Democrats’ political suicide Friday, Jun 28 2019 

There were times when I thought Donald Trump was politically suicidal with his public philandering, his easily disproved lies, his blatant ignorance, his financial profiting from the Presidency, his nepotism, his sucking up to communists, and on and on.

But apparently, his “religious” followers admire philandering, lying, ignorance, criminal profiting, nepotism, communism, etc. So Trump survives.

Lately, I have realized that it is the Democrats who are politically suicidal. The Democrats have the marvelous ability to take a good idea, a popular idea — health care for everyone — and muck it up into a barely recognizable mess, until they now are on the defensive about something that should be a lay-down winner for them.

As readers of this blog well know: The federal government’s finances are not like state and local governments’ finances. 

Image result for bernanke and greenspan

It’s our little secret. Don’t tell the people we don’t use their tax dollars.

Ben Bernanke: “The U.S. government (can) produce as many U.S. dollars as it wishes at essentially no cost.”

Alan Greenspan: “A government cannot become insolvent with respect to obligations in its own currency.”

St. Louis Federal Reserve: “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 (borrowing) to remain operational.”

Unlike state and local governments: 

  1. The federal government has a sovereign currency, the U.S. dollar, over which it has total control.
  2. The federal government cannot unintentionally run short of its own sovereign currency.
  3. The federal government neither needs nor uses tax dollars.
  4. The federal government does not borrow.

Those four, simple truths are absolutely basic to economics. Yet they seem not to be understood by the vast majority of Americans, even including media writers and university economists — and especially not understood by the legions of Democrats chasing glory via the Presidency.

The following article demonstrates the Democrats’ suicidal ignorance:

Sanders admits he would raise taxes on the middle class to pay for programs
Kadia TubmanReporter,Yahoo News•June 27, 2019

Sen. Bernie Sanders, challenged at Thursday night’s Democratic presidential debate on how he would pay for universal health care and his other proposed programs, admitted income taxes on the middle class would have to go up — but maintained that the savings in medical expenses would more than offset the tax hike.

Sanders, who took the first question from NBC correspondent Savannah Guthrie, talked about his Medicare for All proposal for his allotted minute.

But when Guthrie followed up and pressed him about taxes on the middle class, he conceded, “Yes, they will pay more in taxes.”

If Sanders’s version (or any other candidate’s version) of Medicare for All were proposed by a state governor or a city mayor, the above answer would be correct. Additional taxes would be needed to pay the cost of the medical services.

But apparently, neither Sanders nor any other candidate (nor any Republican, for that matter) knows or admits to knowing that federal finances are completely, totally, 180 degrees different from state and city finances.

The federal government uniquely has total control over the U.S. dollar, cannot unintentionally run short of dollars, neither needs nor uses tax dollars, and does not borrow.

The U.S. federal government could finance even the most liberal, generous version of Medicare for All, at the tap of a computer key. No tax dollars involved.

Sanders said, “Health care in my view is a human right and we have got to pass a Medicare for All single-payer system. “Under that system, [the] vast majority of the people in this country will be paying significantly less for health care than they are right now.”

Not only is health care a “human right,” but it is an economic imperative for any nation hoping to compete and grow — certainly as much an imperative as military defense and effective government.

Yet there is Sanders, essentially hat in hand, pleading for universal health care on the basis of cost savings, when in reality cost is not a real issue. It is a fake issue put forth either in ignorance or in malicious intent, depending on one’s politics.

Quite simply, there is no financial reason why any American should be forced to pay one cent for health care insurance — either via taxes or via premium payments.

And if after all these months of researching and developing his Medicare for All plans, Sanders still has not learned this, he is mentally unfit to be left alone with a sharp object.

But it continues. Sanders also said:

“I believe that education is the future for this country and that is why I believe we must make public colleges and universities tuition-free and eliminate student debt, and we do that by placing a tax on Wall Street.”

“Every proposal that I have brought forth is fully paid for.”

Sanders believes (!) education is the future for this county?  He believes so? What a relief that he believes something so obvious, that American states, counties, and cities have been funding elementary, high school, and even some college education, for centuries.

Unfortunately, states, counties, and cities are not Monetarily Sovereign, so they must have some form of income (taxes, fees, tourism, borrowing, etc.) in order to spend.

The federal government, being unique, is not similarly constrained. Yet Sanders, a federal politician, doesn’t recognize this difference. Tragic.

Sanders babbled on:

“People who have health care under Medicare for All will have no premiums, no deductibles, no copayments, no out of pocket expenses. Yes, they will pay more in taxes, but less in health care for what they get.”

Then the Yahoo News reporter added her dollop of economic ignorance by quoting the Associated Press:

Still, taxes would significantly increase as “the government takes on trillions of dollars in health care costs now covered by employers and individuals, the Associated Press fact-checked.

“Independent studies estimate the government would be spending an additional $28 trillion to $36 trillion over 10 years, although Medicare for All supporters say that’s overstating it.

How those tax increases would be divvied up remains to be seen, as Sanders has not released a blueprint for how to finance his plan.

Note how the media automatically and wrongly translate “spending an additional $28 trillion to $36 trillion” into “tax increases.”

(Does that also mean federal tax cuts require federal spending cuts?)

There is zero relationship between federal spending and taxes. Again, the pretense is that federal finances are like state and local finances, where spending is funded by taxes.

Sen. Michael Bennet, who was the last candidate to earn a spot on the debate stage, took a shot at Sanders on taxes.

Bennet said he believed in getting to universal health care. “I believe the way to do that is by finishing the work we started with Obamacare and creating a public option that every family and every person in America can make a choice for their family about whether they want a public option which for them would be like having Medicare for All or whether they want to keep their private insurance. I believe we will get there much more quickly if we do that.”

“Bernie mentioned the taxes that we would have to pay, because of those taxes, Vermont rejected Medicare for All,” he added. Sanders shook his head in response.

If by “public option” Bennet means people should be given the choice between free, comprehensive, no deductible Medicare and long-term care vs. paying for private insurance, sure. Why not? That is exactly the choice people should be given.

Of course, the result is a given. Perhaps a dozen people in America would choose to pay for private insurance.

But then, the Democrats’ stupidity continues:

When asked which candidates would abolish private health insurance in favor of a government-run plan, only Sanders and Harris raised their hands.

Since the words “abolish private health care insurance” instantly click the insanity button in America, two Democrats dive right in and say, “Yes, that is what we would do.”

OMG! Why?

“Everybody who says Medicare for All, every person in politics who allows that phrase to escape their lips has a responsibility to explain how you’re actually supposed to get from here to there,” said South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg.

“I would call it Medicare for All Who Want It.”

Buttigieg said he would take parts of Medicare and give people an option to buy into it, providing “a very natural glide path to the single-payer environment.”

“Parts of Medicare”? Which parts would you leave out? Even Medicare itself is insufficient.

It has deductibles and partial payments, which are why many people pay for Medicare Supplement insurance. And it doesn’t cover pharmaceuticals, which is why people pay for Part D coverage.

And don’t even mention long-term care coverage, which Medicare doesn’t provide, and which even frightfully expensive private insurance covers only partially.

So add Buttigieg to the list of politicians who either don’t know what they are talking about or don’t want to give you the facts.

Bottom line, the federal government has the unlimited power to pay for comprehensive, no deductible health care insurance, including pharmaceuticals and long term care — and it can do so by pressing a computer key.

This whole charade results from the mean-spirited, selfishness of Gap Psychology  (see: https://mythfighter.com/2018/04/06/how-does-gap-psychology-affect-you/) combined with flat-out ignorance of federal finances, and you, the public, are the patsies.

Cost is not the issue. Coverage is the issue — the only issue.

Even if you have no background in economics you should realize that federal spending is not funded by taxes. Didn’t the GOP massively cut taxes on the rich while increasing federal spending. That alone should have given you a clue.

Sorry folks, but ignorance has its penalties. Pay up.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty
Twitter: @rodgermitchell
Search #monetarysovereigntyFacebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

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

The most important problems in economics involve the excessive income/wealth/power Gaps between the richer and the poorer.

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

2. Federally funded Medicare — parts a, b & d, plus long-term care — for everyone

3. Provide a monthly economic bonus to every man, woman and child in America (similar to social security for all)

4. Free education (including post-grad) for everyone

5. Salary for attending school

6. Eliminate federal taxes on business

7. Increase the standard income tax deduction, annually. 

8. Tax the very rich (the “.1%”) more, with higher progressive tax rates on all forms of income.

9. Federal ownership of all banks

10. Increase federal spending on the myriad initiatives that benefit America’s 99.9% 

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

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

Now it’s “fraud.” The next desperate argument against your receiving free health care Tuesday, Jun 18 2019 

The party of the rich never stops searching for ways to deny health care insurance to the middle and the poor. ( Remember the “repeal and replace” Affordable Care Act battle that was missing one thing: Replace)?

Image result for avoiding poor people

“Just lazy.”

The GOP leaders won’t admit it, but Senator McCain saved them from a disaster, had they succeeded in eliminating Obamacare.

To this day, the GOP has not come up with a viable replacement program that would guarantee health care insurance for even the poorest among us, (though the rich and the politicians are doing just fine, thank you.)

Well, here is yet another attempt to sabotage Medicare for All:

Single-Payer Health Care Will Increase Fraud, Corruption
By Chris Jacobs, June 18, 2019
(Chris Jacobs is founder and CEO of Juniper Research Group, and author of the forthcoming book “The Case Against Single Payer.” He is on Twitter: @chrisjacobsHC.)

It seems fitting that the Democratic National Committee chose Miami to host the first debates of the 2020 presidential campaign.

Given that many of the candidates appearing on stage have endorsed a single-payer health care plan, the debates’ location epitomizes how government-run care will lead to a massive increase in fraud and corruption.

Right away, Jacobs tells us either he doesn’t understand the difference between “single-payer health care” and “government-run care,” or more likely, he doesn’t want you to understand.

And this is someone who has devoted an entire book to the subject.

Since he won’t differentiate between “pay” and “run,” I’ll try to help him.

“Pay” is what you do when you go to the grocery store and buy a loaf of bread. “Run” is what the owner of the grocery store does when he rents space, hires employees, runs ads, negotiates with vendors, and makes the thousands of decisions a business manager must make every day.

Get it, Mr. Jacobs?

Why does Jacobs try to confuse his audience? I assume it’s because he knows that Americans have been programmed to hate the word “socialism,” So Jacobs is setting you up to believe Medicare for All is “socialism” or “socialized medicine.”

It isn’t.

Socialism is the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution. All hospitals and most doctors accept Medicare.

Does the federal government run your local hospitals? No. Does it buy or rent hospital locations? No. Does it hire nurses, doctors, and the rest of the staff, from the phone people to the clean-up people? No.

Does the federal government maintain the hospitals’ roofs, walls, and parking lots? No. Your local hospitals, despite accepting Medicare, are not examples of socialism.

There are socialist hospitals in America. The United States Veterans Health Administration and the medical departments of the U.S. Army, Navy, and Air Force are examples.

Not only is the pejorative “socialism” incorrectly used to describe Medicare, but so is the term “socialized medicine,”  and for the same devious reasons.

Per Wikipedia: When the term “socialized medicine” first appeared in the United States in the early 20th century, it bore no negative connotations.

However, by the 1930s, the term socialized medicine was routinely used negatively by conservative opponents of publicly funded health care who wished to imply it represented socialism, and by extension, communism.[

Universal health care and national health insurance were first proposed by U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt. President Franklin D. Roosevelt later championed it, as did Harry S. Truman as part of his Fair Deal and many others.

Truman announced before describing his proposal: “This is not socialized medicine”.

Government involvement in health care was ardently opposed by the AMA, which distributed posters to doctors with slogans such as “Socialized medicine … will undermine the democratic form of government. 

Still today, the right-wing party of the rich wants to prevent health care for those of you who are not-rich (or Congresspeople) by confusing you.

Since calling Medicare for All “socialism” or “socialized medicine,” hasn’t ended the public’s desire for health care insurance, we now move on to “fraud.”

In South Florida, defrauding government health care programs doesn’t just qualify as a cottage industry — it’s big business.

One former fraudster admitted that likely thousands of businesses in the Miami area alone were defrauding Medicare.

A 2009 Government Accountability Office report also highlighted pervasive fraud within Medicare.

For instance, some South Florida home health agencies “have submitted claims for visits that were probably not provided, such as claims for visits that allegedly occurred when hurricanes were in the area.”

Lest anyone believe that much has changed in the past decade, the spring of 2019 saw not one but two billion-dollar fraud rings against Medicare exposed in a single week.

If you think that the single-payer bills promoted by Sens. Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and others would stop this rampant fraud, think again.

Both the House and Senate single-payer bills include not a single new provision designed to stop crooks from defrauding government health programs.

The bills would apply some existing anti-fraud provisions to the new government-run health program.

However, given the widespread fraud in Medicare and Medicaid, expanding the failed status quo would increase corruption rather than reducing it.

Mr. Jacobs wants you to be shocked to “learn” that where there is money, there is fraud. That includes all government programs and private programs, alike.

Since it is impossible to come up with provisions that will “stop crooks from defrauding government health programs,” you can be sure that any attempted provisions will be scorned by the GOP as not sufficient to eliminating fraud.

What Mr. Jacobs doesn’t mention is that defrauding the federal government may be the least harmful crime imaginable in that it costs no one, anything.

While fraud of any sort insults our Puritanical instincts, Medicare financial fraud actually stimulates economic growth.

Because the federal government (unlike state and local governments) is Monetarily Sovereign, it neither needs nor even uses your tax dollars to pay its bills. In fact, the federal government destroys (gasp!) your tax dollars upon receipt.

To pay its bills, the federal government creates brand new dollars, which is why federal deficit spending is stimulative and federal taxing is depressive.

Every dollar the federal government pays to fraudsters circulates through the economy, helping to grow honest business and employment.

Now, I am not advocating fraud. Far from it. I merely am saying that yes, for moral and some economic reasons, we should try to reduce fraud. But, because fraud against the federal government actually grows the economy, it certainly is not a valid reason to deny health care insurance for the masses.

If lawmakers like Bernie Sanders want to see the ways in which socialized medicine will increase fraud, they don’t have far to look.

And there it is: The ignorant and misleading pejorative “socialized medicine.”

No Mr. Jacobs, Medicare for All most certainly is not “socialized medicine.” And I suspect you know it.

At next week’s debates, moderators should ask candidates supporting Sanders’ plan whether they think concentrating all power in a government-run health plan will increase or decrease the incidence of fraud and corruption within our health care system.

The American people deserve better than to pay massive tax increases for this $32 trillion scheme, only to see much of that money end up in the hands of criminal fraudsters.

Jacobs ends his fakery with a series of . . . what else can you call them (?) . . . lies.

  1. Medicare for all does not concentrate all power in anything. It only requires the federal government to pay for health care insurance.
  2. The insurance is “government-run” but the health care is not — an important distinction Mr. Jacobs does not want you to understand or perhaps doesn’t understand, himself.
  3. There is need be no “massive tax increases,” or even tiny tax increases. In fact, FICA and all other federal taxes could (and should) be eliminated, and Medicare for All could be funded by the federal government, forever.

In summary, the rich do not want you to have health care, even if it would cost them nothing.  This is their way of increasing their distance from you and retaining power over you. (See: “Why you believe the Big Lie. The Gap Psychology con job.“)

This is the same battle the rich fought to prevent Medicare, Medicaid, and Obamacare. All benefits to the poor and middle classes are obtained only by a long struggle against disinformation.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty
Twitter: @rodgermitchell
Search #monetarysovereigntyFacebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

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

The most important problems in economics involve the excessive income/wealth/power Gaps between the richer and the poorer.

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

2. Federally funded Medicare — parts a, b & d, plus long-term care — for everyone

3. Provide a monthly economic bonus to every man, woman and child in America (similar to social security for all)

4. Free education (including post-grad) for everyone

5. Salary for attending school

6. Eliminate federal taxes on business

7. Increase the standard income tax deduction, annually. 

8. Tax the very rich (the “.1%”) more, with higher progressive tax rates on all forms of income.

9. Federal ownership of all banks

10. Increase federal spending on the myriad initiatives that benefit America’s 99.9% 

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

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

 

 

Why you cannot have healthcare insurance (unless you are rich or a politician). Wednesday, Jun 12 2019 

The June 12, 2019 issue of the Chicago Tribune contained an article explaining why the middle classes and the poor don’t need healthcare insurance.

Here are some excerpts and comments:

Medicare chief: ‘For all’ plan will cost more
By Lisa Schencker Chicago Tribune

The Tribune sat down with Seema Verma, head of the federal Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and an appointee of President Donald Trump.

Verma opposes Medicare for All, the idea of expanding Medicare to cover all Americans, and the administration said earlier this year it supports a Texas judge’s ruling that Obamacare is unconstitutional.

Just for clarity, Medicare for All and Obamacare are two separate issues that are related in only two ways:

  • Both “Medicare for All” and “Obamacare” would provide healthcare insurance for the middle classes and the poor
  • Trump and the Republican party, while opposing both plans, have not offered an alternative that would provide healthcare insurance to the non-rich.

Q: The doctors who support Medicare for All say it would allow doctors and hospitals to spend less money on administration because they wouldn’t be dealing with multiple insurance companies. What are your thoughts on that argument?

Virma: One of the things I hear a lot is we should go to Medicare for All because of the lower administrative costs.

The reality is we’re not spending enough on administration within Medicare. There’s a lot of bureaucracy that goes on with the Medicare program in terms of access to technology, protecting taxpayers against fraud and abuse and it’s because we haven’t made those investments in administering the program like you would see in the private sector.

The main issue with Medicare for All and having the government take over the entire program, is that we’re not going to see savings.

It’s actually going to cost more, which means taxpayers are going to pay more, and when they’re paying more, that’s going to lead to rationing of care and problems with access to care.

Image result for bernanke and greenspan

Bernanke & Greenspan: It’s our little secret. Don’t tell the people we don’t use their tax dollars.

The above arguments all have to do with costs: “Administrative costs,” “protecting taxpayers,” “not going to see savings,” and “taxpayers are going to pay more.”

But all are based on the deception that federal taxpayers pay for federal spending. They don’t.

The U.S. federal government is unlike state and local governments in that the federal government uniquely is Monetarily Sovereign.

The federal government invented the U.S. dollar, created the very first dollars from thin air, continues to create dollars from thin air, and never can run short of dollars.

Even if all federal tax collections fell to $0, the U.S. federal government could continue spending unlimited amounts, forever.

Image result for bernanke

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 wishes at essentially no cost.

Unlike state and local taxpayers’ dollars, that do help fund state and local government spending, federal taxpayer’s dollars are destroyed upon receipt.

Unlike state and local governments, which keep their dollars in private banks, the federal government does not store tax dollars for future use.

Instead, when paying for goods and services, the federal government uniquely creates brand new dollars, ad hoc.

(If anyone disagrees with the above statements, I invite you to tell me how much money the federal government has. Take all the time you need.) 

Q: According to some surveys, most Americans support a government-run health insurance system. How do you respond to that kind of public opinion?

A: When you dig a little bit deeper into those surveys and people understand that it means that they’re going to be stripped of their private coverage, that they’re not going to be able to make choices, that innovation is going to be impacted, that they may have longer wait times — when you put all those pieces together, Americans are not supportive of that.

This all is absolutely false.

Medicare does not “strip people of their private coverage,” nor would Medicare for All. No one is required to accept Medicare, and Medicare for All would require no one to give up their private health care insurance.

Image result for greenspan

Central banks can issue currency effectively without limit. A government cannot become insolvent with respect to obligations in its own currency

However, Medicare users opt for the government’s Medicare plans because they are cheaper and more comprehensive than private insurance plans. Ask any Medicare user whether he wishes he still was paying for his private plan.

Virma doesn’t explain what “choices” would be taken away, but anyone who chooses not to accept Medicare can make that choice, and buy private health care insurance.

Medicare coverages are vast, and generally provide as much or more medical choices, as do private healthcare insurance policies.

Because a federal program does not need to worry about profits, Medicare for All has a far greater capability to pay for the most expensive medical treatments, as well as long term care.

As for “innovation,” Medicare simply is a payment method. Neither Medicare nor private insurance impact medical innovation, with the exception of coverages, and here Medicare has a huge advantage: Medicare is not guided by the need to make a profit.

The so-called “longer wait times” merely refer to the fact that more people, not just the rich, would be able to pay for healthcare.

With Medicare for All, more people would be able to visit doctors for periodic checkups. This, of course, is a good thing.

On the other side, fewer poor people would use the emergency room as their primary care source, which would free up that function for true emergencies.

As Medicare, and almost every other function in a capitalist society demonstrates, when demand goes up, supply goes up.

Medicare for All would result in more hospitals, doctors, etc. in more convenient locations.

Q: For a lot of people, the bottom line is that seniors look forward to being on Medicare. People are eager to turn 65 so they can be on Medicare and no longer have to have private insurance.

If seniors like it so much, why can’t it work for everyone?

Virma: We need to have a solution that provides affordable health care coverage and that all Americans have access to that.

But the Medicare program was uniquely designed for seniors and those seniors have paid into the program their entire lives, and we need to make sure that program is protected and preserved for those beneficiaries, and address access to affordable coverage for other Americans.

Virma, a Trump appointee, claims to want “a solution that provides affordable health care coverage and that all Americans have access to that” — in short, Medicare for All.

Sadly, Virma’s party has done everything in its power to cut and eliminate those very programs: Medicare, Medicaid and Obamacare.

In essence, the Republicans say,  “I want everyone to be healthy, so let’s eliminate their healthcare.”

Salaried people (though not millions of others) have paid FICA taxes, but as we explained earlier, federal taxes do not fund federal spending (and in fact, only Medicare Part A is claimed to be funded by FICA).

Q: When it comes to the Affordable Care Act, a lot of people are unhappy with the way prices for health insurance have increased.

But they’re happy about the rules barring discrimination based on preexisting conditions and the disappearance of caps on how much insurers will pay for coverage.

There’s a feeling among some people that regulation is needed, that competition among insurers alone is not going to result in the best outcomes for people.

Virma: This administration supports protections for people with preexisting conditions and we understand there is some regulation that works well.

I think the issue is government overreach and going too far. While the (Affordable Care Act) has provided protection that we support, it has also driven up health insurance premiums.

This administration has given lip service to “protections for people with preexisting conditions,” but in reality, it has tried to eliminate the programs that provide those protections.

They call such protections, “government overreach” which is their description of any spending that does not benefit the rich.

Q: Should Americans continue to buy insurance through the Affordable Care Act exchange when the Trump administration has made it clear that it wants the law to disappear?

Virma: The law is not working. What we want to do is provide more affordable options for individuals.

Translation: “Not working” means, “Despite all our efforts to make the plan unworkable, it still is providing valuable benefits to low- and middle-income families and their children. Please ignore the fact that we have done nothing to ‘provide more affordable options for individuals.'”

Q: Would you encourage people to still buy on the exchange at this point?

Virma: For people that are eligible, we want to make sure they have as many options as possible, so if that works for them, then that’s certainly something that they might want to pursue.

Translation: We’ve tried to destroy all options for the non-rich, but we failed. Blame Senator McCain for saving Obamacare. So OK, go with what you have.

Q: When it comes to drug prices, insurers, pharmacy benefit managers and pharmaceutical companies all point the finger at one another.

Does the Trump administration believe in primarily directing its efforts toward the drug companies?
Virma: As we are talking about efforts to make health care more affordable, one of the things we’re looking at is drug pricing because that is one of the fastest growing areas of health care spending in the United States.

That being said, I do think there are fingers to be pointed in a lot of different directions. Some of the concerns we have with pharmaceutical companies is that Americans are not getting the best deals.

We also have a lot of concerns with the rebates that are going on in terms of (pharmacy benefit managers) and the rebates that are kind of behind the scenes deals that don’t result in seniors getting the best price possible.

One of the things we recently did was require pharmaceutical companies to actually put the prices of their drugs on TV ads. We’re tackling drug pricing from a lot of different angles.

“We’re tackling drug pricing from a lot of different angles.”

Translation: “We’ve done virtually nothing about drug prices, because drug companies’s profits go to our rich constituents. And sure, Medicare for All would pay for drugs, which would eliminate the cost issue, but we don’t want to mention that.”

Bottom line: Our Monetarily Sovereign federal government easily could fund a comprehensive, Medicare for All insurance plan that pays for doctors, nurses, hospitals, drugs, equipment, rehabilitation, and long-term care — with no deductions or tax collections.

But that plan would benefit the lower and middle-income people the most, which is exactly what the Republicans do not want.

So to prevent it, the Republicans say it’s “socialism” (it isn’t*), “unaffordable” (it isn’t*),  “unworkable (it isn’t),” “government overreach” (it isn’t*), and it “strips away choices and takes away private insurance” (it doesn’t*).

  • “Socialism” is government ownership and control over production, distribution, land, etc. Medicare for All is just an insurance policy funded by the federal government.
  • Nothing is “unaffordable” for our Monetarily Sovereign federal government.
  • Medicare for All is merely an expansion of Medicare, which already has proved to be “workable.”
  • Rather than “overreach,” it is exactly what a government should be doing: Insuring the safety, health and wellbeing of the citizenry.
  • Medicare for all, rather than stripping away choices, would provide more choices, as it would make more medical procedures financially available to Americans.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty
Twitter: @rodgermitchell
Search #monetarysovereigntyFacebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

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

The most important problems in economics involve the excessive income/wealth/power Gaps between the richer and the poorer.

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

2. Federally funded Medicare — parts a, b & d, plus long-term care — for everyone

3. Provide a monthly economic bonus to every man, woman and child in America (similar to social security for all)

4. Free education (including post-grad) for everyone

5. Salary for attending school

6. Eliminate federal taxes on business

7. Increase the standard income tax deduction, annually. 

8. Tax the very rich (the “.1%”) more, with higher progressive tax rates on all forms of income.

9. Federal ownership of all banks

10. Increase federal spending on the myriad initiatives that benefit America’s 99.9% 

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

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

Medicare for All: The real stumbling block Sunday, Mar 17 2019 

Imagine that everyone in America — you, your family, your friends and neighbors — everyone,  could receive health care from doctors, hospitals, rehab facilities, extended care facilities, and all pharmaceuticals and equipment, and never have to worry about cost.

Related image

A choice?

Imagine you being forced to choose between your financial devastation vs. sickness or death for your loved ones.

Then, imagine the federal government paying all your health-related bills, leaving you free from worry.

The rich in America already live in such a glorious world, but for most of us, current and future health affordability is an ongoing concern.

Yet, many non-rich Americans oppose even the concept of Medicare for All. Why?

1. It’s unsustainable. Debt fear mongers have been promulgating that myth for at least 80 years.In 1940, when the federal debt was $40 Billion, the fear-mongers were calling it a “ticking time bomb.

“Every year afterward, they have pounded the same lies into our brains: “The federal government will go broke. It’s “unsustainable.” Your children’s taxes will have to go up.”

Today, the debt is $20 Trillion, and the government has not gone broke, and indeed cannot go broke, and taxes have not risen.

2. It’s socialism. Actually it isn’t. It’s progressivism. Socialism is government ownership and control, not merely government support.

The federal government supports many things: Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, poverty aids, education, etc. Shall we eliminate them?

Additionally, we do allow many forms of real socialism: The military, roads, bridges and dams, public libraries, NASA, the VA, etc. Shall we eliminate those, too?

3. It will cause inflation or hyperinflation. Although in the past 80 years, federal debt has risen an astounding 50,000%, inflation has averaged close to the Fed’s 2.5% target.

The reason is that the Fed has tools it needs to prevent and cure inflations, among which is: Control over interest rates.

Raising rates increases demand for the dollar, making it more valuable, so fewer dollars are needed to buy goods and services.

While federal “debt” (blue, i.e. deposits into T-security accounts) increased massively, inflation (red) increased modestly.

4. We don’t have enough resources. What this really means is: “If the poor start using doctors, hospitals, et al, then there won’t be enough doctors and hospitals for me.”

These objectors believe that a viable health-care system relies on the poor not being able to afford health-care — that “limited” resources should be reserved for the wealthier among us. This is America?

A nation’s resources grow with the money available to  pay for them. Funded by a government’s unlimited ability to pay, resources are unlimited.

5. It will take money and jobs from the health insurance industry. Right, just as public transportation takes money and jobs from taxi drivers.

Some jobs will be added in the federal sector. But in any event, the notion that the poor should do without healthcare so that the insurance industry can keep its jobs is ridiculous. It’s an example of misplaced priorities.

The above are fake reasons, used to conceal the real reason, which is described in the following, brief, “THE WEEK Magazine” (2/22/19) article:

Despite all the attention tech gets, the biggest five insurance and health benefits companies have greater revenues than the FAANGS – Facebook, Amazon, Apple, Netflix, and Google.

The top five health insurers and benefit managers expect &787 billion in revenue for 2019, compared with $784 billion for the FAANGS.

Pharmacy benefit manager CVS, the biggest of the health-care group, expects revenues of $246 billion.

In short, the insurance companies, that massively bribe politicians with campaign contributions and promises of lucrative employment later, don’t want the federal government to offer you better, more comprehensive, no deductible insurance at no cost.

OpenSecrets.org reveals:

One-third of Senate Democrats have cosponsored the Medicare for All Act, which Sanders introduced in September.

Democrats who haven’t cosponsored the bill received 146 percent more money on average from health insurance companies between 2011 and 2016 than those who have ($147,186 to $59,789)

If you’ve been told lies #1 thru #5, there is a good chance the source either is ignorant of economic reality or has been bribed by the health insurance industry.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty
Twitter: @rodgermitchell
Search #monetarysovereigntyFacebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

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

The most important problems in economics involve the excessive income/wealth/power Gaps between the richer and the poorer.

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

2. Federally funded medicare — parts a, b & d, plus long-term care — for everyone

3. Provide a monthly economic bonus to every man, woman and child in America (similar to social security for all)

4. Free education (including post-grad) for everyone

5. Salary for attending school

6. Eliminate federal taxes on business

7. Increase the standard income tax deduction, annually. 

8. Tax the very rich (the “.1%) more, with higher progressive tax rates on all forms of income.

9. Federal ownership of all banks

10. Increase federal spending on the myriad initiatives that benefit America’s 99.9% 

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

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

Next Page »

%d bloggers like this: