Moneyed Politicians

Anything would be better than what we have; or not!

By Jack E. Lohman

Our politicians have ruined our economy by spending good taxes on bad policy. Who would complain about taxation if there wasn’t do much waste and special interest giveaways?

A recent Institute for Wisconsin’s Future newsletter noted that “Due to state budget shortfalls, assistant district attorneys across the state may receive pink slips.”  That’s not good news for the state.

California is looking to furlough tens of thousands of non-violent criminals because they can no longer afford to house them. Criminals are being put on the street because taxes were used to satisfy special interest giveaways instead.

Wisconsin is no better off. We are spending billions on road building (the Zoo, Oconomowoc and Airport Interchanges, I94 Milwaukee to Chicago, Hoan Bridge, and others), but we are withholding funds needed by localities to strengthen schools and fire and police coverage.

Is it any wonder that the Tea Partiers are marching?

They don’t like our political system, but they don’t really know why. Some are D’s and others R’s, but frightfully, some are fringe wackos. Let’s hope the former oust the latter and we move on to fix the system.

The Partiers haven’t been told by their leaders (extremists Dick Armey, Rush Limbaugh, and Glenn Beck) what the real problem is, and if or when they find out they’ll be even madder than they are today. And I hope they will be, as I support their ire. Their leaders are scary.

They are being misled. Conservatives promise that tax cuts will lead to more jobs, but that’s wishful thinking. Remember George Bush’s tax cuts in 2001 and 2003? Where are the jobs they were supposed to create? Yea, I know, in China and India.

Obama’s election promised change, but the election in Massachusetts sent the needed message: he isn’t cutting it. Whether he has finally smartened up only time will tell. He says he’d rather be a good one-term president than a bad two-term president, but he may get a mixture: a bad one termer. And he’s got a good start already.

1. The recent Supreme Court decision didn’t help, and Obama’s failure to reform congress has made it worse. Robert Reich rightfully suggests “adequate public financing for presidential and congressional candidates who refuse private funding, more constraints on lobbyists, tighter rules for who must register as a lobbyist, fuller disclosure, and tougher rules on the revolving door between public service and private gain.”
   .
2. But we also need reforms on corporations. Let shareholders decide what political expenditures are made, if any at all. Also give them a binding vote on CEO and executive pay and bonuses, rather than defaulting to a conflicted “compensation consultant” hired by the CEO-friendly board. Let them also appoint and vote on the board of directors using the IRV voting system. If shareholders are to own the company, let them control it.
   .
3. We must also pay politicians depending on the degree to which they balance the budget while keeping the “tax per citizen” to a minimum.  That is, how well are they running the state/country? Double their wages if they do a good job, halve them if they don’t.

While the politicians should be ashamed of their corruption, the voters and taxpayers should be absolutely irate. Only a 100% turnover in November will fix it. Vote the incumbents out in the primary so you can stick to your favored party.

Tidbits

– Having owned stock in a company that was driven into the ground by exorbitant executive salaries and poor management, and having absolutely no say in its operation, I am indeed sympathetic to shareholders.

– On Reagan/Bush: “To cover tax cuts we stopped maintaining the infrastructure and started borrowing.  To satisfy their  hatred of government we increasingly stripped away rule of law, regulation, and belief in one-person-one-vote.  We are seeing the consequences of all of that coming back to roost now.”

– So Paul Ryan proposes a flat tax and vouchers for Medicare? Who’s paying this guy? Will congress switch to a voucher plan?

– Tax cuts? Yea, for small businesses only. Eliminate them!

– Dr. Margaret Flowers on Bill Moyers talking about single-payer healthcare.

But that’s the last thing Republicans want.

By Jack E. Lohman

What’s done is done, and we can thank Massachusetts voters for sending the message. Obama has not been keeping his promises, but maybe now he will.

1. Campaign Finance Reform: Don’t even think about moving forward without getting the political bribes out of the system. If the payola in the recent health care battle taught us anything, it’s that our politicians work for them and not us.
   .
   With the recent (stupid) Supreme Court ruling it is even more important to offset the corporate money. Public funding of campaigns — with matching public funds when a candidate is outspent — will level the playing field, enable more new challengers, and return political loyalties to the people. It’s optional, but incumbents will either switch or answer to the voters, and they’ll moderate or eliminate their corporate bias. Corporations are important, but not over the rest of society.
   .
   More importantly, it will reduce the political obstructionism and let congress get things done in the best interest of the nation’s economy.
   .
2. Bring Back Jobs: Jobless recovery? Dream on, it’s not possible. Temporary government jobs will be gone in a year and we’ll be back to where we started; except a lot poorer. We must (a) revisit NAFTA as promised, and (b) bail out 100% of  our U.S. corporations, not just the bankers and car manufacturers. Whatever we can save “American” corporations in taxes and health care costs will be invested in new jobs and economic growth.
   .
3. Zero Taxes for US Corporations: These taxes are passed to the consumers anyway and make our companies uncompetitive with foreign product. They should be eliminated or offset for companies who employ US workers, perhaps with a “per employee” subsidy for full time employees. Taxes on corporations that outsource jobs should be retained and increased.
   .
4. We must… absolutely MUST… implement a single-payer Medicare-for-all system. If not for reasons of humanity, then for the sake of our nation’s economy. Employer health care costs are 15% of wages and are passed on to the consumers in any case. But in the process we make our corporations uncompetitive and massive jobs are lost to countries that already have universal healthcare.
   .
   For the same dollars we are spending today (16.5% of GDP) we could provide first-class CheneyCare to 100% of our population. We’d pay for it differently — via our national infrastructure and progressive tax system rather than through wages — but we would remove this burden from employers and allow them to spend their money on wages and new jobs instead.
   .
   But sensible spending on health care is the last thing the insurance industry wants, because 31% of healthcare costs are going to the insurance bureaucracy.
   .
   And incidentally, our politicians share in every private health care dollar, because private insurance can give campaign contributions and Medicare can’t.

But note this: NOTHING will happen unless we taxpayers buy back our political system through public funding of campaigns. Write your congressmen and ask that they support the Fair Elections Now Act.

There are only two possible reasons why our country is in a tailspin: either our politicians are inept or they are corrupt, and there’s little indication of it being the former.

If campaign cash were not so relevant, politicians would not be spending half their time recruiting it and the other half protecting it.

Tidbits

– Want to know why we are spending $7 million on a railroad bridge in Nebraska and another in Florida? Follow the road builder’s campaign contributions. Want to know why your community is not getting shared revenues from the state, and is being forced into laying off police and fire fighters and eliminate special needs programs? Politicians are spending the cash satisfying their business cronies.

– Yea, I know. You want to be able to buy your congressman. Our so-called freedom of speech, don’cha know. We’ve had it for years; how are you liking the results?

– Banking reform? Don’t even think about it.

Voters of both parties are upset; they must kill this bill.

By Jack E. Lohman

This is the stupidest political giveaway I’ve seen in my 72 years on this earth. It eclipses even the $780 billion giveaway to the drug industry in 2003.

That our politicians have allowed the foxes — the pharmaceutical industry then, the insurance industry now — to control the health care debate is absolutely shameful, if not totally criminal. And the corruption is on both sides of the aisle.

Now it’s the corrupt Dems, but you can be sure that if the tables were turned it would be the corrupt R’s instead.  Even Senators Kohl and Feingold would not stand tough and demand a single-payer system, which 2/3rds of the nation supports. They must be pleased that insurance company stocks have increased by 30% since October.

The insurers caused today’s problem and must be eliminated from the system, not expanded as congress plans. Our insurance bureaucracy consumes 31% of our healthcare costs, and the bills before congress will increase waste to 40% (though much of it will be in government overhead, it is still a taxpayer cost).

Where are our heads?

Instead of health care draining 16.5% of GDP, as it is today, it will grow to 20% virtually overnight! And insurers will be the benefactor. Over 20 new governmental departments must now be supported by the taxpayers, all to administer the massive new mandates and taxes and regulations currently being traded on the House and Senate floor.

The most inclusive and efficient health care system is an “Expanded Medicare-for-all system,” and that administration is already in place! Has been for 50 years! The 31% of insurance bureaucracy waste would instead be spent on health care for America’s 15% who are unemployed or do not have coverage.

THAT is a single-payer system! It does not change your care, if you have it. It changes how we pay for it and increases participation to 100%.

All 100% of our citizens could receive first-class Cheney-care for the same dollars we are paying today. You get sick, you get care, and the caregiver gets paid. Simple as that.

But Oh, some will claim that’s “socialized medicine!”  They are wrong, because it uses our same private hospitals and doctors we use today. But what if they were right? Who cares? It works in virtually every other industrialized country!!!! And their employers are better off for it and hold a strong competitive advantage over companies in the US.

Yes, we’d pay for it differently; through taxes rather than wages. But it would bail out 100% of our companies that spend 15% of their wages on health care. Not just the banks and car manufacturers. And it would help bring jobs back to America.

Tidbits

– I didn’t vote for Obama, but when he was elected I at least had hope for the political system. I do no more. He has become a total waste, just like the others.

– IF this bill passes it may indeed be the Dem’s undoing. The R’s must be very hopeful at the moment, if they don’t crash and burn themselves.

– Why no transparency? What politician wants his constituents to see what goes on when he sleeps with the industry?

– They must kill this bill and restart from scratch. But first they must sideline the campaign cash that is buying their vote.

By Jack E. Lohman

“If I were a senator, I would not vote for the current health-care bill. Any measure that expands private insurers’ monopoly over health care and transfers millions of taxpayer dollars to private corporations is not real health-care reform. Real reform would insert competition into insurance markets, force insurers to cut unnecessary administrative expenses and spend health-care dollars caring for people. Real reform would significantly lower costs, improve the delivery of health care and give all Americans a meaningful choice of coverage. The current Senate bill accomplishes none of these.” By Howard Dean

Get this: “Improving access” comes at a dear price to those who get it and don’t want it or can’t afford it. The congressional plans will mandate that every US citizen buy medical insurance, much like mandated car insurance, whether they can afford it or not.

That’s called “mandated access,” not improving access. And frankly, everybody had this kind of “access” before, if they had the cash to pay for it. Now they will be forced to.

So if you’ve been using your money to instead put food on the table, get used to the change. The insurance industry wants some of it, and your favorite congressman is willing to give it to them, because he gets a share of the profits in the campaign contributions he receives from the industry.

That’s why they much prefer this thing called privatization; Medicare can’t give political cash but the privates can. And the longer they can keep the industry in the loop, the longer they can milk it going forward. So this is not an issue of old cash; they’ve received and spent that already. It’s about new and continued cash. Once they’ve finally switched to a single-payer system that cash stops.

And as Dean points out, “the legislation allows insurance companies to charge older Americans up to three times as much as younger Americans, pricing them out of coverage they are forced to buy.”

That improves access? And while they’ll be prohibited from denying pre-existing diseases, they’ll not be limited to what they can charge for such premiums. How’s that for an industry giveaway?

This bill will eclipse even Bush’s 2003 Medicare D, $780 billion giveaway to the pharmaceutical industry. And Pharma’s promise to Obama to give back $80 billion??? You can see their sincerity in the recent drug price increases and the fact that the “Senate last night voted down an amendment that would have allowed Americans to buy FDA-approved prescription drugs from overseas, where prices are usually much lower.”

So much for “presidential deals.”

This is “legal” organized crime.

Can it really be called anything else? I’ve searched for better words, but none can describe our political system more accurately.

This is absolutely amazing. Our “esteemed” politicians are in the pockets of the insurance and pharmaceutical industries, and get a piece of their mighty profits. Is it any wonder that they refuse to fix the healthcare system? Or any system, for that matter?

And we the voters live with it!!!

Obama’s willingness to roll over to the insurance industry, all to get a “win” under his belt, just may kill his presidency. His only possible savior will be the Teabaggers who promise to split the Republicans and conservatives.

I did not vote for Obama, but when he was elected I had hope. But I’ve lost even that now.

Wisconsinite’s views on health care reform

By Jack E. Lohman

Like others, the Badger Poll was taken of normal people who often are not versed in what’s truly behind the high costs of health care.

They were asked:

“Do you favor or oppose creating a health insurance plan that would be available to most Americans and administered by the federal government that would compete with plans offered by private health insurance companies?”

In today’s parlance that’s “a public option!”

Though a very impressive 58% answered YES, a “public option” means different things to different people. To the hopeful it means giving people and businesses the option to enter the non-profit Medicare system at cost, whose prices would be well below the privates and whose coverage is well above.

But to the politicians whose campaigns are funded by the insurance industry, it means “Okay, if we have to do this let’s make it miserable: higher prices, lower coverage, and let’s limit it to the unemployed and exclude companies to force them to stay with the industry. You know, let’s cover 2% instead of the 30% who are uninsured or under-insured. And oh, they’ll have to pay for it, and BIG TIME!”

Importantly, other polls show approval by 70% of the public, 80% of nurses, and 60% of physicians. And when people know all of the facts I expect the numbers will approximate the 90% of satisfied Canadians.

The new “option”

Then they wanted to replace the word “option” and allow 55-64 year olds the opportunity to buy into the Medicare system. But Joe Lieberman, who proposed it earlier and now opposes it, clearly got word that his insurance funders don’t like is. If you doubt the insurancw industry sway look at the recent increase in insurance company stocks for confirmation.

I Much prefer this way of polling:

#1 arguments and question:

Pro: Supporters of a single-payer Medicare-for-all system say that for the same dollars we are spending today, 16.5% of GDP, we could provide health care to 100% of the public, use the same private doctors and hospitals, disconnect it from employment, eliminate the need for COBRA, and free businesses to spend the savings on building and keeping jobs in the US. We’d pay for the system through infrastructure (taxes) rather than wages.

Con: Opponents say that this results in socialized medicine that will disproportionately cost the rich, and Blah, Blah, Blah (I’ll leave the rest to Rush Limbaugh, because I don’t know which of the lies are most believed.)

Now therefore:

Question #1:

“Do you favor the current for-profit insurance system that is tied to your employment, or a single-payer Medicare-for-all system that is not connected to employment and merges all Medicaid, BadgerCare, SCHIP and politicians into one system of everybody-in-nobody-out?”

1) Current system, leave the insurance industry in the loop

2) Medicare-for-all, remove the industry and spend the money saved on health care instead

3) Not sure

Wow, I’m not sure how to deal with the simplicity.  And neither are the politicians, as this asks a question in a way to get one yes-no answer. Their funders are likely not going to like the answer either, because they’ll be on the outside looking in, and the elimination of the insurance industry would mean that the politicians can’t share in future profits.

Damn, that complicates the whole thing! Back to the drawing board.

Tidbits

– If you never ask the right question you will never get the right answer, and congress refused to allow single-payer to be considered. It would have won hands down.

– The senators will have a chance to redeem themselves when Bernie Sanders introduces his bill to replace the mish-mash with a simple single-payer Medicare-for-all bill. But don’t count on our Sens. Kohl and Feingold signing on; both have refused to be co-sponsors in spite of their pretty letters espousing a good public solution. They have chosen to support the party leaders instead, all of whom have received millions from the insurance industry.

By Jack E. Lohman

Unfortunately, still with the politicians, and that’s not good. They have it so screwed up it’s pathetic. And now they’ll debate a $500 billion giveaway to the insurance industry at the expense of the public.

The best thing the politicians could do is kill everything in Congress and start from scratch.

But this time, instead of trying to satisfy the insurance and other campaign contributors, they should take themselves totally out of the loop, turn the issue over to a non-partisan, non-conflicted board of healthcare specialists and give them one chore: return to us the most humane, fair and efficient system for the people of the United States.

While we are waiting we can allow the uninsured and unemployed into Medicare.

And Oh, don’t reinvent the wheel. Visit with the experts in Taiwan who did this same thing for their country some years back. They studied the healthcare systems in every industrialized country in the world and returned with the most logical: An American-style Medicare system for every citizen in their country.

Wow. That sounds simple!

Canada’s system has been unfairly attacked by our insurance interests, mainly because it poses the biggest threat. It works. And they don’t want it to work and are lobbying their parliament to undo it. Tough job, but somebody’s got to do it.

Canada isn’t perfect…

… because they spend only 10% of GDP versus our 16.5%. If they increased their spending by another 2% of GDP they’d eliminate their wait times by expanding their number of hospital beds, diagnostic testing systems (MRIs, etc), and healthcare personnel.

Alternatively they could remove 1/6th of their population from the system, as we’ve done in the United States. That’s what we call “rationing,” and for 47 million of our friends and family members it is all too real.

Our Medicare is expensive on a per patient basis, but only because 70% of our health care costs are consumed in end-of-life. So Medicare gets the brunt of the criticism.

But expand Medicare to 100% of our population, upgrade the under-insured by eliminating pre-existings, replace Medicaid and SCHIP, eliminate co-pays, add vision and dental and mental parity, and the per-capita costs are still less than the $2.7 trillion we are paying today.

That’s what happens when you eliminate the waste and spend it on health care instead.

And as a current Medicare patient and former “private” patient, I’ll take Medicare any day. I see the same (private) doctor and go to the same (private) hospital I’ve enjoyed for years. They just send their bill to a different payer… the Medicare contractor in my state. A “private” contractor, incidentally, with local employees.

What’s wrong with this picture? Mainly it’s that it bypasses the private insurance bureaucracy, which unnecessarily consumes 31% of our private healthcare costs. These are the middlemen who need the cash to offset their high costs for CEO salaries, bonuses, stock options, marketing and legal costs (to facilitate their denials and rescissions), broker commissions, shareholder profits, and even their political contributions that are passed on to the patient.

Yes, you should be mad as hell that your politicians are getting a piece of the healthcare dollars, $125 million in 2008 alone. But that’s an issue to be taken up at the voting booth. And yes, this is corruption, not too different from organized crime.

But it’s ours. Our own, home-grown political system, perpetuated by the politicians we’ve elected to be our nation’s board of directors.

Tidbits

So what’s wrong with the proposed systems?

– For one, they mandate that every American buy an insurance policy (yea, from the same companies that give campaign contributions).

– Can’t afford it? They’ll tell you what you can afford and what you can’t. And if you don’t agree you’ll be fined by the IRS, and if you don’t pay you’ll go to jail. This is Romney’s Massachusetts plan, and that state’s costs have increased since it was implemented.

– The public “option” will cover only 2% of the public, the sickest and most expensive, and even then will be more costly and not a strong competitor. It’ll be run by a private insurance company and subsidized by the taxpayers.

– It will restrict denials for pre-existing diseases but not limit how much the insurance company can gouge you for them. (It’s sort of like the government holding you down while the insurer kicks you in the gut.)

– If this bill passes we will constantly hear “Well, let’s see how our new law works. Call me in five years.” We cannot let it get passed.

– What’s mostly wrong with this bill is its creators — 535 members of congress, most of whom are in the pockets of insurance, pharma, physician and hospital interests. The people are not being represented, and only a 100% turnover in 2010 will correct it.

Some four-letter words are welcome

By Jack E. Lohman

Like… Jobs!!!

Gubernatorial candidate Scott Walker would provide incentives to companies who manufacture their products in Wisconsin, and he is absolutely correct with that strategy. Only corporate favors will bring jobs back to Wisconsin.

Where he has it wrong is believing that he can balance the state’s budget and run it in the black. It just can’t happen, at least not under our current moneyed political system.

Taxpayers want politicians to reduce spending and the Fat Cats that fund the elections want the opposite. The latter will win it every time. It does no good to be a fiscal hawk when your legislature is being paid to spend money, and it does no good to try to attract companies and jobs to a high-tax state. Solve the political problems first and then go after the growth.

The only solution is public funding of campaigns, which Walker has opposed in the past and opposes today.

If the Dems were smart they’d make this happen and lock their party into power for years to come, but they have shown little inclination to do so. For sure it will not happen under a Walker administration.

Walker has made it clear that he does not support “government-run” health care, so that leaves the current privatized insurance system in place. Which, incidentally, also keeps the campaign cash rolling in.

And if congress does pass a health care bill that gives states the option to implement their own single payer, I’d count on a Walker veto here too. His brand of compassionate conservatism doesn’t reach that far.

Bothersome is Walker’s penchant for “privatizing” things; namely, at the moment, Milwaukee’s Mitchell Airport. To believe that the added corporate wastes (executive salaries, bonuses, profits and political contributions) would somehow not be passed onto the taxpayers is wishful thinking.

Outsourcing does not decrease government spending, it ultimately increases it. Chicago (and Milwaukee) are now looking at privatizing their water systems, which will surely come back to bite them. If the state politicians were smart — and nobody has ever accused them of being that — they’d buy back the power companies throughout the state. The ratepayers of WE Energies alone are forking out an extra $9.9 million for its CEO’s salary, a bit much for this neck of the woods.

The only benefit of privatization (to the politicians, anyway) is that government can’t give campaign contributions but private industry can. And that’s what we want to eliminate, not expand.