Obamacare is good for Americans…Here’s why – Part 3

This is Part 3 and the last in this series.  Here are links to refer to Part 1 and Part 2.  So far we have covered some appropriate statistics re. who does and who doesn’t want Obamacare, along with some facts surrounding major issues in the law.  In Part 2, there is data from the Congressional Budget Office on cost, the individual mandate and more.  And I concluded with a report on what one particular source found wrong with Obamacare. 

I want to get into the incorrect conflict that senior citizens seem to have with the legislation, most of which can be explained by just quoting from applicable sections of the bill itself.  But first, there are five things that Politico thinks that the Democrats got wrong on healthcare.  In a prelude, Dems thought voters would reward them just for skirting the health care bill by Republicans, minus their support.  They were wrong and it cost them in 2010.

Number one deemed wrong.  Passing health care reform without Republican support.  Former Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean by misreading the American public felt the Dems had to get this done and everything else would fall into place.  It didn’t, and voters are still wavering on the issue, although somewhat more comfortable with the law now than originally.  After being left in the dust, the GOP has been on the attack ever since.



Who dropped the ball
promoting Obamacare?



Number two.  The White House and the bill’s Democratic supporters failed to get a clear message out that explained the bill and put to rest concerns by the public, especially senior citizens.  What has been done has been mostly ineffective and the Dems now think their best hope is to wait for the benefits of 2014 to kick in with the realization that 30 million uninsured Americans will finally get coverage.  Assuming the law gets past the upcoming Supreme Court decision.

Numbers three and four.  President Obama never personally waged the “great campaign” he promised.  This has been painfully obvious in that supporters of the law have raised only $57.9 million compared to opponents who have come up with $204 million.  Agreed, Obama has had a multitude of problems to deal with in the economy, the jobless and constantly rising gas prices.  The question here is did the President’s lieutenants drop the ball when he needed them most?

Number five.  Is the individual mandate the right approach, even constitutional?  We’ll know on the latter soon, but I refer to an earlier comment I made questioning whether a select group should be obligated to pay for the health care of those who decide to remain uninsured.  This idea of a mandate actually came from Republicans back in the 1990s when Sen. Orin Hatch (R-Utah) proposed the concept.  The Dems didn’t really take it serious then.

And finally there is a senior citizen population out there that is still leery of Obamacare.  Considering the figure numbers over 40 million, it is something that must be addressed.  But personally, as a Medicare recipient for several years, I am perfectly satisfied with the program, including under the new health care law.  My Medicare coverage is supplemented by additional insurance that pays the 20 percent that is not covered, which pretty much makes it zero cost to me. 

In all the years I have been under Medicare, my only out-of-pocket costs were things not covered that I elected to have done.  You must have a good supplemental plan to make this happen, but I added up the cost of premiums to payments by the plans ratio once and I am well ahead of the game.  Planning your insurance program for retirement is a major consideration, and it is something that many seniors need to take another look at today.

So what are the senior concerns?  One, that Obamacare will reduce Medicare coverage to you as well as paying your doctor.  “The health bill will reduce projected Medicare spending by $575 billion over ten years, primarily by reducing projected fees to hospitals and other providers and by reducing payments to private Medicare Advantage insurance plans,” according to a fact check by the Washington Post. 

But will Medicare benefits be cut to in the above reduction?  Those cuts will be accomplished by the two points above plus a crackdown on Medicare fraud, estimated to currently cost the federal government as much as $60 billion per year.  We are also assured that we can keep our current insurance plans and doctors.  The death panel scare is just that, well orchestrated propaganda first perpetrated by the then V.P, candidate, Sarah Palin, in the 2008 election.

In closing, most Americans want the social programs they enjoy to survive, and that is what the Obama administration is trying to accomplish with health care reform.  However, it is foolish to believe that all the goodies can continue without cutting some of the fat, and finding sources of new revenue.  Now that we’ve begun the overhaul of the health care system, it is now time to do the same to our taxes to make them more reasonable and equitable.

Obamacare is good for Americans…Here’s why – Part 2

Mitt Romney on Obamacare

In Part 1 of this report, we covered some statistics, a few of the basic issues under contention in Obamacare, and touched on Medicare.  Also included in that post are some excellent links with comprehensive understanding of the facts in this massive reform of health care.  It only seems appropriate that, after the pros and cons of the legislation, there is a need to know what’s in the bill.  It is clear this is a problem when 78% indicated knowing only a little about the law.

First, how much will it cost?  Answer: $940 billion over 10 years.  What about the deficit?  According to the Congressional Budget Office, it will be reduced over a 10-year period by $143 billion, which is more than their first estimate, and there is another $1.2 trillion reduction in the second 10 years.  Individual mandate: Starting in 2014, all Americans must buy health insurance or face a $695 annual fine.  As reported yesterday, this would only be between 1 and 2%.

Coverage would be extended to 32 million individuals in the U.S. who do not have health insurance.  There will be state health insurance exchanges for consumers and business making it more affordable.  There are subsidies for those making between 100 and 400% of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL), which is $22,050.  There will be a new 3.8% Medicare Payroll tax on investment income; families with income of $250,000, $200,000 for individuals.

Starting in 2018, an excise tax on insurance companies of 40% on high cost income plans ($27,500 for families, $10,200 individuals).  Dental and vision plans are exempt.  And there is a 10% excise tax on indoor tanning salons.  Interesting.  Medicare expands to include 133% of the federal poverty level which is $29,327 for a family of four.  Illegal immigrants are not eligible for Medicaid.  It isn’t clear yet how the Latino community views the latter in term of immigration reform.

By 2014, insurance companies will not be allowed to deny coverage to adults for preexisting conditions.  Children are already covered.  No federal funds can be used to pay for abortions except in cases of rape, incest or health of the mother.  Illegal immigrants will not be allowed to purchase health insurance in exchanges, even if they used their own money.  There are more points in the plan and you can see them by going to a CBS News report, here.

So what’s the baaaad in Obamacare?  I looked at several sites with this kind of information and settled on Spectator.org because it was adamant that “If not struck down, it must be repealed.”  I figured this should provide some interesting insight into the opposition.  They leap into the battle with the question of whether they can force us to buy “broccoli” if they can make us purchase health insurance.  I kind of like broccoli so don’t have a problem with that.  Stupid!

On a more sane level, Spector proclaims: it is legislation-in-haste-repent-at-leisure mentality.  Dem. Nancy Pelosi did say, "We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what's in it."  There is no impartiality in the bill simply because it is 2,700 pages long and riddled with empirical language.  It takes the decision-making process out of buying health insurance and leaves it to bureaucrats.  Quoting a study, half of employers plan to drop health insurance in 2014.



Medicaid at work



The law will increase Medicaid enrollment by an estimated 24 million new beneficiaries by 2015.  Now I find it hard to believe that a country that is built on individual rights not doing everything it can to help the needy.  And that can be done with a combination of new taxes on the wealthy and eliminating unnecessary federal spending designed simply to get the politicians reelected. 

Anyway, some of these folks are in their position due to economic conditions for which they are not responsible.  Like a financial melt-down that resulted in a wave of home foreclosures that is still going on.

NEXT: Seniors against Obamacare, what went wrong and a wrap up.

Obamacare is good for Americans…Here’s why

But first some statistics that should energize both sides of the issue leading up to the forthcoming Supreme Court decision.  24% want to keep the entire law, 27% want to get rid of the mandate and keep the rest of the law, and 41% want to dump the entire law.  This would indicate that the mandate to buy insurance is the problem and without it a majority, or 51%, like what they see. 

The question arises, why should those with insurance pay for those who elect not to have it?

And then there is another figure that might change the mind of that 27% that want to get rid of the mandate.  The President’s health Care Law is patterned somewhat after the one Mitt Romney passed when he was governor of Massachusetts.  Only about 1% of the state’s residents had to pay a penalty for not taking insurance. 

The nonprofit policy think tank Urban Institute predicts that only around 2% will have to pay under the federal health reform law.

Of those uninsured, millions will jump at the right to get insurance now with pre-existing conditions.  For those who still don’t have health insurance, many will avoid the mandate’s penalty due to financial hardship or religious exemptions, and those earning too little to pay income tax can’t be penalized.  Most of the rest, except for that one or two percent, already have health insurance.  These are the facts that the GOP ignores and doesn’t want the public to know.

Some think Justices’ decisions will be based on personal beliefs, others strictly on the law.  Another interesting figure, 37% think the law went too far while 27% feel it didn’t go far enough, according to a CBS News/New York Times poll released on June 7.  A majority of those polled claim to know a little about the law with only 28% who know a lot.  Obviously it is that 78% who haven’t taken the time to understand what many criticize that is the problem.



Obama signing health care bill



I decided to do some fact checking and found The Fact Checker from the Washington Post that led me to three other sites: Factcheck.org; PolitiFact.com; and an examination by Kaiser Health News.  I recommend a look at all four sites.  Fact Checker cites some of the major points, starting with whether or not Obamacare is a government takeover of the health care system.  Absolutely not and PolitiFact labeled this the “lie of the year.”

There are many provisions that will (must be) controlled by the feds but the core of the health system will remain in the hands of the existing private insurance market. 

Next, will Medicare benefits be cut as well as payments to doctors?  The answer is that Medicare spending will continue to increase but at a slower rate.  With Medicare one of the fastest growing parts of the budget, “the health bill will reduce projected Medicare spending by $575 billion over ten years, primarily by reducing projected fees to hospitals and other providers and by reducing payments to private Medicare Advantage insurance plans.”

Repealing the bill will increase the deficit is technically true.  But Democrats should not be laboring over this aspect of the law since its original intention was not to reduce the deficit; rather to reduce the number of uninsured Americans.  And this has happened with 6.6 million young adults signing up for coverage under their parents’ plan.  This will be a welcome addition to the futures of recent college graduates who are already starting out in a tough work environment.

NEXT: What’s in the bill, what’s bad, what went wrong, etc.

Firearms deadly to women in domestic violence

Arizona is famous for its loose gun laws and old-west cowboy culture and it still harbors some of the worst gun violence in the country.  Unfortunately this also includes domestic violence cases, the most recent of which starred former racist and neo-Nazi J.T. Ready, who gunned down 4 members of his family including an infant in Chandler, AZ, a suburb of Phoenix.  He then took his own life. 

Already in Arizona in 2012, 48 have died, 31 or 64.4% of those by guns. 

These numbers are compiled by the Arizona Coalition Against Domestic Violence who proclaims that there are obvious signs that precede these cases, as reported by USA Today below:

• your partner controls everything.
• your partner calls you names or yells at you.
• your partner shoves, pinches, hits, punches, kicks or otherwise hurts you.
• your partner destroys your belongings.
• your partner threatens to hurt you, the children, or pets."

“Domestic-violence deaths are counted when a partner or other person in the home kills or is killed. An abuser committing a murder-suicide would be considered two deaths; a death is also counted if an abuser is shot during a confrontation with law enforcement,” says AZCADV.  Further, “Battered women who have been threatened or assaulted with a gun — even once — are 20 times as likely than other battered women to be murdered.”  The signs tell the tale.

Nationally, a recent study shows that access to firearms increases the risk of intimate partner homicide more than 5 times compared to those instances where there are no weapons in the house.  Also, those abusers who own guns are more likely to inflict the most severe injuries on their partners.  And nearly two-thirds of all women killed by firearms were killed by an intimate partner. 

Firearms are the most frequently used weapon in intimate partner homicide, more than all other weapons combined.

These are heavy figures, especially when you stop to consider that in 1994 the Gun Control Act was amended to prohibit anyone subject to a domestic violence protective order from possessing a firearm.  In 1996, the Lautenberg Amendment was added prohibiting anyone convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence from possessing a firearm.  Fatal incidents do have a pattern, says Carl Mangold, a licensed social worker commenting in the following:

A man becomes violent, and blames the victim. She tries to resist, and his abuse escalates. She attempts to end the relationship, and he punishes her for her defiance.

Neil Websdale, a Northern Arizona U. criminology and criminal-justice professor refers to the above warning signs while adding others such as being over-possessive of the partner and drinking heavily.  Websdale says, "It's about manhood and failing to live up to prescriptions of modern-day masculinity."  This mirrors my contention that gun bubbas have the hots for the concealed carry law because it requires having a weapon at their side to make them feel like a man.

Connie Phillips, director of the Phoenix Sojourner Center, a domestic-violence shelter for women, says a gun is a powerful weapon as much for its ability to intimidate as to kill.  “You don't even have to point it at her.”  He only has to clean it in front of her, put it on the bedside nightstand as she sleeps, or carry it on his hip to make a point. 

In other words, firearms are a threat to women in case of domestic violence, so why is it so easy for these people to regain their gun rights after an episode?

More on this later.

Are the wackos against womens’ rights the same as those against gun control?

Arizona Sen. Jon Kyl, the do-nothing guy we will soon be rid of, told reporters recently that the equal-pay bill, sponsored by the Democrats to prevent pay discrimination against females, will be blocked by Republicans.  Kyl, who was probably chosen to make the announcement because he has decided not to run again, says the bill is “…politically inspired and would reward trial lawyers at the expense of employers.”  Always…business over the consumer.

This kind of thinking would employ the same warped mind that would rather see more guns on the streets in the hands of anyone who wants them.  Since Kyl is speaking for Republicans in general, I guess I’ve answered my own question.  It is definitely the same breed, and they are as dangerous in this matter as they are on weapons. 

It is a fact that in the 2008 presidential election, women voted 56 percent to 42 percent for Barack Obama over John McCain?  This division was almost even in the 2010 election but at that time there was no president to vote for.  And Congress was and still is a completely incompetent gang of self-centered losers that would make it tough for anyone to decide who to vote for. 

But this is a presidential election coming up in November and GOP apparent nominee Mitt Romney has certainly not endeared himself to the ladies.  Republicans may even think at this point that they have lost the female vote.

In the latest USA Today/Gallup poll, the President leads Romney by 18 points in the womens’ vote.  Obama leads by 20 points in the most recent Pew Research poll.  I doubt seriously if this support is all due to Barack Obama’s support of womens’ rights, but the Democratic Party, although it has strayed from its liberal roots, is still far more in the corner of equality than the GOP and still favors the individual’s rights over business. 

It was a shocker, at least for me, when Maine Republican senator Olympia Snowe called the Democrats bill, "regrettable" and an "overreach." 

The legislation was designed to “…close loopholes in the 1963 Equal Pay Act, would require employers to prove that differences in pay were related to job performance, not gender; would prevent employers from forbidding employees from sharing salary information with each other; and would allow women who believe they were discriminated against to sue for damages.  Regardless of the outcome, the Dems will definitely make gains with its proposal.

For years I have wondered why any self respecting male could justify making more money than a female in the exact same position.  Same goes for any promotions that are given based on gender.  Since 1917, when Representative Jeannette Rankin of Montana became the first woman to serve in Congress, many more have served but currently in the 112th Congress, in the House, there are currently 362 men 76 women. In the Senate, 17 women and 83 men.

The first woman was actually appointed to the Senate by Georgia's Democratic Governor Thomas Hardwick in 1922.  After that, women weren’t elected in number to the Senate until 1992; that’s 70 years.  This supposedly august body has always been identified as a haven for the good old boys.  It is terminology like this that harkens over to the bubbas of the gun rights movement whose masculinity is challenged if they can’t walk around with a gun in their pocket.

Studies have found that men are much more fickle than women when it comes to voting, and have a decision making process that is more in keeping with pragmatism and what’s best for the country.  On the other hand, men tend to side with “bubba” issues, certainly favoring big business over the ladies.  And many vote with their guns, probably using the muzzle to actually push the voting machine lever.  It is an NRA mandate to defeat Obama in November.

Currently on the electoral map, President Obama has cinched 247 votes to Romney’s 206, on the way to 270 to win.  Leaning Obama are another 51 which along with the 247 is a win.  Leaning Romney is another 47 votes which brings his total to 253, 17 short.  The obvious key to the election are the remaining 85 toss up votes which include the states of Ohio and Florida, both of which are in the 12 swing states. 

The female vote is critical in November, as are the Independents and Latinos.  Barack Obama carried independents by an eight-point margin in the 2008 exit poll, but the GOP carried them by a 19-point margin in the 2010 midterms.  Well, at least two out of three in President Obama’s corner isn’t bad odds.

All you gun worshippers out there…take note

Yes, I now the FBI has just released the preliminary report from 2011 re. annual crime.  Yes I know there is a 4 percent decrease in the number of violent crimes that year compared to 2010.  Included in the violent crime category are murder, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault.  I also note that murder is down only 1.9 percent compared to the other three major groups in that category of forcible rape, robbery and aggravated assault, all three down 4 percent.

You gunzels can interpret that any way you want to but I see it as an indication that there just might still be a problem with murders by guns.  The National Rifle Assn. (NRA) hangs its hat, and its reputation, on what might be considered less than significant percent decreases when in the United states in 2009 (latest year) there were 3.98 gun homicides per 100,000 population.  Now that’s significant.

Compared to Canada with stricter gun laws which is only 0.5.  The United Kingdom, also more stringent gun laws, at only 0.1.  How about Spain where residents are not allowed to own automatic weapons, must register firearms, at 0.18.  OK, you say Sweden has less restrictive gun laws and it is only 0.19.  But when you take a closer look at Sweden’s laws, assault weapons aren’t allowed, background checks and training are required and concealed carry is restricted.

According to GunPolicy.org and the FBI, there were 12,996 total murders in 2010, 8,775 or 67.5 percent that were committed by total firearms, and 6009 or 46.2 percent using handguns.  Something else that we know is the fact that firearm ownership in the U.S. is 88.8 per 100,000 population.  That’s compelling numbers when just two other countries come up to only half that and most are from the tens to thirties, many even less.  We are a gun-loving nation.

I have even seen some figures that indicate that murders will total 14,000 in 2011 which puts that 1.9 decrease above in question.  I started writing about gun violence in the Nasty Jack Blog in October of 2011, and since then the gun culture has gotten more freaky by the month.  In March I started documenting monthly shootings and deaths, adding number of wounded in May.  Some figures concentrate on those killed by guns but equally important are those injured.

There were 49 shootings in March producing 48 gun deaths.  That increased to 69 shootings in April (40.8%) with 66 deaths (37.5%).  Then May exploded with 90 shootings increasing another 30.4% over April, and 69 dead just 3 over the prior month, 131 wounded.  So far in calculations from March to April there is an 83.7% increase in shootings and a 43.8% increase in those dead from gunshots.  Already the file on June is growing to proportions equal or higher than May.

You have to understand that of the 131 wounded in May, some had severe, even life threatening injuries so some may have died.  The question, of course, is whether this is a trend that will continue and if so, will the gun nuts come around to agree on some kind of gun control, and will those others completely oblivious of the gun violence taking place finally wake up?  Nothing is going to happen in Washington until November, and I’m doubtful even after that.

Arizona lunatics and other politicians

The time has come to examine the latest lunacies coming from the politics of the state of Arizona.  Especially if you live right in the middle of it and experience the madness on a daily, sometime hourly, basis.  We’ve had our share of scandals lately—actually they were in full force when I moved to the state over 20 years ago—but GOP state politicians and many others in the conservative culture continue on their merry way, completely oblivious.



Jan Brewer finger-pointing Pres. Obama

 Some of the most infamous in the last few decades were the Keating Five, AzScam and the alt-fuels fiasco.  I’ll let you look these up individually because it will provide some excellent local color into the state that is known for its wondrous Grand Canyon and beautiful deserts, along with neo-Nazi J.T. Ready who killed 4 in his family plus himself recently, another racist and illegal immigrant hater Russell Pearce, and a completely incompetent Gov. Jan Brewer.

That’s just for starters.  USA Today did documentation recently of the “streak of scandals,” as they put it, that continue in Arizona.  The key word here is “continue” because it is a sure-fire thing that it will only escalate in the future if we don’t get rid of the Republican radicals in this state, starting at the top with the governor.  And here’s the understatement of the year by the newspaper: “Arizona has never been known for squeaky-clean politics.”  WOW! 

The Arizona Tea Party favorite is the Obama birther issue, which now has support again from the wacko Donald Trump.  At the same time the state legislature is pushing a bill to require BC certification, not for Mitt Romney, but just for Barack Obama, as orchestrated by Sec. of State Ken Bennett.  Of course Maricopa County Sheriff, Joe Arpaio, demanding some of the limelight, even sent volunteers and one of his deputies to Hawaii for verification just for TPers.



AZ Sen. Lori Klein waving gun in reporter's face in Senate

Some guy in the Arizona Republic “letters” section recently said that if we progressives don’t like it here, go to California.  I moved to Arizona from that state, primarily due to L.A.’s gang war problems.  Little did I know that the gun culture here was designed to put more weapons on the street in the hands of anybody who wanted them.  I happen to love the state of Arizona and some time ago decided to be a part of the change that will rid the state of these fanatics.

Back to the scandals, Arpaio accused by the feds of discrimination against immigrants, as well as financial irregularities in his department.  Arizona Sheriff Paul Babeu from Pinal County, accused of violations of the Hatch Act, and after outing as a gay, accused of threatening deportation of his Mexican boyfriend if he didn’t keep quiet.  Former Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas and his deputy Lisa Aubuchon, were disbarred in April for ethical misconduct.

Sheriff Joe Arpaio rags on Obama birther issue:

Still just getting started.  Democratic State Rep.s Ben Arredondo and Richard Miranda took their turn in the barrel with the former indicted on federal charges of bribery, mail fraud, extortion and lying, while the latter quit the Legislature this year before pleading guilty to federal felony wire fraud and attempted tax evasion charges.  Historian Jack August says, "The decibel level of what's happened recently is unprecedented in the history of Arizona."

In 1988, the impeachment and removal from the governor’s office of Ed Mecham who violated campaign finance laws and was caught lending $80,000 of public money to a car dealership he owned and ran before becoming governor.  And there was the 1997 criminal trial conviction of Fife Symington who resigned as governor just before being impeached.  Former Sen. Dennis DeConcini, current Sen. John McCain were involved in the Charles Keating financial scandal.

Currently, Arizona Atty. General Tom Horne is under investigation by the Justice Dept. “for alleged illegal coordination with an independent third-party group during his 2010 election campaign.”  You would think the man running for the state’s highest legal post would know the law.  Bruce Merrill, a veteran pollster and professor emeritus at Arizona State U. said: "Outside of Arizona, we certainly do have this image of instability and a kind of weirdness." 

And although the scandal-mongering has been going on for decades, has the recent gang of incompetent conservative fanatics raised the bar?  Yes, says former Maricopa County Attorney Rick Romley, a Republican, who says that, “concerns about public corruption are greater today than at any time during his career.”  That’s another conservative speaking, although you wouldn’t put him in the same category as the wingnuts running the state today.

On top of everything else comes the Fiesta Bowl scandal that was directly related to Arizona state politicians.  In 2010 it was discovered that bowl CEO John Junker spent $4 million since 2000 to curry favor from BCS bigwigs and elected officials, guys like former State Senator Russell Pearce who was recalled from office for his fanatical views and other shenanigans.  Junker was fired and there now seems to be a return to normalcy in Arizona’s biggest sporting event.

There’s more which you can see in the USA Today article.  A Southern California psychologist and assistant professor of management and organization at the University of Southern California's Marshall School of Business, Jen Overbeck, commented:

“People appear to be more willing to commit ethical transgressions if they feel that it is in service of some higher purpose.  I'm not saying that they have good intentions. It's just how people justify to themselves what the rest of us see as some pretty heinous unethical actions."

The question here is how do the people of Arizona justify returning these people to office year after year, as well as electing new clones just like them?  If ever a progressive sweep was necessary it is in the Arizona November elections.