It's still coming.
Oh, sure, we were all promised change immediately. I'm privileged: I have a secure job, a double-income household, and expenses within my ability to pay. I realize that a lot of people are anxious, but the stimulus will come.
So, what's the hold up? Simply put, the federal government does not like to take a shit without checking its bowels two or three times to make sure that it's a good idea. The jobs that were "created" with the $800 billion appropriation commitment are in the process of being made, if only we weren't so critical of turtle crossings, high-speed rail, and bridges in the middle of nowhere.
The trepidation is understandable. The last time Congress acted without proper consideration, millions of dollars fell into the hands of brokers who drove AIG into the ground. The government had to messily clean up that failure. This time around, the government wants to make sure the money is going to the right people, and that the proper approvals are made. This applies even to expenditures made by President Bush: the TARP legislation created the Neighborhood Stabilization Program with $2.3 billion, but none of that money has made it to the cities and counties that need it now. Everyone is so concerned that the money will be spent "appropriately"; no one is concerned about what the delay means to the average citizen.
We have shovel-ready jobs now. Republicans and Democrats alike are stalling on the bill, questioning why the money is going where. No one is talking about what the money is supposed to do -- create jobs, even bullshit jobs, so that the money gets back into the hands of the people. Bandying back and forth about the "appropriateness" of the expenditures is political jockeying that is preventing the jobs from being created.
Just make the jobs happen.
Thursday, July 2, 2009
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
Uhh ... America? Lose some weight.
Go read this article: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31681795/ns/health-fitness. And this will be a very quick, short post.
First step to lowering health costs: lose some weight.
Seriously.
A majority of the people voted for a change when they decided to vote President Obama into office. They voted for him, expecting a change in health care policy. What no one votes for, though, is to improve one's own health. The evidence shows that the public is partially to blame for the sagging (ha ha ha) state of health care.
Seriously. Lose some weight, America. At least, to the point where we stop considering obesity a "disease".
Maybe we can rid the notion that Republicans are all a bunch of fat guys. I'm sure that some of us would not mind associating with slim women.
First step to lowering health costs: lose some weight.
Seriously.
A majority of the people voted for a change when they decided to vote President Obama into office. They voted for him, expecting a change in health care policy. What no one votes for, though, is to improve one's own health. The evidence shows that the public is partially to blame for the sagging (ha ha ha) state of health care.
Seriously. Lose some weight, America. At least, to the point where we stop considering obesity a "disease".
Maybe we can rid the notion that Republicans are all a bunch of fat guys. I'm sure that some of us would not mind associating with slim women.
Monday, June 29, 2009
Sick. Just plain sick.
Ugh. Check out this article from MSNBC: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31595921/ns/politics-white_house/. Prepare for (slow-paced) rant in ... 3, 2, ... 1.
I get it. Pay to play. Making sure that we are not adding extra costs on top of the current projections for the deficit. I know it's important because the average American does not realize what macro-deficits mean, or will do to the nation. Yes, most people think that high deficits mean Doomsday. So, I know why Axelrod and the White House is considering taxing health benefits. It's just stupid, pointless, and will place a hardship on those making below $250,000. Here's why:
Health care premiums are a necessity in life in America, so they will be paid. Right now, the premiums are tax-deductible. Those of us with family who are sick have to pay higher health care premiums than others -- and they can sometimes rise into the range that may make them subject to taxes. People under $250,000 can pay premiums in the range of $18,000 per year. If our employers did not pay for the lion's share of the premium cost, then a good portion of people making between $100,000 to $250,000 will be paying premiums above the limit proposed.
Word is that employers will also have to pay for health care premiums paid to employees. Employers are already shelling out large amounts of cash in order to pay for premiums; if this amount becomes taxable, then employers are going to stop offering coverage. That puts all of the costs for health benefits onto the employee, who are likely unable to pay for the entire premium on their own. Thus, many people are going to fall out of private insurance -- specifically, those whose employers have decided to stop offering health insurance.
This will have a two-fold negative effect. First, the people who come off of private health insurance will try to get onto the public plan that the Obama Administration is proposing. This will put a greater burden on the public plan, and potentially push it out of its projected costs -- severely. Second, as people fall out of private insurance, the premiums to cover the risk will go up for those remaining on the plans -- or, in the alternative, some health insurers will simply shut down. Costs will go up for those who want to stay on private insurance, and the remaining insurers -- likely the ones with significant market power -- will stay in business, and charge even more. Consequently, the public plan will be forced to cover more people than expected -- much, much more.
So, the tax policy is a terrible idea.
What the Administration should be focusing on is decreasing health care costs in the industry. Health care in the United States consumes 17% of the GDP, and is projected to be 20% in under ten years. In the U.K., where the system is mostly public, the cost was only 9.4% of the nation's GDP. In France, where you can get daycare for free, the cost was 10.5% of the nation's GDP. Denmark? 9.0 percent. Canada? 10.0%. So much for the argument that private health care is more efficient.
Here's some more statistics to chew on: 31.0% of the costs for health care in the United States are administrative, compared to 16.7% for Canada. (http://www.pnhp.org/publications/nejmadmin.pdf) While it is true that, in sum, Medicaid spends more per patient on administrative costs, ($509 v. $453 for private insurers), the misleading part of the study by the Heritage Foundation (surprised?) is in its presentation: Medicaid patients make more claims due to age, infirmity, and the fact that they do not need to pay for the care; privately-insured people have strong incentives not to see the doctors when they should, to avoid costs, and to stay "out of the system". (http://www.heritage.org/Research/HealthCare/wm2505.cfm) Either way, it's hard to argue with the proof: Americans pay more for their health care than Canadians or Europeans.
And the results -- life expectancy (from CIA World factbook, cited by Wiki -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy): France (5th in U.N.; 8th, World) -- 80.87 years; Canada (10th in U.N.; 14th, World) -- 80.34 years; U.K. (26th; 37th) -- 78.7 years; U.S. (30th; 45th) -- 78.06 years; Denmark (32nd; 47th) -- 77.96 years.
We need to fix health care, but we should be focused on the costs, not the delivery.
I get it. Pay to play. Making sure that we are not adding extra costs on top of the current projections for the deficit. I know it's important because the average American does not realize what macro-deficits mean, or will do to the nation. Yes, most people think that high deficits mean Doomsday. So, I know why Axelrod and the White House is considering taxing health benefits. It's just stupid, pointless, and will place a hardship on those making below $250,000. Here's why:
Health care premiums are a necessity in life in America, so they will be paid. Right now, the premiums are tax-deductible. Those of us with family who are sick have to pay higher health care premiums than others -- and they can sometimes rise into the range that may make them subject to taxes. People under $250,000 can pay premiums in the range of $18,000 per year. If our employers did not pay for the lion's share of the premium cost, then a good portion of people making between $100,000 to $250,000 will be paying premiums above the limit proposed.
Word is that employers will also have to pay for health care premiums paid to employees. Employers are already shelling out large amounts of cash in order to pay for premiums; if this amount becomes taxable, then employers are going to stop offering coverage. That puts all of the costs for health benefits onto the employee, who are likely unable to pay for the entire premium on their own. Thus, many people are going to fall out of private insurance -- specifically, those whose employers have decided to stop offering health insurance.
This will have a two-fold negative effect. First, the people who come off of private health insurance will try to get onto the public plan that the Obama Administration is proposing. This will put a greater burden on the public plan, and potentially push it out of its projected costs -- severely. Second, as people fall out of private insurance, the premiums to cover the risk will go up for those remaining on the plans -- or, in the alternative, some health insurers will simply shut down. Costs will go up for those who want to stay on private insurance, and the remaining insurers -- likely the ones with significant market power -- will stay in business, and charge even more. Consequently, the public plan will be forced to cover more people than expected -- much, much more.
So, the tax policy is a terrible idea.
What the Administration should be focusing on is decreasing health care costs in the industry. Health care in the United States consumes 17% of the GDP, and is projected to be 20% in under ten years. In the U.K., where the system is mostly public, the cost was only 9.4% of the nation's GDP. In France, where you can get daycare for free, the cost was 10.5% of the nation's GDP. Denmark? 9.0 percent. Canada? 10.0%. So much for the argument that private health care is more efficient.
Here's some more statistics to chew on: 31.0% of the costs for health care in the United States are administrative, compared to 16.7% for Canada. (http://www.pnhp.org/publications/nejmadmin.pdf) While it is true that, in sum, Medicaid spends more per patient on administrative costs, ($509 v. $453 for private insurers), the misleading part of the study by the Heritage Foundation (surprised?) is in its presentation: Medicaid patients make more claims due to age, infirmity, and the fact that they do not need to pay for the care; privately-insured people have strong incentives not to see the doctors when they should, to avoid costs, and to stay "out of the system". (http://www.heritage.org/Research/HealthCare/wm2505.cfm) Either way, it's hard to argue with the proof: Americans pay more for their health care than Canadians or Europeans.
And the results -- life expectancy (from CIA World factbook, cited by Wiki -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy): France (5th in U.N.; 8th, World) -- 80.87 years; Canada (10th in U.N.; 14th, World) -- 80.34 years; U.K. (26th; 37th) -- 78.7 years; U.S. (30th; 45th) -- 78.06 years; Denmark (32nd; 47th) -- 77.96 years.
We need to fix health care, but we should be focused on the costs, not the delivery.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)