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, and the motive is the gap.
======================================================================================================================================================================================
As readers of this blog know, I believe the ACA (aka “Obamacare”) is a horrible law, as it is based on the “BIG LIE”:
— the lie that federal finances are the same as personal finances
— The lie that federal taxes pay for federal spending
— The lie that the Monetarily Sovereign U.S. government can run short of its own sovereign currency
— The lie that federal deficits inhibit economic growth and will cause hyperinflation
Rather than the convoluted Rube Goldberesque, inadequate ACA, that covers a few million additional people, while costing others more, Congress and the President should have voted to provide free, comprehensive Medicare for every man, woman and child in America (aka “single payer).
That said, ACA is a slight improvement over the previous system, in which millions of the poor had no health care insurance.
The right wing hates ACA, because:
— they want to defeat anything Obama and the Democrats have proposed
— the law benefits the poor and middle classes
— they didn’t think of it first (Oops, actually they did. It was called “Romneycare.”)
So in one of the nuttiest exhibitions of an increasingly nutty party, the Republicans in the House of Representatives voted 54 times (!) to defund ACA, all without any hope of success and without a viable alternative.
Surely, the right wing deserves a mention in the Guinness Book of Records — Insanity Section.
Today, continuing the madness, conservatives are giddy over the Halbig v. Burwell decision, which ruled that insurance subsidies could be provided only on state exchanges, not on federal exchanges. This would mean those states that did not create their own exchanges, but rather allowed the federal government to provide the exchanges, will not receive the subsidies.
The Surprise Obamacare Ruling That Wasn’t
Jonathan Gruber, an economics professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, is widely known as one of the architects of both Romneycare and Obamacare. His models of the economic effects of the bill were frequently cited by journalists and the administration.
(Last year), Gruber made the following observation:
“What’s important to remember politically about this is if you’re a state and you don’t set up an exchange, that means your citizens don’t get their tax credits — but your citizens still pay the taxes that support this bill.
“So you’re essentially saying [to] your citizens you’re going to pay all the taxes to help all the other states in the country. I hope that that’s a blatant enough political reality that states will get their act together and realize there are billions of dollars at stake here in setting up these exchanges.
“But, you know, once again the politics can get ugly around this.”
In short, Gruber felt it was highly unlikely that a state governor could be so cruel and stupid as intentionally to fail setting up an exchange. But, Gruber didn’t count on depravity of the red state governors, for in fact, many of them have done just that.
In the event this decision is allowed to stand, it merely will focus a spotlight on the crass politics of the ultra right-wing. It will demonstrate the moral and financial bankruptcy of conservative politicians, who deprive their own state and their own citizens of federal financing and of health care insurance, just to prevent Democrats from having a success.
If the conservatives “win,” millions of Americans will be go without affordable health care, and dozens of states will lose billions of dollars. That will be their pyrrhic “victory,” and no amount of flag-waving and quasi-religious bible thumping will erase the stain.
The Republicans remind me of Hamas, whose plan has been to have their own Gaza citizens starved, maimed and killed, so they somehow can “win” the war and maintain power. To conservatives, punishing their own people is worthwhile, if it helps defeat anything Obama.
Right-wingers should pray the decision is overturned (another court already has rendered a counter-decision), lest the entire nation, at long last, clearly see shameful conservatism in action.
All that remains for the right-wing is to nominate Michele Bachmann and Sarah Palin as Presidential running mates.
Perfect.
Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty
====================================================================================================================================================
Ten 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. Tax the very rich (.1%) more, with higher, progressive tax rates on all forms of income. (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
Vertical gray bars mark recessions.
As the federal deficit growth lines drop, we approach recession, which will be cured only when the growth lines rise. Increasing federal deficit growth (aka “stimulus”) is necessary for long-term economic growth.
#MONETARYSOVEREIGNTY
#Monetary Sovereignty - Mitchell 
Batshyt Bachmann and the Rogue Mooselini – the dream ticket!
LikeLike
“Unfortunately, the record of congressional deliberation on this matter has been thin, perhaps because in the rush to get something passed, there wasn’t much congressional deliberation; many of the members of Congress who voted on the final bill undoubtedly had little idea what was in it other than “health care!” ”
Process matters. Laws passed in the usual way don’t have problems like this.
LikeLike
“In short, Gruber felt it was highly unlikely that a state governor could be so cruel and stupid as intentionally to fail setting up an exchange. ”
More likely they would never have failed to set up the exchange if they knew about this, nor would they have survived, politically, failing to set up an exchange, if anyone else knew what was in the law. There was, of course, no discussion of this when it mattered.
LikeLike
No one knew about it, because until the Supreme Court rules, “it” doesn’t exist.
What they did know is that by failing to accept ACA they were costing their state many millions of dollars.
Why would any governor do that? Political cowardice exacerbated by failing to explain the fact to the voters.
Kentucky governor Steve Beshear proved that if a leader cares about the people, he doesn’t have to trail along with the crackpots.
LikeLike
I don’t know what you mean by “it”.
The governors didn’t know. Nobody knew, except one guy who mentioned section 1401 once in a law review article. Beshear didn’t know it, or if he did he deliberately withheld that information, because it’s not mentioned in his NYTimes piece.
If people – Democrats especially – knew that the law restricted tax credits to those in state-run exchanges, they would have raised holy hell when any governor (who can’t do it himself, by the way, the state legislature has to act to authorize the exchange) suggested not having an exchange and denying the tax credits to his constituents.
No governor would knowingly do it. It was not an issue.
Why was this provision not discussed when the debates were occurring in the states? Why did the ACA supporters not mention it?
Because nobody knew.
Because the law was drafted in back rooms with no hearings and no amendments and no Republicans. No questions allowed, no reading the bill before voting on it. Predictably, it’s a mess.
LikeLike
Hey, no one has forced the Republicans to search for every means to scuttle Romneycare (oops, Obamacare).
And if they didn’t know, why were they for it before they were against it?
Today, there is great joy in Redstateville, so let’s not have any “no one knew” moaning. This is exactly what the Republicans hoped would happen.
I guess no one told them, “Be careful what you wish for.”
Fortunately, Judge Roberts seems to know that if his court destroys ACA, especially after some of the other truly awful decisions lately, his legacy will be crap.
So I’m guessing the Court will not rule for the reds, which will make the reds breathe a sigh of relief (although the crocodile tears will flow).
LikeLike
You should read the Heritage paper describing the sort of universal health insurance plan that many Republicans support. It is like Obamacare the way a Ferrari is like a Smart Car. Among the “solutions” Heritage rejects are government-funded systems and employer mandates. http://healthcarereform.procon.org/sourcefiles/1989_assuring_affordable_health_care_for_all_americans.pdf
I don’t see that this decision, even if affirmed by the Supreme Court, would “destroy” Obamacare. Two things could happen: more states would establish exchanges (which would be easy now that HHS has established an exchange for them to copy), or they will pressure their representatives to amend the law. And while they’re at it, they can also amend the individual and employer mandates so as to avoid a Constitutional crisis over Obama’s refusal to enforce them, and resolve the conflict between ACA and RFRA. And I’m sure other difficulties, yet to be discovered by the media, will come up during the hearings.
Or, if Republicans take the Senate this Fall, maybe they’ll replace Obamacare with a Heritage-style system of universal coverage. (Obamacare hasn’t significantly changed the number of uninsured.)
LikeLike
golfer,
To “reject government-funded systems” would be incredibly stupid for a Monetarily Sovereign government — unless you are the arch right-wing Heritage Foundation, funded by the rich and devoted to widening the gap between the rich and the rest
In that case it makes perfect sense.
P.S. I just read that supposed Heritage Foundation plan — except it isn’t even a Heritage Foundation Plan. In fact, it’s a 25-year-old (!) speech by Stuart Butler, for which the Heritage Foundation explicitly says: “Nothing written here is to be construed as necessarily reflecting the views of The Heritage Foundation.”
Further, this little 9-page document isn’t a plan at all. It’s sort of a wish list, in which the primary wish seems to be to cut government costs.
Truly pitiful.
LikeLike
Or unless
a) you don’t understand that government could afford it, or
b) you don’t think “insurance company” is an appropriate role for government.
Their reasoning is that third party payment systems encourage overuse and price gouging, whereas people are much more careful about what they buy when they spend their own money. “Other people’s money” is what made the abuses of Wall Street possible, and have given us the most expensive health care system in the world, with only average results.
LikeLike
I guess we’re done with Heritage now?
Yes, we really want people to be “careful about what they buy,” when considering whether to visit a doctor.
We want them to ignore that lump until it grows really big, or until that chest pain becomes agonizing. Lay people should be expected to recognize whether symptoms are serious before asking a doctor.
Otherwise people will be visiting doctors unnecessarily. After all, visiting doctors is so much fun.
Right?
Classic right wing, “tough-love” philosophy. “If you give people help, they will become overly dependent. So don’t give them help, even if it costs nothing, because we don’t want to spoil them.”
And while we’re at it, cut unemployment compensation, because we don’t want to “reward sloth.” And cut food stamps and other poverty aids, because we don’t want to “reward indolence.”
Only the rich are entitled to sloth and indolence — and to visit a doctor when they are concerned about something.
Anyway, we have two “3rd party” systems: Employers and government — except the employers part actually is paid by employees and the government part is free to the public and adds dollars to the economy.
So which is better?
in our Monetarily Sovereign system, what is the problem with our federal government paying “too much” money for health care?
At worst, it stimulates the economy. At best, it pays for more doctors, nurses and hospitals.
LikeLike
My sentiments too. Not choosing the simplest route will only cause more problems. Single payer is best via government. Private sector doesn’t want to pay for anything if they can get away with it. Since sovereign government is a currency issuer, not a currency user, you’d think the private sector would be 4 square behind it. Santa Clause staring them in the face!
LikeLike
Whether Heritage wrote it or just published it, it is the sort of plan Republicans favor. Republicans never supported Obamacare.
I was thinking more of what to do when the kids have a cold, not when they have a tumor. That, and what sort of events you would insure against. The idea of insurance is to cover the catastrophic events that would be unaffordable to pay out of pocket. It’s not cost effective to cover routine care (vaccinations, cough syrup, aspirin, birth control pills) with insurance, and yet that is what Obamacare does, and what makes it unaffordable for most individuals, without subsidies.
Left and right alike are refusing to let everyone have a job, so that they could afford their own insurance. There’s nothing uniquely right-wing about that.
As you say, the insurance that employees have is paid by employees, in the end. The Heritage article wanted to do away with preferential tax treatment for employer-paid plans. Employees would be better off to have the money and choose a plan that suits their needs, rather than the employer’s needs.
The problem with government paying too much for anything is that there is less policy space to pay for the other things it should be doing. Given some level of taxation, there is a limit to what government can pay out without denying resources to one purpose in order to satisfy another. Better to do three things well than to overpay for one and neglect the other two.
Yes, when unemployment is high it’s helpful for government to spend more, no matter what they spend it on. Hopefully we won’t always be in that situation, so we shouldn’t lock ourselves in to bad policies just because they aren’t so bad at the moment.
LikeLike
“Single payer is best via government”
What’s the other way?
Yes, the beneficiaries of government spending (defense contractors, etc.) are 4 square behind it. They recognize Santa Claus when they see him.
I don’t understand why health insurance needs to be a government function when all our other necessities are left to us. Without shelter we’d freeze. Why do we have to pay our own rent? Government should do it. Without food we’d starve. Government should pay our grocery bills. Without water we’d die. Government should pay the water bill. Of course, nobody says that. It’s ridiculous – at least I hope. Maybe those are next, after single payer health care.
It’s too expensive? Fine, the poor get Medicaid, the elderly get Medicare. Why should government pay health care for those who can afford to pay themselves, when it doesn’t pay rent and groceries except for those who can’t afford them?
I’m not just trying to be argumentative here, obviously you see some sort of difference between health insurance and food or shelter that I don’t see. What is it?
LikeLike
golfer,
“Given some level of taxation, there is a limit to what government can pay out without denying resources to one purpose in order to satisfy another.”
OMG! You still don’t understand Monetary Sovereignty?? C’mon golfer, you’re smarter than this.
LikeLike
How does monetary sovereignty give us infinite real resources?
LikeLike
“Infinite,” the classic rejoinder.
No one is talking about “infinite.” We are talking about “more.”
Monetarily Sovereign government can provide more money to pay for more resources.
We don’t need “infinite” resources, any more than we need “infinite” taxes or “infinite spending.” . But we do need “more” money for more health care.
LikeLike
I said there was a limit, you took issue with that. No limit means infinite. So now you agree there is a limit? That since real resources are finite, at some point if government wants more of A they must accept less of B?
LikeLike
golfer,
Got it.
You would rather that people go hungry, than have the government provide them with food (stamps) — at no cost to you.
You would rather that Detroit goes without water, than have the government pay the water bill — at no cost to you.
You would rather that people have substandard health care, than have the government pay for it — at no cost to you.
You would rather that people go homeless, rather than have the government pay for it — at no cost to you.
Ah, the perfect religious right-winger. Move right to the head of the line. (Oops, I guess you already are there.)
And yes, as usual, you are trying to be argumentative, which is O.K. Just don’t be mean, selfish and uncaring. That’s disgusting.
LikeLike
Michele Bachmann Suggests Labor Camps for Immigrant Children
The perfect, “religious,” right-wing narrative: A return to indentured servitude for children.
And speaking of that notorious fountain of facts, the Heritage Foundation:
I always laugh when someone uses the Heritage Foundation as a source, because I know it is the FOX News of “think tanks.”
LikeLike
“..I said there was a limit, you took issue with that. No limit means infinite. So now you agree there is a limit? That since real resources are finite, at some point if government wants more of A they must accept less of B?”
You definitely are in the camp of Malthusian scarcity and Darwinian “not enough to go around, and survival of the fittest”; therefore war, starvation, it’s you-or-me, but not both, is all inevitable.
There is such a realistic condition as “limited and unbounded.” Resources such as metals, plastics, food, are all recyclable, regenerative or replaceable with something better. As science progresses we do more with less. We can gradually shut down the mines and use everything at the surface that already exists in abundance, including buoyant sunken ships, i.e.,underwater scrapyards. We can phase out fossil fuel mining and switch to sun and wind. (Yes the majority of our power comes from fossil fuel, not because it’s better, but because fossil necessarily had a very big head start. Fossil was our “under ground battery” to pump-prime and startup early industrial development until the baton of non-poisoning, green fuels can be passed on to future generation and generations.)
And how do you think we can feed everyone with less farm land than ever as real estate developers suck it up? It’s called mechanical efficiency, something scarcity dominated societies and economists know little of and fail to take into their calculations when trying to predict the future, such as the Club of Rome. President Reagan said land is the wealth; he’s both dead and wrong.
Knowhow is the real wealth and the real prime mover of doing ever more with ever less. If knowhow doesn’t come into dominance over yesteryear’s false economic assumptions, it’s curtains.
Monetary sovereignty is our reality and unless someone has a better idea, MS provides an escape hatch out of the hell we’ve created for ourselves with yesteryear fairy tale thinking. If we can create debt out of legal thin air we can create monetary abundance the same way.
We won’t get rid of the Gap between the rich and the rest, but we can rid of poverty without inflation. We can still have a gap but it would be between haves and have mores. Human nature is such that when we feel secure in the system we’re under we will gradually relax and conspicuous consumption will cease. Hoarding and materialism are due to insecurity and fear. It’s counterintuitive, but people will normalize as they’re presented with a zeitgeist of abundance thus feel they don’t have to worry about the future, i.e., buy NOW to avoid inflation as the FED’s business biased, anti-consumer intentionally robbing, inflationary policy would have it.
But to your original point of why wouldn’t government subsidize everything, they won’t. Government only needs to pick up the slack of whatever the private sector can’t do or refuses to do. Government is the safety net of capitalism because the private sector is not and never will be perfect (bailouts, huge loans) especially as it is motivated by greed, profit and selfishness to such an extent that it is willing to burn up, irradiate and poison our Earthian house in the middle of winter in order to keep warm and financially bloated.
LikeLike
“Government only needs to pick up the slack of whatever the private sector can’t do or refuses to do.”
I agree.
The private sector isn’t unwilling or incapable of health care or health insurance. It’s doing it (or was, before 2010) for 85%. The 15% either don’t want insurance or can’t afford it. There are provisions for government to pay for those who can’t afford it. That’s fine, and we do the same for the other necessities of life: government pays for food and shelter for those who can’t afford it. Nobody wants people to go hungry or homeless.
(It would be better if those who would rather work had jobs, and were able to afford those things and more themselves, and a government that supported them with proper macroeconomic policy would do much better for them than supplying them with only the bare necessities.)
There ought to be a law to force those who can afford and don’t want health insurance to be financially responsible for their own care, thus an individual mandate for catastrophic coverage is justified in the same way as mandatory automobile liability insurance. And we do need to protect the insured from some of the practices of some insurers.
I see no reason for government to interfere with the provision of insurance and health care to the 85% that the private sector is already handling, just as there is no need for government to interfere with the provision of housing or food to those who have and can afford it themselves.
Others do see such a need, but only in the case of health insurance — not food and shelter. I don’t understand why.
LikeLike
Merely have the federal government provide free, comprehensive Medicare to every man, woman and child in America.
No need for agencies to evaluate everyone’s ability to pay $1,000 per pill to treat Hepatitis C.
Why make anyone pay, when federal payments would grow the economy?
KISS
LikeLike
OK, I get that, but why stop at medicare? Why not also SNAP for everyone and housing for everyone?
$1000 per pill to Gilead Sciences is probably not going to grow the economy much. They’re 0.1%ers. They won’t spend any more than they would otherwise, nor will their shareholders, also 0.1%ers for the most part.
LikeLike
Yes, of course, give an extreme example to prove your point. You do love to argue, even when you drift wildly off point.
Your example doesn’t answer the question, “Why not Medicare for every man woman and child in America?” In fact, it avoids the question by diversion. (I suppose you think that is clever??)
I’m surprised you didn’t ask (as debt fools often do), “Why not give everyone a million dollars.” That would be in the same genre as your response.
Perhaps, one day in the future, the government will in fact, provide free food and housing to everyone, rather than to just to the poorest of us. It may even provide free clothing and vacations. Who knows?
But for today, you still have not provided a single, intelligent objection to: Free, comprehensive Medicare for everyone.
LikeLike
I say again, I get it about Medicare for everyone. I would prefer that people be able to afford their health insurance (85% already can), so that they can choose a plan that suits their needs rather than have the government choose for them. Our current system needs only minor tweaking to resolve the most serious problems. It doesn’t need a wholesale makeover.
But why Medicare first? Why not food stamps first? Why not housing first?
Is it a strategic issue, that you don’t want to ask for too much all at once, and since we’re passing laws about health care these days, that is the one to concentrate on? Or is there something about Medicare that is different from food and shelter, that makes it the logical choice to do first?
And since you seem to favor doing all three, the question for those who favor doing only one is why do you choose this one and not the others?
Since you want to debate debating techniques, attacking me personally rather than discussing the issue is a sign of weakness, indicating that you don’t think you have a good argument on the issue. You do have a good argument for Medicare. Not my favorite, but good.
Money to everyone is a good idea. It follows the KISS principle. We did it in 2008, $250, only once, and it staved off the recession for a quarter. $1000 a year, back then, on a more permanent basis, might even have averted it entirely. For today, I think $4,000 pp, one time, would bring us back to a healthy economy very quickly, but if no permanent changes are made (a job guarantee, for instance) the progressive tax system (or the Fed) will stop the recovery again, as they always have done.
The advantage to money, as opposed to aid in kind such as Medicare, is that it helps people no matter what their needs. The disadvantage is that it enables self-destructive behavior as well, but that is part of the price of freedom.
LikeLike
I’ve said it in every post.
See: The Ten Steps to Prosperity
I like that order. You don’t like that order? No problem, pick a different order and explain why.
You don’t like the 10 steps? Fine. Pick new steps and explain them.
But be prepared for someone asking, “Why not a billion steps?”
LikeLike
I’m not Malthusian. As population grows, so does the work force and so does productive capacity. And technology grows over time, too. It is surely not inevitable that demand will some day outstrip supply, as Malthus theorized. Possible, but I would say even unlikely. Soon, surely in the lifetimes of young people today, our major source of energy will be solar, and when that happens it enables all sorts of things that will relieve other shortages. Solar-powered desalination will make pure clean water available “for free” (marginal cost near zero), and solar-powered pumps will enable water to be sent anywhere it is needed, “for free”. Having water wherever needed brings more land into play for production of food and housing.
Sure, you can recycle some things. What do you do when all plastic is being recycled, all plastic plants are operating at full capacity, all plastics engineers are employed making plastic, and the government puts in a new order for a gazillion plastic widgets (or cuts taxes or increases transfer payments so that the private sector wants to buy them)? The only way they get them is if we make fewer plastic bottles and plastic toys and plastic bags. There is a limit, even with recycling, and even with MS. Maybe next year, when some new plants are built and engineers graduate, we could make more plastic. But not right away when we’re already 100% employed.
All you say about MS is true, as long as there are unemployed resources. My point was about the time when there are no unemployed resources. Real resources are finite, and at a point in time, limited. Over time, they can increase, but are always finite. Money creation has no such limits.
LikeLike
My prayer for you is that you live long enough to see the Earth depleted of all unemployed resources. Make that your great, great, great grandchildren.
LikeLike
Just a few points:
1) Even privately paid insurance is at a price to the worker. When unions negotiate an advantage to their workers the managers will counter with a cut somewhere else in the new contract.
2) Unless you own your car, the insurance company will notify your bank if you drop them and refuse insurance. Since the bank is the legal owner you will lose your car. If you own it outright and are in an accident you’ll face a big fine/jail.
3) not “some” things, All things can be recycled OR replaced. Not enough plastic? Well then science comes through with a way to do the same thing with less plastic or invents a new material to take the place of plastic like bio diesel replaces fossil diesel. Take out a subscription to a cutting edge science magazine or website. There’s a ton of information on what’s happening and what’s possible. Bottom line: Necessity is the mother of innovation.
Evolution is going in the opposite direction of your argument. We are seeing the unemployment of people (as workers) due to automation and the decreased use of materials in infrastructure due to advancements in alloys and engineering, i.e., take a look at the Brooklyn Bridge of the 19th Century compared to the cable and tension based, spider web bridges now connecting cities.
As I’ve already mentioned, you’d think private sector would welcome government takeover of their responsibility. Government being sovereign doesn’t have to worry about overhead or the bottom line. Problem is people think government takeover means socialism and higher taxes because they don’t understand the principle of MS. MS is not beholden to the constraints of non MS budgeting. You can bet the power structure all over the world doesn’t want this very important point to get out of the bag even though it would mean their becoming even more fabulously wealthy than they already are for all time to come. Apparently, they value keeping control and keeping everyone miserable and under their thumbs than they do their money and the general welfare of society. It’s really sick to actually want to stand in the way of our evolution which is trying to make everyone a success.
WHO do you think will win, the .1% or universal evolution? I’ll bet any money if the .1% wins, we and they lose, it’s curtains for all. Shut the door and turn off the lights. THAT is where the 1% is trying to go while at the same time they think it’s not going to happen to them, just everyone else. What fools.
LikeLike
1. Yes, of course. We pay for it whether we pay out pocket, or getting it in kind in lieu of money for employment.
2. Yes, it is illegal to drive without liability insurance. The reason is to protect us from people who cause us financial damage and are not able to make us whole. The case for catastrophic health insurance is similar. People will be treated when they are sick or injured, whether or not they have insurance. The rest of us pay, if they do not. The doctors don’t work for free on Thursdays to take care of the uninsured.
3. Right, but not immediately. If you want it now, and it’s not available, and there’s no idle resource, you have to make it in preference to making something else. And time, our most valuable resource, is not recyclable.
Yes, over time it takes less and less human labor to create the same output, as technology has advanced. The workweek grows shorter, and leisure time expands, as our productivity increases. If this keeps up, one worker will be able to produce the entire GDP in a few minutes work. On the way to that, though, we’ll simply work fewer hours to produce the same output, and/or have more output to share for the same labor input.
The distribution of the output is an issue. Technology also makes it possible to produce the same output with fewer skills, so that lower-priced labor can be substituted for higher-priced. If the workers cannot afford to purchase their own output, the result is unemployment. That situation – we’re in it now – is unsustainable, and so will not continue. Government should step in to raise incomes in order to reverse the trend.
Government taking over a function from the private sector eliminates someone’s income. As you say, government makes no profit. Whoever was getting the private sector profit is now unemployed, looking for something else to do.
But that’s not how Obamacare works. It merely subsidizes insurance for some, while pretending to mandate that all of us purchase insurance (directly, or by accepting lower wages form our employers) that conforms to certain characteristics, whether or not those characteristics are of use to us, and at a higher cost than before to those who are not subsidized. The goal was to reduce cost and reduce the number of uninsured, but that isn’t happening. Except for broader Medicaid eligibility, there are fewer people insured than before. It’s a horrible law, as Rodger says, because of the way it was created, behind closed doors by people advancing only their own self-interest, not the public interest.
LikeLike
And, it’s a horrible law primarily because it’s based on the Big Lie, that the federal government “can’t afford” to pay for health care.
Any plan that begins with a faulty foundation, cannot turn out well. Even it it were developed with 100% transparency, it still would be a horrible law.
LikeLike
I think I’ve figured it out. Government doesn’t need for force people to shelter or feed themselves, they do it willingly to the extent that they can afford it, and those things are at the top of the list when the list is longer than the available resources. All government needs to do is to make sure everyone can afford some minimum standard.
Not so with health insurance. If employers didn’t provide it (and they wouldn’t except that it is subsidized by the tax code), lots of people wouldn’t buy it. They would prefer to spend their money on other things, and take their chances that they won’t by financially wiped out by a serious illness or accident. Nearly all of them would win that bet. Some are willing to insure against the catastrophic event, but not for the routine, expected, and affordable.
It’s like brushing your teeth. It’s something you should do, but children won’t do it unless their parents force them to do it. People should have at least catastrophic health insurance, but many of them won’t buy it unless someone (employer or government) forces them to.
So why not say it? I think because Americans value freedom more than they value financial protection. They would object even more strenuously than they do already, if the problem were stated that way. Like telling a child that they must do it “for their own good”, it only raises the level of opposition, except these are adults who are considered to have the inalienable right to the pursuit of happiness, including the right to decide whether or not they want to buy financial protection against expected and affordable health events.
LikeLike
If the federal government simply provided free, comprehensive Medicare to every man, woman and child, Americans could have both their freedom and their financial protection.
LikeLike
Yes, and the same for any good or service that you can think of. But nobody (yet) is advocating for government to provide other services, only this one.
It’s different because, left to their own devices, people would allocate limited real resources in other ways.
LikeLike
SNAP, HUD, FAFSA, fedmoney.org,, http://www.usa.gov/Citizen/Topics/Benefits.shtml, AoA,
Of course, we could get rid of all those, because as “everyone knows,” the government is “too large” and the deficit is “unsustainable.”
LikeLike
All means-tested, for the poor, not for “every man, woman and child”.
LikeLike
golfer,
I know you don’t like to argue just for argument’s sake or to prove how very clever you are. Right? So exactly what is your point?
LikeLike
Back to the beginning, yet again.
Government pays for medical care for the poor already.
It also pays for food, shelter, etc. for the poor, already.
That is consistent. Government pays for all the necessities that the poor cannot afford for themselves.
You’re advocating a change, and I didn’t understand why you wanted to change only medical, and not the others, but I do now.
Now you equate letting people who can afford their own medical care choose the terms and pay for it themselves to the elimination of all anti-poverty programs. They are not the same. They are not even remotely related.
But I think you know that. I think it is you who are creating argument for its own sake.
LikeLike
golfer,
You said, “Now you equate letting people who can afford their own medical care choose the terms and pay for it themselves to the elimination of all anti-poverty programs.”
I have no idea what that means, but you seem to be asking why medical care is different from food and housing. I think.
I propose fully funded, comprehensive Medicare for every man, woman and child in America. “Fully funded” means no deductibles. Everything is paid for by the government.
“Comprehensive” means all doctor’s, hospital’s, nursing and pharmaceutical bills are paid.
Given that the very best would be free, no one needs to be forced to do anything. The poorest person automatically would receive the same care as the wealthiest, if he chose to accept it.
I don’t propose eliminating anti-poverty programs. I cannot imagine how you invented that nonsense.
There is, however, a fundamental difference between medical care and other human needs. Every American should receive the very best medical care modern medicine has to offer.
If a $10,000 drug is necessary to save someone’s life, that person should not have to settle for a $1,000 drug that isn’t as effective.
Contrast that with housing benefits. Everyone doesn’t need to live in a mansion. Good, clean, safe housing for everyone, should be the goal. Those who can afford mansions, can buy them.
Similarly, everyone doesn’t need (or want) fillet mignon and lobster for breakfast. But no one should be undernourished for lack of money. The government should continue to supply food via its various programs.
And not everyone needs to go to Harvard, Yale or Stanford. But the federal government can and should provide a free education (including post-grad) for everyone who wants one, as well as a salary for attending school.
States already provide this for grades K-12, and I see no reason why it should stop at 12. That was appropriate 100 years ago, but not today.
I’m sure I’ve not answered your questions to your satisfaction, but that will have to do.
LikeLike