PAUL RYAN - THIS GUY MEANS TROUBLE IF ELECTED

I watched some of the debate last night between V.P. Joseph Biden and Republican Cong. Paul Ryan.

To think that there are a lot of American voters who might choose Ryan and Mitt Romney over Barack Obama and Biden is astounding!  And even more surprising is that a majority of old geezers over 65 prefer Romney/Ryan!

Ryan and Romney want to lower takes on top earners, cut social programs, and, above all, do away with Social Security and Medicare. 

They claim that seniors over 55 will not be affected, but how about those between 45 and 55?  Instead of health care from Medicare, Romney/Ryan will give them a voucher.  If their health expenses exceed the face value of the voucher, well, too bad!

POMPOUS MITT ROMNEY CALLS IT IMMORAL FOR U.S. GOVERNMENT TO INCUR INDEBTEDNESS, BUT WHY DID BAIN CAPITAL INCUR MILLIONS IN DEBT TO RUN ITS BUSINESS?

Okay, Barack Obama was not up to his usual high quality in the first debate with Mitt Romney.  Romney won, but who cares?  The victory will be short-lived.

In the meanwhile, consider Romney's pompous and self-righteous statement that leaving government indebtedness for our children and grandchildren to pay off is downright immoral.

If going into debt is highly immoral, how come Romney's own firm, Bain Capital, borrows millions of dollars on each deal that it does, so that it can buy a controlling interest in the company's stock?

The answer is, Romney's firm is a business, and it operates according to business principles.  If it borrows money or if it sells bonds, it has a pretty good idea how and when it will pay back.

The same principle applies to the biggest corporation, the government of the United States.  The government borrows money, so that it can invest in creating jobs, providing for the common welfare, e.g., for the costs of Medicare, building highways and infrastructure.  These are necessary to foster a prosperous and healthy society.  The notion that Romney's Bain Capital may go into indebtedness, but the U.S. government may not borrow money more than its current income is ridiculous, sophomoric and dumb.

Furthermore, when Romney says it is immoral for the government to incur indebtedness, how about if the indebtedness is earmarked to create well-paying jobs for our children's fathers and mothers?  How "immoral" would it really be if the U.S. government did nothing to make sure today's children and tomorrow's grandchildren went hungry because the government failed to invest in their future and their welfare?

OBAMA: CONDEMN BAHRAIN 'S CRACK-DOWN ON MEDICAL DOCTORS HELPING WOUNDED PROTESTERS

I want Pres. Obama to: 1) condemn government violence against doctors in Bahrain; 2) stop mass deportation of Latino undocumented immigrants; 3) end drone attacks against Pakistani villages in Waziristan that kill innocent civilians; 4) fight Republican attempts to destroy Social Security and Medicare under guise of reducing debt.

DON'T TRUST REPUBLICANS ON HEALTH CARE REFORM

Time is running out. I don't approve of the delay asked by the Blue Dogs and the meanie Republicans on the Democrats' health care reform bill. The Republicans were against Social Security retirement income back in 1936. Imagine the devastating effect on retirees and older people if the Congress had not passed that bill back then. The Republicans were against Medicare in 1965. Again without Medicare seniors would have no health insurance and thus be deprived of health care. Today, the U.S. is facing an even more important and critical question: do we want to see every American, man, woman, child, covered by adequate health insurance? The Republicans obviously oppose the program as "too costly." But if we left it to the Republicans, there would be no Social Security, no Medicare, and no universal health insurance coverage.

REPUBLICANS TRY TO DEFEAT OBAMA'S HEALTH PLAN GRANTING COVERAGE TO ALL AMERICANS

The Republicans seem like they are going all out to defeat Obama's reform of health care. They want to delay, amend, discuss, procrastinate, all with the aim of killing the first serious attempt to extend health care coverage to everyone, including the 40+ million Americans without any health insurance.

Think Progress reports today in a story written by Ben Ambruster that the Huffington Post obtained a secret memo put out by the Republican National Committee:

"After following GOP pollster Frank Luntz’s advice to demonize President Obama’s health care plan by distorting it, many conservatives have recently embraced a new obstructionist tactic: delay any reform measure going through Congress for as long as possible. The Republican National Committee is giving the strategy its official stamp of approval. In a 12-page memo obtained by the Huffington Post, the RNC urges Republicans to “engage in every activity we can to slow down” health care reform:

"In particular, the 12-page memo makes the case that it is a Republican priority to slow down the consideration of health care reform before it can become codified.

"“The Republican National Committee will engage in every activity we can to slow down this mad rush while promoting sensible alternatives that address health care costs and preserve quality,” the memo affirmatively declares."

The Republicans hated Social Security Retirement Income when that was passed in 1936; they hated Medicare in 1966; now they hate extending health insurance coverage to the uninsured. The Republicans call it "socialized medicine" when we Democrats insist that everyone has a right to full and competent health care. They would rather keep the 40+ million Americans without health insurance than have the country commit to make sure that everyone is insured.

STOP TALK ABOUT "SOCIALIZED MEDICINE" - WE NEED UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE FOR ALL AMERICANS

I could not believe what I was hearing and watching on CNBC's Fast Money this past week. One of the guest traders, John Najarian, was commenting on Barach Obama's win in Iowa, consoling himself that at least Obama's health care plan did not constitute "socialized medicine" the way the plans of the other Democrats did (i.e., plans of Clinton and Edwards).

As if requiring all persons to be covered by health insurance constituted "socialized medicine." Perhaps the trader would like to see the 40 million+ Americans without any health insurance grow to 100 million. And like Bush, the trader probably would urge such uninsured to stop whining and resort to the emergency room when they need immediate care.

The term "socialized medicine" is loaded with historical baggage going all the way back at least to the Republicans' objections to FDR's proposal for Social Security retirement income. When the government provides SS retirement income to people generally over the age of 65, some conservative critics like Najarian would call this "socialized medicine." Imagine the hardship for the older population without social security income!

Consider Medicare, the program providing health insurance for seniors over 65. Even today, George W. Bush and his Republican supporters have tried to overturn the government's involvement in Medicare by substituting and subsidizing private insurance providers, conspiring to have them take the place of government. Fortunately, Bush's efforts have gone nowhere.

Medicare of course provides health insurance to those over 65. Now when the Democrats come out with plans to extend the same coverage to those under 65, the reactionaries scream and cry "socialized medicine." But if most people value Medicare as a good way to provide health coverage to those 65 and over, why is it bad to do the same thing for younger people? Why in fact would such health insurance for the young constitute "socialized medicine"?

Why shouldn't the government be involved with health insurance? What is so bad about that? What then does the "socialized" in "socialized medicine" really mean? What is the alternative to not providing universal health coverage? Can American society afford to abandon those children and under-65 adults who struggle with health crises simply because they cannot afford proper insurance?

I don't think so. And I wish that Fast Money on CNBC would require that anyone like Najarian who spouts about "socialized medicine" explain why universal health insurance should not be enacted as a priority of the next administration.

FIGHT FOR HEALTH INSURANCE FOR CHILDREN

We need to expand the federally financed medical insurance coverage for children. Bush has threatened to veto any such expansion. I guess he believes it is better that children not have access to physicians and health care. Why? Because he fears that this coverage of children would take away revenues and profits from private medical insurers.

Bush's position on CHIP (children's health insurance plan) is a gift to all of us who oppose him. How anyone could be against expanded health insurance coverage for children is unfathomable and indefensible, no matter what the financial cost.

So I read in today's The New York Times an article by Robert Pear on the activities of House Democrats in crafting a bill that would expand CHIP as well as make Medicare more responsive to the needs of older persons:

"After a rare bipartisan agreement in the Senate to expand insurance coverage for low-income children, House Democrats have drafted an even broader plan that also calls for major changes in Medicare and promises to intensify the battle with the White House over health care. . . .

"House Democrats hope to portray the issue as a fight pitting the interests of children and older Americans against tobacco and insurance companies. The White House says the Democratic proposals would distort the original intent of the children’s program, cause a big increase in federal spending and adversely affect older Americans who are happy with the extra benefits they receive from private health plans.


"By packaging Medicare with the children’s health program, Democrats say, they have built a strong intergenerational coalition that could help them overcome a presidential veto. The House bill has already drawn support from two powerful groups, AARP and the American Medical Association, in part because it would prevent cuts in Medicare payments to doctors. But the House bill is likely to meet fierce resistance from some Republicans because it is more costly than the Senate bill and could undermine private Medicare health plans, which have been championed by Republicans for a decade."

Let's expand CHIP for children, but let us also improve services of Medicare for older people.

We all know that the Medicare plan now in effect, sponsored by the Republicans and pushed into law by Bush, favors moving people out of the traditional Medicare coverage and into the coverage provided by the private plans such as Aetna and Humana. In effect, Bush's Medicare plan aims at dissolving the government's sponsorship of health care for senior citizens, and foisting the job off to private insurers who lure seniors with low premiums in the beginning years hoping to increase premiums after Medicare no longer exists.

Writes Robert Pear:

"Proponents of the private plans, offered by companies like UnitedHealth and Humana, say they provide more benefits than traditional Medicare.

"But the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said the government paid the private plans, on average, 12 percent more than it would have cost to care for the same people in traditional Medicare. Moreover, it said, payments to the fastest-growing type of plan, known as private fee-for-service plans, are 19 percent higher than the cost of traditional Medicare.

"The House bill would gradually reduce these payments so that Medicare would pay the same amount, regardless of whether a beneficiary was in a private plan or in traditional Medicare."

Here are some of the provisions in the draft bill as reported by Pear in the NYT:

"In addition to expanding health care for children and curbing payments to private insurers, the House bill includes these provisions, as described in a written summary of the legislation and interviews with lawmakers:

¶ It would be easier for low-income Medicare beneficiaries to get additional help. Congress would simplify application procedures and relax the strict limits on assets, which now disqualify many retirees with modest savings.
¶The secretary of health and human services would be allowed to expand Medicare coverage of preventive services like certain disease-detection screenings. To encourage use of these benefits, Congress would eliminate most co-payments and other charges.
¶Medicare would pay primary care doctors, including internists and family physicians, to coordinate the care of some people in traditional Medicare. Researchers say such coordination improves care and saves money, especially for people with chronic diseases who may be seeing six or eight doctors.
¶State insurance commissioners would be given more power to regulate marketing by agents and brokers selling private health plans to Medicare beneficiaries. State officials and consumer advocates say that some people have been tricked into enrolling in such plans by agents who use deceptive sales tactics.
¶Congress would abolish a provision of the 2003 Medicare law that requires the president to propose changes in Medicare to limit its reliance on general revenue. Democrats fear that this requirement will be used to justify cuts in benefits or in payments to doctors or other health care providers.

"In addition, the House bill would prohibit private Medicare plans from charging higher co-payments than traditional Medicare. "