Many years ago various blogs requested readers to open Facebook pages and “like” the blogs. I did this and otherwise rarely visit it. On occasion however, I’ve learned to my chagrin that much conservative garbage appears beside my meaningful materials. Below is one such excrescence. Feeling the need to ameliorate the ignorance, I replied. It is my hope that these comments might amuse.
“Give me a reason why our public servants should be excluded from the Nobamacare TAX. It only seems fair that our leaders set the example for everyone.”
Beneath his comment is a picture of an anguished Nancy Pelosi asking the President: What do you mean you're switching my insurance to Obamacare?!
Oh Billeeeeee,
Because I know that you know better and are just amusing yourself stirring the pot to rile liberals as previously you have acknowledged (and I swore never again to take the bait)—and in truth I am a liberal as opposed merely to the fiction of conservatives that any not strictly adherent to that doctrine are perforce liberals—I feel that I must set straight the record as one does exist. But first, while it’s understood in some quarters that Mrs. Pelosi is a terrible, odious person, shrill, a bitch, and probably one who kicks dogs and sticks needles in kittens, those traits however despicable could not in any way justify denial to her of participation in an employer provided health care insurance program.
As to the Affordable Care Act (hereinafter “ACA”) I shall attempt briefly to reiterate several of my comments of six or so weeks ago lest any of our/my readers (it appeared again on my page, at least this is the second time I happened upon it to my chagrin). However, a new conceptual error appears in this perpetration, the belief that the ACA is itself a kind of health care policy. It most assuredly is not. In fact, it encourages all who have health insurance to keep it if that is their desire and to purchase insurance more to their liking if not. Were it otherwise, it would more nearly resemble Medicare, an extremely popular program of healthcare provision (e.g., “Keep your government hands off my Medicare!”) and one significantly superior to the ACA. Indeed, it would be far less expensive in terms of actual spending for health care were we all eligible for Medicare and vastly more satisfactory to liberals.
Nowhere in the ACA is there provision excluding any federal official whether elected or employed by them from the terms of the legislation, Nancy included. But you knew that.
With but a small exception, there is no tax included in the law. That exception is the so-called “mandate.” For any who choose not to take responsibility for themselves (as we recently learned Mr. Romney put it so inelegantly) by purchase of a policy preferring instead to let their health care fall upon the citizenry at large in the event of ill health, there is a provision for a tax. To be noted is that the tax is less than the cost of actual health insurance and there is no mechanism for enforcement, that is, collection. Nevertheless, it is extant. As an Interesting aside, Mr. Romney yesterday said that he’d accept being known as the “grandfather” of the ACA (campaign retraction almost certain to follow). Further, this tax or mandate was NOT attacked by the insurance industry in its fight against the law for what it’s worth.
The ACA provides for those of with policies of health insurance that a windfall will be arriving for the difference between the mandated percentage of our premiums (80%?) to be applied to health care provision and the actual amount. That amount could be considerable given that the above referenced industry battle was estimated to have resulted in expenditures of more than $100,000,000.
Should I have left out anything, please feel free to make the point as I feel certain that you share my concern that all should have adequate appreciation of the realities.
Sorry, but I have to add one additional comment from our communications. According to the Harvard Medical Journal, in 2010 more than 45,000 Americans were condemned to death by their lack of access to health care. This abominable fact not only is immoral but demonstrative of the desperate need for the ACA.
Reply.
What has conservatives scared to death is the unbelievable size of the national debt. At the present time each man, woman and child in the USA owes the government $51,000 toward the national debt. The Nobamacare program as reviewed by the Congressional Budget Office will just create Trillions more in debt. The government can not be all things to all people and survive. It is criminal to hire 60,000 more IRS agents to over see the massive program. There are things that can be done to make health care affordable without a massive government take over of the health care system. I find it very difficult to understand why liberals have no concern for the size of the national debt. Liberal Letterman asked B O about the sky high size of the national debt. What B O said was the amount of debt could be a concern in the future but as long as interest rates are near zero it is not a problem. I do not have an MBA but this sounds like the ravings of a mad man!"
Whether true of yourself, the fear of the national debt is newfound for the vast majority of conservatives. One Mr. Cheney, de facto head of the previous administration, stated during that administration that no one was concerned with deficits (or it follows)/debt and that Reagan who’d grown both prodigiously proved that fact. Moreover, if you’ll look at the vast contributions to the debt by the previous administration, it will be obvious that it mostly proceeds from tax cuts representing significant redistribution of wealth and unpaid for wars at least one of which still remains unexplained (oh and the unpaid for prescription drug giveaway under Medicare during that same reign). You know the old joke, “It hurts when I do this.” “Stop doing that!”
Despite the frequent referrals to China, the vast majority of the debt is as always domestically held making it unique in many economic respects and in history. To say that individuals “owe” some sum is specious. Rather it is simple long division to illustrate a point usually equally specious.
I have seen only CBO statements as to savings resultant on a variety of bases from the ACA nor can I imagine a basis for such “costs.” If you’d care to share some source for that [“Trillions more”] I’d be interested in reading it. However, I’m highly skeptical.
The size of all governments in this country including the federal government but mostly the state and local governments has shrunk considerably resulting in a full percentage point of the current unemployment stats. (You may recall that more than a year ago [two?], Mr. Obama ordered a federal employment freeze in a misguided attempt to win some conservative cooperation. One caution: the figures for the first two years show an increase in federal employment; economists generally have stated that the federal government has shrunk during the Obama administration however.) Very recently the federal government had a slight increase in employment but not likely 60,000 people. Actually, the IRS long has been understaffed and underfunded resulting in hundreds of billions (trillions?) of dollars in uncollected taxes which should concern you every bit as much as your other concerns. Nowhere that I’m aware is there provision for hiring ANY federal employees as a result of the ACA. Again, have you any source for that assertion? Should there be such new employment, it would favorably affect the economy (see below).
The ACA is simple. It is not a government takeover. Were it, it would more nearly resemble Medicare tho similarly not a “takeover.” Instead it is a conservative program providing minimal standards and requiring as many people as possible to purchase policies of health insurance. The same organizations in charge remain in charge which is a boon to the insurance industry and a continuation of the waste, fraud, abuse and miscarriage long attendant provision of health care.
While I do not watch late night comedians, what Mr. Obama has said is quite sound. Moreover, it may not be advantageous to the understanding of basic economics to have an MBA; a grounding in fundamental economics is what is essential. The importance of the debt primarily is the interest burden thereon. Thus, a negligible interest burden is anything but an insuperable burden (the fed chairman stated last week that he intends to maintain the current interest rate until the economy improves). What is unbearable is people starving and in need of jobs of decent wages. Those come not from tax cuts to benefit wealthy in the faint hope that they might build factories or otherwise employ folks (the banks are literally sitting on a trillion or more dollars at pres and corps, too, are awash in cash; it used to be that there was legal stimulus to force such funds into circulation to keep the economy moving; sadly that is with the dodo). The only “job creators”are consumers. Therefore, the stimulus necessary is to get money into the hands of those who have no choice but to spend it, i.e. consume. Please understand that I do appreciate that this is overly simplified but real nonetheless. Finally, when the economy is growing, THEN it’s time to focus on the debt. The debt is not irrelevant but must be understood for what it is and is not as well as how its management is to be achieved.
Most of this has been written upon extensively by Professor (and Nobel Laureate) Paul Krugman and is readily available. Moreover, it generally is agreed upon by economists. Finally, the unreasonable focus upon the debt in place of stimulus is precisely the opposite of what is needed. For proof look only to Europe which has been pursuing deficit reduction for two or more years to nearly calamitous end. An exception is Germany which although suffering is held aloft in part by its largely socialist economy a key foundation of which is strong unions and corresponding high wages. There, Sir, is your solid middle class foundation.
What scares me is the sudden ravings of the people who created the absurd deficits in the hope of political gain backed by the thunder of the right wing blat machine.