Well, here I am, just as the quote introducing my last blog warned, happily wrong. Luckily, this is a well-accustomed state, so I can deal with it. I hope you can, too.
Wrong about what, you ask? Well, even if you didn't, here goes.
I stated that "the primary reason [for the deficit] is that President Obama acknowledged that the cost of war should be included, not because the stimulus and health care reform happened." That was inaccurate. I should have said, "the primary reason under the control of the incoming Democratic party is that President Obama acknowledged that the cost of war should be included, not because the stimulus and health care reform happened."
The primary reason for the deficit was that the housing bubble burst. I can, perhaps, be foergiven for this lapse because my husband and I purchased a house just before the bubble burst and are one of those many families suffering the consequences. So how could I have forgotten? That old human capacity for selective memory was operating with its usual efficiency.
Nonetheless, I do apologize for such a gross misstatement. Brought to you from the Department of Redundancy Department: The reason for the deficit is that the housing bubble, unsustainable, burst. Sadly, many, many families are in much worse trouble than mine as a result.
Sadly, too, many of those families voted for the Republican party because the Obama administration did not fix this. This is especially sad because it was largely the Republican administration that caused this problem, although many Democrats are not innocent.
Sadly, finally, anything that could have been done to fix this problem is now less likely because all those Republicans were elected. I'm not against a two-party system, only against a right-leaning middle (Democrat) and a far-freaking-right-wing (Republican) party being the only viable choices.
This is so sad that I can't think of a farbleatziong thing funny to say about it. I hope you can forgive that, too.
Mostly apologetic,
Sherry
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
Tuesday, November 02, 2010
Vote after Reading
"In all life one should comfort the afflicted, but verily, also, one should afflict the comfortable, and especially when they are comfortably, contentedly, even happily wrong." -John Kenneth Galbraith (1908-2006), economist (Wordsmith.org, AWAD, 9-3-2010)
Here, as promised, and truly at the last possible minute are the...
Not-So-Frequently Asked Questions (NFAQs)
Q: Unemployment is high and people are losing their homes, so why do our politicians say the recession is over and we should cut government jobs and keep tax cuts for the very rich?
A: Well, mostly it's the Republicans saying this. So most likely they say this because they are politicians, not economists. Their job is to get elected, not to develop sound economic policy.
Q: What sound economic policy are you talking about?
A: Letting the government stay big while the private sector is recovering will help all those folks who are out of jobs. Another stimulus for underfunded state governments would increase state government jobs, which have suffered massive lay-offs, until the private sector recovers. Health-care reform policies already in place will keep poor people healthy enough to work once jobs are available - if we leave the health-care reform law in place. And well-designed banking laws might even improve mortgage availability and keep more people from losing their homes. Pushing the Federal Reserve ("Fed") to buy up the debt would virtually eliminate the cost to our children and grandchildren. Finally, restoring taxes for the very, very wealthy would eliminate any added debt for all of this government spending and would let the Democratic administration and congress keep policies that will help the average American.
Q: If all this will help the average American and do all this good, why is anyone against it?
A: Well, come on, now. Because the people not in office want to get elected. The Republicans, who are largely responsible for the large national debt in the first place, want to focus on the present and hope we are silly enough to forget about the past. Understandably, Republicans don't like solutions that make problems of the Democratic-controlled Congress go away, so they fight any policy that might work as the Democrats say it will. They want to get elected, so they fight taxes for the very, very wealthy and health care reform. And are rewarded by campaign funding. Everyone knows scare tactics work, so the Republicans say big government, healthcare reform, and the stimulus are making the debt worse.
Q: Aren't the Republican claims true? Isn't the debt very large and a threat to future generations? Aren't health care reform and taxing the rich socialist policies?
A: The debt is large, but the primary reason is that President Obama acknowledged that the cost of war should be included, not because the stimulus and health care reform happened. The debt is a threat to future generations only if there's a high interest rate and the economy does not recover - so the only way to keep it a threat is to make sure the economy does not recover. Not until the Republicans are elected, at least. Hence the national Republican campaign against sound economic policy. Health care reform is no more socialist than firefighting and emergency services, which help the poor more than the rich. Taxing those who can afford to pay in a time of economic difficulty (can't say "recession" any more) seems more reasonable than forcing more people into bankruptcy and poverty so the rich folks can continue to accumulate wealth. But maybe that's just me.
Q: Why does Federal Reserve ("Fed") chairman, Ben S. Bernanke, hesitate to use what the New York Times calls, "the most powerful tool remaining in the Fed's arsenal of weapons to stimulate the economy: vast new purchases of government debt to lower long-term interest rates"?
A: Well, gee, it beats me. After all, this would totally eliminate the Republican claim that the stimulus didn't work and isn't working by reducing the debt to what was needed to fund new jobs in the government sector. I know the Republicans would have you believe that's a bad thing, but the government sector laid off about 120,000 employees recently because of lack of state funds and the economy is suffering from a net gap of 150,000 more jobless people. If we could just believe that working for the government is better than not working at all, we might re-think this whole concept that – for the moment – small government is somehow a good thing.
I have no idea why an independent, apolitical economist who heads up the Fed would do that.
Q: This doesn't sound like the expert opinion we've been reading; why not?
A: Probably because it isn't the expert opinion you've been reading. According to some, "evidence refuses to cooperate" with expert opinion (Dean Baker. The Soft Bigotry of Incredibly Low Expectations: The Case of Economists. Guardian Unlimited. September 13, 2010)
Q: When "evidence refuses to cooperate" with expert opinion, does it help to state the expert opinion more emphatically?
A: Certainly. That's precisely what's been going on in this election campaign. Note that it also helps to question the loyalty of anyone who doesn't agree when that expert opinion is unrelated to most or all pertinent facts.
Q: When did expert opinion first begin to dominate common sense and scientific evidence?
A: Back here on the Trailing Edge, we suspect it began in the pre-dawn of recorded history when that first political genius convinced the socio-religious community that wealth accrues to those who have a moral right to it. Of course we may be wrong; we were very young at the time.
Q: Why, if we are a representative democracy (otherwise known as a republic), do we allow congressional districts to be determined by the congress just after an election which may have put one party in power because of a recent Supreme Court decision that corporations are persons?
A: Beats the wholly beffrazelatts out of me. I'm just one of the idiots who lives here, in no way responsible for the thinking or behavior of the other idiots. Get back to the main topic.
Q: If the increasingly large national debt were wiped out, would it help the economy?
A: No. Stoppit. These are supposed to be infrequently asked questions, not silly ones.
Q: Why is that a silly question?
A: Oh, all right. Here goes. But don't say I didn’t warn you. When we increased the national debt by infusing money into the economic system, it did not hurt the economy; it helped the economy. We increased the short-term debt to bring about a long term solution (jobs and a stable economic system) that would reduce the debt when the economy improved (because of jobs and stable economy). Even though we did more to help the bankers than to help the economy, it worked a little bit. As with the Great Depression, the problem has not been that we spent too much on that effort, it's that we didn't spend enough.
The reason the question is silly is that no one wants to believe the answer, so it is silly for the Trailing Edge, the Center for Economic and Policy Research, or anyone else to keep explaining it. You can't refute expert opinions that go against the evidence by using evidence. And you can't refute popular opinion by using proof that popular opinion is inaccurate.
Q: Why not?
A: I have no idea.
Q: Maybe this is a silly question, too, but the United States of America is a shining example of democracy. Everybody says so. So why do most of our citizens skip it when it comes to exercising their right to vote?
A: That is not a silly question, it's a frequently asked question. This is NFAQ, not FAQ. Just because it's not a frequently answered does not mean the Trailing Edge should treat it as an NFAQ and answer it. Quit asking so many questions and go vote.
To support future installments of NFAQs, submit your questions now.
Here, as promised, and truly at the last possible minute are the...
Not-So-Frequently Asked Questions (NFAQs)
Q: Unemployment is high and people are losing their homes, so why do our politicians say the recession is over and we should cut government jobs and keep tax cuts for the very rich?
A: Well, mostly it's the Republicans saying this. So most likely they say this because they are politicians, not economists. Their job is to get elected, not to develop sound economic policy.
Q: What sound economic policy are you talking about?
A: Letting the government stay big while the private sector is recovering will help all those folks who are out of jobs. Another stimulus for underfunded state governments would increase state government jobs, which have suffered massive lay-offs, until the private sector recovers. Health-care reform policies already in place will keep poor people healthy enough to work once jobs are available - if we leave the health-care reform law in place. And well-designed banking laws might even improve mortgage availability and keep more people from losing their homes. Pushing the Federal Reserve ("Fed") to buy up the debt would virtually eliminate the cost to our children and grandchildren. Finally, restoring taxes for the very, very wealthy would eliminate any added debt for all of this government spending and would let the Democratic administration and congress keep policies that will help the average American.
Q: If all this will help the average American and do all this good, why is anyone against it?
A: Well, come on, now. Because the people not in office want to get elected. The Republicans, who are largely responsible for the large national debt in the first place, want to focus on the present and hope we are silly enough to forget about the past. Understandably, Republicans don't like solutions that make problems of the Democratic-controlled Congress go away, so they fight any policy that might work as the Democrats say it will. They want to get elected, so they fight taxes for the very, very wealthy and health care reform. And are rewarded by campaign funding. Everyone knows scare tactics work, so the Republicans say big government, healthcare reform, and the stimulus are making the debt worse.
Q: Aren't the Republican claims true? Isn't the debt very large and a threat to future generations? Aren't health care reform and taxing the rich socialist policies?
A: The debt is large, but the primary reason is that President Obama acknowledged that the cost of war should be included, not because the stimulus and health care reform happened. The debt is a threat to future generations only if there's a high interest rate and the economy does not recover - so the only way to keep it a threat is to make sure the economy does not recover. Not until the Republicans are elected, at least. Hence the national Republican campaign against sound economic policy. Health care reform is no more socialist than firefighting and emergency services, which help the poor more than the rich. Taxing those who can afford to pay in a time of economic difficulty (can't say "recession" any more) seems more reasonable than forcing more people into bankruptcy and poverty so the rich folks can continue to accumulate wealth. But maybe that's just me.
Q: Why does Federal Reserve ("Fed") chairman, Ben S. Bernanke, hesitate to use what the New York Times calls, "the most powerful tool remaining in the Fed's arsenal of weapons to stimulate the economy: vast new purchases of government debt to lower long-term interest rates"?
A: Well, gee, it beats me. After all, this would totally eliminate the Republican claim that the stimulus didn't work and isn't working by reducing the debt to what was needed to fund new jobs in the government sector. I know the Republicans would have you believe that's a bad thing, but the government sector laid off about 120,000 employees recently because of lack of state funds and the economy is suffering from a net gap of 150,000 more jobless people. If we could just believe that working for the government is better than not working at all, we might re-think this whole concept that – for the moment – small government is somehow a good thing.
I have no idea why an independent, apolitical economist who heads up the Fed would do that.
Q: This doesn't sound like the expert opinion we've been reading; why not?
A: Probably because it isn't the expert opinion you've been reading. According to some, "evidence refuses to cooperate" with expert opinion (Dean Baker. The Soft Bigotry of Incredibly Low Expectations: The Case of Economists. Guardian Unlimited. September 13, 2010)
Q: When "evidence refuses to cooperate" with expert opinion, does it help to state the expert opinion more emphatically?
A: Certainly. That's precisely what's been going on in this election campaign. Note that it also helps to question the loyalty of anyone who doesn't agree when that expert opinion is unrelated to most or all pertinent facts.
Q: When did expert opinion first begin to dominate common sense and scientific evidence?
A: Back here on the Trailing Edge, we suspect it began in the pre-dawn of recorded history when that first political genius convinced the socio-religious community that wealth accrues to those who have a moral right to it. Of course we may be wrong; we were very young at the time.
Q: Why, if we are a representative democracy (otherwise known as a republic), do we allow congressional districts to be determined by the congress just after an election which may have put one party in power because of a recent Supreme Court decision that corporations are persons?
A: Beats the wholly beffrazelatts out of me. I'm just one of the idiots who lives here, in no way responsible for the thinking or behavior of the other idiots. Get back to the main topic.
Q: If the increasingly large national debt were wiped out, would it help the economy?
A: No. Stoppit. These are supposed to be infrequently asked questions, not silly ones.
Q: Why is that a silly question?
A: Oh, all right. Here goes. But don't say I didn’t warn you. When we increased the national debt by infusing money into the economic system, it did not hurt the economy; it helped the economy. We increased the short-term debt to bring about a long term solution (jobs and a stable economic system) that would reduce the debt when the economy improved (because of jobs and stable economy). Even though we did more to help the bankers than to help the economy, it worked a little bit. As with the Great Depression, the problem has not been that we spent too much on that effort, it's that we didn't spend enough.
The reason the question is silly is that no one wants to believe the answer, so it is silly for the Trailing Edge, the Center for Economic and Policy Research, or anyone else to keep explaining it. You can't refute expert opinions that go against the evidence by using evidence. And you can't refute popular opinion by using proof that popular opinion is inaccurate.
Q: Why not?
A: I have no idea.
Q: Maybe this is a silly question, too, but the United States of America is a shining example of democracy. Everybody says so. So why do most of our citizens skip it when it comes to exercising their right to vote?
A: That is not a silly question, it's a frequently asked question. This is NFAQ, not FAQ. Just because it's not a frequently answered does not mean the Trailing Edge should treat it as an NFAQ and answer it. Quit asking so many questions and go vote.
To support future installments of NFAQs, submit your questions now.
Friday, October 22, 2010
Updated Blog Page
Hello again, you two. Sorry to have neglected you so this year.
While trailing as usual, I've been participating in the preparation for the mid-term election here in the US of A. For those of you who are not from here, we here in the US of A like to spend as many months and dollars as possible arguing, fretting, advertising, and increasing our heart rate and circulation prior to any election. To help us in this pass-time, the press publicizes the outcome of elections long before the event. In the mid-term elections - the one between presidential elections - they tell us the party in power will be ousted. This is a sure thing, they say, because it is the historical trend.
Either the press has never heard of "self-fulfilling prophecy" or they think we haven't.
Sometimes, it does seem that the political decision-making is all in the advertising, mud-slinging, and predictions. So when it comes time to actually vote, most everyone with any sense is so sick and tired of hearing about it that they just don't vote at all. That way, our Representatives and Senators are elected by the remaining 10% of the voting population (about ten in every hundred citizens actually does get out and vote, it appears).
I've begun a blog about the upcoming election that I hope to get published before the fact, so as to join the throng that talks a good game...
You will also note, if you mosey down to the bottom of the page, a counter that keeps track of the number of folks looking at this blog, which might help us (me, anyway) keep track of what happened yesterday. When you get to be old and gray like me, you need these aids to memory. As Mark Twain was reported to have said, "When I was young, I could remember everything perfectly, even those things that never occurred." Now, I need assistance...
If you ever look at or post comments, be further advised that I also deleted advertisements or links to web pages I do not think are appropriate for this blog. If I missed any or deleted a valid link by mistake, please let me know.
While trailing as usual, I've been participating in the preparation for the mid-term election here in the US of A. For those of you who are not from here, we here in the US of A like to spend as many months and dollars as possible arguing, fretting, advertising, and increasing our heart rate and circulation prior to any election. To help us in this pass-time, the press publicizes the outcome of elections long before the event. In the mid-term elections - the one between presidential elections - they tell us the party in power will be ousted. This is a sure thing, they say, because it is the historical trend.
Either the press has never heard of "self-fulfilling prophecy" or they think we haven't.
Sometimes, it does seem that the political decision-making is all in the advertising, mud-slinging, and predictions. So when it comes time to actually vote, most everyone with any sense is so sick and tired of hearing about it that they just don't vote at all. That way, our Representatives and Senators are elected by the remaining 10% of the voting population (about ten in every hundred citizens actually does get out and vote, it appears).
I've begun a blog about the upcoming election that I hope to get published before the fact, so as to join the throng that talks a good game...
You will also note, if you mosey down to the bottom of the page, a counter that keeps track of the number of folks looking at this blog, which might help us (me, anyway) keep track of what happened yesterday. When you get to be old and gray like me, you need these aids to memory. As Mark Twain was reported to have said, "When I was young, I could remember everything perfectly, even those things that never occurred." Now, I need assistance...
If you ever look at or post comments, be further advised that I also deleted advertisements or links to web pages I do not think are appropriate for this blog. If I missed any or deleted a valid link by mistake, please let me know.
Friday, September 10, 2010
them and us
"We don't differentiate between them and us. It's just us." President Barak Obama, September, 2010.
Before 9-11, I had a tag line that said, "We're all in this together. Luckily."
So then, should I drop the "Luckily," or what?
I dropped the tag line.
On the other hand, most of us know, deep down, that we're all in this life together. Luckily or not.
One of the nice things about being a citizen of the United States of America is that the common abbreviation is "US." You can't fault the sentiment, even if you fault the yelling. Or the frequently unwarranted self-satisfaction.
Nonetheless, I am proud to be an American.
Not so proud about our characterizing ourselves as the only important folks in several continents who should get to call them-/ourselves Americans. Continents where lots of important folks—who are not citizens of the US of A—live. But you can't have everything.
We, on the planet we call Earth, are all in this together. If people in Pakistan are dying, it should concern us, being people ourselves. (As a researcher, I was taught to say "persons" rather than "people" because only scientifically definable groupings are "people." Researchers are not always right.)
What do we mean when we differentiate between "them" and "us"? I mean, we all do it so it must mean something. Maybe it just means that we can't solve and protect everything so we should just work on things that concern "us." OK. So where do we draw the line?
This is the stuff that keeps me awake nights. This and the arthritis pain. So if it keeps you awake too (not, I hope, the arthritis pain—just the other stuff), maybe you can come up with some solutionary ideas.
Since it's just us, I hope you can because I'm trailing again.
Before 9-11, I had a tag line that said, "We're all in this together. Luckily."
So then, should I drop the "Luckily," or what?
I dropped the tag line.
On the other hand, most of us know, deep down, that we're all in this life together. Luckily or not.
One of the nice things about being a citizen of the United States of America is that the common abbreviation is "US." You can't fault the sentiment, even if you fault the yelling. Or the frequently unwarranted self-satisfaction.
Nonetheless, I am proud to be an American.
Not so proud about our characterizing ourselves as the only important folks in several continents who should get to call them-/ourselves Americans. Continents where lots of important folks—who are not citizens of the US of A—live. But you can't have everything.
We, on the planet we call Earth, are all in this together. If people in Pakistan are dying, it should concern us, being people ourselves. (As a researcher, I was taught to say "persons" rather than "people" because only scientifically definable groupings are "people." Researchers are not always right.)
What do we mean when we differentiate between "them" and "us"? I mean, we all do it so it must mean something. Maybe it just means that we can't solve and protect everything so we should just work on things that concern "us." OK. So where do we draw the line?
This is the stuff that keeps me awake nights. This and the arthritis pain. So if it keeps you awake too (not, I hope, the arthritis pain—just the other stuff), maybe you can come up with some solutionary ideas.
Since it's just us, I hope you can because I'm trailing again.
Wednesday, May 05, 2010
Healthcare Reform Update
Hey folks, we've been missing the main point in this healthcare reform debate. I know, you're tired of hearing about it, but back here at the Trailing Edge, we've hit on the solution!(1) And since this is a blog, we're going to share this amazing discovery with both of you. The solution to the high cost of healthcare and the way to eliminate the need for healthcare reform, which was right in front of us all the time, is…
Stop Being Poor!
That's right! All you poor folks who are getting way too sick before you go to the doctor or hospital, all you poor folks who are eating all the wrong things because healthy food is too expensive, all you poor folks who are smoking, drinking, or using street drugs because you need to face your life in a fog just to be able to face it at all – all of you just stop being poor! Your health problems will be solved!
Amazingly simple! Healthcare costs in all the major city hospitals will drop dramatically! The healthcare reform bill, which does not distinguish well between the needs of the rich and the needs of the poor, will work! The recent increases in health insurance that the insurance companies blame on the healthcare reform bill won't be necessary. They'll continue, but they won't be necessary, and that's the main thing. Why? Because there won't be any poor!
You poor people must quit your selfish adherence to poverty. Just stoppit.
I know it'll take a while; there's a lot of inertia from the rich and well-placed that you'll need to overcome. But don't be daunted. Here are the five simple steps to stopping your dependence on poverty – with a few necessary sub-steps, naturally:
With our simple 5-point plan, the entire US could be on its way to reduced healthcare costs and true healthcare reform.
Don’t thank the Trailing Edge for generously offering this simple solution. Just envisioning the millions of no-longer-poor healthy, happy children that the tens of millions of no-longer-poor parents can afford to nurture, feed, and love is thanks enough.
Footnotes:
(1) We've always said that one of the advantages of always being late is that we get to hear lots of different viewpoints before making a decision. Of course, we lose lots of potential friends and miss out on lots of useful information, but no system is perfect.
(2) For those of us who are arithmetically challenged, this means that to stop being poor, your income has to be twice what the US Federal government currently defines as being poor. The US government is changing this definition, for statistical purposes at least, but why wait? For those of us who don't know what "arithmetically challenged" is, as a prerequisite to step 1 (that is to say, before undertaking Step 1) you'll need to find somebody rich to support you while you go back to school.
(3) You will likely need to pay for these mental health services yourself, as most insurers include only nominal, inadequate coverage for mental healthcare. In addition, if you happen to reside in one of the states that is medically underserved (that is, there are not enough mental healthcare providers anywhere in the state), you may need to relocate and begin again at Step 1.
Coming soon: How to eliminate inequities due to gender, age, education, and inherited country or countries of origin: Be a young, male, college graduate of predominantly Western European ancestry!
Stop Being Poor!
That's right! All you poor folks who are getting way too sick before you go to the doctor or hospital, all you poor folks who are eating all the wrong things because healthy food is too expensive, all you poor folks who are smoking, drinking, or using street drugs because you need to face your life in a fog just to be able to face it at all – all of you just stop being poor! Your health problems will be solved!
Amazingly simple! Healthcare costs in all the major city hospitals will drop dramatically! The healthcare reform bill, which does not distinguish well between the needs of the rich and the needs of the poor, will work! The recent increases in health insurance that the insurance companies blame on the healthcare reform bill won't be necessary. They'll continue, but they won't be necessary, and that's the main thing. Why? Because there won't be any poor!
You poor people must quit your selfish adherence to poverty. Just stoppit.
I know it'll take a while; there's a lot of inertia from the rich and well-placed that you'll need to overcome. But don't be daunted. Here are the five simple steps to stopping your dependence on poverty – with a few necessary sub-steps, naturally:
1. Find jobs that pay better.
1.a. To do this, you may have to get somebody to recognize that you can't acutally stop being poor unless you have income from a single, full-time job that is 200% of the current poverty level or more.(2)
1.b. To get a raise to above the laughably low poverty level, you may need to unionize your workplace. To do that you may have to overcome a few problems, but nobody said this was going to be easy. Just simple.
1.b.i. Find a workplace.
1.b.ii. Seek a union that is acceptable to both you and your employer.
1.b.iii. If attempting 1.b.ii. results in your losing access to that workplace, find another workplace.
1.b.iv. Repeat 1.b.ii. and 1.b.iii. as necessary.
2. Make sure your increased income includes the benefits necessary to keep you out of poverty.
2.a. Since half or more of all bankrupcies are due at least in part to the cost of healthcare, you'll need to have health insurance.
2.b. And a primary healthcare provider who makes sure you get high quality healthcare so you can keep working.
2.b.i. As necessary, see 1. b., iv., above.
3. Start eating better – whole grains, lean meats with minimal processing, fresh fruits and vegetables that don't have too many toxic pesticides still in them.
3.a. Some of your fruits and vegetables will need to be organically grown so you can avoid toxic pesticides, but the extra cost is only about double, and believe me, it's worth it.
3.b. You may need to move to a different neighborhood where healthier food is available.
4. See your primary healthcare provider for regular check-ups and health maintenance.
4.a. If your insurance does not pay for check-ups you'll need to pay for them out-of-pocket because in addition to keeping you healthy, these check-ups lower healthcare costs for the rest of us, which is, of course, the point.
4.b. Make sure your income is sufficient to cover health maintenance costs. (See, for example, 1.b., above.)
5. Make the other lifestyle changes that your improved economic outlook and sense of well-being allow.
5.a. Plan for a healthy, loving home environment for your future family before embarking on puberty.
5.a.i. Some attention to your mental health may be necessary to overcome some of the misadventures of your childhood or to stop consuming or otherwise using some substance that is detrimental to your health.(3)
5.a.ii. In some cases, you will perceive a sort of chicken-and-egg phenomenon where you will need to complete step 5 before attempting step 1 but can't afford step 5 until step 1 is accomplished. Just do your best. You're sort of on your own here.
5.b. Make sure your children do the same - that is to say, all of the above. This will do much to eliminate that pesky multi-generational poverty thing.
With our simple 5-point plan, the entire US could be on its way to reduced healthcare costs and true healthcare reform.
Don’t thank the Trailing Edge for generously offering this simple solution. Just envisioning the millions of no-longer-poor healthy, happy children that the tens of millions of no-longer-poor parents can afford to nurture, feed, and love is thanks enough.
Footnotes:
(1) We've always said that one of the advantages of always being late is that we get to hear lots of different viewpoints before making a decision. Of course, we lose lots of potential friends and miss out on lots of useful information, but no system is perfect.
(2) For those of us who are arithmetically challenged, this means that to stop being poor, your income has to be twice what the US Federal government currently defines as being poor. The US government is changing this definition, for statistical purposes at least, but why wait? For those of us who don't know what "arithmetically challenged" is, as a prerequisite to step 1 (that is to say, before undertaking Step 1) you'll need to find somebody rich to support you while you go back to school.
(3) You will likely need to pay for these mental health services yourself, as most insurers include only nominal, inadequate coverage for mental healthcare. In addition, if you happen to reside in one of the states that is medically underserved (that is, there are not enough mental healthcare providers anywhere in the state), you may need to relocate and begin again at Step 1.
Coming soon: How to eliminate inequities due to gender, age, education, and inherited country or countries of origin: Be a young, male, college graduate of predominantly Western European ancestry!
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
YAAAAAY! Again
The healthcare reform law passed! YAAAAAY!
Wow! Two "YAAAAY"s in less than two years.
Yes, I know, the bill far from perfect. We Trailing Edgesters know all about being far from perfect. It's what we do best.
And yes, forcing people to deal with health insurance companies is a really poor approach. Especially when a single-payer system would be cheaper, better, and healthier.
But this law does also require that health insurance companies must actually provide health insurance. As opposed to taking money from only the healthy and denying claims when they get sick. Or, in a pinch, charging the unhealthy insured more money than healthcare would ever cost, and then denying the claims. If you wonder why the health insurance companies were so set against this bill, re-read those last two sentences, OK? (Linguistic purists, re-read the last two sentence fragments.)
I do not claim to understand why Congress, in its possibly-not-so-very-infinite wisdom, thought the Massachusetts model of healthcare reform was good for everyone. But it (they? he, she, and it?) did. So now everybody and her cousin (or, in this case, his brother) can sue the Federal Government for promulgating an unfunded mandate.
Mind you, the Federal Government has been visiting unfunded mandates upon the States for lo, these many years. Like "No Child Left Behind" for example. That was an unfunded mandate brought to you by your friendly neighborhood Republicans that guaranteed that non-rich American kids would be kicked out, so as to avoid being left behind.
That was an unfunded mandate. But as we can see, friends and neighbors, it depends a bunch on who's doing the unfunding. Not to mention what is being unfunded and why.
So complain to your Attorney General, if she or he is part of the Daring Thirteen who are suing the Federal Government, that this nonsense is costing you money she or he should save for suing insurance companies who don't comply with the spirit of the new law.
And complain to your legislators - better yet, tell them you won't vote for them - if they don't leave this law in place and fix whatever they don't like. They have until 2014 to fix the "required to buy health insurance" part, so they just might make it. If they hurry. And avoid the sentence fragments.
And if your Attorney General or legislator is a Republican, ask him or her to develop (or beg, or borrow or steal) a position. Challenge her or him to do that instead of spreading fear and discontent. It's a much healthier way of avoiding any actual work.
Or at the very least, tell them all to just, in the wise words of my Great-Granddaughter, stoppit!
Wow! Two "YAAAAY"s in less than two years.
Yes, I know, the bill far from perfect. We Trailing Edgesters know all about being far from perfect. It's what we do best.
And yes, forcing people to deal with health insurance companies is a really poor approach. Especially when a single-payer system would be cheaper, better, and healthier.
But this law does also require that health insurance companies must actually provide health insurance. As opposed to taking money from only the healthy and denying claims when they get sick. Or, in a pinch, charging the unhealthy insured more money than healthcare would ever cost, and then denying the claims. If you wonder why the health insurance companies were so set against this bill, re-read those last two sentences, OK? (Linguistic purists, re-read the last two sentence fragments.)
I do not claim to understand why Congress, in its possibly-not-so-very-infinite wisdom, thought the Massachusetts model of healthcare reform was good for everyone. But it (they? he, she, and it?) did. So now everybody and her cousin (or, in this case, his brother) can sue the Federal Government for promulgating an unfunded mandate.
Mind you, the Federal Government has been visiting unfunded mandates upon the States for lo, these many years. Like "No Child Left Behind" for example. That was an unfunded mandate brought to you by your friendly neighborhood Republicans that guaranteed that non-rich American kids would be kicked out, so as to avoid being left behind.
That was an unfunded mandate. But as we can see, friends and neighbors, it depends a bunch on who's doing the unfunding. Not to mention what is being unfunded and why.
So complain to your Attorney General, if she or he is part of the Daring Thirteen who are suing the Federal Government, that this nonsense is costing you money she or he should save for suing insurance companies who don't comply with the spirit of the new law.
And complain to your legislators - better yet, tell them you won't vote for them - if they don't leave this law in place and fix whatever they don't like. They have until 2014 to fix the "required to buy health insurance" part, so they just might make it. If they hurry. And avoid the sentence fragments.
And if your Attorney General or legislator is a Republican, ask him or her to develop (or beg, or borrow or steal) a position. Challenge her or him to do that instead of spreading fear and discontent. It's a much healthier way of avoiding any actual work.
Or at the very least, tell them all to just, in the wise words of my Great-Granddaughter, stoppit!
Monday, March 15, 2010
Debating Health Care Reform
I am pleased that Congress has taken up the issue of health care reform.
I wrote that sentence in June of 2009.
In point of fact, everyone here at the Trailing Edge is pleased with the idea of health care reform. All one of us. And we're coming out right now - a mere year late - in favor of it.
Now, that's trailing for you.
But our Representatives are the real experts at trailing.
After all, I'm actually publishing this blog. Congress is lagging behind the entire developed world when it comes to providing for the health of that small group of Americans who don't have a good health care system. That small group is made up of all the Americans who aren't rich. The non-rich Americans, as I like to call them.
Congress is doing what it does best. Nothing. Especially for the non-rich Americans.
And blaming the President for it, of course.
In fact, the only question about finger pointing that remains unclear is which house does it best. As for the most successful finger-pointing party, I think the Republicans are the winning.
Hands down, as it were.
But really folks, passing health care reform seems to be even less popular than passing noxious reminders of the digestive process. And a lot less likely. At my age, at least.
But that's another tale, although not unrelated to health.
Maybe I should stop blathering and focus on what's really at stake here. Perhaps I can even skip asking our representatives if they think it's fair for corporations to be considered individuals but not pay taxes like the rest of us. The answer to that question is pretty clear and doesn't seem to trouble anyone in Congress nearly as much as it bothers me.
Maybe I should ask you this: ask your Representative if he or she thinks it's OK for Congress to let babies die because they're too busy being pro-life to pay attention to living newborns.
Or maybe we should ask if it's OK for a pregnancy to end tragically as long as the reason was a lack of money or insurance for health care and not someone's choice.
OK, that was harsh. And I'd apologize if it were untrue.
You see, when the House of Representatives refuses to vote on the Senate health care reform bill (after which they can add their many revisions that make life wonderful for the health insurance companies), they are agreeing that letting babies die, and letting unhealthy babies be born to unhealthy mothers, is better than spending money on preventive health care for women before and during pregnancy. Even though preventive health care for women before and during pregnancy is CHEAPER than letting unhealthy babies be born to unhealthy mothers.
Really.
For example, it can cost upwards of $600,000 for one baby to be born and live with an incurable health problem that might have been prevented by giving the young woman a daily dose of multi-vitamins. So why doesn't the woman just take the vitamins? Well, if she's like millions of young American women, somebody – like the doctor she can't afford to see – needs to tell her it's necessary. And some organization – like the healthcare coverage she doesn’t have just now – needs to pay for it. On the other hand, if she has the baby with the severe medical problem, the government will pay for the baby's health care.
And that's how the all the Republicans and some of the Democrats propose to save us money.
That's just one example. There are many, many others. The bottom line is this:
Our Representatives are voting in Socialism for the rich and Capitalism for the poor and whining about the high cost of health care reform. Meanwhile, babies and children and adults are getting sick, even dying, because they can't afford health insurance or their coverage doesn't cover what they need. Meanwhile, the cost of providing preventive health care for everyone who doesn't have a regular source of health care is cheaper than the cost of Medicaid/CHIP after the relatively few Americans get dreadfully, heart-breakingly ill because they lacked that inexpensive preventive health care.
Government intervention is not the central issue. Health insurance is not the central issue. Job security for our legislators is not the central issue. Except for our legislators, of course.
Future generations of healthy, non-rich Americans is the issue. Avoiding bankruptcy of individuals, Medicare, and Medicaid because of costly health care for conditions that did not need to happen is the issue.
Tell your Representative that. Please. Do it for the babies.
I wrote that sentence in June of 2009.
In point of fact, everyone here at the Trailing Edge is pleased with the idea of health care reform. All one of us. And we're coming out right now - a mere year late - in favor of it.
Now, that's trailing for you.
But our Representatives are the real experts at trailing.
After all, I'm actually publishing this blog. Congress is lagging behind the entire developed world when it comes to providing for the health of that small group of Americans who don't have a good health care system. That small group is made up of all the Americans who aren't rich. The non-rich Americans, as I like to call them.
Congress is doing what it does best. Nothing. Especially for the non-rich Americans.
And blaming the President for it, of course.
In fact, the only question about finger pointing that remains unclear is which house does it best. As for the most successful finger-pointing party, I think the Republicans are the winning.
Hands down, as it were.
But really folks, passing health care reform seems to be even less popular than passing noxious reminders of the digestive process. And a lot less likely. At my age, at least.
But that's another tale, although not unrelated to health.
Maybe I should stop blathering and focus on what's really at stake here. Perhaps I can even skip asking our representatives if they think it's fair for corporations to be considered individuals but not pay taxes like the rest of us. The answer to that question is pretty clear and doesn't seem to trouble anyone in Congress nearly as much as it bothers me.
Maybe I should ask you this: ask your Representative if he or she thinks it's OK for Congress to let babies die because they're too busy being pro-life to pay attention to living newborns.
Or maybe we should ask if it's OK for a pregnancy to end tragically as long as the reason was a lack of money or insurance for health care and not someone's choice.
OK, that was harsh. And I'd apologize if it were untrue.
You see, when the House of Representatives refuses to vote on the Senate health care reform bill (after which they can add their many revisions that make life wonderful for the health insurance companies), they are agreeing that letting babies die, and letting unhealthy babies be born to unhealthy mothers, is better than spending money on preventive health care for women before and during pregnancy. Even though preventive health care for women before and during pregnancy is CHEAPER than letting unhealthy babies be born to unhealthy mothers.
Really.
For example, it can cost upwards of $600,000 for one baby to be born and live with an incurable health problem that might have been prevented by giving the young woman a daily dose of multi-vitamins. So why doesn't the woman just take the vitamins? Well, if she's like millions of young American women, somebody – like the doctor she can't afford to see – needs to tell her it's necessary. And some organization – like the healthcare coverage she doesn’t have just now – needs to pay for it. On the other hand, if she has the baby with the severe medical problem, the government will pay for the baby's health care.
And that's how the all the Republicans and some of the Democrats propose to save us money.
That's just one example. There are many, many others. The bottom line is this:
Our Representatives are voting in Socialism for the rich and Capitalism for the poor and whining about the high cost of health care reform. Meanwhile, babies and children and adults are getting sick, even dying, because they can't afford health insurance or their coverage doesn't cover what they need. Meanwhile, the cost of providing preventive health care for everyone who doesn't have a regular source of health care is cheaper than the cost of Medicaid/CHIP after the relatively few Americans get dreadfully, heart-breakingly ill because they lacked that inexpensive preventive health care.
Government intervention is not the central issue. Health insurance is not the central issue. Job security for our legislators is not the central issue. Except for our legislators, of course.
Future generations of healthy, non-rich Americans is the issue. Avoiding bankruptcy of individuals, Medicare, and Medicaid because of costly health care for conditions that did not need to happen is the issue.
Tell your Representative that. Please. Do it for the babies.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
