Politicians often rely on half-truths and blatant lies to sell their policy ideas. President Obama is no exception. After hearing his address to Congress regarding his health care plan, there are some half-truths and lies that need to be dispelled. Here is a list of them:
(1) President Obama will not sign a bill that "adds one dime to our deficit either now or in the future. Period." Verdict: Half-truth. First, there is no final version of the bill, just versions that are being kicked around and amended (probably as you're reading this). Second, the House Democrat's version would add $220 Billion to the deficit over 10 years as determined by the Congressional Budget Office (which is a non-partisan agency). Democrats say they don't have to claim $245 Billion dollars of the price tag because, and here's where it gets confusing, Democrats already decided to exempt the adjustment of the Medicare reimbursement rates from Congressional rules that require programs to be paid for. Simply put, they decided this doesn't have to be paid for because they decided it doesn't have to be paid for.
(2) President Obama has pledged not to cut Medicare benefits under his plan, but reduce Medicare payments by more than $500 Billion over 10 years. Verdict: Half-truth. The cuts proposed would disproportionately hit Medicare Advantage (which is operated through private insurance companies). Experts believe that a cut of this magnitude will reduce benefits for the 25 percent of Medicare users covered through Medicare Advantage. Supporters of Obama's plan counter that the cuts can be absorbed by improving how Medicare operates and would only reduce the waste, fraud, and abuse of the current system. Any overall affect is largely unknown.
(3) President Obama stated there are 30 Million people who cannot get coverage. Verdict: Close. Depending on which report you look at, the number of people who cannot get coverage varies. Previously, President Obama suggested there are 46 Million people who cannot get coverage, but this is probably an overestimate because it captures those young and healthy Americans who forgo getting health coverage to save money. The 30 Million individuals he used in his address come from the Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured, whereas the 46 Million figure he previously used comes from census data. The 30 Million is the actual target of the program, because these are the individuals that cannot afford insurance because they are poor or near poor.
(4) President Obama argues that preventative medicine 'makes sense, saves money, and saves lives' (paraphrased). Verdict: Lie and a Truth. Not all preventative care saves money, but does save lives. Studies have proven that the specific types of tests mentioned during his speech (colonoscopies and mammograms) cost more money than they save. Detecting acute diseases like breast cancer in the early stages of the disease involve testing many people who would never develop the disease. The costs incurred for a large number of tests, even if they're cheap, outweigh the costs of caring for the minority of people who would have ended up with the diseases without testing. The Congressional Budget Office even agrees that "... for the most preventive services, expanded utilization leads to higher, not lower, medical spending overall". President Obama was right about saving lives, but was wrong about saving money.
(5) President Obama informed the people that changing jobs or starting your own business will not impede you from getting health coverage. Verdict: He phrased it wrong. In the President's speech, he endorsed mandatory health insurance coverage for all individuals (an approach he did not embrace as a candidate). Given his position, in his speech he should have stated, "If you lose your job or change your job, you will have to get coverage. If you strike out on your own and start a small business, you will have to get coverage" (rather than using the words "will be able to get coverage" in his original speech).
(6) President Obama has stated that nothing in his plan will require us or our employer to change to coverage or the doctor we already have. Verdict: Correct at face value only. The current version does not guarantee that people can keep their current coverage. Employers elect sponsor coverage for most families, but under the current bill, employers would be free to change health plans in ways that employees may not like or decide to drop health insurance benefits altogether. The Congressional Budget Office analyzed the House Democrat's version and decided that by 2016 that some 3 Million people with employer-provided health care would lose coverage when employers drop health insurance in order to save money.
(7) And lastly, the comment that stole the show. President Obama stated that his reforms would not apply to unauthorized aliens, to which South Carolina Republican Joe Wilson shouted "You lie!" from his seat. Verdict: You decide. The bill specifically prohibits federal money to be spent on non-citizens. However, illegal immigrants could buy private health insurance, as some do now, but won't receive any tax benefits. However, it has been argued that the system proposed under the bill does not have appropriate citizenship verification requirements in place to ensure illegal immigrants do not capitalize on the program.
Friday, September 11, 2009
September 11th, Never Forgotten
It has almost been a year since I've been writing columns for the Middlesboro Daily News and posting them to my blogspot account. My first column was targeted at providing correct information about the economic bailout package presented by former President Bush (in late September). I never had a chance to write a column that focused on the attacks on September 11th, 2001.
This date will live in infamy, much in the same way the attacks on Pearl Harbor on December 7th, 1941 resonates with a previous generation. It is a date, and an event, that will forever shape the minds of today's generation.
Much like the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, or when Neil Armstrong took those historic steps on the moon, we will all remember where we were at, what we were doing, and our first reactions to the attacks that fateful day.
Eight years later, we are a nation that has been propelled in a dramatically different way because of these attacks. We can only conjecture what our lives and our nation would look like had we never been victimized by religious extremists organized by Usama bin Laden.
What if we had never declared war on terror? What if we had not actively sought out those who were responsible for the attacks that day? What if we had never taken preventative measures to thwart terrorist attacks? Would the liquid bombers have been successful (the reason why you can't take liquids on a plane in large quantity)? Would New York City have made it this long without a large terrorist attack (the numerous planned attacks aimed at the NYC subway system)? Would Afghanistan and Iraq be uncontested breeding grounds for terrorism?
I can only speculate. But what I do know is that there has been a lot of sacrifice and a lot of tears shed since that day. Those who were lost to those unscrupulous acts of evil should never be forgotten. The bravery of the New York Fire Department, the New York Police Department, and all those servicemen and women who worked to restore order to the chaos should never be forgotten. The bravery of the men and women on United Airlines Flight 93 should never be forgotten. The bravery of the men and women in our armed forces should never be forgotten. The compassion and patriotism that we as a nation demonstrated that day should never be forgotten.
What we should also not forget are the actions of Former President Bush. The nation stood behind him, united after these attacks, as he began his new campaign based on the promises he made to the American people. President Bush promised us that the individuals responsible for these attacks would come to justice and that he would take all necessary actions to prevent a subsequent attack.
And I think we forgot that somewhere along the line. Did President Bush act inappropriately while trying to defend our nation? I personally don't think it's that black and white, but more shades of gray. I personally think that President Bush took up his cause and fought to protect us from other terrorist attacks, even when his methods lost popularity. President Bush sacrificed approval ratings for our safety in much the same way that a parent sacrifices the admiration of their children for their safety. Bush would rather have been a good President than a cool one.
So despite what the media says, and despite what other people say about him, I will never forget the protection that President Bush provided for this country during his eight years in office.
This date will live in infamy, much in the same way the attacks on Pearl Harbor on December 7th, 1941 resonates with a previous generation. It is a date, and an event, that will forever shape the minds of today's generation.
Much like the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, or when Neil Armstrong took those historic steps on the moon, we will all remember where we were at, what we were doing, and our first reactions to the attacks that fateful day.
Eight years later, we are a nation that has been propelled in a dramatically different way because of these attacks. We can only conjecture what our lives and our nation would look like had we never been victimized by religious extremists organized by Usama bin Laden.
What if we had never declared war on terror? What if we had not actively sought out those who were responsible for the attacks that day? What if we had never taken preventative measures to thwart terrorist attacks? Would the liquid bombers have been successful (the reason why you can't take liquids on a plane in large quantity)? Would New York City have made it this long without a large terrorist attack (the numerous planned attacks aimed at the NYC subway system)? Would Afghanistan and Iraq be uncontested breeding grounds for terrorism?
I can only speculate. But what I do know is that there has been a lot of sacrifice and a lot of tears shed since that day. Those who were lost to those unscrupulous acts of evil should never be forgotten. The bravery of the New York Fire Department, the New York Police Department, and all those servicemen and women who worked to restore order to the chaos should never be forgotten. The bravery of the men and women on United Airlines Flight 93 should never be forgotten. The bravery of the men and women in our armed forces should never be forgotten. The compassion and patriotism that we as a nation demonstrated that day should never be forgotten.
What we should also not forget are the actions of Former President Bush. The nation stood behind him, united after these attacks, as he began his new campaign based on the promises he made to the American people. President Bush promised us that the individuals responsible for these attacks would come to justice and that he would take all necessary actions to prevent a subsequent attack.
And I think we forgot that somewhere along the line. Did President Bush act inappropriately while trying to defend our nation? I personally don't think it's that black and white, but more shades of gray. I personally think that President Bush took up his cause and fought to protect us from other terrorist attacks, even when his methods lost popularity. President Bush sacrificed approval ratings for our safety in much the same way that a parent sacrifices the admiration of their children for their safety. Bush would rather have been a good President than a cool one.
So despite what the media says, and despite what other people say about him, I will never forget the protection that President Bush provided for this country during his eight years in office.
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
Our Social Security Blanket
One of the long debated public policy issues since it's inception has been the Social Security Program. This program was conceived as a way to both provide income for individuals late in life (who are less able to earn income) as well as provide some incentive for people to eventually retire and open up jobs to a younger generation.
I don't have to go over how the whole program works. But I do think it's important for people to know that Social Security is an unfunded program. When I say unfunded program, it means that the money you and I pay into Social Security (not like we have a choice, it's deducted from our paychecks) is not being set aside just for us when we retire, but is going to pay the benefits of current retirees. If Social Security were a fully-funded program, I would be paying into my own retirement and you into your own.
When this program was first conceived, an unfunded program seemed to be the best way to provide Social Security benefits as soon as possible. What the program's creator, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, did not (and could not) foresee was what effect a sudden "baby boom" would have on the Social Security program.
Ten years after Social Security was signed into law, the Second World War had just ended and American Soldiers returned to America with a promising and bright economic future ahead of them. There was a flood of new births in the United States and from 1946 to 1964, there was a large growth in the American birth rate.
Now let's fast forward to today. The earliest age to retire and collect Social Security benefits is 62 (with 65 for full benefits and 67 for increased benefits). So the earliest Baby Boomers (1946) are currently 63 years old and the latest Baby Boomers (1964) will reach early retirement age in 2026. The big fear is that there will not be enough current workers to pay the benefits of the current retirees.
Our nation has not since had another baby boom to rival that of the Baby Boomers. Now my thinking would be that the Baby Boomers would create a "Second Wave" of Baby Boomers (when the Baby Boomers began having children), and then that Second Wave would produce a "Third Wave", but this has not been the case. Demographically speaking, the increase in the American birth rate when the Baby Boomers hit reproductive age has in no way compared to that of the original Baby Boom. This the result of a cultural shift; people are having less children now, and later in life, than they would have in the 1940's through 1960's; which has further compounded the Social Security problem.
Analysts have already warned Congress that when the Baby Boomers begin to retire that the current surplus in the Social Security Trust Fund will eventually dwindle and bankrupt Social Security sometime after the year 2020. There will be too much money paid out in benefits than is being paid in by the current workers.
I myself am part of the "Second Wave". My mother and father are both Baby Boomers and they will soon be ready to retire. I am currently in my mid 20's and enjoying my adult life as well as contemplating having children with my wife. Social Security means a lot to me (as I may never see a cent of it but have definitely paid into it) and is an issue that is very near to my heart.
So what options do we have to save Social Security? Traditionally, the main options have been to (1) raise taxes and increase revenue to the Social Security Fund, (2) raise the retirement age, and/or (3) cut benefits. I agree there needs to be a short-term solution considered now, but there is also a long-term solution to the problem.
The Cash for Clunkers program and the First Time Home Buyers Tax Credit were successful programs, at least by economic consumption standards. These cash incentive programs achieved their intended purpose: they made consumers purchase cars and houses. A long-term solution to Social Security would be if President Obama created the "Bucks for Babies" program that provided a cash incentive (in addition to tax breaks) for people to have children who eventually will work jobs and pay into Social Security. This would help to change the reproductive strategies in America in much the same way Cash for Clunkers and the Tax Credit incentivized and influenced the consumption patters of Americans.
Of course this can easily backfire without the right restrictions. The wrong people could begin having children that they can't afford to take care of. The Bucks for Babies program would make jobs more competitive when the new wave of children reaches working age, potentially increasing unemployment. The idea needs some work, but can be considered another option to reform Social Security.
And it would be a lot less expensive than the other solution I advocate for; making Social Security a fully-funded system. This would require spending a LOT of money to fund the current retirees' benefits while the current workers begin saving for their own retirement.
Clearly something needs to be done and there are options available. It would just be nice to see Congress actually heed some of the warnings they have been given and take action on the issue rather than being so short-sighted and focused on reelection.
I don't have to go over how the whole program works. But I do think it's important for people to know that Social Security is an unfunded program. When I say unfunded program, it means that the money you and I pay into Social Security (not like we have a choice, it's deducted from our paychecks) is not being set aside just for us when we retire, but is going to pay the benefits of current retirees. If Social Security were a fully-funded program, I would be paying into my own retirement and you into your own.
When this program was first conceived, an unfunded program seemed to be the best way to provide Social Security benefits as soon as possible. What the program's creator, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, did not (and could not) foresee was what effect a sudden "baby boom" would have on the Social Security program.
Ten years after Social Security was signed into law, the Second World War had just ended and American Soldiers returned to America with a promising and bright economic future ahead of them. There was a flood of new births in the United States and from 1946 to 1964, there was a large growth in the American birth rate.
Now let's fast forward to today. The earliest age to retire and collect Social Security benefits is 62 (with 65 for full benefits and 67 for increased benefits). So the earliest Baby Boomers (1946) are currently 63 years old and the latest Baby Boomers (1964) will reach early retirement age in 2026. The big fear is that there will not be enough current workers to pay the benefits of the current retirees.
Our nation has not since had another baby boom to rival that of the Baby Boomers. Now my thinking would be that the Baby Boomers would create a "Second Wave" of Baby Boomers (when the Baby Boomers began having children), and then that Second Wave would produce a "Third Wave", but this has not been the case. Demographically speaking, the increase in the American birth rate when the Baby Boomers hit reproductive age has in no way compared to that of the original Baby Boom. This the result of a cultural shift; people are having less children now, and later in life, than they would have in the 1940's through 1960's; which has further compounded the Social Security problem.
Analysts have already warned Congress that when the Baby Boomers begin to retire that the current surplus in the Social Security Trust Fund will eventually dwindle and bankrupt Social Security sometime after the year 2020. There will be too much money paid out in benefits than is being paid in by the current workers.
I myself am part of the "Second Wave". My mother and father are both Baby Boomers and they will soon be ready to retire. I am currently in my mid 20's and enjoying my adult life as well as contemplating having children with my wife. Social Security means a lot to me (as I may never see a cent of it but have definitely paid into it) and is an issue that is very near to my heart.
So what options do we have to save Social Security? Traditionally, the main options have been to (1) raise taxes and increase revenue to the Social Security Fund, (2) raise the retirement age, and/or (3) cut benefits. I agree there needs to be a short-term solution considered now, but there is also a long-term solution to the problem.
The Cash for Clunkers program and the First Time Home Buyers Tax Credit were successful programs, at least by economic consumption standards. These cash incentive programs achieved their intended purpose: they made consumers purchase cars and houses. A long-term solution to Social Security would be if President Obama created the "Bucks for Babies" program that provided a cash incentive (in addition to tax breaks) for people to have children who eventually will work jobs and pay into Social Security. This would help to change the reproductive strategies in America in much the same way Cash for Clunkers and the Tax Credit incentivized and influenced the consumption patters of Americans.
Of course this can easily backfire without the right restrictions. The wrong people could begin having children that they can't afford to take care of. The Bucks for Babies program would make jobs more competitive when the new wave of children reaches working age, potentially increasing unemployment. The idea needs some work, but can be considered another option to reform Social Security.
And it would be a lot less expensive than the other solution I advocate for; making Social Security a fully-funded system. This would require spending a LOT of money to fund the current retirees' benefits while the current workers begin saving for their own retirement.
Clearly something needs to be done and there are options available. It would just be nice to see Congress actually heed some of the warnings they have been given and take action on the issue rather than being so short-sighted and focused on reelection.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
