–Why do you vote for these mean, incompetent jerks — Medicaid version

Twitter: @rodgermitchell; Search #monetarysovereignty
Facebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

Mitchell’s laws:
●The more federal budgets are cut and taxes increased, the weaker an economy becomes.
●Austerity is the government’s method for widening the gap between rich and poor,
which ultimately leads to civil disorder.
●Until the 99% understand the need for federal deficits, the upper 1% will rule.
To survive long term, a monetarily non-sovereign government must have a positive balance of payments.
●Those, who do not understand the differences between Monetary Sovereignty and monetary non-sovereignty, do not understand economics.
●The penalty for ignorance is slavery.
●Everything in economics devolves to motive.

======================================================================================================================================================================================

The fundamental purpose of ACA (aka Obamacare) is to provide poor people with healthcare. The program is massively flawed. It’s a complex, convoluted mess, that by comparison, makes the U.S. tax code look simple.

We should have federally funded, comprehensive Medicare (all parts), for every man, woman and child in America. No deductions. No exceptions. Healthcare for all.

ACA is a weak substitute. It’s weird limitations are based on the ignorant assumption that the federal government cannot afford to fund Medicare for all, so benefits must be restricted to what ACA provides.

That said, like it or not, ACA is the law of the land. It’s here and it’s not going away any time soon, despite many crazy votes (is it up to 50 yet?) by an increasingly screwball Republican House majority.

Study: States that reject Medicaid expansion lose money
Kelly Kennedy, USA TODAY 12:04 a.m. EST December 5, 2013

The 20 states choosing not to expand Medicaid will lose billions of dollars in federal funds, according to a new study released Thursday.

By 2022, Texas could lose $9.2 billion, while Florida could lose $5 billion, Georgia could lose $2.9 billion and Virginia could lose $2.8 billion.

To say this is abjectly stupid, does not do justice to the words “abjectly” or “stupid.” It’s beyond stupid. It’s mean stupid. It’s stupidity, not just for political vengeance, but to satisfy a deep-seated hatred of the poor.

The federal government has offered to pay 100% of the Medicaid expansion cost for the first 3 years, and 90% thereafter. It’s an absolute slam-dunk winner for all states accepting the ACA expansion, and a dead loser for those that don’t.

So my question, to all you who live in those 20 states: Why did you vote for those jerks? They not only are mean, immoral bastards, but are costing you money.

Many Republican governors have said increasing Medicaid could add to the federal deficit. Medicaid, however, is a federal program, Sherry Glied, lead author of The Commonwealth Fund study said, and residents of states that have not expanded the program are still paying taxes to support it. They’re just not getting the extra benefits in their states.

O.K., let’s take a deep breath, here. It’s true that nearly all citizens in those 20 states: are being cheated financially, and the poor citizens are being cheated out of health care.

Further, all Americans are being cheated by the state Republican governments, because billions are not being sent into the economy. Citizens of each state buy in many states. Those dollars are being reduced. By not accepting Medicaid expansion, the Republicans are bleeding the entire economy.

But taxes do not pay for the program. You who understand Monetary Sovereignty know that federal taxes do not pay for federal spending, and even if FICA were $0, the federal government could continue supporting Medicare and Social Security forever — even with double the benefits.

Obamacare is free money to the states, and many states refuse it, out of ignorance or malice.

Bottom line: If you live in one of the Republican-controlled states that refuse to expand Medicaid coverage, your state politicians are stealing dollars from your pocket, your spouse’s pocket, your children’s pockets and your family’s, friends’ and neighbors’ pockets, just as though they had lined you all up at gunpoint, and demanded you give them you money.

If you enjoy being robbed, you’ll love your local, conservative government, bought and paid for by the upper .1% income/power group.

It would be better to take your money to Las Vegas. You’ll lose, but at least you might meet a showgirl.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty

====================================================================================================================================================
Nine Steps to Prosperity:
1. Eliminate FICA (Click here)
2. Federally funded Medicare — parts A, B & D plus long term nursing care — for everyone (Click here)
3. Provide an Economic Bonus to every man, woman and child in America, and/or every state a per capita Economic Bonus. (Click here) Or institute a reverse income tax.
4. Free education (including post-grad) for everyone. Click here
5. Salary for attending school (Click here)
6. Eliminate corporate taxes (Click here)
7. Increase the standard income tax deduction annually
8. Increase federal spending on the myriad initiatives that benefit America’s 99% (Click here)
9. Federal ownership of all banks (Click here)

—–

10 Steps to Economic Misery: (Click here:)
1. Maintain or increase the FICA tax..
2. Spread the myth Social Security, Medicare and the U.S. government are insolvent.
3. Cut federal employment in the military, post office, other federal agencies.
4. Broaden the income tax base so more lower income people will pay.
5. Cut financial assistance to the states.
6. Spread the myth federal taxes pay for federal spending.
7. Allow banks to trade for their own accounts; save them when their investments go sour.
8. Never prosecute any banker for criminal activity.
9. Nominate arch conservatives to the Supreme Court.
10. Reduce the federal deficit and debt

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.
Two key equations in economics:
1. Federal Deficits – Net Imports = Net Private Savings
2. Gross Domestic Product = Federal Spending + Private Investment and Consumption – Net Imports

THE RECESSION CLOCK
Monetary Sovereignty Monetary Sovereignty

As the federal deficit growth lines drop, we approach recession, which will be cured only when the lines rise. Federal deficit growth is absolutely, positively necessary for economic growth. Period.

#MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

12 thoughts on “–Why do you vote for these mean, incompetent jerks — Medicaid version

  1. Re: “The fundamental purpose of ACA (aka Obamacare) is to provide poor people with healthcare.”

    No. The fundamental purpose of the ACA is to INCREASE THE GAP by subsidizing insurance companies and health care corporations. We the 99% are not the customer, we are the mark.

    Why I, a poor uninsured person with failing health, do not support expanded Medicaid:

    –States rely on regressive taxes for funding so after the temporary trial period for expanded Medicaid is over, the poor will be asked to ante up more regressive taxes to pay for the unfunded 10%.

    — Red states that do expand Medicaid are moving in the direction of privatizing it, with copays and deductibles that the poor can’t afford, so the poor will still not be able to go to a doctor when they are sick. The only winner is the private insurance company. That’s a feature — to increase the GAP — not a bug.

    — The ACA puts a lien on the assets of any person on Medicaid over age 55. EVEN IF THE PERSON DOES NOT GO TO THE DOCTOR, the state can still seize his assets to pay for his subsidized privatized Medicaid premiums. Your kids can kiss their modest inheritance goodby. http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/21913-how-obamacare-raids-the-assets-of-low-income-older-americans Given a choice between dying now and leaving my kid a modest inheritance vs. dying later and not leaving my kid a modest inheritance, I will choose the former.

    — only a minority of doctors accept Medicaid and many poor people have limited transportation so they can’t travel halfway across the state to see a doctor. What is the point of having a Medicaid card if you can’t go to a doctor?

    Why I, a poor uninsured person, rarely vote for progressive state and local officials:

    — because there aren’t any progressive state and local officials on the ballot. Republicans often run unopposed, since my state is so beet red that it is a waste of time and money for a liberal to run

    — because when Democrats do run they are usually conserva-Dems who are to the right of Richard Nixon. If I wanted a conservative politician I’d vote for the real thing rather than a conserva-Dem.

    — because my state Democrats advocate raising regressive taxes (sales, sin, gas, etc..) on the poor and working class to fund the public employee unions who are their real base at the local level. (At a national level, their base is Penny Pritzker and Robert Rubin). Democrats haven’t represented the poor since LBJ.

    — because Democrats oppose the entire Bill of Rights including, but not limited to, the 2nd amendment. Democrats should be properly called the “anti-Bill of Rights party.” Republicans pretend to care about the 2nd amendment but admit they don’t care about the rest of the Bill of Rights, so they are a slightly lesser evil in that respect.

    — because Democrats advocate increased immigration to drive down the price of labor so the 1% can make more profits, thereby increasing the GAP.

    The real problem is that the 99% don’t get to vote on health care or immigration or any of these other issues. Instead, we vote for either “Neoliberal A” or “Neoliberal B.” That’s it. Don’t blame the voters when they have no real voice in the matter. This is not a real democracy.

    Like

    1. I agree with reader Dan Lynch.

      The purpose of Romney-care (the ACA) is not to provide poor people with healthcare, but to provide subsidies to insurance companies and health care corporations. (Subsidies that are largely extracted from the poor.)

      The ACA was written by insurance companies and health care corporations to increase their profits at the expense of the lower classes.

      How anyone in the lower classes can see the ACA as a good thing is beyond me.

      Like

      1. and to be even more precise, the white paper (the blueprint of ACA) was written by Liz Fowler, a Wellpoint executive, who in her previous job was the chief health care counsel to Max Baucus. and before she worked for Baucus she worked for Wellpoint. nice job if you can get it……..

        Like

    2. Dan, your information is revealing to me. I knew the ACA is, at best, a half measure toward Universal healthcare. There are certain human rights that cannot be met by for-profit-businesses, including healthcare and education. Like you, I will do all I can to avoid a nursing or long-term care facility.

      RE: your main point of voting for tweedle-dum or tweedle-dumber…or not voting at all, I propose a solution; not original, but tremendously overlooked…very much like MS. I propose to replace voting with a lottery system: starting with local, state and finally House of Representative. Such a dramatic shift would attract considerable opposition, but is needed to address a dramatic problem; to wit, “professional” politicians, as empowered by money and their political parties, have hijacked the role of representing “We, the People”.

      Allow me:

      > any citizen who is inspired to become a public office holder (local, state, HoR) submits paperwork, perhaps including a prerequisite number of signatures of registered citizens (voters) attesting to this person’s moral character (“qualifications” beyond adult citizenship are not important in a democracy);

      > on what used to be election day, the office holder is selected, at random, from the pool of candidates.

      And that’s it.

      Some objections to overcome:

      > “We’d wind up with a bunch of ignorant and stupid people representing us.” – my response… what do we have now, and how would this be worse? I believe that teachers, dentists, auto mechanics, maintenance workers, not kowtowing to party lines, could make as good or better decisions for the people they represent.

      > “The populace would relinquish its voting rights, a critical American ideal.” – my response…if this is a deal breaker, choose, say, three candidates by lottery, and let the voters vote on these three. This would still remove political parties and moneyed interests from the representative process.

      Bottom line: it would stop the buying of elections; it would restore the power of the average person to make decisions for their constituent; it would be more representative of the populace; if correctly crafted, it could replace the divisive system we currently have with collaborative and consensus directed decision making.

      There’s much more, but this is an opening proposal. Productive responses are encouraged.

      Like

  2. Dan,

    You strike a chord with much of what you say.

    I live in a deep blue state, Illinois, which also happens to have harbored the most dishonest politicians in world history. There is a big sign at the border, reading “Republicans and reformers not welcome.”

    A high percentage of Chicago aldermen go to jail, and there are special cells reserved for our governors.

    The notorious Chicago father and son mayors, both Richard Daley, were unique criminals who stole not money, but power, and who bribed everyone (with tax money) to accumulate it.

    The living one, having left office in disgrace, now has been given a cushy job with a connected law firm, where he receives thanks every day for his patronage.

    So bottom line, there is no one for whom to vote in Illinois.

    This is a common problem in many states, where one party has become so entrenched, the voters are left with two choices: Don’t vote or don’t vote.

    The problem is the same in the U.S. House, where gerrymandering has assured little beneficial change. The Presidential and Senate choices are somewhat better.

    And whatever the color nationally, blue or red, there are to my knowledge, no liberal politicians in America. There only two wings: Right and extreme right wingers, with Obama falling somewhere in the middle.

    But we have no excuse for personal belief. Being ignorant plagues us all, but being stupid is just plain . . .stupid. When the facts are presented, and one not only ignores them, but actively fights against them, that begins the transition from ignorance to stupidity.

    Those who actively have fought for such as Michele Bachmann or who believe anything such as Rush Limbaugh says, have transitioned from ignorance to the dark side of abysmally stupid.

    Two years ago, I published an article titled, Which of these myths do you believe?, which listed a good many false, though common, beliefs.

    You can decide for yourself which are examples of ignorance, which are examples of stupidity — and which, if any, you yourself believe.

    Like

    1. There are no liberal politicians in America, i beg to differ….Bernie Sanders, who also happens to be an independent, democratic socialist. dear to my heart…. as for Obama, I like to quote my man Cornel West in his description of Obama, “a Rockefeller republican in blackface”

      Like

  3. Gentlemen, may I humbly disagree?

    Both of you have iterated some version of “broken democracy” or “no real candidate choice”. While these concepts are certainly true on some levels, they are false on other levels.

    It doesn’t take that much money to successfully run for local and or state office (governors excluded of course). The powers that be aren’t picking the candidates in every race. The people clearly do not want progressive candidates. If modern progressive candidates were so sought after, there would be more of them.

    We obviously do not want universal health care or education.
    We do not want more progressive or higher taxes.
    We don’t really care about climate change and pollution.
    We love violence and war making.
    We think the market is the best way to do most things.
    We love bribery and corruption

    Whether or not any of these things are objectively good or bad is irrelevant. We all dislike the real life outcomes of our current policies, but both of you attribute the prevailing national beliefs I described above as if something was wrong with the system. I think the system represents the will of the people.

    Fox does what it does because thats what they think their audience wants. If everyone stopped watching Fox because their views became so unpopular, then Fox would change the way they delivered their product, or go out of business.

    The Cons represent the people that vote for them. If Kansans want to get rid of all the so-called moderate right wingers for extreme right wingers, then I say they get what they deserve. Likewise with us Illinoisans. We kept voting in Daley. We keep voting in Madigan. We voted in Blago and Ryan and We will probably vote in Rauner. I don’t know just how bad it needs to get for society to hit rock bottom, as we see it anyways, but obviously we havent yet.

    If the Great Recession wasnt bad enough to ignite major social reform as happened after the Great Depression, thats not a conspiracy, its just that the people haven’t suffered enough to want to change.

    Like

    1. @Auburn Parks, your observations are easy, for me, to agree with. In a democracy, we get what we deserve. Your conclusion re: “rock bottom” however, is not very optimistic, given our situation.

      Could this point to a flaw in our representative/democratic system, perhaps one that could be resolved? Given that most eligible citizens do not vote, should we continue to trust “voting” as an optimum way to determine our representatives, since the results do not reflect the will of the majority of people? As it’s structured now, the marriage of money and political party power can only serve to discourage voting (see comments from Dan and Rodger).

      Given that I still believe in the ability of a group of people to reach an intelligent decision, al la the jury system, I suggest consideration of the ideas I propose (not original, I admit) of replacing voting with a lottery system, in the above post.

      Like

      1. I think your “proposal” deserves real consideration and thought.

        I personally like the democracy voucher idea. Give each american a $100 (flexible) voucher to give to whichever candidates they want. And let that be the only way to donate to candidates. Let the market decide!

        Tax credits for voting, voter holiday, universal registration etc etc, lots of options. Sadly of which, NONE are being considered.

        Like

        1. @Auburn Parks, thanks for the alternative proposals. I think all of these would improve the situation, which, to me, “proves” that significant social problems can be resolved. Of course, not only is the devil in the details, but the issue seems to be how to implement any significant change. Makes me wonder sometimes if we aren’t all involved in mental masturbation, talking among ourselves.

          Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s