Affordable care
Matthew Gagnon misinterprets progressives’ reaction to the Supreme Court decision upholding the Affordable Care Act [ Buy Insurance Or Else, June 28].
We weren’t celebrating the court — a majority of which has shown its colors in such anti-democratic decisions as Bush v. Gore and Citizens United. We were celebrating the survival of health insurance reform against a campaign of misinformation.
Gagnon finds progressive support for the law mystifying, because it
mandates that some purchase insurance from “large corporations.” Allow me to explain: Liberals don’t like that part of the law either. We would prefer a universal system like Canada’s or a public option.
Still, a law that brings nearly everyone into the system, makes health insurance more affordable, and limits insurers’ freedom to abuse their customers represents real progress.
Gagnon calls the law “draconian.” But if he had fallen ill during his two months without insurance, he easily could have gone bankrupt, and the cost of his care would have fallen on all of us. Such are the tender mercies of the market. Still, he dreams of a “decentralized, bottom up, approach that frees its people to more easily purchase cheaper health insurance …” We’re going to hear a lot of magical thinking like that between now and November.
Don’t buy it.
Any path to affordable health insurance is going to compel universal participation. Anyone who tells you otherwise — including a former governor who says what’s good for his state is somehow bad for the country — is blowing smoke.
Bruce Snider
Belfast
Praise for Ward
What sad news with which to start off Saturday morning!
Kent Ward’s column in the paper is his last. I don’t even know how many years I’ve been reading his columns, but it has been a lot.
In thinking over some of what he has written, the first thing that came to mind was the woman skiing at Sugarloaf, and then when I read his column, didn’t he mention that one!
It was so funny that when I finally stopped laughing, I cut it out and mailed it to my parents in Dallas. My father said he couldn’t stop laughing after he read it. Kent said a good part of his mission was putting a smile on his readers’ faces. He succeeded in that, and often elicited a pretty good guffaw.
We were probably light-years apart politically, and every now and then something he wrote grated, but he was always very soon forgiven. You provided a lot of entertainment and some food for thought, Old Dawg.
Goodbye, Kent. You will be missed. BDN, you just lost an original!
Cindy Carusi
Orono
57 percent more
Matthew Gagnon, in his June 29 column, laments the Supreme Court’s decision on the Affordable Care Act and criticizes the government for raising taxes.
I would like to point out that, through the efforts of the Republican-controlled state legislature which rammed through so-called insurance “reform” last year, my family is now paying 57 percent more for our health insurance (purchased through that radical organization the Maine Chamber of Commerce insurance program for small businesses, no less!) than we did a year ago.
While I certainly object to this increase, I would much rather it were a tax, going to provide services for the people of Maine, rather than providing additional profits for a large corporation.
Anne Stocking
Lamoine
Political genius
Chief Justice Roberts’ historic ruling on the constitutionality of “Obamacare” is hardly a new approach in handling delicate “political” issues. The ruling is reminiscent of Chief Justice Marshall’s 1803 decision in which the Supreme Court recognized that only the courts have the power to decide the constitutionality of statutes.
In Marbury v. Madison, the court recognized its own power of constitutional review in one breath, while striking down a statute that gave the court the power to issue orders to the executive branch. As a consequence, the court did not have to directly intrude on a political issue in which it had been requested to order the Secretary of State to recognize a judge appointed by the prior administration.
Knowing the political backdrop of Obamacare, Chief Justice Roberts found a means to uphold the law from a constitutional standpoint while still giving Obamacare the kiss of death. Logically he reasoned, if Obamacare is viewed as a tax, Congress surely has that power. By branding the law with the “tax” curse, he crystallized the political stakes for the next election. With its institutional integrity preserved, the court remains above the political debate involving tax-and-spend policies.
The Supreme Court reminds us again that Congress has broad powers, more than the founders of our country envisioned. Whether those powers are utilized for the common good is not an issue before the court, properly leaving the political football in play within the public arena.
Brett D. Baber
Veazie
GOP questions
Now that Mitt Romney and others are threatening to repeal Romneycare/Obamacare, I have three questions for Republican candidates.
First: What is your plan for improving access to health care for Americans without insurance (or do you just not care) — you offered no alternatives during the original debates, so what do you propose now?
Second: You want to repeal the whole health care reform act — will you tell voters before the elections that they will no longer be able to keep their kids on their insurance until they are 26? That you will repeal provisions to make sure you can actually get insurance even with pre-existing conditions? That the new very aggressive Medicare fraud prevention system which will protect us all will be dumped as well? That your repeal will continue to make all of us pay for the care of the uninsured, whether or not they can afford insurance?
Third (and this is the hard one): Do you continue to proclaim your Christianity while advocating that Americans with insufficient means to purchase health insurance should be denied decent health care, and that while being a “good Christian” you will oversee the largest military buildup and military budget our country has ever seen at the expense of neglecting real human needs at home and abroad?
Please stop speaking in vague nonsensical terms and provide us the answers to these three simple questions.
Stephen Blythe
Jonesboro
Good health Old Dawg
I have always enjoyed Kent Ward’s keen perception of everyday life. His column was homespun, warm and a relaxed read.
Thank you, Kent. You shall be missed.
Richard L. Manzo
Millinocket
Bruce Snider, Anne Stocking, Stephen Blythe; excellent letters.
I agree 100%. The more this bill is talked about the more people are going to see past all the negative political BS the Republicans have been throwing around about it. Is it perfect? No, but it’s a great start and should be improved upon and NOT thrown out. President Obama has made it clear that he’s open to changes that will improve the bill. The Republicans have made it clear that they don’t care about your health at any cost.
You are right on!!
And that is what scares the Right so much.
Gagnon’s job is to skew the facts and suport Republicans regardless of issues and principles. If a Republican takes a stance, he has to defend it. Period. From week to week his standards and rubrics will change and he banks on the fact that you’ll have such a short memory that you won’t recognize the inconsistencies in his pieces and positions.
All this affordable health care discussion is trying to distract us from the real issues!!!
Will Eric and Olivia make it to the finals in AGT!?!??!
Stephen Blythe–Great letter on all points. I am an advocate for a universal single payer system and hence am not fond of ACA’s mandate. The guarantee for the insurance giants and their greedy executives is counterproductive to providing healthcare for our citizens and is a huge waste of our precious tax dollars. However, until the naysayers either get on board with Medicare for all or can suggest a better system, I agree that they should just disengage their mouths until their brains are in gear. That goes for the Republican presidential candidate too.
Stephen Blythe, I think the resounding silence you hear will be the response from the Republican leadership. Good questions but I have a feeling you are not part of the 1% that would be able to get a response.
Stephen–I can answer the questions for you–
1. No healthcare for you
2. NO, NO, NO AND NO
3. We are good Christians, if you don’t believe it just ask us! We go to church and act like we are even though we really are not. Our benefactors are builders of weapons we must keep them in the 1% with us.
These are your answers, you will not hear the truth from the R’s they will come up with a bunch of
words that sound like they are giving you something but means nothing. They are very good at that but do not believe anything they say.
Bravo Stephen, Brett, Anne, Bruce. It is nice to know that there are clear thinking people out there. Let’s see your 4 votes vs Matthew’s 1. There is some hope that sanity will prevail.
The Republican response to Obamacare – a donation can in the general store or a public supper to raise cash for your uninsured $100,000 healthcare costs.
That or die quickly.
Yessah
Or, move to NH “Live Free AND Die”.
Anne, I really doubt your story.
On the other hand…
http://www.gallup.com/poll/155513/Americans-Economic-Harm-Good-Health-Law.aspx
A poll about what people are predicting will happen on a national scale has nothing to with what Anne claims to have happened to her family.
“Claims” is the operative word.
On another note.
Another irrelevant prediction
President Obama = 8.2% unemployment rate.
I thought we would never hit 8?
Another irrelevant prediction – massive Bush tax cuts for billionaires and financial industry deregulation would give us prosperity.
Reality – it gave us a GOP/Bush economy contracting at -8.9% and job losses of 800,000 a month.
The Party of No has done nothing to help create jobs – and wanted to plunge the entire planet into economic chaos with their stupid Teajahdist stunt threatening to let the US go into default last summer.
Luckily they only “succeeded” in degrading our credit rating.
Idiots
And what has Rmoney done with his millions and 13.8% taxation rate?
Create jobs?
Nope – he conceals his ill-gotten$$$ in Swiss bank accounts and other off-shore Richey Rich hidey holes.
The GOP plan for “replacing” Obamacare is “No Care & Don’t Care”.
Yessah
Did I hit a nerve?
It is patently obvious that Obama and his team have no idea what goes in to building an economy.
None.
In a normal business cycle the more dramatic the drop the more dramatic the recovery. History says this is so. Obviously this President is doing something dramatically wrong.
If Obama is re-elected it will be a decade before we recover and before that happens we will look like Greece.
Obviously you have nothing but talking points.
Obama saved us from a Great Depression – one created by “conservative” GOP economic policies.
This is the chart that the GOP does not want you to see…
http://www.barackobama.com/news/entry/22-months-of-job-growth/
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2012/04/jobs_gain.html/
The GOP has done everything it can to prevent job creation over the last 3 years.
They hate America.
Yessah
Now that makes sense.
The GOP has done everything to prevent job creation because they hate making money off a fully employed workforce. They are cutting off their nose to spite their face.
Well thought out munebaght
Yessah
“The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.” – Mitch McConnell
Nice deflection. ;)
Hit a nerve?
LOL
It proves your comment is nonsense. You act like Republican politicians have no interest in seeing the economy fail. They absolutely do and it’s because their primary goal isn’t to improve the economy, it’s to see Obama fail.
Sounds like a little paranoid. I want Obama to fail so I can lose money. Right.
The facts speak for themselves.
The GOP opposed the Stimulus Package that saved us from a Great Depression.
The GOP opposed an Obama jobs bill that included millions in tax CUTS in 2010.
The GOP opposed a Democratic anti-outsourcing bill in 2010 that would have kept jobs here home.
The GOP opposed the 2011 jobs bill which included tax cut for small businesses (among other things).
The GOP opposed the Transportation Bill earlier this year that would have put Americans to work this summer.
The history of GOP job-hating mendacity has been on full display for the last 3 years.
And now they want to take away affordable health care from Americans.
Please try to keep up.
Yessah
To be honest I couldn’t get by the part where you said “saved us from a Great Depression.”
Had to bust a gut on that one.
I expect next you’ll quote A Moody’s analyst that raked in millions on the deal or maybe a washed up NY Times columnist that can’t even get a White House invite anymore.
The best evidence I can give you is that the official unemployment rate is 8.2% and there are no hopes of growing the economy until Obama leaves office.
Take a look at the economic data – Obama saved us from a Great Depression.
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2012/04/jobs_gain.html/
Yessah
That is 1/3 of the jobs growth needed to break even much less grow the economy.
And we can blame the GOP for filibustering every Obama jobs creation bill that was introduced in the Senate in 2011 and 2012.
They are to blame.
Yessah
But according to this http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000 it has come down. Very interesting chart. Slowly coming down from its peak. That is progress. But again, I side with those who say presidents have very little impact on these stats.
Now you are being just historically incorrect. It was the previous president that did several things dramatically wrong that got us here. That it is not worse is to Obama’s credit. And, there was nothing ‘normal’ about the financial meltdown.
KM, May I call you KM? I am having trouble calling you Momma. :)
We should not be having such a long period of economic stagnation. Its like the government is driving a car not knowing they have the emergency brake on and wondering why they can’t get up to highway speed.
It is a historically accurate statement to say that every dramatic contraction of the economy is followed an equally dramatic expansion. The historical exceptions are when there is a heavy handed government involvement in the expansion phase. This is one of those times.
Carter’s stimulus for example led to inflation but there was job growth with a stimulus package a fraction of the size, relative to the economy than the one Obama had. The same with Clinton’s.
I am embarrassed to say I think we would be better off if Jimmy Carter was President.
KM is just fine. Thanks for the chuckle. Actually Obama predicted it would take a long time going so far as saying it would not be over by the end of his first term. He proved to be correct. Wonder what else he is correct about. Now don’t get me wrong. I am also disappointed in his presidency for very different reasons…… he did not go far enough in any direction for me. The Depression took a long time. This was close enough to that financial meltdown. While I hated the bailouts I can see why they were necessary. Just read a little analysis of The Great Depression and that becomes clear. Because this is a global phenomenon I think it not quite as simple as you suggest. You know, I think a lot of people are changing their mind about Carter’s presidency.
I’m not a bailout fan either… auto or banks… but many conservatives picked up that mantle long before OWS was born.
It is kind of funny when you speak of Obama’s predictions one of which was, that unemployment would be 5.6% by now. His economic team also said that unemployment would never each 8%. It is interesting to note that all of the major players that put together the stimulus package are now gone from the administration. Meanwhile the President when the obvious becomes obvious predicts that it will not be over by the end of his first term.
In another of your posts you said that is was the responsibility of business to create jobs, not the Presidents. You are right. BUT government has to stay out of the way for that to happen. The fact that job growth really hasn’t happened in any meaningful way is a reflection of public policy.
No that was when he was running. And, in his response to winning the office. He saw the immensity of the task before us before he even started his presidency. And, I respectfully disagree. What public policy is in place now that was not in place just before the bottom fell out? The private sector acted like a hermit crab when it all went down. Protecting their ass-ets by retracting into their shells. People lost jobs in every sector because jobs were eliminated and they have not been restored. Increased use of temps and part-timers occurred so benefits or a living wage did not have to be factored into the equation. Some companies did not take it out on their workers, or chose to take it out on their best paid workers. I was not hurt by the recession in any real way because my employer did not cut my hours, reorganized to be sure line workers were taken care of first when it came to merit increases, did not increase the cost to me of my benefits. But that happened at the expense of others who either lost their jobs or had them contracted out. There was, is, nothing pretty about this meltdown caused by irresponsible private sector decision makers. It affected everyone. And, Obama inherited it. If there was an easy solution, it would have happened already. We can all spend hours on conjecture. No one has come up with a workable solution. I believe that is because there is not one. Just a slow plodding forward doing the best we can to not make the same mistakes again.
You misremember. This wasn’t campaign stuff. It was what his economic policy staff said when they were pushing the stimulus package.
Here is a chart from the Romer report in 2009 presented by no one other the Paul Krugman of the NY Times. (bet he wishes he didn’t print this)
I’m sure you are far to young to remember but Bill Clinton’s administration helped create 23 million jobs in 8 years. In two of those months 1.3 million jobs were created total. Clinton stood aside and let business do what it does best. Make money.
No I remember it correctly: http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/results/president/speeches/obama-victory-speech.html .
Oh, and I can remember all the way back to Ike….. though the images are faint. Kennedy was my coming of age president.
This was a report by Christine Romer Obama’s head of the Council of Economic Advisers and the report was used to push the stimulus through Congress.
No that was a youtube video of his victory speech in which he says what I said he said.
Here is an interesting assessment of job growth prior to the meltdown: http://www.econdataus.com/empterm.html. Check out the third to last paragraph. For me the language is a bit difficult as I am not schooled in interpreting economic data, but I get the gist of it.
These job growth charts seem to support my slow plodding progress opinion: http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=Obama+Job+Growth+Chart&id=80AB81569AEEBA1C5D37E9B20D4E54C9E869672E&FORM=IQFRBA
It is pretty well established that Presidents have little power to affect employment. In the free market economy you are so passionate about it is the private sector that is responsible. The public sector depends on what taxpayers want and they seem to be wanting less and less. Obama nor Romney will affect jobs. And this phenomenon is a global one. Our economies are so intertwined it is impossible to determine cause and effect. In complex systems small perturbations here can have huge consequences there.
That is not necessarily true. Even the well know economist and friend of President Roosevelt, John M Keynes criticized him for his heavy handedness when dealing with business. He knew that played a role.
Need to go… later.
But didn’t Roosevelt policies help us through the depression? People seemed to think so. He was elected 4 times! Or are you going to quote those who said he made it worse? Your comments sent me looking. I tend to trust edu sites rather than ideological sites though one cannot remove that aspect completely. Found this which seems to suggest something different:
Keynes’ theory
English economist John Maynard Keynes sought both to explain why depressions occurred and what might be done to prevent them. Simply put, he thought government should use its massive financial power (taxing and spending) as a sort of ballast to stabilize the economy. Depressions, then, should be attacked with increased government
spending at the bottom of the income pyramid. This position is the opposite of “trickle down.” Keynesian economists call this
“counter-cyclical demand management,” believing that the government’s
massive financial impact can be used as a counterweight to current market forces. For a more detailed explanation of Keynesian theory, visit this well-written British site. Yet, as your text points out, Roosevelt never fully subscribed to Keynes’ counterintuitive argument that government’s should spend more during hard times. Roosevelt was a faint-hearted Keynesian, at best.
I think I differ on interpretation here. Keynes sought to stabilize the economy through that spending yes… and he favored putting money in the hands of those at the bottom of the economic ladder. All true. But, he never advocated doing that during periods of high debt. He also never advocated beating up business. (Remember the 10k people Obama put out of work when he went on his billionaires in Corporate jets tirade as private jet sales slumped?)
One cant help but wonder if the depression of the thirties would have been as long if two things had been done differently. #1) 1937 was the first year Social Security was taken from the paychecks of every worker. Meaning they had less money to spend and #2) In 1937 the Wagner Act came home to roost as the number of strike days nationally double having a national effect on the economy. Less money circulating in an already fragile economy. Even Roosevelt knew its dangers.
President franklin d. roosevelt
initially opposed the legislation out of fear that labor organizing
might interfere with economic recovery, but gave his support when
passage
became inevitable.
Do not take my post as either an attack on unionization or Social Security. It just that those two things would be better done in a good economy than a poor one.
My grandmother came from money. Lots of it. When the crash occurred it was gone, all gone. I have the worthless stock certificates to prove it. My grandmother had no social security to assist with her needs as an older American. It fell on her two sons to provide for her. And that stressed our family of six terribly. While I concede it may not have been good timing, I also wonder if once the good times were back would SS have had the same support assuring passage? Probably not. Unions at that time in our history were critical to economic survival of workers. The strikes worked to improve working conditions, wages, and unions were instrumental in ending child labor (1938). Businesses do not have a good track record of doing things like this on their own. So again while the timing might not have been good, those changes may not have occurred without the pressure of strikes. It is all very complicated and I do not think you can find any direct links between cause and effect. All I know is that seniors and workers are better off today than they were in my grandmother’s day.
I don’t intend to make this a fight over unions but as union wages rose in the 30’s the wages of non-union workers fell. Overall it was a wash if the goal was to put money in the pockets of workers.
If the last stimulus were larger and if 40% did not go for tax cuts, but rather to municipalities so that the hundreds of thousands of public workers, i.e. teachers, police etc. had not lost their jobs, we would be in much better economic shape.
You “doubt” her story? She signed her real name, gave facts and told us where she purchased her health insurance. You have no basis for calling her a liar. Except, perhaps, that the reality of what happened as a result of the change in law does not match the political rhetoric put forward by its supporters.
That does not make her the liar. Of course you could be one of those folks who simply doubts things they do not like in an attempt to “wish them away.” If that is the case, please doubt gravity next. I recently turned 50 and my face could use a little less of it.
I called no one any names. That’s a liberal thing.
There do seem to be a lot of people posting here that claim to be middle aged that talk like they have little experience. Have you noticed?
Debatable if you’re name calling now, I doubt you’ve been that reticent in the past.
And you have a monoply on experience?
No monopoly on experience here. That’s for certain. I just have noticed a few posters claiming middle age when they sound like they just fell off the truck and 2008 was their first election and only such experience. You know as well as I that the internet allows anonymity.
She outlined the facts of her own life, very simple ones, namely the law changed and her insurance premiums went up 57% over the previous year. This isn’t third party information, “friend of a friend” retelling of a story. If what she said is not true, as you doubt it is, it can only be intentional. We have a descriptive word for those who intentionally misstate the truth. You may refuse to actually state it, but you used it just the same. Anyone reading your post knows what you were implying.
Publicly implying that this woman, who identified herself, is not telling the truth is calling her a name. That is not a liberal thing and it is not a conservative thing. It is a character thing.
Before you rail on about this being a liberal post, it is not. I did not vote for this President and I’m not a liberal. I won’t stand silent while a woman is publicly smeared without evidence. You have no basis to state that her personal insurance premium did not rise 57%.
My personal experience allows me the right to think otherwise and its not a friend of a friend situation.
Are you calling me a name?
Besides, think on this for a second. Would you really accept a 57% increase without checking the competition? She seems to be telling the world she didn’t even check other options.
Self-employed (assuming here – be kind) insurance runs higher than employer-based insurance. What are her options? Cobra? Not likely. Here is an example, since no one seems to believe the percent increase. My step-father is self employed. He had a Aetna policy for $800/month with $5,000 deductibles – this was the cheapest. They tried the Dirigo plan – dropped his payments to about $375 a month with $5,000 deductibles. OK then. As a logger and a trucker, he sold a small parcel of land,which the whole cost went to pay down the debt on the total land he owns -he pocketed nothing. Dirigo considered it a profit, and it blew his insurance to $900 a month (42% increase, people). Insurance does not care what your out-of-pocket costs are; they only care about the income for some like Dirigo. So now he’s back with another carrier yet again for about $800. You can’t put all small business owners in one basket and the same rules apply. Maybe her revenue went up (can’t imagine in this economy, but I will play along), therefor this commerce-based insurance plan is still the cheapest considering the other few options we have in this state.
I don’t feel I need the whole story to believe that a 57% hike with what you currently have is cheaper than other policies in this state for small businesses.
I was thinking why would people think that she was lying. It is very possible for someone’s insurance to go up that percetnage depending on many circumstances. My spouse plus the company he works for pays approximately $461 per week to insure two healthy adults under the age of 40. That is roughly $23,972.00 a year, which he doesn’t use at all, and I have a Singulair script I fill for 3 months out of the year. So, I can’t imagine it needing to go up a penny for any reason; it would certainly be nice for it to go down. BUT if there is no univeral health care or health care for all, our cost will never go down; it will keep increasing to the point where a couple with three total jobs can’t afford health care; that’s so sad.
There isn’t a huge substantive difference between specifcally calling someone a liar and implying he/she is lying. Either way, all you have are suspicions.
That is correct. That’s why I adopted your word “claims” as the operative one.
Then why are you screeching about name-calling?
I was responding to another poster who accused me of it.
Are you implying that I am less than my stated age with little experience?
Where are the right wingers? You should be here trying to defend the undefendable, come on where are you. I would love to hear from you as to why we should not have the program you all wanted in the early 90’s and Mutt (R)money put through for Mass.
You mean insurance companies are not going to lower the cost of health insurance on their own?