Yesterday, Paul Ryan (R-WI), the GOP's next up-and-coming cretin released his Republican budget plan to reduce the deficit and reign in government, because government spending is out of control, or at least it has been since 2008 when George W. Bush left office (that's a strange coincidence). It'd be nice to think that Representative Ryan were sincere in his recommendations to reduce spending and balance the budget, but when he marks 2008 as a good point to return and then strictly stabilize spending, it's only political posturing. GWB increased the federal budget by 104%. In comparison, Pres. Bill Clinton increased the federal budget by only 11%. If Rep. Ryan were truly sincere about reducing the government, he might choose a better marker than the notoriously poor fiscal policies of George W. Bush. But besides this glaring omission from Ryan's reasoning, let's examine a few other interesting points, perhaps treating Rep. Ryan to a little history lesson in the meantime.
15 years ago, Pres. Bill Clinton balanced the budget and created a surplus. He did it with common sense fiscal austerity, not the extremely dangerous musings of the Tea Party-elected freshman in the House. Tthese people cry that cutting Planned Parenthood and NPR (just to name two examples) will magically fix our budget crisis it's almost laughable. But then you have polls released that show Americans think the government spends nearly $200B a year on such programs and you have to wonder how dumb this country actually is. But Clinton balanced the budget with those programs still wholly intact. Pres. Clinton did not make sweeping changes to Social Security or Medicare. He did raise taxes, but only 4.6% on the highest earners in the country. And in spite of Republicans' continued arguments that tax cuts lead to more jobs and tax increases lead to fewer ones, the economy boomed. Maybe Mr. Ryan should have just taken up a chair next to the former president to learn a thing or two.
Secondly, piggy-backing off the comment that Pres. Clinton created a surplus prior to leaving office, is that the current deficit was largely created by only two factors: the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the Bush Tax Cuts of 2001 and 2003. Yet Rep. Ryan likes to talk up that "entitlement" programs have been the main driving force behind our deficit problems, which just makes no sense mathematically.
And lastly, it should be noted that Pres. Obama has increased the federal budget. For a Democrat, that's not terribly surprising. But Rep. Ryan and all the other GOP windbags pout endlessly about some huge socialist agenda implemented by the President. Yet again there selectivist memory about history has quickly forgotten that the President increased spending so quickly because the country was on the verge of a depression and money needed to be poured into the economy or else it would have failed completely. And again, it should be said that George W. Bush watched idly as the housing bubble inflated and burst, without action- except of course to reward the companies that inflated the bubble. It would be nice to take Rep. Ryan's budget proposal seriously, but it'd just fill me with a lot of hot air.
Showing posts with label Obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Obama. Show all posts
Wednesday, April 6, 2011
Monday, March 29, 2010
Thoughts on Health Reform
Last week, the House passed H.R. 4872, the highly contested Health Insurance reform bill the country desperately needs. The provisions within the bill should help millions of Americans either already insured, or those uninsured combat the abuses and out of control insurance rate increases of the current health care system. Many of the projections for what the bill will do are not set in stone. They rely heavily on a step-by-step implementation process to curb the rising costs and increasing population of those who daily become uninsured. I will admit that some things may not align accordingly with all the projections set forth by the administration or economists, and future fixes are still needed, but this legislation, no matter how inchoate you may think it is, was a necessity. Reactions to the bill have been varied, ranging from the left's now complete crush on Obama (regardless of how he handles job creation and banking reform) to the despicable, unapologetic, and violent rhetoric and actions of the Tea Party movement. Perusing the blogosphere, I've come across some interesting arguments for why exactly this bill is so bad for our country, and will take this opportunity to offer counter arguments.
1. Health Care reform was not necessary.
The simplest of argument against the passage of the bill is plainly just ill-informed, or blind to the facts. Since 1980, the cost of health care, based on GDP, has nearly doubled. Over the next two decades (which would be right around the time my generation is reaching the critical age of 50), without reform the amount of money spent by the average American on health care would be right around 30% of their income. Imagine trying to save for retirement all the while dealing with some chronic, life-threatening illness and paying monthly, or even weekly, for prescription medication (which would of course be more expensive than it is today). Reform was something that could wait no longer. A Republican controlled House, Senate, and President did nothing to steer the industry from the precipice. The runaway train was hurtled at the Democratic party, who successfully laid their body out over the broken rails.
2. Now my premiums are going to go up.
This has been a humorous argument to see come up. In case you haven't been listening, insurance premiums were already rising at an astronomical level, far out-pacing inflation. Just weeks ago, some companies were reported to raise rates on individuals up to 39%, and on small businesses up to 75%! The Health Insurance reform looks to curb these arbitrary rate hikes by adding more people, and more competition into the market. Personally, I feel having some regulations in place so that insurance companies cannot raise rates without warning, or viable excuses, or denying coverage altogether is a plausible position. Liken this to the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933. Repealing Glass-Steagall in 1999 deregulated Wall Street and set us up for the Great Recession, allowing the financial giants to take risky bets for the possibility or enormous profits (They lost...). Millions of people are up-in-arms over arbitrary credit card rate increases, but many of these same people are against insurance regulation. Are you kidding me? No regulation on Wall Street was disastrous. The same can be said about "Health Street." Yes, premiums will continue to rise (at a far less inflated rate than previously), but legislation was set in place so that even though you may pay a little more in premiums your total personal health care costs ultimately go down (as well as the government's, reducing the federal deficit). That's an important distinction to make.
3. Forcing 32 million Americans to have health insurance is just a big gift to the insurance industry.
Strictly speaking, this seems like a no-brainer argument from the left. Yes, adding 32 million more people as customers to the insurance corporations numbers looks like it would undoubtedly raise their revenue stream, quite substantially too. But this complex system doesn't mean at all the insurance giants' profits will soar. Look at the numerous examples brought to national attention by the media of everyday Americans who after learning they were sick, spent months in the doctor's office, racking up hundreds of thousands in bills, thinking all the while their visits and treatments were covered, only to learn their insurance company will in fact not pay for treatment because the corporation either found some loophole to establish a preexisting condition, or the person reached their coverage limit and they were dropped. All over the country this was happening leading to the record profits the health care companies garnered in 2009, despite the recession. Under the new laws, this no longer happens. Which means that yes, they have more customers and more revenue generating into the system, but they are now required to cover all treatments, no matter the cost; they cannot arbitrarily drop coverage, and the coverage limits are no longer viable. Most likely, these changes will off-set any projections for insurmountable profits by the insurance companies without damaging the companies' bottom-line.
4. No abortion coverage for women?
Liberals are especially angry over this one with the President. And it's not even his fault. Of course he wanted the measures in the bill to include coverage for abortions, but it was the House wrangling that ultimately defeated any abortion coverage. The House passed the legislation with 220 votes, just 4 more than the needed 216. To get those votes, the House needed 12 votes from conservative Democrats called the "Stupak 12." The "12" threatened to vote against the Senate bill if there was any language preserving federal dollars for abortions. So, the President did what needed to be done; he signed an executive order. This tallied the final votes needed for passage. As Bill Clinton said during his own fight for Health Care reform, "Do not let the perfect be the enemy of the good." Overall, the bill was needed. Not every provision could be included (see Public Option, also), but ultimately we've moved forward. Now, if you're angry about the abortion part: first, stop blaming the President. If it wasn't obvious, he wasn't happy about having to sign an executive order. Case and point: the totally unceremonious signing of said order the day after the bill passed the House. No cameras, no media allowed. Also, an executive order can be repealed by...an executive order. That simple. Further, if you want to see abortion rights progress in this country, go volunteer. Work to ensure Representatives like Bart Stupak are not reelected and replaced by more Pro-Choice Reps.
5. We have to wait until 2014 before so many provisions are enacted??
Yes. Part of the entire debate centered on the bill was the threat it would plummet our national deficit into unsustainable, and irreversible levels. "This bill will bankrupt us!" was the cry. As I mentioned in the introduction, the bill was written as a step-by-step implementation. First, the initial provisions occur to keep people insured: tax credits, the beginning of closing the 'donut hole' in Medicare, restrictions on denying coverage to children, or those with preexisting conditions, and dropping people arbitrarily. All these work to keep the amount of people already insured, insured, instead of having over 1400 people per day lose their insurance, as was the numbers prior to passage. Eventually this builds towards insurance for all. To cover 32 million extra Americans the government would have needed incredible capital to do that immediately (and in case you didn't know, we have a bit of a debt problem right about now). The only way to raise that kind of money quickly: taxes. And we all know how the majority feels about those. So enacting every provision immediately just was not fiscally possible, or responsible.
Furthermore, to contend that waiting until 2014 for these other provisions to kick in means John or Jane Doe, already on death's bed, will not see any benefits from the legislation is a terrible argument against any health reform. Would you rather we wait another 16 years before a Democratic majority attempts health care reform again? Would you rather not have the reformation process begin now so that Chris, or Sue, or Rosana, or anybody else who in the next 3 1/2 years will be diagnosed with some malicious, but curable disease, who without health care reform starting now, they would not have the coverage they need at that time to survive? It will happen, and most likely to someone you know. Now they have a far greater chance of survival and it boils down to simply giving people the coverage. This should have been done when Pres. Clinton was in office, and it hurts me to think of all those who suffered and ultimately died because reform was not achieved back then. But the past is gone, that bleak horizon of darkness. And standing here in the present as I am, the future, to me, just got a hell of a lot brighter.
1. Health Care reform was not necessary.
The simplest of argument against the passage of the bill is plainly just ill-informed, or blind to the facts. Since 1980, the cost of health care, based on GDP, has nearly doubled. Over the next two decades (which would be right around the time my generation is reaching the critical age of 50), without reform the amount of money spent by the average American on health care would be right around 30% of their income. Imagine trying to save for retirement all the while dealing with some chronic, life-threatening illness and paying monthly, or even weekly, for prescription medication (which would of course be more expensive than it is today). Reform was something that could wait no longer. A Republican controlled House, Senate, and President did nothing to steer the industry from the precipice. The runaway train was hurtled at the Democratic party, who successfully laid their body out over the broken rails.
2. Now my premiums are going to go up.
This has been a humorous argument to see come up. In case you haven't been listening, insurance premiums were already rising at an astronomical level, far out-pacing inflation. Just weeks ago, some companies were reported to raise rates on individuals up to 39%, and on small businesses up to 75%! The Health Insurance reform looks to curb these arbitrary rate hikes by adding more people, and more competition into the market. Personally, I feel having some regulations in place so that insurance companies cannot raise rates without warning, or viable excuses, or denying coverage altogether is a plausible position. Liken this to the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933. Repealing Glass-Steagall in 1999 deregulated Wall Street and set us up for the Great Recession, allowing the financial giants to take risky bets for the possibility or enormous profits (They lost...). Millions of people are up-in-arms over arbitrary credit card rate increases, but many of these same people are against insurance regulation. Are you kidding me? No regulation on Wall Street was disastrous. The same can be said about "Health Street." Yes, premiums will continue to rise (at a far less inflated rate than previously), but legislation was set in place so that even though you may pay a little more in premiums your total personal health care costs ultimately go down (as well as the government's, reducing the federal deficit). That's an important distinction to make.
3. Forcing 32 million Americans to have health insurance is just a big gift to the insurance industry.
Strictly speaking, this seems like a no-brainer argument from the left. Yes, adding 32 million more people as customers to the insurance corporations numbers looks like it would undoubtedly raise their revenue stream, quite substantially too. But this complex system doesn't mean at all the insurance giants' profits will soar. Look at the numerous examples brought to national attention by the media of everyday Americans who after learning they were sick, spent months in the doctor's office, racking up hundreds of thousands in bills, thinking all the while their visits and treatments were covered, only to learn their insurance company will in fact not pay for treatment because the corporation either found some loophole to establish a preexisting condition, or the person reached their coverage limit and they were dropped. All over the country this was happening leading to the record profits the health care companies garnered in 2009, despite the recession. Under the new laws, this no longer happens. Which means that yes, they have more customers and more revenue generating into the system, but they are now required to cover all treatments, no matter the cost; they cannot arbitrarily drop coverage, and the coverage limits are no longer viable. Most likely, these changes will off-set any projections for insurmountable profits by the insurance companies without damaging the companies' bottom-line.
4. No abortion coverage for women?
Liberals are especially angry over this one with the President. And it's not even his fault. Of course he wanted the measures in the bill to include coverage for abortions, but it was the House wrangling that ultimately defeated any abortion coverage. The House passed the legislation with 220 votes, just 4 more than the needed 216. To get those votes, the House needed 12 votes from conservative Democrats called the "Stupak 12." The "12" threatened to vote against the Senate bill if there was any language preserving federal dollars for abortions. So, the President did what needed to be done; he signed an executive order. This tallied the final votes needed for passage. As Bill Clinton said during his own fight for Health Care reform, "Do not let the perfect be the enemy of the good." Overall, the bill was needed. Not every provision could be included (see Public Option, also), but ultimately we've moved forward. Now, if you're angry about the abortion part: first, stop blaming the President. If it wasn't obvious, he wasn't happy about having to sign an executive order. Case and point: the totally unceremonious signing of said order the day after the bill passed the House. No cameras, no media allowed. Also, an executive order can be repealed by...an executive order. That simple. Further, if you want to see abortion rights progress in this country, go volunteer. Work to ensure Representatives like Bart Stupak are not reelected and replaced by more Pro-Choice Reps.
5. We have to wait until 2014 before so many provisions are enacted??
Yes. Part of the entire debate centered on the bill was the threat it would plummet our national deficit into unsustainable, and irreversible levels. "This bill will bankrupt us!" was the cry. As I mentioned in the introduction, the bill was written as a step-by-step implementation. First, the initial provisions occur to keep people insured: tax credits, the beginning of closing the 'donut hole' in Medicare, restrictions on denying coverage to children, or those with preexisting conditions, and dropping people arbitrarily. All these work to keep the amount of people already insured, insured, instead of having over 1400 people per day lose their insurance, as was the numbers prior to passage. Eventually this builds towards insurance for all. To cover 32 million extra Americans the government would have needed incredible capital to do that immediately (and in case you didn't know, we have a bit of a debt problem right about now). The only way to raise that kind of money quickly: taxes. And we all know how the majority feels about those. So enacting every provision immediately just was not fiscally possible, or responsible.
Furthermore, to contend that waiting until 2014 for these other provisions to kick in means John or Jane Doe, already on death's bed, will not see any benefits from the legislation is a terrible argument against any health reform. Would you rather we wait another 16 years before a Democratic majority attempts health care reform again? Would you rather not have the reformation process begin now so that Chris, or Sue, or Rosana, or anybody else who in the next 3 1/2 years will be diagnosed with some malicious, but curable disease, who without health care reform starting now, they would not have the coverage they need at that time to survive? It will happen, and most likely to someone you know. Now they have a far greater chance of survival and it boils down to simply giving people the coverage. This should have been done when Pres. Clinton was in office, and it hurts me to think of all those who suffered and ultimately died because reform was not achieved back then. But the past is gone, that bleak horizon of darkness. And standing here in the present as I am, the future, to me, just got a hell of a lot brighter.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)