Anthem Heathcare, which just backed down on increases of premiums in California that averaged 25% and would have been as high as 39% for some customers, also runs Anthem Blue Cross in Maine. The AP reports: "The Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield plan in Maine is asking for increases of about 23 percent this year for some individual policyholders. Last year, they raised rates up to 32 percent." (I wrote about ABCBS of Maine last October.)
I hope Olympia Snowe takes note of this. She has been a great disappointment to me, since she seemed to be someone who sincerely cares about the healthcare issue. Recently, however, she joined the usual PTR folks in stating that the Senate plan was probably unconstitutional, voted against it, and has gone on the record as saying that there is no hurry for healthcare reform. I guess there's no hurry if you have congressional healthcare and don't face a premium increase of 25%. If she thinks that waiting for a constructive Republican proposal will lead to decent healthcare for her constitutuents she's living in a dreamworld.
Saturday, February 13, 2010
Unemployment graphic
Look at this very telling graph of unemployment from Nancy Pelosi's website:
Sarah pointed this out to me after reading about it in the blog: http://www.ghostinthemachine.net/006490.html
Thanks to all concerned!
Sarah pointed this out to me after reading about it in the blog: http://www.ghostinthemachine.net/006490.html
Thanks to all concerned!
Commercialization of weather reports
OK, it's a minor point, but it's the weekend, so permit me.
We in New England just had another snow false alarm. After all-day, all-night ominous warnings on the local TV outlets of the type: "Will we have a blizzard and how much snow will it drop?", many schools and businesses cancelled all or most of their activities. Localities geared up their snow plows and salters, and private snow-removal contractors were engaged. I'm sure thousands of dollars were spent or committed. Yet, the storm mostly didn't materialize in the Boston area.
Now, to be perfectly fair, the National Weather Service did predict heavy snow and wind for at least parts of the area and parts of the day. Yet, the local forecasters have always prided themselves -- and, especially, their stations prided themselves -- on their knowledge of local conditions and weather history. They have played the role of "independents" to the hilt.
I believe -- not too secretly -- that weather situations in recent years have been over-dramatized in order to attract viewers to the "local" or 6 o'clock news and thence to its ratings-conscious sponsors. As I said, all day and all night there are teasers for this prime-time overly long local weather "segment", featuring anything that can be made to seem ominous, almost always with the suggestion that the event will actually happen. The result, I think, is that there is a subtle but not negligible force to produce an exciting report. I don't believe that the forecasters actually consciously generate exaggerated reports, but the pressure creates an attitude that is not sufficiently critical of NWS data. Given that precise weather forecasting in the long-term is mathematically impossible, and even in the short-term is iffy, it's important that local forecasters be careful and critical, and not suggest things to generate hype and viewership.
And one more thing: I live in New England, not Maryland or Georgia -- or even New York City . There shouldn't be headlines in papers here that say "Winter Brings Heavy Snow". Save the ink for either 3 feet in February or 10 inches in May.
We in New England just had another snow false alarm. After all-day, all-night ominous warnings on the local TV outlets of the type: "Will we have a blizzard and how much snow will it drop?", many schools and businesses cancelled all or most of their activities. Localities geared up their snow plows and salters, and private snow-removal contractors were engaged. I'm sure thousands of dollars were spent or committed. Yet, the storm mostly didn't materialize in the Boston area.
Now, to be perfectly fair, the National Weather Service did predict heavy snow and wind for at least parts of the area and parts of the day. Yet, the local forecasters have always prided themselves -- and, especially, their stations prided themselves -- on their knowledge of local conditions and weather history. They have played the role of "independents" to the hilt.
I believe -- not too secretly -- that weather situations in recent years have been over-dramatized in order to attract viewers to the "local" or 6 o'clock news and thence to its ratings-conscious sponsors. As I said, all day and all night there are teasers for this prime-time overly long local weather "segment", featuring anything that can be made to seem ominous, almost always with the suggestion that the event will actually happen. The result, I think, is that there is a subtle but not negligible force to produce an exciting report. I don't believe that the forecasters actually consciously generate exaggerated reports, but the pressure creates an attitude that is not sufficiently critical of NWS data. Given that precise weather forecasting in the long-term is mathematically impossible, and even in the short-term is iffy, it's important that local forecasters be careful and critical, and not suggest things to generate hype and viewership.
And one more thing: I live in New England, not Maryland or Georgia -- or even New York City . There shouldn't be headlines in papers here that say "Winter Brings Heavy Snow". Save the ink for either 3 feet in February or 10 inches in May.
Friday, February 12, 2010
comments
Ted has some interesting comments on the previous blog. I substantially agree with him. Of course, I never said that payroll taxes are the best way to finance Social Security; I just objected to the money being "borrowed", probably permanently.
Also, I am behind the times: the Social Security payroll tax cuts off at $106,800. I knew these figures better during the brief time I did our taxes. However, after several consecutive years in which I made numerical mistakes in favor of the I.R.S., my wife forced me out as accountant -- now I do all the vacuuming instead. Things have gotten better financially since then...
Also, I am behind the times: the Social Security payroll tax cuts off at $106,800. I knew these figures better during the brief time I did our taxes. However, after several consecutive years in which I made numerical mistakes in favor of the I.R.S., my wife forced me out as accountant -- now I do all the vacuuming instead. Things have gotten better financially since then...
Jobs and Social Security
As a matter of principle I'm against the latest gimmick to create jobs: paying corporations to hire by "forgiving" them the payment of their contribution to Social Security. (Full disclosure: I have paid into Social Security all my life and am now collecting it.) For many years and through many administrations the government has been raiding the Social Security Trust Fund in order to pay for lots of things that politicians don't want to raise taxes for. (For some background, see the following piece by William Greider from The Nation.) None of the super patriots of either party dare to make the taxpayers actually pony up for ever more costly high-tech wars and the hardware and humans used to fight them. So they, in their wisdom, have been "borrowing" money paid into Social Security, leaving it with trillions in IOUs. The government can not afford to pay these debts, so Social Security is really in the hole through no fault of its own. The PTR -- What part of "beneath contempt" don't you understand? -- has the incredible gall to blame the Social Security program and try to privatize it.
So, in this setting, it is clear that the latest attempt to buy employment by further jeapardizing the Social Security Fund is totally outrageous and cowardly. What should be done -- should have been done years ago -- is to eliminate or partially eliminate the upper income limit at which Social Security payments cut off. This limit I think is $97,500; in otherwords, an individual's income above this amount is not subject to Social Security withholding. There is nothing magical about this number, and raising it enough or eliminating it will keep Social Security solvent for many decades to come.
As I've pointed out before, Social Security is a social compact. The fashionable word these days is to call it an "entitlement". The people who use this word either don't pay attention to the pejorative tone it has taken on, or deliberately welcome this tone. The word has come to be tied to the idea that someone may feel "entitled" to some benefit without, somehow, having worked for it -- sort of like a spoiled kid who feels "entitled" to get his or her way. In fact, Social Security is a wonderful example of inter-generational trust. We don't make our withholding payments to buy our retirement, we make them to help ensure an economically dignified old age for our parents and others of the preceding generation. We do so in the expectation that the succeeding generation -- our children -- will do the same for us. This is not a fanciful interpretation, but is literally the way the law was written.
Nobody dared to pay for the immense bank bailout by borrowing money from Social Security or, heaven forbid, from the military budget. If the President and Congress want to create jobs, let them find the money from general revenues or from the deficit, or, even better, from taxes on corporate bonuses say, or on companies' profits from offshore affiliates.
So, in this setting, it is clear that the latest attempt to buy employment by further jeapardizing the Social Security Fund is totally outrageous and cowardly. What should be done -- should have been done years ago -- is to eliminate or partially eliminate the upper income limit at which Social Security payments cut off. This limit I think is $97,500; in otherwords, an individual's income above this amount is not subject to Social Security withholding. There is nothing magical about this number, and raising it enough or eliminating it will keep Social Security solvent for many decades to come.
As I've pointed out before, Social Security is a social compact. The fashionable word these days is to call it an "entitlement". The people who use this word either don't pay attention to the pejorative tone it has taken on, or deliberately welcome this tone. The word has come to be tied to the idea that someone may feel "entitled" to some benefit without, somehow, having worked for it -- sort of like a spoiled kid who feels "entitled" to get his or her way. In fact, Social Security is a wonderful example of inter-generational trust. We don't make our withholding payments to buy our retirement, we make them to help ensure an economically dignified old age for our parents and others of the preceding generation. We do so in the expectation that the succeeding generation -- our children -- will do the same for us. This is not a fanciful interpretation, but is literally the way the law was written.
Nobody dared to pay for the immense bank bailout by borrowing money from Social Security or, heaven forbid, from the military budget. If the President and Congress want to create jobs, let them find the money from general revenues or from the deficit, or, even better, from taxes on corporate bonuses say, or on companies' profits from offshore affiliates.
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
PTR
As you know I've been trying to encourage people to use the terminology PTR instead of GOP. The acronym was originally for "Party of The Rich", but a number of people have commented that it is more proper to say "Party for The Rich." It's the same acronyn but reflects correctly that many of its supporter are not themselves rich but for some reason or other think that we must help out our more wealthy and powerful citizens.
I also call your attention to the Comment by Sarah in which she quotes the late Howard Zinn on Obama (from The Nation).
I also call your attention to the Comment by Sarah in which she quotes the late Howard Zinn on Obama (from The Nation).
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
A trap for the PTR?
Dare we hope it's true? Might it just be that our self-proclaimed bipartisan president is actually setting a trap for the PTR in the upcoming Feb. 25 "summit" on healthcare reform? I mean, the PTR (formerly the GOP) hasn't had a serious healthcare plan since Ronald Reagan's. I've read their "Better Solutions -- a compilation of GOP Alternatives" and it is a joke: nothing concrete, no real plans, no numbers, no tough decisions -- just verbiage, bluff and bluster. If they had to present it, point-by-point in a public setting it would be a laughingstock. So, of course, they should be getting nervous if Obama calls them on it in a public forum.
We can only wait and see if the POTUS and the Dems can actually outmaneuver the PTR for once. Let's hope.
We can only wait and see if the POTUS and the Dems can actually outmaneuver the PTR for once. Let's hope.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
