We live in a society based on participation. Democracy, the form of government our founders chose, requires citizens’ participation for the common good. Yet at every level today, citizens choose to drop out. They may complain, but they refuse to participate.
I see it locally. Churches, civic groups and political parties struggle to find people willing to attend meetings and take part. I see it nationally with the decline in voting and in unions.
Folks, this is by design.
Our lack of participation has allowed a small group of ultra wealthy and connected individuals to work us to the bone for less and less. The more productive we become, the less they pay and the more hours they demand. Meanwhile, our civic institutions are weakened as these same individuals and their constituent organizations tilt the tax code to ensure they pay less and less to support our common infrastructure.
So instead of standing up, yelling and pushing back, we’ve all retreated to our living rooms to watch American Idol or Survivor. We’ve ceased to read about the policies they’ve pushed through not only Congress, but our statehouses. Instead, we keep track of politicians’ selfies and follow celebrity news.
These power brokers work secretively, but via the efforts of a tiny band of persistent scholars and investigative journalists, we are learning about their efforts.
First, the Center for Media and Democracy was blessed with a document dump about the efforts of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). This organization was formed in 1973 by corporate conservative activist Paul Weyrich; they’ve had 40 years to build a network and institute their initiatives.
The State Policy Network is a related organization, also now under the microscope thanks to the Center for Media and Democracy’s stinktanks.org web site. This group works to publish the phony research of fake think tanks; of course, said research supports corporate initiatives and is camouflaged to fool gullible pundits and media outlets.
And speaking of the media, most corporate media in the U.S. (network and cable radio and TV stations and large metropolitan papers) are owned by a handful of corporations. It is the owners who shape the perspective and tone of news reports, and they make sure it protects their interests. News consumers must remember that – always.
Organizations like Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR) monitor news reports continuously to highlight the most egregious instances of bias and untruth. And if you enjoy satire, John Stewart’s Daily Show, Stephen Colbert’s Colbert Report, and The Onion also catch many of the media’s worst cases of misinformation.
But again, citizens must participate in the process.
It’s a simple thing. Pick a group and attend a meeting. Be willing to help with an event. Talk to someone new, and listen to them, too. Engage.
This is how the 99% will take back their country – by barreling through the divisions these secretive special interests have erected between us. When we stop accepting just what they give us and demand better, everything will change. When we stand up for the interests of people instead of shilling for corporate interests by parroting anti-union, anti-worker, anti-tax rhetoric, our representatives will start changing their votes. When we inform ourselves based on facts instead of reacting in anger at swirling internet rumors, they’ll begin to lose their power.
Americans have done this before; we can do it again -- if we are willing to participate.
Wednesday, January 1, 2014
Will we let job seekers be scrooged?
Last Wednesday, word came from Washington that the Congressional committee negotiating a federal budget had reached a deal, thus avoiding another government shutdown. Hallelujah!
Like most compromises, this deal makes no one happy. Radical right conservatives were unhappy the sequester and deficit reduction were scaled back. Progressives, myself included, were unhappy it raises no new revenue.
But perhaps most distressing was the fact unemployment benefits were not extended for the long term unemployed. Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays!
This disregard for the poor and jobless was the subject of Charles Blow’s Thursday column for The New York Times, in which he reports: “Senator Rand Paul, Republican of Kentucky, said Sunday on Fox News: ‘I do support unemployment benefits for the 26 weeks that they’re paid for. If you extend it beyond that, you do a disservice to these workers.’”
As Blow notes this attitude about job seekers illustrates the divide between conservatives and liberals. Conservatives believe individuals must go it alone with little government support, while liberals believe government intervention helps advance the whole society. So conservatives often claim unemployment benefits are a disincentive to work.
Blow writes about his own experience among the poor and notes this conservative attitude indicates not only a lack of experience with poverty, but a lack of empathy. “Most people want to work. But sometimes, bad luck comes calling. Sometimes you have a job, but you lose it. Sometimes, no matter how hard you try, a new one proves elusive. “And following the Great Recession, that is a particular problem.”
Coincidentally, an article on ThinkProgress the same morning highlighted it. Bryce Covert reported on a new study showing growth in the number of low wage jobs, while high wage jobs continue to decline. He writes: “The report also notes that there is a huge number of people vying for the jobs that pay better. It calculates that there were seven job seekers for every projected job opening that paid above $15 an hour in 2012 and 17.9 million more job hunters than higher wage jobs.”
His article further notes the movement among states and municipalities to raise their minimum wages and for low wage workers to organize. Yet current political dialogue portrays the workers behind these efforts as lazy and unworthy. Case in point: a Facebook post by Sarah Palin “Liked” by a friend last weekend. This infographic showed combat soldiers with the text: “We get paid less than minimum wage and you’re demanding 15 bucks an hour to slap a burger on a bun.” Way to distract from real issues, Sarah.
As my husband asked, how many soldiers left a job flipping burgers to join the military in hopes of a better career? And why shouldn’t they all earn a living wage? Is it working that’s important, or are only certain jobs worth a living wage?
I was disappointed my friend fell for Palin’s distraction, especially given her own family’s recent employment experiences. But like Senator Paul, too many of us separate ourselves from the poor and jobless and simply choose to blame them for their situation. It’s easier than working to fix the system. So now who’s lazy?
Until Congress can develop policies that create jobs, it must ensure job seekers can eat and pay the rent. And that means we the people have to make them do it by demanding they extend unemployment.
Like most compromises, this deal makes no one happy. Radical right conservatives were unhappy the sequester and deficit reduction were scaled back. Progressives, myself included, were unhappy it raises no new revenue.
But perhaps most distressing was the fact unemployment benefits were not extended for the long term unemployed. Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays!
This disregard for the poor and jobless was the subject of Charles Blow’s Thursday column for The New York Times, in which he reports: “Senator Rand Paul, Republican of Kentucky, said Sunday on Fox News: ‘I do support unemployment benefits for the 26 weeks that they’re paid for. If you extend it beyond that, you do a disservice to these workers.’”
As Blow notes this attitude about job seekers illustrates the divide between conservatives and liberals. Conservatives believe individuals must go it alone with little government support, while liberals believe government intervention helps advance the whole society. So conservatives often claim unemployment benefits are a disincentive to work.
Blow writes about his own experience among the poor and notes this conservative attitude indicates not only a lack of experience with poverty, but a lack of empathy. “Most people want to work. But sometimes, bad luck comes calling. Sometimes you have a job, but you lose it. Sometimes, no matter how hard you try, a new one proves elusive. “And following the Great Recession, that is a particular problem.”
Coincidentally, an article on ThinkProgress the same morning highlighted it. Bryce Covert reported on a new study showing growth in the number of low wage jobs, while high wage jobs continue to decline. He writes: “The report also notes that there is a huge number of people vying for the jobs that pay better. It calculates that there were seven job seekers for every projected job opening that paid above $15 an hour in 2012 and 17.9 million more job hunters than higher wage jobs.”
His article further notes the movement among states and municipalities to raise their minimum wages and for low wage workers to organize. Yet current political dialogue portrays the workers behind these efforts as lazy and unworthy. Case in point: a Facebook post by Sarah Palin “Liked” by a friend last weekend. This infographic showed combat soldiers with the text: “We get paid less than minimum wage and you’re demanding 15 bucks an hour to slap a burger on a bun.” Way to distract from real issues, Sarah.
As my husband asked, how many soldiers left a job flipping burgers to join the military in hopes of a better career? And why shouldn’t they all earn a living wage? Is it working that’s important, or are only certain jobs worth a living wage?
I was disappointed my friend fell for Palin’s distraction, especially given her own family’s recent employment experiences. But like Senator Paul, too many of us separate ourselves from the poor and jobless and simply choose to blame them for their situation. It’s easier than working to fix the system. So now who’s lazy?
Until Congress can develop policies that create jobs, it must ensure job seekers can eat and pay the rent. And that means we the people have to make them do it by demanding they extend unemployment.
Do we understand what gratitude requires?
Just over a year ago, I was writing about The Hunger Games and how this futuristic morality tale reflects our own cruel and unequal society. At the time, presidential candidate Mitt Romney had just written off 47 percent of Americans, labeling them as lazy and irresponsible.
This November, the second part of the Hunger Games movie trilogy, Catching Fire, was released in theatres. The release coincides with Congress’ last-ditch debate over the Farm Bill and Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. So this fall I am seeing other writers draw the comparison between America and the Hunger Games.
As the editors of The Miami Herald noted in a piece titled “Hey Congress, hunger’s not a game”: “That the program [SNAP] has been an unmitigated success is irrefutable — if ensuring that Americans don’t go hungry in this land of plenty is one’s mission. That it has been a cesspool of waste, fraud and abuse, as lawmakers who want to make brutal and inhumane budget cuts contend, is simply not true. It’s a ruse, an excuse to throw poor people under the bus.”
I find it ironic we are still battling over SNAP funding during a season supposed to be focused on gratitude and generosity. And I am disappointed we cannot see past petty, divisive and judgmental, not to mention false, arguments to push lawmakers to do the right thing.
This is urgent for people in every community, though we may not acknowledge it. As Kevin Concannon, undersecretary for Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services wrote on Huffington Post: “On November 1, SNAP families began receiving fewer benefits each month due to an automatic benefit reduction. For many families, coping with this cut will be tough, particularly during the holidays. Fortunately, this is the time of the year in particular that food pantries and food banks are aided by generous Americans. But they cannot fairly be expected, and they are telling us that they cannot fully meet the need in their communities if SNAP is cut further.”
Concannon notes that many of these families include children, the elderly, disabled persons and working people. And he lays out all the ways – counter to the prevailing myths about SNAP administration and recipients – the program works. In fact, he notes that fraud in the program has been reduced over the last 15 years to about 1 percent.
But, I have to wonder about American society when we are willing to allow cuts to a program that feeds people in need, especially in a time of economic instability and high unemployment. And I am not alone.
Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne laid it out beautifully in this post titled, “On Thanksgiving, understanding what gratitude requires.” He writes: “A call to responsibility lies at the heart of gratitude. If faith without works is dead, gratitude without generosity of spirit is empty. By reminding us of how much we owe to others, or to social arrangements, or to fate, or to God, gratitude creates an obligation to repay our debts by repairing injustices and reaching out to those whom luck has failed. Gratitude is a response to acts of love. It demands more of the same — nothing more, nothing less.”
We should be demanding Congress act on a Food, Farms and Jobs bill to restore SNAP and focus on economic stability for all. True gratitude requires it.
This November, the second part of the Hunger Games movie trilogy, Catching Fire, was released in theatres. The release coincides with Congress’ last-ditch debate over the Farm Bill and Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. So this fall I am seeing other writers draw the comparison between America and the Hunger Games.
As the editors of The Miami Herald noted in a piece titled “Hey Congress, hunger’s not a game”: “That the program [SNAP] has been an unmitigated success is irrefutable — if ensuring that Americans don’t go hungry in this land of plenty is one’s mission. That it has been a cesspool of waste, fraud and abuse, as lawmakers who want to make brutal and inhumane budget cuts contend, is simply not true. It’s a ruse, an excuse to throw poor people under the bus.”
I find it ironic we are still battling over SNAP funding during a season supposed to be focused on gratitude and generosity. And I am disappointed we cannot see past petty, divisive and judgmental, not to mention false, arguments to push lawmakers to do the right thing.
This is urgent for people in every community, though we may not acknowledge it. As Kevin Concannon, undersecretary for Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services wrote on Huffington Post: “On November 1, SNAP families began receiving fewer benefits each month due to an automatic benefit reduction. For many families, coping with this cut will be tough, particularly during the holidays. Fortunately, this is the time of the year in particular that food pantries and food banks are aided by generous Americans. But they cannot fairly be expected, and they are telling us that they cannot fully meet the need in their communities if SNAP is cut further.”
Concannon notes that many of these families include children, the elderly, disabled persons and working people. And he lays out all the ways – counter to the prevailing myths about SNAP administration and recipients – the program works. In fact, he notes that fraud in the program has been reduced over the last 15 years to about 1 percent.
But, I have to wonder about American society when we are willing to allow cuts to a program that feeds people in need, especially in a time of economic instability and high unemployment. And I am not alone.
Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne laid it out beautifully in this post titled, “On Thanksgiving, understanding what gratitude requires.” He writes: “A call to responsibility lies at the heart of gratitude. If faith without works is dead, gratitude without generosity of spirit is empty. By reminding us of how much we owe to others, or to social arrangements, or to fate, or to God, gratitude creates an obligation to repay our debts by repairing injustices and reaching out to those whom luck has failed. Gratitude is a response to acts of love. It demands more of the same — nothing more, nothing less.”
We should be demanding Congress act on a Food, Farms and Jobs bill to restore SNAP and focus on economic stability for all. True gratitude requires it.
Who’s manufacturing your news?
After weeks of battling media misinformation about the Affordable Care Act, I was hungry to write about something different this week. And thankfully, a different item popped up as my deadline loomed.
Two headlines screamed out to me on Thursday morning: “DOUBLE WOW!! www.StinkTanks.org PERFECTLY Exposes Koch Cabal $$ used in each US state” and “Corporate America’s New Scam: Industry P.R. Firm poses as Think Tank!” In other words, corporate interests use think tanks to lobby our representatives, and said think tanks make stuff up.
The first article, a Daily Kos post by War on Error, highlighted the latest project by the Center for Media and Democracy to uncover corporate manipulation of our government via media and think tanks. This new web site, stinktanks.org, allows citizens to track the influence of the State Policy Network, a Koch Brothers organization, currently targeting statehouses to advance corporate interests.
As War on Error writes, “While SPN members call themselves ‘think tanks,’ they rarely act as such. SPN groups often engage in extensive lobbying activities, even though nonprofits are limited in the amount of lobbying activity they may participate in by the IRS. SPN ‘think tanks’ release ‘research’ and policy reports, and there are numerous instances of SPN think tanks being accused of skewing facts and using faulty research to reach their policy goals. Many SPN think tanks also collaborate with the right-wing Franklin Center to launch agenda-driven ‘news’ outlets, hawking right-wing talking points from behind a mask of journalism.”
The second article outlined events surrounding the release of a study finding that low wages paid to fast food restaurant workers cost American taxpayers $7 billion in social supports annually. The study authors argued that raising these workers’ wages would unburden taxpayers of subsidizing super-sized corporate restaurant profits.
Shortly thereafter, media began reporting conflicting research results from an entity called the Employment Policies Institute. As article author Lisa Graves noted, “In fact, the Employment Policies Institute operates from the same office suite as Berman and Co., a public relations firm owned by Richard Berman. This is not an opinion; it’s a fact anyone can verify by viewing EPI and Berman and Co.’s websites. In such a depressed media environment — where there are four public relations flacks for every reporter, compared to a 1-to-1 ratio in the 1960s – it is not surprising that a P.R. company could successfully rebrand itself as a think tank and capitalize on an acronym held by an actual think tank, the Economic Policy Institute, with 20 staff and 36 respected research associates.”
This is why I always ask who is paying for your news. Who owns your favorite cable or network TV or radio station? Who owns your daily newspaper and magazines? Who owns and operates the web sites you visit? Are they for profit? Are they funded by advertising or donations?
And if owners and key decision makers are not transparent about these things, instead operating in secret, they are probably trying to manipulate you to act for their benefit, not yours.
Which, darn it all, gets me back to Obamacare. Are we going to accept the sketchy reports from media and politicians rooting for its failure, or are we going to fight for the help we need?
Two headlines screamed out to me on Thursday morning: “DOUBLE WOW!! www.StinkTanks.org PERFECTLY Exposes Koch Cabal $$ used in each US state” and “Corporate America’s New Scam: Industry P.R. Firm poses as Think Tank!” In other words, corporate interests use think tanks to lobby our representatives, and said think tanks make stuff up.
The first article, a Daily Kos post by War on Error, highlighted the latest project by the Center for Media and Democracy to uncover corporate manipulation of our government via media and think tanks. This new web site, stinktanks.org, allows citizens to track the influence of the State Policy Network, a Koch Brothers organization, currently targeting statehouses to advance corporate interests.
As War on Error writes, “While SPN members call themselves ‘think tanks,’ they rarely act as such. SPN groups often engage in extensive lobbying activities, even though nonprofits are limited in the amount of lobbying activity they may participate in by the IRS. SPN ‘think tanks’ release ‘research’ and policy reports, and there are numerous instances of SPN think tanks being accused of skewing facts and using faulty research to reach their policy goals. Many SPN think tanks also collaborate with the right-wing Franklin Center to launch agenda-driven ‘news’ outlets, hawking right-wing talking points from behind a mask of journalism.”
The second article outlined events surrounding the release of a study finding that low wages paid to fast food restaurant workers cost American taxpayers $7 billion in social supports annually. The study authors argued that raising these workers’ wages would unburden taxpayers of subsidizing super-sized corporate restaurant profits.
Shortly thereafter, media began reporting conflicting research results from an entity called the Employment Policies Institute. As article author Lisa Graves noted, “In fact, the Employment Policies Institute operates from the same office suite as Berman and Co., a public relations firm owned by Richard Berman. This is not an opinion; it’s a fact anyone can verify by viewing EPI and Berman and Co.’s websites. In such a depressed media environment — where there are four public relations flacks for every reporter, compared to a 1-to-1 ratio in the 1960s – it is not surprising that a P.R. company could successfully rebrand itself as a think tank and capitalize on an acronym held by an actual think tank, the Economic Policy Institute, with 20 staff and 36 respected research associates.”
This is why I always ask who is paying for your news. Who owns your favorite cable or network TV or radio station? Who owns your daily newspaper and magazines? Who owns and operates the web sites you visit? Are they for profit? Are they funded by advertising or donations?
And if owners and key decision makers are not transparent about these things, instead operating in secret, they are probably trying to manipulate you to act for their benefit, not yours.
Which, darn it all, gets me back to Obamacare. Are we going to accept the sketchy reports from media and politicians rooting for its failure, or are we going to fight for the help we need?
Monday, November 18, 2013
Are media and pols just rooting for failure?
I know a lot of people waiting for help with health care. I have a son who is only insured because the Affordable Care Act (ACA) lets us keep him on our family policy to age 26. I have a brother-in-law, friends and acquaintances with individual policies who want cheaper, more comprehensive coverage. I have many friends with pre-existing conditions who will now be able to get insurance.
But you’d never know it from the daily news. One month into ACA’s initial six-month enrollment period and crisis ensues. Frankly, I’m crisis’d out.
First, did we really think a web site designed to interface with multiple other government AND private organizations’ sites would work seamlessly? How often do Facebook changes gum up its operation, and people threaten to abandon it forever? It hasn’t happened yet.
And, have you ever called your health insurer to get approval for a procedure or medication? How many menus and people did you go through to get an answer? Did we really expect this to be simple?
Second, the web site is not the only way to enroll. People can call to enroll, or print forms off the web site and mail them in. They can also locate a navigator in their area and sit down with a person to go through the process.
But I don’t hear about these options in major media reporting. Instead, they report on the problems with the web site and on individuals whose current policies are being replaced with more expensive (and more comprehensive) plans. Unfortunately, they often leave out the rest of the story . . .
As Joan McCarter writes on Daily Kos: “They're not telling people they can shop around for a better deal. Which is precisely the point of the health insurance exchanges. These insurers are betting that people will go the route of least resistance, and just fork up the money for the plan they're being pushed toward. . . . They're going to squeeze whatever extra money they can get out of people because that's what they do.”
This week’s case in point comes from CBS News. They reported about a woman in Florida, Dianne Barrette, whose $50 a month health “insurance” was replaced with a $591 plan.
Erik Wemple described Barrette’s current policy as a “pray-that-you-don’t-really-get-sick plan” and writes on his blog: “More coverage [reporting] may provide a deeper understanding of the ins and outs of Barrette’s situation: Her current health insurance plan, she says, doesn’t cover ‘extended hospital stays; it’s not designed for that,’ says Barrette. Well, does it cover any hospitalization? ‘Outpatient only,’ responds Barrette. Nor does it cover ambulance service and some prenatal care.”
Yet Barrette, who earns about $30,000 annually, could get better coverage and subsidies to pay for it via the health care exchanges.
Like my friends and neighbors frustrated by the letters they’re getting from their insurers, I’m frustrated by the lack of constructive information coming from media and our politicians. At a time when real people need help, they are rooting for failure. We don’t need shoddy news reports and hearings designed to point fingers. We need information about how to sign up for better, more affordable coverage.
The Affordable Care Act is law like Social Security and Medicare. It is regulation enacted to prevent consumers from being bankrupted by health care emergencies and profit-seeking insurers. Either help or get out of the way.
But you’d never know it from the daily news. One month into ACA’s initial six-month enrollment period and crisis ensues. Frankly, I’m crisis’d out.
First, did we really think a web site designed to interface with multiple other government AND private organizations’ sites would work seamlessly? How often do Facebook changes gum up its operation, and people threaten to abandon it forever? It hasn’t happened yet.
And, have you ever called your health insurer to get approval for a procedure or medication? How many menus and people did you go through to get an answer? Did we really expect this to be simple?
Second, the web site is not the only way to enroll. People can call to enroll, or print forms off the web site and mail them in. They can also locate a navigator in their area and sit down with a person to go through the process.
But I don’t hear about these options in major media reporting. Instead, they report on the problems with the web site and on individuals whose current policies are being replaced with more expensive (and more comprehensive) plans. Unfortunately, they often leave out the rest of the story . . .
As Joan McCarter writes on Daily Kos: “They're not telling people they can shop around for a better deal. Which is precisely the point of the health insurance exchanges. These insurers are betting that people will go the route of least resistance, and just fork up the money for the plan they're being pushed toward. . . . They're going to squeeze whatever extra money they can get out of people because that's what they do.”
This week’s case in point comes from CBS News. They reported about a woman in Florida, Dianne Barrette, whose $50 a month health “insurance” was replaced with a $591 plan.
Erik Wemple described Barrette’s current policy as a “pray-that-you-don’t-really-get-sick plan” and writes on his blog: “More coverage [reporting] may provide a deeper understanding of the ins and outs of Barrette’s situation: Her current health insurance plan, she says, doesn’t cover ‘extended hospital stays; it’s not designed for that,’ says Barrette. Well, does it cover any hospitalization? ‘Outpatient only,’ responds Barrette. Nor does it cover ambulance service and some prenatal care.”
Yet Barrette, who earns about $30,000 annually, could get better coverage and subsidies to pay for it via the health care exchanges.
Like my friends and neighbors frustrated by the letters they’re getting from their insurers, I’m frustrated by the lack of constructive information coming from media and our politicians. At a time when real people need help, they are rooting for failure. We don’t need shoddy news reports and hearings designed to point fingers. We need information about how to sign up for better, more affordable coverage.
The Affordable Care Act is law like Social Security and Medicare. It is regulation enacted to prevent consumers from being bankrupted by health care emergencies and profit-seeking insurers. Either help or get out of the way.
Senator Grassley's no vote: Who drank the tea?
So I wondered when I awoke Thursday morning to news Congress had narrowly avoided crashing the economy by passing a temporary measure to fund our government and raise the debt ceiling. With this news, local TV stations were reporting Senator Charles Grassley had voted against the measure. (Steve King, unsurprisingly, did too.)
What’s up with that, Senator Grassley?
In a search for answers, I checked the Senator’s web site for a statement about his vote. Here’s a portion: “Government spending has exploded since 2008, increasing the national debt by $6 trillion. Obamacare is a drag on the economy and hurting workers' ability to find full-time jobs.”
This is false, or at best, misleading. Let me count the ways.
1. Government spending: A March 2013 article from the Economic Policy Institute titled, “Forget Spending Cuts, the U.S. Economy Really Needs a $2 Trillion Stimulus,” states:
“This economic forecast [CBO 2013-2023] showcases the results of the misguided framing and resolution of the ‘fiscal cliff’ debate and the more recent sequestration fight. Near-term deficit reduction intrinsically works against restoring full employment, and obsessing with medium- to long-term deficit reduction diverts policymakers’ focus from the jobs crisis at hand.”
2. National debt: In an April 2013 post entitled “Policy Basics: Deficits, Debt & Interest,” the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities noted: “Raising the debt limit does not directly alter the amount of federal borrowing or spending going forward. Rather, it allows the government to pay for spending on programs and services that Congress has already approved. Nor is the need to raise the debt limit a reliable indicator of the soundness of budget policy.”
3. As I’ve outlined in recent columns, the Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare, is funded mostly by cost savings and new revenue outside the appropriations process. Again, see Sarah Kliff’s post at Wonkblog on Aug. 30, 2012. Additionally, rather than creating a drag on the economy, the regulations under ACA will help control health care costs and thus help the economy grow long term.
4. Obamacare does not limit workers’ ability to find full-time jobs. Again, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities debunks this claim in a report posted earlier this month, stating in one subhead: “Data Don’t Support Claim of Big Shift to Part-Time Work. Instead the report points out: “The fact is, it’s too early to know how health reform will ultimately affect the amount of part-time work. But there’s every reason to expect the impact to be small as a share of total employment.”
Daily Kos diarist Mets102 wrote about voting for default in a post entitled, “162 Republicans to America and World: Drop Dead.” The post explained: “The global economic system is based upon the premise that the debt of the United States Government is, for all intents and purposes, a riskless investment. To call that premise into question is upend the global economy. Overnight, stock markets across the globe would crash. The retirement savings of tens of millions of Americans would begin to disappear, whether those savings are from 401k's and like vehicles or from defined pension plans. . . . The results that would flow from default would be catastrophic.”
Catastrophe – that’s what Senator Charles Grassley and Representative Steve King voted for. Not to stabilize the economy, protect the nation or help their constituents. They voted for the Tea Party.
Time to quit drinking the tea.
What’s up with that, Senator Grassley?
In a search for answers, I checked the Senator’s web site for a statement about his vote. Here’s a portion: “Government spending has exploded since 2008, increasing the national debt by $6 trillion. Obamacare is a drag on the economy and hurting workers' ability to find full-time jobs.”
This is false, or at best, misleading. Let me count the ways.
1. Government spending: A March 2013 article from the Economic Policy Institute titled, “Forget Spending Cuts, the U.S. Economy Really Needs a $2 Trillion Stimulus,” states:
“This economic forecast [CBO 2013-2023] showcases the results of the misguided framing and resolution of the ‘fiscal cliff’ debate and the more recent sequestration fight. Near-term deficit reduction intrinsically works against restoring full employment, and obsessing with medium- to long-term deficit reduction diverts policymakers’ focus from the jobs crisis at hand.”
2. National debt: In an April 2013 post entitled “Policy Basics: Deficits, Debt & Interest,” the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities noted: “Raising the debt limit does not directly alter the amount of federal borrowing or spending going forward. Rather, it allows the government to pay for spending on programs and services that Congress has already approved. Nor is the need to raise the debt limit a reliable indicator of the soundness of budget policy.”
3. As I’ve outlined in recent columns, the Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare, is funded mostly by cost savings and new revenue outside the appropriations process. Again, see Sarah Kliff’s post at Wonkblog on Aug. 30, 2012. Additionally, rather than creating a drag on the economy, the regulations under ACA will help control health care costs and thus help the economy grow long term.
4. Obamacare does not limit workers’ ability to find full-time jobs. Again, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities debunks this claim in a report posted earlier this month, stating in one subhead: “Data Don’t Support Claim of Big Shift to Part-Time Work. Instead the report points out: “The fact is, it’s too early to know how health reform will ultimately affect the amount of part-time work. But there’s every reason to expect the impact to be small as a share of total employment.”
Daily Kos diarist Mets102 wrote about voting for default in a post entitled, “162 Republicans to America and World: Drop Dead.” The post explained: “The global economic system is based upon the premise that the debt of the United States Government is, for all intents and purposes, a riskless investment. To call that premise into question is upend the global economy. Overnight, stock markets across the globe would crash. The retirement savings of tens of millions of Americans would begin to disappear, whether those savings are from 401k's and like vehicles or from defined pension plans. . . . The results that would flow from default would be catastrophic.”
Catastrophe – that’s what Senator Charles Grassley and Representative Steve King voted for. Not to stabilize the economy, protect the nation or help their constituents. They voted for the Tea Party.
Time to quit drinking the tea.
Obamacare vs. ACA: What works for you?
Last week as the government shut down and enrollment for the new health care exchanges began, I was amused to discover a friend’s Facebook post. In it, a correspondent from the Jimmie Kimmel show asked people on the street: “Which is better, Obamacare or the Affordable Care Act?”
It became obvious very quickly that many people don’t know they are one and the same thing. Consequently, they also had little idea what the duly passed and Supreme Court-upheld law does.
First, the law has been taking effect gradually. As the Department of Health and Human Services outlines on its site:
• 2010 – A Patient’s Bill of Rights and cost-free preventative coverage for most Americans went into effect. These features protect consumers from the worst abuses of insurers and eliminate out-of-pocket expenses for preventive practices like physicals. Young people up to age 26 can stay on their parents’ insurance.
• 2011 – People on Medicare began to receive no-cost preventative care and a discount on brand name drugs in the donut hole.
• 2012 – Programs like Accountable Care Organizations began work to help doctors, hospitals and clinics work together to provide better health care.
• 2013 – Health care exchanges opened and the enrollment period began, allowing more Americans access to affordable health insurance.
• 2014 – Health insurance plans via the exchanges go into effect as early as Jan. 1, and tax credits and subsidies will help small businesses and individuals afford coverage that was previously unaffordable.
I recommend you visit the site to view the full list of benefits for each year.
Additionally, Ezra Klein outlined 11 facts about ACA in a June 2012 post on the Washington Post’s Wonkblog. Some highlights include:
• By 2022, the Congressional Budget Office estimates the ACA will have extended health coverage to 33 million people who were previously uninsured.
• Insurance companies cannot deny coverage for pre-existing conditions.
• Insurance companies are required to spend 80-85 percent of every premium dollar on medical care instead of advertising, administration and marketing.
As Klein notes in his post, much of his information came from the Kaiser Family Foundation and their excellent summary of the law. I also recommend visiting this site, as Kaiser has done much of the earliest, deepest and best research on the law and its effects.
Finally, myths about ACA have been swirling since before it was passed, and as usual, my old standby, Factcheck.org, does some of the best work sifting truth from fiction on its Obamacare Myths page. For example, Factcheck rates the current rumor that Congress is exempt from ACA as “False.”
Factcheck writes: “Congress isn’t exempt from the law. In fact, members and their staffs face additional requirements that other Americans don’t. Beginning in 2014, they can no longer get insurance through the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, as they and other federal employees have done. Instead, they are required to get insurance through the insurance exchanges.”
ACA was designed to help people like us, and though it’s far from perfect, it does. To learn more, attend a community conversation on ACA at 5:30 p.m., Thurs., Oct. 10 at the Red Oak Fire Station. Come hear local people, some you may know, share their own health insurance stories and how ACA will affect them.
It became obvious very quickly that many people don’t know they are one and the same thing. Consequently, they also had little idea what the duly passed and Supreme Court-upheld law does.
First, the law has been taking effect gradually. As the Department of Health and Human Services outlines on its site:
• 2010 – A Patient’s Bill of Rights and cost-free preventative coverage for most Americans went into effect. These features protect consumers from the worst abuses of insurers and eliminate out-of-pocket expenses for preventive practices like physicals. Young people up to age 26 can stay on their parents’ insurance.
• 2011 – People on Medicare began to receive no-cost preventative care and a discount on brand name drugs in the donut hole.
• 2012 – Programs like Accountable Care Organizations began work to help doctors, hospitals and clinics work together to provide better health care.
• 2013 – Health care exchanges opened and the enrollment period began, allowing more Americans access to affordable health insurance.
• 2014 – Health insurance plans via the exchanges go into effect as early as Jan. 1, and tax credits and subsidies will help small businesses and individuals afford coverage that was previously unaffordable.
I recommend you visit the site to view the full list of benefits for each year.
Additionally, Ezra Klein outlined 11 facts about ACA in a June 2012 post on the Washington Post’s Wonkblog. Some highlights include:
• By 2022, the Congressional Budget Office estimates the ACA will have extended health coverage to 33 million people who were previously uninsured.
• Insurance companies cannot deny coverage for pre-existing conditions.
• Insurance companies are required to spend 80-85 percent of every premium dollar on medical care instead of advertising, administration and marketing.
As Klein notes in his post, much of his information came from the Kaiser Family Foundation and their excellent summary of the law. I also recommend visiting this site, as Kaiser has done much of the earliest, deepest and best research on the law and its effects.
Finally, myths about ACA have been swirling since before it was passed, and as usual, my old standby, Factcheck.org, does some of the best work sifting truth from fiction on its Obamacare Myths page. For example, Factcheck rates the current rumor that Congress is exempt from ACA as “False.”
Factcheck writes: “Congress isn’t exempt from the law. In fact, members and their staffs face additional requirements that other Americans don’t. Beginning in 2014, they can no longer get insurance through the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, as they and other federal employees have done. Instead, they are required to get insurance through the insurance exchanges.”
ACA was designed to help people like us, and though it’s far from perfect, it does. To learn more, attend a community conversation on ACA at 5:30 p.m., Thurs., Oct. 10 at the Red Oak Fire Station. Come hear local people, some you may know, share their own health insurance stories and how ACA will affect them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
