Fixing Obamacare for Real!

The current debate, dominated by the Republicans since they are 100% in power in Congress and the Executive branch, has avoided at all costs any discussion of far more simple, fair and MORAL fixes to Obamacare.  Everyone knows what the possible fixes are:

1) The Public Option

2) Single Payer/Medicare for All

3) Allowing the Federal Government to negotiate on price for pharmaceuticals and medical device equipment

I will not take any credit for any of these ideas, of course; they have been around for a long time.  The primary reason that these common sense and real solutions are not implemented are twofold: a) the health care industry is the largest lobbyist in the country, larger than the military-industrial complex, and b) ideology prevents many, including most Republicans and Conservatives, from even considering this solution even though Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security are highly successful and popular programs that spring from the same ideology of the government providing a social safety net for all Americans.

Learn about these solutions here:

Here is an actual piece of legislation proposed by the Democrats and scored by the CBO:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/261

A quick explanation of the public option:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_health_insurance_option#cite_note-16

A news article from January 2013 when Obama was President:
http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/277505-house-dems-push-again-for-creation-of-government-run-health-insurance-option

A news article before the ACA was passed:
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/32718713/ns/politics-white_house/#.WNahRsDyvIU

Politifact confirms it is true that the Federal Governmentis prohibited from negotiating on prices:
http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2017/jan/17/tammy-baldwin/tammy-baldwin-federal-government-prohibited-negoti/

An article this year about Trump considering Federal Gov't. negotiating drug prices:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/23/health/the-fight-trump-faces-over-drug-prices.html?_r=0

The Most Depressing Thing Today, 1/20/17; Ideology

Today, January 20, 2017, was the day that Donald J. Trump was inaugurated.  However, his inauguration, which was inevitable and lawful, was not the thing that depressed me most.  After all, he won the election game although, as any objective person would admit, he in fact came in second to another person in the popular vote.  All you can say is that he legally won the election game under the insane rules under which it is governed.  To deny him the presidency is to descend into anarchy and chaos.  Following rules, even crazy rules, is probably a better alternative.

It wasn't his speech that was especially depressing either.  I had no expectations of graciousness from Trump nor did I expect him to reach out to others, in particular to that majority of Americans who opposed him.

The most depressing thing was the violence perpetrated by a small group of persons protesting Trump's inauguration in the nation's capital.  Although few in number, the coverage of their actions was immense - all eyes were on Washington DC.  Since those who oppose Trump need to make their views known, it is frightening to think that such demonstrations may serve, instead, to help President Trump.

Even though the violence was limited, at least as of 4:30pm EST, to the burning of a Fox News vehicle, and some violence in the streets of Washington DC, this is precisely the kind of thing that will help Trump and hurt those who oppose his intentions to reverse the Affordable Care Act, and help Trump promote his racial, ethnic, homophobic, transphobic, misogynist and religious biases.  This kind of hijacking of a peaceful protest will serve to make people think twice about protesting; the concern that a protest will turn violent is a legitimate concern.  If you care about whether the protest will actually turn into an asset for President Trump to exploit, why protest?

If you want to help Trump, do what those particular protesters did: riot in the streets and burn vehicles.  I do not care how the protesters feel in their hearts about Trump.  I do not like Trump but I view these protesters as agents of Trump.  What I care about are the results of their actions.  Their actions will only give comfort to supporters of Trump and strengthen their and Trump's resolve to follow though on their biases.

Consider that Trump would have been roundly defeated if only voter turnout was high; Clinton would have won if those who favored her did not stay home out of laziness, complacency, lack of motivation or because Clinton was "not progressive enough."  Any protester who did not vote for Clinton can now thank themselves for the eventual results.  They should be hiding in shame instead of rioting in the street if that is what they were doing.

What kind of thinking leads to this sort of behavior?  How does anyone come to the conclusion that rioting and behaving like anarchists will change the hearts and minds of those on the fence about Donald J. Trump?  Unfortunately the answer is that the rioters are the mirror image of those Trump supporters who threatened peaceful protesters at Trump rallies; or those who chanted "lock her up"; or those who chanted "build the wall."  Those pro-Trump supporters did not care whether their beliefs were reasoned, true or helpful. They just believed.

In the next few days there will be numerous demonstrations around the country protesting Trump's expected policies; if too many of the demonstrations are hijacked by a violent few, they will only serve to help Trump move his agenda forward just as the misguided "anti-war" movement helped George W. Bush gain support for the disastrous Iraq War in 2002 and 2003.

Most people have short memories.  To quickly summarize, demonstrators had often framed the opposition to the Iraq War as being opposed to all wars - it was the "anti-war" movement, not, more specifically, the "anti-Iraq War" movement; also, some protesters coupled it with anti-capitalism protests which was not helpful; and occasionally some participants perpetrated violence.  Obviously, to an American public that has not forgotten World War II, and for those who understood that the U.S. was attacked by Al Qaeda on 9-11, overall pacifism seemed a ridiculous concept. Also, to those who have reaped the benefits of the world's strongest economy, lumping anti-capitalism with an "anti-war" movement was not sensible.

The better route for that movement to take was to emphasize that Iraq was NOT the source of the 9-11 attack and that bin Laden, hiding on the Pakistan/Afghanistan border, WAS the source.    The other excuse, that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, was the subject of ongoing UN inspections that were halted by the U.S. before they were completed so that we could invade - before the inspectors could confirm that there were NO weapons of mass destruction.  By the time the Iraq War began, and for years after, most Americans had the impression that Iraq was involved in 9-11 and that weapons of mass destruction were found.  The "anti-war" movement failed to communicate these key facts primarily because the "anti-war" movement was more about ideology than preventing the Iraq War.  They had other axes to grind - their ideologies.

This is my warning; do not make those who are ready to oppose President Trump's policies reluctant to side with a movement marred by anarchists and rioters and ideologues.  Let the demonstrations be inspiring, peaceful and welcoming to those looking on objectively.  Give onlookers the information they need to have, such as the simple fact that the popular Affordable Care Act is actually the same as the unpopular Obamacare.  Duh!  Let them understand that manufacturing jobs are mostly disappearing due to automation; let them understand that tax cuts for the wealthy mean that everyone else will have a greater tax burden; let them understand that equality under the law applies to women, minorities, the disabled, GLBT persons, non-believers and Muslims as well.  Give them the obvious yet disputed facts!

However, I am afraid that anarchists and ideologues do not  really care whether they are actually assisting Trump; ideologues are ideologues precisely because they care more about their belief system than whether it is grounded in reality and whether the results of their ideology actually assist with humanity's well being.  To be an ideologue is to place your ideology beyond question and to accept the results no matter how bad they are.  Ideologues just believe.  Those who burned the FoxNews car did Trump a huge favor but are now basking in their own perceived "purity."

They are the mirror image of Trump supporters.  These violent and radical few cannot be allowed to hijack the movement to stop Trump from doing what he has promised to do.

Today Was a Bad Day, November 9, 2016

Today, November 9, 2016, was a bad day, .

It was a bad day for voters; the presidential candidate that more voters voted for than any other candidate lost the election.  The person with the second most votes won the election.  This is the second time in the last 5 presidential elections that this has happened.  Since the party in power has now benefited both times from this absurd system, nothing will change.  The U.S. will remain the only country in the world where losing the popular vote is sometimes better than winning it.  We do not have a democracy; instead we play a game with odd rules that often rewards something other than the will of the people.  Instead of making everyone's vote count equally, some votes in some states are relatively irrelevant while some votes in a handful of states are all important.

It was bad day for Muslims; the president elect has stated he wanted to ban Muslims from entering the country on the basis of their religious beliefs.  Other religious folk, no matter how dangerous, crazy and un-American their beliefs may be are welcome as long as they are not Muslims.  Furthermore, the president elect has hallucinated seeing thousands of Muslims on the roofs of homes in Jersey City, New Jersey, celebrating the attack on the World Trade Center back in 2001 on TV.

It was a bad day for women who have been sexually assaulted.  They now have a president elect who has bragged about sexually assaulting women and we have all seen the women who have been the victims he claims to have assaulted.  He has insulted them horribly for confirming his own claims.

It was a bad day for women who may sometime have an unwanted or dangerous pregnancy.  They may be forced to have their babies, even if they are the victims of rape or if the pregnancy poses a danger to their lives.

It was a bad day for women who are not fashion model thin; for women who are over 35 which is "check-out" time according to the president elect; for women who are "nasty"; for women who do not have huge breasts; or for women who have faces the president elect does not like.

It was a bad day for persons with pre-existing conditions.  It was a bad day for young adults under 26 who have been insured under their parents health insurance plans.  They may lose their health insurance sometime soon.  Even those who complain about their premiums exploding may have second thoughts when they try to buy their insurance outside of the exchanges created by the ACA and lose their subsidies - as they would have had to do before Obamacare was created.

It was a bad day for those who are scientifically oriented and have concerns about global warming and the teaching of evolution in schools.

It was a bad day for people who are appalled that a candidate encouraged the illegal hacking of his opponent's email account.  At the same time the president elect never offered to release his own tax returns, much less his own emails.

It was a bad day for people who care about the deficit.  The president elect's budget plans would explode the deficit - but will there be fights over the debt ceiling by Republicans in the next 4 years as there were in the previous 4 years?

It was a bad day for the undocumented -  even if they are persons who were brought here as children and have known no other country.  All are to be deported, period.

It was a bad day for most taxpayers who will have a greater share of the tax burden after the rich get their incredible tax cuts.

It was a bad day for persons who believe corporations are not people.  Future supreme court judges will be chosen, in part, based on their inability to tell the difference between a human person and a corporation.

It was a bad day for future victims of gun violence.  Not only will no reasonable gun laws be passed but even research and  record collection of gun related crimes and violence will remain prohibited because some do not want to know the truth.

It was a bad day for those with disabilities.  The president elect has no problem mocking you.

It was a bad day for those who value honesty and rationality.  Most of what the president elect said during the campaign was untrue and why should that change now?  The campaign that began with birtherism ended with false claims too numerous to list.

It was a bad day for Americans; the campaign that said "we are stronger together" lost; the one that said "lock her  up" won.

The Non-Existent 3.8% Sales Tax on All Real Estate Transactions and What to do About It

Have you seen this email?


"Under the new health care bill — did you know that all real estate transactions will be subject to a 3.8% Sales Tax? The bulk of these new taxes don’t kick in until 2013 (presumably after Obama’s re-election). You can thank Nancy, Harry and Barack and your local Democrat Congressman for this one. If you sell your $400,000 home, there will be a $15,200 tax. This bill is set to screw the retiring generation who often downsize their homes. Is this Hope & Change great or what? …

"Oh, you weren’t aware this was in the Obamacare bill? Guess what, you aren’t alone. There are more than a few members of Congress that aren’t aware of it either (result of clandestine midnight voting for huge bills they’ve never read). AND, there are a few other surprises lurking."

The above claim is not true. All real estate transactions will NOT be subject to a 3.8% sales tax in 2013. None will, to be precise.

What a very few real estate transactions will be subject to is a small increase in a capital gains tax, which by all rights, is still way too low (if fairness matters.) The low capital gains tax rate is the loophole that allows a fellow such as Mitt Romney to pay a 14% income tax rate, by the way. We all know that poor Mr. Romney needs that low rate or he won’t help create jobs!
Here is a portion of the actual law in question:

‘‘CHAPTER 2A—UNEARNED INCOME MEDICARE

CONTRIBUTION

‘‘Sec. 1411. Imposition of tax.

‘‘SEC. 1411. IMPOSITION OF TAX.

‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in subsection (e)—

‘‘(1) APPLICATION TO INDIVIDUALS.—In the case of an individual,

there is hereby imposed (in addition to any other tax

imposed by this subtitle) for each taxable year a tax equal

to 3.8 percent of the lesser of—

‘‘(A) net investment income for such taxable year, or

‘‘(B) the excess (if any) of—

‘‘(i) the modified adjusted gross income for such

taxable year, over

‘‘(ii) the threshold amount.

‘‘(2) APPLICATION TO ESTATES AND TRUSTS.—In the case

of an estate or trust, there is hereby imposed (in addition

to any other tax imposed by this subtitle) for each taxable

year a tax of 3.8 percent of the lesser of—

‘‘(A) the undistributed net investment income for such

taxable year, or

‘‘(B) the excess (if any) of—

‘‘(i) the adjusted gross income (as defined in section

67(e)) for such taxable year, over

‘‘(ii) the dollar amount at which the highest tax

bracket in section 1(e) begins for such taxable year.

‘‘(b) THRESHOLD AMOUNT.—For purposes of this chapter, the

term ‘threshold amount’ means—

‘‘(1) in the case of a taxpayer making a joint return under

section 6013 or a surviving spouse (as defined in section 2(a)),

$250,000,

‘‘(2) in the case of a married taxpayer (as defined in section

7703) filing a separate return, 1⁄2 of the dollar amount determined

under paragraph (1), and

‘‘(3) in any other case, $200,000.

‘‘(c) NET INVESTMENT INCOME.—For purposes of this chapter—

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘net investment income’ means

the excess (if any) of—

‘‘(A) the sum of—

‘‘(i) gross income from interest, dividends, annuities,

royalties, and rents, other than such income

which is derived in the ordinary course of a trade

or business not described in paragraph (2),

‘‘(ii) other gross income derived from a trade or

business described in paragraph (2), and

‘‘(iii) net gain (to the extent taken into account

in computing taxable income) attributable to the disposition

of property other than property held in a trade

or business not described in paragraph (2), over

‘‘(B) the deductions allowed by this subtitle which are

properly allocable to such gross income or net gain.

http://www.healthcare.gov/law/resources/authorities/section/1402-unearned-income-medicare-contribution.pdf

In other words, if there is a capital gain on the sale of an investment, over the deductions properly allocable to such gross income AND the person meets the income requirements in the law (over $200,000), then a tax of 3.8% on the profits may apply.

Since it is possible I could be selling my home in 2013, the original email, which I received from a real estate professional, concerned me. I quickly discovered the email was full of lies and distortions – it was not difficult task to find this out. I will be paying no such tax; neither will 99% of my fellow home sellers since only 3% of Americans earn enough to qualify and a small minority of those sellers will have a large enough profit, if they have a profit.

What now concerns me is the irresponsibility of so many who pass along anonymously authored emails that are pretty much blatant lies, in order to influence an election. They spend the time to spam others with misinformation, but are too busy to check it out first. When I emailed back the person who sent me this email with the corrected info, including links and an explanation, instead of being thankful and eager to make things right, they were mad and accused me of denying them their 1st Amendment rights!

Yes, pointing out errors is now a violation of the 1st Amendment. Spreading lies is not.

And this brings me to the root of all evils, according to me at least; ideology. When one believes in a dogma, one is immune to fact. That is the whole point of dogmatic belief systems – making an ideology so sacred so that belief in the dogma itself is the virtue, not accuracy, truth or honesty. The ideology could be religious or secular or some combination. Examples of dogmatic ideologies include fascism, communism, socialism, conservatism, liberalism, Republicanism, Democratism, Christianity, Judaism, Islam, and being a Cubs fan.

All have this in common – they are in conflict with a free exchange and consideration of ideas.

Humanism, if it is to have value, cannot be dogmatic – it cannot be a list of things that must be believed. Humanism, as opposed to all dogmas, must always be in concert with the well being of persons, and adjust as new information is received, and most importantly, judge ethical norms on the basis of the consequences of putting those ethics into practice. In other words, lying about the new health care law is wrong and betrays either the dogmatic nature of the liars or a dangerous moral laziness.  If we value our freedom, and that's a big if, we must do better.