Showing posts with label ACA. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ACA. Show all posts

Saturday, November 05, 2016

There is a much better way than voting for Trump to express your anger with government

Whether you are Republican or Democrat, many people are upset with government.  Some are so upset with what they call government establishment politicians, that they want something completely different.  They want someone with no connection to the existing government infrastructure.  Given the choices for President this year, they see Donald Trump, a person with more connections to the Russian government than the American government, as suitable.

Trump supporters are so angry with government, that they are willing to forgive Trump of all his trespasses.  They have faith that a proven narcisisstic sociopath and sexual predator such as Trump can change his nature to become a true American dream of a patriotic and fair presidential Trump.  Someone who will "drain the swamp" in Washington (as Donald tweets) to correct the injustices they have felt and  that they believe have been caused by those politicians running the government now.

These angry feelings are understandable, but the source of this anger may be misdirected and the resolution of this anger by voting for Trump will only feel good for a very short time.  Trump's transgressions and trespasses will only get worse if he becomes President.

We are dealing with a man who has serious mental illness that may not be curable.  It prevents him from respecting anyone's opinion but his own.  It causes him to do and say things that a psychologically healthy person would find abhorrent.

Winning is more important to him than being President, and if he should lose, his flaws will cause him to find unreasonable excuses and blame others.  It causes him to assume an authoritarian personality which if elected, will make his term as President resemble a dictatorship more than democracy.

His business dealings with foreign governments will jeopardize foreign policy.  His closeness to Russia may cause him to champion policy that will favor Russian world domination.  He may even be seen by Putin as an unwitting partner in his pursuit of that effort.  Imagine the influence that  allying with the United States could have for Putin.

He has already shown an ignorance of our Constitution by challenging freedom of the press and stating that he would jail his political adversaries if elected.  He even violates the rights of American citizens by claiming that an entire religion should be exiled from the country.

He has violated business ethics and treated workers and small businesses unfairly by refusing to pay for work performed according to business contracts.  Many of his businesses have gone down to bankruptcy, which he feels makes him a smart businessman, showing complete apathy for the workers who lost jobs as a result.

He claims he will bring American jobs back to America, yet his own companies operate in China, India, Bangladesh and other third world nations.

I can continue on many more reasons that Donald Trump should not be President, but I promised in my title that there is a better way to resolve the situation that is causing so much anger with the government.

The American electorate agrees that the current Congress is worthless.  We all know that nothing gets done there.  One thing that may be missing from the explanation you have heard in the media is that not everyone there is useless.  In fact, those people that are useless are the biggest reason you are angry, even if you don't realize it.

Republicans may not accept this explanation, but I would ask that you remain open minded and consider that the GOP may have caused your anger.  If you are a devoted Fox News Republican, or listen to the multitude of right wing broadcasters, you may have been brainwashed into believing that Obama and the Congressional Democrats are responsible for all of your anger.  I submit for your review a few of the things that I believe may have caused some of your anger.

If you don't have a good job, let me remind you that America's unemployed work force could be put back to work if the President's American Jobs Act was enacted.  Unfortunately Congressional Republicans prevented passing it.

If you don't feel the improvement in the economy, remember that women earn less than men and yet could become equal in the workforce if legislation to prevent discrimination in wages was lifted by removing Republican obstruction.  Women belong to families, so increasing women's wages increases family wages.

If you care about your fellow Americans, America's immigrant families could receive fairer treatment if Congressional Republican leadership would not disallow a vote.   A bipartisan immigration effort was stifled by Republican leadership.

If you want to improve the finances of many Americans who work in lower paying jobs, and want to help stimulate the economy by putting more money in their hands, then an increase in the minimum wage could do it, except that Republicans refuse to support it.

The unfair control of government realized by the few uber-rich American contributors to the Republican party who influence their legislation and activities could be eliminated if Democrats were in the majority.

The economic theories of the GOP is summed up in the "trickle down" theory, which pretends that jobs will be created by giving tax breaks to the rich at the expense of the middle class.  The failure of the theory has been proven over many years.

It fails because jobs will never be created unless demand for products increases.  No business owner is going to increase the number of people working unless he needs them because the demand for product is exceeding current capacity of the workforce.

One way to benefit the economy, the rich and the middle class would be to increase the wealth of the middle class.  This will allow them to spend more on products and stimulate demand.  This would then allow the business to increase the workforce.  Provided the businessman has some patriotism left, these new workers will be American workers.

This demand side policy has not been allowed into practice by Republicans who are in the majority in Congress and all attempts to introduce increased wages have been blocked by the Congressional GOP.

If you are a caring person, realizing that some poor children go to bed hungry should make you  angry with Congressional Republicans whose cuts to the SNAP program are based on incorrectly identifying fraud as the reason for cutting aid.

If you are proud of your vote, then falsely imposed voting restrictions in Republican run states might make you angry.

Perhaps you are angry that Congress is spending millions of tax dollars on the Republican party's partisan witch-hunts based on false accusations.  Maybe you would like to see this waste of money stop being the focus of the Congress.  The GOP has already promised many more years of "witch hunts" if Hillary Clinton is elected.

America would never again renege on their debt obligations if Republicans are not given the power of the majority to cause it as they have already.  Incidentally, this also added billions to our debt because of our decreased credit rating and increased interest charges as a result.

Dealing with scientific facts, the government could make more reasonable decisions to enact laws that protect our environment and prevent climate change if Republicans were not in control.

Near treasonous acts that show Republican leadership's opposition to government would end.

Using fear tactics and lies to persuade Americans into voting against their own self interest could end if Republicans are shown that using those unethical tactics cannot win them elections.

The federal government may never face another shutdown if Republicans were not in control.

Real efforts to fix the Affordable Care Act to protect Americans with health insurance would be possible and not face Republican efforts to repeal it and replace it with "something really terrific" but as yet unidentified and most likely non-existent.

We can accomplish all of this by voting for Democrats up and down the ticket.  Believe it or not, it is your Republican run Congress that is causing your anger.

Your vote is the key.  Don't waste it on four more years of obstruction.  Your situation will improve as soon as we have reasonable politicians who put people before profits working in our government.







Thursday, May 12, 2016

This time Obama-Care may be toast

The essence of the Affordable Care act was introduced as a proposal by the Republican policy making group, the Heritage Foundation in 2003.  See the web page on the Heritage Foundation site http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2003/03/covering-the-uninsured-how-states for one such article by Dr. Robert E. Moffitt of the Heritage Foundation.

Dr. Moffitt gives guidance to the states that seems based on his humanitarian ideals to cover more people who cannot afford healthcare insurance.  Some of that concern for humanity seems to have left Republican Congressmen of late.

Since the Affordable Care Act was introduced as law, Republicans in Congress have been fighting to find ways to stop its implementation.  They have wasted their time attempting to repeal the law over fifty times, only to be met with a Presidential veto. They have researched the weakest parts of the law and attempted on a few occasions to get the Supreme Court to denounce it as unconstitutional; usually to no avail.

Republican leaders in GOP led states refused to open up their own state healthcare marketplace sites to try to make the Federal government's role more complex.  They were happy when the Supreme Court left it up to the states to implement the medicaid expansion part of the Affordable Care Act law.  Most Republican led states refused to accept medicaid expansion and denied millions of the most defenseless Americans the opportunity for healthcare.  This was not just a typical Republican heartless act, but was also intended to help the law fail. Any additional profit for insurance companies from medicaid expansion payments by the federal government could not happen as a result.  This would likely push premium prices higher.  Additionally, people who could not get medicaid assistance would increase lost revenue by hospitals and doctors when they could not afford to pay for their medical care.  Some who could not afford it, would die without medical care.

Republicans have used their power in Congress to appropriate funds, or in this case to fail to approve appropriation of healthcare funds in attempts to make the law fail.  They have contributed to the potential failure of the Affordable Care law however they could.  Without their destructive acts,  the law may have been successful.  Now closed medical facilities and hospitals may have stayed in business.  Insurance companies could have profited more.  The act would have lived up to its title and really been affordable without increases in premiums as are now proposed.

But now, this latest tactic of Republicans has been to attack Obama's funding of subsidies which they claim has been done without their consent.  Congress does have the authority to approve the appropriation of money used by the Federal government and they claim the money was not approved by Congress.  The lawsuit brought against the Obama Administration has been judged in favor of Republicans by the lower court.  The judge in that case has found the subsidy funding of insurance companies by the Obama Administration was illegal since the money was not appropriated by Congress.

Of course, the case is not final and will be allowed to have appeals proceedings.  If brought to the Supreme Court, where the Court is now equally divided between Democratic sympathizers and Republican Sympathizers, the lower court ruling may stand if it ends in a tie and the Affordable Care law will die.

What type of party is the GOP to have fought against its own citizens to defeat an administration who is an advocate of the people?  Hopefully you will think hard and long about this as you ponder your choices for the party that should be elected to Congress in the upcoming elections.

Sunday, April 12, 2015

Florida plans to eliminate the undeserving from healthcare

Florida State Flag
Florida, like most other Republican run states, has decided that the poor do not deserve healthcare.  Their rejection of Medicaid Expansion is based on their distrust of President Obama and their acceptance that reimbursing hospitals with Low Income Pool money is better than giving health insurance to the undeserving poor.

The public distrust of President Obama and his Democratic administration has been a Republican party strategy.  All Republicans are expected to continue this public display of criticism of the President so that they can use it as their main reason to obstruct any Democratic policy and by so doing, help the Democrats fail.  This is partisan politics which shows that Republicans have no problem taking actions that hurt Americans and hurt their state's economic condition without so much as an ounce of guilt.

Psychologists often say that a person's view of others is influenced by the subconscious guilt that they feel about their own actions.  Psychological projection is a theory that explains why some people shift their own faults onto someone else and deny that it occurs in themselves.  Neurotic or psychotic liars think all people lie.  Every narcissistic untrustworthy person thinks everyone else is untrustworthy.  Maybe that is the thinking that has entered into the Republican party.  The fact that many in the right wing of politics are commonly referred to as "nut jobs" may have a real basis in fact.

Someone who really does not deserve trust is Florida's governor, Rick Scott.  He was the former CEO of Columbia/HCA Healthcare.  In that position, Scott and his executives illegally charged Medicare billions in fake charges.  Scott quit that position just four months after the government's case became public.  His company was fined $1.7 billion as a result and Scott narrowly escaped getting jail time.  Now he's Florida's governor.

And now Florida finds itself with a House in conflict with its Senate regarding budget money for low income healthcare provisions.  With only a few weeks left in the legislative session, Florida Senate lawmakers have passed a budget for $80.4 billion which includes low income healthcare spending, while lawmakers in the Florida House have passed a $76.2 billion budget which eliminates healthcare spending for low income people.

Governor Scott has had a flip, flop, flip attitude when it comes to low income health insurance.  First he was against expanding medicaid to toe the Republican line to attempt to repeal the ACA in its entirety.  Then he was for it, but could not persuade stalwart Republicans to support it.  Now, after the Federal government has rejected his demands to continue to fund the Florida Low Income Pool, he is against it again.

Governor Scott and the Republican Florida House would much prefer to allow big tax breaks for business and a few dollars in savings for cable bill taxes for it's citizens than provide life saving health care for Florida's "undeserving."

Scott's demands to continue the Low Income Pool (LIP) were rejected by the federal government as it warned it would over a year ago, if Florida could not provide evidence about how the money was being used.  Also, the LIP fund was never supposed to be a permanent program.  Florida did nothing to convince the Federal Government that the LIP fund should be continued, outside of Rick Scott demanding that it should and the government refused to extend LIP.  But there would be plenty of federal money available for healthcare if the state would just expand medicaid.

With the Federal government offering to pay for 100% of the costs of expanded medicaid for the first three years of its implementation,  and 90% thereafter, Florida did nothing and let that money pass by.

The benefits of accepting expanded medicaid far outweigh the benefits of the LIP fund.  Medicaid expansion provides individuals with medical insurance; while the LIP fund provides hospitals with payment if they should care for someone who cannot afford to pay for services.  If an individual does not have medical insurance, they are more likely to not get healthcare when they need it.  This can lead to unnecessary complications and even death in some cases.  When they do need it, it is usually urgently needed and may be a life or death situation, so they are more likely to go to an emergency room where prices are much higher.  Expanded medicaid would save lives.  The LIP fund merely save some costs for hospitals.

There is a reason why hospitals, the Chamber of Commerce, medical device manufacturers  and others in the medical profession have favored expanding medicaid.  Not only does it mean more money for business, it also means a healthier state population and a healthier state economy.  Denying expanded medicaid makes Republicans in Florida seem very ignorant.

It is beyond time for the Florida House to stop their war against the poor in Florida.  It is time for Republican leadership to show that they are not right wing nut jobs.  It is time to accept medicaid expansion and get back to the business of serving all people of the state.  It is the correct thing to do.  It is the economical thing to do.  It is the moral thing to do.

And there is little time left to do it.




Thursday, November 06, 2014

Lies, fear mongering, appealing to baser emotions and other winning GOP strategies

It's been a while since I have written.  I thought I said it all; educated you to the dangers of partisan politics and expected you to go to the polls enlightened enough to make choices that would help improve what is wrong with government.

Then the mid-term elections took place.  After I came back from the acute case of shock induced depression brought on by the recent romping that the Democrats got from the Republicans, I began to ponder what just happened.

For every enlightened voter out there, there are just a few more who are blind to the devious ways of the Republican party.  Just enough low information voters to give Republicans an advantage in mid-term elections with low voter turn-out.  Although the general public has rated our modern "do-nothing" Congress with only 13% favorability, it appears they do not know who the real culprits are.  I used to think that America blamed both parties equally.  Now I understand that America only blames Democrats.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  Republicans purposely caused the failure of the government in order to deceive voters that the party holding the office of the President, cannot accomplish anything.

Many voters think that all failure and blame lands on the President and his party.  Republican strategists and Mitch McConnell himself understood this and used it to their advantage.  Before the President was inaugerated in 2009, Mitch and his band of Republican strategists met to take advantage of it.  See the evidence in an article from Time magazine here. The plan they created was to obstruct every major piece of legislation that Democrats and the President wanted.  In this way, Mitch and his malcontents knew that the President would not be given any credit for any accomplishment.  This would strengthen Republican potential to win future elections.  They did this in plain view of the public and yet too few noticed it happening.  They did it to the detriment of America for political gain and got rewarded for it in the end.  Their obstruction has gone on for years now.

Republicans kept deceiving the public at a rapid clip with continuous lies about the President.  During the 2012 Presidential campaign, Republicans used lies as a campaign strategy.  They blamed Obama for telling business owners that they did not create their business.  A complete fabrication intended to mislead the public.  They took the President's words out of context to make it appear he said denigrating things against all Americans.  They spoke of how damaging Obamacare was without justification and voted to repeal it over fifty times.  Republicans even denied medicaid expansion without reason in most Republican run states to attempt to encourage it's demise and deny healthcare to millions of Americans.

Conservative "news" shows kept slamming the President with false accusations, appealing to their audiences baser emotions, using fear mongering, appealing to racism and spreading lies to confuse the public.  They blamed Obama for everything.  If Ebola got into the country on the backs of ISIS it would be Obama's fault.

Republican leaders like Michele Bachman lied to the public about Obamacare death panels.  Republicans closed the government and blamed the Democrats while Republican leaders took photo-ops with veterans at closed government federal parks and facilities pretending that the GOP was outraged that the government was closed.  Republican led witch-hunts by Congressional committees to hear about the so-called involvement of the President or his cabinet members in Benghazi, the IRS tax exemption decisions, and other fabricated scandals were done not to get at the truth, but instead to confuse the voting public and spread lies about the President and his cabinet.

Republican voting shows them to be against the poor and middle class, veterans, the elderly, women, students and labor.  Their budget proposal shows that they have plans to increase the wealth of the super-rich while taking from the middle class to accomplish it.

And this strategy worked.  America blamed the Democrats and rewarded Republicans bad behavior by electing them into power.  There is only one deceiver I can think of who might be on par with the deception of the Republican party and that horned demon might actually be behind all of this.  Nothing else makes as much sense.






Wednesday, February 05, 2014

The CBO explanation of ACA effects screams for single-payer

Congressional Budget Office
To many Republicans in Congress the CBO's recent comments on the effects of the Affordable Care Law on labor markets appear to be the proof they need to continue attacking the law.  That's because they are Republicans who welcome the opportunity to mistakenly interpret and then mislead Americans into thinking badly about the health care law. 

The CBO's explanation is not about a bad health care law forcing business to take jobs away from Americans. It is mainly about Americans who may make a personal choice to leave the labor market or change their jobs because of some amount of financial benefit the health care law subsidies may give them.  

Whether this conclusion will ever be realized is questionable since many of the CBO's premises are purely conjecture and have no means to substantiate them.  The affordable care act law has not been in effect long enough to have shown any historical data to even hint that the conclusions drawn by the CBO are accurate.  Throughout the CBO's report, which can be found on the web at http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/45010-Outlook2014.pdf , the CBO itself has warned that the comments are subject to substantial uncertainty.

There are four areas where the CBO believes the ACA will have an impact on reducing labor supply, but major among them is the subsidies for health insurance purchased through the exchanges.  These subsidies are largest for individuals whose income is near the federal poverty level.  In many cases these people are working at the lowest level of low paying jobs and some may be working two or more jobs depending on their family situation, just to earn enough to pay their bills.  In such cases, a worker may find that the health insurance subsidy reduces their family expenses enough to allow them to spend more time caring for their family at home and less time trying to earn the money to feed, clothe and shelter them.

Quoting from the CBO study,
The CBO's estimate of the response of labor supply to the subsidies is based on research concerning the way changes in marginal tax rates affect labor supply and on studies analyzing how labor supply responds to changes in after-tax income.
However, the study cited does not consider a family's real expenses.  It only looks at a static response by all such families to an increase in taxes with the expected result of reducing their working hours to avoid paying higher taxes.  It is not a convincing argument of real-life and is most likely another flaw in their analysis.

The expansion of Medicaid is a second area which the CBO believes can impact certain parties in the workforce to reduce their personal working hours, since a person who is at 100-138% of the poverty level in states that have not enacted Medicaid expansion are eligible for health insurance subsidies through the exchanges.  Apparently the CBO believes that once people get subsidies they no longer want to contribute to society. 

Penalties on employers that decline to offer insurance is a third area that the CBO believes will reduce workers personal preference to work.  The CBO believes that business owners will transfer the costs of these penalties to their workers, thereby effectively reducing their wages or by removing other employee benefits.  Again, the CBO believes that the effective reduction in wages will cause some employees to reduce their working hours.  The CBO believes that although there is only currently anecdotal evidence that employers will reduce their employees working hours to side-step the health care law, it states that they may do it in the future. 

The CBO also expects that new taxes imposed on labor income will reduce the time some workers  will want to work.  Again implying that a worker's actions towards increases in taxes is to reduce his working time.  Not very realistic in my opinion. 

So, although most liberal media outlets are claiming that the CBO is only suggesting that workers themselves will make the decision to leave work early or reduce their hours, I believe the study causes more confusion than it is worth. 

It's conclusions are suspect based on it's inability to derive future events from historical facts, largely because the health care law has only just begun to have an effect on people.  It draws conclusions about worker actions in response to increases in taxes or reduction in wages without consideration for the real-life situation every person is in;  to survive at a reasonable level of comfort;  to contribute to society and feel valued.

Although business owners may take the unethical steps to circumvent the law by reducing employees wages or benefits, they can do that to others and the outcome for the business is positive insomuch as profit margin.  A worker cannot simply reduce his work without changing some other aspect of his life and a health care subsidy is simply not enough of a change to result in the kinds of actions the CBO expects.

The CBO's explanation of the behavior of workers because of a subsidy may be worthless, but one aspect of the study does have some merit.  That would be the possibility that when business is involved in providing insurance, they may transfer costs that are intended for them to their employees.  Although I don't completely agree with the CBO's estimation that some workers may leave work because of this, where it occurs, it does still have a negative impact on workers.  Because of this, an improvement in the ACA that the CBO study seems to be inadvertently advocating is to remove businesses from the equation altogether.  This would make health insurance a single payer national program where the government is responsible for providing all health insurance.

Single payer health insurance was discussed in the United States legislature before but never got more than 20% support from Congress.  It has been favorably evaluated by the CBO many times since 1993.  Since it would be a government program, it's cost would need to be offset by new tax revenue, such as would be obtained from eliminating tax loopholes for the wealthy and minimizing government subsidies for big corporations.

Republicans would never allow their constituents to pay their fair share of taxes, so we are pretty much assured that single payer would never be a program while they control the House, which is another good reason to vote them out of office.



Monday, November 11, 2013

The real reason Republican leadership hates ObamaCare

The Affordable Care Act (which is now law) provides health insurance to nearly 30 million Americans who did not previously have it.  It requires health insurance companies to treat Americans fairly.  It mandates a set of health insurance standards to ensure that Americans understand the kind of coverage they are getting.  It eliminates "junk" insurance that does not truly provide helpful coverage.  It provides Americans with a known set of insurance coverages which they have the freedom to choose from.

The law provides subsidies to those families and individuals who could not otherwise afford sensible coverage.  It prevents insurance companies from denying insurance for individuals with pre-existing conditions.  It prevents insurance companies from dropping individuals when their illness becomes too costly to the insurance company.  It provides women with free preventive care for such things as PAP smears.  It allows children to remain on their parent's insurance policy until they are 26 years old.  It eliminates lifetime caps and ensures Americans can remain insured during catastrophic illnesses.  It provides for rebates to insured Americans if their insurance company charges more than 20% of their premium price for management and administrative costs.

The Congressional Budget Office has indicated that the Affordable Care Law will return money to
the economy.  They found that repealing the law would increase the deficit by 108 billion over 10 years.  It has been estimated that the increase in the number of patients will add a windfall of profits to doctors, hospitals and medical device manufacturers.  That profit is estimated to be so high, that most medical device manufacturers have agreed to pay the government back over 80 billion dollars in ten years.  The rise in the patient population is said to be good for jobs.

Where expanded medicaid is implemented in the states, it will cover the very poor and improve state economies not only by preventing costly emergency room visits by the uninsured, but also by providing states with 100% of the cost involved in implementing it in the first three years and 90% of the cost in all future years.

The well being and pursuit of happiness of Americans that is guaranteed by our constitution will improve for millions and millions of Americans because of the law.  So what is the real reason that Republican leadership hates it?

We have heard Republican complaints that people will lose their jobs, businesses will  reduce full time employees and death panels led by the Obama administration will decide who lives and dies because of the law.  Is any of it true or is it just more Republican fear mongering?  You can rest assured that none of it is true and it is just more Republican fear mongering.

Fox news has assisted in this fear mongering by inviting a few guests who have misrepresented their situations so as to appear affected by the law, but when investigated by outside impartial observers, have been found to be mistaken.  Fox news' Sean Hannity has had several staged shows where his invited "audience" of Fox news reporters make stuff up to continue the lie that ObamaCare is the worst thing ever.

We know that Republicans hate ObamaCare.  They have proven it over 40 times when they have wasted taxpayer money to try to repeal it unsuccessfully.  Ted Cruz, that Canadian born Tea Party Senator, has even given a performance in a "filibuster of nothingness" to show his determination that ObamaCare is bad.  He's made millions by conning the American public to support his efforts with contributions in television ads.

So lets get down to it.  The real reason Republican leaders hate ObamaCare has a lot to do with Republican leadership's commitment to a decision they made as a group while President Obama was being inaugurated in 2009.  They all agreed to make the President ineffective in any way they could.  During his first term, Mitch McConnell publicly announced that their most important goal was to make Obama a one term President.

Failing that, they continued to support their goal that this President's legacy will show that he accomplished nothing during his terms in office.  Republicans in Congress have used their power of filibuster, obstruction and majority rule in the House to prevent passage of everything proposed by the Democrats and the President.  The 112th and 113th Congresses, both of which have had Republicans controlling the House, have been the least effective in the history of the United States, passing no substantial legislation in either session.  But that is their goal and they are accomplishing it very effectively, regardless of the impact it has on America.

They are hopeful that when time passes and the memory of their personal acts of destruction to America are forgotten, what history will record is that the first black American President could not accomplish anything.  They are counting on the fading memories of Americans who know about their actions and the ones who don't know the difference in the legislative branch and the executive branch, to wrongly see the President as ineffective.  Their hope is to never allow a black Democrat to become elected President again.  Somehow, their perverse and some would say, bigoted ideas about this appear to them to be the thing that returns public opinion and favoritism to Republican candidates for the office.

The one thing that saves President Obama from this is ObamaCare and Republicans hate that fact.  They hate that all of their efforts may be for nothing unless this ObamaCare law is erased from history.  And so it has become the most important thing that Republicans can target in order to accomplish their goal.

Americans must begin to see the truth about ObamaCare.  They must see the lies coming from the Republican party.  Any party that is willing to take such devious actions and sacrifice Americans to carry out their partisan goals does not deserve to be in office.

Your vote is the key to returning decency to government.  I urge you to vote Democrat in all elections.  

Sunday, September 29, 2013

Republicans reduce demands for releasing the government hostage, but the threat of shutdown continues

John Boehner
When House Republicans started the debate over the continuing resolution to fund the government they started their bargaining at the high end.  Not only would ObamaCare have to be defunded, but nearly all of the Mitt Romney economic policies he campaigned on were added to the pot.  The Democrats in the Senate would not hear any of it, so they stripped everything out of the House bill except for the continuing resolution itself and returned it to the House.

Democrat majority leader Harry Reid forewarned House Republicans that any bill sent in response that included any changes to ObamaCare would be "dead on arrival" to the Senate chamber.  That didn't stop the Republicans on their second volley attempt at modifying the bill.

Late Saturday night, House Republicans reduced their requirements to two major ones related to ObamaCare.  They are now seeking a one year delay in the introduction of the program and elimination of a 2.3% tax on medical device manufacturers which was a requirement of ObamaCare funding.  Although this reduction in demands may be seen by the Republican base as a serious offer, it is unlikely to be met with anything but refusal when the bill goes to the Senate.

Neither the Senate nor the House is expected to be in session on Sunday, so it is almost certain that the government will shutdown unless a new bill can be drafted and passed by both chambers of Congress on Monday, September 30.

In an apparent concession that the government will close down, Republicans also passed a bill that would continue uniformed military pay in the event of a government shutdown.

As always, Republicans have been cunning in formulating strategies to advance their political agenda.  One Republican Congressman interviewed by MSNBC indicated that the goal of the one year delay was to allow time for Republicans to regroup and win the Senate back in 2014 when they could take care of the whole deal with ObamaCare.  A comment that made one think they planned to eliminate the program as soon as they were in control of both Houses.

The 2.3% medical device tax was a requirement of ObamaCare on medical device manufacturers' profits.  At the time of creation, legislators and manufacturers agreed that ObamaCare, with all of the new patients being covered, would give a windfall of new profits to all medical industries, some of which should be used to help fund the program.  Other medical industries agreed that between $60 billion and $80 billion was a fair amount to return for the increased revenue from ObamaCare over ten years.  The medical device industry however, has said that the 2.3% tax would be damaging to their industry and have spent over $150 million on lobbyists trying to get out of the deal.  If Republicans were successful in removing the proceeds from this tax, ObamaCare would essentially be defunded by some $35 billion over 10 years.

How long will it take Republicans to realize that Democrats just need a clean continuing resolution bill without attachments related to changes to ObamaCare?  Republicans have gone outside of the normal procedures of a democracy.  It is new ground that they are breaking by threatening harm to America unless they get their policies passed.  We can only hope that they do not repeat the same behavior when the debt ceiling comes up for a vote in the next few weeks.

Their actions during this President's term in office should give policy makers ample reason to justify legislation to reign in such harmful tactics by members of Congress.









Wednesday, August 14, 2013

What John Boehner did on his summer vacation

John Boehner
In a last ditch effort to scare the American public into thinking that Obamacare is the evil that will kill America as we know it, Speaker of the House, John Boehner has been very busy tweeting disparaging remarks about the Affordable Care Act law while on his summer vacation.

One of his most often repeated claims is that full time jobs are disappearing as a result of Obamacare.

The Affordable Care Act, in an effort to not financially over-burden small businesses that may not be able to afford it, originally allowed a minimum employee requirement of at least 25 full time employees before a business must provide employee healthcare.  In order to compromise with Republicans, the law was later changed to require a minimum of at least 50 full time employees before insurance coverage was required.  Full time employees are defined as workers with at least 40 hours of work per week or 2080 hours of work per year.

This requirement was intended to protect businesses that may really be endangered financially if they were forced to provide insurance to their employees.   In other words, those businesses that may be forced out of business if they had to provide health insurance and could find no other way to save costs.  The Act also attempts to protect such fragile small businesses by providing tax credits of up to 50% of the non-elective contributions the employer made on behalf of its employees.

According to Boehner, businesses which do not fit the criteria are now using these allowances to side-step providing insurance for their employees.  Boehner cites one example of a business owner of 21 (yes, that's twenty-one) Subway restaurants who decided to reduce the hours of employees so that he could use the allowance to avoid having to provide health insurance.  Another report indicates that Wal-Mart is reducing full time employees and increasing part time employees (ten times more than last year) to keep costs down.  Apparently offering insurance is going to break the bank of the wealthiest family in the retail business.  Wal-Mart employs some of the lowest paid workers in the United States and in so doing are taking advantage of taxpayers who provide supplements to Wal-Mart employees wages in such programs as supplemental nutrition, medicaid, and increased medical premiums for unpaid medical bills.

It is odd that Boehner sees this as an Obamacare caused phenomenon instead of placing the blame where it belongs, on greedy and uncaring business owners.  I was struck by the statement of the wealthy subway owner who was quoted as saying "I know the impact that I am having on some of my employees."  The article left out the remaining thought that was obviously knocking around inside the owner's head but didn't come out...the one that goes something like "but I don't care."

Now there are plenty of studies that indicate the majority of employers are not side-stepping Obamacare  by taking what most would say are unethical steps to avoid it, so this rant that Boehner is taking may just be another Republican ruse that uses fear to deceive.  Republican leadership appears adamant to fight Obamacare by any unethical means possible, just as some unethical business owners are sure to use tactics that they have always used to avoid providing benefits for their employees.

The only fault I see with the Affordable Care Act law is the fact that there was a business allowance at all.  Short of being a single payer program, it should have required all business to provide insurance and perhaps give tax breaks based on the size of the business, with smaller businesses getting more of a tax break.  The temptation was too great for dishonest business owners to use it as a loop-hole and then flaunt their arrogance by blaming the law for their unethical behavior.

So let's call it like it is Mr Speaker.  You can't blame Obamacare for the unethical actions of your constituents.












Wednesday, July 24, 2013

The straw that breaks the elephants back?

President Obama taught Americans about demand side economics today in a speech designed to kick-start action in Congress and allow Republicans to show they are serious about John Boehner's so far empty slogan "...Republicans most important action is to create jobs, jobs, jobs."  His presentation was inspiring and showed his sincere concern for America's middle class as well as his understanding about real solutions to initiating economic prosperity for all Americans.

Specifically he spoke about and elaborated on the cornerstones of improving the economy.  These are:

1. Good Jobs with decent wages and benefits.  His efforts will be towards recognizing companies that keep jobs in America and treat their employees fairly.

2. Education programs to prepare children for global competition.  He spoke about the need for pre-school for all 4 year olds; improving school infrastructures; reversing the student loan rate increase and making college affordable for all Americans.

3. Home ownership.  He wants to encourage ownership based on solid foundation of fair and clear rules and asked Congress to take action to encourage families to refinance at low rates.

4. Secure retirement.  He believes America has an upside down system where the wealthy get generous tax exceptions to save but the lower classes do not get the same breaks.  He wants to allow the middle class to save money and belay fears of poverty in retirement.  He reminded Congress that passing immigration reform makes undocumented workers pay their taxes and shores up social security.

5. Health Care focus.  He wants Americans to have security in knowing neither accident nor illness will cause you to lose your savings.  The affordable care act means a better deal for people.  Private insurers will compete for your business.  Pre-existing conditions will have to be covered.  Health care costs are being driven down.  Some states are finding that premiums will  be 50% lower.  The Affordable care act ensures health insurance coverage for 26 year olds under their parents plan.  He does not know why Republicans want to repeal such a benefit for people.

6. Rebuild opportunity for those who have not made it.  The President believes that too many are still in poverty.  He recognizes that America does not guarantee success and people need to be self-reliant.  But he wants there to be a quality of opportunity and upward mobility available for everyone.  The American idea is that you can make it if you work hard, but opportunity is harder to find over the last 30 years.  We must do more to give every American the chance to make it to the middle class.
He wants to rebuild run down neighborhoods.  He again calls for raising the minimum wage.  He believes economic growth will benefit everyone when it comes from the middle class out and not top down.  Even without Congress he says he will do whatever is in his power to focus on that philosophy.  He is calling on the private sector to step up and for Democrats to redesign or get rid of non-workable programs.

7. Republicans must work with the President to find common ground.  President Obama thinks there are Republicans who privately agree with his policies in Congress now but they are afraid of retribution from their party.  He identifies Republicans in Congress as the greatest obstruction that hampers economic growth.  Republicans must now lay out their ideas.  He reminds them that you can't just be against something.  He insists they must be for something.  He is ready to work with Republicans if they have any ideas.  He says if Republicans have any better  ideas then they should stop taking ludicrous repeal votes and share their ideas with the country.  The President will not accept deals that do not meet the test of strengthening hard working families.

Still focused on the Republican obstruction in Congress,  the President says that doing nothing will lose a part of the character of America.  The American dream will be lost and the position of the middle class will erode further.  Money politics will destroy our country more.  Fundamental optimism will give way to cynicism.  He warns "that's not the vision of America we should settle for."

The President appeals to the moral compass of Republicans to stop the fighting in order to think about the American way of life.  Making America special is not to focus on making the few wealthy.  It's about making America benefit.  It's an American dream; not Obama's dream or Sally's dream or John's dream.

Unfortunately, demand side economics flies in the face of Congressional Republicans view of the
pathway for economic success.  According to Republicans since Ronald Reagan, supply side economics is the way to trickle down prosperity to the lower levels of society.  This means bolstering the wealthy with tax cuts and government money while reducing government spending on the public infrastructure and reducing government spending that benefits the weakest in society.

One must remember that Republican majority leader John Boehner assigned Paul Ryan to create their proposed budget.  Paul Ryan is a firm believer in Ayn Rand's anti-Christian policies of survival of the fittest.  As such his proposed budget slashes government programs that benefit the general public and the poorest in society in favor of tax cuts and government subsidy entitlements for the wealthiest Americans.  Even though Republicans will stand fervently united in their faith of supply side economics, economists have identified the undeniable fact that only the wealthy benefit from it.

From demand comes business profits.  Without demand, businesses will hold onto their cash reserves, remove jobs to be more in line with decreased demand and find cheaper ways to produce their products.

This is exactly what we have seen in the rush to manufacture in foreign countries, finding cheaper foreign workers, suppressing unions, hiring temporary and part-time workers instead of higher paid full time employees and keeping wages for Americans low.  Without demand, any business would not survive.  American workers who are the product consumers provide businesses with that demand.  Bolstering the working class would benefit businesses and improve the economy for everyone.

So will Republicans rally around President Obama's vision of economic prosperity?  My opinion is that they would rather ruin our economy by disallowing debt ceiling increases than changing this basic misunderstanding that they have about economics.

So what will the President's speech accomplish if our government is still obstructed by Republicans?  Perhaps I give more credit to the American voter than is due, but I believe this speech will setup the failure of Republicans in the 2014 mid-term elections.  Any thinking American voter will understand the concept and should be fed up with Republican obstruction.

This speech may be the straw that breaks the elephants back.



Sunday, May 26, 2013

A Republican to English dictionary

Although born and raised in the United States, my father, who passed away in his old age a few years ago, was not really good with the English language.  Sometimes he used words that he made up in conversation that sounded like words that they really weren't.  My kids were often confused by their "Papa", as they used to call him, and I would joke with them that maybe we needed to get a Papa- to-English dictionary.

Because of their support for policies which Republicans stand for, most of which go against their best interest, middle-class Republicans may be well served if they had a Republican-to-English dictionary.  Perhaps that way they could better understand that their welfare is not of concern when it comes to modern Republican politics.

Here are a few examples of statements we have heard our Republican leaders talk about.  I have given some assistance to the American voter by attempting to identify the true meaning of these words in plain English.

"Jobs, Jobs Jobs": Cheap foreign labor for America's Corporations.  

"Support for our troops": Increasing government funding of defense contractors.

"Reducing the deficit":  Protecting the 1% by taking revenue off the table, increasing military budgets to protect defense contractors and only calling for government spending reductions in programs for the poor, women, children, the elderly, students, the handicapped, military veterans and the unemployed.

"Smaller Government": 1. Eliminating government protections of it citizens in regards to regulations on business so that big business can operate with a free hand to decrease costs involved with making a safe product, protecting the environment, giving fair wages, creating a safe work environment, treating workers fairly and otherwise operating responsibly.  2. Reducing government spending by eliminating public service jobs such as teachers, police, fire-fighters and government workers and rejecting the American Jobs Act that would have improved the infrastructure of roads, bridges, schools, etc. 

"2nd Amendment rights": Returning the favor for NRA lobbyist money and preserving the market and demand for weapon manufacturers regardless of the wishes of the majority of Americans for stronger gun laws.

"Obama-Care": Originally a Republican introduced derogatory term for the Affordable Care Act which later became adopted as a catch-phrase by President Obama.  Republican intent is to put fear into American citizens and protect big insurance corporations from the effects of treating American citizens with fairer insurance rules and charging costs that would benefit the citizen.  Most of the effort of the Republicans in the 113th Congress has been in attempting to repeal Obama-Care law 37 times as of this date.

"Sequester": A Republican plan since 2010 to reduce the size of government in a way that would protect the wealthy and would otherwise never be possible by normal legislative proceedings.

"Filibuster": The cornerstone of Republican obstructionism used to prevent problem resolution, slow down progress on legislation and block President Obama's appointees and ideas that support middle-class Americans.

"Balanced Budget": A financial plan that reduces spending on useful government programs such as medicare, medicaid, the social safety net and social security which must not be balanced by any increase in revenue, especially by increased taxes on the wealthy or corporations. 

"501(c)4": Republican worked loophole in the IRS regulations that permits a political action committee to receive donations that are exempt from federal taxes and then to complain when the IRS workers request information that may prove they are political action committees.  The 501(c)4 is supposed to be for non-political social organizations.

"Stimulus package": Another name for the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.  An act carried out by the Democrats and President Obama that saved the country from financial collapse.  Republicans voted against the stimulus package.

"Voter ID": An attempt to reduce access to voting by members of the citizenry who would not vote Republican in elections.  This action as well as closing down voting precincts and voting hours were used by Republican state legislatures as a strategy in the 2012 elections.

Republicans have proven that they do not represent the middle-class or the poor.  If you are in one of these groups and you vote Republican, I would be interested in knowing why you would vote that way.

If you have any other definitions, please feel free to add a comment.  I'll add the best one's to my collection.

Wednesday, May 22, 2013

States who implement expanded Medicaid will see significant improvement in financial health

With the arrival of medical care under the Affordable Care Act in 2014, those states who's legislatures are smart businessmen will see state expenditures for medicaid recipients health insurance coverage erased off their books.  This can save many states tens of billions of dollars of state funds.

Some states with Republican governors and/or legislatures have unfortunately allowed Federal Republicans to distort their view of Obama Care benefits to the states and in so doing have done themselves, their state and their citizens a disservice.

It is just bad business for a state to turn away federal money but that's exactly what some foolish state legislatures are doing.  Let me cite an example with the situation in Florida.

Florida's Governor, Rick Scott originally sided with federal Congressional Republicans and supported the "Obama-Care bad" philosophy.  But when Governor Scott began to investigate the advantages of
Florida 
implementing expanded medicaid in Florida, he changed his mind.  Unfortunately, most of the GOP in the Florida legislature didn't have the wisdom or understanding that Scott had and now it looks as though Florida will not implement expanded medicaid.

Florida is currently funding medicaid for 3.3 million recipients at a cost of $21 billion a year before Obama-Care.  Half of this cost is shared with the federal government.  Although the intentions of the Florida legislature may have been to not become a partner with the federal government (because Obama-Care is a Democrat idea), they already are partners with them.  So to bite off their own noses to spite their faces, the Republicans in the Florida legislature are willing to give up about $10.5 billion dollars of federal assistance to make an empty gesture of solidarity that will cost Florida tax payers billions.

Under Obama Care, medicaid's expansion would give health coverage to unemployed persons and people who cannot afford health insurance and are not covered by any company health insurance plan or medicaid recipient class today.  Florida would have been able to add this class of recipient for no additional cost under Obama Care for the first three years of implementation.  After that, the State would only bear 10% of medicaid costs, which is still a bargain since they are currently paying 50% of the cost.

When individuals do not have insurance and go to a hospital for medical care, they often go to the emergency room.  Emergency room costs are very high.  Since uninsured patients usually cannot pay their medical bill, hospitals will file with insurance companies and insurance companies will pass that cost along to the rest of us in increased insurance premiums.

Hospitals are more likely to be able to increase employment when more people are covered by an insurance plan and are able to receive medical treatment.  This should not be overlooked by the party who only thinks about "jobs, jobs, jobs."

Ultimately, Florida would be able to cover more patients for less cost if the legislature would implement expanded medicaid under the Affordable Healthcare Act.

The situation is exactly the same for other states.  It just makes good fiscal sense for states to implement the extended medicaid program.  It is puzzling why some are not.


Saturday, August 11, 2012

The next President of the United States: Paul Ryan

Mitt Romney is smarter than we all think.  Or maybe he is psychic. He knows he doesn't have a snowball's chance in Hell of winning the 2012 Presidential election.  So he wisely introduces Paul Ryan as the next President of the United States today on a crowd filled battleship with much of America watching.

And the crowd roared.  Maybe they thought the same thing.  Perhaps they cheered so loudly because they thought "Thank goodness, Romney's finally come to his senses.  Perhaps we Republicans can really win this thing with Ryan at the helm now!"

Of course he means that Paul Ryan will be the 2016 Republican Presidential nominee and potential President.  He can't mean that he's trading places with Ryan in the current Presidential election.  Or could he?

Maybe Romney's freudian slip occurred because he thinks that Ryan would make a better President than he himself.  Perhaps he thinks with Ryan's help, he will become President but is attributing most of the effort in that cause to Ryan.  Who knows what was really running through Romney's head when he mis-spoke so eloquently?  More likely it was a brain-fart of developing senility showing.

But will Paul Ryan really help the ticket?  Talk is that half of Republicans think Ryan will hurt the Presidential cause, mainly because they don't think he is conservative enough and his budget plan doesn't reduce the deficit fast enough.

Even so, it's doubtful that those Republicans will vote for Obama.  However, it is possible that Ryan's  budget plan, his attack on social security, his attack on medicare and his pledge to repeal the Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare) will drive away elderly Independent voters.  That could be critical in swing states such as Florida and may cause them to lose the election.

Perhaps the best thing that Ryan will do for Romney is to remove some of the focus of the very successful negative attack adds.  But then again, Ryan's "sinful" political reputation is sure to draw fire from concerned religious groups and kind humans everywhere.

Now that I think about it, Paul Ryan may not have been such a good idea for the GOP, but  choosing him for VP mate may just be the best thing that the Republicans could have done for Obama.