How Increments Works (a diary of Democrat strategy to make progressive change)

Anybody check Obama's Swiss bank accounts? Maybe, the Bahamas too. LOL

Democrats Join Republicans to Block Consumer Protections for Payday Loans
Monday, 07 March 2016 00:00
By Crystal Shepeard, Care2

http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/35106-democrats-join-republicans-to-block-consumer-protections-for-payday-loans

The bill's sponsors include Democratic representatives from Florida, the most notable being DNC Chair Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL). She was part of the state legislature to create the law, and wants the CFPB to incorporate rules that more closely resemble Florida's, which was supported by the payday lending industry. The seven Democratic sponsors include other Florida reps. Consumer groups say Florida's law is a sham and the one proposed by Congress is equally dangerous.

Actually, I trust him with money.

The increments Democrats are hanging their hats on are actually sliding toward the right wing political spectrum.
================================================

Has President Obama appointed a fox to guard the Social Security henhouse?
http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-blahous-trustee-20160509-snap-story.html

I am a democrat to the left and and I am not sliding right.

As anyone knows, I'm not a Hillary fan. But I will vote for her given this situation.

I'm not amused by armageddon policies such as yours, though I get it is your choice, described repeatedly.


I figure Bernie will get creamed. I agree more with him than Hillary, especially re education, far as I know, speaking as a beneficiary of the UC university no tuition system, before Reagan shut it off.

I'd be babbling at you now, had I not gotten to just go there.

I suppose I still babble, but better informed.


Remember the military plane waste?

Medicare WorldLike Page
7 hrs ·
"Under fire from senators in both parties, a senior federal health official told Congress on Tuesday that the Obama administration would adjust its plan to reduce Medicare payments for many prescription drugs, but those assurances did not fully allay deep concerns.

The official, Dr. Patrick H. Conway, a deputy administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, indicated to the Senate Finance Committee that the administration would probably go ahead with its proposal in some form, and he promised that officials would try to prevent any harm to patients.

That did little to calm bipartisan fears. Senator Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa, called the administration plan “an ill-conceived experiment” and suggested that it was a form of “human subjects research” for which the government needed the consent of patients.

Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon, the committee’s senior Democrat, said he worried that the proposal “could unintentionally drive seniors toward hospitals,” where treatment is typically more costly and less convenient."

A good way to shut up congress is for them to approve the same medical care they enjoy.

DNC Caught Accepting Money from Union-Busting Companies in New Leak

http://usuncut.com/politics/dnc-asked-anti-union-corps-for-money/

Obama meeting Singapore PM, looks to boost TPP trade pact

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/08/02/obama-meeting-singapore-pm-looks-to-boost-tpp-trade-pact.html

WASHINGTON – The prime minister of Singapore is joining President Barack Obama at the White House to celebrate the 50th anniversary of U.S. diplomatic relations with the Southeast Asian city state. But the two leaders will also discuss a shared cause with less rosy prospects — the Trans-Pacific Partnership free trade deal.

Singapore, a close U.S. partner, is one of the 12 nations in the TPP, an agreement key to Obama's effort to boost U.S. exports and build strategic ties in Asia. But Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong's Washington visit starting Tuesday comes as opposition to the TPP intensifies in the United States. Both Republican contender Donald Trump and his Democratic rival Hillary Clinton, who are competing to succeed Obama as president, are against it.

Speaking at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce late Monday, Lee urged its ratification, saying the pact would give the U.S. better access to the markets that account for 40 percent of global economic output. He said it would also add heft add heft to Washington's so-called "rebalance" to the Asia-Pacific.

"For America's friends and partners, ratifying the TPP is a litmus test of your credibility and seriousness of purpose," he said.

His sentiments are shared by Obama, who told Singapore's The Straits Times in an interview published Monday that the U.S. can't "turn inward" and embrace protectionism because of economic anxieties that have been drawn out by the presidential election.

The Obama administration says it remains determined to try and win congressional approval for TPP, but the chances of achieving that in the "lame duck" session after the Nov. 8 election and before the new president takes office Jan. 20 appear slim because of the depth of political opposition, not least from Obama's fellow Democrats.

The deal would eliminate trade barriers and tariffs, streamline standards and encourage investment between the 12 countries that include Mexico, Japan, Vietnam and Australia. But critics say the pact undercuts American workers by introducing lower-wage competition and gives huge corporations too much leeway.

Obama and certain Democrats are working to get TPP passed before the election. That way Clinton can claim to be blameless and helpless to change it. One more increment.

People who complain about lower-wage competition just doesn't understand Econ 101. Simply put, developed countries let go of labor intensive products and services, and develop technology. It's okay for third world countries to have labor intensive industries where it creates jobs for them, and those products are affordable in the world's marketplace. It's called comparative advantage.

Apple is one of the richest companies in the world, because they know how to develop new consumer products and services that has high demand. They spend big bucks and R&D as they should.

TPP extends copyright on prescription meds, so drug companies can keep charging super high prices a lot longer. It allows corporations to bypass a nation's laws to make certain their profits are first over the interests of that nation's citizens. There is more, but I don't intend to search links just now.

Aren't those copyrights limited to seven years?

And the fact that a purchased congress passes laws to help the rich get richer surprises you. If you want to change things look at your reps and senators. Maybe thats where you should start rather than at the top.

TPP changes how long a copyright lasts.

Article from last December
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editorials/ct-obamacare-congress-budget-edit-1227-jm-20151223-story.html

Congress just kicked the financial legs out from under Obamacare.

In a spending bill passed this month, lawmakers delayed three key taxes designed to help pay the entitlement program's costs, and clamped down on a bailout of struggling health insurers.

As a result, the long-term financial prognosis of Obamacare looks shakier than it did before. That ups the ante on Republicans to deliver their promised, but as yet unwitnessed, rehab or replacement for the Affordable Care Act. Ladies and gentlemen, several million Americans who've come to rely on Obamacare deserve to know what coverage plans you envision for them.

Democrats, you're also invited to reshape federal regulation of health care. By expanding insurance but also dictating expansive coverage, your party created the costs of Obamacare. But without the revenue streams you anticipated, paying for all of those costs just got dicier. You, too, want a truly affordable care act.

How the game just changed:

•The so-called Cadillac tax was supposed to tame health costs by taxing lavish health care plans enjoyed by millions of Americans, notably clout-heavy union members. That tax was supposed to start in 2018 but now won't kick in until 2020 unless Congress, as we expect, delays it again. If so, that's $91 billion in lost revenue from 2018 to 2025.

•A tax on insurers that sell to individuals, families and many businesses was expected to yield $142 billion over a decade. That tax has been in effect since 2014 but is suspended for 2017, costing the U.S. Treasury $12 billion.

Obamacare has a fever coming on
Obamacare has a fever coming on
•A medical devices tax that harms American companies' competitiveness is nixed for 2016 and 2017. Cost: $4 billion.

•Congress also held firm for the second year on the so-called risk corridor law that was designed to help struggling insurers survive the first few years of Obamacare. The idea was that successful Obamacare insurers would pay into a fund to help those that calculated wrong when they set rates in the fledgling years and lost money. But guess what? About 2 of every 3 health care payers lost money in 2014; many of the rest eked out small profits. Insurers asked for $2.9 billion in payments from the risk corridor fund to cover 2014 expenses, but there was only $362 million in the pot. A little-noticed provision, often credited to Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., prevented the Obama administration from raiding other funds to pay off the struggling insurers. The insurers had to survive (or not) on their own, without a government bailout. Many state insurance co-ops, created to stoke competition among insurers, capsized. Other insurers may follow.

Obamacare: Don't ditch the Cadillac tax
Obamacare: Don't ditch the Cadillac tax
These changes undercut key selling points of Obamacare: the promises that it would bend the cost curve on health care and cut federal deficits. If these taxes end up permanently repealed, or suspended year after year — a reasonable guess — then the result will be that instead of generating a $137 billion reduction in the nation's deficits in the decade from 2016 to 2025, Obamacare would actually add $120 billion to the debt, Loren Adler, research director at the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, tells us. "It's a little frightening to see people agree to undermine cost controls in the law," he says.

Remember, Obamacare is an entitlement brought to you entirely by Democrats. No Republicans voted for it. By contrast, 166 Democrats just joined 150 Republicans in the House to pass the spending measure that dams the Obamacare revenue streams; similarly in the Senate, 38 Democrats and 27 Republicans voted to strip out the Obamacare taxes.

The Obamacare predictions that President Barack Obama and his party made are fraying. And Democrats themselves are helping unravel the fiscal underpinnings of the law. Worse, as the driving force for suspending the Cadillac tax, the Democrats remove incentives for businesses and others to rein in health costs.

This is not Armageddon for Obamacare. Open enrollment recently ended for policies that start Jan. 1. Health and Human Services Secretary Sylvia Burwell reported "record demand" for that coverage.

People still want insurance, especially if it is reasonably priced and offers a wide network of doctors and hospitals. But Obamacare is faltering on both of those promises, along with those pledges to tame health costs and cut deficits.

House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., said earlier this month that in 2016 Republicans will unveil a plan to replace Obamacare. He said that even if Obama wouldn't sign such a law — and he wouldn't — Republicans in Congress must produce proposals to show voters "what our ideal policy would be looking forward to 2017 and beyond."

Yes, let's see the Republican plan. And let's hope it impresses Americans with sensible coverage, incentives and costs.

Because the next president and Congress have no choice but to fix Obamacare, a law now known for rocketing premiums, narrowing networks of coverage, flummoxed consumers and insolvent insurers.

If the republicans want their reps to take away their health insurance for the masses, I'm all for it. That's a choice they make with the freedom to vote any way they wish. Look at how many choose Trump over Clinton.
There's no cure for stupid.

I believe your observations on the growing crisis in Obamacare are largely accurate. However, I don't agree with your suggestion that "Congress just kicked the financial legs out of Obamacare". The system simply is not working as its framers assured us it would. The added costs associated with the many requirements for routine care built into the mandates have priced the very people who needed it most out of the market.

The catastrophic care coverage which once beneffitted those with limited means is now no longer available. The basic idea of insurance is to spread the risk of very large, but infrequent costs: not to address routine, predictable costs. The only way to reduce the costs of such services is to increase the supply of them: raising demand and reducing supply as Obamacare has done has exactly the opposite effect.

The so called Cadillac Tax on "lavish" health care programs were vehemently oppossed by the labor unions that now enjoy them. That cut out a large share of the Denmocrat Base in supporting them. This was totally predictable.

The bottom line here is that Obamacare has made the pracice of medicine less attractive to doctors and others: many have retired and fewer are seeking careers in the field. The efforts of the government to mandate billing rates for hospital services and force the consolidation of existing hospitals and facilities, in an ullusory effort to lower costs, has had the untoward effect of reducing the supply of such services and facilities and therefore raising the price they command in the market. It turns out that our government is no more effective in reversing the laws of supply and demand than was King Canute in commanding the tide to stop rising.

In a similar fashion if we have our government cap the prices of medicines, then research and the development of new, more effective products will simply stop.

The idea that our government can operate a single payer system that will function independently in the marketplace is simply absurd. Instead it will become a government operated and managed sdystem - one that will function with all the skill, efficiency and excellence that we see in our public schools, post offices, TSA and all the other bureaucracies that increasingly infest our lives.