Always remember that almost all mainstream European and most mainstream Canadian conservative politicians are liberal by US standards. In fact, they are more progressive than Obama and the Democrats. Sometimes, and in some respects, they are much more progressive than them.
As for Sarkozy, he is my hero. Here is a guy who the French for a few months after they voted him in were thinking was a mistake, but who has come through rather well all things considered. He has turned out to be much more resiliant and progressive and, well, French, than people were thinking back in the summer of 2008.
I'm afraid, though, that among the fascists who will be gathering in Pittsburgh, Sarkozy will be just a meaningless peasant. (Your presidency of France means nothing to us; see 1941 for details of what we mean. Laugh out loud.)
Seriously, It's not only that the US is not going to, as Sarkozy wants, adopt or even consider adopting broader and more realistic measures of and perspectives on the economy. It is worse than that. It is that the US is moving in the opposite direction to that as we speak.
The US is now running two separate economies: one for roughly the top 10-15%, and the other one for the other 85-90% of the population. For the top 10%, non-market, non-traditional perspectives and performance measures are simply irrelevant, since for them money (financial assets if you prefer) alone is all that matters. This is simply because the sheer amount of money they control is so massive that everything else you could possibly think of in economics (besides huge amounts of money and how fast those sums are growing) is unimportant.
Furthermore, the amount of money controlled by the rich is in fact determined by markets as traditionally defined, and as measured by the traditional indicators. Obviously, the higher the GDP growth, the more profits by big corporations there are, and so the more money there is for the top, regardless of whether there are any new jobs being created or not.
Meanwhile, since they have no political representation, and since they as of now refuse to stand up for themselves and, for example, demand health care, or demand jobs, etc, the welfare of the bottom 85-90% is totally meaningless to the wealthy power elite. So no new economic measures or perspectives are needed for them. Let them eat cake.
So sorry, President Sarkozy, America is not interested in new economic parameters (or in economic progress, for that matter) for the middle or the lower classes, so go back to Paris like a good little boy and don't make a fuss.
The above was in response to this article at Common Dreams.
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
What Is Going to Happen After "Health Insurance Reform" Passes
GUEST COMMENT
UNITY-PROGRESS COMMENTS
The last one is correct: "they already have begun to pass that point and this reform is meant to force more customers into the system so they can prop up this Ponzi scheme for another decade or two."
It's going to be a new bubble. Anyone with half a brain can see that like the other bubbles, this one won't last very long either. Eventually, assuming this insanity passes at all, it will unravel due to:
--More and more millions opting for the penalty, thus defeating the purpose and defeating whatever small benefits the new law would provide if almost everyone bought the insurance.
--More and more millions refusing to pay even the penalty, thus creating an unprecedented general tax compliance crisis.
--Horror stories of people who become homeless, sick, and/or dead despite having health insurance. (Can someone without a home address actually get a health insurance claim paid to them?? And for that matter, can they get a health insurance referral for health care if it is known they are homeless?)
--Medicaid will be overwhelmed to one extent or another
--Although there is confusion and uncertainty on the subject, it appears that Medicare also will be damaged by the new law. At the very least, it seems logical that Medicare would be damaged to one extent or another.
--Certain health insurance care networks will be overwhelmed, particularly those that attract those who have been going without health for years. Specifically, for those who choose the lowest cost plans that attract the most new enrollments, providers may not be available when needed. So for example, you need a doctor, but all the doctors in your plan are tied up for weeks, so you don't get to see one when you needed one.
And so on and so forth... Obviously, the common denominator for everything that will go wrong is that the prices (costs) are too high. That the prices are already too high, and that this root problem will only get worse, is obvious.
Simply put, the US economy can no longer afford to pay insurance executives, hospital executives, and many doctors millions of dollars each a year. The US economy is poorer than it used to be, and is not working the way it used to anymore. But with laws like this one, the rich people are trying to hold on to the past anyway they can.
The above was in response to this article on Common Dreams.
NC-Tom September 16th, 2009 10:19 am
I'm just wondering out loud here. How long can the insurance companies continue to screw the American public and get away with it. 10 years, 20 years, 50 years? They continually increase premiums, while raising deductibles and co-pays. This will lead to more and more people that will be unable afford private insurance.
Are there actuaries that have already figured out the magic premium that they can charge over time which will maximize profits by weighing premiums against the number of customers they will lose by raising those premiums?
Or have they already begun to pass that point and this reform is meant to force more customers into the system so they can prop up this Ponzi scheme for another decade or two?
UNITY-PROGRESS COMMENTS
The last one is correct: "they already have begun to pass that point and this reform is meant to force more customers into the system so they can prop up this Ponzi scheme for another decade or two."
It's going to be a new bubble. Anyone with half a brain can see that like the other bubbles, this one won't last very long either. Eventually, assuming this insanity passes at all, it will unravel due to:
--More and more millions opting for the penalty, thus defeating the purpose and defeating whatever small benefits the new law would provide if almost everyone bought the insurance.
--More and more millions refusing to pay even the penalty, thus creating an unprecedented general tax compliance crisis.
--Horror stories of people who become homeless, sick, and/or dead despite having health insurance. (Can someone without a home address actually get a health insurance claim paid to them?? And for that matter, can they get a health insurance referral for health care if it is known they are homeless?)
--Medicaid will be overwhelmed to one extent or another
--Although there is confusion and uncertainty on the subject, it appears that Medicare also will be damaged by the new law. At the very least, it seems logical that Medicare would be damaged to one extent or another.
--Certain health insurance care networks will be overwhelmed, particularly those that attract those who have been going without health for years. Specifically, for those who choose the lowest cost plans that attract the most new enrollments, providers may not be available when needed. So for example, you need a doctor, but all the doctors in your plan are tied up for weeks, so you don't get to see one when you needed one.
And so on and so forth... Obviously, the common denominator for everything that will go wrong is that the prices (costs) are too high. That the prices are already too high, and that this root problem will only get worse, is obvious.
Simply put, the US economy can no longer afford to pay insurance executives, hospital executives, and many doctors millions of dollars each a year. The US economy is poorer than it used to be, and is not working the way it used to anymore. But with laws like this one, the rich people are trying to hold on to the past anyway they can.
The above was in response to this article on Common Dreams.
The Government Should Never, Ever Ever Make it Better to not Work Than to Work
I’ll give you (another) economics lesson:
The University I went to for economics had a typical, conservative economics program mostly featuring laissez faire ideology. Although such a doctrine turns out to be no where near as progressive as what is needed, it was (at least back then) not completely bereft of all progressive ideas. In other words, there were a few progressive components to what was overall a not very progressive doctrine.
There was one particular progressive component that was drilled into all the students' brains, since it kept coming up within and among various courses, over and over and over again. This topic set the record for most mentions during the economics degree program.
The topic was that regressive taxation is a very, very bad idea.
I think the professors thought of their coverage of this topic as a necessary speed check for their overall free market doctrine. They didn’t want their students getting carried away with conservatism and creating a monster of a tax policy that would cut down on economic growth.
But as Thom Hartmann among others have long since realized, a monster of a tax policy has indeed developed in the US, despite the best intentions of my conservative professors. Sure enough, the already regressive tax system put into effect in the last 30 years has already heavily damaged the economy.
It appears that the rule is simple: you either avoid regressive taxation or you have a low growth, bad economy; it’s your choice.
The opposite of regressive taxation, which is of course progressive taxation, used to be at least partially accepted by much of the US right wing. But due to the extreme right taking over for the right in general (or for the traditional right, if you prefer) that was thrown out the window, and several historical tax laws have already brought regressive taxation to the US since the extreme right wing era in the US began in 1980.
Everyone knows that over the past 30 years, there have been several laws massively reducing the taxes on the rich. What you probably don’t know is that it is about to get worse.
We are now scheduled to get a new huge tax hike on the poor, cleverly but cynically disguised as "the health care mandate". Since "subsidies" for low income people to buy private health insurance are most definitely going to be inadequate for at least the near poor, the “requirement” to buy private health insurance, or pay (you guessed it) a tax fine, will be nothing more and nothing less than a hugely and grindingly regressive tax targeted mostly but not exclusively on the near poor.
Ok, so why exactly did even the conservative economics program at University warn against regressive taxation? Is it really that bad?
Well, first of all, as you might suspect, the fact that regressive taxation is inherently unfair was NOT the primary reason why it was taught that regressive taxation needs to be avoided. But unfairness was usually mentioned, interestingly enough.
The biggest reason you never ever do regressive taxation, which was so painstakingly repeated and explained in detail that my brain more or less shut down from boredom each time this was explained, was that regressive taxation causes low income people to rationally decide not to work, or to hide income if they do work.
If you have no income at all, then presumably you don't owe even a regressive tax. Indeed, under the disastrous laws scheduled to be passed right now, those with extremely low incomes, near zero, may get waivers and/or almost automatic enrollment into Medicaid. Specifically, in 2013 (when this may go into effect) a single person with less than roughly $15,000 in income, and a family of three (one child) with less than roughly $20,000 in income, will apparently be left, in effect, untaxed (not "required" to buy private insurance).
Whereas, if your income is between about $15,000 and $30,000 for a single, and if it is between about $20,000 and $40,000 for a family of three, and so on and so forth, you will have a new "health insurance tax" of whatever your health insurance premiums, co-pays, deductibles, and exclusions add up to, anything from $4,000 per year to $50,000 per year, depending on dozens of variables. (The maximum may possibly be quasi regulated, but don't look for anything with a guarantee and without a loophole.)
Incidentally, the total unpredictability of the actual total tax on individuals from year to year is another factor making the new law nothing short of madness.
Now think about this logically for a moment. If you have the choice between working your rear end off for a low but non-poverty income, and being subject to the new $4,000-$50,000 per year tax less any (inadequate) subsidies and regulations, or not working at all (or appearing to not work at all at least) and having Medicaid free of charge, which are you going to really want?
As long as you are surviving while not working, doing the food stamps and so forth, you will tend to prefer the life of leisure and Medicaid over the life of working your rear end off but running out of money to pay the taxes and the health insurance all the time.
Incentives to start or continue a small business will be trashed as well. Incentives to hide income will be greatly increased.
You get it? The government should never, ever, ever, make it better to not work than to work. But this is exactly what the current US government is proposing to do: to make it much better for millions of people to have a near zero income (not counting direct assistance) than a low income.
So I can guarantee you that the health insurance reform will be worse than however bad you think it will be. Among many other faults, this law will be an unprecedented and willful violation of BOTH long accepted progressive and long accepted conservative economic doctrine.
The above was in response to this article by Wendell Potter, the former health insurance executive turned whistle blower.
The University I went to for economics had a typical, conservative economics program mostly featuring laissez faire ideology. Although such a doctrine turns out to be no where near as progressive as what is needed, it was (at least back then) not completely bereft of all progressive ideas. In other words, there were a few progressive components to what was overall a not very progressive doctrine.
There was one particular progressive component that was drilled into all the students' brains, since it kept coming up within and among various courses, over and over and over again. This topic set the record for most mentions during the economics degree program.
The topic was that regressive taxation is a very, very bad idea.
I think the professors thought of their coverage of this topic as a necessary speed check for their overall free market doctrine. They didn’t want their students getting carried away with conservatism and creating a monster of a tax policy that would cut down on economic growth.
But as Thom Hartmann among others have long since realized, a monster of a tax policy has indeed developed in the US, despite the best intentions of my conservative professors. Sure enough, the already regressive tax system put into effect in the last 30 years has already heavily damaged the economy.
It appears that the rule is simple: you either avoid regressive taxation or you have a low growth, bad economy; it’s your choice.
The opposite of regressive taxation, which is of course progressive taxation, used to be at least partially accepted by much of the US right wing. But due to the extreme right taking over for the right in general (or for the traditional right, if you prefer) that was thrown out the window, and several historical tax laws have already brought regressive taxation to the US since the extreme right wing era in the US began in 1980.
Everyone knows that over the past 30 years, there have been several laws massively reducing the taxes on the rich. What you probably don’t know is that it is about to get worse.
We are now scheduled to get a new huge tax hike on the poor, cleverly but cynically disguised as "the health care mandate". Since "subsidies" for low income people to buy private health insurance are most definitely going to be inadequate for at least the near poor, the “requirement” to buy private health insurance, or pay (you guessed it) a tax fine, will be nothing more and nothing less than a hugely and grindingly regressive tax targeted mostly but not exclusively on the near poor.
Ok, so why exactly did even the conservative economics program at University warn against regressive taxation? Is it really that bad?
Well, first of all, as you might suspect, the fact that regressive taxation is inherently unfair was NOT the primary reason why it was taught that regressive taxation needs to be avoided. But unfairness was usually mentioned, interestingly enough.
The biggest reason you never ever do regressive taxation, which was so painstakingly repeated and explained in detail that my brain more or less shut down from boredom each time this was explained, was that regressive taxation causes low income people to rationally decide not to work, or to hide income if they do work.
If you have no income at all, then presumably you don't owe even a regressive tax. Indeed, under the disastrous laws scheduled to be passed right now, those with extremely low incomes, near zero, may get waivers and/or almost automatic enrollment into Medicaid. Specifically, in 2013 (when this may go into effect) a single person with less than roughly $15,000 in income, and a family of three (one child) with less than roughly $20,000 in income, will apparently be left, in effect, untaxed (not "required" to buy private insurance).
Whereas, if your income is between about $15,000 and $30,000 for a single, and if it is between about $20,000 and $40,000 for a family of three, and so on and so forth, you will have a new "health insurance tax" of whatever your health insurance premiums, co-pays, deductibles, and exclusions add up to, anything from $4,000 per year to $50,000 per year, depending on dozens of variables. (The maximum may possibly be quasi regulated, but don't look for anything with a guarantee and without a loophole.)
Incidentally, the total unpredictability of the actual total tax on individuals from year to year is another factor making the new law nothing short of madness.
Now think about this logically for a moment. If you have the choice between working your rear end off for a low but non-poverty income, and being subject to the new $4,000-$50,000 per year tax less any (inadequate) subsidies and regulations, or not working at all (or appearing to not work at all at least) and having Medicaid free of charge, which are you going to really want?
As long as you are surviving while not working, doing the food stamps and so forth, you will tend to prefer the life of leisure and Medicaid over the life of working your rear end off but running out of money to pay the taxes and the health insurance all the time.
Incentives to start or continue a small business will be trashed as well. Incentives to hide income will be greatly increased.
You get it? The government should never, ever, ever, make it better to not work than to work. But this is exactly what the current US government is proposing to do: to make it much better for millions of people to have a near zero income (not counting direct assistance) than a low income.
So I can guarantee you that the health insurance reform will be worse than however bad you think it will be. Among many other faults, this law will be an unprecedented and willful violation of BOTH long accepted progressive and long accepted conservative economic doctrine.
The above was in response to this article by Wendell Potter, the former health insurance executive turned whistle blower.
Sunday, September 13, 2009
Obama Morphs into a Right Winger
GUEST COMMENT
I have unemployment at 22%; you have to be a lefty to have it at 25 or 27%, and I'm middle of the road. (Laugh out loud?)
Well, if you ever wondered what you get when a guy who theoretically, possibly, might be a centrist becomes the ostensible leader of a country that has been lost to extreme right wing ideology for a generation, now you can see what happens with that combination. You get that guy morphing from centrist to solidly right wing right before your eyes.
It is amusing to see the actual far right wingers criticizing Obama’s and the Democrats’ health reform, because they are criticizing a right wing bill. I guess they didn’t know they are closet socialists, laugh out loud. (Seriously, not a few of them don't know that.)
Ideologically, having no public option at all is even more right wing than having a weak, doomed to fail public option. But no public option at all will allow the health insurance reform to fail more quickly, which is a good thing, because that in turn will put more pressure more quickly on individual states to enact some kind of single payer themselves. Especially since states, like individuals, are going to be saddled with new and ever higher expenses that the federal government refuses to deal with due to right wing ideology. And with the no public option at all scenario, there will be no chance for true single payer to be tarnished with (by being associated with a failed public option) an undeserved reputation.
Even a strong public option just increases the time before the system collapses entirely, before the premiums, co-pays, deductibles, and disallowed items become so high that even average income individuals find them impossible to pay, and above average income individuals find them increasingly difficult to pay.
The New York Times is reporting that the public option appears to be dead, meaning the health insurance reform will be a solidly right wing, dead on arrival reform. Anyone who spent time or money electing Democrats got essentially nothing for their efforts (other than perhaps a kick in the groin.) Had they perpetually remained in charge of all branches of the government, the Republicans would have eventually gotten around to passing roughly the very same law!
The new law will consist primarily of new laws against health insurance corporation acts that should have been illegal decades ago, and a brand new, unprecedented, and doomed to failure regressive tax law "requiring" the purchase of private health insurance. I put the requiring" in quotes, because as in the very last years of the Soviet Union (and other dying systems) what people in general and government officials in particular are "required" to do and what they actually do can be quite a bit different.
The New York Times Public Option Obituary
[The above was in response to this article.]
Galenwainwright... September 13th, 2009
Obama talks the talk. And talks. And talks. And talks. And talks.
And that is all he does. Talk.
Here are some FACTS:
-The economy is still in the crapper.
-Billions in bailouts are still flowing to the criminal kleptocrats.
-Guantanimo is still open.
-The abduction and rendition, and subsequent torture (excuse me, 'enhanced interrogation') of 'terrorists' are still happening.
-Innocents are still dying by the score in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
-The occupation of Iraq is still in place.
-Blackwater and similar criminal mercenary companies are still on the US payroll.
-China has become the single largest *seller* of US Government bonds. (THAT should scare the hell out of you!)
-Officially, unemployment is at it's highest level (9.7%) since the Great Depression. Unofficially, real unemployment is at 16% or 27%, depending on who you talk to. (In California 40% of working age employables are unemployed...)
-Iran is now firmly in the cross hairs for an Israeli and/or American attack.
-Israel continues to expand it's illegal encroachment of Palestinian land, building new settlements, and throwing Palestinians out on the street.
So how is the 'Hope (TM)' and 'Change you can believe in(TM)' thing going for you?
Walk in peace.
I have unemployment at 22%; you have to be a lefty to have it at 25 or 27%, and I'm middle of the road. (Laugh out loud?)
Well, if you ever wondered what you get when a guy who theoretically, possibly, might be a centrist becomes the ostensible leader of a country that has been lost to extreme right wing ideology for a generation, now you can see what happens with that combination. You get that guy morphing from centrist to solidly right wing right before your eyes.
It is amusing to see the actual far right wingers criticizing Obama’s and the Democrats’ health reform, because they are criticizing a right wing bill. I guess they didn’t know they are closet socialists, laugh out loud. (Seriously, not a few of them don't know that.)
Ideologically, having no public option at all is even more right wing than having a weak, doomed to fail public option. But no public option at all will allow the health insurance reform to fail more quickly, which is a good thing, because that in turn will put more pressure more quickly on individual states to enact some kind of single payer themselves. Especially since states, like individuals, are going to be saddled with new and ever higher expenses that the federal government refuses to deal with due to right wing ideology. And with the no public option at all scenario, there will be no chance for true single payer to be tarnished with (by being associated with a failed public option) an undeserved reputation.
Even a strong public option just increases the time before the system collapses entirely, before the premiums, co-pays, deductibles, and disallowed items become so high that even average income individuals find them impossible to pay, and above average income individuals find them increasingly difficult to pay.
The New York Times is reporting that the public option appears to be dead, meaning the health insurance reform will be a solidly right wing, dead on arrival reform. Anyone who spent time or money electing Democrats got essentially nothing for their efforts (other than perhaps a kick in the groin.) Had they perpetually remained in charge of all branches of the government, the Republicans would have eventually gotten around to passing roughly the very same law!
The new law will consist primarily of new laws against health insurance corporation acts that should have been illegal decades ago, and a brand new, unprecedented, and doomed to failure regressive tax law "requiring" the purchase of private health insurance. I put the requiring" in quotes, because as in the very last years of the Soviet Union (and other dying systems) what people in general and government officials in particular are "required" to do and what they actually do can be quite a bit different.
The New York Times Public Option Obituary
[The above was in response to this article.]
Obama: Failure, Fraud, or Just Playing his Role?
GUEST COMMENTARY
Yes, I have to agree with you. Obama is only a fraud and a political loser from the perspective of classical, traditional political analysis. Given the revised political paradigm needed in the "all right wing, all the time" country the US has become, Obama is playing his role all too well.
His role is to continue the total domination of right wing ideology and policy in the US, an extreme domination that has been going on for 30 years. (In the 30 years prior to the most recent 30 years, which is 1950-1980, the right was relatively dominant, but not totally dominant.) Obama is fulfilling his role in exactly the skillful way you describe.
Anyone living in the US is part of a radical experiment, historically and globally speaking. What happens when you run every important aspect of society exclusively using right wing ideology? Only in the US, which was already solidy right wing prior to 1980, would it be possible for the money and power elite of the world to run experiments on various far right policies, and the overall experiment on society as a whole.
Note that the proposed health reform is one of the most notable such experiments.
In this "laboratory," ordinary people are nothing more than guinea pigs who, being non-human, don't need and are not going to receive any real health care or other forms of assistance.
[The above was in response to this article.]
Boyd R. Collins September 13th, 2009
If only it were just a matter of a squandered summer. Rich focuses on the tactical and strategic errors of the Obama administration, but a shift of perspective quickly unblurs the actual scenery and highlights the superb successes Obama has achieved this summer. Obama needs to be placed in relation to the economic forces that are pushing him in the direction of a particular strategy. His behavior this summer appears incompetent only if one assumes that his goal was to get a health care package that addressed the needs of ordinary Americans. If, on the other hand, he was merely responding to the economic powers that control the pharmaceutical and health insurance industries, then his strategy has been a model for others to emulate.
Writers who are given a national stage usually reinforce the notion that presidents are primary actors within the drama of national politics, that their decisions and tactics are decisive factors guiding the development of the historical moment. This meta-message is far more important that the well-wrought details of their critiques. As long as we focus on personality and style, the real forces behind the health care debacle can be safely ignored. But what if we take a step back and see how this administration fits into the larger array of social and economic forces?
It would quickly become obvious that Obama is carrying out the interests of his class, conveniently masked by his progressive image. He is serving the interests of the health insurance industry because they are representative of those who have advanced his career and who will support his continued advancement as long as he is useful to them. Public opinion counts for nothing in this realm.
"Obama is a master when it comes to embodying what the formerly left Christopher Hitchens once (in a book about the Clintons) called 'the essence of American politics' - 'the manipulation of populism by elitism.' The president is a maestro at executing what former Clinton administration official David Rothokopf calls 'the violin model,' under which 'you hold power with the left hand and you play the music with the right.' In other words, 'you' gain and keep office with populace-pleasing progressive-sounding rhetoric but govern in standard service to existing dominant corporate and military institutions." - Paul Street, "They Employ a Lot of Our Friends: Left Reflections on Obama's Corporatist Health Care Speech", Sept. 12, 2009.
What's sad is that it is so much more difficult to make this as entertaining as "Obama's Squandered Summer".
Yes, I have to agree with you. Obama is only a fraud and a political loser from the perspective of classical, traditional political analysis. Given the revised political paradigm needed in the "all right wing, all the time" country the US has become, Obama is playing his role all too well.
His role is to continue the total domination of right wing ideology and policy in the US, an extreme domination that has been going on for 30 years. (In the 30 years prior to the most recent 30 years, which is 1950-1980, the right was relatively dominant, but not totally dominant.) Obama is fulfilling his role in exactly the skillful way you describe.
Anyone living in the US is part of a radical experiment, historically and globally speaking. What happens when you run every important aspect of society exclusively using right wing ideology? Only in the US, which was already solidy right wing prior to 1980, would it be possible for the money and power elite of the world to run experiments on various far right policies, and the overall experiment on society as a whole.
Note that the proposed health reform is one of the most notable such experiments.
In this "laboratory," ordinary people are nothing more than guinea pigs who, being non-human, don't need and are not going to receive any real health care or other forms of assistance.
[The above was in response to this article.]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
STATES ACT TO COUNTER THE DOOMED TO FAIL 2010 US HEALTH LAWS
THINK AGAIN IF YOU THINK BEING FORCED TO BUY INSURANCE IS A GOOD LONG TERM PLAN
