GOP Budget = Partisan Waste Of Time

The Republican House passed a $3.6 trillion budget on Thursday.  It passed along party lines without one Democrat joining the majority.  The measure is dead on arrival in the Democratic-led Senate. 

The entire process was a waste of time; orchestrated strictly for bi-partisan political posturing in an election year.

The Republican budget would reduce the tax rate for the top earners from 35% to 25% while erasing tax deductions and other tax breaks for the wealthy which, oddly enough, the Republicans fails to specify.  It would allow for these reductions in revenue by all but eliminating Medicare and Medicaid as we know it; and drastically cutting a wide range of government programs including Pell Grants for low income college students, and safety net programs for the poor and middle class.

In other words it is not a serious budget.  It is not a serious budget because it maintains or increases benefits for the top 1% while cutting programs and benefits for the remaining 99% of the country.

A serious budget proposal would address our long term deficit problem while finding the revenues necessary to address the problems we face today.  A serious budget would raise the eligibility age for Social Security and Medicare while freezing inflationary increases in benefits for the next five years.  It would streamline Medicaid, weed out the fraud and abuse and freeze benefits for the next two years.  A serious budget would eliminate the Bush tax cuts for everyone making over $250,000.  It would reduce the corporate tax rate from 35% to 25% but eliminate the tax loopholes and subsidies that unfairly favor the wealthy.  And a serious budget proposal would reduce our defense spending by reducing our military footprint around the world.

A serious budget proposed during difficult economic times is one where everybody has skin in the game.  Everybody feels the pinch.

If it doesn’t do that it is just a waste of time.         

 

The Health Care Debate Will Continue

If you would be kind enough to indulge us; one final note on the Affordable Health Care Act (AHCA).

As we sit and wait for the Supreme Court’s decision on the AHCA we should prepare ourselves for this one simple fact:  no matter the Court’s decision, the debate will continue.  It will continue because health care costs will continue to rise and our quality of life will continue to deteriorate as tens of millions remain without health care.

Here is why.

There are currently 50 million people without health care coverage in this country.  That is up from 40 million three years ago; an increase resulting from the wrong headed approach that our health care system is an employer based system rather than one based on the individual.  As unemployment rose in this country so did the number of those without coverage.  You lose your job…you lose your health coverage.  These 50 million people access health care without paying for it thereby leaving the rest of us to bear the cost. 

The all important mandate that everyone is so upset about was NEVER designed to include all of the uninsured people.  The mandate was designed to bring an estimated 30 million of the original 40 million uninsured into the fold by forcing them to buy coverage.  The remaining 10 million uninsured citizens are those who had no financial means to buy coverage.  They would either be left to their own devices to suffer and die or gain access to coverage through the federal government.  With the increase in unemployment that 10 million is now 20 million.

In addition to leaving millions uninsured, the AHCA fails to fundamentally change the current distribution system; thereby allowing a host of middlemen to add their fees and drive up costs.   

As we have said before; the Affordable Health Care Act is an admirable, complicated and cumbersome attempt to fix our health care problem within the parameters of the current free market distribution system.  Unfortunately it leaves too many uninsured and does too little to cut costs to be effective.  So even if the Court rules in favor of the government, the celebration will be short.  Because it won’t take long to realize how ineffective AHCA really is.

If the Court should overturn the law, Republicans will undoubtedly take to dancing in the streets.  We would caution them to curb their enthusiasm.  Because if the law fails and we return to the status quo, health care costs will continue to rise unchecked, millions of uninsured will drain the system and the economy will continue to be pulled down under the weight.  If those things happen…and they will…you can be certain that the cry for a single payer solution will be renewed.  So Republicans should be careful what they wish for.  A win today may awaken a sleeping dog better be left alone.

No matter the Court’s decision…the health care debate will continue.

          

Romney's "Gaffs" Provide Windows Into The Soul

“I like being able to fire people who provide services to me.”

“I’m not concerned about the very poor….we have a safety net there.”

“Corporations are “people” my friend…of course they are.”

“I should tell my story…I’m also unemployed.”

“There were a couple of times I wondered whether I was going to get a pink slip.”

“I get speakers fees from time to time…but not very much.” ($360,000)

“I have some friends who are NASCAR team owners.”

“My wife Ann drives a couple of Cadillacs.”

“I’m going to tell you a humorous story…”(that centered around his dad closing a factory in Michigan.)

Thus saeth presidential candidate, Mitt Romney.

There comes a point in time when a person’s misstatements can no longer be dismissed as “gaffs”. When repeated with regularity they provide an unfiltered view of the individual’s true self.  Mitt Romney has reached that point.

A recent CNN opinion poll has Romney’s favorability ratings at 37% while his unfavorable ratings have spiked to 49%.  The more people get to know the true Romney the less they like him.  Romney is out of touch with the plight of most Americans.  His constant “misstatements” make that clear. 

The spike in Romney’s “unfavorables” does not bode well for his election prospects.  His “gaffs” are killing his campaign.

Note to Romney: hiring a personal lobbyist to shepherd the construction of your 11,000 square foot mansion (that includes a car elevator)…in the tawny hills of La Jolla…in the middle of a recession…while you are running for President…doesn’t really help matters.    

In The End Nothing Will Change

The oral arguments are over. 

The nine Supreme Court justices will move behind closed doors to privately decide the fate and the future of health care in our country.  Nine citizens, who while well versed in constitutional law have no more than a layman’s understanding of how the complicated health care system actually works; nine citizens who are just as susceptible to ideology and politics as the rest of us.

While no one can predict with any certainty the result of these deliberations; it will come down in all likelihood to one individual, moderate Justice Anthony Kennedy, who will cast the tie breaking vote. 

No matter the court’s decision, when all is said and done we will still be the only industrialized country in the world to reject some sort of government provided health care system.  We will still allow a plethora of middlemen to permeate the distribution system; adding their fees and driving up costs.  We will still exclude millions of citizens.  And we will still pay more per capita for our health care than any other country in the world while our quality of health continues to deteriorate.

The Affordable Health Care Act is a cumbersome and complicated attempt to marry the benefits of universal health care with those of the existing free market system.  It attempts to serve two masters and satisfies none.  

The Court will issue its ruling but nothing will really change.

Doomed!

Doomed!

That is the feeling that washed over us after listening to audio tapes of the oral arguments surrounding the health care debate.

We’re not referring to the ultimate fate of the “mandate” in the President’s health care reform act.  We’re referring to the manner in which we govern ourselves and decide issues critical to our society.

Doomed!

The arguments presented by both sides as respects the individual mandate were incoherent at best and embarrassing at the very least.

Let’s start with Donald B. Verrilli Jr., Solicitor General of the United States.  Mr. Verrilli was tasked by the government to make the case that congress has the constitutional right to require individuals to purchase insurance.  Mr. Verrilli is an experienced litigator who has argued before the Supreme Court on eighteen previous occasions.  In this particular instance Mr. Verrilli looked more like a first year law student arguing in a small claims court.  Mr. Verrilli’s presentation was so bad you had to wonder if he had spent even one minute in preparation.  Setting aside Mr. Verrilli’s obvious nervousness, coughing, stuttering, repetitions and miss-statements; Mr. Verrilli was unable to present a coherent argument of the government’s position.  In fact Mr. Verrilli’s presentation was so convoluted that after a period of time the liberal members of the Court began making his points for him.  Washington Post columnist Ezra Klein tweeted: “you could mark the point…page 14…when the liberal justices decide Verrlli is screwing up and step in to make the argument for him.”  CNN contributor Jeffery Toobin referred to Verrilli’s performance as a “train wreck.”  Verrilli’s day in court was consistent with the governments continued inability to communicate their position on the law.  For three years the government has struggled to effectively explain the law to the American people.  That struggle inexplicably continued before the Court; and may prove to have disastrous consequences for the government’s position.

But Mr. Verrilli was not the lone purveyor of embarrassing commentary.

Antonin Scalia has served as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court since his appointment by Ronald Reagan in 1986.  Known for his conservative opinions, it was assumed by most that Justice Scalia would side with those who oppose the mandate.  Justice Scalia did not disappoint, asking several hard questions of Mr. Verrilli.  Then Justice Scalia jumped the shark.  He had the temerity to opine that if we allow congress to require people to buy insurance the next thing you know congress will be requiring people to buy broccoli.  Frankly, such an analogy is stupid.  And to hear Justice Scalia make such a comparison with all seriousness belittles the Court’s proceedings and only further illustrates the impact of bipartisanship on uninformed opinion.

For the benefit of Judge Scalia and those like him who do not understand the difference; let us be clear.  Health care is not broccoli.  Millions of us may not choose to ever buy broccoli.  But every one of us will need health care at some point in our lives.  And when those who choose not to pay for health care ultimately need it; the cost for the services the uninsured receive is passed on to the rest of us.  A person’s decision to decline the purchase of broccoli, or a cell phone to use Justice Roberts’ inane example, does not affect the rest of us.  But a person who decides not to buy health insurance, and then avails themselves of its benefits for free, affects us all.  The fact that someone sitting on the bench of the highest court in the land is unable to make that distinction is mystifying.

It is true that one cannot predict the way a particular justice will rule based on the statements they make or the questions they pose during oral arguments.  Many justices who are leaning in a particular direction will often ask hard probing questions to illicit testimony contrary to their tendencies.  They do so to make sure that they have it right.  We won’t know the results of their deliberations until sometime in June.

But what we do know today is this.  If we were making a promotional video of all that is good about our system of governance; the best and the brightest voicing their opinions in a free society…we’d make sure this recent session never saw the light of day.                    

Lead, Follow Or Get The Hell Out Of The Way

There is good news coming out of the Supreme Court today.

Apparently the Court has found no compelling reason to delay their ruling on the constutionality of the President’s health care reform act until its complete implementation in 2014.  The law requires individuals to purchase health insurance by 2014, and would fine those who are not in compliance.  Many legal pundits surmised that the Court might decline to hear the case until such fines were actually levied.  According to those in the room, the Justices seem more than eager to adjudicate the matter without further delay.

This is good news for the country.

The President spent the first sixteen months in office and a great deal of political capital pushing through this signature piece of legislation.  His political opponents have spent the following two years doing everything in their power to repeal the law.  While this political food fight rages on the cost of health care continues to skyrocket, our economy continues to suffer and our quality of life continues to deteriorate. 

Both sides are placing all of their eggs in the Supreme Court basket.  There is no “Plan B”.  When asked what the administration’s response would be if the law is repealed; White House Communications Director, Jay Carney said: “I would direct you to the Department of Health and Human Services.”  In a recent column renowned conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer was eloquent in making the case for repeal of the law.  But like his conservative associates, Krauthammer offered not one scintilla of a solution.  It’s easy to criticize.  It’s much more difficult to find a credible solution.

It’s time for this debate to end. Everyone agrees that the health care issue is at a “crises” level.  It consumes 18% of our economy and is threatening our financial security and quality of life.  If “Obamacare” is deemed constitutional by the Court then we need to embrace it and move forward.  If the law is repealed then the American people must demand that the White House and Congress put their partisanship aside and find a credible solution.  Now!

We welcome the Court’s decision…whatever that decision may be.  It’s time to move on. 

And to those pudits and law makers who have nothing more to offer than partisan talking points and half assed quips...its time for them to lead, follow or get the hell out of the way.              

Health Care Debate: A Tale Of Two Societies

On Monday the Supreme Court will begin listening to three days of oral arguments regarding the constitutionality of the President’s signature piece of legislation: the Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act…better known as “Obamacare”.  The court’s ruling will be one of the most important in our lifetime and will serve as a key component in defining who we are as a society.

If you find our assertions too melodramatic for your liking then consider these facts:

Forty two million US citizens are currently without health care.  The cost of health care represents one sixth of the US economy.  Health care expenditures in the United States rose to $2.6 trillion in 2010, over ten times the $256 billion spent in 1980.  Since 2001, employer-sponsored health care coverage for family premiums has increased by 120%.  The average American spends 18 cents of every dollar earned on health care.  The United States spends more per capita on health care than any other industrialized nation; 50% more than the next highest country and two and a half times more than the average of all the other industrialized countries combined. 

In spite of spending more on health care than any other country we get far less bang for our buck.  We have fewer doctors per capita than most of the other industrialized countries.  Our life expectancy is lower than most other industrialized countries.  Our infant mortality is higher.  And our obesity rates are the highest; which leads to higher health care expenditures in the future.  Our economy is on the verge of collapsing under the weight of skyrocketing health care costs while at the same time our overall quality of life is deteriorating.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act is a massive, unwieldy attempt to lower health care costs, provide preventative health care to all Americans, and provide basic coverage to 30 million currently uninsured individuals; thereby improving our overall quality of life while reducing the strain on our economy. And it is attempting to do these things within the framework of the current free market delivery system…a difficult if not impossible task.

There are some good components of the bill that people generally like.  Young adults can now stay on their parent’s policy until the age of 26; a major benefit during this time of high employment.  Insurers are now required to cover individuals who have pre-existing conditions.  Insurers are no longer allowed to terminate an individual’s coverage due to a pre-existing condition.  People can no longer be turned down for health insurance if they switch jobs, and their coverage will stay in force if they lose their job.  Millions are getting preventative care that now must be provided at no additional cost to patients. The list goes on and on.  Most of the individual components of the act will go into effect over the next decade.

But in spite of all the attributes of this legislation the Republicans want to repeal the law in its entirety.  Their major beef is a 2014 requirement that mandates that all individuals purchase some form of health insurance or pay a fine.  Republicans argue that this provision is unconstitutional and a threat to our liberty.  They see this requirement as just another example of big government over reach by the Obama administration.  For this the law must be repealed.

Unfortunately the Republicans have no alternative plan.  When pressed they say we need to allow insurance companies to market across state lines; which will increase competition, lower rates and improve affordability and availability.  Let the free market prevail!  The problem with that theory is that insurance companies can already market across state lines.  All they have to do is agree to follow the state regulations in those states in which the wish to do business.  Many insurance providers will not enter certain states due to the fact that they have very restrictive requirements, including limits on the premiums companies may charge.  So unless the Republicans are going to order states to set aside their individual state regulations in favor of “mandated” federal policies…an act that would be the very government over reach Republicans abhor…their free market solution is nothing more than the status quo.  And just to be clear, the status quo is what got us in this mess in the first place. 

Furthermore, the status quo cannot reduce the cost of health coverage as long as it allows roughly 40 million uninsured people access to health services without asking them to pay anything for the service.  Somebody has to pay for it; hence the mandate.  The only way that the existing distribution system works is if you either force everyone to buy in or refuse health services to those who can’t afford coverage or choose to do without.  In essence to leave them dying in the streets.

Too harsh?  Ron Paul said as much in a recent debate.  He said "back in the day the churches took care of the uninsured."  When pressed as to what would happen to them if random “church provided” health services were not available, Paul said: “We all make choices in our lives.”

 And as to the constitutionality of mandating the purchase of insurance; how do we declare this mandate to buy coverage unconstitutional when many among us wish to mandate the prohibition of contraceptives and the implementation of trans-vaginal ultrasounds prior to undergoing a legal health care procedure?  Are these mandates any less intrusive?  Arguing that one is a federal requirement while the others are state sponsored is splitting hairs.

So that is why this Supreme Court ruling is so important.  Do we find a way to take care of our own, reduce our costs and improve our health care system?  Or do we return to the status quo and leave the neediest among us to suffer while we spend $2 billion a week building hospitals and providing health care to people in Iraq and Afghanistan?   

There is no doubt that “Obamacare” in its current form needs some work.  The law needs to be more aggressive and effective in cutting costs and more transparent in its funding  But repealing the law and returning to the status quo will not only fail to fix the problem it will leave millions of Americans in a hopeless situation.

So we ask the question…what kind of society we want to be.