Simple single payer facts and utter nonsense

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

Boiled down to its essence, there are only two facts you need to know about “single payer” health care:

1. Single payer simply means that instead of insurance companies and states paying doctors and hospitals, the federal government pays the bills.
2. The federal government, being Monetarily Sovereign, easily can afford to pay any amount, while for-profit insurance companies and monetarily non-sovereign states cannot.

That’s it. You now know everything you need to know about single payer vs. whatever-you-want-to-call the U.S. current system. All else is trivial by comparison.

The U.S. already knows how to do single payer. It’s called “Medicare.”

But those opposed to single payer, either for idealistic or for money reasons, want to confuse the debate. And in that vein, I bring you right-wing columnist John Kass, and some excerpts from his column in today’s Chicago Tribune:

What’s not being asked in the Charlie Gard case?

In the story of Charlie Gard — the seriously ill 11-month-old boy that British health care is compelled to let die over his parents’ wishes — there is something important that is missing.

You’ve probably heard of Gard’s rare illness and the British health care bureaucrats who think it best that he die. And you also may have heard about his parents’ battle in the hopes of saving their son, and the latest court hearing where a last-ditch effort was scheduled in the hopes of bringing him to the U.S. for experimental treatment.

The question is this: If America adopts such a government health care (single payer) system, could what has happened to Charlie Gard and his parents happen here?

Those in favor of government health care might not want to answer it; and journalists in favor of such a system might not want to know. Or they might not want to appear rude.

But the answer is yes.

I’ll interrupt to remind you that what Kass misleadingly calls “government health care” really is the government taking the place of privately-owned insurance companies.

The actual health care still is provided by doctors and hospitals, no matter who pays.

Little Charlie suffers from a rare genetic illness. Blind and deaf, he endures painful epileptic seizures. His doctors in London insist that his illness can’t be treated, and that he will die when life-support is withdrawn.

And health care bureaucrats in London want it withdrawn.

But his parents, Chris Gard and Connie Yates, are fighting to bring him to the U.S. for a chance at experimental medicine. They’ve raised almost $2 million.

Yet British doctors say prolonging Charlie’s life will only cause him pain. 

Reminder: This is doctors, not the government, objecting to Charlie being subjected to more pain. Would American doctors have the same objection? If not, why not?

So the Charlie Gard story is a political story, where a government and its bureaucrats, not the parents, decide whether a baby lives or dies.

No, it is doctors making life/death decisions, as they must do every day. It comes with the territory.

Some governments might be seen as progressive, others as conservative, but to the people who pull the levers, one thing is understood.

Government is about force. It always has been about force.

“Force” is another word for “law,” which Libertarian anarchists profess to hate.

They might be driven by what some call scientific reason, and by others as the end product of cost-benefit analytics.

But with a bureaucracy, it always ends up being about the same thing. Force.

Or, as in the case of the British doctors, mercy for a blind, deaf child who is experiencing terrible pain.

Someday it might be your child whose fate is being decided by others. Someday it might be you. But who should make that decision? The government or the parents?

Would you sit quietly, and allow bureaucrats to tell you what must be done?

Yes, governments often must protect helpless children, even from their parents. It is what we expect governments to do.

Kass is a right-wing Libertarian, who opposes government, and especially opposes progressive benefits for the poor. So he writes emotional articles designed to denigrate social programs.

To both the Republicans and the Democrats (but especially the Republicans), federal funding for universal health care is an anathema.  It narrows the health care gap between the rich and the rest, something the rich resist mightily.

You’ll notice Kass talks about federal bureaucrats but does not mention insurance company bureaucrats, the latter having a much stronger profit motivation to deny benefits.

When it comes to paying doctors and hospitals, for-profit bureaucracies deal in force, as do government bureaucracies, the primary difference being that private insurance companies cannot afford to insure the already-sick or those having rare, expensive illnesses — the “Charlie Gards” of the world.

The next time you’re involved in a discussion about single-payer, universal health care, remember these two simple facts:

1. Single payer simply means that instead of insurance companies and states paying doctors and hospitals, the federal government pays the bills.
2. The federal government, being Monetarily Sovereign, easily can afford to pay any amount, while for-profit insurance companies and monetarily non-sovereign states are financially motivated not to pay.

Don’t let the toadies for the rich confuse a simple issue.

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