Thursday, August 30, 2012
The NFL maintains twice the
number of players that it actually uses. What does that say about labor? American labor in general. Twice the number of workers, so a 50% umployment rate is acceptable.
Saturday, August 25, 2012
The Medicare Differences
The New Republic's Jonathon Cohn has an exhaustive guide to the Medicare debate playing out in this election. Or, nearly exhaustive, because of course neither Romney or Ryan has produced sufficient details to answer all of the questions Cohn poses.
But here are his key questions: 1) How do the plans control Medicare spending; 2) How quickly do the plans cut spending; 3) On whom do the plans place the most risk; and 4) What else would the plans (and the men behind them) do to the health care system? And here's a quick chart of Cohn's analysis
An executive summary of the differences from a article at Daily Kos by Joan McCarter, 'The Most-definitive Gude to the Medicare Debate'.
1. How do the plans control Medicare spending?
In the case of the Affordable Care Act, through "reductions in what Medicare paid providers—that is, doctors, hospitals, and suppliers of medical goods," using information about where Medicare is overpaying and introducing incentives for increasing quality of care. In the case of Romney/Ryan, market competition—moving Medicare to a privatized, voucher system.
2. How quickly do the plans cut spending?
This is a harder one to nail down, for both plans, since there are so many factors at play. But, in essence, the Affordable Care Act cuts $716 billion (that number is subject to change) in the next 10 years, extending the program's solvency to 2024. The Romney/Ryan current voucher plan doesn't really supply enough specifics to know how quickly spending cuts will unfold, but those cuts will likely be harsher if Romney/Ryan followed through on their promise to restore the ACA cuts, the same cuts Ryan included in his budget. They'd also be harsher because Romney has a budget cap, a hard target for spending. Keeping Medicare spending to a hard target will mean "a more severe spending cut than Ryan’s or Obama’s."
3. On whom do the plans place the most risk?
That's an easy one, and also the most important question of the whole debate. With the Affordable Care Act: "[I]t does not undermine the basic guarantee to seniors—that, upon retirement, every American will get a comprehensive set of insurance benefits." There is the very real possibility that access with be more of a problem, if providers start dropping Medicare patients because of reduced payments, but seniors will still have comprehensive insurance. The Romney/Ryan plan would force seniors to pay more, and does put the future of the program as it exists today at risk.
4. What else would the plans (and the men behind them) do to the health care system?
Obviously, the Affordable Care Act expands access to affordable health insurance and to a key program for providing health care to lower-income people: Medicaid. Romney/Ryan's plans for Medicaid would drastically cut the program, shrinking access to health care for millions, including many seniors. It would force states to have to prioritize who got health care, forcing states to become de facto death panels
To Joan , thanks for this work. I copied it to remember these points for arguement.
But here are his key questions: 1) How do the plans control Medicare spending; 2) How quickly do the plans cut spending; 3) On whom do the plans place the most risk; and 4) What else would the plans (and the men behind them) do to the health care system? And here's a quick chart of Cohn's analysis
An executive summary of the differences from a article at Daily Kos by Joan McCarter, 'The Most-definitive Gude to the Medicare Debate'.
1. How do the plans control Medicare spending?
In the case of the Affordable Care Act, through "reductions in what Medicare paid providers—that is, doctors, hospitals, and suppliers of medical goods," using information about where Medicare is overpaying and introducing incentives for increasing quality of care. In the case of Romney/Ryan, market competition—moving Medicare to a privatized, voucher system.
2. How quickly do the plans cut spending?
This is a harder one to nail down, for both plans, since there are so many factors at play. But, in essence, the Affordable Care Act cuts $716 billion (that number is subject to change) in the next 10 years, extending the program's solvency to 2024. The Romney/Ryan current voucher plan doesn't really supply enough specifics to know how quickly spending cuts will unfold, but those cuts will likely be harsher if Romney/Ryan followed through on their promise to restore the ACA cuts, the same cuts Ryan included in his budget. They'd also be harsher because Romney has a budget cap, a hard target for spending. Keeping Medicare spending to a hard target will mean "a more severe spending cut than Ryan’s or Obama’s."
3. On whom do the plans place the most risk?
That's an easy one, and also the most important question of the whole debate. With the Affordable Care Act: "[I]t does not undermine the basic guarantee to seniors—that, upon retirement, every American will get a comprehensive set of insurance benefits." There is the very real possibility that access with be more of a problem, if providers start dropping Medicare patients because of reduced payments, but seniors will still have comprehensive insurance. The Romney/Ryan plan would force seniors to pay more, and does put the future of the program as it exists today at risk.
4. What else would the plans (and the men behind them) do to the health care system?
Obviously, the Affordable Care Act expands access to affordable health insurance and to a key program for providing health care to lower-income people: Medicaid. Romney/Ryan's plans for Medicaid would drastically cut the program, shrinking access to health care for millions, including many seniors. It would force states to have to prioritize who got health care, forcing states to become de facto death panels
To Joan , thanks for this work. I copied it to remember these points for arguement.
Friday, August 24, 2012
Isn't this what right-wingers believe
about Obama? While not my work - This says it best: courtesy 'NonPartay" @ HP.
They should really cast Obama as the next James Bond. He's obviously the best Secret Agent that's ever lived. Just as he was born, he was able to slip out of a Kenyan hospital, plant his own birth announcement in two separate Hawaiian newspapers, and then stealthily return to the maternity ward without being spotted. In subsequent years, he was able to master the teachings of everything from socialism and communism to critical race theory all while infiltrating Ivy League schools that he was not smart enough to attend. While running for President, he was able to outsmart every Intelligence Agency in America as well as millions of citizens in hiding his true identity and agenda to bring down this government and this country. Pretty cool, isn’t he?
They should really cast Obama as the next James Bond. He's obviously the best Secret Agent that's ever lived. Just as he was born, he was able to slip out of a Kenyan hospital, plant his own birth announcement in two separate Hawaiian newspapers, and then stealthily return to the maternity ward without being spotted. In subsequent years, he was able to master the teachings of everything from socialism and communism to critical race theory all while infiltrating Ivy League schools that he was not smart enough to attend. While running for President, he was able to outsmart every Intelligence Agency in America as well as millions of citizens in hiding his true identity and agenda to bring down this government and this country. Pretty cool, isn’t he?
Sunday, August 12, 2012
2016 election.
I'll say this here and now, the candidates for the two major parties in 2016 will be individuals currently not on the radar. The baby boom generation is exiting and a younger, more diverse generation is taking hold. The effective and likely candidates will be from unique, non-political can-do backgrounds and get in late. Four year running candidates will be shunned. The winning candidate will keep America's historic promise to the elderly while describing a path for the other generations to have and keep the American dream. Obama will ultimately win in 2012, and none of the existing names - Hillary, Jeb, et. al. or Ryan will be seen as viable. I love youth for all its frailities. This from an aging baby boomer.
This election may actually break the Republican party apart and in the process reset the entire American political system. I've brought this up elsewhere but 2016 will be the true first election of the new century. None, I repeat none of the current crop of potential or under consideration candidates for President will be seen as relevant. Jeb, Hillary, Timmy, Ryan, Liz, you name them will appear out of sync with the world of 2016. The effective candidates will get in late and come with a solutions based background that projects fairness and equality. The party that satisifies the baby boomers fears and needs while appealing to the new American electorate will dominate for a generation. Technology/information, meaningful living, energy/environment are reshaping the paradigm. I'm a child of the sixties and want to see the dream as reality before I move on.
This election may actually break the Republican party apart and in the process reset the entire American political system. I've brought this up elsewhere but 2016 will be the true first election of the new century. None, I repeat none of the current crop of potential or under consideration candidates for President will be seen as relevant. Jeb, Hillary, Timmy, Ryan, Liz, you name them will appear out of sync with the world of 2016. The effective candidates will get in late and come with a solutions based background that projects fairness and equality. The party that satisifies the baby boomers fears and needs while appealing to the new American electorate will dominate for a generation. Technology/information, meaningful living, energy/environment are reshaping the paradigm. I'm a child of the sixties and want to see the dream as reality before I move on.
Saturday, August 4, 2012
If Romney wins, what can we expect?
If Romney wins, what can Americans expect?
With a Romney win, the US House and Senate are likely to be both Republican dominated. The agenda, in the first one hundred days will be furious. As DeMitt indicated, he believes every thing must be pushed through in that time frame because after that the American people will Wake UP and demand a more sane policy regarding domestic and foreign issues.
First off, forget any serious effort at social issues. That is Abortion. gay rights and health care. Republicans talk the talk but don't particularly care about these. They love the anger these issues generate but don;t like to waste political capital legislating against these. Health care in particular will get starved to death or obstructed on a state level. With no money available to implement Obama Cares, health care spending as a percentage of GDP will grow while more continue to lose their health insurance. Medicaid will be gutted, leaving about 35% to 40% of the population without heath insurance or the ability to pay for health care by 2016.
Regarding defense spending. More is better. But how much is waste? Romney has vowed to increase spending significantly, in the range of $250-$500 billion yearly. With no accountability and no source of increased Federal revenues other than 'trust me'. The bulk of the increase goes to weapons purchases, keeping much of old "Cold War' weapons systems in place'. Very little bang for the dollar.
On foreign affairs, I don't see a major shift in the short run, except regarding Iran. Romney, surrounded by Bush people, wants a face-off against Iran in order to prove he too is a war-time President. No one in their right mind believes Iran will be a cake-walk and the cost in treasure and lives would leave the USA near bankruptcy once the illusion of a short, quick war fades. The likelihood of increased terrorism directed at America targets both domestically and internationally will sap the fortitude of the public.
It's clear where he wants to go by his verbal abandonment of the 'honest=broker' position the USA as held since 1967 when he mocked the Palestinians during his little foreign policy tour. It gives Israel a clear signal to end the false two state solution and annex the west-bank into Israel proper.
Domestic economic issues, however, are where Republicans want to leave a permanent stamp. Extending the complete Bush tax cuts are their primary goal. Secondly, adding the additional 20% tax cut Romney loves to hype is their real objective. And this is where the real damage to the America economy comes from. So far, the Bush tax cuts, war with Iran, and increased defense spending deliveries an annual Federal deficit of around 1.5 to 1.75 trillion. The added 20% breaks the bank.
Here's why! How much were income taxes cut for the average American in the much-maligned Stimulus? And the stimulus is set to expire. Well, it was greater than 20%. So, right-off the top, an average American income tax payer will see a modest income tax increase, under the guise of a tax cut. How fair is that? But, wait, the annual deficit is now running 2.5 trillion. Here is where Romney has solutions but are they realistic? He proposes numerous fixes in the tax code to make his 20% tax cut revenue neutral by ending or cutting back hundreds of specific income tax deductions, credits and
incentives to large and small business as well as those favoring the American public. But will Congress go along. I seriously doubt it and here's why!
Take the talk of ending the homeowners interest deduction. Want to end home ownership has we
know it? The mortgage banking, real estate, home building and home improvement industries, who pay big money in annual lobby fees, will cry and howl and bring Congress to its knees. Imagine first time home purchasing falling completely off the cliff. I can't, so that's going to be a no-no. The same of course, holds for the hundreds of other tax credits, deductions and incentives. Corporate America doesn't spend millions yearly lobbying Congress to just decide, hey, let's give up this favorably tax environment we spend millions creating. Nearly all Corporate America pays little or no taxes under current law, do you think they are willing to pay another cent. It ain't going to happen. Corporations will replace every one of the tax increasers.
So, now America is looking at annual deficits in the range of 3 trillion.
With a Romney win, the US House and Senate are likely to be both Republican dominated. The agenda, in the first one hundred days will be furious. As DeMitt indicated, he believes every thing must be pushed through in that time frame because after that the American people will Wake UP and demand a more sane policy regarding domestic and foreign issues.
First off, forget any serious effort at social issues. That is Abortion. gay rights and health care. Republicans talk the talk but don't particularly care about these. They love the anger these issues generate but don;t like to waste political capital legislating against these. Health care in particular will get starved to death or obstructed on a state level. With no money available to implement Obama Cares, health care spending as a percentage of GDP will grow while more continue to lose their health insurance. Medicaid will be gutted, leaving about 35% to 40% of the population without heath insurance or the ability to pay for health care by 2016.
Regarding defense spending. More is better. But how much is waste? Romney has vowed to increase spending significantly, in the range of $250-$500 billion yearly. With no accountability and no source of increased Federal revenues other than 'trust me'. The bulk of the increase goes to weapons purchases, keeping much of old "Cold War' weapons systems in place'. Very little bang for the dollar.
On foreign affairs, I don't see a major shift in the short run, except regarding Iran. Romney, surrounded by Bush people, wants a face-off against Iran in order to prove he too is a war-time President. No one in their right mind believes Iran will be a cake-walk and the cost in treasure and lives would leave the USA near bankruptcy once the illusion of a short, quick war fades. The likelihood of increased terrorism directed at America targets both domestically and internationally will sap the fortitude of the public.
It's clear where he wants to go by his verbal abandonment of the 'honest=broker' position the USA as held since 1967 when he mocked the Palestinians during his little foreign policy tour. It gives Israel a clear signal to end the false two state solution and annex the west-bank into Israel proper.
Domestic economic issues, however, are where Republicans want to leave a permanent stamp. Extending the complete Bush tax cuts are their primary goal. Secondly, adding the additional 20% tax cut Romney loves to hype is their real objective. And this is where the real damage to the America economy comes from. So far, the Bush tax cuts, war with Iran, and increased defense spending deliveries an annual Federal deficit of around 1.5 to 1.75 trillion. The added 20% breaks the bank.
Here's why! How much were income taxes cut for the average American in the much-maligned Stimulus? And the stimulus is set to expire. Well, it was greater than 20%. So, right-off the top, an average American income tax payer will see a modest income tax increase, under the guise of a tax cut. How fair is that? But, wait, the annual deficit is now running 2.5 trillion. Here is where Romney has solutions but are they realistic? He proposes numerous fixes in the tax code to make his 20% tax cut revenue neutral by ending or cutting back hundreds of specific income tax deductions, credits and
incentives to large and small business as well as those favoring the American public. But will Congress go along. I seriously doubt it and here's why!
Take the talk of ending the homeowners interest deduction. Want to end home ownership has we
know it? The mortgage banking, real estate, home building and home improvement industries, who pay big money in annual lobby fees, will cry and howl and bring Congress to its knees. Imagine first time home purchasing falling completely off the cliff. I can't, so that's going to be a no-no. The same of course, holds for the hundreds of other tax credits, deductions and incentives. Corporate America doesn't spend millions yearly lobbying Congress to just decide, hey, let's give up this favorably tax environment we spend millions creating. Nearly all Corporate America pays little or no taxes under current law, do you think they are willing to pay another cent. It ain't going to happen. Corporations will replace every one of the tax increasers.
So, now America is looking at annual deficits in the range of 3 trillion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
