Day: October 28, 2009

It’s Alive! But Will It Live?

The public option is dead…as predicted in the media and now….it lives!  Well, it is walking with a limp, but walking…the best question to ask is “can it be rehabilitated”?

I listened to the guys and gals step in front of the mic and tell us all about the “new” public option with the opt-out clause…..many of us that were listening are totally confused….what the hell are these people talking about?

The opt-out provision is a compromise between lawmakers who want a government alternative and those who don’t. Details of how it would work were still sketchy, but states would get a year after the 2013 phase-in of health-care legislation to decide whether to participate.

How the Plan Might Operate

Some details of a provision, to be included in the Senate bill, for the government to sell health insurance in competition with the private market:

Probably beginning in 2013, insurance-buying “exchanges” would be open to people buying coverage on their own and to small businesses. They could choose from private plans, or from the public one, which probably would be cheaper, since it would not need to turn a profit.

The public plan would be in effect nationwide, but Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s proposal would allow states the opportunity, starting in 2014, to “opt out” of it.

Various proposals are being considered for how states could opt out.

Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D., N.Y.), who came up with the idea, proposed requiring that states

pass laws to exit the public plan.

The public plan would get startup money from the government, but that would be paid back over time, and the plan would be paid for by premiums from participants. Rates paid to providers would be negotiated by the government.

http://www.philly.com/inquirer/business/20091027_Senate_bill_has_public_option.html

There you have your answer on how the plan could possibly work….satisfied?  Or are you as confused as the rest of America?  The best I can tell is that it will actually insure few of the uninsured……I still do not see the insurance industry losing in any way….costs will most likely shoot up before it is implemented……so, is this a good idea?  It is a beginning…that is the best I can say right now…..

Is It “Corporate Communism”?

I have begun to appreciate MSNBC’s Dylan Ratigan…..he seems to be one of the few that are calling a spade …a spade….he is an irritating individual to some of his guests because he will interrupt try and force them to answer a question, instead of the BS talking oints they want us to hear…I give him his props on that….

Back to the point Dylan has been using a term, corporate communism, at lot and I have been meaning to write a post on this and just today he had Elliot Spitzer, the ex-governor of New York, on his show….a side note, Spitzer is a very knowledgeable man on economics,  we as a country could do a lot worse then him on understanding the economics of the bailout……back again….corporate communism…..

Ratigan writes in the Huffington Post:

Lack of choice, lazy, unresponsive customer service, a culture of exploitation and a small powerbase formed by cronyism and nepotism are the hallmarks of a communist system that steals from its citizenry and a major reason why America spent half a century fighting a Cold War with the U.S.S.R.

And yet today we find ourselves as a country in two distinctly different categories: those who are forced to compete tooth and nail each day to provide value to society in return for income for ourselves and our families and those who would instead use our lawmaking apparatus to help themselves to our tax money and/or to protect themselves from true competition.

If you allow weak, outdated players to take control of the government and change the rules so they are protected from the natural competition and reward systems that have created so many innovations in our country, you not only steal from the citizens on behalf of the least worthy but you also doom them by trapping the capital that would be used to generate new innovation and, most tangibly in our current situation, jobs.

If you have just a small amount of understanding of economics then you will see that Ratigan is correct and he should be applauding for saying so…..Americans HATE communism or socialism or whatever you would choose to call it…but they accept the protectionism that prevails in the financial world……they take from the taxpayer and do as they desire with NO checks and balances (where are those people that pitch a bitch about checks and balances as talked about in the Constitution?)

I seldom….I repeat SELDOM recommend a news show because people have their own likes and dislikes, but “The Morning Meeting” with Dylan Ratigan on MSNBC should be required veiwing for any and all economics courses…..whether you agree or disagree with him, it is thought provoking and excellent news source….

NO I do not get anything in return for recommending Ratigan…just the satisfaction of helping people understand what is what with all the bailout cash….and hopefully it will help make the people more angry that they are being screwed without even a kiss….I put this disclaimer in there because in the past I was accused of being a shill for other people….personally I do not agree with Ratigan on some things but I appreciate his effort to get news makers to answer questions, not put forth some talking point given to them before the show.

What About A Flat Tax?

For years I have argued that there needs to be a flat tax in the US….of say 10-15% with NO deductions or loopholes for the wealthy to take advantage of in the year end accounting…..well it has been a long uphill climb to say the least.  I also like a land value tax, first put forth by economist Henry George, yet another uphill stumble….that is for another day though…(if one wants more info in the LVT go to my page on the subject)

For now let us talk about the flat tax, the Conservative Party candidate for the state of New York, Hoffman has thrown it into the campaign in the state election:

The U.S. currently uses a progressive tax system, under which people who earn more money pay a greater percentage of their total income in taxes. A flat tax would have every wage earner pay the same percentage of their income in taxes – no matter how much or how little they earn. The flat tax would also eliminate deductions that are allowed under the current laws.

Supporters of a flat tax argue that such a tax is fairer to everyone and would result in many people actually paying less in taxes than they do now. Because a flat tax is simple, more people would pay their taxes and the cost of overseeing the income tax system would decrease, they claim.

Opponents argue that a flat tax places a disproportionate burden on lower- and middle-income wage earners.

Flat tax plans have been brought forth periodically in recent years, with little success. Democrat Jerry Brown included a flat tax proposal in his platform during his 1992 presidential bid. Republican Steve Forbes proposed a similar plan during his presidential bid four years later. Republican Richard Armey, who served as majority leader in the House of Representatives from 1995 to 2003, championed the idea in the House and has continued to press the proposal since leaving office.

Now there is an idea, but the is one thing that immediately turned me off the plan……and that thing is Richard Armey (Dick)…..one of the sponsors of the Tea Party theater….and a lobbyist that is too far right for the common good….

Dick Armey and I have had little consensus on the subject of governance and now that he thinks it is a good idea…makes me re-think my acceptance of the idea…..