Tag: medicare for all

This article got me so damn angry I could spit. Why Democrats lose elections.

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

The following article got me so damn angry, I could spit:

Opinion: Pelosi’s ‘Medicare for All’ Problem
Democrats want it, but at what cost?
Jonathan Allen, RollCall.com

Democrats were advised to stay away from promoting the “Medicare for All” plan that has energized the party’s grass-roots activists and its rank and file in Congress.

“Keep the focus on the Republican plan and make them own it,” the polling memo from GBA Strategies & Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research reads. “The Republican plan is extremely unpopular and Democrats have little to gain by shifting the spotlight to new Democratic proposals or fixes.”

Democrats have little to gain by telling the truth??

Democrats have little to gain by providing health care to every man woman and child in America??

The Democrats have little to gain by doing what its grass-roots activists want??

Is this the nuttiest idea, ever?

Democrats’ polling data shows that health care is a top-of-mind issue for many voters. The data was accompanied by a three-page memo on messaging, two pages of which were dedicated to likely GOP attacks on a single-payer system.

Notably, none of those arguments were refuted in the message document.

The Democrats are so clueless, they don’t know how to justify giving everyone a longer, healthier life.

If you can’t even sell long life and health, what the heck good are you? Why are you in Congress?

Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi is trying to squash her own party’s desire to fight for a health care system in which the government is the single payer for necessary medical expenses and the health insurance industry is all but eliminated as a middle man.

Pelosi said she’s supported the idea for decades but that the American public isn’t there yet.

Well, Nancy, if the Democrats aren’t “there yet,” and you aren’t “there yet,” is it any wonder your constituents aren’t “there yet”?

Or do you expect the people to do the leading, while you trail miserably behind?

And now, here comes the really, really stupid part:

“I say to people, ‘If you want it, do it in your states. States are laboratories,’” she said. “States are a good place to start.”

What a cowardly comment. “Let the states do it. We are too frightened to take a chance. We are afraid to lose elections — which is we have been doing consistently for the past 8 years!”

Image result for lady hiding under desk
Our political leaders

Is this why you are in the House, Nancy — to hide under your desk and hope the states will do something for your constituents??

No, Nancy, states are not a good place to start. States are monetarily NON-sovereign.

Like you and me, they do not have the unlimited ability to create dollars.

Making the states “laboratories” practically guarantees the failure of any Medicare for All plan, because of the states’ need for taxes.

By contrast, the Federal Government is Monetarily Sovereign. It never can run short of its sovereign currency, the U.S. dollar.

The Federal Government creates dollars, ad hoc, every time it pays a bill. That is something I can’t do, you can’t do, the states, counties and villages can’t do — but it is exactly what the federal government does every day.

It is how the federal government was created to operate.

The federal government creates dollars by deficit spending.

Michigan Rep. John Conyers now has 112 members of the caucus signed up for his “Medicare for All” bill — nearly 60 percent of the rank and file.

The problem is that Sanders’s bill and Conyers’s bill talk about “affordability,”  and “cost cutting,” and “taxes”, none of which are appropriate to a federally funded program.

The federal government can afford to fund a comprehensive, no-deductible, Medicare for All program, plus long-term care for everyone, without using a single tax dollar.

Moreover, the dollars the federal government would create to fund these programs would stimulate economic growth, create millions of jobs, and dramatically improve the health and lifespans of Americans. 

When I asked a Pelosi aide about her position, I was sent a Vox piece on the cost of California’s single-payer health care plan — $400 billion per year, or twice the state’s budget.

Right. The so-called state “laboratories” would have to spend billions of taxpayers’ dollars.

In a vacuum, most Americans think the government should provide health care for all — either through a single-payer or hybrid system — but the question isn’t usually asked with a price tag attached.

Conyers’ plan would require massive tax increases not only on the 1 percent but on the top 5 percent of earners.

No, no, no, dammit, no.

Federal funding of Medicare for All would not require a single tax dollar.  Zero. Zilch. Nada.

The Monetarily Sovereign federal government uniquely does not spend tax dollars. It creates new dollars, ad hoc, by spending.

Even if all federal tax collections were $0, the federal government could continue spending — and creating dollars — forever.

Pelosi outlined her alternative at the California Democratic Party’s convention earlier this month.

“We must defeat the repeal of the Affordable Care Act,” she said. “But that is not our only fight. We must go further. The Affordable Care Act enables every state to create a public option.

“I believe California can lead the way for America by creating a strong public option.”

What unmitigated bullshit.

Monetarily NON-sovereign California and its taxpayers are supposed to “lead the way,” while the cowardly, lying national Democratic party pretends to lead — from behind?

Let’s just get this straight. The states, counties, and cities cannot afford Medicare for All without increasing taxes, and with price inflation on medical services, the problem only will worsen.

The federal government can afford Medicare for All, with zero additional taxes. All medical price inflation will do is cause the government to pump more stimulus dollars into the economy.

In that sense, medical price inflation will help grow America.

Pelosi’s a tough customer who has shown a willingness to stand up to her base at times, but it’s getting harder for leaders in Washington to tell activists that they’re wrong and survive the backlash.

This will be a big test of Democrats’ faith in her leadership and of Pelosi’s ability to navigate the increasingly treacherous shoals of modern politics.

Yeah, some “tough customer” she is — hoping California, not her, will lead.

No, this election will be a big test of Democrats’ courage and willingness to tell voters the truth.  So far, they have shown neither.

The voters have been lied to continually since August, 1972 (when the federal government became Monetarily Sovereign).

So, perhaps the public can be excused for not understanding the financial differences between the monetarily NON-sovereign states and the  Monetarily Sovereign federal government.

But the Democratic politicians have no such excuse. Professor Stephanie Kelton (UMKC), who understands Monetary Sovereignty quite well, and has been an adviser to Sanders and the Democrats, has been ignored by the weak-willed ninnies now leading the party.

I feel for her. I don’t see how she can stand dealing with those useless people.

Democrats. Either do your jobs or get the heck out of Congress.

Really, I’m so damn angry I could spit.

Are you angry, too?

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

Medicare for All: Your one misunderstanding that ruins everything

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

With regard to Medicare for All, here is one little huge misunderstanding that ruins America the world.

Ryan Cooper

Consider, for instance, these excerpts from an article by Ryan Cooper, a national correspondent at TheWeek.com.  — a man who advocates the passage of a Medicare for All bill, though ironically, his article helps prevent it.

The solution to America’s health-care problem is obvious: Medicare. For. All.

With Republicans busy trying to pass a spectacularly unpopular bill to strangle ObamaCare and grind Medicaid down to a tiny stump, simply expanding the most generous and functional part of the welfare state to everyone makes increasing political and practical sense as a bold counter-offer.

Single-payer dramatically strengthens the rest of the social safety net. It would get rid of the patchwork of janky mandates and systems that provide for unemployed or disabled people.

No more messing around with the obnoxious (and often unaffordable) COBRA or exchange plans.

Then, with health care decoupled from employment, unemployment insurance, paid family and sick leave, and disability benefits would be correspondingly strengthened.

It would cover “inpatient, outpatient, emergency services, dental, vision, mental health, and nursing home care” without any premiums, deductibles, or co-pays.

Medicare already has all three of those, in varying degrees based on income and tax-payment history.

No, Medicare does not cover all those things, “without any premiums, deductibles, or co-pays.”  Never heard of Medicare supplement insurance? Never heard of long-term care insurance? Never heard of Part D pharmaceutical insurance?

Medicare is a good program as far as it goes, but it’s a long way from a comprehensive plan, even for those over 65.

But, why shouldn’t “the greatest nation on earth” (we like to proclaim) provide comprehensive, top-notch health care for every man, woman, and child in America?

Sadly, Mr. Cooper provides a reason — a non-reason, really: Cost. And even more sadly, he focuses the entire rest of his article on this non-reason — his misunderstanding — that ruins everything.

Medicare-for-all isn’t going to be cheap. California has been considering such a plan recently, and the headline price is $400 billion, according to a state legislative analysis. By American standards, that’s an expensive program even for the federal government.

Yes, it is an expensive program for California, a monetarily non-sovereign state, but not expensive for the federal government. 

Nothing is expensive for our Monetarily Sovereign federal government, that creates an unlimited amount of its sovereign currency by the process of paying its bills.

California can run out of dollars; the federal government cannot. California taxpayers fund California spending. Federal taxpayers do not fund federal spending. That is the fundamental difference between a Monetarily Sovereign government and a monetarily non-sovereign government.

But it can still work. While ideally single-payer would be passed at the federal level, California (and New York) are good candidates for a proof-of-concept test run. If done right, it would be a huge success, and it would place all other social programs on a much sounder footing.

In fact, California and New York are terrible candidates, unless you oppose Medicare for All. 

Being monetarily non-sovereign, they will run short of dollars to fund comprehensive Medicare for All programs. So they will have to make cuts. And these cuts will “prove” to the doubters that Medicare for All can’t work.

It would be like a man trying to fly by flapping feathered wings — and failing — thereby “proving” man never will fly.

And what is the “concept” these programs would prove? That providing people with comprehensive health care, like the rich already enjoy, is a good benefit? Is this a concept that needs proving?

The important thing to remember regarding the state budget is that California already spends about $200 billion on Medicaid and Medicare — it’s just that those programs are administered at the federal level.

Per the state analysis, employers also already spend an additional $100 billion to $150 billion, so the state would “only” have to find $50 billion to $100 billion in fresh revenue.

Better check your numbers, Mr. Cooper. Medicare for All involves comprehensive (“inpatient, outpatient, emergency services, dental, vision, mental health, and nursing home care without any premiums, deductibles, or co-pays”) for every man, woman, and child in the state, not just those over the age of 65.

What about the billions of insurance dollars currently spent by individual people who aren’t on Medicare or Medicaid? Even most employer plans require contributions from employees.

All of the above is why California is a terrible test. Either the program will not be comprehensive or it will be unaffordable.  Either way, it absolutely, positively will “prove” to the doubters that a comprehensive Medicare for All plan cannot work.

Single-payer would be quite a lot cheaper than $400 billion, too, if it weren’t for America’s preposterously expensive medical prices. Good thing that will change.

Remember, single-payer gives the government far greater leverage over prices than currently exists, through bargaining leverage or simple price controls.

“Leverage over prices” means that Mr. Cooper wants the federal government unnecessarily to reduce what doctors, nurses, other medical workers, hospitals, and pharmaceutical companies receive.

Think about the effect that would have on the supply of doctors, nurses, and other health workers –– which already are in short supply.

And exactly how does it benefit America for hospitals to receive less income?

Though pharmaceutical companies often are reviled, they are the ones we expect to develop new drugs.  Is that something we want to cut?

What Mr. Cooper doesn’t take into consideration is while state and local spending does not add stimulus dollars to the economy, federal spending does. Every cut to federal spending is anti-growth, and federal spending costs taxpayers nothing.  Nothing!

Finally, the proposed California program would be substantially more generous than extant Medicare. All told, while it would be a huge outlay, it’s worth the money.

Yes, comprehensive Medicare for All will be “substantially more generous” not only than extant Medicare, but more generous (i.e. more expensive) than any but the most platinum of current health care plans.

And that is a good thing, if it’s supported by the Monetarily Sovereign, federal government (though a bad thing if supported by the monetarily non-sovereign, state and local governments).

Now, actually putting such a system through would be tough.

It’s virtually guaranteed that the Trump administration would refuse to allow a blue state to mess around with its Medicaid/Medicare money at all, and they would have to worry about rich people skipping out of the state to avoid taxes, not to mention state prohibitions on borrowing money.

Yes, the politics are such that Republicans don’t want any plan that will help the middle class and the poor, and Libertarians don’t want any plan that increases government spending. Both groups do the dirty work of the very rich.

They are the people responsible for insufficient economic growth, insufficient health care and the widening Gap between the rich and the rest.

The Gini Ratio indicates the “Gap” — the distance between the richer and the poorer. A ratio o f”0″ would indicate perfect equality, where everyone has the same. A ratio of “1” would indicate that one person has everything. A rising line indicates the rich are growing richer and the rest are growing comparitively poorer.

So, it’s up to you voters to make an offer the politicians can’t resist, and that only can happen if you understand that a Medicare for All plan need not cost you a single penny if it is funded by the Monetarily Sovereign federal government.

While state and local taxes fund state and local spending, federal taxes do not fund federal spending. The federal government creates dollars, ad hoc, every time it pays a bill.  

Even if all federal tax collections were $0, the federal government could continue spending, forever. It never can run short of its own sovereign currency.

Some people are turned off of single-payer when they hear it means more taxes. I very strongly believe such sentiments are driven by an unreasonable skepticism about social insurance created by decades of duplicitous conservative agitprop.

Such sentiments are driven by the Big Lie — the lie that federal taxes fund federal spending, and that the poor are lazy takers who will stop working if they are given any benefits.

Educate the public about the realities of Monetary Sovereignty, and suddenly all objections to single-payer would disappear.

After all, who would not want to receive a lifetime’s worth of free, comprehensive medical care? And who would want to deny it to poor families?

Europeans who visit America are rightly flabbergasted that citizens of the world’s wealthiest large nation tolerate their countrymen having to scrounge for money to pay medical bills.

Worse than scrounging for money, some of us do without health care. The right wing blames the victims for being lazy.  They are sure that if the government provides benefits to the poor, this will disincentivize the poor from working. That is what the rich tell them.

But here’s the bottom line: The left must get behind single-payer, and trumpet it loudly. It’s critically important for the left to maintain the courage of its convictions. It is not enough to be against the American Health Care

It is not enough to be against the American Health Care Act, or to compromise for janky middle-of-the-road attempts at bipartisanship like ObamaCare. It’s long past time that the Democratic Party stood for something big and bold.

But to be “big and bold” one must understand the facts, and the primary fact is this: Comprehensive Medicare for All would not cost you one cent. In fact, federal spending for Medicare for All would stimulate economic growth.

Truly guaranteed health care would mean relief from the constant nagging worry that job loss, or a change in coverage plan, or a sudden emergency landing you in an out-of-network hospital would lead to untreated illness or financial ruin.

No more would illness mean taking up a second job trying to navigate the brain-melting complexity of a monstrous, wasteful billing system.

Medicare-for-all would be a relief on so many levels that many Americans simply can’t conceive of it. But if it were to pass, it would be immediately popular — and forevermore politically untouchable.

It will pass if columnists like Ryan Cooper first would learn the truth, then tell the truth.

Is that too much to ask?

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

Why do you need an EB (Economic Bonus)?

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

The previous post discussed Step #3 in the Ten Steps to Prosperity (below), Provide a monthly economic bonus (EB) to every man, woman, and child in America (similar to Social Security for All)

Today, we’ll discuss one of the many reasons why EB not only is important today but will become less avoidable each passing day.

That reason, in a word: Technology.

The Cato Institute, an ultra-right-wing “think tank,” published a paper titled: “Cato Institute Policy Analysis No. 68: Does More Technology Create Unemployment?”  the thrust of which can be summarized in one sentence on the paper’s page 4:

“It is only technological improvement that enables employment to take place at higher-than subsistence levels of output.”

First, when technical change lowers costs in a given industry, the competitive firms comprising that industry must lower their prices, generating larger sales and an even greater need for employment.

In this case, employment goes up, not down, and with the increased competition for workers, wages rise in all industries capturing some of the value of the technological change for workers.

Second, when technical change in a given industry is labor saving, but its downward effect on product prices does not result in larger quantities sold sufficient to provide the same amount of employment in the industry as before the change, then temporary unemployment occurs.

However, jobs are available elsewhere in competitive markets.

If nothing else, wages are bid down enough in other industries to absorb the released labor.

Cato’s idea is that unemployment breeds lower wages in other industries, which encourages those other industries to hire more people.

Only a right-wing writer could look upon lower wages as an effective and worthwhile cure for unemployment. Taken to its logical extreme, universal slavery would be a wonderful way to prevent all unemployment.

It is an idea that has appeal for the “haves” of the world.

But the savings in the industry where the advancement occurs must also be taken into account.

Either more money goes to remaining workers in that industry, so that they raise the demand for other products, thus enabling the released labor to be employed in other industries without lower wages; or product prices are lower in the automated industry, so that consumers can buy the same amount and have income left over to demand more products from other industries, again enabling the released labor to be employed in those expanding industries without lower wages.

In summary: Though technology creates short-term unemployment, it lowers prices, which increases demand, which over the longer term, cures the unemployment.

And, in fact, that is the way things have worked in the past: Technology has cost jobs in the short term and created jobs in the long term.

This may be uncomfortable for those of us — all of us, really — who live our lives in short term segments, but from a long economic standpoint,  it has proven to be efficient.

Thus, while some unemployment may occur when there is technological advancement in competitive markets, it is both temporary and a natural consequence of the ability to change jobs freely.

It is certainly not a social problem requiring any sort of government action.

That last sentence, “It is certainly not a social problem requiring any sort of government action,” summarizes the right-wing attitude about virtually every social program. 

The idea is that government assistance to the poor, the unemployed or low waged worker, the homeless, the uneducated, etc. is not needed. Things will just work themselves out, naturally.

Can President Trump keep his promises to coal country? PBS Newshour

From 2011 to 2015, the coal mining industry lost more than 26,000 jobs, with 87 percent of those losses coming in the Appalachian region. In the last two years alone, several major coal companies filed for bankruptcy protection.

“We’re going to get those miners back to work,” Trump said in May 2016. “The miners of West Virginia and Pennsylvania … Ohio and all over are going to start to work again, believe me. They are going to be proud again to be miners.”

Many economists and energy experts say the current decline, at least in Appalachia, is here to stay.

Increased automation is one of several factors that they point to. Even as the production of coal was peaking in 2008, machines were replacing whole teams of miners, reducing the number of jobs in the industry.

These employment losses are very heavily concentrated. Southern West Virginia now contains five counties — the heart of the coal fields — that are in a deep depression.

Coal miners lose their jobs or move to another county or state in search of work. The subsequent loss in tax revenue, in turn, forces counties with shrinking budgets to cut jobs in government, some of the most stable employment available in these areas.

“It’s just this ripple effect that keeps rippling out to impact all these other layers, so you have less support for county projects, infrastructure development, for anything that supports the county budget,” said Stephanie Tyree, the executive director of the West Virginia Community Development Hub.

“It starts to go at such a rapid pace that it becomes very difficult to step in to mitigate it.”

From a cold, economic perspective, this is the way it long has been. Technology has destroyed some products and some industries, along with the jobs in those industries, and along with the cities, counties and states that rely on those industries.

But it creates new products and new jobs in other industries, cities, counties, and states.

While older workers suffer, younger workers seek employment in the new industries in other locations. A short-term cost with a long-term benefit.

But what do we do in the short term, about the suffering older workers and the job-seeking younger workers, and the suffering locations whose infrastructures have decayed?

Meanwhile, something altogether new has emerged on the scene. We no longer are talking only about a digging machine operated by one man, replacing a dozen pick-and-shovel workers.

Now, we are beginning to discuss AI (Artificial Intelligence) replacing every conceivable type of job: CEOs, CFOs. line managers, doctors, lawyers, baseball managers. One scarcely can imagine a job that hasn’t been, or won’t be, impacted by AI.

One scarcely can imagine a job that hasn’t been, or won’t be, impacted by AI.

The Chicago Cubs, the perennial losers, won in part because of Sabermetrics. Rather than making strictly intuitive decisions, Cubs management evaluates advanced statistics.

But why do we need humans to evaluate statistics, when AI can do it better and faster. Baseball managers, sitting on the bench, soon may be replaced by a computer sitting in another city, altogether.

Fortune Magazine
Mark Cuban: Robots Are ‘Going to Cause Unemployment’

Mark Cuban reiterated his warning that total robot takeover of blue-collar manufacturing jobs could come sooner than people may expect.

“Automation is going to cause unemployment and we need to prepare for it.” Similar warnings (have been made) by Bill Gates, Elon Musk, and Stephen Hawking.

In December, Cuban called on Donald Trump to make America a world leader in robotics, otherwise, “if nothing in the States changes, we will find ourselves dependent on other countries for almost everything that can and will be manufactured in a quickly approaching future.”

That is the “solution” advocated by a very, rich man: Because automation will take over blue collar jobs, the U.S. should invest in automation, so the U.S. can compete with other nations.

While the advice is good for the rich, it leaves out consideration of those unemployed people. What is to become of them?

And, lest you feel safe because you are in an “intellectual” job, it’s not just blue-collar jobs that are at risk.

The Guardian

Machines could put more than half the world’s population out of a job in the next 30 years, according to a computer scientist who said on Saturday that artificial intelligence’s threat to the economy should not be understated.

Expert Moshe Vardi told the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS): “We are approaching a time when machines will be able to outperform humans at almost any task.

Unlike the industrial revolution, Vardi said, “the AI revolution” will not be a matter of physically powerful machines that outperform human laborers, but rather a contest between human wit and mechanical intelligence and strength.

How has human wit done in such machine vs. human contests as chess, Go, and Jeopardy? Not too well, recently.

And unlike people, machines don’t tire, don’t demand raises or vacations, don’t fight or argue.

They not only are physically stronger, but every year become mentally stronger and stronger — and stronger.

Bart Selman , a professor at Cornell University, said: “Computers are basically starting to hear and see the way humans do,” thanks to advances in big data and “deep learning”.

Citing research from MIT, he noted that although Americans continue to drive GDP with increasing productivity, employment peaked around 1980 and average wages for families have gone down. “It’s automation,” Vardi said.

The consultant company McKinsey concluded that 20% of a CEO’s working time could be automated with existing technologies, and nearly 80% of a file clerk’s job could be automated. About 45% of the work people are paid to do could be automated by existing technology.

See those two little words, “existing technology”?

If 45% of the work could be automated by existing technology, how much will be automated by future technologies?

We humans aren’t getting smarter, but our machines are.In 2013, two Oxford professors predicted that as much as 47% of the US workforce, from telemarketers to legal secretaries and cooks, were vulnerable to automation.

In 2013, two Oxford professors predicted that as much as 47% of the US workforce, from telemarketers to legal secretaries and cooks, were vulnerable to automation.

And the professors needn’t feel safe.

What about a professor who knows everything about his subject and all related subjects — a sort of “super-Jeopardy” contestant, who can answer any question. Wouldn’t it be better equipped to teach?

But then again, who would such a professor teach? An AI machine “student” promises to be more apt than a human student — instantly learning and no cheating on exams.

And then there are truck drivers:

MIT Technology Review
Self-Driving TrucksTractor-trailers without a human at the wheel will soon barrel onto highways near you.
What will this mean for the nation’s 1.7 million truck drivers? Multiple companies are now testing self-driving trucks.

Although many technical problems are still unresolved, proponents claim that self-driving trucks will be safer and less costly.

Driver fatigue is a factor in roughly one of seven fatal truck accidents.

“This system often drives better than I do,” says Greg Murphy, who’s been a professional truck driver for 40 years. He now serves as a safety backup driver during tests of self-driving trucks by Otto, a San Francisco company that outfits trucks with the equipment needed to drive themselves.

Last October an Otto-outfitted self-driving truck carried 2,000 cases of Budweiser beer 200 kilometers down Interstate 25 in Colorado from Fort Collins to Colorado Springs—while the truck’s only human driver sat in the sleeper berth at the back of the cab without touching the vehicle’s controls.

O.K., truck drivers and baseball managers.  But, what about doctors? We always will need human doctors, right?

MIT Technology Review: The Artificially Intelligent Doctor Will Hear You Now
March 9, 2016

U.K.-based startup Babylon will launch an app later this year that will listen to your symptoms and provide medical advice.

There are about 10,000 known human diseases, yet human doctors are only able to recall a fraction of them at any given moment. As many as 40,500 patients die annually in an ICU in the U.S. as a result of misdiagnosis, according to a 2012 Johns Hopkins study.

What does your primary care doctor do for you? He/she listens to your symptoms and provides medical advice.

So wouldn’t you rather have a doctor conversant with every known human disease, and every known treatment, a doctor whose knowledge increases every minute of every day, a doctor who is available to you for advice 24/7/365?

Clearly, the days of the primary care doctor are numbered.

Well, are surgeons safe?

Autonomous Robot Surgeon Bests Humans in World First
By Eliza Strickland, Posted 4 May 2016

In a robotic surgery breakthrough, a bot stitched up a pig’s small intestines using its own vision, tools, and intelligence to carry out the procedure.

What’s more, the Smart Tissue Autonomous Robot (STAR) did a better job on the operation than human surgeons who were given the same task.

Moving up the business ladder . . .

Could the CEO be replaced by a robot?
This article is part of the World Economic Forum Annual Meeting 2017

With the automation of many everyday activities, could a robot be a more productive addition to boardrooms of the future than a CEO?

In an era defined by the exponential evolution of technology, robotics and artificial intelligence (AI) have come a long way in a short space of time.

Robots can perform surgical operations, build cars, move stock in warehouses, check you into your hotel and serve you drinks. And they can do it quickly and efficiently.

AI is expected to evolve significantly beyond today’s relatively simple machine learning to better understand human behaviour. That means robots making decisions on their own in more complicated situations. And as they get cleverer, they would be able to take on increasingly challenging jobs.

But could they take on as challenging a role as the CEO?

If I’ve had a bad meeting, am suffering jet lag or simply have other things on my mind, my decisions could suffer. Robots don’t face the unpredictability we humans face, so their decisions are more likely to be consistent, based on facts.

Secondly, robots can work all day, every day. They don’t need sleep, weekends or holidays. No mere humans can say the same.

As technology improves, no job is safe for humans. If you believe “robots can’t do this,” or “robots don’t do that,” you may be wrong about today’s robots, and you surely are wrong about tomorrow’s robots.

There is nothing you can think of that robots one day, won’t be able to do better, faster, and cheaper than you can.  And that “one day” may come sooner than you can imagine.

So the world should prepare.

The fundamental purpose of robots is the same as the fundamental purpose of government: To help make our lives better.

Fortunately, we have all the tools we need, for we control the algorithms, i.e. the laws. As robots do more and more jobs, we can make those jobs less necessary for humans to do.

Humans have no innate need to dig for coal, drive trucks, or run companies. The prime motivation for the vast majority of jobs is money.  And we have the unlimited ability to create money.

Yes, some jobs give us satisfaction and pride. But we don’t need to have an employer for us to feel satisfaction and pride.

This all comes together with the Ten Steps to Prosperity.

The step we discussed in the previous post, Step #3, Social Security for All, provides income not dependent on work.  Importantly, it allows us to obtain goods and services, eventually without the need for a job.

Unquestionably, AI will make human labor less necessary. But, until robots are able to provide all of our goods and services, as in the mythical Star Trek “replicator,” we must find another mechanism.

And I believe that interim mechanism must be the distribution of money by Monetarily Sovereign governments via social programs.

Historically, people have toiled more, lived less comfortable lives, and died earlier than they do, today. “Work ’til you drop” was the human blueprint, just as it remains today for all other animals.

Today, our massive brains have given us less demanding work, more comfort, and longer lives — and have created even more massive brains, but of an electronic nature.

In America, Social Security, Medicare and other social programs evolved as small, interim steps on the long path toward a society requiring work only for pleasure.

We have taken those interim steps, those baby steps, and we must continue marching. No creation of Man exists in a vacuum. Every invention demands supporting inventions.

We invented trains, which made railroad tracks necessary. The auto made strong streets and highways necessary. Airplanes made massive airports necessary. The one cannot function properly without the other.

Similarly, AI makes strong social programs necessary. Neither can function properly without the other.

We have opened a Pandora’s box of Artificial Intelligence. We have the tools to control it, improve it, and to make it function properly. But we had better use those tools by expanding our social programs — our Social Security, our Medicare, et al.

To our advantage, we must use AI properly.

Or  AI will use us.

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

Objections to Medicare-for-All — and the first, necessary step

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

The Republicans put forth their “Health Care Only for the Rich” plan, and saw the public, for some strange reason, not wanting health care to be available only for the rich.Image result for rich government poor people

So now, after 7 years of searching for an idea, the GOP is searching for an idea.

We long have recommended Step #2 of the Ten Steps to Prosperity: FEDERALLY FUNDED MEDICARE — PARTS A, B & D, PLUS LONG TERM CARE — FOR EVERYONE (See below). The Federal government, being Monetarily Sovereign, easily can fund the whole program, without any FICA collections.

Financially, the solution is a no-brainer. The federal government can afford it; the public is strapped for funds. So who should pay?

But a recent article in The Week describes problems other than mere finances. Here are some excerpts, along with our comments:

Why ‘Medicare for all’ is easy to say and near impossible to do
David Faris

Bernie Sanders premised his primary campaign in large part on a radical promise to ditch Obama’s signature legislative achievement in favor of extending Medicare to all Americans.

The phenomenal success of Sanders’ insurgent socialist campaign proved again that the ACA was unpopular in large part because millions of Americans think the state should be doing more rather than less. 

Yet there are a number of important questions about any single-payer plan that remain not just unanswered, but mostly unasked.

Let’s imagine that, somehow, progressives succeed in enacting “Medicare for all.” What does the transition period look like between the passage of such legislation and its full implementation?

What would happen to the health insurance companies that employ over half a million people? Would they be compensated for their losses?

Health insurance companies still could exist, though in a much-reduced form. They could provide coverage for those who do not like Medicare, either because they believe it to be too restrictive in its coverages, or because their doctors won’t accept it, or for other reasons.

If people have a choice between free health care from Medicare or paid health care from private insurance, most will choose free, but some will chose private.

So yes, like many industries through the years, the health care insurance industry will shrink. Think of the coal industry.  And the record-pressing companies.

And, when was the last time you used a public land-line telephone? Their manufacturers must be feeling the pinch.

Most industries that continue to exist today have become more efficient (i.e. use fewer people and more machines). Business evolves.

What would happen to the medical debt of doctors who would almost certainly face diminished economic prospects under single-payer? (Most Americans think physicians are rich — true in some cases — yet many doctors rack up over $200,000 in debt to attend medical school.)

These problems are not the fault of Medicare or of any future Medicare-for-All.  They result from the Big Lie, the ridiculous claim that somehow our Monetarily Sovereign federal government can run short of its own sovereign currency, so it needs to husband its financial resources.

For that reason, Medicare underpays doctors, a situation in need of change, whether or not Medicare-for-All is instituted.

And medical school, like all other schools, should be free.  See: Free education for everyone.  Again, this has nothing to do with Medicare-for-All.

Primary care doctors and rural areas — generally pay the worst and already have trouble attracting physicians for that very reason. What happens to the supply and demand of care when tens of thousands of doctors earn less?

And yet again, why pay them less? This has nothing to do with single payer.

Do we have even remotely the civilian bureaucratic know-how we would need to scale Medicare up to the entire 320-million-strong population of the United States? The Centers For Medicare and Medicaid Services employ more than 6,000 people. That number would probably need to be, conservatively, quadrupled.

That probably was one of the objections to the original Medicare.  Yet here Medicare is, functioning better than most federal programs.  It is far more difficult to begin a program from scratch than to expand an existing, functioning program, which federally funded, Medicare-for-All would do.

And note the concern about hiring more people, juxtaposed against the concern about insurance companies firing people.  Strange.

Remember that a committed and well-intentioned Democratic administration had trouble just setting up a website for a tiny fraction of the number of people who would be covered by a new single-payer system.

Running a nationalized health care system would be considerably more complicated than cutting monthly Social Security checks to people.

A Medicare-for-All  website would be nearly identical to the currently, well-functioning Medicare website.  The primary difference would be simply handling more people — an easily solved Internet problem, not a program problem.

Political questions abound as well. Republicans spent seven years hammering ObamaCare, which remained mired in negative approval ratings.

Medicare, by contrast, is not “mired in negative approval ratings.” Medicare-for-All transfers people from the less-loved ACA program to the highly appreciated Medicare program.

Americans who just months ago were complaining about the ACA’s deductibles and coverage options were faced with the prospect of losing their insurance coverage altogether, along with their right to be covered if they have a pre-existing condition.

ObamaCare has drifted into majority approval, and the Republicans’ hot, hastily conceived, cruel, vindictive mess of an alternative was opposed by a whopping 3-1 majority.

A similar problem would vex Democrats almost immediately, in the same way that it did when they got to work on the ACA in the first place. It’s what happens when various stakeholders in existing, complex, and flawed processes realize that their interests are deeply threatened.

The above is a rather pitiful argument for never making any big changes. It was true of Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid and enlisting women, blacks, and gays into the military, and going to the moon.

The maximal version of “Medicare for all” would involve, in a quite literal sense, stripping hundreds of millions of people of their existing private insurance coverage.

No, it would give people the choice of free health care insurance vs. paid-for health care insurance. Undoubtedly, more people would select free, but some people might prefer what the private insurance companies offer.

No one would be “stripped.”

There are only three hundred million people in all of America, so the notion that “hundreds of millions of people” would lose health insurance is laughable or outrageous, depending on one’s sense of humor.

The GOP has waged a scorched-earth campaign against the ACA and has failed spectacularly. For Democrats, launching another huge, divisive struggle over health care would be like if Truman had decided to go ahead and fight the Soviets over Eastern Europe at the conclusion of WWII.

What a ridiculous analagy. No, it isn’t like that at all (though then, the Soviets were weak).  The first step would be to convince the populace that the Big Lie indeed is a lie.  Once people understand Monetary Sovereignty, the institution of Medicare-for-All would be a “why-have-you-waited-so-long?”

Bottom line: Medicare-for-All is a natural outgrowth of Monetary Sovereignty. The only reason not to adopt it is the affordability myth, the notion that taxpayers would have to pay for it.

Once people understand that they would not have to pay for other people’s health care, and that yes, for a Monetarily Sovereign nation, lunch really can be free, objections to Medicare-for-All would melt like a snowman in a summer sun.

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 (Guaranteed Income)) 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