opa-opines.net

The health insurance companies are spending millions of dollars to defeat any changes to our current health care system.   Why?  Is it because the insurance companies fear that can’t compete with a public option?   Let is consider several points.

1.  Some note that the Health Insurance Companies finance republican legislators and “blue dog” democrats.  Is this support to insure that these congresspersons vote as the Insurance companies desire?

2.  Health Insurance has been consolidated into only 7 companies.  The  companies are extremely profitable.  Do they fear losing business.

3.   Insurance companies only want to offer insurance policies to younger people and people who can pay.  The poor, sick and the elderly are not good risks.

4.  Health care companies want Medicare to continue.  They do not want to insure older Americans.  They want Medicaid to continue as they do not want to insure poor people.

5.  Health Companies, between 1960-1980, spent lots of time and money to get congress to redesign medicare so that it covered all Americans at age 65.  Insurance companies then canceled policies for older Americans.  Now some offer “supplemental” insurance that pays only when Medicare recognizes the procedure (that is profitable because Medicare does the administration)

6.  Companies & RNC fatcats are sponsoring TV ads to stimulate fear – - make up charges, like the government wants to kill seniors (like H. W. Bush ?).  Is it because they only want insurance to cover rich people?  They want to leave 45 million people without insurance – maybe let taxpayers take this burden.  They don’t want a “public option”, but what is it when people without insurance go to the emergency room for care (bill goes to government and is paid for by taxes)

Should Americans have public health care?

1.  The VA is rated the best health care system in the US.  It is 2/3 as expensive as Medicare (per patient).

2.  Medicare is the best civilian system,  Most efficient, least costly.

3.  VA/Medicare costs less than 5% (admin, operations, etc.)  95% to care.

4.  Private Insurance spends more than 20 % for admin.  Only 80% to care.

5.  Members of Congress have public health care – and love it. Why don’t they want it for you?

A choice must be made, but what is really best for the American people?

I just read a fund-raising letter.  It was not for elections in 2010 or 2012, but for policy fights now.

Seems that the republican party has dropped the American custom of accepting election results and becoming the loyal opposition.  Our history is filled with hard fought campaigns, followed by the losing party working with the winning party for the good of the nation.  It was not that the losing party suddenly agreed with the winning party, it was that they cooperated in most matters (especially national security), while keeping the government’s actions in check.

But now, for some reason, politicians are raising money to battle in the media for policy alternatives they failed to sell during the last election.  What are the trying to sell?  I have heard of three areas: economic recovery, the war, and healthcare.  All three of these issues were fought over in the last election campaign.  The election is over, so the fighting should now be in congress not in the media.

Congressional sessions are mostly dull and meaningless.  The democrats  propose a bill, and the republicans say no.  This is not working toward a solution to our problems, but an expensive avoidance.  This is not legislating, but attempted intimidation.  If a politician does not like a proposal, he buys media time for ads that attack the opponents,  instead of researching the issue and presenting either arguments diminishing the problem or alternatives to the offered solution.

Much of what politicians put in the media is flagrant fear mongering.

This must end.  The American people have not trusted congress for many years and with all the mindless bickering, the lack of trust will surely grow.  We the people need to stand up and tell congress to do their job.  We need to tell them to get to work at the people’s business or plan to be fired at the soonest opportunity.

Robert Samuelson complains inordinately about how the Obama administration is hurting oil and gas companies by not encouraging exploration. Sounds horrible. But what he is really saying is that our national government hesitates to provide monetary incentives (welfare) to giant oil companies. They already make huge profits off of our purchase of their products, and are provided favorable leases on government land.

Giant corporations preach against programs that help people in need. To them, and to many rich people, “welfare”, funds to assist people and families in need, is very bad. However funds, tax credits, and favorable breaks, like very cheap fees for leasing federal lands, is wonderful. Is it the role of our federal government to support business and not citizens?  I certainly hope not.

During previous administrations our government encouraged the oil companies with numerous incentives. We provided tax breaks, exploration grants, cheap leases of government land for oil exploration and production. Why is that not enough now? Is Robert Samuelson suggesting that the companies will decide not to conduct dependable business without another government program?

Our federal budget is limited, especially now. Too many giant corporations are looking for more government handouts. We need to revise our policy. We need government incentives that provide jobs, not profits. We need programs to rescue our economy from the mess that was made by huge financial corporations who were seeking more profit and selfishly ignoring the public good.

Another of Samuelson’s complaints was that we should reduce any funds for “green” energy and apply it to oil and gas instead. To me that is very short sighted. Samuelson claims that green sources will not replace the oil and gas we need for automobiles and trucks. He is probably correct in the very near future, but with a real technological push, green sources such as solar, could fuel batteries that could power our vehicles. If we do not make such efforts a goal, we will certainly fail to reduce our use of petroleum. And if we do not reduce our use of petroleum we will at the mercy of other countries. Personally, I think being at the mercy of oil exporting nations is a very dangerous concept.

Yesterday I received another Internet file with bad claims. This note attacked the current federal administration rather viciously. The letter was claimed to be written by a very distinguished history professor. Because of several errors in the letter that I judged would be avoided by a Professor associated with Carnegie Mellon, Harvard, and the US Navy War College, I decided to investigate. The results are astounding.

First, when asked, the “source” of the letter claims that he did not write the letter. Second, several months ago the letter was circulated around the Internet with the name of a different distinguished scholar who also denied authorship. Third another version of the letter was circulated last fall attributed to a different authority who denies credit. So, the authorship is at least very questionable.

Second, the letter is full of false data. The letter claims, at the time Hitler rose to power: that “Germany was the most educated, the most cultured country in Europe.” A real historian might compare the cultures of England, France, Austria and Switzerland with Germany, but never make a broad assertion of German superiority. The letter also claims that “Winston Churchill pointed out the obvious (about Hitler) in the late 1930s while seated in the House of Lords in England (he was not yet Prime Minister), he was booed into his seat and called a crazy troublemaker.” The reaction to Churchill did occur but not for the reasons asserted, and not in the House of Lords because he was not a Lord in the 1930s.

Then the letter attacks the President. For example: “Surely you have
heard him speak about his idea to create and fund a mandatory civilian defense
force stronger than our military for use inside our borders?”   This is an obvious distortion for anyone who bothers to keep up with the news (and in my case actually read the documents produced by our government and its leaders).

Anyway, if the President decided to create a civilian defense force, that would be an actual benefit to anyone thinking that we need to protect our borders and ports from terrorists.  Also  that is not a job for our military (unless one wants to build an multimillion person military).

Why do people invent information and spread it through e-mails? Do they believe the American public is gullible or ignorant? Why do people circulate such trash? Is it from a dislike of the democratic administration? If so, this is not the way to fight. Lies are eventually caught and the person spreading the lies discredited. There is much to argue about without inventing falsehoods. Why not try actually discussing the issues? Is it too much trouble to look at actual data and consider it in an unbiased manner? Or do we simply prefer to let the small minded manipulate us? 

Recently an article in the NYT explained that a company, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS), had been created to simplify the selling of mortgages between banks. The process was so streamlined that mortgaged property was no longer registered with county clerks. The process was streamlined to avoid tracing the banks who held and sold the mortgages. The process ignored the mortgagee, the poor fool who was required to pay and would be unable to ever renegotiate the loan*.

We have, for most of our history, registered property ownership with the local government. This procedure protected all parties involved, the seller who lost liability based upon the property, the buyer who could be assured ownership of the property, and the local government who could base taxes upon landownership.

MERS violates the rights of everyone except the huge bank trading in mortgages. I disagree with the New York Times. This process maybe controversial, but it only appears “legal”. How can MERS be legal if it is based upon a law or ruling that violates the rights of two thirds of the legal participants in the transaction? The huge banks are attempting to scam the American people.

I believe, along with most Americans, that one should be responsible for their own actions. The banks contrived this plot, so they, and not the homeowner, should suffer the consequences. Our government must stand up and announce that if the legal title has been manipulated by the banks and MERS, they must lose all claim to the property.

* Excerpts from NYT article.   “Although the average person has never heard of it, MERS — short for Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems — holds 60 million mortgages on American homes, through a legal maneuver that has saved banks more than $1 billion over the last decade but made life maddeningly difficult for some troubled homeowners”.

Created by lenders seeking to save millions of dollars on paperwork and public recording fees

every time a loan changes hands, MERS is a confidential

computer registry for trading mortgage loans. From an office in the Washington suburbs, it played an integral, if unsung, role in the proliferation of mortgage-backed securities that fueled the housing boom. But with the collapse of the housing market, the name of MERS has been popping up on foreclosure notices and on court dockets across the country, raising many questions about the way this controversial but legal process obscures the tortuous paths of mortgage ownership.

Isn’t the election of 2008 finished? For what reason are the members of the defeated party still giving speeches against the winning party? Why do the republicans find it necessary to provide their own “budget” before even voting upon the one proposed by the democratic leaders? When will the election cycle be completed? If I remember correctly, we have a tradition in America. We campaign hard for the candidate and/or policies that we prefer, then accept the winner and get on with our lives until the next election cycle. In that vein, although we may have voted for the loser in an election, we give the winner a chance for success. Unlike some countries that regularly stage coup against their “leaders”, our cultural tenets helps us maintain a stable society.

The election of 2008 was a long, rough, and very expensive campaign. The “primaries” lasted a year, and raised many millions of dollars. We were treated to about 25 presidential “debates”. The issues presented showed a very clear difference among the candidates and between the parties. In November 2008 it seemed that an actual mandate had been received as “the people” gave the winning presidential contender a more than 8.5 million vote victory and a clear majority in both houses of the congress. Most Americans breathed a huge sign of relief, no more politics for awhile.

Little did we know.

The campaign is still raging. Republicans regularly release statements defining their “agenda”, and act like they still believe they are in control. When the majority party proposes a bill, the minority tries to vote unanimously against it – often succeeding. For many years, the citizens of the USA have complained about partisan bickering. That bickering seems to be worse after the election than it was before or during the election.

To fuel the partisan fighting, many congressmen and several committees or groups are still trying to raise money. These financial appeals are not directed at removing old campaign debt, but to battle against the other party. And, of course, both parties are frantically raising money.

When will they realize that we already cast our vote? When will they yield to tradition and simply do their work? Don’t they realize that if this does not stop “the people” may increasingly avoid both political parties?

I don’t know anyone that likes the bickering. Listening to the news, we believe that our nation has many serious problems. Health care is in crisis. The economy is sputtering. We are involved in two wars. The people I know prefer that our representatives just solve the problems.

 

Who does the economic crisis really hurt? Some politicos claim they are not hurt, that they have yet to see a recession. Maybe that is because they are somehow insulated from “main street”, as I frequently see people in pain due to our ailing economy. So, what is the face of a person hurt by our current economic crises?

First, we have the unemployed father of six children, who recently lost his job due to a “slow down”. He is a single dad since his wife was killed In a automobile accident ten months ago. How will he survive, how can he earn enough money to feed and clothe his children, pay for rent and utilities, and gas for the car? He knows that on unemployment compensation he cannot meet his obligations.

Then there is the teacher who was let go and no longer has a job because of low funds in the school district. He may survive on his job at a fast food restaurant. It is his students, now in a much larger class, whose education is suffering. One of his classes needed to be eliminated. so the students who can no longer take the subject he once taught are the ones whose education is hurting.

Others are the fireman and rookie police officer fired because the city budget can not afford their salaries. Yes, both are having some financial problems, but it is the city than suffers. Without an adequate force some

homeowner’s house may burn down. With fewer police the crime rate may increase. Due to budget problems caused by a lowered tax base, the city is not as safe.

Finally, workers nearing retirement are losing their nest eggs. Many, after decades of carefully building for their retirement have had their funds nearly eliminated. People who planned on retiring in the next few years now face long delays in their planned retirement. A few may need to work the rest of their lives.

So, I doubt that many politicians are really experiencing difficulties due to the recession as their salary and benefits are not sensitive to the economy. Some bankers lost their jobs but most left with huge bonus payments. Many companies went bankrupt but only the small business owners are in dire condition.

Typically it is those in poverty, the homeless, and the middle class who have real problems in a recession. If our politicians do not see that then they are not really in touch with the majority of the voters.

This is part of the continuing series on rewording confusing economic advice. I have found another expert who disagrees with other experts.

Next expert is Reid Hoffman, Chairman of LinkkedIn.com, a very sophisticated professional international network.

Reid says we should borrow to “invest not spend”. Further we should invest in small business that “create new products and services”. Reid counsels that we spend much more in “entrepreneurship”.

Reid Hoffman’s concept appears to be something in which we could all agree. Not being a soothsayer, however, I wonder where to “invest”. I also wonder how the “new jobs” will fit our growing unemployment problem.

I believe that Mr. Hoffman is suggesting we gamble a bit to energize the future economy. Reid seems to think can ferret out exactly which products and services will succeed in the world economy. Reid has a plan and suggests we take a chance.

 Are we ready to gamble?

This is part of the continuing series on rewording confusing economic advice. I have found another expert who disagrees with other experts.

Our next expert is Bill George, professor, Harvard Business School

Bill says that jobs are the most important indicator to watch for signs that the recession has bottomed.” * People without jobs do not spend. He predicts increased unemployment and claims it is unlikely that we will recover anytime in 2009.

George condemns the old democratic social programs as distracting. He also insists that our government needs to learn the difference between saving jobs and creating new ones. He says we should put our focus upon creating new jobs and allow the economy to retool.

So he is suggesting we stop trying to “save” jobs. What is important is the economy, not the people. So we must stop bailing out banks and ignore companies that are going bankrupt. Weak companies need to die to make room for the future. And, of course, new or retooled companies will create future jobs that are better than the old ones.

I can’t wait to inform my 2 year old grandson that he will have a job when he is ready to work in 2025.

Now aren’t you encouraged?

This is part of the continuing series on rewording confusing economic advice. I have found another expert who disagrees with other experts.

This time we focus upon expert Jeremy Siegel, professor of finance, Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania.

Professor Siegel is optimistic about recent indicators: several Federal Reserve actions; decrease in mortgage rates; stabilization of three indicators, retail sales, consumer sentiment, and housing.

The professor thinks Obama made two mistakes: first, having Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner brief the press with out details of his plan; and second, including tax increases in his long term plan. He believes that tax increases tamper optimism.

I think Siegel is telling us good news and bad news. Stable sales is good news but the bad news is that steady indicators are not really stable because they could change (if you understand that please explain it to me).

Further, Jeremy thinks tax increases for the wealthy will frighten them. So he prefers that instead of “tax and spend” or “spend and tax”, we should “spend and spend”.

Great idea. We can just print more money, it not worth as much as it was anyway.

Now don’t you feel better?