Mitchell’s laws: Reduced money growth never stimulates economic growth. To survive long term, a monetarily non-sovereign government must have a positive balance of payments. Economic austerity causes civil disorder. Those, who do not understand the differences between Monetary Sovereignty and monetary non-sovereignty, do not understand economics.
You undoubtedly know of the controversy, which now has reached the U.S. Supreme Court, over the federal requirement that people buy private insurance to qualify for benefits under the Affordable Care Act.
But you may not see why America, as a civilized nation, should have universal health care insurance, i.e. Medicare for all, paid for by the federal government. You may have been sold the Tea/Republican “self reliance” myth, where real Americans don’t need or want government help. Or were you sold the “sustainability” myth, which claims federal deficit spending is not sustainable, whatever that may mean. Or perhaps, you have been sold a bill of goods to believe the “federal finances are just like my personal finances” myth.
Aside from the fact that our Monetarily Sovereign nation can afford any spending, and aside from the fact that federal deficit spending has not caused inflation for more than 60 years, you may not know some of the benefits the new law would have provided you.
The irony is that had Congress voted to tax Americans, as it does with FICA, there would be no controversy. We have been brainwashed to accept tax payments as our requirement for being Americans. But, because Americans are being asked to pay private companies, instead of the government, there is a massive (politically motivated) hullabaloo.
One of many ironies is, paying taxes to the federal government harms the economy, while paying private insurance companies does not. Isn’t it amazing how we have been programmed to disdain our own best interests?
At any rate, a right-wing Supreme Court, that leans toward convoluted interpretations of laws meant for 16th century life, may well rule the entire law unconstitutional. Remember, this is the same court that claims corporations have the same rights as American citizens, so what can you expect?
Numbers of uninsured drop among those age 19 to 25
by: Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar | from: AARP | September 21, 2011
Two surveys released Wednesday — one by the government, another by Gallup — found significantly fewer young adults going without coverage even as the overall number of uninsured remained high.
A separate Gallup survey reported that the share of adults 18-25 without coverage dropped from 28 percent last fall to 24.2 percent by this summer. That drop translates to roughly 1 million or more young adults gaining coverage.
The government’s National Center for Health Statistics found that the number of uninsured people ages 19-25 dropped from 10 million last year to 9.1 million in the first three months of this year, a sharp decline over such a brief period.
The new health care law allows young adults to remain on their parents’ health plans until they turn 26. Previously, families faced a hodgepodge of policies. Some health plans covered only adult children while they were full-time students. Others applied an age cutoff.
Today, many people still are denied health insurance coverage:
Health Insurers Deny Coverage to Many Who Apply for Individual Policies
Denial rates of 20 percent or more are common
by: Phil Galewitz | from: Kaiser Health News | September 13, 2011 America’s Health Insurance Plans, an industry trade group, says 87% of people who apply nationally for individual coverage are offered a policy. That figure, however, includes people who are turned down for one policy but offered another that may cost more or have fewer benefits.
The federal website contains denial rates in all 50 states, the District of Columbia and U.S. Territories, and is updated periodically. The most current information is for the first three months of 2011. The data show that denial rates routinely exceed 20% and often are much higher, according to a Kaiser Health News review of 20 of the most populous states and the District of Columbia. The data reflect applications that are turned down for any reason.
The information provides fresh evidence of the challenges facing people buying individual health insurance. It also shows the likelihood of whether consumers are approved for a policy depends on which state they live in and the insurer they choose.
The new law would prohibit denial of coverage because of preexisting conditions.
Fewer lifetime limits on health insurance
The New Health Care Law and Annual and Lifetime Coverage Limits
by: Susan Jaffe | from: AARP Bulletin | August 23, 2010
Currently, more than 100 million Americans have insurance that stops when medical claims exceed their policy’s lifetime limit. On Sept. 23, lifetime limits are effectively banned for all plans that begin or are renewed after that date. Insurance companies can no longer cut off policy holders when their medical expenses reach a lifetime limit. Annual limits on coverage will be phased out over the next few years, beginning this year.
Vicki Gottlich, senior policy attorney at the Center for Medicare Advocacy in Washington, D.C., said, “There has never been a cap on the total amount of benefits for which Medicare will pay.”
The Supreme Court case, which threatens to eliminate the entire law, together with all its benefits, is entirely unnecessary. The government should not ask people to pay for health care. It should pay, ala Medicare.
Instead, a weak-kneed Obama administration “compromised” with (aka caved to) the Tea/Republicans and agreed not to seek a single payer (Medicare) option. So very soon, all you millions who now or soon would have, benefitted from the new law, may lose those benefits.
So whom do you blame? The feeble, inept Obama team, or the “defeat-Obama-no-matter-whom-it-hurts” Tea/Republicans? Either way, your life and the lives of all Americans may be made worse by a right-wing Supreme Court.
I award Congress two traitor images for putting election politics ahead of what is good for Americans.
Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
No nation can tax itself into prosperity, nor grow without money growth. Monetary Sovereignty: Cutting federal deficits to grow the economy is like applying leeches to cure anemia. The key equation in economics: Federal Deficits – Net Imports = Net Private Savings