Saturday, October 29, 2011

Ohio Nov 8th, 2011 Voting Guide, Part 2 of 2

“To preserve the freedom of Ohioans to choose their health care and health care coverage”

You've likely seen the flyers for and against Issue 3, both of which outright lie. Here's the truth:

Approving this Amendment doesn't strike down Obamacare.

Approving this Amendment will raise your health care premiums more by saying Ohio can ignore a provision of the Affordable Care Act (“Obamacare” to some). This provision is the primary piece of the health care reform meant to reduce the cost of health care. Most of the laws of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) don't take affect until 2014, such as this one. Issue 3 tries to prevent implementation of one cost-saving aspect of the ACA while not bothering with the aspects that increase costs.

I'll repeat, voting “Yes” will raise your premiums more.

The nitty and gritty of Issue 3 is all about the health care reform. A provision of the ACA says that everyone who can afford health insurance must buy private insurance of their choice (like normal). Subsidies will be given to the poor to assist in buying insurance, and those who still can't afford it are exempt or eligible for medicaid. (Similar basic rules also apply to businesses who provide health insurance). Those who don't buy health insurance and aren't exempt must pay an additional tax on their tax return. I call this the Freeloader Tax. Hospitals must provide people emergency medical care. Those who cannot pay cost hospitals money so they raise their prices. This makes health insurance cost more, and that cost is passed onto you via your premiums. All of us who bother to pay for health insurance end up paying for the freeloaders who could pay but don't.

Last year, Blue Cross Blue Shield of California was going to raise insurance premiums by 40%. The reason? Young people who weren't currently sick were dropping health insurance. The insurer abandoned this plan because of the public backlash.

The title of the issue and wording on the ballot of it is even misleading. It claims it is the freedom to choose your insurance. It only preserves the freedom to not buy health insurance. However, even the ACA doesn't require you buy to health insurance. It just adds a Freeloader Tax. That is, a tax on those who want free health care at my expense despite being able to afford it.

Additionally, state law doesn't supersede federal law so this amendment is unenforceable. Attempts to enforce it will lead to a costly legal battle the state will lose. If SB5 is not repealed, the legal battle can be paid for by laying off teachers, firefighters, and police. So while the freeloaders are happy not having health insurance, they'll be surprised to see they still have to pay it on their tax returns. Meanwhile, health insurers will be raising our premiums more, and Ohio will be fighting a losing legal battle.

Conclusion:

Vote “No” on Issue 3.

What is the good of Issue 3? There is no good. Whether or not you strongly support or oppose the ACA, Issue 3 is a bad idea with strong negative consequences.

Link:

"Why such high fees, such as $200 for a tetanus shot that you can get at Walgreens for less than $50? He says paying E.R. customers have to help foot the bills for patients who cant pay." This is just an example of why, agree with it or not, the "buy insurance or pay a freeloader tax" aspect of the health care reform bill will help to lower premiums.
Article at WCPO.com

Posted by at No comments:

Ohio Nov 8th, 2011 Voting Guide, Part 1 of 2

“Referendum on new law relative to government union contracts and other government employment contracts and policies”

A vote on whether to keep SB 5. A “Yes” vote keeps. A “No” repeals.

You've likely seen the flyers for and against Issue 2, both of which really fail to give some proper context or outright lie. So, I'll illuminate the issue for you, and I'll have a copy of the bill by my side for fact-checking purposes. This bill is an attempt at saving money in the state budget by altering and permitting alteration to public worker contracts. Public workers in this context includes teachers, firefighters, and police. Politicians and upper management are excluded from it.

The “good”:
SB5 requires that public employees pay at least 15% of their health care premiums, still less than the average private sector worker. The stickler is that most public employees already do pay this. So while reasonable, this isn't a big money saver.

It would ban employers from paying any of the employees’ 10% pension contribution. It is a lie that public workers don't contribute to their pension account; however, currently employers can agree to pick-up a portion of the workers' contribution. They are required to contribute 10% but banning employers from helping out with that payment could save some money.

Changed language in the bill does now allow workers to bargain for “…equipment issues directly related to personal safety...” which the original version didn't allow.

Where it gets dicey:
The bill (SB5, page 18) makes employee performance the only determining factor for raises and job retention. This means that teachers who teach Honors English will likely always get raises, and that teachers who teach troubled kids in inner cities schools will likely not ever see a raise again. Teacher performance is measured by classroom performance.

It prohibits employees for bargaining against anything an employer deems reasonable (SB5, page 230). This extremely vague language gives carte blanche power to employers against our public servants so long as one side calls it reasonable. It is actually pretty disturbing the number of times “reasonable” is used throughout the document without ever defining “reasonable.”

What can we expect in public schools? We can expect higher-paid senior teachers to be laid off. We can expect classroom sizes to be doubled and divided up among lower-compensated younger teachers. That should cause student performance to decrease, thereby reducing the need to give performance increases to teachers. Similarly, we can expect reduced staffing levels among police and firefighters.

And in the rare case where public workers do get to negotiate something with their employer, the outcome will no longer be decided by a neutral third party. It will now be decided by the employer.

Conclusion:
While there is not significant cost savings in SB5, it will allow for many cost-savings changes to be made in the future. However, all of these changes are likely to decrease the quality of service we receive from our public servants. Anything “reasonable” in this bill is overshadowed by the “unreasonable.”

It is not accurate to say that the recession was caused by our public workers, nor is it fair to exclude the politicians and upper management from “necessary” cost saving changes. Public workers have already agreed to $350 million in savings through unpaid furloughs and pay freezes. It doesn't sit well with me that politicians give tax breaks to their contributors and try to balance the budget on the backs of the little guys.

It wouldn't be necessary to harm our public servants if giveaway tax breaks to businesses would actually lure new businesses to Ohio. Some say we must make cuts to in order to make low-tax lures for new businesses, but that wouldn't be true if we made low-tax lures that worked. The reason for this is that new business creates new workers. New workers pay more state taxes. Employed people spend and have to pay local sales taxes. Meanwhile, a bill like SB5 which will lead to more layoffs will decrease employed consumers. Not only will it decrease the quality of public service of in Ohio, it may possibly cause economic harm due to causing more unemployment. Additionally, harming education in Ohio could mean less successful entrepreneurs, worse leaders, and less innovation for the future.

There is always the risk that when the government does something, it ends up causing more harm than it does do good. Senate Bill 5 is such a case, and that's why I'll be voting no on Issue 2.

Links:
The issues, the official arguments, and a copy of SB5: 
Why this Republican opposes SB5:
Collected news articles regarding SB5:
Posted by at No comments:

Wednesday, October 5, 2011

What Presidential Candidate Best Represents Occupy Wall Street

The Occupy Wall Street movement released an official declaration of their goals on October 1st, 2011 after widespread reporting made the debatable claim that they had no clear objective. Their declaration was to businesses, corporations, and wall street. However, will the corporations change their methods because of it? This declaration asks them to give up profit and control. Unless they do, it will fall to state, local, and federal governments to regulate business to make it happen. Of course, one of the main complaints is that the corporations control our politicians and our governments.

The Occupy Wall Street Declaration:
(I would include it here, but it is quite long.)

The following will be presented as an alternative to bad articles such as this one.

I will compare Democratic incumbent Barack Obama and Republican hopeful Ron Paul in 15 points.


#1 Corporations took taxpayer bailouts and gave their executives giant bonuses. It's worth noting that as of March 11, 2011, six banks of the banks have repaid their loans bringing the bank capital program close to 99 percent recovery. The government also made a profit of $4 billion on the loans as of Aug30, 2009. Not too shabby. (Other bailout programs haven't fared as well.)
  • Obama permitted the bailouts which allowed this to happen.
  • Ron Paul opposed by the bailouts.

#2 They poison our food supply.

#3 They have continuously sought to strip employees of the right to negotiate for better pay and safer working conditions.

#4 Our system is corrupt.
#5 They have perpetuated inequality and discrimination in the workplace based on age, the color of one’s skin, sex, gender identity, and sexual orientation.

#6 They have consistently outsourced labor and used that outsourcing as leverage to cut workers’ healthcare and pay.

#7 They have spent millions of dollars on legal teams that look for ways to get them out of contracts in regards to health insurance.
  • Obama signed the Affordable Care Act into law which makes it more difficult for insurers to remove customers from coverage when they get sick (due to technicalities), says that insurers must spend 85% of the money received from premiums on health care, and will prevents insurers from denying coverage to those with pre-existing conditions. It also will further reduce health insurance costs by making those who can afford it buy health insurance and providing subsidies to those who need help to afford insurance. This means hospitals will no longer have to eat the cost of care to the uninsured which they typically pass onto other customers.
  • Paul wants to eliminate Medicare and Medicaid, saying that the individual, private charity, families, and faith based orgs should take care of people, not the government. http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/09/tea-party-debate-audience-cheered-idea-of-letting-uninsured-patients-die/
  • Republicans, like Paul, oppose government regulations, including health care mandates, even though it was their idea. Here's 24 things Republicans were for before they were against them. http://www.addictinginfo.org/2011/08/22/24-policies-that-republicans-supported-before-they-were-against-them/ It's worth nothing that Presidential hopeful Rick Perry mandated that girls in Texas get the HPV vaccine.

#8 They have sold our privacy as a commodity.
  • Obama signed the Patriot Act, allowing it to continue.
  • Ron Paul opposes such intrusions.

#9 They have taken our houses through an illegal foreclosure process, despite not having the original mortgage.

#10 They have perpetuated “colonialism at home and abroad” and "participated in the torture and murder of innocent civilians overseas."
  • Obama wound down the Iraq war; however, we are still in Afghanistan. He also had the US participate in a UN effort to assist Libyan freedom fighters which succeeded in overthrowing a dictator that had taken terrorist actions against US citizens. Obama did issue three executive orders to close Guantanamo Bay, secret prisons, and other detention centers, orders that were blocked by Congress. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/23/us/politics/23GITMOCND.html?pagewanted=all
  • Ron Paul wants the US to immediately pull all our troops home from foreign wars, believing we have no business even providing “foreign aid” to other countries.

#11 They have held students hostage with tens of thousands of dollars of debt on education, which is itself a human right.

#12 They don't pay their fare share of taxes.
  • Obama, like Reagan, says the rich must pay their fair share. http://youtu.be/cgbJ-Fs1ikA He also supports letting tax breaks expire for the richest Americans.
  • Ron Paul wants a flat tax and to eliminate the income tax, which would be regressive and hurt the low-income and middle class. However, it might be something corporations would have a harder time avoiding.

#13 They have purposely covered up oil spills, accidents, faulty bookkeeping, and inactive ingredients in pursuit of profit.

#14 They purposefully keep people misinformed and fearful through their control of the media.

#15 They have influenced the courts to achieve the same rights as people, with none of the culpability or responsibility. They have donated large sums of money to politicians supposed to be regulating them.

So, who do you think better represents the beliefs of the Occupy Wall Street movement?
Posted by at No comments:

Friday, September 16, 2011

Is Osama bin Laden Dead? Investigating the Grand Conspiracy


Al-Qaeda Agents?

As you may know, there are some who doubt Osama bin Laden was actually killed. They doubt that there were any pictures of the body which was dumped in the sea, an act far too convenient for them.

There is a similar controversy growing over the killer whale which killed SeaWorld trainer Dawn Brancheau. Her family wants to keep the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration from releasing photos or videos of the death to the public.

How do we know there are pictures if they aren't released? How can the autopsy report be trusted? For all we know, Dawn Brancheau was killed by Osama bin Laden, and this crime is being covered up and blamed on the innocent killer whale.

Read more here.

In any case, I don't believe the Republicans would fail to use the lack of evidence of a dead Osama bin Laden against a Democrat president if there was any chance it was true. That we buried his body at sea in accordance with his religion (which he was bad at following) and didn't bring it back home to use for bragging rights just goes to show the moral superiority of the USA. We treat our enemies better than they would treat us because we're America. We'll disregard that my first impulse would have been to make hacky sacks out of his nuts, and perhaps, post pictures of his incredibly small penis on a Flickr account so that the world could get a good laugh. That would be wrong, and I'm glad America chose to not keep around a decaying dead bastard that more bastards would have probably come to reclaim.

The fact that opposing members of our representative government can verify that the Navy SEAL raid did in fact occur and take out America's Most Wanted is good enough for me. It's at least as good as seeing a photo or video (either of which could be doctored) or having been there myself. Of course, eyewitness testimony is unreliable so why should I believe myself about stuff I've seen?
Posted by at No comments:

Thursday, September 15, 2011

Ben Franklin's On the Price of Corn and Management of the Poor, 1776

In his time, government controls forbade the export and set prices on the crop of corn farmers. Franklin's outrage was surely righteous on this issue. Being given a limited market and prevented from selling the product at the desired price, the farmers were forced sell the fruits of their labor at prices below what they should have earned in the market. Supposedly, this was so that poor consumers could afford the product; however, Franklin claims similar measures were not made in other markets. I doubt there is anyone who would not be upset at this.

He then proceeds to lambaste the poor of America for being lazy, drunk, and ungrateful. Reasonably, this makes Franklin appear to be a grouchy old-man with a, "Hey you kids, get off my lawn," mentality. After all, how dare the poor not come up to him each day and give their thanks to him. Such a rant would seem unbecoming of someone of his intellect, yet things were different then. How does his rant hold up today?

"There is no country in the world where so many provisions are established for them; so many hospitals to receive them when they are sick or lame, founded and maintained by voluntary charities; so many alms-houses for the aged of both sexes, together with a solemn general law made by the rich to subject their estates to a heavy tax for the support of the poor."

It certainly seems that in his day, the poor and unfortunate were better cared for than today. Nowadays, none but the ultra-rich can afford serious health care without health insurance. Yes, there are clinics available; however, treatment for serious ailments is still beyond the means of the uninsured to afford. Most care will be limited to dealing with the deadly repercussions of not being able to afford the care that would have prevented catastrophe in the first place.

It also seems unlikely that the rich of today would urge Congress to pass a law that would tax them for the benefit of the poor. According to the modern Tea Party, that is the sort of thinking that would be the most wrong.

"I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it."

This does seem pretty common sense to me. I imagine that this does to everyone. However, given that he wanted to "do good" to the poor, it is illogical to conclude that he felt letting them starve and die in an environment with no jobs would have been Franklin's desire. If only temporary until such a time as conditions for employment change, such care for the unfortunate could not be objected to be Franklin.

One thing is certain, simply letting the poor be without assistance or guidance as most conservatives today should be done would not match Franklin's desire to actively lead or drive the poor out of poverty. Inaction is never leading.

It's likely many will say that if social security had existed during Franklin's time, this would be his argument against it:
"The day you passed that act, you took away from before their eyes the greatest of all inducements to industry, frugality, and sobriety, by giving them a dependence on somewhat else than a careful accumulation during youth and health, for support in age or sickness."

With the slow death of the American economy that is ongoing today and with the majority of jobs paying wages so low that meaningful saving is impossible, Franklin's idea that a program such as Social Security should not exist is certainly outdated.

Instead of applying Franklin's desire as to how social protections should work while in an economic model that is vastly different from what existed while he lived, it would be better, and the only logical goal, to instead make today's economy into something in which Franklin's desired type of social protection could work. That economic model requires that jobs be available and that those jobs actually pay a wage that allows saving to be made for the future. That certainly doesn't exist today.

I have no doubt that, if Franklin were to meet today anyone trying to apply his comments on the economy then to the economy now, he would tie that person to a kite and send them up to meet a storm.

Here is a link to Ben Franklin's On the Price of Corn and Management of the Poor, 1776.


Note: The above link is provided by the Claremont Inst. which excluded Thomas Paine (among others) and his works. By means of excluding disagreeing Founding Fathers and/or excluding certain writings, it uses false assertions to claim that the Founders unanimously endorsed certain ideas.
Posted by at No comments:

Fight Socialism by Recognizing It

According to the Tea Party definition of socialism, our police, fire departments, schools, social security, medicare, medicaid, any proposed universal health care, and our military are all socialist. Everyone pays a different level of taxes for them, yet everyone gets equal benefit of them. By Tea Party logic, they all need to be privatized because they're all evil socialism!

What is socialism actually? It's where the workers control the means of production, almost as if the workers own stocks in their employer and are encouraged to work harder because they receive economic benefits of their hard work! The horror! Or, state socialism which is where the state has ownership of all businesses (basically, communism)? Why, that sounds exactly the same as me working in a capitalist economy and then paying taxes so that the government can exist and provide a service to me, such as police, firefighting, or health care! Wait, that sounds completely different from socialism! That's capitalism and having a government instead of anarchy!

So, the Tea Party, pretty much all Republicans, and heck - most liberals don't know what they're talking about when they talk about socialism. They just use it as a label to slap on anything their (puppet)masters say.

Recognizing actual socialism is the best weapon for fighting for it.

What are the warning signs of socialism?
  1. Forbidding private ownership of the means of production, giving the workers equal ownership of the means of production, and then requiring equal pay for each worker regardless of their contribution.
  2. Having the state control all industry and forbidding private ownership of the means of production.
  3. A violent overthrow of government where the ruling rich capitalists and/or aristocrats are slaughtered, and the poor take over in order to create a socialist society (Marxism). In this case, the administrators of the socialist society may become the new ruling class. In essence, becoming the enemy they hated.
What isn't socialism?
  1. When a government gives loans to private businesses so that they can stay in business and help protect the economy from increased unemployment.
  2. Providing citizens of a capitalist society with desired services (that apply equally to each citizen) paid for by taxes, services such as police, firefighters, a military, education, health care, retirement savings, unemployment insurance, and roads. However in the case where someone may say some (but not all) of these services are socialist because they provide each citizen with equal availability of such services, it must be recognized that each such service would be equally socialist. In such a case, a person would be saying, "I only like the socialism that benefits me, not others."
Do we really want a military that only protects the sovereignty of the citizens that can afford its services? For some, that would be a more economical small government. However, that is not the United States that our Founding Fathers envisioned.
Posted by at No comments:

Thursday, September 1, 2011

Welfare Fraud

Welfare fraud is a problem. A number of individuals spend their government assistance money on inappropriate activities and then complain that they don't have money for their kids, school, housing, and food. I've had the misfortune to hear a few of these people complain about it in person. This fraud is both stealing as well as depriving those in real need of the aid they need.

The solution is to audit recipients, either at scheduled times or randomly several times a year. The recipient will need to present receipts (or other proof) detailing their expenditures. Any income unaccounted for will be considered inappropriate. Failure to show appropriate handling of assistance money will result in a probationary period of reduced aid with improvement required to remain on assistance.

Not only may this encourage responsibility and frugality, the auditing system will root fraud and inappropriate use of aid in ways that drug testing welfare recipients won't. For one, drug testing doesn't show who spent the money on the drugs. Two, 98% of welfare recipients passed their drug screenings when it was implemented in Florida, meaning that the tests wasted the time of 98% of those involved. Three, although there will be a cost to the auditing, just like there is for drug screening, this will employ auditors willing to work for the fees that welfare recipients can afford. Also, I'm suggesting a quick and expedient audit of monthly income and spending, not an in-depth tax year audit that you may get from the IRS.

While I will admit that random drug testing of welfare recipients may be beneficial in fighting fraud, I'm opposed to the up front drug testing of those who apply, just as I am to drug testing job applicants. It all comes down to accusing people of being addicts and criminals without cause. However, Florida's implementation of drug testing welfare applicants has resulted in 98% of the people passing and will cost the state $178 million over the year in the form reimbursing those who passed. That's a lot more than the $1.5 million Fox News report said welfare recipients in Florida spent on trips to Disney.

All in all, auditing those on welfare to make sure they actually need the help and aren't spending money meant for their kids on booze seems like common sense. In addition, knowing audits will happen can encourage people who may not be good at handling money to become better at keeping track of their spending. It seems like common sense, but we'll need someone (or some people) who can implement it fairly and effectively. It does little good (or more harm than good) if the cost of fighting fraud is more than the actual cost of fraud.
Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)