What a pleasure putting a community garden to bed for the winter!!!! Frost is on the pumpkin!
BUT WAIT------DEMOCRATS ARE SHOUTING THAT THEY ARE FIGHTING TO PROTECT THESE SAFETY NETS!
NO, they are the one's embracing this format and they did that because they are neo-liberals, not democrats. Neo-liberals work with republicans for wealth and profit so that is why all the programs and reforms coming these few years were republican policies. We can easily reverse this by running and voting for labor and justice in all primaries to get rid of the neo-liberals!
"The single-payer system's simple. They rolled out Medicare less than a year after passage." - Dr. Steffie Woolhandler
#SinglePayerIsSimpleSingle-Payer Advocates: It Hurts To Say I Told You Sowww.pnhp.orgThe botched implementation of Obamacare has created a bittersweet moment for advocates of a universal, single-payer health care system: They saw this coming, but they can't gloat about it.
CHECK OUT NATIONAL PHYSICIANS UNIVERSAL CARE FOR YOUR STATE'S ORGANIZATION------ONE HERE IN MARYLAND!
Have you heard how much empathy corporate APM/NPR has had in its talk about health care reform and people losing access to care now that everyone knows that is the case. Try as they do to make it sound like people are coming to the exchanges we know that the only people coming are those on Medicaid and that is because coverage for Medicaid is so bad they are hoping to get something more in the exchange......which was the point of ACA. Since more and more people are falling into Medicaid because of falling wealth then what is covered and where you get it needs to change. That is what happened to Welfare when Clinton broke Glass Steagall and started free trade knowing all the US jobs would move overseas------he ended Welfare because he knew unemployment would skyrocket. SAME THING WITH ENTITLEMENTS. If the rich and corporations no longer pay taxes to pay for public services and programs AND have what the public pays in taxes come to corporations as corporate subsidy......then entitlements have to go!!
Marylander's have now decided to go with Expanded and Improved Medicare for All--- we have one state with a model-----VERMONT.
NOTE THAT BERNIE SANDERS OF VERMONT HAS THREATENED TO RUN FOR PRESIDENT IN 2016 TO SAVE LABOR AND JUSTICE RIGHTS!
We don't yet know how they will roll this out as even this format can be taken in a bad direction, but what they do is take all the state's Medicare and Medicaid from the Federal government with their state contributions, tighten oversight for fraud and waste, and add taxes. ....VOILA, UNIVERSAL CARE.
EVERYONE GETTING THE SAME HEALTH CARE AND ALL HOSPITALS PUBLIC. You can imagine that corporate APM/NPR FLEW BY THE SUCCESS IN VERMONT WITH ENROLLMENT AND DID NOT DETAIL THEIR PROGRAM!!
The reason I preface the intent in Vermont is this: tightening for fraud and waste is the key to cost control along with making hospitals public. THERE GOES OVER 1/2 OF HEALTH CARE EXPENSE. The question is will they do it? If they go back and get the decade of billions of dollars in health fraud and stop future waste and fraud, that will pay for the entire public system. THAT IS WHAT WE ARE MOVING TO IN MARYLAND. If they ignore all previous waste and fraud and go with taxation-----specifically taxes that hit the middle/lower class-----this will be yet another protection of all the lost wealth from entitlements with the same people defrauded paying for the corporate fraud. We know the solution to the Federal Medicare problems are exactly the same. We know that simply raising payroll taxes a percent and recovering trillions of dollars in entitlement fraud would shore up these Entitlements and Social Security for the century. So, Vermont may be doing that-----or it may be leaving the fraud with the fraudsters and taxing the people only.
THE GOOD NEWS FOR PEOPLE IN VERMONT IS THAT THIS IS THE PLATFORM FROM WHICH TO MOVE TO HEALTH CARE THAT IS COST EFFECTIVE AND UNIVERSAL. THIS IS THE MARYLAND PLAN AS WE DISMANTLE THE ABSOLUTELY WORST PLAN EVER FOR HEALTH CARE DELIVERY.
When you hear that seniors care with Medicare involved lots of unnecessary and wasteful procedures----they are right. But who decides what is wasteful? The citizen or the industry? The ACA and Maryland or course says THE INDUSTRY. We are hearing interviews with investment capitalists and seeing health stocks soar because the industry's solutions are the Bain's Capital approach to maximizing profits! THAT IS WHAT ROMNEY/OBAMA CARE IS----A BAIN'S CAPITAL APPROACH TO MAKING HEALTH CARE PROFITS MAXIMIZED! There will be no private plans in these health systems because these systems are only there to move Medicare and Medicaid from Federal programs to states. Ending Medicare and Medicaid.
When people tell you ACA can be a platform for Universal Care they are lying to you. ACA does to health care what Clinton did with the banking industry deregulation. Consolidation of finance so that Wall Street banks controls all finance -----HOW DID THAT WORK FOR YOU? That's what ACA does to health care-----consolidates all health industry with deregulation that will create a captured health market that will be unaccountable and driven by profit only.
BUT WAIT------DEMOCRATS ARE SHOUTING THAT THEY ARE FIGHTING TO PROTECT THESE SAFETY NETS!
NO, they are the one's embracing this format and they did that because they are neo-liberals, not democrats. Neo-liberals work with republicans for wealth and profit so that is why all the programs and reforms coming these few years were republican policies. We can easily reverse this by running and voting for labor and justice in all primaries to get rid of the neo-liberals!
Vermont Approves Single-Payer Health Care: ‘Everybody in, nobody out’
posted by Salvatore Aversa November 20, 2013 Occupy Democrats
The Affordable Care Act continues to plow ahead, despite Republican attempts to fight it at every turn. What is unfolding in front of us is nothing short of spectacular. The problems with healthcare.gov are slowly being resolved which is helping more and more people sign up for affordable healthcare, many for the first time in their life. The law provides so much more than that, including standards for even the lowest level plans, protections for young adults 26 and younger, and the elimination of pre-existing plans. Of course, you will not hear the success stories on the news, because those stories are not nearly as sexy as the “Obama Lied” slogan they are so fond of.
The biggest downside of the ACA is the reliance on the private insurance industry. It does not have to be this way, however. There is yet another provision in the Affordable Care Act that can open the door for states to institute their own single-payer healthcare system. Other states have a public option, especially for those below a certain income level, but no state had instituted a true single-payer system. All of this has changed thanks to President Obama and the Affordable Care Act.
Vermont—Home of Ben and Jerry’s, Maple Syrup, Bernie Sanders and the first state to pass marriage equality. Now, Vermont will be known for something that will impact every resident in the state.
The ACA provided states with federal funds to institute a Medicaid expansion. The states chose to expand the program also were able to set up their own state exchanges, which were relatively free from the problems the federal site had. Vermont decided to take it a step further by setting up their very own single payer system.
The slogan of the program: Everybody in, nobody out.
The program will be fully operational by 2017, and will be funded through Medicare, Medicaid, federal money for the ACA given to Vermont, and a slight increase in taxes. In exchange, there will be no more premiums, deductibles, copay’s, hospital bills or anything else aimed at making insurance companies a profit. Further, all hospitals and healthcare providers will now be nonprofit.
This system will provide an instant boost the state economy. On the one side, you have workers that no longer have to worry about paying medical costs or a monthly premium and are able to use that money for other things. On the other side, you have the burden of paying insurance taken off of the employers side, who will be able to use the saved money to provide a better wage and/or reinvest in their company through updated infrastructure and added jobs. It is a win-win solution.
To make sure that it is done right the first time, Vermont brought in a specialist who knows a thing or two about setting up a single-payer system.
Dr. William Hsaio, the Harvard health care economist who helped craft health systems in seven countries, was Vermont’s adviser. He estimates that Vermont will save 25 percent per capita over the current system in administrative costs and other savings.
Many like to say that the United States has the best healthcare system in the world. The problem is we don’t. Not even close. In fact, the only way you can get the best healthcare in the world, is if you are willing and able to pay for it. The United States can and must do better for its people.
Costs have to be held down — there is no reason why the U.S. has to pay twice the amount per capita as the next most costly system in the world (Norway’s), and still not cover millions of its citizens. A Harvard Medical School study states that 45,000 Americans die each year from treatable diseases because they cannot afford to get treatment.
45,000 Americans die every single year because they cannot afford treatment, are you ready for that? That is 15 times the amount of people that died during the September 11, 2001, attacks, or perhaps for you Righty’s out there you would rather see it put this way, 11,250 times the amount of people that died in the Benghazi attack. That equals 5 Americans that die every hour, of every day, of every year because of a preventable illness that was not taken care of due to lack of access and means.
Even once the Affordable Care Act wrinkles are ironed out, which they will be, and every America is covered, which will happen, that will not change the fact that all of this is being driven by a for-profit system by companies that only care about their bottom line. Despite rules in the ACA which prevent insurance companies from absolutely gouging their customers, insurance companies are not exactly know for their ethical behavior.
A single-payer system would all but eliminate anybody dying unnecessarily due to lack of access to healthcare. Our Declaration of Independence states, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” How can somebody have life and happiness, without their health? Despite the glaring hypocrisy of rich, white males who owned slaves stating all men are created equal, we have come a long way from 1776. Yet when it comes to the very basic need, we are left to the whim of a business. Single-payer is inevitable, and the ACA is a giant step in that direction. We need must hold our officials to a higher standard which will get us there faster. 40,000 people a year is absolutely unacceptable. Vermont saw the writings on the wall. Will the rest of us?
Video
Bernie Sanders on MSNBC discussing his state’s new single-payer system.
_________________________________________________
Medicare for all is the best alternative
Print By NJ Voices Guest Blogger/For NJ.com
on October 06, 2012 at 6:00 AM
RICHARD J. McCORMACK / FOR THE JERSEY JOURNAL A supporter of healthcare reform held his sign aloft in Jersey City in 2009.
By Ray Stever In the first presidential debate, President Obama pointed out that “Obamacare” was practically the same health care plan as the one his opponent, Mitt Romney, established as governor in Massachusetts. Not only is it the same plan, it also was put together by many of the same advisers. In other words, both candidates seem to be on the same page when it comes to health care reform.
What did Romneycare in Massachusetts and Obamacare nationwide achieve? As Obama explained, Obamacare isn’t a government takeover of health care. It is the largest expansion of private insurance. In other words, Obamacare provided a major boost for the insurance industry. Unfortunately, it falls far short of doing what the American people want and need.
Obama clearly knows there’s a better alternative. He acknowledged that Medicare is far more efficient than any private insurance company. Romney said that, if that is true, then anyone would rather buy Medicare than private insurance.
The rub is that most Americans can’t choose Medicare. Even the “public option” was taken off the table in the earliest stages of the discussion of reform in 2009. If Americans want to be covered by a health insurance plan that is comprehensive, efficient, humane and fair, we must build a nationwide movement to expand and improve Medicare to cover everything for everyone. We need to pass HR676, the U.S. National Health Care Act.
Under HR676, all Americans would be enrolled in Medicare. Medicare would cover all necessary medical care. That means doctors’ bills, hospital bills, prescription drugs, mental and dental, eyeglasses, hearing aids, home health care assistants, nursing home care. The whole enchilada.
How can we afford it? Simple. We buy these things through Medicare, which is more efficient than any private insurance company. Not only does Medicare have an extremely low overhead (3 percent versus 30 percent for private insurance), but enrolling everyone in a single plan would streamline billing, eliminating waste and fraud. These efficiencies would save more than enough to cover all of the currently uninsured.
HR676 would save money for every person, company, nonprofit or government agency that buys health insurance. Instead of paying high premiums to a private health insurance company, workers and employers would pay a modest contribution to Medicare. Retirees, the unemployed and children pay nothing.
The resulting efficiencies would allow New Jersey to trim its state budget by $2.6 billion per year and to eliminate nearly $60 billion in unfunded liabilities for state retirees’ health care. Consumers, businesses and nonprofits would all save money. Plus, Medicare-for-all would eliminate the threat of medical bankruptcy. Illness and medical debt are the biggest contributors to personal bankruptcy in the United States. Many of those bankrupted by medical bills had health insurance when they first fell sick or injured.
Expanded and improved Medicare for all would put doctors and patients back in control of health care decisions. No longer would bureaucrats decide what kind of care you receive. Doctors could spend more time caring for the sick instead of begging insurers to cover needed care.
Obamacare did not solve our health care woes, but it did delay meaningful reform at the national level. Romney would do no better, and his running mate, Paul Ryan, wants to cut Medicare and replace it with vouchers.
In this election year, Americans must vote for candidates who have shown the most commitment to preserving the existing Medicare program. Going forward, we need to choose candidates who will expand Medicare to cover everything for everyone. We need to do this even on a state level.
New Jersey can follow Vermont’s example and work on establishing our own statewide Medicare-for-all system. In 2013, New Jersey will hold elections for governor, state Senate and Assembly. By electing candidates who are committed to expanded and improved Medicare-for-all, we can put an end to our health care crisis and New Jersey’s budget crisis.
Ray Stever is president of New Jersey One Plan One Nation, a coalition of labor and social issue organizations dedicated to expanded and improved Medicare for all in New Jersey. Have an opinion? Go to njvoices.com.
___________________________________________
This bank transaction tax is the only was to start moving money lost to Wall Street back to the American people and has been demanded since the 2008 election that gave us a supermajority of democrats. IT WOULD BE THE FIRST THING A DEMOCRATIC MAJORITY WOULD DO AND THEY REFUSED. Have you heard your democratic incumbent shouting for this? Obama and Tim Geithner criss-crossed Europe lobbying against this tax as he was determined the banks would lose none of their wealth!
THIS IS BECAUSE THEY ARE NEO-LIBERALS!
Do you know all of Maryland's pols are neo-liberals and no labor and justice candidates are in the race so far!!!! IF YOUR LABOR AND JUSTICE ORGANIZATION IS NOT RUNNING CANDIDATES AGAINST NEO-LIBERALS, THEY ARE NOT WORKING FOR YOU AND ME!
This Tiny Tax Could Help Bring America Out of Debt — But Nobody is Talking About It
August 1, 2013 By Manny Schewitz 36 Comments If I told you there was a tiny tax that could be applied that only a few people would pay, which would potentially raise billions of dollars annually, would you be interested? It’s not a new idea actually and it is already in place — it’s just not being properly implemented.
Since 1905, New York has placed a tax on Wall Street transactions which currently raises about $16,000,000,000 annually. It does not apply to checking or savings accounts, but solely on the buying and selling of shares that are traded in the millions every day on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE). Over the decades the rate of taxation has gone up and down, but here’s the shocker — every year since 1981, New York has collected the tax and promptly returned it to the traders. Yes, New York takes the tax and gives it right back.
Some have argued that this is a bad idea – that it doesn’t discourage speculation and creates market volatility which is the opposite of some of the intended effects. But what if we applied it in a proper, common sense way nationwide and actually put the money into the national coffers instead of giving it right back like New York currently does?
It is an idea which has been put forth in both Congressional and Senate legislation a number of times, most recently this past February when Democratic Senator Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) and US Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.) submitted a bill that would impose a 0.03% tax on financial transactions, and potentially raise over $350 billion annually. As mentioned before, some have claimed it would place undue burden on Wall Street and wouldn’t curb speculation, but almost all are in agreement that it would bring in revenue. In fact, some finance industry professionals submitted a letter in support of it in which they said the following:
Dear G20 and European leaders,
As individuals with first-hand knowledge and significant experience in the financial industry, we urge you to introduce small financial transaction taxes (FTTs). These taxes will rebalance financial markets away from a short-term trading mentality that has contributed to instability in our financial markets. They also have the potential to raise significant revenue.
In the last few decades, financial market activity has increased tremendously, with the value of transactions now seventy times greater than the size of the real global economy. The primary role of financial markets is to raise investment, allocate resources efficiently, and mitigate risk. However, much of today’s financial activity does not contribute to these goals. Computer-driven, high frequency trading, for example, allocates resources on the basis of algorithms designed to turn very short-term profits and have been shown to drain liquidity in stressed markets when it is needed most.
Financial transaction taxes of a small fraction of a percent on each trade, such as those proposed by the European Commission and backed by a number of G20 countries, would moderate the incentives for such short-term speculation while having a negligible impact on long-term investment.
Concerns have been raised that FTTs could damage growth. But a growing body of evidence suggests that by reducing volatility and raising much needed revenue, the overall effect would be positive. Critics have also wrongly associated trading volume with efficiency-enhancing liquidity and failed to sufficiently take into account market resilience and trust that are undermined in a world where very short-term trading dominates the financial system. As many notable economists have observed, a modest transaction tax will actually improve the functioning of markets.
FTTs have a proven track record. Numerous countries, including those with deep and fast-growing markets, such as the UK, South Africa, Hong Kong, Singapore, Switzerland, and India, currently have FTTs on particular asset classes that raise billions of dollars per year. New FTTs, whether agreed by the G20, EU, or by individual countries, offer a real opportunity to help restore the financial sector to its proper role, while raising massive revenues for people in urgent need at home and in the world’s poorest countries. We believe this is an opportunity that should not be missed.
To me, the idea of raising revenue based off a tax that takes a tiny fraction of stock and derivative trades from the same institutions we had to bail out after they took us into the last recession just makes sense. Not to mention that some of them, like Bank of America, repaid our kindness by lying to homeowners and finding ways to not renegotiate mortgages. This is an idea which, combined with removing corporate subsides and reducing defense spending, could very well balance the budget and reduce the debt.
So if it makes sense, could help balance the budget and reduce our debt, why hasn’t it happened? Well, when you have a government made up of hundreds of elected officials who don’t care about coming together and doing what’s best for the country, this is what happens. Good ideas fall by the wayside while corruption and gridlock takes center stage. And they wonder why they’re far less popular than head lice?
______________________________________________
It will take too long to reform ACA as it was neo-liberals who passed it, but we can simply replace it state by state. If your state is democratic you simply need to vote neo-liberals out and labor and justice in!
Weekend Edition November 22-24, 2013
Time for a Repeal 21 Ways the Canadian Health Care System is Better than Obamacare
by RALPH NADER Dear America:
Costly complexity is baked into Obamacare. No health insurance system is without problems but Canadian style single-payer full Medicare for all is simple, affordable, comprehensive and universal.
In the early 1960s, President Lyndon Johnson enrolled 20 million elderly Americans into Medicare in six months. There were no websites. They did it with index cards!
Below please find 21 Ways the Canadian Health Care System is Better than Obamacare.
Repeal Obamacare and replace it with the much more efficient single-payer, everybody in, nobody out, free choice of doctor and hospital.
Love, Canada
Number 21:
In Canada, everyone is covered automatically at birth – everybody in, nobody out.
In the United States, under Obamacare, 31 million Americans will still be uninsured by 2023 and millions more will remain underinsured.
Number 20:
In Canada, the health system is designed to put people, not profits, first.
In the United States, Obamacare will do little to curb insurance industry profits and will actually enhance insurance industry profits.
Number 19:
In Canada, coverage is not tied to a job or dependent on your income – rich and poor are in the same system, the best guaranty of quality.
In the United States, under Obamacare, much still depends on your job or income. Lose your job or lose your income, and you might lose your existing health insurance or have to settle for lesser coverage.
Number 18:
In Canada, health care coverage stays with you for your entire life.
In the United States, under Obamacare, for tens of millions of Americans, health care coverage stays with you for as long as you can afford your share.
Number 17:
In Canada, you can freely choose your doctors and hospitals and keep them. There are no lists of “in-network” vendors and no extra hidden charges for going “out of network.”
In the United States, under Obamacare, the in-network list of places where you can get treated is shrinking – thus restricting freedom of choice – and if you want to go out of network, you pay for it.
Number 16:
In Canada, the health care system is funded by income, sales and corporate taxes that, combined, are much lower than what Americans pay in premiums.
In the United States, under Obamacare, for thousands of Americans, it’s pay or die – if you can’t pay, you die. That’s why many thousands will still die every year under Obamacare from lack of health insurance to get diagnosed and treated in time.
Number 15:
In Canada, there are no complex hospital or doctor bills. In fact, usually you don’t even see a bill.
In the United States, under Obamacare, hospital and doctor bills will still be terribly complex, making it impossible to discover the many costly overcharges.
Number 14:
In Canada, costs are controlled. Canada pays 10 percent of its GDP for its health care system, covering everyone.
In the United States, under Obamacare, costs continue to skyrocket. The U.S. currently pays 18 percent of its GDP and still doesn’t cover tens of millions of people.
Number 13:
In Canada, it is unheard of for anyone to go bankrupt due to health care costs.
In the United States, under Obamacare, health care driven bankruptcy will continue to plague Americans.
Number 12:
In Canada, simplicity leads to major savings in administrative costs and overhead.
In the United States, under Obamacare, complexity will lead to ratcheting up administrative costs and overhead.
Number 11:
In Canada, when you go to a doctor or hospital the first thing they ask you is: “What’s wrong?”
In the United States, the first thing they ask you is: “What kind of insurance do you have?”
Number 10:
In Canada, the government negotiates drug prices so they are more affordable.
In the United States, under Obamacare, Congress made it specifically illegal for the government to negotiate drug prices for volume purchases, so they remain unaffordable.
Number 9:
In Canada, the government health care funds are not profitably diverted to the top one percent.
In the United States, under Obamacare, health care funds will continue to flow to the top. In 2012, CEOs at six of the largest insurance companies in the U.S. received a total of $83.3 million in pay, plus benefits.
Number 8:
In Canada, there are no necessary co-pays or deductibles.
In the United States, under Obamacare, the deductibles and co-pays will continue to be unaffordable for many millions of Americans.
Number 7:
In Canada, the health care system contributes to social solidarity and national pride.
In the United States, Obamacare is divisive, with rich and poor in different systems and tens of millions left out or with sorely limited benefits.
Number 6:
In Canada, delays in health care are not due to the cost of insurance.
In the United States, under Obamacare, patients without health insurance or who are underinsured will continue to delay or forgo care and put their lives at risk.
Number 5:
In Canada, nobody dies due to lack of health insurance.
In the United States, under Obamacare, many thousands will continue to die every year due to lack of health insurance.
Number 4:
In Canada, an increasing majority supports their health care system, which costs half as much, per person, as in the United States. And in Canada, everyone is covered.
In the United States, a majority – many for different reasons – oppose Obamacare.
Number 3:
In Canada, the tax payments to fund the health care system are progressive – the lowest 20 percent pays 6 percent of income into the system while the highest 20 percent pays 8 percent.
In the United States, under Obamacare, the poor pay a larger share of their income for health care than the affluent.
Number 2:
In Canada, the administration of the system is simple. You get a health care card when you are born. And you swipe it when you go to a doctor or hospital. End of story.
In the United States, Obamacare’s 2,500 pages plus regulations (the Canadian Medicare Bill was 13 pages) is so complex that then Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi said before passage “we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it.”
Number 1:
In Canada, the majority of citizens love their health care system.
In the United States, the majority of citizens, physicians, and nurses prefer the Canadian type system – single-payer, free choice of doctor and hospital , everybody in, nobody out.
For more information see Single Payer Action at www.singlepayeraction.org.
Ralph Nader is a consumer advocate, lawyer and author of Only the Super-Rich Can Save Us! He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion, published by AK Press. Hopeless is also available in a Kindle edition.
__________________
Obama has cut Social Security as well and wants to do more. He does that because neo-liberals want to end all War on Poverty and New Deal programs as much as republicans. Your Social Security will end up as a 401 K plan if you keep voting for neo-liberals!
"Entitlements" and Our Dollar Democracy
Friday, 22 November 2013 10:49 By Ellen Dannin, Truthout | News
Patrick Henry's "Give me liberty, or give me death" left no ambiguity about his position on being a citizen of a democracy. Then people understood the power of words and the importance of using words that meant what they said.
But now, in our Humpty Dumpty Looking Glass world, words are shape shifters with no real meaning:
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master - that's all."
Take the word entitlement. Until recently, a person with an entitlement had a valid and enforceable right or claim solidly based on a law or a contract. Now, under Humpty Dumpty rules, a person with an entitlement is a greedy freeloader who should be punished by losing that right or claim.
Today, the masters of the word are the masters of the world. They tell us that people who receive Social Security are to be reviled and their benefits must be cut because they are an entitlement. So too are free breakfasts for impoverished children and unemployment and welfare for those unable to find work in the Great Recession.
Feeding into the attack on Social Security are urban legends based on a misunderstanding of how Social Security is funded and what its purposes are. Examples and explanations can be found here, here and here.
Unfortunately, even people who ought to know better fail to fully grasp how Social Security operates. They don't understand that it is an insurance program and not an investment like a personal savings account.
The campaign against Social Security stems mainly from three misunderstandings about its funding and operation: that Social Security is going bankrupt; that Social Security is essentially the same as private pensions, IRAs and 401(k)s; and that Social Security is a tax on a par with personal and corporate income taxes. None of these beliefs is correct.
Another misunderstanding is that Social Security operates only as a program for retirees. Social Security offers far broader protections than that.
Social Security's full name is the Old Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance (OASDI ). OASDI provides benefits that make our society more decent and humane. In addition to providing financial support to older Americans who have worked and paid their payroll taxes, OASDI also provides support to the survivors of a worker who has died, including minor children who have lost a parent and to those who are too disabled to work.
To keep faith with all these members of our community, we need a robust program that keeps faith with our forebears and that meets our intergenerational obligations. Social Security provides millions of us with true security. FICA - the money we pay to fund Social Security - provides the basis for all of us to live a decent, dignified life within prosperous communities. It is social in the sense that it provides broad support for a good society by keeping people out of poverty.
Social Security is not a limited, confined or private matter; a mere tax; or a handout. Instead, OASDI's benefits track the biblical injunction - repeated many times - that we are obligated to care for the widow, the orphan and the poor.
"Them That's Got Shall Get. Them That's Not Shall Lose."
Meanwhile, fears and rumors about Social Security distract our attention from those who do enrich themselves at the public's expense. A November 7, 2013, study by the Environmental Working Group titled Forbes Fat Cats Collect Taxpayer-Funded Farm Subsidies: Forbes 400 Subsidy Recipients (1995-2012) is an example of an entitlement that truly deserves close scrutiny.
Many of these same billionaires also may have received crop insurance subsidies, but taxpayers have no way of knowing because current law prohibits the disclosure of the identities of crop insurance policyholders.
According to EWG's analysis, more than 40 billionaires own properties that grow crops that are among the most likely to be insured through the federal crop insurance program, including corn, soybeans, wheat, cotton and sorghum. From 1995 to 2012, these five crops account for nearly $44 billion of premium subsidies - about 82 percent of total crop insurance subsidies and more than two-thirds of all acres enrolled in the crop insurance program.
In 2008, Congress created a means test that was designed to deny some subsidies to individuals with annual off-farm income of more than $500,000. The year before, Bloomberg News published a report highlighting some of the billionaires who had been receiving subsidies. But lawmakers specifically declined to apply it to crop insurance, which has become the primary government support for farm business income.
Worse, the farm bills Congress is now considering could pay these billionaire "farmers" with even larger subsidies.
There is nothing wrong with farmers' wanting to insure their crops. We depend on farmers for our food, but farming is a risky business. Weather, disease and pests can cause crops to fail. As the old joke goes, a farmer who wins big in the lottery is asked by a reporter what he'll do with his winnings. The farmer says, "Well, I guess I'll just keep farming till I go broke."
But these billionaire "farmers" are not in that situation. They have created a secret system that dragoons the rest of us into subsidizing them while also forbidding us to have information about that subsidy is. Talk about the entitled and their entitlements!
The Difference Between Social Security and Crop Insurance for Billionaire "Farmers"
Today, the annual income of the very rich is so large compared with that of the rest of us that it helps to see the differences in graphic terms. Essentially the same information can be found in the Social Security Administration's most recent table of compensation. The table shows us that 166 people earned $50,000,000 or more in 2012. The average of that group was $97,455,138, so a goodly number of them must have earned well into the nine figures. This table shows income for just one year. At least some of those people must have earned money in other years as well and, as a result, amassed enormous wealth and the power that wealth creates.
One would think they would be embarrassed to force the rest of us to subsidize their crop failure insurance. In fact, they must be embarrassed, because they got the best Congress money can buy to hide this information from us. Is it any wonder, then, that the United States has an extremely unequal wealth distribution, thanks to a Congress that voted the wealthiest an entitlement to hide this information from the public?
Surely, if anyone deserved to have their welfare means tested, it should be this crew. But this will not happen, because they are apparently entitled to their entitlements and to keeping the rest of us in the dark as to just how much those entitlements cost the rest of us.
Social Security, that is, OASDI, may look like an individual pension, a savings account or even an investment, but it is none of these. As its full name shows, it is insurance that pays out when an event occurs that can cause poverty. Those events include disability, the death of a spouse or parent and old age.
At the time Social Security was enacted and still today, older people are at high risk for living in poverty. Poverty continues to be a likely fate for those who are retiring during a deep and long recession that has left many people with little to no savings.
A recent study by the National Bureau of Economic Research found that Social Security has helped bring down - but not eliminate - poverty in old age. Fortunately, for them, they are still entitled to Social Security benefits that provide nearly half of the income for the elderly. This issue affects us all. If we live long enough, we all could face poverty in old age, and so may people we care about.
BUT WAIT------DEMOCRATS ARE SHOUTING THAT THEY ARE FIGHTING TO PROTECT THESE SAFETY NETS!
NO, they are the one's embracing this format and they did that because they are neo-liberals, not democrats. Neo-liberals work with republicans for wealth and profit so that is why all the programs and reforms coming these few years were republican policies. We can easily reverse this by running and voting for labor and justice in all primaries to get rid of the neo-liberals!
"The single-payer system's simple. They rolled out Medicare less than a year after passage." - Dr. Steffie Woolhandler
#SinglePayerIsSimpleSingle-Payer Advocates: It Hurts To Say I Told You Sowww.pnhp.orgThe botched implementation of Obamacare has created a bittersweet moment for advocates of a universal, single-payer health care system: They saw this coming, but they can't gloat about it.
CHECK OUT NATIONAL PHYSICIANS UNIVERSAL CARE FOR YOUR STATE'S ORGANIZATION------ONE HERE IN MARYLAND!
Have you heard how much empathy corporate APM/NPR has had in its talk about health care reform and people losing access to care now that everyone knows that is the case. Try as they do to make it sound like people are coming to the exchanges we know that the only people coming are those on Medicaid and that is because coverage for Medicaid is so bad they are hoping to get something more in the exchange......which was the point of ACA. Since more and more people are falling into Medicaid because of falling wealth then what is covered and where you get it needs to change. That is what happened to Welfare when Clinton broke Glass Steagall and started free trade knowing all the US jobs would move overseas------he ended Welfare because he knew unemployment would skyrocket. SAME THING WITH ENTITLEMENTS. If the rich and corporations no longer pay taxes to pay for public services and programs AND have what the public pays in taxes come to corporations as corporate subsidy......then entitlements have to go!!
Marylander's have now decided to go with Expanded and Improved Medicare for All--- we have one state with a model-----VERMONT.
NOTE THAT BERNIE SANDERS OF VERMONT HAS THREATENED TO RUN FOR PRESIDENT IN 2016 TO SAVE LABOR AND JUSTICE RIGHTS!
We don't yet know how they will roll this out as even this format can be taken in a bad direction, but what they do is take all the state's Medicare and Medicaid from the Federal government with their state contributions, tighten oversight for fraud and waste, and add taxes. ....VOILA, UNIVERSAL CARE.
EVERYONE GETTING THE SAME HEALTH CARE AND ALL HOSPITALS PUBLIC. You can imagine that corporate APM/NPR FLEW BY THE SUCCESS IN VERMONT WITH ENROLLMENT AND DID NOT DETAIL THEIR PROGRAM!!
The reason I preface the intent in Vermont is this: tightening for fraud and waste is the key to cost control along with making hospitals public. THERE GOES OVER 1/2 OF HEALTH CARE EXPENSE. The question is will they do it? If they go back and get the decade of billions of dollars in health fraud and stop future waste and fraud, that will pay for the entire public system. THAT IS WHAT WE ARE MOVING TO IN MARYLAND. If they ignore all previous waste and fraud and go with taxation-----specifically taxes that hit the middle/lower class-----this will be yet another protection of all the lost wealth from entitlements with the same people defrauded paying for the corporate fraud. We know the solution to the Federal Medicare problems are exactly the same. We know that simply raising payroll taxes a percent and recovering trillions of dollars in entitlement fraud would shore up these Entitlements and Social Security for the century. So, Vermont may be doing that-----or it may be leaving the fraud with the fraudsters and taxing the people only.
THE GOOD NEWS FOR PEOPLE IN VERMONT IS THAT THIS IS THE PLATFORM FROM WHICH TO MOVE TO HEALTH CARE THAT IS COST EFFECTIVE AND UNIVERSAL. THIS IS THE MARYLAND PLAN AS WE DISMANTLE THE ABSOLUTELY WORST PLAN EVER FOR HEALTH CARE DELIVERY.
When you hear that seniors care with Medicare involved lots of unnecessary and wasteful procedures----they are right. But who decides what is wasteful? The citizen or the industry? The ACA and Maryland or course says THE INDUSTRY. We are hearing interviews with investment capitalists and seeing health stocks soar because the industry's solutions are the Bain's Capital approach to maximizing profits! THAT IS WHAT ROMNEY/OBAMA CARE IS----A BAIN'S CAPITAL APPROACH TO MAKING HEALTH CARE PROFITS MAXIMIZED! There will be no private plans in these health systems because these systems are only there to move Medicare and Medicaid from Federal programs to states. Ending Medicare and Medicaid.
When people tell you ACA can be a platform for Universal Care they are lying to you. ACA does to health care what Clinton did with the banking industry deregulation. Consolidation of finance so that Wall Street banks controls all finance -----HOW DID THAT WORK FOR YOU? That's what ACA does to health care-----consolidates all health industry with deregulation that will create a captured health market that will be unaccountable and driven by profit only.
BUT WAIT------DEMOCRATS ARE SHOUTING THAT THEY ARE FIGHTING TO PROTECT THESE SAFETY NETS!
NO, they are the one's embracing this format and they did that because they are neo-liberals, not democrats. Neo-liberals work with republicans for wealth and profit so that is why all the programs and reforms coming these few years were republican policies. We can easily reverse this by running and voting for labor and justice in all primaries to get rid of the neo-liberals!
Vermont Approves Single-Payer Health Care: ‘Everybody in, nobody out’
posted by Salvatore Aversa November 20, 2013 Occupy Democrats
The Affordable Care Act continues to plow ahead, despite Republican attempts to fight it at every turn. What is unfolding in front of us is nothing short of spectacular. The problems with healthcare.gov are slowly being resolved which is helping more and more people sign up for affordable healthcare, many for the first time in their life. The law provides so much more than that, including standards for even the lowest level plans, protections for young adults 26 and younger, and the elimination of pre-existing plans. Of course, you will not hear the success stories on the news, because those stories are not nearly as sexy as the “Obama Lied” slogan they are so fond of.
The biggest downside of the ACA is the reliance on the private insurance industry. It does not have to be this way, however. There is yet another provision in the Affordable Care Act that can open the door for states to institute their own single-payer healthcare system. Other states have a public option, especially for those below a certain income level, but no state had instituted a true single-payer system. All of this has changed thanks to President Obama and the Affordable Care Act.
Vermont—Home of Ben and Jerry’s, Maple Syrup, Bernie Sanders and the first state to pass marriage equality. Now, Vermont will be known for something that will impact every resident in the state.
The ACA provided states with federal funds to institute a Medicaid expansion. The states chose to expand the program also were able to set up their own state exchanges, which were relatively free from the problems the federal site had. Vermont decided to take it a step further by setting up their very own single payer system.
The slogan of the program: Everybody in, nobody out.
The program will be fully operational by 2017, and will be funded through Medicare, Medicaid, federal money for the ACA given to Vermont, and a slight increase in taxes. In exchange, there will be no more premiums, deductibles, copay’s, hospital bills or anything else aimed at making insurance companies a profit. Further, all hospitals and healthcare providers will now be nonprofit.
This system will provide an instant boost the state economy. On the one side, you have workers that no longer have to worry about paying medical costs or a monthly premium and are able to use that money for other things. On the other side, you have the burden of paying insurance taken off of the employers side, who will be able to use the saved money to provide a better wage and/or reinvest in their company through updated infrastructure and added jobs. It is a win-win solution.
To make sure that it is done right the first time, Vermont brought in a specialist who knows a thing or two about setting up a single-payer system.
Dr. William Hsaio, the Harvard health care economist who helped craft health systems in seven countries, was Vermont’s adviser. He estimates that Vermont will save 25 percent per capita over the current system in administrative costs and other savings.
Many like to say that the United States has the best healthcare system in the world. The problem is we don’t. Not even close. In fact, the only way you can get the best healthcare in the world, is if you are willing and able to pay for it. The United States can and must do better for its people.
Costs have to be held down — there is no reason why the U.S. has to pay twice the amount per capita as the next most costly system in the world (Norway’s), and still not cover millions of its citizens. A Harvard Medical School study states that 45,000 Americans die each year from treatable diseases because they cannot afford to get treatment.
45,000 Americans die every single year because they cannot afford treatment, are you ready for that? That is 15 times the amount of people that died during the September 11, 2001, attacks, or perhaps for you Righty’s out there you would rather see it put this way, 11,250 times the amount of people that died in the Benghazi attack. That equals 5 Americans that die every hour, of every day, of every year because of a preventable illness that was not taken care of due to lack of access and means.
Even once the Affordable Care Act wrinkles are ironed out, which they will be, and every America is covered, which will happen, that will not change the fact that all of this is being driven by a for-profit system by companies that only care about their bottom line. Despite rules in the ACA which prevent insurance companies from absolutely gouging their customers, insurance companies are not exactly know for their ethical behavior.
A single-payer system would all but eliminate anybody dying unnecessarily due to lack of access to healthcare. Our Declaration of Independence states, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” How can somebody have life and happiness, without their health? Despite the glaring hypocrisy of rich, white males who owned slaves stating all men are created equal, we have come a long way from 1776. Yet when it comes to the very basic need, we are left to the whim of a business. Single-payer is inevitable, and the ACA is a giant step in that direction. We need must hold our officials to a higher standard which will get us there faster. 40,000 people a year is absolutely unacceptable. Vermont saw the writings on the wall. Will the rest of us?
Video
Bernie Sanders on MSNBC discussing his state’s new single-payer system.
_________________________________________________
Medicare for all is the best alternative
Print By NJ Voices Guest Blogger/For NJ.com
on October 06, 2012 at 6:00 AM
RICHARD J. McCORMACK / FOR THE JERSEY JOURNAL A supporter of healthcare reform held his sign aloft in Jersey City in 2009.
By Ray Stever In the first presidential debate, President Obama pointed out that “Obamacare” was practically the same health care plan as the one his opponent, Mitt Romney, established as governor in Massachusetts. Not only is it the same plan, it also was put together by many of the same advisers. In other words, both candidates seem to be on the same page when it comes to health care reform.
What did Romneycare in Massachusetts and Obamacare nationwide achieve? As Obama explained, Obamacare isn’t a government takeover of health care. It is the largest expansion of private insurance. In other words, Obamacare provided a major boost for the insurance industry. Unfortunately, it falls far short of doing what the American people want and need.
Obama clearly knows there’s a better alternative. He acknowledged that Medicare is far more efficient than any private insurance company. Romney said that, if that is true, then anyone would rather buy Medicare than private insurance.
The rub is that most Americans can’t choose Medicare. Even the “public option” was taken off the table in the earliest stages of the discussion of reform in 2009. If Americans want to be covered by a health insurance plan that is comprehensive, efficient, humane and fair, we must build a nationwide movement to expand and improve Medicare to cover everything for everyone. We need to pass HR676, the U.S. National Health Care Act.
Under HR676, all Americans would be enrolled in Medicare. Medicare would cover all necessary medical care. That means doctors’ bills, hospital bills, prescription drugs, mental and dental, eyeglasses, hearing aids, home health care assistants, nursing home care. The whole enchilada.
How can we afford it? Simple. We buy these things through Medicare, which is more efficient than any private insurance company. Not only does Medicare have an extremely low overhead (3 percent versus 30 percent for private insurance), but enrolling everyone in a single plan would streamline billing, eliminating waste and fraud. These efficiencies would save more than enough to cover all of the currently uninsured.
HR676 would save money for every person, company, nonprofit or government agency that buys health insurance. Instead of paying high premiums to a private health insurance company, workers and employers would pay a modest contribution to Medicare. Retirees, the unemployed and children pay nothing.
The resulting efficiencies would allow New Jersey to trim its state budget by $2.6 billion per year and to eliminate nearly $60 billion in unfunded liabilities for state retirees’ health care. Consumers, businesses and nonprofits would all save money. Plus, Medicare-for-all would eliminate the threat of medical bankruptcy. Illness and medical debt are the biggest contributors to personal bankruptcy in the United States. Many of those bankrupted by medical bills had health insurance when they first fell sick or injured.
Expanded and improved Medicare for all would put doctors and patients back in control of health care decisions. No longer would bureaucrats decide what kind of care you receive. Doctors could spend more time caring for the sick instead of begging insurers to cover needed care.
Obamacare did not solve our health care woes, but it did delay meaningful reform at the national level. Romney would do no better, and his running mate, Paul Ryan, wants to cut Medicare and replace it with vouchers.
In this election year, Americans must vote for candidates who have shown the most commitment to preserving the existing Medicare program. Going forward, we need to choose candidates who will expand Medicare to cover everything for everyone. We need to do this even on a state level.
New Jersey can follow Vermont’s example and work on establishing our own statewide Medicare-for-all system. In 2013, New Jersey will hold elections for governor, state Senate and Assembly. By electing candidates who are committed to expanded and improved Medicare-for-all, we can put an end to our health care crisis and New Jersey’s budget crisis.
Ray Stever is president of New Jersey One Plan One Nation, a coalition of labor and social issue organizations dedicated to expanded and improved Medicare for all in New Jersey. Have an opinion? Go to njvoices.com.
___________________________________________
This bank transaction tax is the only was to start moving money lost to Wall Street back to the American people and has been demanded since the 2008 election that gave us a supermajority of democrats. IT WOULD BE THE FIRST THING A DEMOCRATIC MAJORITY WOULD DO AND THEY REFUSED. Have you heard your democratic incumbent shouting for this? Obama and Tim Geithner criss-crossed Europe lobbying against this tax as he was determined the banks would lose none of their wealth!
THIS IS BECAUSE THEY ARE NEO-LIBERALS!
Do you know all of Maryland's pols are neo-liberals and no labor and justice candidates are in the race so far!!!! IF YOUR LABOR AND JUSTICE ORGANIZATION IS NOT RUNNING CANDIDATES AGAINST NEO-LIBERALS, THEY ARE NOT WORKING FOR YOU AND ME!
This Tiny Tax Could Help Bring America Out of Debt — But Nobody is Talking About It
August 1, 2013 By Manny Schewitz 36 Comments If I told you there was a tiny tax that could be applied that only a few people would pay, which would potentially raise billions of dollars annually, would you be interested? It’s not a new idea actually and it is already in place — it’s just not being properly implemented.
Since 1905, New York has placed a tax on Wall Street transactions which currently raises about $16,000,000,000 annually. It does not apply to checking or savings accounts, but solely on the buying and selling of shares that are traded in the millions every day on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE). Over the decades the rate of taxation has gone up and down, but here’s the shocker — every year since 1981, New York has collected the tax and promptly returned it to the traders. Yes, New York takes the tax and gives it right back.
Some have argued that this is a bad idea – that it doesn’t discourage speculation and creates market volatility which is the opposite of some of the intended effects. But what if we applied it in a proper, common sense way nationwide and actually put the money into the national coffers instead of giving it right back like New York currently does?
It is an idea which has been put forth in both Congressional and Senate legislation a number of times, most recently this past February when Democratic Senator Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) and US Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.) submitted a bill that would impose a 0.03% tax on financial transactions, and potentially raise over $350 billion annually. As mentioned before, some have claimed it would place undue burden on Wall Street and wouldn’t curb speculation, but almost all are in agreement that it would bring in revenue. In fact, some finance industry professionals submitted a letter in support of it in which they said the following:
Dear G20 and European leaders,
As individuals with first-hand knowledge and significant experience in the financial industry, we urge you to introduce small financial transaction taxes (FTTs). These taxes will rebalance financial markets away from a short-term trading mentality that has contributed to instability in our financial markets. They also have the potential to raise significant revenue.
In the last few decades, financial market activity has increased tremendously, with the value of transactions now seventy times greater than the size of the real global economy. The primary role of financial markets is to raise investment, allocate resources efficiently, and mitigate risk. However, much of today’s financial activity does not contribute to these goals. Computer-driven, high frequency trading, for example, allocates resources on the basis of algorithms designed to turn very short-term profits and have been shown to drain liquidity in stressed markets when it is needed most.
Financial transaction taxes of a small fraction of a percent on each trade, such as those proposed by the European Commission and backed by a number of G20 countries, would moderate the incentives for such short-term speculation while having a negligible impact on long-term investment.
Concerns have been raised that FTTs could damage growth. But a growing body of evidence suggests that by reducing volatility and raising much needed revenue, the overall effect would be positive. Critics have also wrongly associated trading volume with efficiency-enhancing liquidity and failed to sufficiently take into account market resilience and trust that are undermined in a world where very short-term trading dominates the financial system. As many notable economists have observed, a modest transaction tax will actually improve the functioning of markets.
FTTs have a proven track record. Numerous countries, including those with deep and fast-growing markets, such as the UK, South Africa, Hong Kong, Singapore, Switzerland, and India, currently have FTTs on particular asset classes that raise billions of dollars per year. New FTTs, whether agreed by the G20, EU, or by individual countries, offer a real opportunity to help restore the financial sector to its proper role, while raising massive revenues for people in urgent need at home and in the world’s poorest countries. We believe this is an opportunity that should not be missed.
To me, the idea of raising revenue based off a tax that takes a tiny fraction of stock and derivative trades from the same institutions we had to bail out after they took us into the last recession just makes sense. Not to mention that some of them, like Bank of America, repaid our kindness by lying to homeowners and finding ways to not renegotiate mortgages. This is an idea which, combined with removing corporate subsides and reducing defense spending, could very well balance the budget and reduce the debt.
So if it makes sense, could help balance the budget and reduce our debt, why hasn’t it happened? Well, when you have a government made up of hundreds of elected officials who don’t care about coming together and doing what’s best for the country, this is what happens. Good ideas fall by the wayside while corruption and gridlock takes center stage. And they wonder why they’re far less popular than head lice?
______________________________________________
It will take too long to reform ACA as it was neo-liberals who passed it, but we can simply replace it state by state. If your state is democratic you simply need to vote neo-liberals out and labor and justice in!
Weekend Edition November 22-24, 2013
Time for a Repeal 21 Ways the Canadian Health Care System is Better than Obamacare
by RALPH NADER Dear America:
Costly complexity is baked into Obamacare. No health insurance system is without problems but Canadian style single-payer full Medicare for all is simple, affordable, comprehensive and universal.
In the early 1960s, President Lyndon Johnson enrolled 20 million elderly Americans into Medicare in six months. There were no websites. They did it with index cards!
Below please find 21 Ways the Canadian Health Care System is Better than Obamacare.
Repeal Obamacare and replace it with the much more efficient single-payer, everybody in, nobody out, free choice of doctor and hospital.
Love, Canada
Number 21:
In Canada, everyone is covered automatically at birth – everybody in, nobody out.
In the United States, under Obamacare, 31 million Americans will still be uninsured by 2023 and millions more will remain underinsured.
Number 20:
In Canada, the health system is designed to put people, not profits, first.
In the United States, Obamacare will do little to curb insurance industry profits and will actually enhance insurance industry profits.
Number 19:
In Canada, coverage is not tied to a job or dependent on your income – rich and poor are in the same system, the best guaranty of quality.
In the United States, under Obamacare, much still depends on your job or income. Lose your job or lose your income, and you might lose your existing health insurance or have to settle for lesser coverage.
Number 18:
In Canada, health care coverage stays with you for your entire life.
In the United States, under Obamacare, for tens of millions of Americans, health care coverage stays with you for as long as you can afford your share.
Number 17:
In Canada, you can freely choose your doctors and hospitals and keep them. There are no lists of “in-network” vendors and no extra hidden charges for going “out of network.”
In the United States, under Obamacare, the in-network list of places where you can get treated is shrinking – thus restricting freedom of choice – and if you want to go out of network, you pay for it.
Number 16:
In Canada, the health care system is funded by income, sales and corporate taxes that, combined, are much lower than what Americans pay in premiums.
In the United States, under Obamacare, for thousands of Americans, it’s pay or die – if you can’t pay, you die. That’s why many thousands will still die every year under Obamacare from lack of health insurance to get diagnosed and treated in time.
Number 15:
In Canada, there are no complex hospital or doctor bills. In fact, usually you don’t even see a bill.
In the United States, under Obamacare, hospital and doctor bills will still be terribly complex, making it impossible to discover the many costly overcharges.
Number 14:
In Canada, costs are controlled. Canada pays 10 percent of its GDP for its health care system, covering everyone.
In the United States, under Obamacare, costs continue to skyrocket. The U.S. currently pays 18 percent of its GDP and still doesn’t cover tens of millions of people.
Number 13:
In Canada, it is unheard of for anyone to go bankrupt due to health care costs.
In the United States, under Obamacare, health care driven bankruptcy will continue to plague Americans.
Number 12:
In Canada, simplicity leads to major savings in administrative costs and overhead.
In the United States, under Obamacare, complexity will lead to ratcheting up administrative costs and overhead.
Number 11:
In Canada, when you go to a doctor or hospital the first thing they ask you is: “What’s wrong?”
In the United States, the first thing they ask you is: “What kind of insurance do you have?”
Number 10:
In Canada, the government negotiates drug prices so they are more affordable.
In the United States, under Obamacare, Congress made it specifically illegal for the government to negotiate drug prices for volume purchases, so they remain unaffordable.
Number 9:
In Canada, the government health care funds are not profitably diverted to the top one percent.
In the United States, under Obamacare, health care funds will continue to flow to the top. In 2012, CEOs at six of the largest insurance companies in the U.S. received a total of $83.3 million in pay, plus benefits.
Number 8:
In Canada, there are no necessary co-pays or deductibles.
In the United States, under Obamacare, the deductibles and co-pays will continue to be unaffordable for many millions of Americans.
Number 7:
In Canada, the health care system contributes to social solidarity and national pride.
In the United States, Obamacare is divisive, with rich and poor in different systems and tens of millions left out or with sorely limited benefits.
Number 6:
In Canada, delays in health care are not due to the cost of insurance.
In the United States, under Obamacare, patients without health insurance or who are underinsured will continue to delay or forgo care and put their lives at risk.
Number 5:
In Canada, nobody dies due to lack of health insurance.
In the United States, under Obamacare, many thousands will continue to die every year due to lack of health insurance.
Number 4:
In Canada, an increasing majority supports their health care system, which costs half as much, per person, as in the United States. And in Canada, everyone is covered.
In the United States, a majority – many for different reasons – oppose Obamacare.
Number 3:
In Canada, the tax payments to fund the health care system are progressive – the lowest 20 percent pays 6 percent of income into the system while the highest 20 percent pays 8 percent.
In the United States, under Obamacare, the poor pay a larger share of their income for health care than the affluent.
Number 2:
In Canada, the administration of the system is simple. You get a health care card when you are born. And you swipe it when you go to a doctor or hospital. End of story.
In the United States, Obamacare’s 2,500 pages plus regulations (the Canadian Medicare Bill was 13 pages) is so complex that then Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi said before passage “we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it.”
Number 1:
In Canada, the majority of citizens love their health care system.
In the United States, the majority of citizens, physicians, and nurses prefer the Canadian type system – single-payer, free choice of doctor and hospital , everybody in, nobody out.
For more information see Single Payer Action at www.singlepayeraction.org.
Ralph Nader is a consumer advocate, lawyer and author of Only the Super-Rich Can Save Us! He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion, published by AK Press. Hopeless is also available in a Kindle edition.
__________________
Obama has cut Social Security as well and wants to do more. He does that because neo-liberals want to end all War on Poverty and New Deal programs as much as republicans. Your Social Security will end up as a 401 K plan if you keep voting for neo-liberals!
"Entitlements" and Our Dollar Democracy
Friday, 22 November 2013 10:49 By Ellen Dannin, Truthout | News
Patrick Henry's "Give me liberty, or give me death" left no ambiguity about his position on being a citizen of a democracy. Then people understood the power of words and the importance of using words that meant what they said.
But now, in our Humpty Dumpty Looking Glass world, words are shape shifters with no real meaning:
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master - that's all."
Take the word entitlement. Until recently, a person with an entitlement had a valid and enforceable right or claim solidly based on a law or a contract. Now, under Humpty Dumpty rules, a person with an entitlement is a greedy freeloader who should be punished by losing that right or claim.
Today, the masters of the word are the masters of the world. They tell us that people who receive Social Security are to be reviled and their benefits must be cut because they are an entitlement. So too are free breakfasts for impoverished children and unemployment and welfare for those unable to find work in the Great Recession.
Feeding into the attack on Social Security are urban legends based on a misunderstanding of how Social Security is funded and what its purposes are. Examples and explanations can be found here, here and here.
Unfortunately, even people who ought to know better fail to fully grasp how Social Security operates. They don't understand that it is an insurance program and not an investment like a personal savings account.
The campaign against Social Security stems mainly from three misunderstandings about its funding and operation: that Social Security is going bankrupt; that Social Security is essentially the same as private pensions, IRAs and 401(k)s; and that Social Security is a tax on a par with personal and corporate income taxes. None of these beliefs is correct.
Another misunderstanding is that Social Security operates only as a program for retirees. Social Security offers far broader protections than that.
Social Security's full name is the Old Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance (OASDI ). OASDI provides benefits that make our society more decent and humane. In addition to providing financial support to older Americans who have worked and paid their payroll taxes, OASDI also provides support to the survivors of a worker who has died, including minor children who have lost a parent and to those who are too disabled to work.
To keep faith with all these members of our community, we need a robust program that keeps faith with our forebears and that meets our intergenerational obligations. Social Security provides millions of us with true security. FICA - the money we pay to fund Social Security - provides the basis for all of us to live a decent, dignified life within prosperous communities. It is social in the sense that it provides broad support for a good society by keeping people out of poverty.
Social Security is not a limited, confined or private matter; a mere tax; or a handout. Instead, OASDI's benefits track the biblical injunction - repeated many times - that we are obligated to care for the widow, the orphan and the poor.
"Them That's Got Shall Get. Them That's Not Shall Lose."
Meanwhile, fears and rumors about Social Security distract our attention from those who do enrich themselves at the public's expense. A November 7, 2013, study by the Environmental Working Group titled Forbes Fat Cats Collect Taxpayer-Funded Farm Subsidies: Forbes 400 Subsidy Recipients (1995-2012) is an example of an entitlement that truly deserves close scrutiny.
Many of these same billionaires also may have received crop insurance subsidies, but taxpayers have no way of knowing because current law prohibits the disclosure of the identities of crop insurance policyholders.
According to EWG's analysis, more than 40 billionaires own properties that grow crops that are among the most likely to be insured through the federal crop insurance program, including corn, soybeans, wheat, cotton and sorghum. From 1995 to 2012, these five crops account for nearly $44 billion of premium subsidies - about 82 percent of total crop insurance subsidies and more than two-thirds of all acres enrolled in the crop insurance program.
In 2008, Congress created a means test that was designed to deny some subsidies to individuals with annual off-farm income of more than $500,000. The year before, Bloomberg News published a report highlighting some of the billionaires who had been receiving subsidies. But lawmakers specifically declined to apply it to crop insurance, which has become the primary government support for farm business income.
Worse, the farm bills Congress is now considering could pay these billionaire "farmers" with even larger subsidies.
There is nothing wrong with farmers' wanting to insure their crops. We depend on farmers for our food, but farming is a risky business. Weather, disease and pests can cause crops to fail. As the old joke goes, a farmer who wins big in the lottery is asked by a reporter what he'll do with his winnings. The farmer says, "Well, I guess I'll just keep farming till I go broke."
But these billionaire "farmers" are not in that situation. They have created a secret system that dragoons the rest of us into subsidizing them while also forbidding us to have information about that subsidy is. Talk about the entitled and their entitlements!
The Difference Between Social Security and Crop Insurance for Billionaire "Farmers"
Today, the annual income of the very rich is so large compared with that of the rest of us that it helps to see the differences in graphic terms. Essentially the same information can be found in the Social Security Administration's most recent table of compensation. The table shows us that 166 people earned $50,000,000 or more in 2012. The average of that group was $97,455,138, so a goodly number of them must have earned well into the nine figures. This table shows income for just one year. At least some of those people must have earned money in other years as well and, as a result, amassed enormous wealth and the power that wealth creates.
One would think they would be embarrassed to force the rest of us to subsidize their crop failure insurance. In fact, they must be embarrassed, because they got the best Congress money can buy to hide this information from us. Is it any wonder, then, that the United States has an extremely unequal wealth distribution, thanks to a Congress that voted the wealthiest an entitlement to hide this information from the public?
Surely, if anyone deserved to have their welfare means tested, it should be this crew. But this will not happen, because they are apparently entitled to their entitlements and to keeping the rest of us in the dark as to just how much those entitlements cost the rest of us.
Social Security, that is, OASDI, may look like an individual pension, a savings account or even an investment, but it is none of these. As its full name shows, it is insurance that pays out when an event occurs that can cause poverty. Those events include disability, the death of a spouse or parent and old age.
At the time Social Security was enacted and still today, older people are at high risk for living in poverty. Poverty continues to be a likely fate for those who are retiring during a deep and long recession that has left many people with little to no savings.
A recent study by the National Bureau of Economic Research found that Social Security has helped bring down - but not eliminate - poverty in old age. Fortunately, for them, they are still entitled to Social Security benefits that provide nearly half of the income for the elderly. This issue affects us all. If we live long enough, we all could face poverty in old age, and so may people we care about.
RSS Feed
