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

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
It takes only two things to keep people in chains: The ignorance of the oppressed and the treachery of their leaders..
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Peter Suderman, the noted purveyor of conservative nonsense, must have been channeling Donald Trump when he wrote an article titled: More Bad News for Obamacare: Study Finds Medicaid Has No Effect on Measured Health Outcomes
(Peter Suderman|May. 1, 2013 7:52 pm)

It is the classic, anti-poor, anti-Obama, anti-truth, Breitbartian, FOXian, completely illogical BS.

Image result for impossible constructions

Twisted logic

 

The title of his article tells it all. He references a study that he claims indicates Medicaid doesn’t help people to be healthier.

But, here is the actual conclusion from the study:

The New England Journal of Medicine
The Oregon Experiment — Effects of Medicaid on Clinical Outcomes

“This randomized, controlled study showed that Medicaid coverage generated no significant improvements in measured physical health outcomes in the first 2 years, but it did increase use of health care services, raise rates of diabetes detection and management, lower rates of depression, and reduce financial strain.”

Let’s parse this conclusion. The test went only 2 years, so medical effects would be limited.

The only “measured” outcomes were hypertension or high cholesterol levels, or on the use of medication for these conditions.” That’s it.

During the 2 years of the study, those 3 things — hypertension, high cholesterol and the use of medication didn’t change. What does that tell you?

For whatever reasons, the doctors didn’t change their treatments for hypertension or high cholesterol, so those measures didn’t change.

No change in treatments; no change in results. Big surprise?

If after 2 short years, the treatments for hypertension and cholesterol don’t change, why would anyone expect Medicaid insurance coverage to change anyone’s symptoms? As my grandchildren would say, “”Duh.”

Further, there was an “increased use of health care services.” By what logic does an increase in the use of health care services reflect poorly on Medicaid? Isn’t that exactly what Medicaid is supposed to do?

And is there any measure anywhere showing that an increase in the use of health care services has no positive effect on health? If so, we’ve just found something amazing: Doctors, nurses, and hospitals have no effect on health — or so says Peter Suderman.

If you dig further into the conclusions, you’ll find this:

“Medicaid coverage significantly increased the probability of a diagnosis of diabetes and the use of diabetes medication, but we observed no significant effect on average glycated hemoglobin levels or on the percentage of participants with levels of 6.5% or higher.”

More people were discovered to have diabetes, and more people were treated for diabetes,  but their glycated hemoglobin levels didn’t change. The increased discovery and treatment are good — that’s the purpose of Medicaid — but what does lack of change in glycated hemoglobin levels have to do with Medicaid?

By what twisted logic does this indicate “Bad News for Obamacare”?

(“Doctor, you’ve been treating my diabetes, but it’s not getting better.  Must be the fault of my insurance.“)

“Medicaid coverage decreased the probability of a positive screening for depression, increased the use of many preventive services, and nearly eliminated  catastrophic out-of-pocket medical expenditures.”

So, according to Suderman, reductions in depression (possibly due to fewer worries about medical affordability), and increased use of preventive services (for all those hundreds of diseases not measured in the 2-year study and for all future diseases) are “Bad News for Obamacare.”

And, woe for the rich, Medicaid nearly eliminated catastrophic out-of-pocket medical expenditures by the poor. So these people were not driven into destitution.  And that supposedly is “Bad News for Obamacare.”

Absolutely nuts.

The real motives of the right-wing are twofold: To destroy anything associated with Obama (ironically, Romneycare), and to push the poor down, down, down.

Medicaid is a financial benefit, not in of itself a medical benefit.  But laughably, Suderman writes an article slamming Medicaid for successfully doing the two things Medicaid is supposed to do:

  1. Increase the use of health care services and
  2. Prevent catastrophic out-of-pocket medical expenditures.

Would someone please write to Suderman and ask him if he was educated at Trump University.  Please.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

The single most important problems in economics involve the excessive income/wealth/power Gaps between the have-mores and the have-less.

Wide Gaps negatively affect poverty, health and longevity, education, housing, law and crime, war, leadership, ownership, bigotry, supply and demand, taxation, GDP, international relations, scientific advancement, the environment, human motivation and well-being, and virtually every other issue in economics.

Implementation of The Ten Steps To Prosperity can narrow the Gaps:

Ten Steps To Prosperity:
1. ELIMINATE FICA (Ten Reasons to Eliminate FICA )
Although the article lists 10 reasons to eliminate FICA, there are two fundamental reasons:
*FICA is the most regressive tax in American history, widening the Gap by punishing the low and middle-income groups, while leaving the rich untouched, and
*The federal government, being Monetarily Sovereign, neither needs nor uses FICA to support Social Security and Medicare.
2. FEDERALLY FUNDED MEDICARE — PARTS A, B & D, PLUS LONG TERM CARE — FOR EVERYONE (H.R. 676, Medicare for All )
This article addresses the questions:
*Does the economy benefit when the rich can afford better health care than can the rest of Americans?
*Aside from improved health care, what are the other economic effects of “Medicare for everyone?”
*How much would it cost taxpayers?
*Who opposes it?”
3. PROVIDE A MONTHLY ECONOMIC BONUS TO EVERY MAN, WOMAN AND CHILD IN AMERICA (similar to Social Security for All) (The JG (Jobs Guarantee) vs the GI (Guaranteed Income) vs the EB (Economic Bonus)) Or institute a reverse income tax.
This article is the fifth in a series about direct financial assistance to Americans:

Why Modern Monetary Theory’s Employer of Last Resort is a bad idea. Sunday, Jan 1 2012
MMT’s Job Guarantee (JG) — “Another crazy, rightwing, Austrian nutjob?” Thursday, Jan 12 2012
Why Modern Monetary Theory’s Jobs Guarantee is like the EU’s euro: A beloved solution to the wrong problem. Tuesday, May 29 2012
“You can’t fire me. I’m on JG” Saturday, Jun 2 2012

Economic growth should include the “bottom” 99.9%, not just the .1%, the only question being, how best to accomplish that. Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) favors giving everyone a job. Monetary Sovereignty (MS) favors giving everyone money. The five articles describe the pros and cons of each approach.
4. FREE EDUCATION (INCLUDING POST-GRAD) FOR EVERYONE Five reasons why we should eliminate school loans
Monetarily non-sovereign State and local governments, despite their limited finances, support grades K-12. That level of education may have been sufficient for a largely agrarian economy, but not for our currently more technical economy that demands greater numbers of highly educated workers.
Because state and local funding is so limited, grades K-12 receive short shrift, especially those schools whose populations come from the lowest economic groups. And college is too costly for most families.
An educated populace benefits a nation, and benefitting the nation is the purpose of the federal government, which has the unlimited ability to pay for K-16 and beyond.
5. SALARY FOR ATTENDING SCHOOL
Even were schooling to be completely free, many young people cannot attend, because they and their families cannot afford to support non-workers. In a foundering boat, everyone needs to bail, and no one can take time off for study.
If a young person’s “job” is to learn and be productive, he/she should be paid to do that job, especially since that job is one of America’s most important.
6. ELIMINATE FEDERAL TAXES ON BUSINESS
Businesses are dollar-transferring machines. They transfer dollars from customers to employees, suppliers, shareholders and the federal government (the later having no use for those dollars). Any tax on businesses reduces the amount going to employees, suppliers and shareholders, which diminishes the economy. Ultimately, all business taxes reduce your personal income.
7. INCREASE THE STANDARD INCOME TAX DEDUCTION, ANNUALLY. (Refer to this.) Federal taxes punish taxpayers and harm the economy. The federal government has no need for those punishing and harmful tax dollars. There are several ways to reduce taxes, and we should evaluate and choose the most progressive approaches.
Cutting FICA and business taxes would be a good early step, as both dramatically affect the 99%. Annual increases in the standard income tax deduction, and a reverse income tax also would provide benefits from the bottom up. Both would narrow the Gap.
8. TAX THE VERY RICH (THE “.1%) MORE, WITH HIGHER PROGRESSIVE TAX RATES ON ALL FORMS OF INCOME. (TROPHIC CASCADE)
There was a time when I argued against increasing anyone’s federal taxes. After all, the federal government has no need for tax dollars, and all taxes reduce Gross Domestic Product, thereby negatively affecting the entire economy, including the 99.9%.
But I have come to realize that narrowing the Gap requires trimming the top. It simply would not be possible to provide the 99.9% with enough benefits to narrow the Gap in any meaningful way. Bill Gates reportedly owns $70 billion. To get to that level, he must have been earning $10 billion a year. Pick any acceptable Gap (1000 to 1?), and the lowest paid American would have to receive $10 million a year. Unreasonable.
9. FEDERAL OWNERSHIP OF ALL BANKS (Click The end of private banking and How should America decide “who-gets-money”?)
Banks have created all the dollars that exist. Even dollars created at the direction of the federal government, actually come into being when banks increase the numbers in checking accounts. This gives the banks enormous financial power, and as we all know, power corrupts — especially when multiplied by a profit motive.
Although the federal government also is powerful and corrupted, it does not suffer from a profit motive, the world’s most corrupting influence.
10. INCREASE FEDERAL SPENDING ON THE MYRIAD INITIATIVES THAT BENEFIT AMERICA’S 99.9% (Federal agencies)Browse the agencies. See how many agencies benefit the lower- and middle-income/wealth/ power groups, by adding dollars to the economy and/or by actions more beneficial to the 99.9% than to the .1%.
Save this reference as your primer to current economics. Sadly, much of the material is not being taught in American schools, which is all the more reason for you to use it.

The Ten Steps will grow the economy, and narrow the income/wealth/power Gap between the rich and you.

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY