There are some things only the government should do.

Liberals think the purpose of government is to protect the poor and powerless from the rich and powerful. Conservatives think the purpose of government is to protect the rich and powerful from the poor and powerless.

—————————-

We are social animals. Rules, laws, codes, and mores are the natural consequence of that shared life. We establish governments to organize and formalize those rules. The fundamental purpose of governments is to improve and protect the lives of the governed. Those of a libertarian bent decry government as being intrusive upon their freedoms. Yet, the very purpose of laws is to limit any individual’s freedom to do harm to society. For humans, anarchy tends to devolve into chaos. For arch Libertarians, every law (or at least every law they dislike, today) is pejoratively defined as “Socialism,” and that supposedly ends the argument. They opt for “small government” which tends to translate into, less taxing of the rich and fewer benefits for the poor. But Socialism, like most “isms,” neither is bad nor good, in of itself. The assessment depends on conditions and how the “ism” is applied. When Ronald Reagan famously declared, “Government is the problem,” he was President of one of the more successful governments on this planet — successful in the sense that it oversaw one of the freest, wealthiest, most powerful nations in history. Clearly, Reagen was not a Libertarian when he uttered those words, which in any event have been misconstrued and twisted over time. And as it turned out, Reagan was not a small-business President. Today’s Libertarianism leans heavily toward a form of Conservatism that favors the rich over the poor, to the point where virtually any benefit for the poor is denounced as encroaching on “our” (meaning the rich’s) freedoms. Despite the “Socialism!” howls of today’s Republicans, and the “Big Government!” screams of the Libertarians, some things truly are better left to the federal government. Three of these things are discussed at: The military, the nation’s banks, and healthcare.
Sure you paid us insurance premiums, but do you really expect us to pay for your healthcare?
When deciding what should be done by government and what should be done in the private sector, here are five of the key issues: Coordination: America is a huge nation, huge in area, huge in population, with huge demographic and legal diversity. Very few businesses are able to coordinate nationwide projects. National coordination is best handled by a national government. Labor supply Even the federal government doesn’t employ sufficient labor to handle large projects. Example: The National Highway System. But the federal government has the means and political power to hire, set the rules for, and supervise private contractors nationwide. Expertise Some projects require a wide range of technical expertise. The federal government, far more than any single business, benefits from the extensive military and non-military research projects it funds. Affordability and financial risk Here is where the federal government really shines. It literally can afford anything and when speculative projects don’t work, the government can afford to absorb the loss. Profit motive This may be the most important reason for the government, rather than the private sector, handling a project: The profit motive. The federal government doesn’t have one. It can go “where no man has gone before.” It can try experiments. It can fail and try again. It can focus on the mission rather than on the profit. When NASA was instructed to send a man to the moon, all its attention was on that mission, not on whether moon flights might be profitable. Subsequently, it has sent missions all over the solar system. Now, fifty years later, private industry has decided there might be money to be made in sending a few rich people briefly into space, though not even yet to the moon. That is the difference between the federal government’s efforts and private industry’s. Left to its own devices, private industry might never travel to the moon. The financial risk too great; the profit, too uncertain. And in that vein, I give you the following article:
Major Insurers Running Billions of Dollars Behind on Payments to Hospitals and Doctors Posted on October 10, 2021 by Lambert Strether: “We should bail them out. Obviously.” Jay Hancock, of Kaiser Health News. Anthem Blue Cross, the country’s second-biggest health insurance company, is behind on billions of dollars in payments owed to hospitals and doctorsbecause of onerous new reimbursement rules, computer problems and mishandled claims, say hospital officials in multiple states. Anthem, like other big insurers, is using the covid-19 crisis as cover to institute “egregious” policies that harm patients and pinch hospital finances, said Molly Smith, group vice president at the American Hospital Association.  Hospitals are also dealing with a spike in retroactive claims denials by UnitedHealthcare, the biggest health insurer, for emergency department care, AHA says.
What is the underlying problem? Money, or more specifically, the profit motive.

While the primary mission of Medicare and Medicaid is to pay for medical expenses, the primary mission of private-sector health care insurance companies is to make a profit.

A government agency can be inefficient, uncaring, and downright ignorant. So can private insurance companies. The single biggest difference is the profit motive, or the lack thereof.
Disputes between insurers and hospitals are nothing new. But this fight sticks more patients in the middle, worried they’ll have to pay unresolved claims. Hospitals say it is hurting their finances as many cope with covid surges — even after the industry has received tens of billions of dollars in emergency assistance from the federal government. “We recognize there have been some challenges” to prompt payments caused by claims-processing changes and “a new set of dynamics” amid the pandemic, Anthem spokesperson Colin Manning said in an email. “We apologize for any delays or inconvenience this may have caused.”
“Any delays or inconvenience” sounds benign, but it is a serious, often existential problem. Nurses rely on their salaries. Doctors, too. Hospitals have creditors who rely on repayment. And patients suffer emotionally and medically from those delays and inconveniences. When an insurer reneges on its payment responsibilities, a falling domino effect occurs, where thousands of people are injured, some permanently.
Virginia law requires insurers to pay claims within 40 days. In a Sept. 24 letter to state insurance regulators, VCU Health, a system that operates a large teaching hospital in Richmond associated with Virginia Commonwealth University, said Anthem owes it $385 million. More than 40% of the claims are more than 90 days old, VCU said. For all Virginia hospitals, Anthem’s late, unpaid claims amount to “hundreds of millions of dollars,” the Virginia Hospital and Healthcare Association said in a June 23 letter to state regulators.
Clearly, Anthem values its own finances above the finances and health of many thousands of people.
Nationwide, the payment delays “are creating an untenable situation,” the American Hospital Association said in a Sept. 9 letter to Anthem CEO Gail Boudreaux. “Patients are facing greater hurdles to accessing care; clinicians are burning out on unnecessary administrative tasks; and the system is straining to finance the personnel and supplies” needed to fight covid. Complaints about Anthem extend “from sea to shining sea, from New Hampshire to California,” AHA CEO Rick Pollack told KHN. Substantial payment delays can be seen on Anthem’s books. On June 30, 2019, before the pandemic, 43% of the insurer’s medical bills for that quarter were unpaid, according to regulatory filings. Two years later that figure had risen to 53% — a difference of $2.5 billion. Anthem profits were $4.6 billion in 2020 and $3.5 billion in the first half of 2021.
While Anthem thrives, everyone else suffers. The villain all of this is not just Anthem, but the profit motive. That is where the problem begins. If Anthem were like the federal government and wasn’t concerned about profits, everyone would have been paid, and those payment dollars would have benefitted the entire economy.
Alexis Thurber, who lives near Seattle, was insured by Anthem when she got an $18,192 hospital bill in May for radiation therapy that doctors said was essential to treat her breast cancer. The treatments were “experimental” and “not medically necessary,” Anthem said, according to Thurber. She spent much of the summer trying to get the insurer to pay up — placing two dozen phone calls, spending hours on hold, sending multiple emails and enduring unmeasurable stress and worry. It finally covered the claim months later.
Apparently, the claim was a good one. Anthem paid it, not out of the goodness of their hearts, but because the claim should have been paid. The delay was unwarranted. The fundamental purpose of the delay was the profit motive.
“It’s so egregious. It’s a game they’re playing,” said Thurber, 51, whose cancer was diagnosed in November. “Trying to get true help was impossible.” Privacy rules prevent Anthem from commenting on Thurber’s case, said Anthem spokesperson Colin Manning. When insurers fail to promptly pay medical bills, patients are left in the lurch. They might first get a notice saying payment is pending or denied. A hospital might bill them for treatment they thought would be covered. Hospitals and doctors often sue patients whose insurance didn’t pay up.
Yes, there are times when Medicare refuses to pay, but those have to do with disagreements about the rules and coverages. The federal bureaucrats making those decisions are not constrained by profits or affordability. They simply interpret the rules. They have no m oneyreason to lean away from the creditor.
Hospitals point to a variety of Anthem practices contributing to payment delays or denials, including new layers of document requirements, prior-authorization hurdles for routine procedures and requirements that doctors themselves— not support staffers — speak to insurance gatekeepers. “This requires providers to literally leave the patient[’s] bedside to get on the phone with Anthem,” AHA said in its letter.
Ah, the old “prior authorization” insurance scam. How many millions of patients have been tripped up by that one? A frightened, inexperienced patient is told he/she needs a procedure. In a panic about her health, her personal life, and the future, she neglects to tell the insurance company in advance. Payment is denied, not because the procedure isn’t proper, but simply because she didn’t go through the formality of prior authorization. Gotcha! Medicare seldom requires prior authorization.
Anthem often hinders coverage for outpatient surgery, specialty pharmacy and other services in health systems listed as in-network, amounting to a “bait and switch” on Anthem members, AHA officials said. “Demanding that patients be treated outside of the hospital setting, against the advice of the patient’s in-network treating physician, appears to be motivated by a desire to drive up Empire’s profits,” the Greater New York Hospital Association wrote in an April letter to Empire Blue Cross, which is owned by Anthem.
Medicare and Medigap do not use provider networks. With Original Medicare and Medigap you can use any healthcare provider that accepts Medicare-assignment. With Original Medicare, you do not have to wander through the “in-network, out-of-network” jungle.
Anthem officials pushed back in a recent letter to the AHA, saying the insurer’s changing rules are intended partly to control excessive prices charged by hospitals for specialty drugs and nonemergency surgery, screening and diagnostic procedures.
A for-profit organization has to worry about “excessive prices. For the government, “excessive” prices merely mean that the federal agency will pump more stimulus dollars into the economy.
Claims have gotten lost in Anthem’s computers, and in some cases VCU Health has had to print medical records and mail them to get paid, VCU said in its letter. The cash slowdown imposes “an unmanageable disruption that threatens to undermine our financial footing,” VCU said.
“Lost” is the way a for-profit organization increases its profits.
United denied $31,557 in claims for Emily Long’s care after she was struck in June by a motorcycle in New York City. She needed surgery to repair a fractured cheekbone. United said there was a lack of documentation for “medical necessity” — an “incredibly aggravating” response on top of the distress of the accident, Long said. The Brooklyn hospital that treated Long was “paid appropriately under her plan and within the required time frame,” said United spokesperson Maria Gordon Shydlo. “The facility has the right to appeal the decision.” United’s unpaid claims came to 54% as of June 30, about the same level as two years previously.
When more than half of all claims are not paid, something is terribly wrong. There simply cannot be that many false claims.
When Erin Conlisk initially had trouble gaining approval for a piece of medical equipment for her elderly father this summer, United employees told her the insurer’s entire prior-authorization database had gone down for weeks, said Conlisk, who lives in California. “There was a brief issue with our prior-authorization process in mid-July, which was resolved quickly,” Gordon Shydlo said.
“Brief issue” is private insurance-speak for “the longer you have to wait, the more money we make. Maybe you’ll just give up, altogether.”
When asked by Wall Street analysts about the payment backups, Anthem executives said it partly reflects their decision to increase financial reserves amid the health crisis.
“Decision to increase financial reserves” is insurance-speak for “decision to make more profits.”
“Really a ton of uncertainty associated with this environment,” John Gallina, the company’s chief financial officer, said on a conference call in July. “We’ve tried to be extremely prudent and conservative in our approach.”
Translation: “To be really prudent and conservative, we’ve decided not to pay claims. You’d be amazed at how that reduces our costs. But you better send in your premiums on time.”
Several health systems declined to comment about claims-payment delays or didn’t respond to a reporter’s queries. Among individual hospitals “there is a deep fear of talking on the record about your largest business partner,” AHA’s Smith said.
“Business partner” is a synonym for “the guy who is squeezing my reproductive organs in his fist.”
Alexis Thurber worried she might have to pay her $18,192 radiation bill herself, and she’s not confident her Anthem policy will do a better job next time of covering the cost of her care. “It makes me not want to go to the doctor anymore,” she said. “I’m scared to get another mammogram because you can’t rely on it.”
And that is exactly what your insurance company wants. Plenty of premiums with no costs. An excellent business model. That is where the profit motive can devolve in the health care business. Health should be a recognized basic human right. In a Monetarily Sovereign nation, federal support of healthcare costs taxpayers nothing. Comprehensive, no-deductible Medicare for All is the correct solution. But, until the public realizes it, it won’t happen. The politicians are too well-bribed by the insurance industry. Rodger Malcolm Mitchell Monetary Sovereignty Twitter: @rodgermitchell Search #monetarysovereignty Facebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

……………………………………………………………………..

THE SOLE PURPOSE OF GOVERNMENT IS TO IMPROVE AND PROTECT THE LIVES OF THE PEOPLE.

The most important problems in economics involve:
  1. Monetary Sovereignty describes money creation and destruction.
  2. Gap Psychology describes the common desire to distance oneself from those “below” in any socio-economic ranking, and to come nearer those “above.” The socio-economic distance is referred to as “The Gap.”
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 Monetary Sovereignty and The Ten Steps To Prosperity can grow the economy and 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. 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 the rest.

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

Heritage Foundation: Ignorant, stupid, or traitors? You choose.

Are the writers for the right-wing Heritage Foundation ignorant, stupid, or merely traitors to America? Read the following excerpts and you decide:

Commentary: Dealing with America’s Olympic-sized debt problem

Image result for Rachel Greszler and David Ditch. Size: 316 x 160. Source: www.buckscountycouriertimes.com
Rachel Greszler is a research fellow in economics at The Heritage Foundation. David Ditch is a researcher specializing in transportation issues for Heritage’s Hermann Center for the Federal Budget.
Rachel Greszler and David Ditch, The Heritage Foundation on Aug 5, 2021 Most Americans realize the federal government spent a lot of money, including three rounds of so-called “stimulus payments” that most households received. But those $3,200 worth of individual checks pale in comparison to total spending. If ordinary Americans had spent like the federal government did in 2020, the median household that earns $68,703 would have spent $131,620 and put $62,917 on the credit card, despite already being $541,287 in debt.
In our previous post, “Debt is not debt; deficits are not deficits; the government never borrows; gold never backed the dollar; inflation is not caused by federal spending,” we describe how charlatans use homonyms to deceive you. Via ignorance, stupidity, or malice, the writers for the Heritage Foundation prove our point by attempting to confuse federal finances with personal finances. The two are as completely different as flypaper is from the daily paper.
As of 2021, the U.S. debt comes out to roughly $220,000 per household. That’s enough to buy about eight years’ worth of groceries, gas, clothing, and housing for the typical household.
The above is a completely meaningless and misleading comparison, that is supposed to shock you, but not to inform you. You are not, and never will be liable for the so-called, misnamed federal “debt.” It isn’t a debt, and no one is liable for it.
And even that figure doesn’t include the unfunded liabilities of Social Security and Medicare. Without a significant reduction in the size of those programs, each household’s total debt is actually over $660,000. That’s equal to the cost of a median family home, a new car, plus over five years’ worth of a typical household’s income.
Utter nonsense. All federal liabilities are “unfunded” until the government funds them by creating dollars, ad hoc. The real purpose of the article is to groom you for acquiescence to right-wing calls for Social Security and Medicare cuts. But even if the FICA tax were eliminated, the federal government could support Social Security for All and a comprehensive Medicare for All, forever. Then follow more meaningless comparisons, all designed only to be shocking. Your household will not ever pay a single penny to pay off the so-called federal “debt.”
However, even this massive a debt doesn’t seem all that bad. Interest rates are low, and the federal government has had little problem seemingly borrowing into oblivion without consequence. (The same could be said of Greece before a financial crisis ensued.)
The fact that interest rates are low is yet more meaningless tripe. The U.S. government sets interest rates at any level it chooses, and it pays interest by creating new dollars, ad hoc, which it has the infinite ability to do. And by the way, Greszler and Ditch, is it ignorance, stupidity, or traitorousness that causes you to compare the Monetarily Sovereign United States (which has the unlimited ability to create its own sovereign currency, the dollar) with the monetarily non-sovereign Greece (which has no sovereign currency)?
But our currently low interest rate payments—equal to over $2,500 per household in 2021, or the cost of about 6 months’ worth of groceries—are on track to rise to about $6,400 per household in 2031. That’s four months of mortgage payments.
Again, more designed-to-deceive, meaningless, false equivalences between federal finances and personal finances
And that’s the equivalent of an interest-only mortgage. Those costs don’t even begin to reduce the principal amount of debt.
The so-called federal “debt” is not a debt in the usual sense. It is the total of deposits into Treasury Security accounts (similar to safe deposit boxes) which are no burden whatsoever on the government or on future taxpayers.
While ordinary Americans aren’t allowed to take out mortgages or open up new credit cards in their children’s names, the federal government does this every day.
Yet even more ignorant, stupid, or intentionally deceptive false comparisons between federal finances and personal finances. The Heritage fraud goes on and on.
The share of debt for a child born this year was $66,874. And that debt is on track to rise every year, reaching $111,552 by the time they’re 18 and either start working or head off to college. It will then hit $191,768 by the time they’re 30 and potentially raising young children.
The above implies that future children will have to pay for the so-called “debt.” It is a lie of the first order. No one will pay for the “debt” because it is not debt. It is deposits that will be paid off as they always have been: By simply returning the dollars in those T-security accounts.
Fortunately, it’s not too late to prevent the nation from going broke.
It is impossible for the United States to “go broke.” Being Monetarily Sovereign (unlike Greece), the U.S. has the unlimited ability to create dollars. If needed, it could press one computer key and create a trillion dollars tomorrow.
Congress should cut out wasteful spending such as corporate welfare and excessive compensation for federal bureaucrats.
The Heritage Foundation, being right-wing, now complains about “corporate welfare.” Do they mean the Republicans’ tax cuts for businesses? And really, how many federal bureaucrats receive “excessive compensation”? Of course, the whole thing is meaningless, because all federal deficit spending, even so-called “wasteful” spending, benefits everyone by adding stimulus dollars to the economy.
Congress should stop shirking their responsibilities by placing an increasing amount of federal spending on autopilot, and instead seek to reform programs like Social Security and Medicare that are on a path to bankruptcy.
I have no idea what “autopilot” means in this context. I suspect the authors don’t know, either. But none of it matters. The real purpose is to make you believe Social Security and Medicare should be cut. That is the goal of The Party of the Rich, the Republicans. The rich, who support Heritage Foundation, always want to widen the Gap between the rich and the rest. The wider the Gap, the richer are the rich. It’s known as Gap Psychology — the desire to widen the income/wealth/power Gap below, and to narrow the Gap above. So they repeatedly warn that Social Security and Medicare soon will run short of money, despite their being a federal agency that has available to them, infinite dollars. Neither the federal government, nor any agency of the federal government, can go bankrupt unless Congress and the President want them to.
Congress should focus on core federal responsibilities and clear away countless programs that benefit narrow interest groups at the expense of the public good.
The elderly and the poor — are they what Heritage considers to be “narrow interest groups”?? Or aren’t the rich — Heritage’s buddies — who really comprise the narrow interest groups?
Congress should recognize our looming debt disaster and step away from shortsighted spending plans.
Still “looming.” Debt-nuts like Heritage have been making the same “disaster” claim for more than 80 years, yet here we are, with the strongest economy in U.S. history.
Big problems like the unsustainable national debt won’t be solved quickly or easily. However, Congress must begin to take fiscal responsibility seriously as soon as possible.
The “unsustainable” national debt has been growing massively, and sustaining, since 1940, while organizations like Heritage have been crying “Wolf” again, and again, and again.
Otherwise, a Greece-like fate may await us.
And the article ends appropriately, with one, final, false comparison of monetarily non-sovereign Greece vs. Monetarily Sovereign America. The Big Lie is alive and well at Heritage. Even, an organization as devoted to advancing the interests of the rich vs. the rest, should be embarrassed by the above article. It is so wrongheaded and misleading as to be written by fools and approved by traitors. They do more to hurt America than do the most devoted Russian, Iranian, and Chinese spies. Perhaps The Heritage Foundation should be renamed The Benedict Arnold Foundation. Rodger Malcolm Mitchell Monetary Sovereignty Twitter: @rodgermitchell Search #monetarysovereignty Facebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

……………………………………………………………………..

THE SOLE PURPOSE OF GOVERNMENT IS TO IMPROVE AND PROTECT THE LIVES OF THE PEOPLE.

The most important problems in economics involve:
  1. Monetary Sovereignty describes money creation and destruction.
  2. Gap Psychology describes the common desire to distance oneself from those “below” in any socio-economic ranking, and to come nearer those “above.” The socio-economic distance is referred to as “The Gap.”
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 Monetary Sovereignty and The Ten Steps To Prosperity can grow the economy and 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. 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 the rest.

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

How you will be cheated out of your health care insurance

We begin with these, indisputable facts:

Fantasy Writing Diploma Course - Centre of Excellence
The federal government has the infinite power to create laws, and these laws have the infinite ability to create dollars. The government cannot run short of laws or dollars.

A. Federal laws are created from thin air by the federal government. The government creates any, and as many, laws it wants, so long as those laws are in keeping with the Constitution, which also was created from thin air by the government.

The federal government never unintentionally can run short of laws. It has the infinite ability to create laws.

B. Among the many laws the government created from thin air are the laws that created the U.S. sovereign currency: The U.S. dollar.

Initially, the government’s laws created as many dollars as the government wanted, and gave them the value the government wanted.

This infinite ability to create any number of dollars and to specify their value is known as “Monetary Sovereignty.”

The U.S. government is sovereign over the dollar.

This infinite ability to create dollars does not rely on tax collections. Even if the government collected zero taxes, it could continue creating dollars forever.

The federal government never unintentionally can run short of dollars or laws.

Similarly, the federal government has no need to borrow dollars, and indeed the government does not borrow dollars. It pays all its bills by creating new dollars, ad hoc.

The purpose of federal taxes is not to supply the government with dollars, but rather to control the economy by taxing what the government wishes to discourage, and giving tax breaks to what the government wishes to encourage.

C. Having absolute control over all aspects of the U.S. dollar, the federal government has absolute control over the value of the U.S. dollar, i.e. inflation. The government has the power to change the value of the dollar at will, a power it has exercised many times over the years.

Thus, the federal government has the absolute power to control inflation.


Keeping the above facts in mind, we can review the following article that describes how and why the federal government will cheat you out of your health care insurance.

Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB)
Two Ways to Reduce Prescription Drug Costs
July 26, 2021

High and rising prescription drug costs are contributing to the budgetary pressure faced by the federal government. Also, a significant number of patients face very high out-of-pocket costs.

Interesting choice of words: “budgetary pressure.” The government not only creates infinite dollars from thin air; it also creates infinite budgets from thin air. And it changes those budgets at will.

So, yes, the cost of drugs easily could exceed the budget, but since the government never unintentionally can run short of dollars, there is no financial pressure.

Any budgetary pressure the government may feel is self-inflicted and essentially meaningless. (Visualize Jeff Bezos budgeting $5,000 to buy a TV set, and discovering the TV set costs $5,001. He may feel budgetary pressure, but will not feel financial pressure.)

Our two new briefs focus on options to reduce prescription drug prices. They include:

Medicare Part B could inject price competition into drug classes that have clinically comparable options but wide price variation – blunting the advantage that higher-priced drugs have under the current formula.

Injecting Price Competition into Medicare Part B Drugs

Currently, Medicare Part B, which covers outpatient physician services, pays for physician-administered drugs by reimbursing physicians the average cost for each specific drug plus a 6 percent add-on percentage of that cost. This arrangement creates misaligned incentives that blunt price competition and advantage higher-priced drugs – especially within drug classes that have clinically comparable options but a wide variation in prices.

This policy option looks at implementing “clinically comparable drug pricing,” where Medicare payments for physician-administered drugs would be set at a single price for groups of drugs within the same therapeutic class. That price would be set at the weighted average of prices manufacturers charge for each of the clinically comparable drugs.

This reform should encourage physicians to administer lower cost drugs and manufacturers to lower prices to maintain market share. The policy would reduce Medicare costs and would likely result in savings for Medicare Advantage plans and commercial payers.

The federal government pays its bills by creating dollars ad hoc. Thus, the government legitimately can be said to have infinite dollars. Federal taxes do not fund federal spending. Tax dollars are destroyed upon receipt by the Treasury.

So, there is no economic value to price competition. In fact, each penny the federal government sends into the economy is economically stimulative, at no cost to anyone.

However, the CRFB seems to claim that physicians make more money when physician-administered drugs are priced higher, and this can influence the choice of drugs. I am not sure how prevalent this situation is, but in any event, there is no fair way to prevent it.

The “weighted average” approach can penalize patients by making some of the more effective, costlier-to-produce drugs unavailable.

As a rule, price competition shifts costs from the government to the private sector, which penalizes the economy as a whole, while also penalizing drug research and development.

Over the next decade (2021-2030), implementing “clinically comparable drug pricing” could:

Reduce total (gross) Medicare spending by at least $122 billion in just three drug classes.
That includes $56 billion of savings to fee-for-service Medicare, $37 billion in lower beneficiary premiums and cost sharing, and $29 billion in savings for the Medicare Advantage program.

In more accurate words, implementing “clinically comparable drug pricing” could reduce the federal stimulus to economic growth by $122 billion in just three drug classes, while having no financial benefits for the private sector..

The policy would also generate private sector spillover savings. For example, in the rheumatoid arthritis class of drugs, the policy could reduce commercial drug costs by at least $21 billion.

Actually, there could be zero private sector spillover savings, if the government simply would pay, but the pharmaceutical industry would receive $21 billion less from the government.

Limiting Evergreening for Name-Brand Prescription Drugs
To encourage medical innovation, the FDA grants temporary market exclusivities to new name-brand drugs. These exclusivities prohibit generic drug competitors’ access to the market for a limited period.

However, drug manufacturers are often able to take advantage of the current rules, using “evergreening” strategies to extend their exclusivity periods and either delay generic drug market entry or limit the number of patients who switch to a new generic.

One evergreening tactic manufacturers employ involves introducing a new “line” or version of their drug shortly before a generic competitor is released.

This new line can be granted its own exclusivity period. For example, a manufacturer may introduce an extended-release formulation just before a generic of the original immediate-release formulation enters the market. This can allow a brand manufacturer to maintain market share in the face of generic competition – increasing its profits and increasing payer and patient costs.

New FDA exclusivity rules could lead to meaningful savings for consumers, commercial insurers, and government payers. The policy change could also speed up the market entry of brand extended-release and other reformulations, providing clinical benefits to patients.

Under a comprehensive, no-deductible, Medicare-for-All plan, there would be no cost for consumers, and government payers (who have infinite dollars) need no dollar savings. More stimulus dollars would be pumped into the economy by federal spending.

As for commercial insurers, they probably would go the way of the manufacturers of street corner phone booths, horse-drawn wagons, Betamax, and audio cassettes.  Medicare for All could offer better service at no cost (and no need to ask for permission to have surgery).

Over the next decade (2021-2030), this policy could:

Reduce federal deficits by at least $10 billion.

I.e. reduce federal economic growth and job stimulus by $10 billion

Save Medicare Part D $7 billion in drug costs and Medicare beneficiaries $4 billion in lower premiums and cost sharing.

I.e., reduce federal economic growth stimulus by $7 billion. If Medicare for All were free, as it should be, premiums would be cut hundreds of billions of dollars, and there would be no need for cost-sharing.

Reduce federal and state Medicaid drug spending.

Medicare for all would eliminate the need for federal and state Medicaid drug spending.

Reduce private sector drug costs by $9 billion.

There is no economic need for the private sector to spend anything for drugs.

In Summary:
Incredibly, the CRFB seems to prefer saving money for the infinitely endowed federal government at the expense of the money-deprived.

The CRFB suggestions are based on these myths:

  1. Federal finances are like private finances
  2. The federal government is funded by federal taxes
  3. The federal government can run short of dollars.

In truth, the federal government has infinite dollars available, has no need for tax dollars, and never can run short of its own sovereign currency. It needs to run deficits in order to grow the economy and prevent recessions, and it has absolute control over every aspect of the U.S. dollar including inflation.

Spending by the rich encourages the media, the politicians, and the economists to promulgate these myths. The purpose is to widen the income/wealth/power Gaps between the richer and the poorer, aka Gap Psychology.

Here are the CRFB notables, whose mission in life seems to be to help the rich become richer by widening the Gap between the rich and the rest. They have been quite successful.

 

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty
Twitter: @rodgermitchell
Search #monetarysovereignty
Facebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

……………………………………………………………………..

THE SOLE PURPOSE OF GOVERNMENT IS TO IMPROVE AND PROTECT THE LIVES OF THE PEOPLE.

The most important problems in economics involve:

  1. Monetary Sovereignty describes money creation and destruction.
  2. Gap Psychology describes the common desire to distance oneself from those “below” in any socio-economic ranking, and to come nearer those “above.” The socio-economic distance is referred to as “The Gap.”

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 Monetary Sovereignty and The Ten Steps To Prosperity can grow the economy and 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. 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 the rest.

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

The Medicare for All mystery

I have been with Medicare for twenty years. Four months ago, following a 12-year fight with cancer, my wife spent three weeks in the hospital. The medical bills just for those three weeks exceeded $650,000. My out-of-pocket cost was less than $1,000. Medicare and the supplement paid the rest. Based on my personal experience with Medicare, which has been excellent, I believe all Americans — not just those who are 65+ years old — should be able to avail themselves of this program. Our Monetarily Sovereign government easily could pay for a comprehensive, no-deductible version, that not only would pay for everything but be generous-to-providers so as to attract more people into the healthcare professions. My sense is that this belief is shared by the vast majority of those who already have Medicare. And there surely is a need. Here are excerpts from a health care report that though admittedly is old (2010), I feel quite certain very little has changed:
Among seven nations studied—Australia, Canada, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States—the U.S. ranks last overall, as it did in the 2007, 2006, and 2004. Most troubling, the U.S. fails to achieve better health outcomes than the other countries, and as shown in the earlier editions, the U.S. is last on dimensions of access, patient safety, coordination, efficiency, and equity. The Netherlands ranks first, followed closely by the U.K. and Australia. Quality: The indicators of quality were grouped into four categories: effective care, safe care, coordinated care, and patient-centered care. Compared with the other six countries, the U.S. fares best on provision and receipt of preventive and patient-centered care. However, its low scores on chronic care management and safe, coordinated care pull its overall quality score down. Access: Not surprisingly—given the absence of universal coverage—people in the U.S. go without needed health care because of cost more often than people do in the other countries. There is a frequent misperception that such tradeoffs are inevitable; but patients in the Netherlands and Germany have quick access to specialty services and face little out-of-pocket costs. Efficiency: On indicators of efficiency, the U.S. ranks last among the seven countries,. The U.S. has poor performance on measures of national health expenditures and administrative costs as well as on measures of the use of information technology, rehospitalization, and duplicative medical testing. Equity: The U.S. ranks a clear last on nearly all measures of equity. Americans with below-average incomes were much more likely than their counterparts in other countries to report not visiting a physician when sick, not getting a recommended test, treatment, or follow-up care, not filling a prescription, or not seeing a dentist when needed because of costs. Long, healthy, and productive lives: The U.S. ranks last overall with poor scores on all three indicators of long, healthy, and productive lives.
Clearly, the American private insurance industry has been failing Americans, especially those in the lower half of the income/wealth measure. Before we continue, please remember that of the seven nations compared, five are Monetarily Sovereign and two (Netherlands and Germany) are monetarily non-sovereign. Why is this important? Because the Monetarily Sovereign nations like the U.S. have the unlimited ability to create their own sovereign currency. They never can run short of money. Monetarily non-sovereign nations must rely on taxes to pay for things. Contrary to popular myth, the FICA tax does not pay for Medicare or Social Security. It pays for nothing. Even if our U.S. government were to collect zero taxes, we have the infinite ability to fund healthcare insurance, indefinitely. Though the U.S. government has this ability, it provides less service than do the two monetarily non-sovereign nations that must rely on taxes. Because the U.S. private insurance industry has been unable or unwilling to support Americans, various plans under the label “Medicare for All” have been suggested. Because of Gap Psychology (the desire to distance oneself from those below, on any social measure), the wealthy right-wing opposes such plans, just as it opposes all forms of federal aid to those who are not wealthy. So, in describing a Medicare for All plan, they intentionally reference plans with shortcomings, then falsely declare those shortcomings are a necessary part of all plans. Here is an example:
LFA Member Profile: J.D. Tuccille
J.D. TUCCILLE: Let ’em eat cake.
Medicare for All Is Bad Medicine A better prescription would be to get the government entirely out of health care. J.D. TUCCILLE Opponents of choice in medicine are at it again, promoting Medicare for All with the U.S. government as the single payer and private alternatives outlawed.
“Private alternatives outlawed” is not a necessary feature of all Medicare for All plans. It is not even a necessary feature of today’s Medicare. For no good reason, today’s Medicare doesn’t pay 100%. Rather, there are deductibles, that can be covered by private Medicare Supplement insurance. To my knowledge, the sole purpose of “private alternatives outlawed” is to prevent people from double-dipping, i.e. receiving two payments for the same procedure. But since the U.S. does offer Medicare, and private alternatives do exist, presumably double-dipping is not a true problem.
The push comes as health care systems around the world try to catch their breath from the stress test inflicted by the pandemic—and by normal demand for expensive services. While American medicine has its share of problems, single-payer supporters would take all of the flaws in the system and make them universal and mandatory.
No, single-payer supporters would take all the benefits of Medicare, and make them universal.
H.R.1976, the Medicare for All Act of 2021 makes it “unlawful for … a private health insurer to sell health insurance coverage that duplicates the benefits provided under this Act” or for employers to offer alternative coverage. Providers wouldn’t be forced to participate; the proposed law lets Americans pay non-participating physicians out of pocket for services—subject to regulations. Why would Americans pay for services covered by a hypothetical Medicare for All? To answer that question, look north of the border, where Canada’s single-payer system, commonly called Medicare, struggles to meet patients’ needs. “With COVID-19 fuelling a surge in hospitalizations, the latest data provided by the Ministry of Health shows that as of December 31, 2020, there were 29,650 people on a waiting list for surgery” in Saskatchewan, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) reported earlier this month. The CBC noted similar delays in other provinces. “Specialist physicians surveyed report a median waiting time of 22.6 weeks between referral from a general practitioner and receipt of treatment,” which is the longest wait recorded, according to the free-market Fraser Institute.
The article continues with a litany of examples demonstrating how, under some forms of single-payer insurance, patients must wait a long time for service. This is supposed to make you believe that long waits are a necessary problem with a Medicare for All plan, but not with private insurance. However, any discussion of Medicare only tells you who is paying, the government or the private insurance companies. It says nothing about services from doctors, hospitals, nurses, et al. Given the federal government’s infinite ability to spend, and no need to scrimp for profits, the federal government has far greater power to pay for any level of service. It could make the entire health care industry so financially attractive that the numbers of doctors hospitals and nurses could double or triple. Taken to an extreme, the government even could afford to fund a private doctor for every man, woman, and child in America. OK, no one recommends that, but it merely demonstrates how the government easily can pay — much more easily than private insurance can — for the world’s greatest service. There would be no need for the long waits with which Mr. Tuccille threatens you.
Such waits cost more than money—although they cost plenty of that. “[T]wice as many Ontarians with heart ailments passed away waiting for surgery during the pandemic than before COVID-19 hit,” according to the National Post. To relieve the backlog, Canadian provincial governments, which manage the single-payer system, are turning to private clinics. In Quebec, “without the private sector contracts, a region like Laval would have delayed 76 per cent of surgeries instead of 31 per cent,” the CBC noted in February.
“Private sector contracts”? Without realizing it, the author, J.D. Tuccille just demonstrated that a Monetarily Sovereign government like Canada’s has the unlimited ability to fund good service. “Private sector contracts” are simply an example of single-payer insurance. The government pays for service. It demonstrates that the private insurance sector was unable or unwilling to provide enough coverage, so the government had to step in and pay what the citizenry could not afford to pay.
As the data suggests, though, the public sector in many places had trouble delivering as advertised long before anybody had heard of COVID-19.
No, Mr. Tuccille, the data demonstrate that the private sector could not and did not deliver health care for all. That is exactly what is happening in America.
In Germany, where those making less than €64,350 per year must participate in the government health insurance system which is funded on a quarterly basis, the system runs out of money on a regular basis.
Unlike the U.S., the German government is monetarily non-sovereign. It can, and does, run short of money.
“State health insurance patients are struggling to see their doctors towards the end of every quarter, while privately insured patients get easy access,” Deutsche Welle reported in 2018. “The researchers traced the phenomenon to Germany’s ‘budget’ system, which means that state health insurance companies only reimburse the full cost of certain treatments up to a particular number of patients or a particular monetary value … Once that budget has been exhausted for the quarter, doctors slow down — and sometimes even shut their practices altogether.” The “budget” acts as backdoor rationing, limiting costs by choking off access for publicly insured patients to all but emergency medical care once the magic number is hit. Single-payer advocates often criticize private medicine for being cost-conscious, but government systems put at least as much emphasis on the bottom line as any corporate accountant.
Again, without realizing it, J.D. Tuccille demonstrates why Medicare for All is necessary for America. You and I and the German government are monetarily non-sovereign. We all can run short of dollars. The U.S. government cannot. The U.S. government has no profit motive — no “bottom line” — to emphasize. Sadly, even some Monetarily Sovereign governments are (intentionally??) as ignorant of economics as is Mr. Tuccille. The Libertarians who bleat and moan about the U.S. deficit and debt, seem to have no memory of the fact that despite massive spending for the past 80 years, and numerous tax cuts, the U.S. government never has struggled to pay its bills. It hasn’t run out of dollars. It hasn’t had to bounce any checks. This all relates to the Big Lie in economics that says: “Federal taxes fund federal spending.” It simply is not true. Federal spending always has been funded the same way: The government passes laws from thin air, and these laws provide for dollars being created from thin air. There is no limit on the laws the government can pass, thus there is no limit on the dollars the government can create.
That’s especially obvious in the United Kingdom, where the National Health Service has a cult-like status. During the pandemic, this took the form of a “Stay Home. Protect the NHS. Save Lives.” campaign. “The NHS is under severe strain and we must take action to protect it, both so our doctors and nurses can continue to save lives and so they can vaccinate as many people as possible as quickly as we can,” Prime Minister Boris Johnson scolded the public.
Utter nonsense. Boris Johnson either doesn’t know what he’s talking about, or more likely, he is conning the British public. England, being Monetarily Sovereign, never unintentionally can run short of British pounds. Never.
The campaign worked. Even people with medical concerns stayed home, resulting in a drop in doctor visits and a 90 percent plunge in hospital admissions.
Truly sad that sick people are being lied to by their elected leaders. One might say, it’s sickening. And now comes the overt statement of the Big Lie:
It’s difficult to imagine Americans venerating government bureaucracy (although feelings about Social Security come disturbingly close).
American’s love Social Security because it provides something they otherwise could not afford to obtain on the private market: Financial support in their old age.
But it’s impossible to pretend that Medicare for All could escape the concerns that plague all tax-paid medicine.
Again, the Big Lie. Medicare is not “tax-paid medicine.” It is government-paid medicine.
“A doubling of all currently projected federal individual and corporate income tax collections would be insufficient to finance the added federal costs of the plan,” the Mercatus Center’s Charles Blahous pointed out about an earlier Medicare for All proposal.
WRONG! WONG! WRONG! FEDERAL TAXES DO NOT FUND FEDERAL SPENDING. PERIOD.
Health care in the United States requires reform, without doubt. But rather than emulate the heavy state involvement that evokes headaches elsewhere in the world, a better prescription would be to get government entirely out of medicine and encourage more competition and choice.
What a pitiful close to a pitiful article. Mr. Tuccille wants your healthcare to rely on the profit motive of American business. Mr. Tuccille blithely omits the central issue: The unaffordability of healthcare for millions of Americans. If you are not rich, and you do not have a job that pays for your healthcare, you better not get sick. You either will suffer physically and die early from lack of care and/or suffer financially from trying to pay for your care. I am retired. I am not poor by any measure, but my wife’s $650,000+ medical bills in January, plus those huge bills we received for all previous12 years of her cancer, would have been financially painful. As you contemplate Mr. Tuccille’s (and the entire conservative wing’s) thoughtless comments, ask yourself: “What would I do about a $650,000+ hospital bill. And what would my private insurer do about it?” The federal government not only could afford to pay that bill, but it even could afford to pay a $6 million, or $60 million bill, and never blink an eye. Could your private insurance company afford that? If you lost your job, would you even be able to find a private carrier who would accept you? Let us all pray for Mr. Tuccille’s continuing financial ability to afford his private insurance so he can close his eyes to those less affluent than him, and continue his “Let ’em eat cake” articles. Rodger Malcolm Mitchell Monetary Sovereignty Twitter: @rodgermitchell Search #monetarysovereignty Facebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

THE SOLE PURPOSE OF GOVERNMENT IS TO IMPROVE AND PROTECT THE LIVES OF THE PEOPLE.

The most important problems in economics involve:
  1. Monetary Sovereignty describes money creation and destruction.
  2. Gap Psychology describes the common desire to distance oneself from those “below” in any socio-economic ranking, and to come nearer those “above.” The socio-economic distance is referred to as “The Gap.”
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 Monetary Sovereignty and The Ten Steps To Prosperity can grow the economy and 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. 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 the rest.

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY