting the G.O.P. doesn't view the lack of food safety as people-killing. The G.O.P. propaganda machine ignores the facts about food safety and keeps churning out pro-business rhetoric - eliminate unnecessary regulations, lower taxes and get the government off the backs of business.
The truth is that food manufacturers consider food poisoning to be part of the cost of doing business. Their legal budget in any given year reflects the funding the company predicts it will need to fight claims. And, here is where Republicans can be a big help: passing legislation to limit tort awards.
In this sense, the food industry measures people's lives in dollars: The additional profits generated from reduced safety procedures and testing versus the cost of legal fees and awards won by plaintiffs years after all appeals have been exhausted.
The food industry loved the Bush administration. For eight years, Republicans cut the number of safety inspectors in regulatory agencies, installed industry professionals as heads of agencies and eased safety standards across the board. This left business and industry virtually policing themselves. Of course, George and Laura didn't need to worry - the White House tests every piece of food served. They just didn't feel everyone else deserved safe food products.
The G.O.P. considers the freedom of business to act unimpeded, in its own self interest, to be as important as an individual's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The Republican version of freedom is the anarchy of business; the right of business and industry to pursue unlimited profits at the expense of the individual. Our nation, defined by Republicans, is nothing more than a marketplace that balances itself through unregulated and unrestrained competition. That's not what I read in our founding documents. Our founding documents talk about personal freedom, not the freedom of large corporations.
Evidently, Republicans feel the seventeen percent of Americans who fall ill from food poisoning each year to be an acceptable casualty rate. Otherwise, Republicans would have voted in favor of food regulation. Republicans would do well to remember that the pursuit of corporate profit does not equal the pursuit of my individual liberty.
And, that is a view from Missouri.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)