Urban Institute Summary on the CLASS Act

I haven't had the chance to watch this yet, but wanted to tag it for future viewing. All of the health care changes in the pipeline are so confusing. I hope this sheds some light on one of the changes!

The Health and Human Services Department has until October 2012 to finalize plans for a new government-run, long-term care program called the CLASS Act. In the January edition of the Program on Retirement Policy video series, Howard Gleckman discusses the rationale behind the program’s creation, the implementation and political challenges it faces, and ultimately the tough choices facing potential long-term care consumers.

http://www.urban.org/retirement_policy/url.cfm?ID=500204

Wow.

Wow. That's all I have to say. I just had to clip this response in total from the article on "Older Workers Need Not Apply" in the NY Times.

This is just a part of what Laurence J. Kotlikoff wrote. What do you think???

Pay the Aged Less

The solution?

First, modify the Age Discrimination Act by establishing a national age-productivity reference profile that employers can use to defend pay cuts they feel they need to impose on their older workers in order to retain them.

Second, scrap employer-based retirement programs in favor of a Personal Security System under which all workers would invest 8 percent of pay in a global stock/bond index fund. The government would split contributions between spouses, match contributions by the poor, convert balances at retirement to inflation-adjusted annuities, and guarantee that retirement balances equal at least what one contributed adjusted for inflation.

Third, scrap employer-based health care in favor of a Medical Security System under which all Americans receive an annual voucher to buy a basic health plan for the year. The size of the voucher would equal one’s expected costs under the basic plan. So those with pre-existing conditions would receive larger vouchers. The aggregate voucher budget would be set at 10 percent of G.D.P., which means the country won’t go broke.

Fourth, scrap the current tax system in favor of the “FairTax” plan, which is equivalent to a very low, flat-rate wage tax plus a one-time tax on wealth plus a monthly “demogrant.” This “right-wing” proposal is something every Democrat should love. The tax is implemented by taxing all retail sales. In my version, I’d tax the consumption services (called imputed rent) from living in your own home. Such a broad-based FairTax would have a very low rate. Indeed, most older, as well as younger, workers who move from paying roughly 40 cents of every dollar earned to Uncle Sam to only 18 cents.

This will give older workers plenty of incentive to stay on the job.

Thoughts???

"Public Option" Option Not Yet Dead in the Water

This speaks to the power of the press and perception. The Huffington Post published two articles yesterday that covered the same issue - where the Public Option option stands in Congress.
Robert Creamer's interpretation is upbeat, as he figures that the 'near miss' of a passage connotes a "Growing Momentum for Public Option." On the same day, the aptly named Ryan Grim reported that the "Public Option Amendments Fail in Senate Finance Committee." I suppose it's all in how you look at it.

Thoughts?

TR Reid Commonwealth Club

In our class discussion yesterday, someone mentioned TR Reid's September 14, 2009 speech at the California Commonwealth Club, entitled "Can We Really Fix US Health Care?"

I haven't listened to it yet - I like to download podcasts and listen to them on my commute in to class! Here's the direct link, if you prefer to copy and paste.

http://castroller.com/podcasts/CommonwealthClubRadio/1232943

Second Bill of Rights

I haven't seen Michael Moore's new movie yet, on Capitalism, but I guess it makes reference to FDR's idea of creating a Second Bill of Rights.

Here's a quick quote:

In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all—regardless of station, race, or creed.

Among these are:

The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;

The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

The right of every family to a decent home;

The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

The right to a good education.

All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.

America’s own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for our citizens.

Also, here's a clip (audio, but hosted on YouTube) of Roosevelt' speech.




This is unbelievably powerful. If Roosevelt had succeeded, what would things look like now? In order to make these "rights" realities, we would have had to have made some hard choices... One of my first thoughts is that we certainly couldn't have globalized our markets nearly as much as we have. Secondly, in order to secure "the right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad," we must have limited corporate power to some extent. Finally, and unpopularly, it seems that in order to provide many of these rights, we would have had to limit our population growth, which would have meant further immigration quotas than already exist.

Thoughts?

The Effectiveness of Smoking Bans

I saw this article about how effective smoking bans have been. I wanted to put it here because it relates to a pet interest of mine - High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS), or, more specifically, how it's in everything.

Clearly, the success of the smoking ban is largely due to reductions in second-hand smoke deaths, and there isn't a correlative "innocent bystander" in eating, but the study does demonstrate that banning substances can have a big impact on public health.