Medicare Not Going Broke

Sarah Kliff at The Washington Post writes today about the "greatly exaggerated" reports of Medicare's insolvency before the new Medicare Trustees Report is released for 2012. As it turns out, the Trustees Report has been performing this analysis since 1970 and in every year has predicted the programs inevitable demise. Of course, it's now been 42 years since the Project first released their analysis and the program has yet to go under. With the political popularity of the program and the myriad of avenues Congress can pursue to refrain the program from going broke, it seems unlikely the program will ever actually go broke. But rest assured, I'm sure we'll see much about Medicare's impending doom over the next couple of days, especially from those fervently opposed to the program.

"In 1970, the Medicare Trustees began issuing annual reports on the financial state of the Medicare Trust Fund. It has faced a projected shortfall “almost from its inception,” a 2009 Congressional Research Service report found. In 1970, the Medicare Trustees Report predicted that the fund would be insolvent just two years later, in 1972. Pretty much every year after that, the Trust Funds’ insolvency has never seemed that far off:"

 Continue to the article here.

Will Obama Instill 'Martial Law'?

A friend of mine posted a link to my Facebook timeline of The Washington Post article by Charles Blahous where he purports to show President Obama’s Affordable Care Act will actually raise the deficit, not lower it. Turned out, as I responded to my friend, Blahous’ article was full of faulty math that, and if Blahous were so inclined, applying his conclusions to Paul Ryan’s budget proposal released two weeks ago, it would have shown Ryan’s plan also increases the deficit. I made light of the initial link exaggerating my complete surprise how a Republican might attempt to show the health care law as increasing the deficit.

But as these things are wont to do, another friend chimed in, on a completely different subject, asking me how I could support a President (Obama) who granted the illegal, indefinite detention of American citizens without habeas corpus. This friend, it should be noted, is a Ron Paul supporter. He was of course alluding to Obama signing the NDAA for fiscal year 2012, and “controversial” sections 1021 and 1022 which grant the government the authority to detain “persons the government suspects of involvement in terrorism” indefinitely and without trial. Outrage and fear of Obama authorizing such a thing is something I’ve seen an awful lot of recently, especially from conservatives and the right-wing media (just do a search for “obama martial law” and you’ll see what I mean). The curious thing is that the precedent set forth in the NDAA has actually been law since the week after 9/11.

In responding to my friend’s inquiry, I told him that there were a variety of other reasons why I support President Obama, and do not and never have supported the illegal, indefinite detention of American citizens. The NDAA signed by President Obama provided, among other things, sanctions on Iran, Dept. of Defense funding for health-care costs for soldiers, counter-terrorism funding within the U.S., and military modernization. The detention section conservatives find appalling suddenly has been law since the terrorist attacks of September 11^th. On September 14, 2001, Congress passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force Act (AUMF), complete with provisions granting the previous administration authority for indefinite detention of American citizens without habeas corpus.

Ron Paul voted for the AUMF Act.

Personally, do I think President Obama should have signed the bill? No. They should have stripped the provisions granting illegal detention out, which is exactly what the Obama administration attempted to do. According to Wikipedia: “The White House threatened to veto the Senate version of the Act,^[9] arguing in an executive statement on 17 November, 2011 that while ‘the authorities granted by the Authorization for Use of Military Force, including the detention authority... are essential to our ability to protect the American people... (and) Because the authorities codified in this section already exist, the Administration does not believe codification is necessary and poses some risk.’" This amendment was rejected by the Senate and ultimately the text of the AUMF was never changed.

After signing the bill, the Obama administration released a statement to this affect, presumably prescient to the rancor it might cause with conservatives. In the President’s signing statement, he maintains “the legislation does nothing more than confirm authorities that the Federal courts have recognized as lawful under the 2001 AUMF.” It continues, the "Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens", and that it "will interpret section 1021 in a manner that ensures that any detention it authorizes complies with the Constitution, the laws of war, and all other applicable law".

Clearly, President Obama should in no way be held accountable for instilling ‘martial law’ or the ability of the military or government to illegally detain any individual. Ron Paul, champion of personal liberty and responsibility, is more to blame than any current presidential contender. President Obama has had this precedent at his disposal for 3 years already. President Bush had this law at his disposal for 7 years. What rational explanation, what rational reasoning can conservatives really argue that if President Bush didn’t illegally detain individuals that our current President would ever do such a thing? There’s a simple answer to this question, the Occam’s razor, not based on fear-mongering, not based on partisan ideology. Some people just ignore the simple answer.

"Bogus" Study Touted By The Washington Post

Last night, reports circulated that a new study showing the Affordable Care Act, pejoratively known as Obamacare, and more widely known as health-care reform, will actually increase the deficit. The study was completed by Republican Medicare trustee, and former Bush administration official, Charles Blahous. The Washington Post legitimized the study by pointing to Blahous' "trustee"signature, so surely it must be credible. Right? Unfortunately, as many have started to point out, Blahous' math is erroneous and it turns out that in fact the CBO analysis that the ACA will reduce the deficit is still correct. I'm still at a loss as to how this became such big news so quickly. It should not be incredibly shocking that a Republican and The Washington Post would argue against health-care reform.