if it’s easy, make it difficult. If it’s difficult, make it Obamacare.

Twitter: @rodgermitchell; Search #monetarysovereignty
Facebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

Mitchell’s laws:
●The more federal budgets are cut and taxes increased, the weaker an economy becomes.
●Austerity is the government’s method for widening the gap between rich and poor, which ultimately leads to civil disorder.
●Until the 99% understand the need for federal deficits, the upper 1% will rule.
●To survive long term, a monetarily non-sovereign government must have a positive balance of payments.
●Those, who do not understand the differences between Monetary Sovereignty and monetary non-sovereignty, do not understand economics.
●The penalty for ignorance is slavery.
●Everything in economics devolves to motive.
======================================================================================================================================================================================

For those over 65, health care coverage is relatively easy. Basic Medicare contains Parts A and B. In general, Part A covers hospital care and Part B covers doctor care. The government provides a good information site at Medicare

Most doctors and hospitals accept Medicare (though lately, some doctors have opted out.) It covers most medical problems and is effortless. The doctor and the hospital submit all the bills. The bills are paid, and you pay what Medicare doesn’t pay — often about 20%.

If you want more complete coverage, the government makes things more difficult. You must select and buy a Medicare supplement (“Medigap”) policy, of which there are many choices.

To help you select the best Medigap policy, the government operates an excellent site at Medigap. Go there and experiment with it.

I have a Medicap policy. I seldom receive a payable bill (just confirmations of payments made). In our family, we have had several operations costing many, many thousands of dollars. Medicare + Medigap has covered almost everything.

If additionally, you want drug cost coverage (Medicare, Part D), the government makes things even more difficult, though still intelligible. You must find and buy yet another policy. Again, you must spend extra, and the coverage has gaps, but in the past two years, my Walgreens’ prescription bills have been $0.

If you’re not eligible for Medicare, and you don’t have coverage through your employer, things get dicey. The government’s official site is at “How does the healthcare law protect me?” Check it out.

Although this site is a serious attempt to take you step-by-step through the Affordable Care Act, there are so many “if — thens,” the total of variables is exceeded in complexity only by quantum chromodynamics.

And it still could cost you a bundle (depending on where you live, what illnesses you have, how many children you support, whether or not you’re married, how much you earn, and the number of grains of sand on your local beach). The easy is made difficult; the difficult is made impossible; and coverage still isn’t complete or affordable for everyone.

Back in 2000, the World Health Organization (WHO) ranked the United States health care system 37th out of 191 nations. Things have changed since then, and one can argue forever about the criteria for the “best” and “worst” systems, but clearly, the United States has not had the world’s best health care, as so many of us wrongly believe. Not even close. And it’s our own fault.

The government could make U.S. health care easy, complete and superior. Simply combine Parts A, B and D into one policy, include long term care, cover every man, woman and child in America and call it “Medicare for All.”

Additionally, the government could provide us with the best doctors by paying for college educations. This would help assure that personal finances do not prevent potentially talented doctors from entering the medical profession.

Why doesn’t the government simply pay for health care and give us the greatest possible system? After all, what is the purpose of government if not to provide for the well-being of its citizens? And what is the reality of being the greatest nation on earth, if we have a substandard health system?

The reason for our health care failures is “The BIG LIE” — the false claim that the government is deeply in debt and cannot afford to pay for our health care. It is a lie, because the government, being Monetarily Sovereign, can afford to pay for anything. And no, this would not cause inflation.

So why doesn’t the government provide health care insurance for every man, woman and child in America? Because the government is bribed to widen the gap between the rich and the rest.

The rich already have superior health care. But what makes them rich is the ability to buy what others cannot have. If everyone could afford the same house, the same car, the same services, the same education and the same health care, no one would be rich.

To the rich, the single most important goal is to widen the gap. Part of widening the gap involves buying the health care the rest of us cannot afford, while forcing the rest of us into poverty trying to buy health care.

Everything in economics devolves to motive. And the single, most powerful motive is the gap.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty

====================================================================================================================================================
Nine Steps to Prosperity:
1. Eliminate FICA (Click here)
2. Medicare — parts A, B & D plus long term nursing care — for everyone (Click here)
3. Send every American citizen an annual check for $5,000 or give every state $5,000 per capita (Click here)
4. Free education (including post-grad) for everyone. Click here
5. Salary for attending school (Click here)
6. Eliminate corporate taxes (Click here)
7. Increase the standard income tax deduction annually
8. Increase federal spending on the myriad initiatives that benefit America’s 99% (Click here)
9. Federal ownership of all banks (Click here)

10 Steps to Economic Misery: (Click here:)
1. Maintain or increase the FICA tax..
2. Spread the myth Social Security, Medicare and the U.S. government are insolvent.
3. Cut federal employment in the military, post office, other federal agencies.
4. Broaden the income tax base so more lower income people will pay.
5. Cut financial assistance to the states.
6. Spread the myth federal taxes pay for federal spending.
7. Allow banks to trade for their own accounts; save them when their investments go sour.
8. Never prosecute any banker for criminal activity.
9. Nominate arch conservatives to the Supreme Court.
10. Reduce the federal deficit and debt

No nation can tax itself into prosperity, nor grow without money growth. Monetary Sovereignty: Cutting federal deficits to grow the economy is like applying leeches to cure anemia.
Two key equations in economics:
1. Federal Deficits – Net Imports = Net Private Savings
2. Gross Domestic Product = Federal Spending + Private Investment and Consumption – Net Imports

THE RECESSION CLOCK

As the lines drop, we approach recession, which will be cured only when the lines rise.

#MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

–Ted Cruz’s alternative to Obamacare

Twitter: @rodgermitchell; Search #monetarysovereignty
Facebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

At last, a right-wing alternative to Obamacare.

Let’s begin with fundamentals: Why is the federal government involved in health care insurance? Why do we have Medicare? Why do we have Medicaid? Why do we have Obamacare?

Answers:

1. Health care is vital to America’s survival and growth as a leader in the 21st century.
2. The costs of even ordinary health care are beyond affordability for most Americans.
3. The costs of extreme sicknesses would bankrupt most Americans.

Only because Obamacare is a product of Democrats, Republicans have gone all in to eliminate Romneycare — (oops!) — I mean eliminate Obamacare.

So angry are they at Romneycare, i.e. Obamacare, that they want to shut down the entire U.S. government if they don’t get their way. In short, to protect Americans, Republicans threaten to destroy America.

The costs of health care insurance are unaffordable for the vast majority of families. So, what is Republican Senator Ted Cruz’s solution? Make people pay for their own health care insurance. Understand?

Washington Times
Ted Cruz doubles down on threat to defund Obamacare, proposes alternatives
By Tom Howell, Jr., Sunday, August 25, 2013

He said that Americans should be allowed to build up health savings accounts in a tax-advantaged way, that health coverage should be “personal and portable” and divorced from employment and that consumers should be allowed to purchase health insurance across state lines instead of isolating policy options within individual states.

Let’s examine the genius of these suggestions:

1. Build up health savings accounts in a tax-advantaged way: The poorest among us, i.e. those in most need of government funded health care insurance, don’t pay much or anything in federal taxes.

And even a “tax-advantaged” plan would be unaffordable to those just scraping by, financially, although the rich would love such a program.

Finally, because the Republicans are dead set against any increases in federal deficit spending, whom do they suggest should pay for the “tax advantaged” plan? Certainly not the rich.

2. “Health coverage should be ‘personal and portable’ and divorced from employment:“ Divorcing health insurance coverage from employment is a good idea except, how does that solve the unaffordability problem for the middle- and lower-income groups?

All it means it that businesses no long would have to pay for health care insurance.

3. “Consumers should be allowed to purchase health insurance across state lines:“ In Sen. Cruz’s imagination, this would increase competition, and thus, reduce insurance premiums.

Essentially, it also would eliminate effective regulation of the insurance industry, since it would be physically impossible for any state regulator to examine every policy from every state.

It also would be impossible for any consumer to evaluate thousands of insurance companies. Because the right-wingers oppose regulation, this would be a boon to every crooked insurance seller, and so be a boon to rich crooks. And that is the point, isn’t it?

And, I dare you to try making a claim for damages or benefits from an Alaskan company, when you live in Florida. But of course, that also is the point. Rich insurance executives don’t like claims.

Bottom line: The right-wing “solutions” benefit the rich, screw the middle and widen the wealth gap.

Did you think it could be any other way?

Not that Obamacare (Romneycare) is so wonderful. It isn’t. In fact it’s terrible. It’s a complex, convoluted mess, that will make lawyers rich and sick people confused.

But on balance, it is a tiny step forward for America, as it provides more coverage to many people who now don’t have coverage.

What would be a big step forward? Medicare for every man, woman and child in America.

Medicare works. Americans on Medicare like it. It’s simple enough to understand and it’s a Godsend for the middle- and lower-income groups

We know how to do it. We have almost 50 years experience implementing the program.

And the federal government can afford it.

Yes, Obamacare (Romneycare) is a lousy plan. Way too complex, and filled with exceptions, making it universally unfair. But it’s far, far superior to the right-wing’s “reward-the-rich, screw-everyone-else” proposals.

In a sense Obamacare reflects our democratic from of government — really bad, but still better than other forms of government.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty

As the lines drop, we approach recession, which will be cured only when the lines rise.

#MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

–What of the children? The death of a nation.

Twitter: @rodgermitchell; Search #monetarysovereignty
Facebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

In the previous post, Fairness, competition and why we despise the poor, we described how and why, “The rich have bribed the politicians and the media, to dehumanize, and to make us despise, the poor.”

(The motive has been to widen the gap between the rich and the rest. If there were no gap, no one would be rich, and the wider the gap, the richer they are. The gap is what makes them rich.)

The post rejected the right-wing’s gospel that the poor, being lazy, prefer to receive federal benefits than to work, and that the providing of federal benefits encourages sloth.

By brainwashing us to despise the poor, the rich make us do their dirty work in widening the gap.

The post didn’t discuss the children. Can any reasonable person say that children born into poverty are born lazy? Can any reasonable person say they genetically are destined to prefer handouts to labor?

Surely not. So what of the poor children?

The Guardian
Child poverty in Britain is causing ‘social apartheid’
Report from leading British charity blames ‘failure of political will’ as it finds poor children have fewer life chances
Jamie Doward and Taytula Burke, The Observer, Saturday 24 August 2013

In a damning report, the National Children’s Bureau finds that in Britain:

■ A child from a disadvantaged background is far less likely to achieve a good level of development at four than a child from a more privileged home.

■ Children living in deprived areas are much more likely to be the victim of an unintentional injury or accident in the home.

■ Children from the poorest areas are nine times less likely than those living in affluent areas to have access to green space, places to play and to live in environments with better air quality.

■ Boys living in deprived areas are three times more likely to be obese than boys growing up in affluent areas, and girls are twice as likely.

Certainly, the situation is no different in America. Lower development, more injury, poorer environment, poorer health — that is what widening the gap causes. That is the legacy the rich bequeath to children of the poor.

The future of America is our children. When we depress a large number of our children, we depress America’s future.

“There is a real risk that our society is sleepwalking into a world where children grow up in a state of social apartheid, with poor children destined to experience hardship and disadvantage just by accident of birth, and their more affluent peers unaware of their existence.”

Apartheid hurt South Africa. The caste system kept India poor. The nations allowing the worst cruelty to women or to minorities, have the lowest standards of living.

Historically, those nations in which a larger segment of the population is mistreated, provide meaner lives to their citizens.

As in Britain, many of America’s poor children suffer, not because they are lazy or prefer to live on the dole. They suffer because we have been brainwashed to despise them.

These poor children will not fulfill their potential. They will not use their brains to help America grow. We, as a nation, will lose what they could have given us — and we never will know what we have lost.

No one knows how great India might have become, had millions of inherently brilliant children not been relegated by the caste system to uselessness. No one knows how great Muslim nations could have become, had they allowed brilliant women to contribute.

Today, in America, we prevent millions of our bright children from contributing to our success as a nation. Why? To widen the gap and to do the dirty work of the rich.

Toward the bottom of this post, and all recent posts, you’ll see the “Nine Steps to Prosperity.” Each step not only would benefit the middle- and lower-income groups, but more importantly, would benefit our children and the future of America.

As inequality grows, America is diminished.

We Americans all ride in the same boat. The more who row, the better off we all will be. Yet we take the oars from willing and able hands, then criticize them for riding free.

To save America — to give our own children better futures — we must help our poor children.

America cannot grow without them.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty

As the lines drop, we approach recession, which will be cured only when the lines rise.

#MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

–Fairness, competition and why we despise the poor

Twitter: @rodgermitchell; Search #monetarysovereignty
Facebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

The August 2012 issue of Nature Magazine contained an article that partly bears on the subjects of fairness, competition and why we despise the poor. Here are a few excerpts:

Human responses to unfairness with primary rewards and their biological limits
Nicholas D. Wright, Karen Hodgson, Stephen M. Fleming, Mkael Symmonds, Marc Guitart-Masip & Raymond J. Dolan

In humans fairness has been studied extensively using games played for money. In the Ultimatum Game (UG) one player (the Proposer) is given an endowment (e.g. £10) and proposes a division (e.g. keep £6/offer £4) to a second player (the Responder), who then accepts (both get the proposed split) or rejects (both get nothing) the offer.

Conclusion: In the UG, humans typically reject low, “unfair” offers — even at a cost to themselves. Offers below 20% are rejected about half the time.

I believe the conclusion is flawed, because it generalizes without considering specific examples. Imagine the following examples:

1. You stand in line at a restaurant. Fifteen people are ahead of you and the maitre de has told you you’ll be seated in half an hour. A stranger butts into the line ahead of you. You’re angry. Perhaps an argument ensues. Possibly even a fight. Why?

2. You stand in that same line. A stranger butts into the line behind you. Are you angry? Probably not. Why not?

3. You stand in that same line. A dear friend comes up to you, and you gladly let him precede you, while the people behind you are irate. You aren’t angry at the friend, but may be angry at the people behind you, who are angry. Why?

4. You stand in that same line. A politician walks to the front and immediately is seated. Are you angry? Why?

The list can go on and on, with circumstances altering how you feel. Why the differences? Fairness? Perhaps, yet the butt-in was as unfair behind you as ahead of you.

Competition? Perhaps. The butt-in allowed someone to get ahead of you — to “beat” you. Yet, that “beating” cost you only two minutes — not enough to cause any strong sense of emotion you may feel. And you actually invited a butt-in by a friend.

So, what is going on here?

Recently, I had a long conversation with a dear friend. For many years, she has worked in human resources departments of major corporations. She feels that the many forms of federal financial support for the poor lead to sloth.

She said that based on her experience, a large (but unknown) percentage of the people who get fired actually want to be fired, so they can get poverty benefits without having to work.

In her view, a great many people are malingerers, who readily take unfair advantage of the system. She is angry at those people. She feels that if the social safety nets were removed, or at least reduced, more people would be willing to work — even at unpleasant jobs and for low wages.

My dear friend is a decent human being, who unfortunately has bought into the myth perpetrated by the rich, that in essence, the bad traits of poor people cause their misfortune.

Why does she feel that way, and how did the rich manage to brainwash the middle- and lower-income groups into hatred, which even includes self-hatred?

In above examples #1, #2 and #3, the key is stranger vs. friend and in front of you vs. behind you. We are social, tribal animals.

Evolution has programmed us to fight an outsider who beats us in any competition, but to support members of the tribe, and especially support those closest to us — family members, for instance.

Example #4 gives an example of a leader receiving preferential treatment. As a tribal animal, we are programmed to follow leaders, but we still may be angered, depending on how we feel about the leader’s importance, or about the leader as a person.

A Chicagoan may be far more angry at an alderman jumping the line than at the President of the United States receiving preferential treatment.

Putting everything together, this is my conclusion: The rich have bribed the politicians and the media, to dehumanize, and make us despise, the poor.

Consider the lead stories on last night’s 10 o’clock news: Crime and murder, especially in poorer neighborhoods. Night after night after night.

We have been brainwashed by incessant news stories of lawlessnes by poor people, to accept the notion that poor people inherently are evil. Even poor people feel that way about other poor people.

Idaho Statesman
Does Idaho welfare really keep adults from working?
By Audrey Dutton

The Cato Institute argued that six of Idaho’s welfare programs, including federal programs the state administers, are keeping Idahoans out of the workforce.

The libertarian think tank placed a value of more than $17,000 on welfare benefits for a single mother with two children. Cato put that on par with a job that pays about $11,000, supplemented by tax credits.

The organization — an opponent of taxpayer-funded welfare — said Idaho and federal lawmakers should cut benefits or better enforce work requirements.

The Cato Institute did not answer questions from the Statesman about whether its analysis considered welfare recipients’ ability to work.

We won’t discuss the merits of an $11,000 job (one step above slavery), nor will we respond to glib comments that a lousy job is better than no job at all. (It isn’t.)

The Cato Institute is paid by the rich to draw an ugly picture of impoverished people, a picture that through relentless repetition, has become “truth.”

Being evil, poor people are ascribed with all manner of bad traits. In addition to being criminals, they are thought to be immoral, lazy, cheating, lying, stupid (though crafty), filthy and satisfied to live in poverty, so long as work is not required.

Whatever bad happens to poor persons is thought to be a well-deserved result of their own actions or inactions. And worse, doing something beneficial for poor people is felt to perpetuate their nefarious actions.

So, when the right-wing incessantly talks about “small governement” (their euphemism for cutting food stamps, Aid to Dependent Children, free school meals, housing assistance and above all, free medical care, aka Obamacare and even retirement, i.e. Social Security), the middle- and lower-income groups nod dumbly in assent.

America has been brainwashed into despising the poor, and we are all-too-ready to cut any benefits to those worthless non-humans, especially since, as the Cato institute wrongly claims, these benefits are funded by us taxpayers.

And that is the other part of the story — the competition part. Not only do we need someone to live below us (so we can win the competition), but we resent a stranger surviving by using our assets.

The false belief that federal benefits are paid for by federal taxes, has been fostered by the rich, who own the media and who bribe the politicians. (Note to all: Federal taxes do not pay for federal spending.)

And why do the rich do this? You know the answer: To widen the gap between the rich and the rest. It is the fundamental, all-consuming motivation of the rich. It is why a billionaire might keep working.

In summary, we are being, and have been, brainwashed to despise the poor. This belief gives us permission to accept social benefits being cut. And then, it is but a small step toward believing our own benefits should be cut.

The rich have convinced us to be complicit in our own misfortune.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty

As the lines drop, we approach recession, which will be cured only when the lines rise.

#MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: