Every Christmas Eve, I watch Frank Capra's iconic film, It's a Wonderful Life. Anyone who has never seen it should do so. It never gets old. In fact, despite its age, 67 years, I believe that this classic is as timely as ever.
The central character, George Bailey, masterfully portrayed by Jimmy Stewart, is a small-town loan officer who casts aside his personal aspirations, to save his family's building and loan operation from certain ruin at the hands of Henry Potter (Lionel Barrymore), a ruthless manipulator who seizes the town bank in the wake of the Crash of '29 that sparked the depression.
George Bailey's genuine concern for the welfare of his fellow townspeople fuels his iron-bound determination to keep the family's business alive: a bulwark which is all that stands between working families' opportunity to live with dignity in decent homes as opposed to abject misery in Henry Potter's slums.
By dint of events beyond his control, George Bailey finds himself on the brink of bankruptcy and seriously considers doing himself in. But a guardian angel (Henry Travers) intervenes and presents George with a precious gift: an opportunity to see what everyone's lives would have been like had he never been born. Had George Bailey never existed, the friendly, thriving town of Bedford Falls would have degenerated into a toxic fog of sullenness, despair, and petty meanness --- and been re-dubbed "Pottersville" in dubious honor of its most powerful resident.
Well folks, Pottersville is real and getting realer. The lion's share of the US Congress as well as (too) many statehouses is under the merciless thrall of Henry Potter and those like him.
In the meantime, millions of hard-luck families will be losing extended unemployment benefits next week because the majority of Republicans --- including many so-called "moderates" --- voted against their renewal. These jobless folks are not slackers, regardless of what Congressmen like Paul Ryan (R - Ayn Rand) and Steven Fincher (R - Those Who Don't Work Don't Eat) seem to believe. These are the same legislators who spiked every effort to extend job-creating stimulus programs and butchered food stamp benefits.
Sorry folks, but the private sector is not creating enough decent jobs: ones that enable families and individuals to live securely and with dignity without marrying themselves to Wal-Mart or McDonald's.
Henry Potter lives.
Friday, December 27, 2013
Saturday, December 14, 2013
The Issue of Economic Inequality is Front & Center. But What About Congress?
President Obama recently spoke at a venue in an economically ravaged neighborhood in the Nation's Capitol. The focus of his speech: economic inequality. It was refreshing to actually hear the nation's chief executive address this issue. It's been a dog's age and it's long overdue.
Obama suggested that following through with the health care agenda would be helpful. Consider how easy it is to become medically indigent. One major medical event can do it! The full implementation of Obamacare, including the expansion of Medicaid would certainly make a dent. (Not as effective as the single-payer alternative or Medicare For All, but still a vast improvement).
He also offered a number of legislative remedies:
- better education, including making college more
affordable
- an increase in the minimum wage
- strengthening of unions.
Finally, the president summarized some of the principal causes of economic injustice:
- outsourcing of formerly stable jobs
- legitimization of "trickle-down ideology" including
tax cuts for the wealthy
- neglect of schools and infrastructure and their
ultimate deterioration.
But Congress is doing squat in regard to offering any sort of legislative remedies. Senator Patty Murray (D.-Wash) and Congressman Paul Ryan (R.-Ayn Rand), the chairfolks of their respective budget committees, managed to broker a compromise, enabling passage of a new budget with a minimum of fuss. I guess that in itself is considered a major achievement.
Parts of the sequester-fueled budget cuts are apparently being restored; that's progress. But none of the elements of Obama's speech are really being addressed. Additionally, food stamp allotments and the extension of unemployment compensation are being scaled back. Is it really fair or moral to sacrifice the welfare of folks desperately in need in order to broker a political compromise?
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, among others, seem to believe that some of these provisions can be reintroduced later. I hope they're right.
Obama suggested that following through with the health care agenda would be helpful. Consider how easy it is to become medically indigent. One major medical event can do it! The full implementation of Obamacare, including the expansion of Medicaid would certainly make a dent. (Not as effective as the single-payer alternative or Medicare For All, but still a vast improvement).
He also offered a number of legislative remedies:
- better education, including making college more
affordable
- an increase in the minimum wage
- strengthening of unions.
Finally, the president summarized some of the principal causes of economic injustice:
- outsourcing of formerly stable jobs
- legitimization of "trickle-down ideology" including
tax cuts for the wealthy
- neglect of schools and infrastructure and their
ultimate deterioration.
But Congress is doing squat in regard to offering any sort of legislative remedies. Senator Patty Murray (D.-Wash) and Congressman Paul Ryan (R.-Ayn Rand), the chairfolks of their respective budget committees, managed to broker a compromise, enabling passage of a new budget with a minimum of fuss. I guess that in itself is considered a major achievement.
Parts of the sequester-fueled budget cuts are apparently being restored; that's progress. But none of the elements of Obama's speech are really being addressed. Additionally, food stamp allotments and the extension of unemployment compensation are being scaled back. Is it really fair or moral to sacrifice the welfare of folks desperately in need in order to broker a political compromise?
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, among others, seem to believe that some of these provisions can be reintroduced later. I hope they're right.
Saturday, November 23, 2013
There's Nothing Extreme About the "Lefties" in Public Office
Unlike their colleagues at the opposite end of the political spectrum, I'm not aware of a single liberal --- or, if you prefer, progressive --- intent on trashing our government, despoiling the world economy, and thereby creating widespread misery. Instead, they're doing their level best to preserve and, whenever possible, strengthen the social safety net. This much is true at all levels of government: federal, state, and local.
Fortunately, President Obama and the Democrats didn't give in to the Tea Partiers and their compatriots as they did in 2011. Yet still, during the sixteen days that much of government operation was frozen in place, plenty of damage was done.
Consider this: Issued-oriented polls --- mainstream ones --- consistently indicate that there's majority support for the following items: Job creation, more funding for education, maintenance and strengthening of Social Security and Medicare, tax fairness, and shrinking the military budget (without hurting active-duty personnel and veterans).
The most consistent sponsors and supporters of such legislation are the House and senatorial progressives. Seriously! Yep, good burghers such as Senators Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, and Congressfolks Keith Ellison, John Lewis, Raul Grijalva, and, until this year, Dennis Kucinich, whose seat was gerrymandered into nothingness by the Ohio state legislature.
A lot of Americans don't like being politically labelled, and that's understandable. The Gallup organization periodically fields an attitudinal survey, asking respondents to define themselves --- as liberal, moderate, or conservative. The majority consider themselves moderates. Because the term "liberal" has a long history of being stigmatized, I believe that a lot of older respondents prefer to label themselves as "moderates", even if they share values and priorities with self-described liberals.
At least one survey combines this data under one cover: The General Social Survey, funded by the National Science Foundation and fielded once a year by the National Opinion Research Center of the University of Chicago. (For instance, how self-described moderates, libs, etc. feel about specific issues). It's not available on-line, but should be accessible at most public and university libraries.
Admittedly, I haven't given myself a chance to eyeball it, but I'm convinced that the data would affirm my perspective --- that as a nation, we really care about each other and believe in social justice.
Unfortunately, many --- far too many --- of our elected officials don't reflect those values. Let's try to fix that in 2014!
(Also scope out a related post on this blog dated 1/23/13:
"Liberalism: As American as Apple Pie").
Fortunately, President Obama and the Democrats didn't give in to the Tea Partiers and their compatriots as they did in 2011. Yet still, during the sixteen days that much of government operation was frozen in place, plenty of damage was done.
Consider this: Issued-oriented polls --- mainstream ones --- consistently indicate that there's majority support for the following items: Job creation, more funding for education, maintenance and strengthening of Social Security and Medicare, tax fairness, and shrinking the military budget (without hurting active-duty personnel and veterans).
The most consistent sponsors and supporters of such legislation are the House and senatorial progressives. Seriously! Yep, good burghers such as Senators Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, and Congressfolks Keith Ellison, John Lewis, Raul Grijalva, and, until this year, Dennis Kucinich, whose seat was gerrymandered into nothingness by the Ohio state legislature.
A lot of Americans don't like being politically labelled, and that's understandable. The Gallup organization periodically fields an attitudinal survey, asking respondents to define themselves --- as liberal, moderate, or conservative. The majority consider themselves moderates. Because the term "liberal" has a long history of being stigmatized, I believe that a lot of older respondents prefer to label themselves as "moderates", even if they share values and priorities with self-described liberals.
At least one survey combines this data under one cover: The General Social Survey, funded by the National Science Foundation and fielded once a year by the National Opinion Research Center of the University of Chicago. (For instance, how self-described moderates, libs, etc. feel about specific issues). It's not available on-line, but should be accessible at most public and university libraries.
Admittedly, I haven't given myself a chance to eyeball it, but I'm convinced that the data would affirm my perspective --- that as a nation, we really care about each other and believe in social justice.
Unfortunately, many --- far too many --- of our elected officials don't reflect those values. Let's try to fix that in 2014!
(Also scope out a related post on this blog dated 1/23/13:
"Liberalism: As American as Apple Pie").
Friday, November 8, 2013
Trans-Pacific Trade Partnership: Another Deal Under the Radar
Earlier today, I watched a recent video from the archives of Moyers & Company, an excellent public affairs program hosted by the seasoned journalist Bill Moyers. (He never misses). His guests were two well-regarded bloggers with backgrounds in business and economics: Susan Webber (who uses the penname Yves Smith) and Dean Baker.
Apparently, both guests have, through reliable Obama administration contacts, been privy to some of the contents of a trade bill that's being ramrodded through Congress: The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). (In more genteel circles, this process is known as "fast tracking"). 130 members of Congress have appealed for some transparency regarding this measure. But apparently, they're being sloughed off. Interestingly, the folks involved in this appeal span the political spectrum from progressive Alan Grayson to Tea Partier Michele Bachmann.
Regardless of motive, their mutual concern is justified. Supporters of the TPP live on both sides of the aisle as well.
What's unsettling about this pact, as well as its predecessors, the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA), is that they were crafted by and for corporate interests. No one else was ever allowed a seat at the table --- labor advocates, environmentalists, or community activists. (H. Ross Perot, who ran a spirited independent presidential campaign in 1992, warned us of the consequences of an enacted NAFTA: a "giant sucking sound" of jobs leaving the US for friendlier environs [read low-wage]. He turned out to be prophetic).
Twelve nations have signed onto the TPP: The US, Canada, Mexico, Peru, and Chile, as well as Japan, Australia and New Zealand. Rounding out the dozen are Malaysia, Vietnam, Brunei, and Singapore. With the exceptions of Mexico and Vietnam, none of the listed nations (as far as I know) appear to have an extensive history of factory labor abuse. The maquiladoras that once caressed the Mexican border with the US are largely history, as corporate poobahs discovered that overseas labor was even cheaper.
But here's something to consider: the TPP is still a work in progress. Policy honchos in Indonesia (the world's fourth most populous nation) and Thailand are receptive to clambering on-board the TPP bandwagon. Both nations also maintain policies that are tolerant of oppressive working conditions. (The presence of Indonesian sweatshops have been well-documented by Oxfam).
I campaigned vigorously for the president and have no regrets. Furthermore, I recognize that Obama and the majority of Democrats have expressed a far greater concern for social and economic fairness than most of their Republican counterparts. Occasionally, they succeed in acting upon those concerns: consider the Affordable Care Act. As flawed as it appears to be, it's a vast improvement over the alternative, which for a lot of folks was nothing.
Based on what's known about the TPP, it should merit more public attention. It seems to be a work in progress with open-ended provisions, such as enabling admission of additional nations with dicey labor history. If the corporate universe continues to call the shots without any meaningful counter-balance, the world-wide race to the bottom will continue to gather momentum.
Touch bases with your reps in the House and Senate; urge them to defeat the TPP. There's a great, bearded adage: "A stopped clock is right twice a day". Even a stopped clock that happens to be named Michele Bachmann.
Apparently, both guests have, through reliable Obama administration contacts, been privy to some of the contents of a trade bill that's being ramrodded through Congress: The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). (In more genteel circles, this process is known as "fast tracking"). 130 members of Congress have appealed for some transparency regarding this measure. But apparently, they're being sloughed off. Interestingly, the folks involved in this appeal span the political spectrum from progressive Alan Grayson to Tea Partier Michele Bachmann.
Regardless of motive, their mutual concern is justified. Supporters of the TPP live on both sides of the aisle as well.
What's unsettling about this pact, as well as its predecessors, the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA), is that they were crafted by and for corporate interests. No one else was ever allowed a seat at the table --- labor advocates, environmentalists, or community activists. (H. Ross Perot, who ran a spirited independent presidential campaign in 1992, warned us of the consequences of an enacted NAFTA: a "giant sucking sound" of jobs leaving the US for friendlier environs [read low-wage]. He turned out to be prophetic).
Twelve nations have signed onto the TPP: The US, Canada, Mexico, Peru, and Chile, as well as Japan, Australia and New Zealand. Rounding out the dozen are Malaysia, Vietnam, Brunei, and Singapore. With the exceptions of Mexico and Vietnam, none of the listed nations (as far as I know) appear to have an extensive history of factory labor abuse. The maquiladoras that once caressed the Mexican border with the US are largely history, as corporate poobahs discovered that overseas labor was even cheaper.
But here's something to consider: the TPP is still a work in progress. Policy honchos in Indonesia (the world's fourth most populous nation) and Thailand are receptive to clambering on-board the TPP bandwagon. Both nations also maintain policies that are tolerant of oppressive working conditions. (The presence of Indonesian sweatshops have been well-documented by Oxfam).
I campaigned vigorously for the president and have no regrets. Furthermore, I recognize that Obama and the majority of Democrats have expressed a far greater concern for social and economic fairness than most of their Republican counterparts. Occasionally, they succeed in acting upon those concerns: consider the Affordable Care Act. As flawed as it appears to be, it's a vast improvement over the alternative, which for a lot of folks was nothing.
Based on what's known about the TPP, it should merit more public attention. It seems to be a work in progress with open-ended provisions, such as enabling admission of additional nations with dicey labor history. If the corporate universe continues to call the shots without any meaningful counter-balance, the world-wide race to the bottom will continue to gather momentum.
Touch bases with your reps in the House and Senate; urge them to defeat the TPP. There's a great, bearded adage: "A stopped clock is right twice a day". Even a stopped clock that happens to be named Michele Bachmann.
Tuesday, October 22, 2013
Potatoes Aside, the Redskins Need a Name Change
I recently read a well-reasoned column by conservative commentator Charles Krauthammer. While I rarely agree with his political perspectives, he has always commanded my respect as a journalist.
In last week's syndicated column, he made a compelling case for changing the name of the Washington Redskins. The team's owner, Dan Snyder cites "the long and proud history surrounding the Washington Redskins that goes back generations." He maintains that no malice or prejudice was ever intended by using the name "Redskins"
and cites the team's 80-year history.
But Mr. Krauthammer states that "words don't stand still. They evolve." He cites as an example the manner in which the term "Negro" is no longer considered acceptable "unless you've been asleep for the past fifty years." So he suggests that we honor "changes in linguistic nuance" and agree to a name change. He offers as a substitute the name "Skins" as in "shirts and skins pickup basketball teams". I dunno. What would the logo look like? Some super-buff, bare-chested dude with bulging pecs and biceps? --- and maybe a set of fangs, with dripping saliva?
I had actually considered another alternative: keeping the name, but changing the logo in honor of The Redskin Potato. Hey, it's heart-healthy and full of protein! Just one li'l fly in the ointment: the organization People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) beat me to the punch. An article on PETA's webpage promotes this suggestion along with a tidy graphic of a masterfully-cooked, meticulously-presented redskin potato ready to be dined on.
On second thought, most football fans probably aren't vegetarians. They crave mmmeeeeaaattt!!! And blood 'n gore 'n raw guts! So scratch the redskin potatoes gambit.
Hey, I got it! The perfect name, especially in the wake of recent political upheavals in The Nation's Capital. ***The Washington Shutdowns!***
There ya go!
In last week's syndicated column, he made a compelling case for changing the name of the Washington Redskins. The team's owner, Dan Snyder cites "the long and proud history surrounding the Washington Redskins that goes back generations." He maintains that no malice or prejudice was ever intended by using the name "Redskins"
and cites the team's 80-year history.
But Mr. Krauthammer states that "words don't stand still. They evolve." He cites as an example the manner in which the term "Negro" is no longer considered acceptable "unless you've been asleep for the past fifty years." So he suggests that we honor "changes in linguistic nuance" and agree to a name change. He offers as a substitute the name "Skins" as in "shirts and skins pickup basketball teams". I dunno. What would the logo look like? Some super-buff, bare-chested dude with bulging pecs and biceps? --- and maybe a set of fangs, with dripping saliva?
I had actually considered another alternative: keeping the name, but changing the logo in honor of The Redskin Potato. Hey, it's heart-healthy and full of protein! Just one li'l fly in the ointment: the organization People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) beat me to the punch. An article on PETA's webpage promotes this suggestion along with a tidy graphic of a masterfully-cooked, meticulously-presented redskin potato ready to be dined on.
On second thought, most football fans probably aren't vegetarians. They crave mmmeeeeaaattt!!! And blood 'n gore 'n raw guts! So scratch the redskin potatoes gambit.
Hey, I got it! The perfect name, especially in the wake of recent political upheavals in The Nation's Capital. ***The Washington Shutdowns!***
There ya go!
Tuesday, October 1, 2013
Don't Feed the Loafers!
Petty meanness rules!
Here we are; it's Day 2 of the federal shutdown. Not only that, but just up the road a piece, we'll be bumping our collective heads on the debt ceiling. Apparently we've succeeded in electing a bunch of heartless, mean-spirited human beings who've made their sentiments abundantly clear: They don't give a damn about folks who are struggling to survive.
Maybe enough voters will come to their senses in 2014 and send some of these monsters home. Here's one sample of pure meanness: Tennessee Congressman Steven Fincher (R - 8th). He was among the majority of House Republicans to vote for deep cuts in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), which provides food stamps to needy households. Over 40% of SNAP households include at least one wage-earner. Seniors and folks on disability account for most of the balance.
Yet Mr. Fincher insists on citing the following biblical passage: "Those unwilling to work shall not eat". He went on to say that caring for the poor is "something Christians might do, but not with government money". (Charities do great work, but have never been able to help more than a fraction of those in need, especially in stressful times).
This congressman, who along with his family operates a prosperous 2,500-acre farm (about 4 square miles), has no qualms about suckling the government titty himself. His business has benefitted from well over $3 million in federal farm subsidies over the past decade, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).
Tennessee's Eighth District, which covers the westernmost tier of counties above Memphis, has a long, bearded tradition of electing socially conservative Democrats. I would like to believe that local Democrats could field a worthy opponent for Mr. Fincher in 2014: someone with a much more humane interpretation of the Bible; a candidate who'd appeal to everyone's better nature. Most voters in that district do not share the Fincher Family's good fortune, and probably know folks who are struggling --- and may even be on food stamps.
Not to be forgotten is Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan (R - 1st), the Ayn Rand acolyte and self-anointed budget maven whom Mitt Romney chose as his running mate. According to Mr. Ryan, SNAP is "a hammock that lolls able-bodied people into lives of dependency and complacency".
Many seemingly moderate Republicans are decrying the shutdown and fear for their own political futures. Understood. Yet they continue to support measures that shred the social safety net, such as the food stamp cuts.
The Dems need to retrieve 17 seats next year in order to re-establish a House majority. If the Tea Party nutcakes continue to hog the limelight, maybe just maybe it could happen!
Here we are; it's Day 2 of the federal shutdown. Not only that, but just up the road a piece, we'll be bumping our collective heads on the debt ceiling. Apparently we've succeeded in electing a bunch of heartless, mean-spirited human beings who've made their sentiments abundantly clear: They don't give a damn about folks who are struggling to survive.
Maybe enough voters will come to their senses in 2014 and send some of these monsters home. Here's one sample of pure meanness: Tennessee Congressman Steven Fincher (R - 8th). He was among the majority of House Republicans to vote for deep cuts in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), which provides food stamps to needy households. Over 40% of SNAP households include at least one wage-earner. Seniors and folks on disability account for most of the balance.
Yet Mr. Fincher insists on citing the following biblical passage: "Those unwilling to work shall not eat". He went on to say that caring for the poor is "something Christians might do, but not with government money". (Charities do great work, but have never been able to help more than a fraction of those in need, especially in stressful times).
This congressman, who along with his family operates a prosperous 2,500-acre farm (about 4 square miles), has no qualms about suckling the government titty himself. His business has benefitted from well over $3 million in federal farm subsidies over the past decade, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).
Tennessee's Eighth District, which covers the westernmost tier of counties above Memphis, has a long, bearded tradition of electing socially conservative Democrats. I would like to believe that local Democrats could field a worthy opponent for Mr. Fincher in 2014: someone with a much more humane interpretation of the Bible; a candidate who'd appeal to everyone's better nature. Most voters in that district do not share the Fincher Family's good fortune, and probably know folks who are struggling --- and may even be on food stamps.
Not to be forgotten is Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan (R - 1st), the Ayn Rand acolyte and self-anointed budget maven whom Mitt Romney chose as his running mate. According to Mr. Ryan, SNAP is "a hammock that lolls able-bodied people into lives of dependency and complacency".
Many seemingly moderate Republicans are decrying the shutdown and fear for their own political futures. Understood. Yet they continue to support measures that shred the social safety net, such as the food stamp cuts.
The Dems need to retrieve 17 seats next year in order to re-establish a House majority. If the Tea Party nutcakes continue to hog the limelight, maybe just maybe it could happen!
Monday, September 16, 2013
Obamacare & the Expansion of Medicaid: a Sure Lot Better than What We Had (or Didn't Have)
It's not my intent to trash Obamacare (a.k.a., The Affordable Care Act or ACA). Provisions already in effect really have made health care more affordable and accessible for many Americans. But other families and individuals are still out of the loop. While insurance carriers can no longer impose lifetime caps on their policy-holders, or reject them for pre-existing conditions, there's precious little control over the premiums that carriers can impose, at least for now.
The state-coordinated insurance exchanges scheduled to kick in next year, with mandated coverage and available subsidies may help a lot. But judging from what I've understood, the various plans will probably be more expensive and cumbersome to administer than the single-payer option. With its near-total reliance on private-sector health insurance providers, the system is still very much profit-driven. Conversely, universal health care would be tidier and less costly to maintain. It works reasonably well across the pond. (In Germany, the carriers are non-governmental, but also non-profit).
Another potential obstacle: the coverage mandate for businesses with more than 50 employees. Having just been postponed for a year, it's now scheduled to take effect in 2015. I've read mixed reviews about this measure and honestly don't know what the impact might be. (The vast majority of domestic businesses don't come close to approaching that 50-employee threshold, yet a few growing enterprises could conceivably roll over that hump).
In the meantime, many congressional Republicans are still obsessed with their compulsion to repeal the ACA in its entirety. It's what now, their 41st attempt? The Republicans have been aided in their effort to hobble Obamacare by an organization called the National Federation of Independent Businesses (NFIB). (Despite the name, the NFIB is funded largely by four very generous donors, who account for well over three million dollars of their war chest of several million).
Last year, the NFIB was the lead plaintiff involved with a Supreme Court appeal to trash the ACA: National Federation of Independent Businesses vs. Sebelius. This effort didn't succeed; a 5-4 majority, including Chief Justice John Roberts, upheld the individual mandate. However, Justice Roberts switched his position in regard to Medicaid expansion.
The individual mandate remains intact, but individual states now have the right to opt out of expanded Medicaid coverage for their poorest residents. (These are folks whose income is too low to qualify for the exchanges. Without Medicaid expansion, they'd remain unprotected). It appears as if over 20 states have rejected it outright, while another few are still deliberating. This, despite the fact that the new Medicaid recipients would be fully funded by the federal government for the first two years. Beyond that time, the states are expected to kick in small, but increasing increments until they're capped at the rate of 10% in 2022.
Because many state budgets are in the red, fiscal hardship could be cited as an excuse for some states to deny their residents desperately needed Medicaid coverage. Changing the terms of such coverage to full federal funding for the foreseeable future might be worth considering.
Thereafter, any state legislatures still refusing to accept Medicaid expansion would be doing so for buck-naked ideological reasons. The only rights really being compromised would be those of the folks denied decent health care.
Just a thought.
The state-coordinated insurance exchanges scheduled to kick in next year, with mandated coverage and available subsidies may help a lot. But judging from what I've understood, the various plans will probably be more expensive and cumbersome to administer than the single-payer option. With its near-total reliance on private-sector health insurance providers, the system is still very much profit-driven. Conversely, universal health care would be tidier and less costly to maintain. It works reasonably well across the pond. (In Germany, the carriers are non-governmental, but also non-profit).
Another potential obstacle: the coverage mandate for businesses with more than 50 employees. Having just been postponed for a year, it's now scheduled to take effect in 2015. I've read mixed reviews about this measure and honestly don't know what the impact might be. (The vast majority of domestic businesses don't come close to approaching that 50-employee threshold, yet a few growing enterprises could conceivably roll over that hump).
In the meantime, many congressional Republicans are still obsessed with their compulsion to repeal the ACA in its entirety. It's what now, their 41st attempt? The Republicans have been aided in their effort to hobble Obamacare by an organization called the National Federation of Independent Businesses (NFIB). (Despite the name, the NFIB is funded largely by four very generous donors, who account for well over three million dollars of their war chest of several million).
Last year, the NFIB was the lead plaintiff involved with a Supreme Court appeal to trash the ACA: National Federation of Independent Businesses vs. Sebelius. This effort didn't succeed; a 5-4 majority, including Chief Justice John Roberts, upheld the individual mandate. However, Justice Roberts switched his position in regard to Medicaid expansion.
The individual mandate remains intact, but individual states now have the right to opt out of expanded Medicaid coverage for their poorest residents. (These are folks whose income is too low to qualify for the exchanges. Without Medicaid expansion, they'd remain unprotected). It appears as if over 20 states have rejected it outright, while another few are still deliberating. This, despite the fact that the new Medicaid recipients would be fully funded by the federal government for the first two years. Beyond that time, the states are expected to kick in small, but increasing increments until they're capped at the rate of 10% in 2022.
Because many state budgets are in the red, fiscal hardship could be cited as an excuse for some states to deny their residents desperately needed Medicaid coverage. Changing the terms of such coverage to full federal funding for the foreseeable future might be worth considering.
Thereafter, any state legislatures still refusing to accept Medicaid expansion would be doing so for buck-naked ideological reasons. The only rights really being compromised would be those of the folks denied decent health care.
Just a thought.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)