A real debate on Obamacare

The Obamacare debate may be the most egregiously dishonest thing I've seen in some time.

Consider this Reuter's poll from June: people dislike Obamacare, but they like it's provision.

All this really means is that when the program is described accurately, it rates well, but typically it's misrepresented as a socialist government takeover. This false debate point on Obamacare (looking at you Mitt) is dangerous and insulting.

Normally I find similar misrepresentations mildly annoying, but I've always felt that the health care issues should be treated with more respect. Health care is serious for obvious economic and moral reasons, so let's treat it as such.

Despite his opposition, Romney's Massachusetts administration is arguably the architect of Obamacare. Not surprisingly then, Romney appears to like many of the provisions:

• Eliminating lifetime maximums
• Eliminating bans on those with pre-existing conditions
• Allowing kids to stay on their parents plan until age 26

In last night's debate, I heard no real objection from Romney concerning the individual mandate either, which is arguably both the linchpin of the program and its most hotly contested and least popular aspect. Just ask John Roberts.

Romney criticized Obamacare on two main points. The first is that it "put in place a board that can tell people ultimately what treatments they're going to receive." This statement is simply untrue. The Independent Payment Advisory board to which Romney refers does not have to power to ration health care as he implies.

The second point is that Obamacare drives the cost of insurance up resulting in job loss. This claim is also shaky. Premiums have gone up, but benefits have as well. Moreover, large group plans have seen almost no change in premiums and small group plans have seen only modest change. Obamacare is not a likely job killer because of added premium cost.

However, so long as insurance operates as a for-profit industry -- which I believe is immoral -- insurance companies have a moral responsibility to generate returns for shareholders. Adding new people to the insurance coffers probably means adding the sickest among us who had no access to health care before, and those added payouts will change how insurance is provided in order to maintain profit.

My guess is that the trend in recent years of replacing PPOs and HMOs with high-deductible plans will continue. In short, you'll be covered and get group rates, but if you need to be hospitalized for any reason, count on dropping around $2,500+ out of pocket in addition to your premium.

If you want to attack Obamacare honestly, this cost shift is where you do it.

Still, regardless of the election result I don't see repeal as likely. And frankly I welcome a large scale shift to high-deductible plans because it will finally force us to a fundamental decision about health care: Should insurance be a private good for corporate profit?

If the answer is yes, then our choice will likely be between high-deductible plans for all or dropping the chronically ill from coverage in order to maintain private profit at public expense. After all, that's what these cost shifts represent.

If the answer is no, then we will likely face a more progressive public-sector approach to health care reform as opposed to the conservative private-sector approach of Obamacare.

The Heart of a Fan

I love college basketball, in particular the University of Louisville. I love it so much that it's probably unhealthy -- or maybe so much that it actually is healthy.

A friend recently criticized me for, when talking about U of L basketball, using the word "we" because I haven't done anything to create successes or failures for the program. I could probably make a counterargument about the importance of fan support, but I generally accept the criticism. I have no direct impact on whether the team wins.

Still, it got me thinking. I can remember a game a few years back that I watched with my dad. U of L lost and we were both a little drunk and pretty upset. After awhile, he leaned over and said, "You know, it's pretty stupid to get so worked up over something like this."

I think the sentiment of the two comments is the same. But I'm not apologizing for it, as we (U of L) are in the Elite 8, one game away from a Final Four and a potential match-up with rival Kentucky.
Needless to say I'm excited. But I've never played a single game in a U of L jersey; I couldn't even make my high school team. And yes, maybe I'm not a part of the program's successes or failures, but they are certainly a part of me.

After 26 years of attending games and cheering on the Cards, I think those successes and failures are arguably as much or more a part of me than they are of anyone currently playing, and I think the same goes for a lot of long-time fans.

Louisville is an interesting place. There's a lot of diversity here, and while there are several transplants, many of the citizens are born here, live here, and die here without every truly having left. U of L sports, particularly basketball, are a cornerstone of the community, a common thread (and the same is true of UK, though I hate to admit it). I don't mean to say that I live completely vicariously through the team, but there's a sense of community, connectedness, and camaraderie in their achievements that's just not there in any personal triumph.

Sport brings that out in people. Consider the Dodger's 1958 move from Brooklyn to Los Angeles. Brooklyn was devastated, and not just because they struggled through half a century of loss to finally win the World Series and 1955 just to have the team ripped away three years later. The loss of a common community bond was simply crushing. The borough gradually became absorbed into New York and lost that much more of its identity, independence, and unique spirit.

I feel much the same way about the Louisville Cardinals. It's just a part of who I am, from a personal level to a community level. In truth there's no apologizing for co-opting the team as my own because there's nothing I can do about it. I'll be rooting for us through victory or defeat, but like Dodger fans of old, I'm just hoping this isn't another "wait 'til next year." Louisville fans have seen to many of those...26 straight to be exact.

Land of the used-to-be-free

Stereotypes have notoriously bad PR. We tend to think of stereotypes negatively, but they’re useful mental shortcuts that are often accurate and without malice.

For example, politically conservative individuals favor strong national defense, small government, and a return to constitutional values.

It was no surprise to me, then, that the Supreme Court chose to hear an appeal to the constitutionality of the recent health care reform act.

At the heart of the challenge is whether the interstate commerce clause, which gives Congress the right “to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States,” grants the federal government enough power to mandate individual health care.

Traditionally this clause has been broadly interpreted to centralize power within the federal government. Personally, I think that is typically a responsible interpretation. The founders believed the Articles of Confederation too weak to hold the states together and the Civil War outcome set a pretty clear precedent that federal authority trumped that of individual states.

Moreover, I think it’s important to consider what the framers could have reasonably anticipated when delegating state and federal power. In the 18th and 19th centuries, rule under smaller principalities would likely have been more efficient, but with modern advancements in communication and transportation infrastructures, strong, centralized governance over a country as large as the United States is much more feasible.

Still, I admit that such an interpretation is clearly arguable. What I find interesting, however, is that for all the clamoring about an overreaching government trampling the constitution over health care reform – most of which seems to come from those who know little or nothing about “Obamacare,” let alone its actual name (it’s the Affordable Care Act by the way) – little has been said about the recently signed National Defense Authorization Act.

A defense appropriations bill is passed each year to set annual defense budgets. The president is pressed to sign this legislation, particularly during election years, lest he seem weak. That’s why earmarks that typically would not pass on their own merits are often attached to this legislation.

The controversial caveat this year is the “legalization” of indefinite military detention of suspected terrorist without trial, which may include American citizens arrested on American soil.

This bill is a gross overstepping of constitutional privilege. Article One, Section Nine expressly forbids unlawful detention except in cases of “invasion or rebellion,” which, however devastating, a handful of terrorist attacks does not constitute. Also, there’s the Sixth Amendment to consider, which guarantees the right to a speedy and public trial by jury as well as proper legal counsel.

So far this bill has been largely unchallenged though legal channels.

Obama did issue a signing statement in which he said he approved the act “because it authorizes funding for the defense of the United States and its interests abroad, crucial services for service members and their families, and vital national security programs that must be renewed.”

Still, if defending our nation and our interests means sacrificing the very rights and principles we claim to defend, it’s hard to see the point in it all.

In all likelihood the defense act will go unchallenged and there’s a damn good chance that the Affordable Care Act will be repealed or overhauled to the point of ineffectiveness, all in a hypocritical defense of the Constitution.

What’s ironic is, if I’m right about the fate of these two laws, suspected terrorists under indefinite military detention will likely have better access to health care than many free Americans. Fewer freedoms to hate us for I suppose.

A Docile Democracy

In today's New York Times, Paul Krugman wrote a pretty interesting article on the willful ignorance of Republican presidential candidates. The following quote got me thinking:

So it’s now highly likely that the presidential candidate of one of our two major political parties will either be a man who believes what he wants to believe, even in the teeth of scientific evidence, or a man who pretends to believe whatever he thinks the party’s base wants him to believe.

Given our current political climate and what I've seen from Obama, I think it's safe to say that both parties will run a candidate who pretends to believe whatever will likely get him -- or her (God forbid) -- elected.

Americans are slaves to platitudes, and there is no greater lie than this: Americans want to hear the truth.



In the so-called "Malaise Speech," Carter told Americans the truth. We cannot continue down a road of unfettered consumption in which the efforts of many serve the desires of few. Basically, he gave the American people a needed ass chewing.

He called for shared sacrifice in uniting for the common good, particularly in dealing with the energy crisis. In order to combat American dependence on foreign oil -- a phrase that today is all to familiar -- he proposed investing in programs that would create 20% of American energy through solar power by 2000, protecting the environment and revitalizing the economy.

We're not even close to that goal, and Carter lost the election the following year for a lot of reasons. One is that he told the truth about Americans to Americans, which is political suicide.

So why do we fear the truth so much? Because we're lazy. The truth isn't always good. Sometimes we have to see our faults and correct them, but correction means change and change means effort. It's just easier to accept the status quo.

It's easier to say that the current health care system provides an acceptable level of care than it is to suggest a major overhaul that would deliver universal care.

It's easier to say that climate change isn't happening than it is to make drastic changes in our energy consumption habits.

It's easier to say that evolution is just a theory than it is to ask serious questions about our faith.

It's easier to say that government is the problem and must be limited than it is to say that government could be a solution if we only work to make it better.

Carter called this a crisis a confidence, Krugman calls it a stand against science, but at the heart it's really a problem of cowardice and complacency. We don't want to know the truth because the truth is that we're scared and docile, and until we understand that anything worth having is worth sacrificing for, we'll always be in a state of perpetual malaise.

Rethinking Reagan

I've been posting a lot lately about tax rates and wealth inequality, in part because the debt ceiling issue has dominated the news, but also because I view these issues as critically important.

My thinking is largely Keynesian, which explains my frequent reliance on Paul Krugman as a source. Briefly, Keynesian economics refutes the laissez-faire concept, arguing that public involvement -- particularly from the government in the form of fiscal policy -- is critical to economic growth as it can help correct irregularities in the private sector business cycle.

Keynes fell out of favor during the 1970s when the economy came to a standstill and inflation rates soared, largely due to the energy crisis at that time.

Enter Reagan and supply-side (or trickle-down) economics, which aimed to reduce inflation, cut taxes, decrease government spending and limit regulation.

Reagan unquestionably presided over a period of intense economic growth and he, along with his policies, has been deified to some degree by the modern Republican Party.

So now, when I question Reagan Almighty, several figures get thrown back at me to which I would like to add a bit of needed context.

Here are some commonly highlighted statistics from the Reagan years that I've seen praised by conservatives:

1. The top marginal individual income tax rate dropped from 70% to 28%
2. Unemployment fell from 7.1% to 5.5%
3. The growth rate in America's GDP rose from -0.3% to 4.1%
4. The federal deficit decreased from around 6% of GDP to 2.9% of GDP

These numbers are all true, and to some extent remarkable, but they don't tell the whole story.

Since America was founded by wealthy aristocrats who didn't want to pay taxes, we'll start there first -- out of respect. First, it's questionable how much tax cuts led to economic growth considering the effects of other policies.

That point aside, however, it's also important to remember that the 42% decrease in the highest tax rate didn't happen overnight. In 1981, Reagan cut the rate from 70% to 50%. The cut to 28% didn't happen until 1986, meaning that for the bulk of his administration -- including the worst Reagan recession years of 1982 and 1983 -- the highest marginal tax rate was 50%.

That 50% is well above the current rate of 35%, an increase to which is apparently off the table and unconscionable because we're currently in a recession. Go figure.

On to unemployment and the GDP. While Reagan did cut unemployment 1.6% during his two terms, it's important to remember that unemployment initially increased to around 9.5% in 1982 and 1983. Most economists credit this spike in unemployment to increased interest rates imposed to control inflation.

I actually have no problem with this policy since controlling for inflation was critically important. Once that problem was under control, interest rates were lowered which in turn led to an economic upturn, job growth, and the subsequent swelling of GDP.

I would, however, like to point out two things. First, statistical regression to the mean is pretty common. In other words, things can only get so bad until, eventually, the only way to go is up. Still, point Regan.

Second, and perhaps more importantly, increasing interest rates to control inflation in order to provide an environment for job growth is a Keynesian approach. It's a good idea, but not Reagan's. Point Keynes.

Finally, there's the deficit. First, it's worth noting that a deficit can be relatively meaningless. It's simply the annual difference between what the government takes in and what the government spends -- and notably negative. Deficits only really become problems when they are consistent as they add to the national debt.

All debt come with interest, and it's a bitch. It really eats at your income, and in the case of America, our annual interest payments on our debt total 6% of the budget. As a reference, consider that education spending accounts for only 3%. That's half for those of you who went to public schools.

I guess what I'm saying is that debt is the bigger issue, and Reagan created a lot of that. During his two terms the national debt rose from $712 billion to $2.05 trillion. Again, for the public school grads, he tripled it.

And how do you accrue so much debt? By spending a hell of a lot of money, particularly in the Department of Defense. Again during Reagan's two terms, government spending averaged 22.4% of GDP compared to the 20.6% average from 1971 to 2009 -- and remember that last number takes the Reagan years into account.

So looking back on what supply-side economics is supposed to achieve, it looks like Reagan got 3 out of 4. He lowered taxes, controlled inflation, and decreased regulation. Government spending, on the other hand, went through the damn roof.

I, however, am not against government spending -- particularly during recessions. Recessions typically occur when private sector funds dry up, causing economic stagnation that can in turn be offset by increased public spending for a limited period. This is the Keynesian approach.

Reagan followed this approach to a degree, but the greatest problem with Reaganomics is that our national love affair with it never really ended. The dual cycle of ever-decreasing taxes and ever-increasing expenditures creates a crippling debt. Raising taxes and limiting certain expenditures during times of prosperity creates a surplus that can be used to pay down debt accrued during recessions. Point Clinton.

I guess what I'm saying is that I prefer a "tax and spend" approach to the Reagan "don't tax and spend like a drunk teenager" approach as a sustainable economic model. Also, I'm wondering how drunk we must be as a nation to consider such a model fiscally responsible.

Trickle-dumb economics

The debt is dominating economic news lately, and despite accusations of rampant spending, it seems as though the Democrats are the only ones taking debt reduction seriously.

This weekend Republicans scaled back their debt reduction efforts, pulling out of the bipartisan talks. House Speaker John Boehner listed Republican reasoning as follows:

Despite good-faith efforts to find common ground, the White House will not pursue a bigger debt reduction agreement without tax hikes. I believe the best approach may be to focus on producing a smaller measure, based on the cuts identified in the Biden-led negotiations, that still meets our call for spending reforms and cuts greater than the amount of any debt limit increase.

The most interesting part of Republican reasoning is its complete lack of reason.

Taking tax increases off the table only leaves spending cuts as a means of deficit reduction. And although the Republican Party has done an excellent job of selling "tax and spend" as a Democratic plan of unjust wealth redistribution, they forgot a critical point: you can't redistribute wealth where it does not exist.

Fighting against the so-called tax hikes does not provide security for the middle class; rather, it represent a crusade against it. Nobody would feel the effects of most Democrat-proposed/Republican-opposed tax increases. Notice I said feel. Those with modest incomes would not see tax increases. Wealthy individuals would see tax increases, but I doubt it would meaningfully affect them.

Let's consider a few examples. First, we could eliminate the carried interest loophole. As of late, the stock market has become as much a place to make short-term profits as it is to make long-term investments. In the spirit of encouraging investing, capital gains are taxed at 15% as opposed to the rate in one's typical tax bracket -- 35% for the wealthiest among us. Translation: hedge fund managers like John Paulson, who made nearly $5 billion last year (not to mention his massive profits from betting against the market during the crash) has much of his income taxed at 15% rather than 35%. Nice to see the government looking out for the little guy.

Republicans oppose closing this loophole because...not sure. But my guess is they default to the idea that taxing the wealthy inevitably stunts job growth. Corporations and wealthy Americans must be protected from tax increases so they are free to invest in job creation, so sayeth the mighty theory of trickle-down economics.

My good friend, Stephen Colbert, once said that if the "trickle-down" were a cocktail, the recipe would go like this:

The Colbert Report
Get More: Colbert Report Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,Video Archive

The bartender keeps giving your drink to the rich guy next to you until he vomits in your glass.

Trickle-down economics is certainly excrement of some kind. Republicans are fighting for corporate tax breaks and tax holidays, the argument being that businesses are strapped for cash and freeing up revenue will create jobs.

Horseshit.

First, the premise of this argument is false. Businesses don't exist to create jobs, they exist to turn a profit. If creating jobs leads to profit, they do it. If it doesn't they don't. Tax breaks typically don't lead to job creation, or at least they haven't in the past.

Second, most large corporations are sitting on large cash reserves. Without government or consumer support in economic growth, they likely won't spend it. So giving them more money to do nothing is moronic.

Finally, why do we have such a hard-on for the middleman -- or more precisely the corporate middleman? American workers need our help, so let's give money to big business and let them help America workers.

Why? Couldn't we help both? Why not invest in strengthening national infrastructure via works projects. Programs to better national communication and transportation efforts would provide jobs in the short term while laying a foundation for long-term economic growth, helping both American workers and corporations.

I could throw out ideas all day and someone would probably have a valid counterpoint, but one thing is indisputable: unwavering dedication to a single class of people is detrimental to the whole. The middle and lower classes will likely take a hit in the "spirit of solidarity" and the hope for recovering, while the privileged among us will remain undeservedly privileged. Putting arguments of fairness aside, this approach is just plain dangerous.

U.S.A. number 1?

If Mario Kart has taught me anything, being number one is a mixed bag. You get first dibs on the latest swag and you can drop trash in the path of other contenders, but everyone is always gunning for you. And then there's the damn blue shell, seeking out first place like a socialist wrecking ball.

I guess I've never really cared if America was, in the words of Sean Hannity, "the greatest, best country God has ever given man on the face of the earth." Since I never cared, I don't suppose I ever asked myself if I believed it. PEW recently asked that question of Americans, and it seems most of us don't.

Just under 38% of Americans believe the United States stands alone at number one. Most respondents (53%) believe America stands among the greatest countries in the world. Then there's the pessimistic 8% who believe other countries are flat out better. Also, as you might expect, conservatives tend to hold the "U.S.A. number 1" view while liberals tend to be more pluralistic with their praise.

Now that I ask myself where I stand, I suppose I don't really know. When you talk about wealth and military might, we're certainly near or at the top. Consider things like education, health care or even happiness indexes, not so much. But does that mean other countries are better than us?

I think the best answer is, "Yes, at some things." Maybe such a statement is blasphemous so near Independence Day, but I don't see it as unpatriotic. Patriotism is simply the love and support of one's country.

I love and support a great many people and things in my life, and with love comes honesty. Looking at the world as it is rather than as you hope it would be allows you to transform those hopes into reality. If we got past the platitudes we could do it.

Thankfully, according to the same PEW study, well over half of Americans believe we can solve the problems we face. I am among those individuals, but recognizing the shortcomings comes first.

Anxious as I am sitting in first place, it's a good place to be because it means your getting something right. In the end, I guess a part of me misses looking over my shoulder for the blue shell.