An excellent idea, soon to be ruined Monday, Jun 24 2019 

“In a generation hard hit by the Wall Street crash of 2008, the government forgives all student debt and ends the absurdity of sentencing an entire generation to a lifetime of debt for the ‘crime’ of getting a college education,”
Sen. Bernie Sanders

I could not agree more. Education is our prime device for creating America’s economic growth and leadership.

The notion of making education difficult to obtain, while punishing those who get an education, either is madness or stupidity — both, really.

Two of The Ten Steps to Prosperity — Step 4: Free education for everyone, and Step 5: Salary for attending school (see below) address the issue.

Image result for bernanke and greenspan

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

Ben Bernanke: “The U.S. government has a technology, called a printing press (or, today, its electronic equivalent), that allows it to produce as many U.S. dollars as it wishes at essentially no cost.”

Alan Greenspan: “Central banks can issue currency, a non-interest-bearing claim on the government, effectively without limit. A government cannot become insolvent with respect to obligations in its own currency.”

St. Louis Federal Reserve: “As the sole manufacturer of dollars, whose debt is denominated in dollars, the U.S. government can never become insolvent, i.e.,unable to pay its bills. In this sense, the government is not dependent on credit markets to remain operational. 

Sadly, the following two articles tell why the madness and stupidity will not easily be solved.

Sanders, Progressives Unveil Bill To Cancel Student Debt
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS — BY LAURIE KELLMAN AND ELANA SCHOR

WASHINGTON (AP) — Days before the first Democratic presidential debates, Sen. Bernie Sanders and House progressives are unveiling legislation cancelling all student debt, going further than a signature proposal by Sen. Elizabeth Warren as the two jockey for support from the party’s liberal base.

Excellent idea. We absolutely should cancel student debt. We should take the millstones from the necks of our future social, economic and political leaders. See: Student debt, the intentional crisis.

By canceling all student loans, Sanders says the proposal addresses an economic burden for 45 million Americans.

The key difference is that Warren’s plan considers the income of the borrowers, canceling $50,000 in debt for those earning less than $100,000 per year and affecting an estimated 42 million people in the U.S.

There is no economic reason to consider the income of borrowers. Warren’s plan is based on the false idea that federal spending is financially limited and is paid for by taxpayers.

I’m sure Warren knows that the federal government has the unlimited ability to spend, and that federal taxpayers do not fund federal spending. (The federal government, being Monetarily Sovereign, does not use tax dollars.

Instead, each time it pays an invoice, it creates new dollars, ad hoc.)

Sadly, Warren seems to lack the courage to tell voters the truth.

Questions face both candidates about how to pay for all of that plus their proposals for free tuition at public colleges and universities.

Sanders’ effort at one-upsmanship on student loans, named the College For All Act, would cancel $1.6 trillion of debt and save the average borrower about $3,000 a year, according to materials obtained by The Associated Press.

The result would be a stimulus that allows millennials in particular to invest in homes and cars that they wouldn’t otherwise be able to afford.

Yes, not only would the elimination of student loans benefit students, but the additional dollars in the economy would grow the economy.

But here is where the excellent idea goes sour:

It would cost $2.2 billion and be paid for — and then some — by a series of taxes on such things as stock trades, bonds and derivatives, according to the proposal.

Absolutely wrong. Unlike state and local taxes, federal taxes do not pay for anything. In fact, they are destroyed the instant they reach the U.S. Treasury.

Thus, Warren guarantees her plan will be rejected by the rich (who actually run America):

Warren’s plan, which she has suggested in published reports will be introduced as legislation, would be paid for by imposing a 2% fee on fortunes greater than $50 million, a wealth tax designed to target the nation’s top 0.1% of households.

Not only will this idea be dead on arrival at the U.S. Senate, but it also will prove to be uncollectable. The rich always find ways to duck taxes.

Warren projects the levy would raise $2.75 trillion over 10 years, enough to pay for a universal child-care plan, free tuition at public colleges and universities, and student loan debt forgiveness for an estimated 42 million Americans — with revenue left over.

Even if the economy operated the way Warren seems to think, she is proposing that the federal government take $2.75 trillion from the economy, and because there would be “revenue left over,” return less than $2.75 trillion to the economy — a net loss for the economy.

But if the free college and student debt relief advocates don’t hit their revenue goals, they could simply add to the deficit — as President Donald Trump and congressional Republicans have by passing more than $1 trillion in tax cuts without paying for them.

Exactly right. And just like the tax cuts and everything else that takes dollars from the federal government and gives them to the private sector, the student debt relief would stimulate the economy.

Here’s one more example of economic ignorance, ironically titled, “Bernie Sanders doesn’t have a clue about Economics 101 (and that’s scary)”
By Andy Puzder | Fox News

The Mercatus Center, a think tank at George Mason University, “conservatively” found that Sanders’ “Medicare-for-All” would cost taxpayers $32.6 trillion over a 10 year period, or an average of about $3.26 trillion per year after associated cost saving.

The question is where would Sanders find the additional $3.26 trillion in revenue to cover these costs?

Mercatus found that “doubling of all currently projected federal individual and corporate income tax collections would be insufficient to finance the added federal costs of the plan.”

That makes sense as the federal government’s total revenue  from all sources for fiscal year 2018 was $3.3 trillion, or about the $3.26 trillion annual cost of Sanders’ proposed healthcare plan.

If the plan had been proposed for a city government, a county government, or a state government, the above would be correct. Those governments are monetarily non-sovereign. They do need to use tax dollars for spending.

But the federal government’s finances are unique — nothing at all like state and local government finances. The Monetarily Sovereign federal government has the unlimited ability to create its own sovereign currency, the U.S. dollar.

The federal government never can run short of dollars.  Even if all federal tax collections were $0, the federal government could continue spending, forever.

Puzdner’s  article ends with this ignorant nonsense:

Should we ever enact Sanders’ economic policies we would end up with higher taxes — on everyone — declining growth, fewer jobs, vastly more borrowing and massive underfunded programs(some new, some old) unable to meet the expectations of everyone who wants to take advantage of them — because their costs will grossly exceed our revenue.

All of which will last until, as Margaret Thatcher once said, the government “runs out of other peoples’ money.”

Absolute tripe. Our Monetarily Sovereign government can go on forever with “costs that grossly exceed revenue,” simply because the U.S. federal government has no use for revenue.

I pray for the day when the populace finally learns the differences between Monetary Sovereignty and monetary non-sovereignty. Then, the politicians, magazine writers, and economists will claim in Trumpian fashion, “Hey, we knew it all the time.”

Meanwhile, the elimination of student debt is an excellent idea, soon to be ruined.

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

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

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

Wide Gaps negatively affect poverty, health and longevity, education, housing, law and crime, war, leadership, ownership, bigotry, supply and demand, taxation, GDP, international relations, scientific advancement, the environment, human motivation and well-being, and virtually every other issue in economics.

Implementation of The Ten Steps To Prosperity can narrow the Gaps:

Ten Steps To Prosperity:

1. Eliminate FICA

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

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

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

5. Salary for attending school

6. Eliminate federal taxes on business

7. Increase the standard income tax deduction, annually. 

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

9. Federal ownership of all banks

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

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

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

 

The words of (History can’t teach me anything) Peter Suderman Tuesday, Jun 18 2019 

Anytime I encounter the irresistible urge simultaneously to feel superior to someone’s else’s ignorance, while shaking my head in wonderment (Yes, that’s a real thing; you should experience it, sometime) I read an article by Peter Suderman.

Image result for peter suderman

— I don’t care about facts. I don’t care about history. I know what I know.

According to his site: Peter Suderman is features editor at Reason. He writes regularly on health care, the federal budget, tech policy, and pop culture.

Before joining Reason, Suderman worked as a writer and editor at National Review, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, FreedomWorks, Doublethink, and Culture11.

His writing has appeared in The New York Times, Slate, The Wall Street Journal, Vox, Politico, The New York Post, Newsweek, The Washington Examiner, and numerous other publications.

He lives in Washington, D.C.

His latest demonstration of his inability to learn from facts and history is titled, “Deficit Politics May Have Gone Away, but Debt and Deficits Are Worse Than Ever”

This is how his article opens:

“For most of the Obama era, the federal deficit—and, by extension, the debt—was a crisis.

“This was a bipartisan belief, held, or at least paid respectful lip service, by the Tea Party radicals and top administration aides as well as by President Obama himself.

“Hence the battles over the debt limit; the imposition of sequestration cuts that, fully implemented, were intended to reduce spending by more than $1 trillion over a decade; the concurrent increase in tax rates on high earners; the creation of the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, better known as the Supercommittee; and the Simpson-Bowles debt-reduction proposal to which it led.”

Nevermind that the “Great Recession” was cured by massive deficit spending. And never mind that the past 10 years of economic growth have been marked by 10 years of increasing federal debt.

And never mind that every depression in U.S. history has coincided with federal debt reduction (Look it up, here.)

Hey, why let facts get in the way of intuition swayed by profound ignorance?

I won’t go through all the nonsense of his wholly laughable, but overly long, treatise. Rather, I will take you to its ending:

“Sustaining this casual attitude toward fiscal looseness thus requires believing that there is essentially no limit, no meaningful upper bound, to the amount of debt that the federal budget can sustain, an idea that even many of today’s more sophisticated debt-doesn’t-matter boosters don’t subscribe to.

“Alternatively, it requires a high degree of confidence that our nation’s political class will more or less responsibly take our national ledger right up to the brink but no further, finding the precise last moment in which to exercise fiscal restrain.

“If you believe this, I would gently suggest you acquaint yourself with some politicians.

“Otherwise, you have to worry, at least a little, that today’s trajectory is toward crisis, if not now, if not at current debt levels, then at some future date we’ll only discover when it’s too late to prevent, when the consequences can’t be avoided.

“And that worry should be increased a little more by the possibility that today’s free-lunchism is not only increasing the likelihood of an eventual crisis, but making it harder to solve, if and when it does arrive, by seeding amongst voters the idea that hard choices won’t ever be necessary.

“It is making the already challenging project of achieving public consensus harder still.

“So yes, the predicted crisis may not have arrived quite yet. It may even hold off for a while longer.”

“But the nature of politics means it draws ever closer, and ignoring the issue, as we are now, only makes it worse.”

Hmm . . . did his repetition of the words, “crisis,”trajectory is toward crisis,” “an eventual crisis,” and  “the predicted crisis ” remind you of the famous words, “ticking time bomb”?

Here’s a reminder from,“It is 2019, and the phony federal debt “time bomb” still is ticking.”

Back in 1940, the federal budget was a “ticking time-bomb which can eventually destroy the American system,” said Robert M. Hanes, president of the American Bankers Association.

By 1960: the debt was “threatening the country’s fiscal future,” said Secretary of Commerce, Frederick H. Mueller.

By 1983: “The debt probably will explode in the third quarter of 1984,” said Fred Napolitano, former president of the National Association of Home Builders.

In 1984: AFL-CIO President Lane Kirkland said. “It’s a time bomb ticking away.”

In 1985: “The federal deficit is ‘a ticking time bomb, and it’s about to blow up,” U.S. Sen. Mitch McConnell. (Remember him?)

Later in 1985: Los Angeles Times: “We labeled the deficit a ‘ticking time bomb’ that threatens to permanently undermine the strength and vitality of the American economy.”

In 1987: Richmond Times–Dispatch – Richmond, VA: “100TH CONGRESS FACING U.S. DEFICIT ‘TIME BOMB’”

Later in 1987: The Dallas Morning News: “A fiscal time bomb is slowly ticking that, if not defused, could explode into a financial crisis within the next few years for the federal government.”

In 1989: FORTUNE Magazine: “A TIME BOMB FOR U.S. TAXPAYERS

In 1992: The Pantagraph – Bloomington, Illinois: “I have seen where politicians in Washington have expressed little or no concern about this ticking time bomb they have helped to create, that being the enormous federal budget deficit, approaching $4 trillion.

Later in 1992: Ross Perot: “Our great nation is sitting right on top of a ticking time bomb. We have a national debt of $4 trillion.”

In 1995: Kansas City Star: “Concerned citizens. . . regard the national debt as a ticking time bomb poised to explode with devastating consequences at some future date.”

In 2003: Porter Stansberry, for the Daily Reckoning: “Generation debt is a ticking time bomb . . . with about ten years left on the clock.”

In 2004: Bradenton Herald: “A NATION AT RISK: TWIN DEFICIT A TICKING TIME BOMB

In 2005: Providence Journal: “Some lawmakers see the Medicare drug benefit for what it is: a ticking time bomb.”

In 2006: NewsMax.com, “We have to worry about the deficit . . . when we combine it with the trade deficit we have a real ticking time bomb in our economy,” said Mrs. Clinton.

In 2007: USA Today: “Like a ticking time bomb, the national debt is an explosion waiting to happen.

In 2010: Reason Alert: “. . . the time bomb that’s ticking under the federal budget like a Guy Fawkes’ powder keg.”

In 2011: Washington Post, Lori Montgomery: ” . . . defuse the biggest budgetary time bombs that are set to explode.”

In 2014: CBN News: “The United States of Debt: A Ticking Time Bomb

*On Jun 18, 2015: The ticking economic time bomb that presidential candidates are ignoring: Fortune Magazine, Shawn Tully,

*On February 10, 2016, The Daily Bell“Obama’s $4.1 Trillion Budget Is Latest Sign of America’s Looming Collapse”

*On January 23, 2017: Trump’s ‘Debt Bomb’: Deficit May Grow, Defense Budget May Not, By Sydney J. Freedberg, Jr.

*On April 28, 2017: Debt in the U.S. Fuel for Growth or Ticking Time Bomb?, American Institute for Economic Research, by Max Gulker, PhD – Senior Research Fellow, Theodore Cangeros

Feb. 16, 2018  America’s Debt Bomb By Andrew Soergel, Senior Reporter: Conservatives and deficit hawks are hurling criticism at Washington for deepening America’s debt hole.

On April 18, 2018 By Alan Greenspan and John R. Kasich: “Time is running short, and America’s debt time bomb continues to tick.”

On January 10, 2019, Unfunded Govt. Liabilities — Our Ticking Time Bomb. By Myra Adams, Tick, tick, tick goes the time bomb of national doom.

On January 18, 2019; 2019 Is Gold’s Year To Shine (And The Ticking US Debt Time-Bomb) By Gavin Wendt

Keep in mind that the phony “time bomb” began to “tick” at least as far back as 1940, when the total debt was $40 Billion. Today, 80 years later, it has risen 52,500% (!) to $21 Trillion, and still the bomb ticks.

In eerily Trumpian fashion, Suderman doesn’t seem embarrassed by being wrong, wrong, wrong, over and over and over again.

Like Trump, he just knows in his gut that he is right, and let the facts be damned.

Well, at least it gives me the wonderful chance again to “feel superior to someone’s ignorance, while shaking my head in wonderment.”

Thank you, Peter.

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

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

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

Wide Gaps negatively affect poverty, health and longevity, education, housing, law and crime, war, leadership, ownership, bigotry, supply and demand, taxation, GDP, international relations, scientific advancement, the environment, human motivation and well-being, and virtually every other issue in economics.

Implementation of The Ten Steps To Prosperity can narrow the Gaps:

Ten Steps To Prosperity:

1. Eliminate FICA

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

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

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

5. Salary for attending school

6. Eliminate federal taxes on business

7. Increase the standard income tax deduction, annually. 

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

9. Federal ownership of all banks

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

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

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

 

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

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

Image result for avoiding poor people

“Just lazy.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Get it, Mr. Jacobs?

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

It isn’t.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wide Gaps negatively affect poverty, health and longevity, education, housing, law and crime, war, leadership, ownership, bigotry, supply and demand, taxation, GDP, international relations, scientific advancement, the environment, human motivation and well-being, and virtually every other issue in economics.

Implementation of The Ten Steps To Prosperity can narrow the Gaps:

Ten Steps To Prosperity:

1. Eliminate FICA

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

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

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

5. Salary for attending school

6. Eliminate federal taxes on business

7. Increase the standard income tax deduction, annually. 

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

9. Federal ownership of all banks

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

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

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

 

 

The solution for a non-problem: High prescription drug prices Sunday, Jun 16 2019 

High prescription drug prices are indeed a problem for many people, but they could be a non-problem. Unfortunately, the proposed “solutions” don’t solve the real problem.

AARP repeatedly runs articles devoted to the idea that prescription drug prices are too high, with the primary culprits being the “greedy pharmaceutical companies.”

AARP even publishes this logo, to help you remember why we must end excessive drug prices.Stop Rx Greed Cut Drug Prices Now

Among the solutions proposed by AARP are:

1. Let Medicare negotiate drug prices
Using the clout of the program’s 57 million beneficiaries to bargain with pharmaceutical companies could certainly lower prescription drug prices.

Such a move could produce as much as $16 billion in annual savings. The Veteran’s Administration already does this.

2. Allow more drugs to be imported
The prices of brand-name prescription drugs are typically much higher in the United States than in other developed countries, but there are strict limits on when and how consumers can buy drugs from other countries.

Setting up a system to ensure the safe and legal importation of less expensive prescription drugs could help put pressure on drug prices and allow consumers to save on medications.

3. Create transparency in drug pricing
There is no way now to verify the claim by drug companies that high prices are linked to the costs associated with research and development.

The public has very little information about how drug companies set the initial price of a drug or decide on subsequent price increases.

4. Provide for easier drug comparisons
The public has no means of knowing whether a newly approved medicine is better than those already on the market.

Increasing the availability of research that compares the safety and effectiveness of drugs treating the same conditions would help create price competition and reduce spending on unnecessary or ineffective treatments.

5. Implement “value-based pricing”
Shift the United States to a system in which drug pricing is based on how well drugs work (“value”) rather than what the market will bear.

For example, a drug that cures a disease would be priced higher than a drug that doesn’t improve on existing treatments.

AARP suggests other approaches, too: The Barriers Blocking Cheaper Prescription Drugs. This article describes the actions pharmaceutical companies take to slow or prevent the sale of generic drugs.

And then there are the patent-related tricks pharmaceutical companies use to extend the already generous patents on successful drugs — tricks that involve meaningless chemical changes that restart patents.

Finally, AARP lets us in on such tidbits as the fact that most actual research is not done by the big pharmaceutical companies.

It is done mostly by federally-funded and charity-funded groups such as universities and other non-profits, and by small companies that are purchased by the major pharmaceuticals.

The Fiscal Times published a “Chart of the Day: Big Pharma’s Big Profits
By The Fiscal Times Staff, November 12, 2018

Virtually all of the revelations and suggestions focus on this one theme: Drug prices are too high because the big pharmaceuticals make too much money.

The idea is that if we can find ways to cut “big pharma’s” high prices and exorbitant profits, Americans would benefit.

But pharmaceutical company “greed” is not the real problem

The real problem with high drug prices is not that the drug companies make too much money. The problem is that consumers pay too much money, often unaffordable amounts.

In our capitalist economy, profits are beneficial. Even “exorbitant”  profits stimulate the economy. It is profits that pay for economic growth and employment.

The solution for high drug costs is not to lower drug prices, and thereby cut drug profits, but rather to reduce the amount that consumers pay.

This can be accomplished with a comprehensive, no-deductible, Medicare for All, that includes Part D, the part that pays for drugs.

The federal government, being Monetarily Sovereign, can afford to pay for any benefits in any amount, without collecting a dime in taxes.

Unlike state and local governments, the federal government has the unlimited power to create dollars and the unlimited power to prevent inflation.

We have to forget about the fear or envy that the pharmaceutical companies “make too much.” The more money the federal government pays the pharmaceuticals, the more growth dollars are pumped into the economy.

(If it goes against our moral grain to see big pharma pocketing so many dollars, the government can do what Medicare already does with regard to hospitals, doctors, and medical procedures. It can set the maximum amount it will pay, and determine that any company accepting any Medicare payments will have to abide by those terms for all the drugs it sells, or not be able to receive any federal dollars.)

But why limit the federal spending that is necessary for economic growth? It costs us nothing and it puts dollar into all our pockets.

Bottom line: The real problem is not how much profit pharmaceutical companies make. The more federal dollars they receive, the more growth dollars enter the economy.

The real problem is not drug pricing.

The real problem is how much consumers pay. 

Comprehensive, no-deductible, Medicare for All could eliminate that problem.

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

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

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

Wide Gaps negatively affect poverty, health and longevity, education, housing, law and crime, war, leadership, ownership, bigotry, supply and demand, taxation, GDP, international relations, scientific advancement, the environment, human motivation and well-being, and virtually every other issue in economics.

Implementation of The Ten Steps To Prosperity can narrow the Gaps:

Ten Steps To Prosperity:

1. Eliminate FICA

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

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

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

5. Salary for attending school

6. Eliminate federal taxes on business

7. Increase the standard income tax deduction, annually. 

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

9. Federal ownership of all banks

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

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

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

 

Next Page »

%d bloggers like this: