We Need To Do Both

If you are confused about how to save America, you are NOT alone.  To fix this country we need to get out of this nasty rut we are stuck in ASAP.  And to do this, we need to not only reopen the country by ending the lockdowns and restrictions OR only firehose the economy with federal money, we need to do BOTH.  

Yesterday.  In fact, yesterday is not soon enough!

If we keep these restrictions for any longer while hoping to just paper over the massive holes in our economy and society with newly printed money, that will not work in the long run, as we will just keep on damaging the economy and society.  Likewise, if we attempt to reopen with a bang without injecting federal dollars into the economy, it will be a big disappointment since the damage is done and has not been repaired.  Either way, it is like pushing on a string--or like pushing an elephant up the stairs.

As we have already noted in a previous article, we can effectively end the pandemic in ONE WEEK tops without lockdowns, masks, or vaccines, full stop.  Simply send everyone an Indian-style $2 Ziverdo kit (Zinc, Ivermectin, and Doxycycline), and as Karl Denninger notes, the Doxycycline is optional and can be substituted with Vitamins C and D (and if we had our way, also add Niacin, Thiamine, and Quercetin as well).  And for the few severe or critical cases that still occur despite this, there is always the MATH+ Protocol (and even cheap steroid inhalers) to fall back on.  In fact, early use of steroid inhalers seems to reduce the number of severe cases by 90%!  Problem solved.

(In India, adding Vitamin D to the Ziverdo Triple Therapy mix is also known as Quadruple Therapy.)

Oh and by the way, did you know that we are basically at the holy grail of herd immunity in the USA (if not also globally on average) already?  Why else would virus cases be plummeting starting weeks before fully vaccinating a significant chunk of the population, in the middle of winter, even in states and countries with little to no restrictions?  Even with those supposedly scary new mutant strains allegedly running rampant for weeks, no less.  If it can't be due to seasonality, vaccines, or restrictions, then it MUST be due to naturally acquired herd immunity.   Too bad we had to climb a mountain of corpses to get there thanks to the incompetence and malfeasance of our "leaders" who suppressed the treatments and prophylaxis that actually work while throwing the wisdom of the ages out the window like so much garbage.  And that's to say nothing of all the collateral damage deaths caused by the lockdowns and panic.

(NOTE:  The sharp decrease in cases predates the reduction in the PCR test cycle threshold in many places, and was in fact followed by decreases in hospitalizations and deaths, so it can't be entirely due to sleight of hand unless one concedes that all of the data were nearly 100% false from the very start.  Either way, the case for restrictions crumbles.)

Thus, no reason not to end all restrictions and open up right away, full stop.  That is, no more restrictions than we had a year ago in February 2020, other than those that individuals and businesses voluntarily choose to put on themselves.  But again, the damage is already done at this point, even if we don't do any further damage going forward.  We must then do the Herculean task of healing the existing damage done.  Fortunately, the federal government has just the technology to do that--the printing press, or its more modern equivalent, a computer with a keyboard.  Money is simply an accounting entry these days, so make the entry and be done with it.  Yesterday. 

(And before anyone predictably cries "inflation!", the truth is that deflation is actually a much, much bigger risk nowadays in the age of secular stagnation.)

The recent paltry stimulus is just barely scratching the surface of what is needed.  We will need an ongoing Universal Basic Income for all (at least $2000/month per adult and $1000/month per child for the first three months, followed by at least half those amounts per month thereafter). We will need single-payer Medicare For All. We will need to expand Social Security.  We will need to increase funding for schools.  We will need free higher education as well.  We will need a Green New Deal to create millions of good jobs while saving the Earth at the same time.  And we will ultimately need some sort of debt jubilee as well.  Seriously, now is NOT the time to be pikers!

So what are we waiting for?

UPDATE:  As the ever-insightful Bill Sardi notes, we can now add the amino acid lysine to the rapidly accumulating list of treatments and prophylaxis for COVID-19.   It may be the biggest game-changer of all.

The Right Way To Do Medicare For All

With the debate about single-payer Medicare For All increasing in recent months, it is important to know a crucial detail about it.  While the main thrust of the debate lately has been how to "pay for" it all, and exactly which taxpayers will bear the brunt of it, the truth remains that our Monetarily Sovereign federal government by definition has infinite money, and thus does NOT actually need any taxes to pay for it (or anything else, for that matter), since federal taxes do NOT actually pay for federal spending at all.  That is in fact a Big Lie, and has been false ever since we got off the gold standard in 1971, yet for some reason most Americans seem to not have gotten the memo yet.

Notice how nobody seems too worried about how we are going to "pay for" the military with its truly massive price tag, after all.  That is in itself a kind of tacit admission that the Big Lie is in fact a lie, and that the emperor isn't wearing any clothes.  So no reason for all of this silly handwringing and harrumphing about how to "pay for" Medicare For All.

Yes, Virginia, we actually can have free and comprehensive health care for all Americans, period, with no deductibles, copays, cost-sharing, premiums, or taxes.  In fact, being the richest country in the world, we can aim even that much higher still than all of the other countries that currently have single-payer healthcare.  All we have to do is stop believing the Big Lie that federal taxes pay for federal spending.

So what are we waiting for?

Ruh Roh. Trumpcare/Ryancare Just Failed, BIGLY. Believe me.

Looks like Mr. "Art of the Deal" couldn't even negotiate his way out of a paper bag. That is, he couldn't get Obamacare repealed and replaced even with both houses of Congress controlled by Republicans.  Yes, really.

On March 24, 2017, exactly seven years after Obamacare passed in 2010, Trump gave Congressional Republicans an ultimatum.  Either vote on the Trumpcare bill today, or he will take his marbles and go home, and forget about repealing Obamacare at all for a while at least.  And it backfired, bigly.  Thing is, the last-minute changes made to the bill to appease the arch-conservative Republicans, which actually made it even WORSE, would have ended up alienating too many moderates, and thus they still didn't have enough votes to pass it.  Thus, to avoid further embarassment, Trump and the Republicans decided to kill the bill before it was brought to the floor for the vote, pulling the bill indefinitely while they focus on othet priorities.  And now both Trump and the Republicans have egg on their faces.  Bigly.  Believe me.

Meanwhile, the Russia scandal isn't going away anytime soon, nor are any of his other numerous scandals.  Even Wall Street is apparently getting impatient with him.  The honeymoon is officially over, and it really doesn't look good for him.  Sad.

And So We Learn What the Republican Alternative to Obamacare Really Is

In case you missed it, the Republican replacement for Obamacare is basically Obamacare-Lite, which is a giveaway to the rich and the insurance industry, who will see gratuitous tax cuts, but not so much for We the People, who will see less healthcare coverage overall.  Officially called the American Health Care Act, this bill does the following, among other things:

• Replaces the unpopular individual mandate with a "continuous-coverage" provision that allows insurers to impose a 30% surcharge on customers with more than a 63 day gap in coverage
• Replaces the income-based and price-based tax credits with (weaker) flat tax credits that vary only with age of the customers
• Phases out the Medicaid expansion after 2020, pissing off both Democrats and Republicans in the process
• Jettisons the employer mandate (a relatively minor component of Obamacare)
• Removes the Obamacare taxes (that fell primarily on the wealthy)
• Scraps the tax deduction cap on executive pay for health insurance companies
• And of course, defunds Planned Parenthood, despite the fact that the funds really go to birth control, STD tests, and cancer screenings.

Outside of Trump loyalists, generally the only people who really support the bill are the greedy insurance industry.  The American Medical Association and many others have come out against it, given that it will most likely reduce coverage and increase costs across the board.  Ironically, some of those most hurt will be Trump's white working-class supporters, especially in the red states.  In other words, it is at best a solution in search of a problem, if not a new problem in itself.  At worst, it's classic Trumpian chaos manufacture.

There is some nuance that we should note, however.  The very fact that the insurance industry is not worried about an impending "death spiral" should the bill pass is a good indication that we shouldn't worry about that either.  If there is in fact one, it would likely be a result of weakening the subsidies and other aspects of Obamacare, not a result of replacing the individual mandate with the surcharge for not maintaining continuous coverage.  The effectiveness of that provision, for all its flaws, is likely equivalent to that of the mandate it replaces, thus largely preserving that particular "leg" of the "three-legged stool".  The TSAP does support that particular change to the law, even though we oppose the rest of the Republican bill for the most part.

The TSAP, as you know, supports single-payer healthcare for all as the only real alternative.  We also support a public option as a steppingstone to this ultimate goal.  But as long as those are not on the table, we do not believe that we should rip out the heart and soul of Obamacare as the Republicans are trying to do, as that will result in disaster and chaos, doing far more harm than good.  We do support making any incremental improvements in the meantime, however, so long as they do not lead to a significant number of Americans losing health coverage, especially for the most vulnerable members of society.  Every Republican alternative to date, including this one, has failed to meet this standard, and thus we will oppose it.  Because people literally die as a result of losing their healthcare.

One thing is for sure.  This replacement should indeed be called Trumpcare, or perhaps Ryancare.  That way, they get to OWN it.  BIGLY.  Believe me. 

Obamacare Has Republican DNA

With all the latest fuss about the Affordable Care Act, better known as Obamacare, one key fact seems to fly over everyone's heads.  Despite all the Republican attempts to dismantle it, even going so far as to hold the government hostage to do so, many of its core provisions were originally Republican ideas, no matter how much they like to deny it today.  Even some of those who are against it today supported something very similar in the 1990s.  In fact, one can even say that the healthcare law was largely written by the insurance industry for the GOP, since it is virtually a clone of the plan that the industry had originally wanted all along.  Here's a brief history lesson for those who still don't know.

While many of the more progressive Democrats (as far back as Truman and FDR and even Obama himself as recently as 2008) have long wanted some type of universal single-payer system, most Republicans have traditionally balked at the idea, and have proposed their own alternatives that would leave the for-profit private health insurance system intact.  The first alternative came from Nixon, the same guy who gave us the plague known as HMOs.  Nixon's idea was basically equivalent to Obamacare's employer mandate as well as the Medicaid expansion.  (Of course, despite being Republican, Nixon was actually to the left of both Clinton and Obama.)  The next Republican idea was proposed by the Heritage Foundation in 1989, which was the individual mandate that many despise so much, also combined with a Medicaid expansion.  The insurance industry loved it so much (for obvious reasons) that several Republicans from Gingrich to Romney have at attempted to implement some form of it in the 1990s and early 2000s, often including subsidies or tax credits.  When Romney implemented Romneycare in Massachusetts in 2000, by that point most of the plan was largely identical to what eventually became Obamacare.  When Congress finally put it together, the version that passed in 2010 was essentially inspired by Romney who was inspired by Gingrich who was inspired by the Heritage Foundation and who were all inspired to some degree by Nixon.  And that, my friends, is the long and checkered history of the most controversial aspects of Obamacare, which actually turns out to be somewhat of a misnomer.

The TSAP currently supports a truly universal, single-payer system instead of Obamacare or the status quo.  Clearly, Obama never should have trusted the insurance industry in the first place, and should have stuck with his original plan rather than approve the Faustian bargain that would become his namesake law.  In the meantime, however, we believe that Obamacare could become a steppingstone to single-payer if it is given a chance to work, and the Republicans should give up trying to thwart it.  Of course, we still do not support the idea of the individual mandate on principle, and we believe that it should be delayed by a year if not longer, or better yet jettisoned entirely as it is really not necessary.  As we have noted before, the problem of adverse selection is not nearly as large as the mandate proponents believe, and can be greatly ameliorated by simply providing carrots rather than sticks.  In fact there are already such incentives built into the Affordable Care Act, namely the tax credits and subsidies that make health insurance more affordable.   The relatively narrow "open season" for enrollment would also reduce the problem as well.

Additionally, thanks to the law of unintended consequences, the employer mandate should also be further delayed, truncated, or jettisoned since it appears to have led to part-time employees having their hours drastically cut so their employers don't have to offer benefits, and this is a huge deadweight loss.  But everything else in the Act should remain as is until Congress finally gets the intestinal fortitude to implement a single-payer system despite what their corporate masters want.  Anything less would be uncivilized.

What the Obamacare Ruling Means

NOTE: This post is on both the TSAP blog and the Twenty-One Debunked blog

The recent Supreme Court ruling on the Affordable Care Act ("Obamacare") was a mixed bag overall. The individual mandate (which the TSAP does not support) was upheld, but as part of the government's taxing power rather than under the Commerce Clause. While it is clearly a stretch to say it is constitutional because it is a tax (just think of poll taxes), and thus unfortunately provides a roadmap on how to make an end-run around some parts of the Constitution in the future, at least the Court recognized that the Feds do not have unlimited power under the Commerce Clause. Thus, the ruling took some of the wind out of the sails of the dangerous Gonzalez v. Raich precedent in 2005.

One thing the Court did strike down was the primary mechanism for ensuring state compliance with the Medicaid expansion, namely the withholding of existing federal Medicaid funds as a penalty for noncompliance. This was basically the same form of coercion used by the feds to force states to raise the drinking age to 21 in the 1980s, which was upheld by South Dakota v. Dole in 1987. Since then, this power has been used to coerce the states to follow other mandates as well, and not just ones related to highways. Thus if there is any silver lining to the Obamacare ruling, it is the fact that it may make it easier for states to lower the drinking age (and possibly even legalize cannabis) without federal interference.

As we have noted before, the TSAP supports a single-payer healthcare system similar to what Canada currently has, which is also what President Obama originally wanted as recently as 2008. Anything less would be uncivilized.

Will Healthcare Deform Survive the Supreme Court?

The healthcare reform deform bill that was signed into law in 2010 and whose most controversial aspect, the so-called "individual mandate", will be phased in starting in 2014, is now being taken to the Supreme Court after an appeals court recently struck down the mandate.  And much more is at stake than just this particular law.  Regardless of which way they rule, a landmark precedent will be set that will influence future court decisions, rightly or wrongly.

We at the TSAP believe that the individual mandate is unconstitutional and must be struck down.  There are several reasons why such a mandate is wrong on principle.  Not least of which is that forcing people to buy an overpriced, defective product from a private company year after year under penalty of law is about as constitutional as a poll tax.  But what about the rest of the 2400 page law?

Many folks, especially those in the insurance industry, are terrified that getting rid of the mandate but leaving the rest of the law intact would create an unsustainable death spiral where people will wait until they get sick to buy insurance (due to the another provision that requires community rating and guaranteed issue, i.e. everyone pays the same and no one can be turned down), making costs skyrocket out of control.  While it would most likely hit the insurance industry's bottom line quite hard, the fear is really quite exaggerated.  For example, while Massachusetts currently has an individual mandate along with community rating and guaranteed issue, New York does the same but without the individual mandate, and yet the latter actually has lower premiums than the former.  Granted, both states have ridiculously high rates, but individual mandates don't appear to make rates any lower or make the system any more successful.   And New York's insurance industry is hardly in a death spiral.

The best solution, of course, is a single-payer system similar to Canada's.  An excellent plan can be found here, for example.  But will Congress have the intestinal fortitude to finally stand up to the greedy insurance industry and its deep-pocketed lobbyists, who will do everything they can to fight it?

Healthcare Deform Passes

The vote that would make or break the healthcare deform bill unfortunately passed.  As stated in previous posts, we stand firmly against this bill that amounts to nothing more than a giveaway to the insurance industry, as we believe that it will do more harm than good in both the short and long-term.

There does remain a slew of persistent myths about this bill.  Take a look at this list of myths and their corresponding truths.  Universal healthcare, it's not.  Equitable, it's not.  Affordable for most people, it's not.  Cost-saving, it's not.  Simple, it's not.  And so on. 

Unfortunately, the otherwise staunch progressive Dennis Kucinich now supports this bill, even though the already weak public option has been jettisoned.  And Obama struck a deal with the anti-abortion Democrats (such as Stupak) to gain the crucial extra votes needed to pass the bill.

The TSAP supports truly universal, single-payer healthcare for all Americans, similar to what currently exists in Canada.  Anything less would be uncivilized.  We believe that healthcare is a human right.   This bill, however, is a major step in the wrong direction, and in many ways will be worse than the status quo.

Fortunately, the worst aspect of it (the individual mandate) will not take effect until 2014.  You read that right, it's four years from now.  Thus, there is technically still time to fix the bill's numerous flaws if Congress wishes.  But there is probably a snowball's chance in hell of that happening as long as we keep electing spineless Democrats and reactionary Republicans.   Voters this November should take note, and throw out the leftovers. 

Otherwise, we can look forward to spiraling healthcare costs, people being forced under penalty of law to pay exorbitant premiums, more bureaucracy, higher taxes, larger budget deficits, and little to show for it all except richer insurance companies and more IRS agents to bully Americans into buying their fundamentally defective product.  We're all officially serfs now, except the rich of course.  This is an outrage and must be fixed ASAP!

The Un-American Solution

The House recently passed their version of healthcare deform, with all the bad stuff (e.g. individual mandates) and a very limited public option. Plus the Stupak Stupid Amendment about abortion. It's all a giveaway to the greedy insurance companies, like the bailouts were for Wall Street, at taxpayer expense. But it will finally "fix" healthcare, right? Wrong--that's like throwing all of us into a pool full of sharks, and maybe one or two small dolphins, and expecting no one to be eaten. In a nutshell, it would "force everyone, with some small exceptions, to buy an overpriced, defective product, year after year, or face a stiff financial penalty," according to one highly astute critic. Since when did a right (to healthcare) become mandatory anyway?

Aside from the ethical implications, there are also constitutional ones to consider as well.  Some supporters of the plan say the General Welfare Clause somehow gives the feds the power to force people to buy private insurance.  But there is absolutely no precedent for that in this country, and for good reason.  Car insurance is a poor comparison since it is only forced by the states, not the feds, and driving on public roads (as opposed to merely existing) is a privilege rather than a right.  And while the clause gives the feds (and by extension the states) the power to tax and spend, forcing people to buy something from a private entity is clearly not the same thing.  And the current attempt to make an end run by disguising it as a (punitive) tax fails since such a tax on personhood is a direct tax that is unconstitutional when done by the feds unless apportioned among the several states according to population (which it clearly is not).  But I guess the Constitution, the supreme law of the land, is now "void where prohibited," and we might as well just replace it with the phrase "anything goes."  How did America sink so low?

But this will most likely not pass the Senate, thank God. There is no way this can survive a filibuster, especially a bipartisan one. Republican Senator Tim ("Dr. No") Coburn said he will do so by reading the entire mammoth bill out loud on the floor. Read the bill? That's a first for Congress! Hey, how about we do that for EVERY bill that comes to the floor from now on? Takes too long? Well maybe we should put a limit on how many pages a bill can have.

And maybe more people will read between the lines. The healthcare deform bill is really just a capitulation to the insurance industry, plain and simple. Let it die a quick death in the Senate, and may it never be resurrected in a similar form.  The American people agree:  only 32% say Obama's (really Congress's) plan is a good idea, a new low, while nearly half (47%) say it is a bad idea.

Also being debated is that the Senate bill also may expand Medicare to everyone over 55 instead of having even a weak public option for all ages.  At the expense of younger people, of course, who will be taxed to pay for it AND be forced to buy private insurance!  If so, that is intergenerational robbery on an unprecedented scale.  But hey, as long as the ruling Boomers benefit, to hell with their kids and grandkids, right?  Wrong.

The TSAP believes in a single-payer healthcare system for all Americans, funded by progressive taxation, not regressive premiums and penalties. Few Americans know that there is currently an excellent bill in Congress that would do exactly that, but is currently stalled.  Healthcare is a human rights issue above all else. Anything less would be uncivilized.

Why Healthcare Reform Is Dead in the Water

Healthcare reform is still being debated in Congress as we speak. But it is looking grimmer and grimmer by the day.

In 2008, Obama promised to reform healthcare by creating a public option similar to the one Congress currently uses, cutting costs, covering everone who wishes to be covered, and NOT making it mandatory. That in itself was a compromise from what he had said he wanted in 2003, which was a universal, single-payer system like Canada has had for decades. And such compromising from the start was where he went wrong. Obama had to compromise further to placate Congress, and so he did. And compromise with the insurance companies, who, let's face it, really care only about their bottom lines. Who have Congress in their very deep pockets.

And let's not forget about the teabaggers, with their scares about their mythical "death panels" and other made-up fears. These fools really need to get a life!

What will get passed by Congress, if anything, is a severely compromised bill that would likely do more harm than good. Coverage would be mandatory (backed by stiff fines), premiums will go up for nearly everyone, and no public option. That is like forcibly throwing millions of people into a shark-infested pool and expecting no one to be eaten. Since when did the right to be covered by health insurance become a duty to be ripped off?

On top of this, costs will likely continue to skyrocket rather than go down--just look at what Massachusetts has now. Ditto for car insurance in all 50 states.

The TSAP believes that a single-payer system like Canada's is the way to go, preferably one funded by progressive taxation. With price-controlled prescription drugs, and no more HMO's. Anything less would be uncivilized, as evidenced by the fact that nearly all industrialized countries currently have it, with Taiwan being the latest to adopt it. It is also the best way to rein in out-of-control costs. Failing that, we supported Obama's 2008 plan as a steppingstone to real healthcare justice in the future.

But we strongly encourage Congress to vote NO on any compromised plan that lacks a public option and/or penalizes those who can't afford to be ripped off by (or don't wish to give their hard-earned dollars to) greedy private insurers and HMOs.