"You're not making an impact if you're not pissing someone off"

Tag Archives: Congressional Budget Office

Hey, look a-yonder comin’

Comin’ down that railroad track

It’s the Turd Blossom Special
Bringin’ my trickle down back

Well, I’m going down to Florida
And get some sand in my shoes

I’ll ride that Turd Blossom Special
And lose these George Bush blues

(a paraphrase from Johnny Cash’s Orange Blossom Special)

Though there wasn’t much substance coming out of the Republic Convention in Tampa this last week, there was a clear signal that the Karl Rove style of politics was back in play for the Republican Party.  Rove, who was the architect of George Bush’s presidential wins, has become the poster boy for deception and deviousness in contemporary politics.

 

Their message for themselves is that they are pro-business and that Democrats are anti-business.  While positing the notion that the wealthy pay the greater share of taxes they portray Democrats as supporting freeloaders who pay no taxes.  Romney asserted in his speech that rather than address global warming issues he promised to help “you and your family” even though the Tax Policy Center said Romney’s tax plan would increase the tax burden on middle- and low-income Americans.   VP nominee Ryan promised that they would “protect the weak” and “make the safety net safe again” while implying that it was Obamacare that was threatening the soundness of Medicare.  Yet data from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has demonstrated that Ryan’s voucher plan for Medicare will increase costs for the elderly poor.  

It was a White Hat vs Black Hat comparison that Leni Riefenstahl and Joseph Goebbels would be envious of.  This theme becomes enhanced by the pundits who serve as a megaphone for the GOP.

Bill O’Reilly attempts to portray the Republicans as thinking pragmatists and Democrats are still bleeding heart liberals.

Speakers at the Republican convention have largely been selected to negate Democratic propaganda, while the speakers at the Democratic convention next week in Charlotte are largely on stage to inflame the liberal base.

The strategy for the Republicans is persuade the mind, right here. The strategy for the Democrats seems to be to persuade the hearts. Hearts versus mind is the theme this year.   SOURCE   

In character as usual, O’Reilly says all of this after he has informed his viewing audience how truly objective he and those at the FOX network really are.

“As you may know, we cover politics a bit differently here. We are not much on party propaganda or political bloviating,” the guy who looks just like Bill O’Reilly explained.

[Our convention coverage] will not be the Republicans are good and Democrats are bad or vice versa. We are not in the business of promoting any political party.”

And though Rush Limbaugh is technically correct when he says, “I never once said that I want anybody at this convention to go out there and say Obama’s a bad guy” he has done nothing but portray the President as a bad guy since he was inaugurated.  In terms of good and bad, what do you consider a person who has been characterized as one who “hates this country” and has been “indoctrinated as a child” by his “communist” father and his “leftist” mother.  Does this imagery conjure up the word “good” for the majority of Americans?

When people like conservative columnist Walter Williams rehashes over and over again how “the top 10 percent of income earners pay 71 percent of the federal income tax burden while 47 percent of Americans pay absolutely nothing” they are implying that all incomes have risen equally.  They haven’t.  Like him or not, Paul Krugman is accurate when he says, “The Rich Are Paying More Taxes Because They’re Much Richer Than They Used To Be.

CBO: “The Share Of Income Going To Higher-Income Households Rose, While the Share Going To Lower-Income Fell.” An October 25, 2011, Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report found that the top fifth of all earners saw their share of after-tax income increased by 10 percentage points – with almost the entire gain going to the top 1 percent – while the other four-fifths of earners saw their share of after-tax income fall. The report included this chart which depicts the gains made by the top fifth and the losses by the rest.


What ultimately evolves by design here is how the GOP turns victimization on its head.  Casting the very wealthy and entrepreneurs as victims strikes at a perception that any ambitious American would find repugnant.  And perhaps rightfully so.  We all openly or secretly aspire to be financially secure and envision ourselves as masters of our fate by owning our own business.  But what is getting downplayed and even omitted here is how the American Dream is being lost not through government spending aimed at easing economic hardships and providing federal jobs, but rather through economic globalization that takes jobs to cheaper labor markets abroad and policies that reduce taxes which deprives revenue for vital social services.

The long-held Libertarian notion that any form of wealth distribution is evil has risen its ugly head again and gained a foothold in the American conscience following the collapse of the financial markets and the government bailouts of those who played fast and loose with investments and savings of Americans aspiring to claim some of that ownership held almost exclusively by the top 1%.   Free markets failed to live up to expectations but Libertarians were quick to redirect the focus on government actions aimed at offsetting the great recession of 2008.  Poorly informed and frightened workers were captivated by the mantra of the Tea Party who voiced this discontent and who became quickly supported by Bush-era neo-conservatives in a thinly veiled attempt to regain the power they thought would never end prior to 2006 when they lost their House majority.

Profits are first and foremost at the heart of any business and if it requires evading taxes and sending jobs overseas, then so be it.  Yet profits have never been higher for many businesses or taxes lower than they are today.  And still we are led to believe that the free markets and the wealthy class are under siege.  The Democrats are portrayed as those who support “people with miserable, meaningless lives” and “people who don’t count,” according to Rush Limbaugh, even though Paul Ryan wants everyone to see Republicans as champions trying to “protect the weak”.

If it all seems so confusing that’s because it is intended to be.  The architect of this approach to circumvent fact and disorient voters is the person George Bush affectionately called “Turd Blossom” – Karl Rove.  From the time “he founded a political consulting firm, Karl Rove & Company, in Austin, Texas in 1981 … Rove “earned a reputation for being a savage political strategist, willing to engage in dirty tricks.”    The idiom of Rove can be seen in the brief Tweet from Romney pollster Neil Newhouse responding to the media’s objections to its welfare ad when Newhouse stated ”we’re not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact ckecckers”(sic)

Rove’s back


Newt Gingrich has also contributed to a view that capitalizes on misinformation and deception through some of his earliest efforts in political office aimed at destroying the credibility of Congress in the hopes to achieve a majority of Republicans to further extreme right-wing goals.

“What was Gingrich’s strategy? He was both passionate about his goals and coldly analytical in his means. The core strategy was to destroy the institution to save it, to so intensify public hatred of Congress that voters would buy into the notion of the need for sweeping change and throw the majority bums out. His method? To unite his Republicans in refusing to cooperate with Democrats in committee and on the floor, while publicly attacking them as a permanent majority presiding over and benefitting from a thoroughly corrupt institution. (p.33)

It had taken Gingrich sixteen years to realize his objective of a House Republican majority (1994), but his original strategy to gain power by attacking the Congress left a lasting mark on American politics.”(p.40)   – Thomas Mann and Norman Ornstein’s, “It’s Even Worse Than it Looks: How the American Constitutional System Collided With The New Politics of Extremism 

It’s true that you can’t fool everybody all of the time but it is also clear that the goal of the GOP has been a costly and passionate attempt to do as much “fooling” as they possibly can.   It has after all been their “top political priority … to deny President Obama a second term.”    To do that you have to distort the facts to make people forget what the policies were prior to Obama’s election that have resulted in one of the highest misery index ratings since Ronald Reagan. 

 

RELATED ARTICLES:

Fact Check: Mitt Romney Convention Speech 

Once Upon a Trickle Down 

They Love the Lies Paul Ryan Tells

Lies, Damn Lies and GOP Video 


Mr. Priebus’s Neighborhood

National Republican Committee Chairman Reince Preibus

 

It’s not a beautiful day in the neighborhood this morning kids.  The Supreme Court has dashed our hopes of repealing “Obamacare” and now we must ramp up our misinformation campaign to get voters to vote against their own self-interests yet again,   We had hoped that our efforts would have convinced you that this law is not beneficial for our elderly and you poor kids that live outside our neighborhood, and here’s why.

 

 

Welcome to my neighborhood.  Pictured ID’s required

 

We sent out a message to frighten warn everyone about how this law would tax new babies, people who have heart attacks and even sick puppies.  How cruel can someone be.  Yes, it may be a stretch for some of you who don’t buy into our hyperbole to see how this law can have adverse affects on the powerless in this country so let me twist apply reasonable thinking to help you with this.

We sent out this 90 second video for you to try to comprehend. The first 80 seconds of rambling distortions, outright lies and rapid images did stream by pretty fast but we slowed it down at the end so you could understand what steps to take to prevent these things from happening, if indeed our fantasy take on this becomes realty.

Notice on the front of end of the video we allude to the tax on heart attacks, new babies and sick puppies.  Didn’t catch it?  You may have to replay it over a few times.  Sorry, we had so much crap information to lay on you in such a short time because we know most of you who repeat our bogus talking points have very short attention spans so we wanted to get to you before the ads for breast implants and penile erection distracted you.

 

Where do we get this information about such cruelties?  We manufacture it from the real data that’s out there.  Some may call this mining or cherry picking information.  But we see it as a necessary public service to ensure that the GOP’s primary agenda and goal - limiting Obama to one term – remains on target.

The people over at FactCheck.org have supplied the truth details about such cruelty so all of you who doubt our sincerity will understand how we came to this unbelievable unique conclusion:

The video doesn’t mention it, but what it is referring to is a provision in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Sec. 9009) that spells out excise taxes on manufacturers of medical devices. In order to help pay for the expansion of health coverage for the uninsured, the law includes a 2.3 percent tax on certain medical devices starting in 2013. It’s expected to bring in $20 billion over 10 years. Proponents say device makers will sell more devices and reap more profits when an additional 30-some million potential customers gain health coverage and can afford them.

Not all medical devices are taxable. Those sold retail (directly to the consumer), for example, are exempt. So are device manufacturers that bring in revenues under $5 million a year.

Among the devices that are taxable: cardiac defibrillators, pacemakers, stents (“heart attack”-related devices) and ultrasound equipment (“new baby”-related). Most experts, including the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, expect at least some of the cost of the tax on manufacturers of medical devices to be passed on to consumers via higher health insurance premiums.

So what about taxes on “sick puppies”?  This also relates to the tax on medical devices. The NRCC passed along a report from the Internal Revenue Service that addressed the issue of whether veterinary devices would be subject to the tax. The gist of it is that taxable devices are those “intended for humans.” So if a medical device is exclusively used for veterinary medicine, it would not be taxable.

But there are also medical devices used in veterinary practices as well as in human medicine. The IRS says those would be taxable.   SOURCE 

We have been accused ourselves of being monsters by wanting to privatize Social Security that would allow us to get our grubby hands on people’s investment to be placed in the volatile stock market rather than the Social Security Trust fund, depriving low-income families from providing nutritional meals for their children for simply wanting to give them the freedom to use their own low-income wages without the aid of food stamps, and putting families on the streets who have lost their job in this recession by limiting needed unemployment benefits to see them through these hard times.   It’s un-American to expect bailouts from the government, unless you’re a bank too big to fail.

Clearly these hurtful notions have been spread by people who don’t bother to read and watch programs and blog sites that adhere to our message.  But one thing is clear!  We have never included sick puppies into our efforts to defend freedom and the free markets, although some may define the Koch brothers as sick puppies for their efforts to protect the fossil fuel interests they profit from.

  

Billionaires Charles and David Koch


On it’s way back down, the jobless rate hit a number last week that it hasn’t seen since Obama took office in January 2009.  This is a further indication that  the economic recovery, albeit slow, is gaining momentum.  So naturally the GOP is finding every cause it can to downplay something that has celebratory significance.


I received my routine e-mail from my Congressman the other day, Republican Michael Burgess of the Texas 26th district.  It came on the heals of great economic news about the better-than-expected job growth in January.  But you got the clear impression that Mr. Burgess wasn’t hopeful about this and in fact started blaming Obama for failing to revive the economy at a much faster pace.  This of course is understandable in light of the fact that the Republican/TeaParty has worked so hard to portray all of Obama’s efforts as a failure.  For the reality to expose their misrepresentation of the current administration’s economic policies, it makes it difficult for them to speak at all with feet placed firmly in their mouths.

Why is congressman Burgess dejected over the lowered jobless rate?

The inference here by Congressman Burgess, and by default the GOP, is that there is a magic bullet “out there” that only they possess which can restore our economy to an earlier time before it started plummeting in late 2007.  By his count there has been some 20 bills passed by the GOP-controlled House to effect this silver bullet solution but oddly this magically powerful projectile has been unable to penetrate the Democrat-controlled Senate.  Not so oddly however if you scratch the surface of these Orwellian named pieces of legislation where you’ll find that the ammo that Burgess and his Party are shooting rounds with are the same old blanks of trickle down economics, eliminating critical government oversight and tax cuts for the wealthy 1%.

Why these people insist that what didn’t work previously will somehow miraculously work now is Einstein’s definition of insanity that assert’s “doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”  To suggest also that it is easy to reverse the mess that got us where we are today after decades of mismanagement is both naive and disingenuous of Burgess and his crony capitalist partners.

It’s true that we have not recovered at a faster pace than we could have but this as much a factor of an obstructionist Party who is more focused on “making Obama a one-term president” than finding real, proven solutions to our unemployment issues.  Continuing to vote for legislation that sends jobs overseas and subsidizes highly profitable agriculture and fossil fuel businesses while balking on those that help start-up 21st century green technology is not conducive to rapid economic growth.  It doesn’t help either to kill millions of public sector jobs and negatively impact spending by opposing an increase for the minimum wage, unemployment benefits and objecting to a continuance of the payroll tax cut.

Likewise, the continued fantasy that pure capitalism is the holy grail and capable of lifting all boats on a rising tide has seen evidence that only the wealthy truly benefit from a system that is supported more and more by a government that carries water for corporate America.  The income disparity in this country has accelerated over the last 30 years since the Reagan administration began stripping every federal safeguard to prevent abuses by the private sector.

With unfettered ability, so-called “free-markets” have manipulated the resources of working class people around the world where the wealthiest income earners gained almost exponentially over other income groups.

[T]he Congressional Budget Office found that, from 1979 to 2007, the average real after-tax household income for the 1 percent of the population with the highest incomes rose 275 percent. For the rest of the top 20 percent of earners, it rose 65 percent. But it rose just 18 percent for the bottom 20 percent.  SOURCE 

Financiers who run those institutions that are “too big to fail”, which conservatives helped create with lax regulations and exploiting policies that were aimed at making homeownership a reality for more people, have shown us what really matters to them.  As they loaded the housing market with predatory loans and credit default swaps sold to unsuspecting investors using the pension funds set aside by retiring working class people, the markets crashed under the limited regulation policies supported by all Republicans today.  Millions of American wage earners joined the ranks of the unemployed not seen since Reagan was President while millions more were left underwater on their home loans.

Speaking of the patron saint of many contemporary Republicans, their no-compromise, tax-cuts-for-the-rich stances are not only counter productive but not reflective of a Reagan presidency that had to raise taxes four times and who once chastised members of his own Party who thought “Compromise’ was a dirty word”.  He became impatient with congressional Republicans who “couldn’t face the fact that they couldn’t get [everything they] wanted … all at once.”

It’s both predictable and lamentable that the messages from our Congressional representatives in the GOP offer nothing new while spending far too much time berating the efforts of the opposition Party who are taking action not favored by the status quo in an attempt to get this economy up and running again.  What we get instead from   people like Michael Burgess are discouraging and ineffectual cultural war messages that seethe against gays, abortion, prayer in school and so-called traditional marriage.

Both Parties employ their own negative issues about each other to jockey for control but come on Congressman Burgess – give us break.  243,000 new jobs last month is something to be upbeat about.  Forget about Party politics, in this case at least.  If you can’t hold your criticism until you see this trend not holding then at least how about an “atta boy” for this bit of good news right now that says Good for you America!


Herman Cain, the new GOP front-runner following recent polls has a tax reform plan that has a catchy name – “9-9-9” – but the simplistic moniker is merely another flawed ruse by the corporate-friendly candidate that incorporates the equally flawed practice of  trickle down economics.

The plan would replace the existing complex tax code where it would appear that all people are treated equally

- A flat 9 percent income tax for everyone – no more, no less

- A 9 percent tax on corporations

- A 9 percent national sales tax

But the catch lies in how the rich will actually be impacted by this plan.  Analysts say the wealthy would gain while low and middle income families will lose out on Cain’s Plan.  Why?  As Think Progress illustrates, people who make under $100,000 will be impacted by all three “9’s” in Cain’s plan where the wealthy will be able to avoid a lot of it, keeping more of their income.

[M]ost Americans will end up paying all three of those taxes, for a combined tax rate of 27 percent of their income.

That’s because middle and low-income Americans get all, or nearly all, of their income from ordinary wages — all of which would be subject to Cain’s 9 percent wage tax — and then they spend all of their income, which means it would be taxed again by the 9 percent sales tax. Finally, the burden of the 9 percent business income tax would be passed on to them as well, either in the form of lower wages — since wages are not deductible — or in the form of higher prices for goods and services.

The bottom line is that most Americans will pay all three of Cain’s taxes, making their real federal tax rate 27 percent. Compare that to the current tax code, under which someone in the bottom quintile pays two percent of their income in federal taxes and someone in the middle quintile pays 15 percent.

[W]ealthy people get a lot of their income from capital gains — which are exempt from the wage tax — and they don’t spend all of their income, so anything they save won’t be subject to taxes either.

Today, someone in the richest 1 percent typically pays about 30 percent of his or her income in federal taxes. Since people at the top of the income ladder make about half of their income from capital gains, and only spend about half of their income in a given year, their tax rate would drop all the way down to 13.5 percent. That’s even lower than what middle-income people pay today.     SOURCE  

What’s missing here too, that may be more important to the generation known as the baby boomers, is that this plan eliminates the pay roll taxes for social security and medicare.  Without going into too much detail Cain is on board with the Paul Ryan Plan that would phase out Medicare/Medicaid as we know it and promises to initiate a voucher system to enable low income families to provide for these services on their own through the private sector; a solution that critics have pointed out will cost more for future generations because it fails to adjust for ever increasing medical costs.  Presumably too, Cain is a supporter of privatizing Social Security, a scheme that could allow investment-challenged people to lose most of their savings in the speculative volatile markets.

Herman Cain boasts how the average family would have an extra $4000 in their pocket to invest in retirement plans and buy health insurance but ignores the fact that his plan would cancel out about the same amount with the elimination of the child tax credit.  Add to this an increase in food taxes that amount to an additional $2000 and that plus of $4000 changes into a negative.  One reports estimates that a family of four with an income of just under $50,000 could end up paying $2,725 more under Cain’s 9-9-9 plan.

But never fear.  Trickle down is here (again)

The Cain campaign says that his plan will not hurt people with lower incomes because under his plan employers would save $4,000 in social security taxes.  That money could then be passed along to the employees creating a system in which everyone benefits. – SOURCE - 

In a previous article I presented the argument that supports the belief that the wealthy don’t necessarily allow their gains from tax cuts to trickle down to the rest of us.

The Moody’s research covering couples earning more than $210,000 found that spending by the wealthy is more likely to be influenced by the ups and downs of the stock market than changes in income-tax rates.

Stock-market performance is the “primary factor that is driving the savings of the top 5 percent of households,” said Mustafa Akcay, economist and co-researcher of the savings data.

Some economists voice caution about the promised effects of a change in tax rates. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office in January analyzed policy options and possible short- term effects on growth.

“Policies that temporarily increased the after-tax income of people who are relatively well off would probably have little effect on their spending because they generally would be able finance their consumption out of their income or assets without such a change,” CBO director Douglas Elmendorf testified to Congress on Feb. 23.

On the other hand, tax relief for families with “lower income, few assets and poor credit would probably” spur spending, he said. Elmendorf said because of job losses and a drop in assets over the past two years more families “probably fit that description now.”  Source

Only a fool would continue to promote the benefits of supply side economics, better known as trickle down.  It all began under Ronald Reagan during the 80’s and since that time income for the top 1% as multiplied 4 fold while either remaining unchanged or even decreasing for most every other American wage earner.

Supply siders argue that tax increases, especially on the wealthy have a negative impact on efficiency.  They insisted that “lowering taxes would cause output to go up enough to lift all boats substantially.”  But Mark Thoma with the Fiscal Times points out the fallacy with this, using the Bush tax cuts as a model.

The economy did grow after the Bush tax cuts, but the rate of growth was unremarkable, especially for jobs, and there’s little evidence that they caused large increases in output growth, as promised.

In fact, there’s little evidence that the Bush tax cuts had any effect at all. The trade-off simply wasn’t there.

And the tax cuts at the upper end of the income distribution did nothing to correct for the fact that although worker productivity was rising, wages remained flat — a problem that began in the mid-1970s.

This was an indication that something was amiss in the mechanism that distributes income to different members of society. Workers were helping to increase the size of the pie, but income did not trickle down, and their share of the pie was no larger than before.   SOURCE


It is this failure by those in the GOP-Tea Party like Cain to recognize the short comings of trickle down economics, raising the issue of their credibility and their sincerity to enact policies that will have real and lasting change that will restore an economy where the middle class is slowly becoming invisible.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Income Inequality is Hobbling the Middle Class

So you Think You Want to Dump Social Security for a Private Retirement Plan?  Think Again

GOP Presidential Hopefuls Flat Tax Proposals — A Big Handout To Wealthy 

I Support Occupy Wall Street

 

 

 


I have been unable to make entries into this blog so far this week simply because I have become numb from the crass stupidity and self-centered interests of some in Washington who on one side would shut the government down, have it default on its debt and worsen this sick economy even further while those on the other side simply can’t find the courage to stand up this moronic display of ignorance and short-sightedness.

But I guess I’m even further dismayed by the voting public that created this mess because they were easily persuaded that our problems lie not with those who put us where we are today with two wars, a policy of “spend and borrow” while reducing revenue through exorbitant tax cuts for those who have failed to reinvest those savings into the economy, a la trickle down economics.  Americans are an irrational lot says Bryan Caplan in his 2007 book, The Myth of the Rational Voter: Why Democracies Choose Bad PoliciesNo clearer evidence of this exists than the way voters went from a fervent belief in 2008 to change course from the neo-conservative policies of Bush/Cheney only to revert back to them in 2010 in their new disguise as the Tea Party.

Those bad policies under Bush/Cheney made themselves aware to the general public just as they were leaving office, leaving the damage for the incoming administration to address.  They propped up corporate malfeasance by enforcing a mood of deregulating on everything they could or placing industry puppets in agencies that were supposed to insure consumers and working families would not be exploited and short-changed.

The result was a huge increase in unemployment and mortgage defaults brought on by a greedy financial industry where millions of Americans lost their savings and retirement incomes.  This condition though was set up by unregulated mortgage lenders using predatory lending practices.  I need not go into detail here to break down how this had a domino effect on the business sector and jobs.  Many of you are living those dire consequences even still today.

Yet the public allowed their anger to be manipulated by a small segment within politics who call themselves Libertarians and the philosophy that GOP candidate Ron Paul was known for that tended to attribute all of our problems on a bloated government while overlooking the excesses of those within the free-market system.  There is no doubt that the way government spends our tax dollars needs reform.  But cutting spending in government at this critical time is hardly the point one wants to start at.  The notion that government spending was THE problem and thus needed to be curtailed immediately took precedence over the more serious issue of job creation and exposing the partnership between corporations and the people who enact the laws of the land.

Instead of allowing the new government under Barack Obama to carry out its plans to turn our economy around through federal stimulus funds, much like Roosevelt achieved  during the Great Depression, the corporate wealth in this country jumped into the fray with both feet and turned this from a corporate malfeasance issue to a government spending issue.  Their efforts focused on tying the jobless rate to high taxes that help fund state and federal jobs.

An analysis by economists at the Center for American progress “shows that steep spending cuts are hampering economic recovery in some states while other states that resisted cuts or increased spending are now seeing lower unemployment rates, faster private-sector job creation, and stronger economic growth. The bottom line: States that swallowed the bitter pill of steep cuts are the worse off.”

Taxes were indeed higher in the past to pay for all of this yet somehow people are led to believe that it was high taxes that effected our economic downturn, even though when this condition existed under Clinton we had one of the most expansive job growth periods in our nation.  The rich still kept getting richer along with the middle-income class back then.

Now it’s only the wealthiest among us whose income has continued to grow while everyone else has seen their wages stagnate or diminish.  Big companies swallow up smaller ones and local businesses have to close up shop because they can’t compete with the mammoth superstores whose headquarters may be in some off shore tax shelter.

What anchored this belief that high taxes are a job killer is the Libertarian economic theory that when government takes more of corporate and wealthy individuals’ income then there is less for them to invest in businesses that would create jobs.  This sounds good in the classroom but in reality it’s simply not supported by the data.

In a report by Timothy R. Homan for Bloomberg news back in September of last year he  quotes Chris Cornell, an economist who mined government reports back to 1989 for West Chester, Pennsylvania-based Moody’s Analytics. “I would tend to wonder how much the tax cut actually influences spending behavior,” said Mr. Connell  “Spending by the top 5 percent of households seems much more closely tied to business- cycle issues than it does to tax-cut issues.”

The Moody’s research covering couples earning more than $210,000 found that spending by the wealthy is more likely to be influenced by the ups and downs of the stock market than changes in income-tax rates.

Stock-market performance is the “primary factor that is driving the savings of the top 5 percent of households,” said Mustafa Akcay, economist and co-researcher of the savings data.

Some economists voice caution about the promised effects of a change in tax rates. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office in January analyzed policy options and possible short- term effects on growth.

“Policies that temporarily increased the after-tax income of people who are relatively well off would probably have little effect on their spending because they generally would be able finance their consumption out of their income or assets without such a change,” CBO director Douglas Elmendorf testified to Congress on Feb. 23.

On the other hand, tax relief for families with “lower income, few assets and poor credit would probably” spur spending, he said. Elmendorf said because of job losses and a drop in assets over the past two years more families “probably fit that description now.”  Source

Yet it’s critical information like this that goes largely unnoticed by the voting public.  It is hard to get them focused on the details of what does and doesn’t work in order to enable them to make sound decisions in the voting booth.  The pro-corporate forces in this country take advantage of this and enter the game at the most opportune time while people are still reeling from their own budget problems, persuading enough of them to back candidates and legislation that surreptitiously undercuts the voter’s own self-interests.

So what we saw in Washington these last few weeks were the sloppy and emotional results of people placed in office from the last election who hold extremely strong and somewhat incorrect views about what needs to be done while we have those that probably do know better allowing those irrational forces to have their way.  The final product of their debt ceiling arguments have brought us no closer to solving the major issue in this country – jobs – and instead may create an even worse scenario that will make recovery even more difficult. At the close of the markets a day after the debt ceiling “resolution” was reached, the indexes are at their lowest in nearly a year.

It is becoming clear to financial analysts and economist the world over that what transpired in Washington has not only not fixed our economic woes but could well make things gravely worse.  If that doesn’t have a numbing affect on you then you are not human.  But what would send it over the edge for sure is if voters are once again so oblivious of what’s going that when the 2012  elections roll around they continue this irrational behavior and give the Republican Tea Party more power to create even greater destruction than they already have.

RELATED ARTICLES:

From Spending to Cuts, While the Economy Stalls 

Misery is Not an Option: Economy Needs more Demand 

Errol P. Mendes: The Harper Government and the Republican Tea Party: Partners in the Revolution of the Night Watchman (huffingtonpost.ca)


Paul Ryan’s GOP budget layout to lower the federal deficit has met stern resistance from constituents fearing that Medicare as we know will cease to exist not only for them but for future generations.  Ryan claims that “people … don’t understand what we’re doing with Medicare.   What I find is there’s a lot of demagoguery and distortion occurring.”

But that’s not completely true.  To project as Ryan does that his plan is a practical approach to curing what ails Medicare and Medicaid takes a look at the problem from only one perspective – cutting spending.  His plan does nothing to curb rising health care costs in this country and it ignores creating revenues to sustain this health insurance option for people who are on fixed incomes and cannot afford private insurance premiums.

Perhaps the biggest obstacle to reform health care costs and cover low-income people is allowing a system of medical services in this country to fall under the auspices of free-market practices.  The free-market system that encourages innovation and competition is a functional economic system that works very well in most areas.  But the principles that work well for commercial goods and services do not automatically transfer over to health care.

One of the problems that tends to occur is that market forces make no serious attempt to control how for-profit increases negatively impact low-income people.  When private insurers put their profits before service that means some people will not be able to afford their product.  There are higher health risks for certain groups like seniors, children and the disabled.  Market practices insure that costs to sustain profitability must rise with these groups, the very people who often lack the financial means to meet cost increases.

With Paul Ryan restructuring Medicare and Medicaid with what he terms as a “premium-support payments” program, where states determine who is and who is not eligible, there is nothing incorporated in this plan that accounts for the rise of private health care costs that will exceed the pace of normal inflation rates.  According to the impartial Congressional Budget Office’s estimates,

Under [Ryan’s] proposal, most elderly people would pay more for their health care than they would pay under the current Medicare system. For a typical 65-year-old with average health spending enrolled in a plan with benefits similar to those currently provided by Medicare, CBO estimated the beneficiary’s spending on premiums and out-of-pocket expenditures as a share of a benchmark: what total health care spending would be if a private insurer covered the beneficiary. By 2030, the beneficiary’s spend- ing would be 68 percent of that benchmark under the proposal, 25 percent under the extended-baseline scenario, and 30 percent under the alternative fiscal scenario.

Federal payments for Medicaid under [Ryan’s] proposal would be substantially smaller than currently projected amounts. States would have additional flexibility to design and manage their Medicaid programs, and they might achieve greater efficiencies in the delivery of care than under current law. Even with additional flexibility, however, the large projected reduction in payments would probably require states to decrease payments to Medicaid providers, reduce eligibility for Medicaid, provide less extensive coverage to beneficiaries, or pay more themselves than would be the case under current law.

A critical point that we can take from this is how dependent Medicare recipients will be on state authority “to design and manage their Medicaid programs”.  In states like Texas where social aid programs are always trimmed to the bone to correct budget shortfalls, this plan is likely to hurt even more people than will occur due to the increased individual spending it is set to impose on them.

What’s obviously missing in Ryan’s plan where he could be accused of demagoguery is the failure to generate revenue to offset costs.  The demagoguery that Ryan and the GOP would put into play is that this would raise taxes and hurt more than help those low-income people this plan is designed to benefit.  Yet, no taxes need to be created for this and surely most low and middle-income brackets need not be faced with any consequential tax increases.

 

There are billions in corporate tax loopholes that can be eliminated to go toward health care costs for those least able to afford increases in their premiums.  Ryan’s plan does call for tax reform to eliminate most loopholes (he has yet to outline which will and won’t be eliminated) while creating a lower corporate tax rate of 25% from its current 35% level.  But this still doesn’t help poor seniors, families with children and the disabled.  It also doesn’t guarantee that health insurers will take those lower tax rates and put them back into lower premium costs.

One thing all sides can agree on is that there are areas where costs can be controlled by insurers and policy holders alike.  Preventive practices that reduce health threats should be encouraged to keep costs down.  Diet and exercise should be pushed at all levels to reduce the risk of heart disease and diabetes.  Michelle Obama’s efforts to reduce childhood obesity is aimed at curbing this serious health threat to future generations yet some on the right berate it to score political points. Sarah Palin’s attack late last year referred to the Let’s Move! program as a “kick” of Michelle Obama’s and falsely claimed the First Lady was attempting to restrict parental “decisions for their own children, for their own families in what [they] should eat.”

 

One measure that could help reduce overall costs and was implemented in the health care reform bill passed last year – which Ryan and his Party want to repeal – is to streamline the way patient records are handled by promoting the use of electronic medical records (EMR); a system that would efficiently share information and reduce overhead costs.  Decreasing unwarranted variation in medical practice and unnecessary care is another way to keep costs down.  “Some experts estimate that up to 30% of health care is unnecessary, emphasizing the need to streamline the health system and eliminate this needless spending.”

These and other options are available to help lower health care costs in conjunction with creating revenue in those areas where highly profitable companies and wealthy individuals can contribute.  These approaches and cutting Defense spending go missing in Ryan’s plan to reduce the budget deficit.  Ryan and the GOP are misleading voters if they continue to insist that others are guilty of “demagoguery and distortion”.  

Related Articles


The Paul Ryan/GOP budget finally made available nearly three years since the GOP started whining about Obama’s stimulus package and the spending it entailed has been touted as a serious piece of legislation.  Ryan makes claims about his plan in a WSJ Op-ed, that have been seriously challenged by other objective sources like the impartial Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and both conservative and moderate economist.

David Stockman, Ronald Reagan’s Office of Management and Budget Director says the GOP plan “doesn’t address in any serious or courageous way the issue of the near and medium-term deficit”  and further criticizes its ill-fated belief that any deficit problem can be seriously resolved without generating revenue through taxes.  The Libertarian economist Tyler Cowen says “the plan doesn’t do anything to control health care costs, and cutting Medicaid is neither good policy, nor urgent. Indeed, he notes, ‘Medicaid should be one of the last parts of the health care budget to cut.’” (Conservative Economists Criticize ‘Off The Deep End’ Republican Budget, by Brian Beutler, TPMDC, 4/11/11

Ryan and the GOP’s claim to credibility is severely undercut through it’s use of data from the right-wing think tank, the Heritage Foundation.  One of the most absurd presumptions by an author of this Heritages analysis, William Beach, was that Ryan’s plan would reduce unemployment to 2.8% before he retracted it later under fire from serious economists.

All of the numbers that Ryan and the Heritage Foundation have proposed in this bill have been aptly challenged and debunked but I’ll leave it to the reader to go over the details here.  What I would like someone to seriously answer for me is just one aspect of the budget claim.  How is Medicare going to be made better or even remain the same once it is converted to a block grant for the states to choose how best to serve their citizens?

I live in the state of Texas where any federal funding that serves social needs of the states poor, elderly and disabled is frowned on and considered a burden to deal with.  Recently conservative legislators have talked about getting out of the Federal/State Medicare program to fight their deficit problems.  If Ryan’s plan provides block grant money giving conservative legislators the power to determine how it will be spent, I fear we will see more people hurt than helped.  There are already 6 million uninsured people  in Texas and the state’s population growth is one of the nation’s highest, meaning that rate is likely to increase proportionately.

The block grant money is to be allocated by the state to individuals so they can purchase insurance from the private sector on their own.  If red flags didn’t just go up with you on this information then you are not paying the full health care premium for your policy.  This makes you an employed worker whose company has a health insurance benefits or you are still on your parents’ policy.

That leaves the unemployed in this state, including children, the disabled and the elderly to find insurance from an industry that until recently has been able to exclude them from coverage for pre-existing conditions they have (that would be all the disabled people) or whose age puts them in the high risk category (that would be children and the elderly).


However the current health care reform that prohibits insurance companies from denying coverage for pre-existing conditions is being threatened by repeal (a move by the way that would increase the deficit) by those same Republicans and conservatives that want to opt out of the current Medicare program.  Does this sound promising to you if you fall into the above mentioned categories?  Health insurance rates are high for everyone but for those people who work for a living, making wages near the poverty level, it is virtually unaffordable.  In fact, unless you are a family of three making over  $18,312 annually, you cannot qualify for state assistance.

Needles to say poor families struggle the most trying to find effective, low-cost health insurance but the sad truth is that most have to forego this expense and are only served by the state when their health deteriorates to a level that will then qualify them.  In my case though my age is now a factor that determines whether or not I can buy health care insurance.

My wife is still currently employed as a nurse with a school district looking to cut positions to reduce the state’s $27 billion deficit.  It costs an extra $425 a month to insure me but at least I have coverage.  But when she retires in a few short years (if she hasn’t been terminated before then) we will only have my Social Security benefits and a meager amount of retirement funds to sustain us.  The state’s retirement system my wife is on opted out of social security for them years ago.  These resources are insufficient to purchase private health care insurance on our own.

 click on image to enlarge

Rep. Ryan says that his plan to fund medicare after 2022 is “not a voucher program but rather a premium-support model. A Medicare premium-support payment would be paid, by Medicare, to the plan chosen by the beneficiary, subsidizing its cost.”  And though this model claims to allow people to “choose a plan that works best for them” it must be done “from a list of guaranteed coverage options”.  As usual the devil is in the details so I am curious as to whose on this list and what extent the coverage is in these “guaranteed options”.

Ryan claims his plan will ensure that “Medicare will provide increased assistance for lower-­income beneficiaries and those with greater health risks.”  Knowing how reluctant Republicans are now to spend money on anything except tax breaks for the wealthy, can we be assured that whoever makes such decisions will do so based on needs  prescribed by our physician or will they allow the for-profit health insurers to make that call.  Currently this is not a problem for Medicare recipients so I worry that people turning 65 in 2022 will have less health security than this current generation of elders.

Also, I have not seen any wording in Ryan’s plan about cost of living adjustments (COLAs) and correcting Medicare benefits as inflation impacts them.  Again, I worry about the sincerity of those who think somehow all people are equally capable to provide for their own welfare.   Are they willing to take measures to protect the most vulnerable amongst us who physically cannot make it on their own by locking into a system that will address future costs without expecting beneficiaries to somehow find the means beyond their fixed incomes to do so?

My guess is they will only do so when enough people scream loud and long enough and by then it will be too late for some while others must endure for the time it will take these foot-draggers to accommodate those who depend on Medicare’s services.

 

So, here’s my offer to jump on your band wagon Paul Ryan.  Present your bill with iron clad assurances that future recipients of Medicare and Medicaid will not suffer any less quality of services than those who are currently enrolled.  Furthermore, assure us that those people who decide who do and don’t qualify are people connected with direct care in the health care field and do not have vested, for-profit interests in undermining the system; large stock holders in CIGNA Health Insurance Corp. for example

If, as you suggest, your plan is arranged to control health care costs and thus current services can be sustained without any tax increases to do so, please describe in detail how this will be achieved.  Furthermore, in the event that everyone else is right and you and the Heritage Foundation are way off the mark, a trigger mechanism in the bill should be included that will discontinue it’s legitimacy and we can revert back to the existing system with this caveat – it will be reimplemented with the objectives stated in the President’s health care reform bill to eliminate waste and fraud and curb rising health care costs; the ones you are saying that are not there.

Related Reading:

Who’s Serious Now? by Paul Krugman 

Keeping Medicare and Medicaid Strong? (Center for Medicare Advocacy, Inc.)

Kill Medicaid and Medicare and You Eliminate Social Security(woodgatesview.wordpress.com)


In a recent display of affection for wealthy corporate interest, conservatives have once again come through for those who keep their boats afloat on a rising tide that has swamped the smaller fishing rigs

Once again, the Senate has failed to muster enough votes to end the federal subsidies for the oil industry that forks out roughly $4 billion a year of tax payer money to multi-national corporations that have generated nearly a trillion dollars in profits just amongst the top five producers over the last 10 years.  Those top 5 corporations and their 10 year totals (in parenthesis) consist of BP ($158 billion), Chevron ($147 b), Exxon ($326 b), Conoco ($100 b) and Shell($219 b).  All of them last year alone made no less than $4 billion (BP) and as much as $31 billion (Exxon/Mobil).  So why are we dumping money into these overflowing vaults at a time we are struggling to reduce our deficit and sustain efforts to promote education and job creation?

$4 billion a year isn’t going to make a big dent in the national debt that is hovering just above $14 trillion at this time but it will offset some ugly cuts in the states where education is taking a serious hit to trim budgets there.  It is also money not being invested in 21st century job creation with renewable energy sources and technology.

Let me put this another way.  Oil companies, their CEO and top executives, stock holders and their supportive financial institutions are rolling in excessive dough while teachers are being summarily dismissed from classrooms and forced to join the ranks of the unemployed during the worst financial crisis in this country in the last 80 years.  Likewise in an industry whose limited resources are already being outpaced by growing global demand, this $4 billion a year would go along way to create new jobs for green energy businesses that are destined to grow exponentially in the near future.   Are there some values seriously skewered here?

And correct me if I am wrong but when you’re averaging profits of $95 billion each year after you have cleared your expenses, including salaries and bonuses for everyone, why do you need an extra $4 billion a year from tax payers.  Well, according to big oil state Senator David Vitter of Louisiana, there needed to offset “the highest business tax rate in the world”.  However, whenever a pro-corporate mouth piece like Vitter speaks, you can be assured the devil is in the details.

 

It’s true the U.S. has one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world, up to 35% in some instances.  But this is not only NOT an across the board fixed rate but it is diminished by many loopholes built into the tax code where essentially corporate rates are lower than middle-income wage earners.

According to a piece in the NY Times last July, “the most recent study by the Congressional Budget Office, released in 2005, capital investments like oil field leases and drilling equipment are taxed at an effective rate of 9 percent, significantly lower than the overall rate of 25 percent for businesses in general and lower than virtually any other industry.  And for many small and midsize oil companies, the tax on capital investments is so low that it is more than eliminated by various credits. These companies’ returns on those investments are often higher after taxes than before.”   

So much for the absurd notion that the wealthiest and most profitable industries in the world are unduly taxed.  And though the Senate was seeking to redirect these funds to help alleviate the cost needed to “pay for easing paperwork requirements for small business under President Barack Obama’s health overall law,” they decided instead to allow this oil subsidy to continue while passing “an alternative plan to pay for the $22 billion estimated cost over 10 years ($2.2 billion per year) of the small-business provision”, using unappropriated federal funds.

Instead of redirecting $4 billion a year away from highly profitable corporations to help provide better education and jobs for our children’s future, the Senate has in effect kept $6.2 billion a year of tax payer money away from issues where we are not even in the top 20 globally in student performance on Reading, Science and Math and where job recovery has not kept pace with Wall Street’s recovery.  Corporate earnings are at peak levels by some reports and earlier this week the Dow went over 12,000 for the first time in 3 years.

For those who might suggest that such subsidies are needed to offset price fluctuations with oil due to global unrest in oil-producing states, I would point out that such volatile conditions are always anticipated by the oil industry and crude oil prices are increased automatically when such an impact seems likely.  These price increases are always higher than what production costs are during these periods.

For instance, the recent upheavals in Egypt pushed benchmark crude up $3.70 to $89.34 a barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange, according to a Wall Street Journal story last Monday.  But according to the Energy Information Administration (EIA) oil production costs “ … can range from as little as $2 per barrel in the Middle East to more than $15 per barrel in some fields in the United States, including capital recovery. … technological advances in finding and producing oil have made it possible to bring once-expensive deepwater Gulf of Mexico oil into production for less than $10 per barrel.”

In light of the recent outrage where GOP Senators refused to extend unemployment benefits to out of work families last December until they got their tax increases for the nation’s wealthiest 2%, I find it amazing that voters are not taking to the streets like many Tea Party types did in 2009 when the government bailed out Wall Street financial institutions and left Main Street to fend for itself.

Those these loans have been paid back in full it is clear where the mind-set is for conservative legislators when it comes to spending tax payer money.  There’s always enough federal largess for those who have enough but only Republican indifference for them that have lost their jobs, their homes, their savings and their futures.


Spending on U.S. healthcare as a percentage of...

Image via Wikipedia



Can we really rely on the new GOP House to repeal the Affordable Care Act and still provide needed new healthcare reform that cuts costs for consumers?

For the  Party that just regained the House in Congress this last election based on their messaging that Obama and the Democrats were “taking our liberties” from us, the new House speaker, John Boehner , has vowed  to remove the new freedoms we recently gained with the passage of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) passed last year.  What I believe to be a monumental error in judgement begins next week. In their efforts to repeal the bill the new GOP leadership is rushing a vote on this shortly after regaining the majority and will likely restrict debate on it,  a tactic many of them hollered foul at towards Democrats just last year when they were in the majority.

Shortly after the victories came for the House Republicans last November Boehner told reporters he believed “that the healthcare bill that was enacted by the current Congress will kill jobs in America, ruin the best healthcare system in the world, and bankrupt our country.  That means we have to do everything we can to try to repeal this bill and replace it with common sense reforms to bring down the cost of health care.”

WHAT WILL CHANGE?

What is in this bill that kills jobs, ruins the best healthcare system in the world (that many Americans are unable to afford anyway) and threatens a financial holocaust on our economic system?  And what, after nearly 60 years of efforts blocked by Republicans to implement health care reform, will the new Congress do different to correct this? Conservative Democrats and some Progressives who crafted the ACA claim that if this bill is repealed we could return to a failed health care system: one with skyrocketing costs bankrupting families and our budget, fewer people with access to quality care, and more people at the mercy of the health insurance industry.” (“How Conservative attacks on health reform will hurt you”, by Tony Clark, 1/5/11)

Health care costs and the bills impact on the national deficit seem to be the prevailing concern of many on both sides of the issue.  The GOP claims the package deal will raise the national debt but provides no data to support exact figures.  Conversely they offer  no information on what the taxpayer is already paying in out-of-pocket expense as an individual.  Could private industry costs exceed those realized by this legislation?

Records show that premiums for family insurance policies increased 130% over a ten year period from 1999 to 2009.  If this expense on private citizens could be cut significantly would  tax changes that impact income to fund this bill be more or less adverse.  You decide.  The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) says  “those receiving help [as a result of the new health care reforms] in the individual market would see their premiums reduced by 56 percent to 59 percent less than they would pay without the law”.  In other words the cost of your health care will actually depreciate over time as this law kicks in, where if it is repealed, they would likely continue to increase over that same period.

And despite the mantra from Republicans that health care reform is a “job killer”, Ezra Klein points out in his recent column that the “GOP lifted the claim from this Congressional Budget Office report (pdf) — but the report never says the bill will kill jobs. What it says, rather, is that the law will slightly reduce labor. It’s not that employers will fire workers. It’s that potential workers — particularly older ones — will retire somewhat earlier”.

Small businesses would actually receive federal assistance in the form of low cost exchange pools and tax credits to cover health care benefits for their employees that would help prevent any cutback on profits to run and expand their businesses.  The ultimate saving feature of providing all employees with adequate health care coverage is a more reliable, productive work force; one where fewer employees miss work or are forced to quit due to poor health, requiring employers to expend time and money to hire and train new workers to fill these losses.  This all equates into a gain of 400,000 jobs saved that would otherwise be lost from workers’ poor health

THE GOP AND HEALTH INDUSTRY ALLIANCE

The attempts by Speaker Boehner and the new GOP leadership in the House to marginalize these gains we have made with the ACA by inferring it will hurt the economy is a weak argument that attempts to conceal an alliance many of them have with the health care industry, especially big insurance companies.  There is no government run health insurance provider here.  The new law works with the private insurers to increase their  market share while essentially making these insurers do what they are designed to do – cover costs for health needs for their customers.

Because it is a for-profit business part of our premiums go to health insurers’ bottom lines.  The necessity of this arrangement insures that the company will provide the administrative bulwark essential to sustain the company that helps us cover our health care costs.  But what happens when companies become more bent on their profits than providing beneficial coverage we need?

Over the last half century the profit margin of major insurers has gone from about 5% to as much as 40% in some cases.  That means your premium dollar has lost its health care value eightfold.  The average profit margin is around 20-25% but is creeping higher outside the purview of federal watchdogs.  Without the power of the ACA to curtail this eating away at your health care dollar, more people will be forced to pay higher out-of-pocket expenses at a time when their paychecks are remaining stagnant or even dwindling.

Matters are even worse for the 1 in 10 Americans who are still out of work and lost their company paid benefits. They assimilate into that large number of Americans who were already without insurance, some 45 million, because costs are out of reach for them.    The new legislation helps these people with subsidies to cover the burden of these high costs.  As their income status improves more of the costs pass from the government back to the consumer.

The biggest objection from the opposition to this bill is what is called the individual mandate.  The law requires that everyone purchase a health care policy, including young healthy-types who are not covered with a company policy.  This influx of revenue into the health insurance industry pool is designed to reduce premium costs at all levels.  It is one of the few aspects of the ACA legislation that the health insurance industry has actually pushed for, although they did so through back doors deals with legislators so as not to appear to be the bad guys on this.  This provision has put the industry at odds with the GOP who have an historical relationship going back to the 1950‘s to block most any and all health care reform.

WHAT WE’LL LOSE

Clearly there are aspects of this bill that raise questions and legitimate concerns for taxpayers and consumers but anyone who closely watches the growth of the the for-profit health care sector there can be no doubt that health care costs have skyrocketed without any so-called interference from government.  To presume as some do that we will actually lose more than we already have is absent the reality of what is within the bill  many opponents call “Obamacare”.  Here is a list of some of the more important things that will be taken from you if Republicans are allowed to repeal this bill.

  1. Health Insurers will cancel your insurance if they deem your condition too expensive for their bottom line.
  2. The can deny you coverage for a non-life threatening pre-existing condition that hasn’t appeared in over a decade.  The new law was especially protective of children 19 and under that could be affected by these decisions.
  3. Health insurance providers can randomly increase their Medical Loss Ratio (MLR) beyond the 20% limit the law now sets.  This means no more than 20 cents on every premium dollar is all that is allowed to go to their bottom line.  The remaining 80 cents has to be spent on your health care needs.
  4. Children up to 25 years old will no longer be allowed to be covered under their parents policy.  This loss will create undue hardships on college students and young working adults at risk who can’t afford their own policies
  5. The life of the Medicare Trust fund will not be extended to at least 2029 because the actions mandated in this bill that would reduce waste, fraud and abuse, and slowing cost growth in Medicare will be removed.
  6. The 50% discount on brand-name drugs seniors are schedule to get this year when they hit the “donut hole” will be eliminated.
  7. Protections for Medicare Advantage Plan members, set to kick in in 2014 will be killed These protections would take steps to limit the amount these plans spend on administrative costs, insurance company profits, and things other than health care.
  8. You will lose valuable rights to challenge decisions of your insurance plan if it denies  payment for a treatment or service.
  9. Policy holders will lose their protection to prohibit health plans from putting a lifetime dollar limit on most benefits you receive.  The ACA also restricts and phases out the annual dollar limits a health plan can place on most of your benefits—and does away with these limits entirely in 2014.  This protection will disappear too if the GOP repeals this law.
  10. Small businesses with fewer than 25 employees and provide health insurance for them will no longer qualify for a small business tax credit of up to 35%

Contrary to much misleading information made by opponents of this legislation your rights to choose or retain your own personal physician will not be denied and women can still see an OB-GYN doctor without needing a referral from another doctor.  Also, the right to seek end-of-life counseling from your physician, portrayed by Sarah Palin as “death panels”, may still become a reality since it was eliminated from the ARA by pressure form opponents to remove it from the bill.  The aspects of Advanced Care Consultations as pointed out in Section 1233 of the HR3200 was intended in part to help seniors and their families establish advance directives, including living wills and durable powers of attorney, and their uses and to better understand the role and responsibilities of a health care proxy.  The expense to this meeting would be covered under Medicare.

MORE OF THE SAME?

The hope by some that new legislation implemented by Republicans to retain some of these items and create a “better bill” that doesn’t break the American economy should be taken with a grain of salt.  The GOP as mentioned earlier has an extensive track record of doing the bidding of health insurers and some health care providers to insure that their profits are not only protected but are enhanced through policies that increase premiums and deductibles while removing essential services vital to sustain a healthy and productive workforce.

To date the GOP has offered nothing to curb high health care costs outside of the failed practices they supported during the Bush administration.  It is likely that part of what GOP leaders offer is more of the same with so-called “market principles” that allow the private sector to address the issue of lowering costs.  Does the expression “allowing the fox in the hen house” seem pertinent here?

 

RESOURCES:

Attempts to Repeal Affordable Care Act Have Serious Consequences

Healthcare.gov



Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 81 other followers