Infinity is a big number. It’s so big you can’t even visualize it, much less count it.
The federal government has more dollars than there are atoms in the universe.
Infinity is bigger than all the atoms in all the molecules in all the dust grains in the entire universe, which is estimated to be 10^82 — that’s 1 with 82 zeros behind it — way bigger.
It’s bigger than a googol, which is 10^100, which is one followed by one hundred zeros. Infinity is bigger than a centillion, which is one followed by six hundred zeros, and bigger even than a googolplex, ten^googol.
I mention these staggering numbers, all of which are far smaller than infinity, to give you an idea of the U.S. federal government’s capability, which is this: The U.S. government can create infinite U.S. dollars any time it chooses, merely by deciding to do so.
Ben Bernanke, former Federal Reserve Chairman: “The U.S. government has a technology, called a printing press (or, today, its electronic equivalent), that allows it to produce as many U.S. dollars as it wishesat essentially no cost.”
Scott Pelley (60 Minutes): Is that tax money that the Fed is spending?Ben Bernanke: It’s not tax money… We simply use the computer to mark up the size of the account.
Statement from the St. Louis Fed:“As the sole manufacturer of dollars, whose debt is denominated in dollars, the U.S. government can never become insolvent, i.e., unable to pay its bills. In this sense, the government is not dependent on credit markets to remain operational.”
Given that infinite capability, the U.S. government cannot run short of dollars, no matter how many it spends, how little it taxes, or how big its deficits are.
Even if the federal government levied zero taxes, it could continue spending forever (the same as infinity, but on a time scale).
And what is true for the U.S. government also is true for any agency of the U.S. government.
The Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force, Space Force, the Senate, the House, the White House, the Supreme Court, Medicare, Social Security, and all the other 1000+ agencies of the federal government — none of them can run short of dollars unless that is the desire of the President and Congress.
So why do we concern ourselves with meaningless concepts such as federal deficits, debt, and borrowing when determining how much to spend on various projects? Why do we talk about “affordability” and “sustainability”?
Everything is affordable and sustainable for an entity with access to infinite (more than a googolplex) dollars, and there never is a reason to borrow.
With affordability, sustainability, and borrowing off the table, what criteria should the government use to plan expenditures?
Need and effectare the only criteria that have a purpose.
Take any federal agency, for instance, the House of Representatives: How much money does the House need to run most efficiently, and what are the overall effects of giving them that money?
Or think about America’s healthcare. How much money would a comprehensive, no-deductible Medicare plan covering every man, woman, and child in America need, and what would be the overall effect of providing that money?
The U.S. government can “afford” and “sustain” any numbers you can mention without either borrowing or taxing. Just press those computer keys Ben Bernanke mentioned.
Social Security for All: How much money is neededto eliminate poverty, hunger, homelessness, and most crime in America? Develop a number and press those computer keys.
Or education: How much money is needed to provide everyone with the education they desire, whether it be high school, college, advanced degree, or research facility?
There are no financial limitations. So, what are the limitations? Planning, know-how, and labor.
We need to know howto spend those unlimited dollars to achieve our goals, and we need enough educated labor to make it all happen.
Despite the bleating and moaning about deficits and debt, money truly is no object. We can do it all, and now, with AI (Artificial Intelligence), our capabilities have expanded massively. We really can create a paradise on earth.
Of course, when all objections have been satisfied, we come to the last refuge of the debt worriers: Inflation.
They tell you that if the government spends “too much,” we’ll have inflation.
That is what many people have been taught to believe, despite one small fact: Historically, there is no relationship between federal spending and inflation.In the massive inflation years of the late 1970s, federal spending ranged between $300 Billion and $700 Billion annually.
In the massive inflation years of the late 1970s, federal spending ranged between $300 Billion and $700 Billion annually.
In the 1980s, while inflation dropped to 2% and below, federal spending kept rising, reaching a high of $6 Trillion annually, still with low inflation.
Then suddenly came the COVID shortages, and just as suddenly, inflation rose to 8%+.
Now, as federal spending continues at massive levels and shortages decline, inflation, too is coming down.
The reason: Inflation, far from being a result of federal spending, is the result of national shortages, most often shortages of oil and/or food.
The famous Zimbabwe inflation was caused by a food shortage. The government took farmland from farmers and gave it to non-farmers. Government spending was an inept follow-up to the already existing inflation. Had the government spent to aid production and acquisition of food, there would have been no inflation.
Argentina: Food, clothing, and, surprisingly, energy shortages caused by the Russia/Ukraine war.
America: COVID-caused shortages of oil, food, shipping, computer parts, metals, lumber, labor, and other essentials. Before COVID, inflation was near zero despite massive federal spending for many years.
Then came COVID, and its shortages caused inflation to hit double digits.
SUMMARY
Congress, the media, and even economists worry about government spending when they should worry about private sector needs. That is the fundamental purpose of government — to provide the private sector with what the private sector needs.
Worrying about spending is a reasonable approach for households, businesses, and local governments, all monetarily non-sovereign. They do not have the infinite ability to create dollars. They can, and often do, run short of money. They require taxes and borrowing to remain solvent.
By contrast, this approach is wrongheaded for our Monetarily Sovereign federal government, which can create money and needs neither taxes nor borrowing to remain solvent.
As I write this, the federal government is about to shut down over worries, not about economic needs but about federal spending, the exact opposite of what the government should consider.
The Republicans have forgotten about needs. The Democrats consider needs but are hypnotized by the false analogies with household finances.
The situation today resembles a billionaire refusing a life-saving cancer medicine because it costs $1 per year. Nonsensical.
I look forward to the day when people understand that federal money is an unlimited resource. If used correctly, it will solve most problems facing this nation and create a paradise on earth.
Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary SovereigntyTwitter: @rodgermitchellSearch #monetarysovereigntyFacebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
……………………………………………………………………..
The Sole Purpose of Government Is to Improve and Protect the Lives of the People.
Does your neighbor understand the close relationship between federal deficits and economic growth? Do you?
I’m unsure whether to laugh or cry when I read about how the “federal debt” is too high and “unsustainable.” It is amazing how few people seem to understand that Gross Domestic Product growth (economic growth) relies on federal deficit and “debt” growth.
The two are intertwined, with economic growth being the outcome of “federal debt” and deficit growth.
I put “federal debt” in quotes because it isn’t federal, and it isn’t debt. It’s deposits in T-security accounts owned by the depositors, not the federal government.
These accounts resemble bank safe deposit boxes in that the contents remain the property of the depositors, the bank never touches them, and they are not the bank’s debts.
Similarly, the contents of T-security accounts remain the property of depositors; the federal government never touches them, and they are not the federal government’s debts.
The purpose of T-securities is not to provide spending funds to the federal government (which already has infinite spending funds) but to provide a safe, interest-paying storage place for unused dollars. This stabilizes the demand for the dollar.
Here is a graph demonstrating the close relationship between deficit spending and economic growth.
Federal deficits and economic growth go hand-in-hand.
The lines parallel because of this formula:
Gross Domestic Product = Federal Spending + Non-federal Spending + Net Exports.
Increases in Federal Spending directly increase economic growth (GDP), but they also increase Non-federal spending by adding dollars to the private sector.
Thus,federal deficit spending is absolutely no-kidding-around necessary for economic growth.
The economy can’t grow without the supply of money growing.The following graph shows the nearly identical tracks of GDP (blue) and both the broad money supply measure (M3) and a narrower money supply measure (purple).
Federal deficit spending grows the supply of money and, thus, the economy.
Economic growth (blue) parallels the M2 (purple) money supply measure and the M3 (green) money supply measure.
If you wonder whether economic growth is necessary, consider that the combination of inflation and population growth requires more money just to break even, making a $0 deficit recessionary.
The reality is that even small, insufficient deficit growth has led lead to inflations, which is demonstrated by the following graph:
Every recession begins after a period of declining deficits.
Even when “federal debt” growth is above zero, it can lead to recessions (vertical gray bars) when the rate of growth declines.
Recessions are cured by increases in the “federal debt” growth rate.
When your neighbor claims the “federal debt” and deficit are too high and demands a reduction, here’s what he unknowingly (perhaps) is asking for:
U.S. depressions come on the heels of federal surpluses.
1804-1812: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 48%. Depression began 1807. 1817-1821: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 29%. Depression began 1819. 1823-1836: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 99%. Depression began 1837. 1852-1857: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 59%. Depression began 1857. 1867-1873: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 27%. Depression began 1873. 1880-1893: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 57%. Depression began 1893. 1920-1930: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 36%. Depression began 1929. 1997-2001: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 15%. Recession began 2001.
Every depression in U.S. history has been caused by federal deficit reductions(“Federal debt” is the net total of federal deficits because that is how “federal debt” is wrongly defined.)
Does your neighbor understand that in demanding “debt” cuts, he is demanding a depression? Do you?
If you don’t understand it, I can’t blame you. You’ve received wrong information from all sides, even from trusted sources. Consider this startlingly inaccurate information from Investopedia:
Austerity refers to a set of economic policies a government implements to control public sector debt. Governments put austerity measures in place when their public debt is so large that the risk of default or the inability to service the required payments on its obligations becomes a real possibility.
The U.S. government has the unlimited ability to create U.S. dollars. So, large deficits never have and never will force the U.S. federal government to default.
The only way the government can default is if Congress and the President simplydecide not to pay what they owe, for instance, because of the extraordinarily foolish “debt ceiling.”
This misguided event could occur even when deficits are small; the size of deficits is irrelevant to the government’s ability to pay what it owes.
The goal of austerity is to improve a government’s financial health.
Austerity never improves the financial health of a Monetarily Sovereign government, i.e., the U.S. government’s infinite ability to create its sovereign currency.
Austerity always worsens the financial health of an economy. Always.
Default risk can spiral out of control quickly. As an individual, company, or country slips further into debt, lenders will charge a higher rate of return for future loans, making it more difficult for the borrower to raise capital.
Here, Investopedia demonstrates abject ignorance about economics. Individuals and companies are monetarily non-sovereign. The U.S. federal government is Monetarily Sovereign. The two are as different as black and white, and Investopedia doesn’t understand it.
If you and your neighbor are confused, that is the reason. You receive bad information from trusted sources.
Individuals and companies use dollars but do not have the unlimited ability to create dollars. You can run shortof dollars. You may need to borrow dollars.
By contrast, the U.S. federal government cannot unintentionally run short of dollars. It has the infinite ability to create dollars. Even if the U.S. government didn’t collect a penny in taxes, it and all its agencies could continue spending forever. Congress and the President merely must vote to make that happen.
Alan Greenspan: “A government cannot become insolvent with respect to obligations in its own currency. There is nothing to prevent the federal government from creating as much money as it wants and paying it to somebody. The United States can pay any debt it has because we can always print the money to do that.”
That is why the Supreme Court, Congress, the White House, the Military, Medicare, and Social Security — all federal agencies — cannot run short of dollars unless Congress and the President want them to.
For the above reasons, the federal government never borrows dollars. It creates, ad hoc, all the dollars it ever needs.
While T-bills, T-notes, and T-bonds include the words “bills,” “notes,” and “bonds” — terms often associated with borrowing — T-securities are not borrowing. They are deposits by depositors into their own accounts.
Imagine putting dollars into your bank safe deposit box. The bank has not borrowed those dollars. It only has provided a storage place to deposit things of value. Those things of value are not federal debt. The government does not owe them to you.
When a T-security reaches maturity, the federal government merely returns your dollars to you. It’s a simple transfer of your dollars from one of your accounts to another of your accounts — from your T-security account to your checking account.
If the federal government wished, it could reduce the “federal debt” to $0 simply by returning all your dollars currently residing in your T-security accounts. This would not be a financial burden on the government.
Finally, interest rates on T-securities are not determined by the private sector. They are set by the Federal Reserve in its attempts to control inflation.
Everywhere you turn, some “expert” wrongly conflates “federal debt” with private debt. It’s as wrong as conflating “giving someone the bird” (handing him a parrot) with the same words meaning “showing your middle finger.”
Federal government finances have nothing in common with personal, business, or state/local government finances.
Perhaps you understand this, and maybe even your neighbor does, too. But why do America’s “experts,” the media, the politicians, and the university economists act so gosh darned ignorant about elementary facts?
I suspect the operative word is “act.” Too many of them have been bribed by the rich, who run America, to make you believe the government can’t afford to give you benefits.
You are told that Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and all other social benefit programs must be cut, and your taxes must be increased. It’s all a lie, told to widen the income/wealth/power Gap between the rich and you. This is how the rich grow richer.
Did you know all this? If you do, have you complained to your Senator and Representative? It’s not too late. Or you can simply pay the additional FICA and do with less Medicare and Social Security. It’s what the rich hope, sucker.
Despite (or perhaps because of) our many sources of information, we Americans are ill-informed, often unable to separate truth from obvious fiction, and we make terrible decisions that negatively affect our lives.
Millions of us:
Refuse vaccination, despite the clear facts that refusal costs lives — the lives of the unvaccinated and the lives of those who contact the unvaccinated.
Believe the most recent Presidential election was stolen, despite massive evidence and at least 62 lawsuitsbefore Republican and Democratic judges showing that it was not.
Think the federal debt is “unsustainable,” the same claim being made 84 years ago when the debt was $40 Billion, and every year after that, with the debt now $30 Trillion.
Not understanding the difference between federal finance and personal finance, think a nation that created its sovereign currency from thin air, repeatedly created more of that currency and often changed the value of that currency somehow can run short of the currency it created unless taxes are increased.
Margaret SullivanWith democracy in the balance, the press must relay the crucial importance of this election and the dangers of a Trump win.
Thu 9 Nov 2023 06.11 EST
Whatever doubts you may have about public-opinion polls, one recent example should not be dismissed.
Yes, that poll – the one from Siena College and the New York Times that sent chills down many a spine. It showed Donald Trump winning the presidential election by significant margins over Joe Biden in several swing states, the places most likely to decide the presidential election next year.
The poll, of course, is only one snapshot and it has been criticized, but it still tells a cautionary tale – especially when paired with the certainty that Trump, if elected, will quickly move toward making the United States an authoritarian regime.
Add in Biden’s low approval ratings, despite his accomplishments, and you come to an unavoidable conclusion: the news media needs to do its job better.
The press must get across to American citizens the crucial importance of this election and the dangers of a Trump win. They don’t need to surrender their journalistic independence to do so or be “in the tank” for Biden or anyone else.
It’s now clearer than ever that Trump, if elected, will use the federal government to go after his political rivals and critics, even deploying the military toward that end. His allies are hatching plans to invoke the Insurrection Act on day one.
The US then “would resemble a banana republic”, a University of Virginia law professor told the Washington Post when it revealed these schemes. Almost as troubling, two New York Times stories outlined Trump’s autocratic plans to put loyal lawyers in key posts and limit the independence of federal agencies.
The press generally is not doing an adequate job of communicating those realities.
Instead, journalists have emphasized Joe Biden’s age and Trump’s “freewheeling” style. They blame the public’s attitudes on “polarization”, as if they themselves have no role. And, of course, they make the election about the horse race – rather than what would happen a few lengths after the finish line.
Here’s what must be hammered home: Trump cannot be re-elected if you want the United States to be a place where elections decide outcomes, where voting rights matter, and where politicians don’t baselessly prosecute their adversaries.
When Americans do understand how politics affects their lives, they vote accordingly. We have seen that play out with respect to abortion rights in Ohio, Virginia, Wisconsin and beyond. On that issue, voters clearly get that well-established rights have been ripped away, and they have reacted with force.
“Women don’t want to die for Mike Johnson’s religious beliefs,” as Vanity Fair’s Molly Jong-Fast said on MSNBC, referring to the theocratic House speaker.
Abortion rights is a visceral issue. It’s personal and immediate.
Trump’s threats to democracy? That’s a harder story to tell. Harder than “Joe Biden is old”. Harder than: “Gosh, America is so polarized.”
Journalists need to figure out a way to communicate it – clearly and memorably.
It was great to see the digging that went into that Washington Post story about Trump and his allies plotting a post-election power grab. But it was all too telling to see this wording in its subhead: “Critics have called the ideas under consideration dangerous and unconstitutional.”
So others think it’s fine, right? That suggests that both sides have a valid point of view on whether democracy matters.
Deploying the military to crush protests is radical. So is putting your cronies and yes men in charge of justice. These moves would sound a death knell for American democracy.They are not just another illustration of Trump’s “brash” personality.
We need a lot more stories like the ones the Post and the Times did – not just in these elite, paywalled outlets but on the nightly news, on cable TV, in local newspapers and on radio broadcasts. We need a lot less pussyfooting in the wording.
Every news organization should be reporting on this with far more vigor – and repetition – than they do about Biden being 80 years old.
It’s the media’s responsibility to grab American voters by the lapels, not just to nod to the topic politely from time to time.
Polls can be wrong, and it’s foolish to overstate their importance, especially a year away from the election, but if more citizens truly understood the stakes, there would be no real contest between these candidates.
The Guardian’s David Smith laid out the contrast: “Since Biden took office the US economy has added a record 14m jobs while his list of legislative accomplishments has earned comparisons with those of Franklin Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson … Trump, meanwhile, is facing 91 criminal indictments in Atlanta, Miami, New York and Washington DC, some of which relate to an attempt to overthrow the US government.”
So what can the press do differently? Here are a few suggestions.
Report more – much more – about what Trump would do, post-election. Ask voters directly whether they are comfortable with those plans, and report on that. Display these stories prominently, and then do it again soon.
Use direct language, not couched in scaredy-cat false equivalence, about the dangers of a second Trump presidency.
Pin down Republicans about whether they support Trump’s lies and autocratic plans,as ABC News’s George Stephanopoulos did in grilling the House majority leader Steve Scalise about whether the 2020 election was stolen. He pushed relentlessly, finally saying: “I just want an answer to the question, yes or no?” When Scalise kept sidestepping, Stephanopoulos soon cut off the interview.
Those ideas are just a start. Newsroom leaders should be getting their staffs together to brainstorm how to do it. Right now.
With the election less than a year away, there’s no time to waste in getting the truth across.
Most Americans vote with their guts, not with their brains. They have neither the time nor the inclination to learn the facts, and instead grope blindly for a feeling. That is how the dictators of the world get elected.
They pose as strong saviors who will protect the nation from dangers, real or imagined. But once in office, they create new threats far worse than any that may have troubled the voting public.
Once the public allows the dictators to get a foot in the door, dictators, having rid the nation of those who tell the truth, are impossible to dislodge without massive bloodshed and destruction. This lesson has been given throughout history but seldom is learned.
For 200+ years, America was a remarkable exception.
But now, we are on the brink of making the same mistake so many nations, small and large, made and now endure. We are on the verge of allowing a dictator to rule us.
“It couldn’t happen here” has been replaced by, “It’s about to happen here.”
If you value an America ruled by law and not by a tyrant, please send Ms. Sullivan’s article to as many people as you can.
Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary SovereigntyTwitter: @rodgermitchellSearch #monetarysovereigntyFacebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
……………………………………………………………………..
The Sole Purpose of Government Is to Improve and Protect the Lives of the People.
Have you ever had a health care claim denied by your insurer? Ever tried to appeal it? Did you wind up confused, frustrated, exhausted, defeated?
I’ve been a healthcare reporter for more than 40 years. And when I tried to figure out how to appeal insurance denials, I wound up the same way. And I didn’t even try to file an actual appeal.
ProPublica came to me earlier this year with what might have seemed like a simple proposition. They wanted me to create an interactive appeals guide to help readers navigate their insurers’ maze. (ProPublica and The Capitol Forum reporters have been investigating how insurers deny health care payments.)
Over the next several weeks, I spoke with more than 50 insurance experts, patients, lawyers, physicians, and consumer advocates.
Nearly everyone said the same thing: Great idea. But almost impossible to do.
The insurance industry and its regulators have made it so complicated to file an appeal that only a tiny percentage of patients ever do.
For example, less than two-tenths of 1% of patients in Obamacare plans bothered to appeal claims denied in 2021.
The central problem: There are many kinds of insurance in the U.S., and they have different processes for appealing a denial.
And no lawmakers or regulators in state and federal governments have forced all insurers to follow one simple standard.
So that’s problem #1. Too many different kinds of healthcare insurance plans are available.
Why? The profit motive and government ignorance.
Private insurers are focused on two issues: Offering an attractive insurance product to the public and making that product as profitable as possible.
With the profit motive in mind, private companies offer different plans for young and old, male and female, various health degrees, job types, geography, and many other factors.
First, people have to know precisely what kind of insurance they have. You may think that UnitedHealthcare is your insurer because that’s the name on your insurance card, but that card doesn’t tell you what kind of plan you have.
Your real insurer may be your employer. Some 65% of workers who get their coverage through their employers are in what’s known as “self-funded plans,” according to KFF (formerly Kaiser Family Foundation).
That means the employer pays for medical costs, though it may hire an insurance company like UnitedHealthcare to administer claims.
Because no employer has the unlimited funds that the federal government has, the cost of employer-funded medical insurance must come from somewhere within the company. It comes from employee salaries.
If your employer provides healthcare insurance, the cost is figured into the salary he is willing to pay you. Thus, your salary could be higher if the federal government paid the insurance bill.
The other primary type of insurance companies provide for their workers is a “fully insured plan.”
The employer hires an insurer to take all the risk and pay the claims. With that kind of plan, the name on your card really is your insurer. Why does this difference matter?
Because the route you follow to challenge an insurance denial can differ based on whether it’s a fully insured plan or a self-funded one.
A government-funded Medicare for All would not need to consider these differences. You would have one source for all information and appeals — and probably less reason to appeal in the first place.
And we can’t forget about Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Programs, which cover over a quarter of the U.S. population.
The federal government sets minimum standards that each state Medicaid program has to follow. Still, states can make things more complicated by requiring different appeal pathways for different types of health care.
So, the process can differ depending on the type of care that was denied, which can vary from state to state.
Having infinite money and no profit motive, a government-sponsored Medicare for All plan could provide total, no-deductible coverage for every situation.
President Obama’s health care law moved to standardize Medicaid requirements, expressly so any American making up to 133% of the poverty line could qualify.
But that provision was challenged and overturned by the Supreme Court. States could expand Medicaid, but they no longer had to.
Thirty-nine states (plus Washington, D.C.) did; 11 have not.
And eligibility across states varies since the Trump administration announced it would allow states to impose work requirements for low-income and needy Americans receiving Medicaid.
In other words, figuring out whether you qualify for Medicaid is even more challenging than before. Enter our state-by-state guide to Medicaid, which we’ll update as changes go into effect.
A comprehensive, no-deductible Medicare for every man, woman, and child in America would solve all the above problems.
To stop Medicare Advantage (MA) and Part D plan marketing agents from steering beneficiaries into plans that pay the agents the highest commissions — rather than the plans that best suit the patients’ needs — the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) proposed a rule Monday that would limit the amount they’d receive on sales to $632 for the 2025 plan year.
Currently, agents can receive far more than the current national commission cap of $601, even as high as $1,300 on one sale for 1 year’s enrollment, because of “add-on” or “incentive fees,” according to a recent Senate committee hearing testimony. CMS called the practice “anti-competitive steering” since larger plans are usually paying the most, putting smaller, potentially better plans at a disadvantage.
The agency said it has seen web-based ads that offer agents and brokers “bonuses and perks (such as golf parties, trips, and extra cash) in exchange for enrollments.”
The payments are implemented in a way that allows the plan sponsor “to credibly account for these anti-competitive payments as ‘administrative’ rather than ‘compensation,’ and these payments are therefore not limited by the regulatory limits on compensation.”
Another provision in the proposed rule would require MA plans to demonstrate in their bids to Medicare that unique supplemental benefits for the chronically ill have a reasonable expectation of improving the health or overall function of enrollees with chronic illness.
Provisions would also require federal quality improvement organizations — instead of representatives of the MA plans — to review a fast-track appeal when the plan has decided to terminate services in a skilled nursing facility, comprehensive outpatient rehabilitation facility, or a home health agency.
Such fast-track review is now available to traditional Medicare beneficiaries in fee-for-service but not to those in MA plans.
The whole rationale for Medicare Advantage Plans is based on two problems with Medicare:
Medicare pays only 80% for most things, requiring people to purchase “Medicare Supplement” insurance to cover the balance.
Medicare doesn’t cover everything. Strangely, it omits dental, weight loss, long-term care, hearing aids, most vision care, hearing aids, cosmetic surgery, some foot care, adult diapers, and deductibles.
Why are these not covered? It’s the same old debt lie — the false belief that somehow the Monetarily Sovereign federal government can run short of its own sovereign currency, the U.S. dollar — so the public (which has limited funds) should pay.
The mere existence of the alternative to the original Medicare, Medicare Advantage, demonstrates the needless lies that form the basis for federal spending, or lack thereof.
SUMMARY
Healthcare is one of the government’s most essential functions, yet the U.S. government falls far short in its meager efforts.
Original Medicare has many shortcomings, all of which are based on the false beliefs that our Monetarily Sovereign federal government has limited funds and is supported by tax dollars.
Every shortcoming of Medicare could be solved by a comprehensive, no-deductible, federally funded Medicare for every man, woman, and child in America.
And no:
#Monetary Sovereignty - Mitchell 