Boehner Asks: “Why A Break for Businesses Only?”

 That House Speaker John Boehner would ask this question shows either:

a)    how little he understands about the Affordable Care Act; OR

b)    how committed he is to making sure that the American public  does not understand the purpose of health care reform.

I would pick “b”.

Republicans are now suggesting that if the employer mandate (requiring that businesses offer benefits to their workers or pay a penalty) is being postponed until 2015, the Obama administration should postpone the individual mandate as well.

“Is it fair for the president of the United States to give American businesses an exemption from his health care law’s mandates without giving the same exemption to the rest of America?” Boehner asks.

What he ignores, of course is that under the Affordable Care Act, .middle-income as well as low-income citizens would receive generous tax credits to help them purchase insurance. Not long ago, I wrote about those subsidies, and a new “subsidy calculator” that will let an individual estimate how large his subsidy would be).

More than 26 million Americans will be eligible for these tax credits next year–though most dont know it. And by attempting to delay the individual mandate, the GOP is trying to make sure that they don’t find out.

       The Individual Mandate and the Employer Mandate Are Not Connected

Meanwhile Boehner pretends that the two mandates are somehow connected, In fact, they have nothing to do with each other. 

 The individual mandate exists because, under Obamacare, insurers are required to cover people suffering from pre-existing conditions. Aetna will no longer be able to shun the sick, nor will it be able to slap them with sky-high premiums.

This part of the law is extremely popular. Most Americans understand that any one of us could be diagnosed with cancer tomorrow. The goal of the law is to protect all of us against the vicissitudes of fate by ensuring that we have access to affordable insurance.

But if there were no individual mandate requiring that we all purchase insurance (or pay a penalty), a great many people would wait until they became ill, and only then buy insurance.As a result the insurance pool would be filled with folks who need expensive care, and everyone’s premiums would spiral.

If we want to insist that insurers cover the sick, we also must insist that everyone join the insurance pool. We all share in the risk of becoming sick, and so all must share in the cost. Ultimately, insurance is all about “pooling the risk.”

(Those who believe that they shouldn’t have to join the pool because they are young or  because they don’t smoke, exercise regularly and generally “take care of themselves” are ignoring the most basic fact about the human condition:  ”all flesh is grass”. )

The requirement that insurers must cover a 30-year-old suffering from MS cannot be separated from the individual mandate. We cannot have one without the other. The architects of health care reform understood the connection

By contrast, the employer mandate has little to do with the individual mandate. The phrases sound alike, that’s about it. The individual mandate and the employer mandate do not depend on each other.

If some employers decide that they will wait until 2015 before offering comprehensive, affordable health benefits, their employees will be eligible for subsidies to help them purchase their own coverage.  Postponing the employer mandate in no way affects their ability to obtain coverage at a cost they can afford. Alternatively, if an individual decides not to purchase insurance, next year, he will be asked to pay a penalty of just $95.

This is what Fox News calls “a hefty fine.”

 

26 COMMENTS SO FAR -- ADD ONE

Obama to Boehner: “John, I’m Getting Tired of Hearing You Say That”

This was President Obama’s reply, during fiscal cliff negotiations, when House Speaker John Boehner declared, for the umpteenth time, that “ The U.S. has a spending problem.” 

I can understand the president’s irritation. How could anyone believe that we have a “spending problem?’

Look around. Consider the state of our bridges, our roads and our crumbling inner city public schools. Are we spending too much on the nation’s infrastructure?

Next, think about unemployment. During this recovery we have lost 750,000 public sector jobs.  Republicans are intent on “starving the beast” (of government) and as a result Washington has not given states the financial support they need continue delivering public services. Across the nation, public school teachers have been laid off in droves, while class sizes increase at unprecedented rates.  Does this sound like government spending run amuck?

One in five American children now lives in poverty. Seventeen million children find themselves in homes where they can’t be sure of getting enough to eat.  (a.k.a. “food-insecure households.”)  At the end of the month, many kids go to bed hungry because the government Food Stamps program (now known as Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP)  gives families less than $1.50 per person per meal. Are we being overly generous?

During the past two wars, we sent millions of American men and women to Iraq and Afghanistan –many went back for repeated tours. In some cases, their bodies were not  broken–but their minds were.  Now 1.3 million Vets seeking mental health services are told they must wait of 50 days before getting treatment.   A recent government report suggests that 22 Vets die by suicide every day – about 20 percent of all Americans who kill themselves. Are we spending too much on healthcare for Veterans?

Let me suggest that we don’t have a spending problem. We have a revenue problem. Current federal revenue levels are at their lowest levels since the 1950s. 

                      How Anti-Tax Pledges Have Weakened the Nation

In a recent post, Jared Bernstein, a senior fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, nailed it: “The tax system doesn’t raise enough revenue.  And that’s not just the recession; it’s also tax policy and anti-tax pledges  . . . The system has become less progressive, with the largest declines in effective tax rates at the top of the income scale.

Continue reading

13 COMMENTS SO FAR -- ADD ONE

Pelosi Says “There’s Still a Chance”

Last night House Majority Leader John Boehner withdrew his “Plan B” proposal for the budget. He had no choice:  conservative Republicans in the House made it clear that would not vote for a plan that raises taxes for ANYONE—even millionaires.

Many in Washington believe this makes a bungee-jump over the “fiscal cliff” inevitable. As I have explained, that is not as scary as it sounds. The precipice is an imaginary line drawn in the sand and dated “January 1.”  Any damage done if we miss the deadline can easily be reversed.  Early in January Congress would, no doubt, extend tax cuts for 98% of all Americans while voting down Draconian across- the- board spending cuts scheduled to kick in the first of the year.

But today, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said “there is still a chance for a deal” before year-end. In fact, Pelosi probably knows that House Democrats and Republicans have more than enough votes  to extend tax cuts for the 98% now. The Senate has already passed a bill that would do just that. And in the House few  Republicans are eager to stand up and vote to hike taxes  for the vast majority of Americans. Conservatives just want to give the same break to the wealthiest 2%. But by now, most Republicans recognize that some tax increases are inevitable.

Pelosi’s optimism makes me hopeful. She’s a superb vote-counter, and she knows what’s happening on the other side of the aisle.

                    CEOs Urge Republicans to Compromise 

As Bloomberg reported yesterday, corporate chieftains have begun to lobby Republicans to give way on tax increases: CEOs such as Lloyd Blankfein of Goldman Sachs Group Inc., Robert Iger of Walt Disney Co. and Randall Stephenson of AT&T Inc. have been meeting with White House officials and their “support for Obama’s tax stance has split the Republican business alliance, driving a wedge between CEOs urging compromise and the nation’s most prominent small-business group.

Continue reading

2 COMMENTS SO FAR -- ADD ONE

How Much Will We Save If We Raise the Age When Seniors Can Apply for Medicare to 67? Less than Zero

The budget deadlock continues.

President Obama is clear: if we want to strengthen the economy, we can no longer afford President Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthiest 2% of all Americans. At the same time,  he is equally firm that he will continue tax relief for the other 98%.

House Speaker John Boehner has responded by characterizing Obama’s proposal as coming from “La-la land.”  Once again, Boehner has insisted that his party will not agree to let marginal tax rates for Americans earning over $200,000 ($250,000 for couples ) rise back to where they were in the 1990s.

Instead, Boehner proposes slicing social safety net programs. As part of the package, he continues to insist that we raise the age when Americans can apply for Medicare from 65 to 67. If we did this, the Congressional Budget  Office says, Medicare spending would decline by about 5 percent. 

                                     “We Are Not Living Longer”

On the face of it, lifting the eligibility age for Medicare might sound like a reasonable idea. After all, longevity has increased. Can’t we wait a couple of years before we ask the government to cover our health benefits?

First, “We” are not living longer. “Some of us” are living longer. But low-income and median-income Americans (who most need these benefits) die sooner than the  politicians who propose that we raise the age requirement for Medicare.

Research from the Social Security administration shows that increases in life expectancy have not been shared.  In 1977, life expectancy at age 65 for a man who was in the bottom half of earners during his peak earning years was 79.8 years; a 65 year-old male who was in the top half of earners at the same point in his career, could assume that he would live roughly 10 years longer,  to 80.5

Over the past 30 years, the gap has widened, During those three decades life expectancy  grew dramatically for the top half of earners, while remaining nearly flat for the bottom half

Education serves as another marker for life expectancy: According to the Center of Disease Control (CDC) between 1996-2006, the difference in life expectancy at age 25 between those with less than a high school education and those with a bachelor’s degree or higher increased by 1.9 years for men and 2.8 years for women.  On average in 2006, 25-year-old men without a high school diploma had a life expectancy 9.3 years less than those with a Bachelor’s degree or higher.  Women without a high school diploma had a life expectancy 8.6 years less than those with a bachelor’s degree or higher.

Race also plays a role. For example, a white male born in 2009 can expect to live to be 76.3 while an African-American male born that year is likely to  die shortly after he turns 70.  Lift the age when he becomes eligible for Medicare to 67, and he may be  be suffering though the final stage of a chronic disease before he qualifies. Yet, he, like every other working American, will have contributed to Medicare for decades.

Finally, occupation helps determine how long you live. Low-income workers are more likely to be engaged in work that is physically grueling. By age 65, the body is wearing out. At that point, a person needs Medicare.

As David A. Smith, Director, Public Policy Department, American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL–CIO) testified at a 1998 hearing on the Future of Social Security before the House Ways and Means Sub Committee on Social Security:  “It is clear that people who spend their work lives scrubbing floors in a nursing home, moving 5 liter engine blocks around a factory floor, pouring steel into a Bessemer mill, or hauling bricks around a construction site can count on a shorter life span and a shorter work life. They are more likely to experience work place injuries and to lack the continued physical endurance necessary to perform their jobs very far into their 60’s.”

As a simple matter of fairness, asking those who have worked harder to wait another  two years before receiving Medicare seems cruel.

                                       The Bogus Financial Argument 

Admittedly Republicans might not acknowledge the “fairness” argument. If you believe that a person’s health is a matter of “personal responsibility,” you might say that if the poor are aging faster than the rest of us, it is because they smoke, eat too many carbs, and generally “don’t take care of themselves.”                                           

But, fairness aside, when you look at the numbers, it turns out that the claim that we can save billions by requiring that everyone wait until 67 before applying for Medicare is bogus.
Continue reading

18 COMMENTS SO FAR -- ADD ONE