September 23rd marked six months since President Barack Obama signed the new health care reform bill into law. The new law contains a plethora of measures that aim to reform and improve the overall quality and availability of health care in America. However, most of the law's measures did not go into effect immediately upon the bill's passage. The first major milestone occurred yesterday, on September 23rd, when several key measures were implemented, some affecting almost everyone, others only initially affecting those with new and heavily revised insurance plans (with similar changes affecting all plans a little further in the future). Here are some of the ones I believe are most important:
* The lifetime limit or cap on what an insurance company will pay to cover an individual's medical costs is being eliminated for plans issued or renewed on or after September 23rd. So if you get very sick and require extensive, lengthy, and costly treatment, you no longer have to worry about your insurance "capping out" when you need it the most.
* Free preventative care for those with plans issued or renewed on or after September 23rd.
* Annual limits can no longer be lower than $750,000 for plans issued or renewed on or after September 23rd. By 2014 annual limits will be entirely eliminated.
* Insurers can no longer deny coverage to children with pre-existing conditions.
* Parents can keep their adult children on their health plans until age 26.
* Insurers can no longer cancel policies retroactively when a person becomes ill.
An Associated Press article has more details about these and other changes. Perhaps most significantly to some, health insurance benefit consulting companies have estimated that the cost impact of the new benefits from the health care law on insurance premiums will be relatively small. Some of the worst practices of health insurance companies, that have ruined the lives of many Americans, are coming to an end with these changes.
September 24, 2010
September 15, 2010
Seven Percent of Republicans Are Not Completely Out of Their Minds
A recent nationwide survey found that a majority of Republicans believe that Obama "sympathizes with the goals of Islamic fundamentalists who want to impose Islamic law around the world."
According to the poll, 14 percent of Republicans said that from what they knew of Obama, they thought such allegations were "definitely true"; 38 percent thought the allegations were "probably true." Meanwhile, 33 percent of Republicans thought they were "probably not true" and 7 percent thought they were "definitely not true."
Never mind the legitimate ideological differences over economic, education, immigration, and health care policy between conservatives and liberals. This polling, along with the whole right-wing narrative of President Barack Obama being a closet Islamic extremist (who wasn't born in the U.S.), who wants to destroy the U.S. from the inside out, goes a long way in showing that in much of today's electorate, there really is no basis for rational debate of the current issues. How can you hold a calm, rational, fact-based discussion about Obama's policies with someone who believes that Obama sympathizes with the goals of Islamic fundamentalists (and for many Republicans, this term is synonymous with al-Qaeda)? The answer is you can't.
And the crazed theories do not stop with Islamic extremism. A few minutes of FOX News will often teach you that Obama is a blood-thirsty communist-socialist whose policies are equal to those of Hitler, Stalin, and Mao. No one on FOX News has been more diligent in making those comparisons to Obama than Glenn Beck. (Anyone who has studied political science and understands the actual definition of socialism realizes the vast differences between Obama's policies and socialism. That's a long story and perhaps will be the subject of another post. Nonetheless, in making these socialism comparisons, I love how the most brutal dictators of the last century are invoked. FOX News pundits would not arouse the conservative base if they compared Obama to say, Chancellor Merkel, Former Prime Minister Brown, or President Berlusconi, whose countries' policies are much closer to the true definition of socialism (but still not that close) than the U.S.)
The 93 percent of Republicans who believe that it is "definitely true," "probably true," or even "probably not true" (meaning there is still a chance) that President Obama sympathizes with Muslim extremists who want to impose Shari'a law globally, need to find a way to connect with reality, or they are guilty of some severe intellectual dishonesty.
It is one thing to question the President's policies based on one's political ideals. We all should be encouraged to develop our own informed view of our President's policies. And contrary to what I was told by many conservatives during the Bush years, there is nothing wrong with disagreeing with our President (they always invoked "Commander-in-Chief" in explaining why it was inappropriate to disagree with Bush). It is an entirely different thing to question his loyalty to and love of our country. There is absolutely no basis for these kinds of crazed theories being attached to President Obama. In many cases, it is nothing more than veiled bigotry or racism.
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich recently stated that the best way to understand President Obama, as the president “is so outside our comprehension” that you can only understand him “if you understand Kenyan, anticolonial behavior.” Gingrich was commenting on an article written by right-wing extremist Dinesh D’Souza, who compared Obama to his Kenyan father in an article in Forbes Magazine, stating, “incredibly, the U.S. is being ruled according to the dreams of a Luo tribesman of the 1950s. This philandering, inebriated African socialist, who raged against the world for denying him the realization of his anticolonial ambitions, is now setting the nation’s agenda through the reincarnation of his dreams in his son.” Never mind that Obama never really knew his father as his father left him and his mother when Obama was age two. Gingrich and D'Souza have descended into baseless, deceitful, fear-mongering.
A recent article in the New York Times, which explored conservatives' ongoing efforts to create and define Obama's "otherness," pointed out that, per these efforts, "Mr. Obama’s alleged sympathy for so-called Muslim extremists who would desecrate the World Trade Center site, his socialist African ancestry and his early years in Indonesia — all of this creates a shadowy archetype that every conservative enclave, fiscal, foreign policy and religious, can find a reason to fear."
So in considering all of this, it is no wonder why only 7% of Republicans believe it is definitely not true that Obama sympathizes with the goals of Islamic fundamentalists who want to impose Islamic law throughout the world. This kind narrative of President Obama's "otherness" is being supported by some of the most prominent conservatives politicians and has the backing of many conservative special interest groups. From the accusations that Obama was not born in the U.S., and the assertions that he is (or was) secretly a Muslim, to Gingrich's latest pontification about Obama's "Kenyan anticolonial behavior," conservatives are doing anything but focusing on the issues that matter most to Americans. So if you are part of that 7%, I urge you to help ground the other 93% in some semblance of reality when it comes to these attacks. Teach them the difference between attacking the dignity of our President through the spread of these rumors (which is an unpatriotic thing to do) verses critiquing his policies.
According to the poll, 14 percent of Republicans said that from what they knew of Obama, they thought such allegations were "definitely true"; 38 percent thought the allegations were "probably true." Meanwhile, 33 percent of Republicans thought they were "probably not true" and 7 percent thought they were "definitely not true."
Never mind the legitimate ideological differences over economic, education, immigration, and health care policy between conservatives and liberals. This polling, along with the whole right-wing narrative of President Barack Obama being a closet Islamic extremist (who wasn't born in the U.S.), who wants to destroy the U.S. from the inside out, goes a long way in showing that in much of today's electorate, there really is no basis for rational debate of the current issues. How can you hold a calm, rational, fact-based discussion about Obama's policies with someone who believes that Obama sympathizes with the goals of Islamic fundamentalists (and for many Republicans, this term is synonymous with al-Qaeda)? The answer is you can't.
And the crazed theories do not stop with Islamic extremism. A few minutes of FOX News will often teach you that Obama is a blood-thirsty communist-socialist whose policies are equal to those of Hitler, Stalin, and Mao. No one on FOX News has been more diligent in making those comparisons to Obama than Glenn Beck. (Anyone who has studied political science and understands the actual definition of socialism realizes the vast differences between Obama's policies and socialism. That's a long story and perhaps will be the subject of another post. Nonetheless, in making these socialism comparisons, I love how the most brutal dictators of the last century are invoked. FOX News pundits would not arouse the conservative base if they compared Obama to say, Chancellor Merkel, Former Prime Minister Brown, or President Berlusconi, whose countries' policies are much closer to the true definition of socialism (but still not that close) than the U.S.)
The 93 percent of Republicans who believe that it is "definitely true," "probably true," or even "probably not true" (meaning there is still a chance) that President Obama sympathizes with Muslim extremists who want to impose Shari'a law globally, need to find a way to connect with reality, or they are guilty of some severe intellectual dishonesty.
It is one thing to question the President's policies based on one's political ideals. We all should be encouraged to develop our own informed view of our President's policies. And contrary to what I was told by many conservatives during the Bush years, there is nothing wrong with disagreeing with our President (they always invoked "Commander-in-Chief" in explaining why it was inappropriate to disagree with Bush). It is an entirely different thing to question his loyalty to and love of our country. There is absolutely no basis for these kinds of crazed theories being attached to President Obama. In many cases, it is nothing more than veiled bigotry or racism.
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich recently stated that the best way to understand President Obama, as the president “is so outside our comprehension” that you can only understand him “if you understand Kenyan, anticolonial behavior.” Gingrich was commenting on an article written by right-wing extremist Dinesh D’Souza, who compared Obama to his Kenyan father in an article in Forbes Magazine, stating, “incredibly, the U.S. is being ruled according to the dreams of a Luo tribesman of the 1950s. This philandering, inebriated African socialist, who raged against the world for denying him the realization of his anticolonial ambitions, is now setting the nation’s agenda through the reincarnation of his dreams in his son.” Never mind that Obama never really knew his father as his father left him and his mother when Obama was age two. Gingrich and D'Souza have descended into baseless, deceitful, fear-mongering.
A recent article in the New York Times, which explored conservatives' ongoing efforts to create and define Obama's "otherness," pointed out that, per these efforts, "Mr. Obama’s alleged sympathy for so-called Muslim extremists who would desecrate the World Trade Center site, his socialist African ancestry and his early years in Indonesia — all of this creates a shadowy archetype that every conservative enclave, fiscal, foreign policy and religious, can find a reason to fear."
So in considering all of this, it is no wonder why only 7% of Republicans believe it is definitely not true that Obama sympathizes with the goals of Islamic fundamentalists who want to impose Islamic law throughout the world. This kind narrative of President Obama's "otherness" is being supported by some of the most prominent conservatives politicians and has the backing of many conservative special interest groups. From the accusations that Obama was not born in the U.S., and the assertions that he is (or was) secretly a Muslim, to Gingrich's latest pontification about Obama's "Kenyan anticolonial behavior," conservatives are doing anything but focusing on the issues that matter most to Americans. So if you are part of that 7%, I urge you to help ground the other 93% in some semblance of reality when it comes to these attacks. Teach them the difference between attacking the dignity of our President through the spread of these rumors (which is an unpatriotic thing to do) verses critiquing his policies.
September 10, 2010
An Act with a Vision for the Future
Even prior to its enactment, there has been much heated opposition to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, a.k.a. President Obama's economic stimulus plan. Opponents have tried to smear it as a bill laden with earmarks (which is not true) that wasted money on pointless projects. Opponents have also (correctly) pointed out that it is mostly paid with borrowed money (I'll come to that later). However, the Recovery Act has gone further than any prior piece of legislation in the past half century in revolutionizing antiquated areas of our economy. And it truly has kept the economy from the brink of depression.
Perhaps the keystone effort of the stimulus plan was its investment in a variety of projects that will make America more energy efficient and less dependent on carbon fuels (and the despotic regimes that supply us with them.) One of my key concerns in the 2008 Presidential Election was selecting a candidate who would make energy independence their priority. This act was a big step in the right direction for a green energy economy and the investments it makes in new technologies has the potential to create tens of millions of jobs.
The notion that private corporations are primarily interested in the short term (to satisfy shareholders) and do not invest nearly enough in research and development that would primarily provide benefits in the long run is a well-established economic idea. Some of the most important inventions of the past 100 years, that are the backbone of today's economy, have been supported by government-funded research. The cellular phone, computers, the Internet, and GPS are but a few of the most important inventions that have come about in large part due to research performed by U.S. taxpayer-funded scientists and engineers. Corporate America's fiercest foreign competition significantly benefits from foreign government-sponsored research and development. A good example of this is Airbus, which is a consortium of French, British, German, and Spanish aerospace companies, that have received very heavy investment from their respective governments. As a result of all of the R&D and other investment European taxpayers made into Airbus, that company has now surpassed Boeing as the world's largest supplier of commercial airliners and has provided an incredible amount of high tech jobs to those countries. Perhaps the most important idea I learned in studying economics is the fact that more than anything else, new technology drives economic growth. Many if not most of the jobs lost during the Great Recession are not coming back. The way to get America back on its feet is to develop the technologies that will be the backbone of the future economy. We have plenty of tough competition. Europe, China, and India all invest a significant amount of money in research and development in support of their key industries. If America wants to lead in and reap the benefits of the future global economy, we must ensure we invest money into today's research that will be tomorrow's must-have technology. I cannot think of a better use of my tax dollars.
So in returning to the Recovery Act, a recent TIME Magazine article gave an impressive summary of what types of energy investments the Recovery Act is making.
- Tax cuts for 95% of working Americans (Federal taxes now are at the lowest rates they've been in over 50 years for middle class Americans, so please remind me what Tea Partiers are complaining about again?)
- Bailed out most state governments to avoid laying off hundreds of thousands of school teachers, police officers, fire fighters, and other state and local officials.
- Provided record amounts of unemployment benefits to record numbers of unemployed workers.
- Funded upgrades to roads, bridges (recall the Minneapolis I-35 bridge collapse), schools, airports (ever flown through JFK?), military bases (recall reports about the decrepit Fort Bragg barracks, among others).
- Computerized paper health care records system (to reduce redundant tests and errors caused by doctors with bad handwriting).
- Invested in public transportation, including high speed rails.
This act provided for a smart balance of near-term projects to help prevent the economy from suffering a complete and utter collapse while assisting those most vulnerable in the Great Recession (the unemployed) along with long-term investment that would lay the groundwork for our future economy. As Kristin Mayes, the Republican chair of Arizona's utility commission stated, "It will leverage a very different energy future... it really moves us toward a tipping point." As an older post pointed out, there are key economic indicators that indicate we have stepped back from the brink and are moving in the right direction.
Despite all of the carping by the Tea Party types about the federal deficit and its contribution from the Recovery Act, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office has indicated that the Bush tax cuts are the single biggest contributor to the structural deficit. (Extending the Bush tax cuts would add $2.3 trillion to the 2018 debt. I really hate the term "Bush tax cut" because they really were not tax cuts, but tax deferrals as they were paid for with credit. Congress and former President Bush essentially extended America a loan that would need to be paid for by our children.) The next biggest contributor to the long-term deficit are the two current wars. While the Bush Administration initially estimated that the Iraq War's cost would be less than $100 billion, latest estimates are that it will be over $3 trillion. Has the Recovery Act contributed to the deficit? Of course it has. However, a concept that was taught to me by multiple economics professors at the not-at-all-liberal Brigham Young University was that truly the only time deficit spending by a government is warranted is in the case of a severe economic recession (which we were in), in order to stimulate the economy. These not-at-all-liberal BYU economics professors also supported a volume of economic data and research that indicates such stimulus spending helped the economy recover during the Great Depression.
So the next time a FOX News pundit laments how your tax dollars were completely wasted in the "stimulus act" and that it had no net affect, you'll know their argument is hogwash.
Perhaps the keystone effort of the stimulus plan was its investment in a variety of projects that will make America more energy efficient and less dependent on carbon fuels (and the despotic regimes that supply us with them.) One of my key concerns in the 2008 Presidential Election was selecting a candidate who would make energy independence their priority. This act was a big step in the right direction for a green energy economy and the investments it makes in new technologies has the potential to create tens of millions of jobs.
The notion that private corporations are primarily interested in the short term (to satisfy shareholders) and do not invest nearly enough in research and development that would primarily provide benefits in the long run is a well-established economic idea. Some of the most important inventions of the past 100 years, that are the backbone of today's economy, have been supported by government-funded research. The cellular phone, computers, the Internet, and GPS are but a few of the most important inventions that have come about in large part due to research performed by U.S. taxpayer-funded scientists and engineers. Corporate America's fiercest foreign competition significantly benefits from foreign government-sponsored research and development. A good example of this is Airbus, which is a consortium of French, British, German, and Spanish aerospace companies, that have received very heavy investment from their respective governments. As a result of all of the R&D and other investment European taxpayers made into Airbus, that company has now surpassed Boeing as the world's largest supplier of commercial airliners and has provided an incredible amount of high tech jobs to those countries. Perhaps the most important idea I learned in studying economics is the fact that more than anything else, new technology drives economic growth. Many if not most of the jobs lost during the Great Recession are not coming back. The way to get America back on its feet is to develop the technologies that will be the backbone of the future economy. We have plenty of tough competition. Europe, China, and India all invest a significant amount of money in research and development in support of their key industries. If America wants to lead in and reap the benefits of the future global economy, we must ensure we invest money into today's research that will be tomorrow's must-have technology. I cannot think of a better use of my tax dollars.
So in returning to the Recovery Act, a recent TIME Magazine article gave an impressive summary of what types of energy investments the Recovery Act is making.
The investments extend all along the food chain. A brave new world of electric cars powered by coal plants could be dirtier than the oil-soaked status quo, so the stimulus includes an unheard-of $3.4 billion for clean-coal projects aiming to sequester or reuse carbon. There are also lucrative loan guarantees for constructing the first American nuclear plants in three decades. And after the credit crunch froze financing for green energy, stimulus cash has fueled a comeback, putting the U.S. on track to exceed Obama's goal of doubling renewable power by 2012. The wind industry added a record 10,000 megawatts in 2009. The stimulus is also supporting the nation's largest photovoltaic solar plant, in Florida, and what will be the world's two largest solar thermal plants, in Arizona and California, plus thousands of solar installations on homes and buildings.Recovery Act money was also used as follows:
The stimulus is helping scores of manufacturers of wind turbines and solar products expand as well, but today's grid can only handle so much wind and solar. A key problem is connecting remote wind farms to population centers, so there are billions of dollars for new transmission lines. Then there is the need to find storage capacity for when it isn't windy or sunny outside. The current grid is like a phone system without voice mail, a just-in-time network where power is wasted if it doesn't reach a user the moment it's generated. That's why the Recovery Act is funding dozens of smart-grid approaches.
The Recovery Act's clean-energy push is designed not only to reduce our old economy dependence on fossil fuels that broil the planet, blacken the Gulf and strengthen foreign petro-thugs but also to avoid replacing it with a new economy that is just as dependent on foreign countries for technology and manufacturing. Last year, exactly two U.S. factories made advanced batteries for electric vehicles. The stimulus will create 30 new ones, expanding U.S. production capacity from 1% of the global market to 20%, supporting half a million plug-ins and hybrids. The idea is as old as land-grant colleges: to use tax dollars as an engine of innovation.
- Tax cuts for 95% of working Americans (Federal taxes now are at the lowest rates they've been in over 50 years for middle class Americans, so please remind me what Tea Partiers are complaining about again?)
- Bailed out most state governments to avoid laying off hundreds of thousands of school teachers, police officers, fire fighters, and other state and local officials.
- Provided record amounts of unemployment benefits to record numbers of unemployed workers.
- Funded upgrades to roads, bridges (recall the Minneapolis I-35 bridge collapse), schools, airports (ever flown through JFK?), military bases (recall reports about the decrepit Fort Bragg barracks, among others).
- Computerized paper health care records system (to reduce redundant tests and errors caused by doctors with bad handwriting).
- Invested in public transportation, including high speed rails.
This act provided for a smart balance of near-term projects to help prevent the economy from suffering a complete and utter collapse while assisting those most vulnerable in the Great Recession (the unemployed) along with long-term investment that would lay the groundwork for our future economy. As Kristin Mayes, the Republican chair of Arizona's utility commission stated, "It will leverage a very different energy future... it really moves us toward a tipping point." As an older post pointed out, there are key economic indicators that indicate we have stepped back from the brink and are moving in the right direction.
Despite all of the carping by the Tea Party types about the federal deficit and its contribution from the Recovery Act, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office has indicated that the Bush tax cuts are the single biggest contributor to the structural deficit. (Extending the Bush tax cuts would add $2.3 trillion to the 2018 debt. I really hate the term "Bush tax cut" because they really were not tax cuts, but tax deferrals as they were paid for with credit. Congress and former President Bush essentially extended America a loan that would need to be paid for by our children.) The next biggest contributor to the long-term deficit are the two current wars. While the Bush Administration initially estimated that the Iraq War's cost would be less than $100 billion, latest estimates are that it will be over $3 trillion. Has the Recovery Act contributed to the deficit? Of course it has. However, a concept that was taught to me by multiple economics professors at the not-at-all-liberal Brigham Young University was that truly the only time deficit spending by a government is warranted is in the case of a severe economic recession (which we were in), in order to stimulate the economy. These not-at-all-liberal BYU economics professors also supported a volume of economic data and research that indicates such stimulus spending helped the economy recover during the Great Depression.
So the next time a FOX News pundit laments how your tax dollars were completely wasted in the "stimulus act" and that it had no net affect, you'll know their argument is hogwash.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)