View Full Version : Obama tweaks message about keeping health plans under ObamaCare
Teh One Who Knocks
11-05-2013, 11:48 AM
FOX News
http://i.imgur.com/ql1AdT7.jpg
As thousands of consumers receive health insurance cancellation notices, President Obama is continuing to fine tune his promise that Americans who like their health plans would be able to them under his signature health care law.
The president told about 200 of his campaign supporters and health care activists Monday that the administration had promised Americans they could keep their current coverage -- as long as their plans hadn’t changed since ObamaCare was signed into law.
"If you have or had one of these plans before the Affordable Care Act came into law and you really liked that plan, what we said was you could keep it if it hasn't changed since the law's passed," Obama said. "So we wrote into the Affordable Care Act you are grandfathered in on that plan. But if the insurance company changes it, then what we're saying is they have got to change it to a higher standard. They've got to make it better."
Obama said his health care law is making the insurance market better for everyone, even though millions of Americans who buy individual plans have been receiving cancellation notices. He said the notices "can be scary for people," but added they were often getting "a very bad deal."
"The bottom line is -- is that we are making the insurance market better for everybody and that's right thing to do," he said.
The president also acknowledged that technical problems with the health care website to shop for insurance are making it tougher for people to find other plans. He said he's "not happy about it," but promised, "We're going to smooth this thing out."
At least 3.5 million Americans have been issued cancellations, but the exact number is unclear, The Associated Press reported. In a speech at Boston's Faneuil Hall this past week, Obama said the problem is limited to fewer than 5 percent of Americans "who've got cut-rate plans that don't offer real financial protection in the event of a serious illness or an accident."
In the Republican-controlled House, officials say a vote is likely as early as next week on a bill to let insurers continue selling any individual policies that were in effect on Jan. 1, 2013, even if they provide coverage deemed insufficient under Obamacare.
The measure, drafted by Rep. Fred Upton, R-Mich., and backed by roughly 100 fellow Republicans, would remain in effect throughout 2014, after which the issue would presumably be reviewed.
"Despite the president's repeated promise of 'if you like your plan, you can keep it,' many Americans are now learning the sad reality that their current plan will no longer exist beginning on January 1," Upton, chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, said in a statement when he announced his legislation last week.
"This legislation is about providing folks the peace of mind that they will be allowed to keep their current coverage if they so choose."
While Upton's legislation permits insurers to sell existing coverage plans that would otherwise be banned, Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., introduced legislation during the day to go one step further by requiring it.
Aides told The Associated Press that under her measure, insurance companies would be obliged to continue offering existing paying customers continued coverage under any plans in effect at the end of 2013. No new consumers could enroll.
"A promise was made that if you like your health plan, you can keep it - and I will do everything I can to see that the promise is kept," said Landrieu, who is gearing up for what is expected to be a challenging re-election campaign next year.
The White House declined comment on the two bills.
Both measures are designed to cut through a complicated system in which some plans for individuals that fall short of coverage standards are allowed to continue under Obamacare, while others are not.
I received a notification that my plan was not going to be offered for 2014 and I have the most comprehensive and expensive coverage offered. So it's not just shit plans being affected!
When I called my co-employer to ask about it, they said the cancellation doesn't apply to me and that plan modifications were detailed in a separate summary plan description sent out in October. I can see why people are confused and don't know what the fuck is going on.
Teh One Who Knocks
11-05-2013, 12:15 PM
You have to pass the bill to know what's in the bill :hand:
Yeah well it's November. Expecting the dust to settle by 1/1/14 seems unreasonable.
deebakes
11-05-2013, 12:50 PM
not remotely comical :hand:
man I havent even looked at any of my shit yet. I want to cancel it and get a catastrophic only plan just out of spite.
Teh One Who Knocks
11-05-2013, 01:54 PM
man I havent even looked at any of my shit yet. I want to cancel it and get a catastrophic only plan just out of spite.
You'd still have to pay the penalty then, so the government would still be getting some money.
You'd still have to pay the penalty then, so the government would still be getting some money.
Why would that be? You can choose catastrophic plans in the exchange, can you not?
Teh One Who Knocks
11-05-2013, 02:11 PM
Why would that be? You can choose catastrophic plans in the exchange, can you not?
From what I have seen, there are only comprehensive health care plans, a catastrophic plan wouldn't fulfill the requirements set forth by Obamacare.
Loser
11-05-2013, 02:22 PM
You'd still have to pay the penalty then, so the government would still be getting some money.
Can't charge someone a penalty when that person doesn't pay taxes ;)
Acid Trip
11-05-2013, 02:25 PM
From what I have seen, there are only comprehensive health care plans, a catastrophic plan wouldn't fulfill the requirements set forth by Obamacare.
Lance is correct. If your catastrophic plan wasn't grandfathered in by some big business lobbying then it's gone! I say that because the grandfathering rules were changed several times by the HHS.
From what I have seen, there are only comprehensive health care plans, a catastrophic plan wouldn't fulfill the requirements set forth by Obamacare.
Interesting, I'll have to look further.
I said that on purpose :razz:
Lance is correct. If your catastrophic plan wasn't grandfathered in by some big business lobbying then it's gone! I say that because the grandfathering rules were changed several times by the HHS.
I'll get on the exchange and check it out. Oh wait, never mind...
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-11-05/next-obamacare-debacle-massive-doctor-shortage
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-11-05/next-obamacare-debacle-massive-doctor-shortage
Not sure I buy the argument that people having access to care that need care is a reason to fault Obamacare. Granted, the burden shifts and the standard declines for all, but shouldn't there still be a mechanism to treat chronic disease for the less well off?
PorkChopSandwiches
11-05-2013, 06:22 PM
Why would that be? You can choose catastrophic plans in the exchange, can you not?
All you can buy in the exchange is version of the exact same type of insurance, they all cover the exact same thing. The only difference is the price, and that affect your monthly payment and deductable
All you can buy in the exchange is version of the exact same type of insurance, they all cover the exact same thing. The only difference is the price, and that affect your monthly payment and deductable
Then I am confused. I thought there were three plan levels based on the type of coverage you wanted, with different deductible, co-pay options, and costs.
Teh One Who Knocks
11-05-2013, 06:25 PM
Then I am confused. I thought there were three plan levels based on the type of coverage you wanted, with different deductible, co-pay options, and costs.
There are, but the least expensive ones don't cover crap until you meet your deductible which is HUGE on the Bronze (cheaper) plans. The cheapest one my g/f found still ran $300+/month and the deductible was nearly $13000
There are, but the least expensive ones don't cover crap until you meet your deductible which is HUGE on the Bronze (cheaper) plans. The cheapest one my g/f found still ran $300+/month and the deductible was nearly $13000
By design, I would call that a catastrophic plan. Lower cost than other plans with an extremely high deductible.
PorkChopSandwiches
11-05-2013, 06:28 PM
Then I am confused. I thought there were three plan levels based on the type of coverage you wanted, with different deductible, co-pay options, and costs.
Thats why people are losing the existing coverage, the bare minimum has to at least be the same as these choices. The choices at every level are the same.
Obamacare establish four levels of possible insurance plans;
(A) Bronze Level – A plan in the bronze level shall provide a level of coverage that is designed to provide benefits that are actuarially equivalent to 60 percent of the full actuarial value of the benefits provided under the plan.
.
(B) Silver Level – A plan in the silver level shall provide a level of coverage that is designed to provide benefits that are actuarially equivalent to 70 percent of the full actuarial value of the benefits provided under the plan.
.
(C) Gold Level – A plan in the gold level shall provide a level of coverage that is designed to provide benefits that are actuarially equivalent to 80 percent of the full actuarial value of the benefits provided under the plan.
.
(D) Platinum Level – A plan in the Platinum level shall provide a level of coverage that is designed to provide benefits that are actuarially equivalent to 90 percent of the full actuarial value of the benefits provided under the plan.
.
Basically the Bronze plan requires a co pay of 40%, if the doctor approved charge is a $100 your co pay would be $40, if the charge was $60 the co-pay would be $24. The Silver requires a co-pay of 30%. If the doctor approved charge is a $100 your co pay would be $30, if the charge was $60 the co-pay would be $18. The Gold is less co-pay and the Platinum is the least co-pay. However the premiums get higher as you pick lower co-pay plans.
http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2013/10/19/what-obamacare-bronze-silver-gold-and-platinum-rea.aspx
Teh One Who Knocks
11-05-2013, 06:30 PM
By design, I would call that a catastrophic plan. Lower cost than other plans with an extremely high deductible.
It's not catastrophic, it's all that's available to people unless you are making good money. And if you made good money, you wouldn't be buying shit thru the exchanges to begin with, you'd buy direct from the insurance company. There's not a middle class person out there that can afford the silver or gold plans. And most can't afford the bronze plans unless you are dirt poor and get it for free.
From this website: http://kff.org/interactive/subsidy-calculator/
Using this criteria:
http://i.imgur.com/QunYXFg.jpg
Gives this result:
http://i.imgur.com/sGofWFG.jpg
That says the net premium would be net $209. I am not arguing, just trying to understand. There are subsidies for higher than dirt poor.
Not sure I buy the argument that people having access to care that need care is a reason to fault Obamacare. Granted, the burden shifts and the standard declines for all, but shouldn't there still be a mechanism to treat chronic disease for the less well off?
there already is, its called medicare.
I still cant make sense of your first sentence :razz: as we all know, the fuckwads talked out both sides of their mouths using two different arguments depending on what group of people they found in front of them at the moment. not poor people got the "well we have to provide care for everyone" and poor people got the "we need to make this affordable" and obamacare does neither. in fact all it does is entrench the very things that everyone bitches about, all in an attempt to bring it to a critical mass that can be easily collapsed.
when the gov finds out what a doctor shortage we're going to have and its upon them and its a front and center problem, why, what do you think they'll do? subsidize the shit out of medical school, all but abolish residency requirements, and give us an army of Dr Nicks.
I guess technically medicaid. But there's obviously gaps that cause people to not seek treatment currently. Yes, it should have been recognized and addressed before hand, but I don't see the shortage as a function of Obamacare, per say.
it is going to be fucking with what doctors can charge and what they make, what do you mean its not going to have any effect? there's already craploads of docs that are on the cusp of retirement age that are saying I'm out, whereas before a lot of them would stay in practice because they were good and they made good money.
and that's despite this "insurance" scam we've got going on.
deep was right about one thing - this is NOT INSURANCE. This is a healthcare finance system that in no way resembles insurance.
'cept for those of us that basically never use the healthcare system.
Teh One Who Knocks
11-05-2013, 07:36 PM
http://www.tehfalloutshelter.com/showthread.php?54204-Docs-resisting-ObamaCare
I agree that reimbursements are an issue and will limit the people that go into medicine and stay in medicine. If it's simply a finance system, then why not go single payer and get it over with?
http://www.tehfalloutshelter.com/showthread.php?54204-Docs-resisting-ObamaCare
I am totally lost here. How do they not use the same R&C schedules as everyone else? The negotiated discount from R&C has to be in the contract. I don't get this at all... This is still through insurance companies.
Acid Trip
11-05-2013, 08:11 PM
My insurance had to be grandfathered in. Can't see why other then the fact it's awesome.
Hal-9000
11-05-2013, 08:30 PM
We used to pay a monthly fee up here for free medicare. Typically we would share this with whatever employer 50/50. Last time I paid it was about 30-40 bucks per month. Canadians no longer pay for health care, not sure what prompted the change.
People make fun of our health care system, the worst thing that occurs is that we have to wait (for minor things) at a clinic or go through a series of referrals. For severe accidents and other serious issues, you're admitted to an emergency room, then a hospital bed.
I was in a car accident in 1989. Ambulance took me to the hospital, I was admitted to a room for a week and had to have my femur pinned (not a lightweight procedure).
All of the drugs, food, the operation and all other components of hospital care were provided free of charge. I shared a room with 3 other guys...I could have opted for a private room by paying something like 9 dollars per day.
The only thing I paid for was a wheelchair rental and crutches, both used at home after I left the hospital. As far as I know, our system still operates the same way.
Honestly, I am starting to lean toward single payer.
:facepalm: that's exactly what they want
fuggin US, what the hell is it going to resemble in 10, 15 years. :banghead:
I know that's the end game, so why keep fucking around with it if that's what they are trying to achieve? Just do the end game and let people decide. This incremental stuff is absurd.
because if they proposed the end game it would have gotten shot down quicker than you can say rumplestiltsken, because its going to fucking suck for everyone involved, except for those who skim the gravy at the top.
this is all designed to entrench the biggest businesses and make them allies of the goverrnment, and prevent upstarts from bringing any competition.
FFS, you read about the nightmares that the NHS and shit is, do you want us to have to deal with that here??? because that is exactly where we're headed, but worse.
So what's your end game? You can't have this many people without access to health care, with no middle class growth, and increased dependence on Washington. Something's gotta give and nobody wants to cut a goddamn thing.
Teh One Who Knocks
11-05-2013, 08:52 PM
Who in this country has no access to healthcare?
hahaha, so what's the end game? Fucking collapse, brother. All indicators point to the US going DOWN. Hard. Once the US loses reserve currency status, the free shit gravy ride for the poor people is OVER. Its not going to be pretty.
"increased dependence on washington"
the fuck? you mean increased dependence on medium to high wage earners on their earned income, i.e. no capital gains. You say that as if "money comes from washington." Where's this money come from again???
For a similar situation to what is going to happen to our healthcare, see this:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-11-05/guest-post-problem-pay-you-go-social-programs-theyre-ponzi-schemes
You can say the exact same thing. Hey, we all need to stop working at some point, how is social security getting funded??? How can we not take care of our old and sickly!?!
Teh Maths. They do not paint even a remotely good picture.
Really...I hate to be a bag of doggie downers, but them's the brakes...and the point of it is aimed at every single low upper class, middle class, and upper lower class person in america.
Who in this country has no access to healthcare?
I didn't for a long time. I didn't get a new driver's license so I could lie about my address and use a different county who had resources. When my jaw became so infected that it required emergency surgery, I had to do the same thing because the oral surgeon said he couldn't admit me, even on an emergency basis without health insurance. They eventually went back and started billing people for those services. The free clinic is no longer free. What do you expect people to do? People with no options don't seek treatment, it festers and gets worse. When some people do finally get access, they oten have developed irreversible conditions.
Not to mention that the notion of just go the ER and let the insured people pay for it is has bankrupted hospital after hospital. The southern border towns have been the worse.
hahaha, so what's the end game? Fucking collapse, brother. All indicators point to the US going DOWN. Hard. Once the US loses reserve currency status, the free shit gravy ride for the poor people is OVER. Its not going to be pretty.
"increased dependence on washington"
the fuck? you mean increased dependence on medium to high wage earners on their earned income, i.e. no capital gains. You say that as if "money comes from washington." Where's this money come from again???
For a similar situation to what is going to happen to our healthcare, see this:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-11-05/guest-post-problem-pay-you-go-social-programs-theyre-ponzi-schemes
You can say the exact same thing. Hey, we all need to stop working at some point, how is social security getting funded??? How can we not take care of our old and sickly!?!
Teh Maths. They do not paint even a remotely good picture.
Really...I hate to be a bag of doggie downers, but them's the brakes...and the point of it is aimed at every single low upper class, middle class, and upper lower class person in america.
So you have no tangible alternative. All roads lead to collapse. Yet we should do nothing. Got it.
My tangible alternative keeps getting fuggin cockblocked by the Progressives.
Ya know, the one that actually includes a real free market, not making people buy shit they dont need and penalizing them if they dont purchase shit they dont need...the one that makes catastrophic plans the norm, as insurance should be, and not fuggin "I have a flat tire, help insurance...I need an oil change, help me, insurance...my seat's got a spring poking me in the balls, please pay for that, insurance..."
The solution that doesnt consolidate the fuckery going on right now.
The one that keeps getting taken by electoral fraud like a date rape drug.
The one that starts unwinding the federal reserve and bringing us back to a sound monetary position...
The one that doesnt spy on everyone...
I digress. This is why I say america is fucked. We've been taken over and overrun by progressives on the political front and now we're getting bent over by them and watching them corrupt our country piece by piece.
It is sickening to watch.
mind you, its not only the progressives...basically every single group that comes to power has done this.
its just that while the other groups have been relatively content to let the country run ok so long as they get their skim off the top, the goddam progressives want to compress the entire population (cronies excluded of course) down to sub middle classdom, all so everyone can be equal.
they think that somehow the wonderful star trek society will come and grace us all, just so long as they can get everyone to wear the red shirt.
and we all know what happened to the red shirts in start trek. (except for scotty, of course)
My tangible alternative keeps getting fuggin cockblocked by the Progressives.
Ya know, the one that actually includes a real free market, not making people buy shit they dont need and penalizing them if they dont purchase shit they dont need...the one that makes catastrophic plans the norm, as insurance should be, and not fuggin "I have a flat tire, help insurance...I need an oil change, help me, insurance...my seat's got a spring poking me in the balls, please pay for that, insurance..."
The solution that doesnt consolidate the fuckery going on right now.
The one that keeps getting taken by electoral fraud like a date rape drug.
The one that starts unwinding the federal reserve and bringing us back to a sound monetary position...
The one that doesnt spy on everyone...
I digress. This is why I say america is fucked. We've been taken over and overrun by progressives on the political front and now we're getting bent over by them and watching them corrupt our country piece by piece.
It is sickening to watch.
But that's the nature of democracy is it not? Taken over by progressives in a center right country? How? What do you blame for this takeover if not for the willingness of the electorate to go along? Stupidity? Better marketing?
To me, the parties don't matter, they are all interested in centralizing power. Centralized power means controlling the purse strings and subsequently not subverting the will of the people, but creating financial addicts who change their will to feed their habit.
There is one distinct items missing from your list. You blame Washington for not supporting free market ideas, but the so-called capitalists do everything they can to create monopolistic positions. I am not sure that is any different. Why has no one gone to jail from Wall Street after the collapse?
Teh One Who Knocks
11-05-2013, 10:27 PM
I didn't for a long time. I didn't get a new driver's license so I could lie about my address and use a different county who had resources. When my jaw became so infected that it required emergency surgery, I had to do the same thing because the oral surgeon said he couldn't admit me, even on an emergency basis without health insurance. They eventually went back and started billing people for those services. The free clinic is no longer free. What do you expect people to do? People with no options don't seek treatment, it festers and gets worse. When some people do finally get access, they oten have developed irreversible conditions.
Not to mention that the notion of just go the ER and let the insured people pay for it is has bankrupted hospital after hospital. The southern border towns have been the worse.
Well then your oral surgeon was misinformed (or he didn't want to deal with it). Nobody in this country can be denied treatment on an emergency basis as per federal law:
The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) is a U.S. Act of Congress passed in 1986 as part of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA). It requires hospitals to provide care to anyone needing emergency healthcare treatment regardless of citizenship, legal status or ability to pay. There are no reimbursement provisions. Participating hospitals may only transfer or discharge patients needing emergency treatment under their own informed consent, after stabilization, or when their condition requires transfer to a hospital better equipped to administer the treatment.
EMTALA applies to "participating hospitals." The statute defines "participating hospitals" as those that accept payment from the Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) under the Medicare program. In practical terms, EMTALA applies to virtually all hospitals in the U.S., with the exception of the Shriners Hospitals for Children, Indian Health Service hospitals, and Veterans Affairs hospitals. The combined payments of Medicare and Medicaid, $602 billion in 2004, or roughly 44% of all medical expenditures in the U.S., make not participating in EMTALA impractical for nearly all hospitals. EMTALA's provisions apply to all patients, and not just to Medicare patients.
So like it or not, for better or worse, anyone can go to any hospital ER that is covered under EMTALA and get emergency treatment. So if it was truly an emergency situation, you could not have been denied service.
Hal-9000
11-05-2013, 10:36 PM
and in that case, you're at the mercy of the one assessing your problem...deeming it an emergency or not
I've heard too many scary stories about triage in ER waiting rooms...people left to die because whatever problem didn't seem serious
one guy up here died on a gurney in a hallway because of appendix complications
Teh One Who Knocks
11-05-2013, 10:38 PM
and in that case, you're at the mercy of the one assessing your problem...deeming it an emergency or not
I've heard too many scary stories about triage in ER waiting rooms...people left to die because whatever problem didn't seem serious
one guy up here died on a gurney in a hallway because of appendix complications
But that's not endemic of just the United States, you hear horror stories like that from the NHS in Great Britain all the time, and they have a government run healthcare system. And I'm sure it happens in Canada as well.
Hal-9000
11-05-2013, 10:40 PM
yes...that what 'up here' means
:slap:
We also have Blue Cross, reasonable third party healthcare that's pretty good. My Mom and Dad are both on it, very solid for everything from prescriptions to dental. Do you guys have something similar?
Teh One Who Knocks
11-05-2013, 10:44 PM
yes...that what 'up here' means
:slap:
Sorry, I didn't see that :oops:
But that's no reason to get violent :x
We also have Blue Cross, reasonable third party healthcare that's pretty good. My Mom and Dad are both on it, very solid for everything from prescriptions to dental. Do you guys have something similar?
Anthem Blue Cross is a huge insurance company down here, one of the country's biggest.
Hal-9000
11-05-2013, 11:10 PM
recently I had to get some xrays and ultrasounds...as we print forms for every doctor, health care provider and hospital in the city, I assumed I understood our medical system...
nooooo :lol:
I could only go to a finite number of locations to get the imaging done, according to the receptionist of the place I went to. I said screw this, made an appointment two weeks sooner at another facility. The doc gets my results and on the followup visit she gives me a mouthful about going somewhere else...
I get pissy and ask - Are not all of the facilities under the Alberta Healthcare umbrella??? (they are) Is there some sort of kickback program I'm not aware of within your network???? :x
we didn't get along well after that day :|
But that's the nature of democracy is it not? Taken over by progressives in a center right country? How? What do you blame for this takeover if not for the willingness of the electorate to go along? Stupidity? Better marketing?
To me, the parties don't matter, they are all interested in centralizing power. Centralized power means controlling the purse strings and subsequently not subverting the will of the people, but creating financial addicts who change their will to feed their habit.
There is one distinct items missing from your list. You blame Washington for not supporting free market ideas, but the so-called capitalists do everything they can to create monopolistic positions. I am not sure that is any different. Why has no one gone to jail from Wall Street after the collapse?
1) food stamps and football (bread and circuses, public discovering they can vote themselves largesse)...government creates shitty programs to help out whose costs absolutely explode, are never accounted for or trimmed back. propagate like cockroaches.
2) the more gov does, the more it needs to take so that it may do. your comment seems a little mixed up, financial addicts as in businesses abandoning their fundamentals and taking their profits from the inflated stock market is one aspect that is just an outflow of the other aspect of the federal reserve giving the government a blank check to spend whatever it wants so that it may be paid for with made up treasuries that we're all responsible for the ultimate price of.
and 3 ) ...why has noone gone to jail from 08? hahaha....well, I aint got all mornin. but it has just a bit to do with the 16th amendment, making the large banks and government butt buddies. and then toss in shiftyness for big businesses like GE and shit...nobody went to jail because they made things legal ex post facto (dodd frank) and anyone who wasnt on the "favored" list got the shaft (lehman)
but ya know what, this lil girl has the best idea to take the problem out at the knees:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-11-05/14-year-old-girl-explains-how-we-can-stop-addiction-economic-growth
Via ClubOrlov blog,
[This week's guest post is by Scott Erickson, who is an award-winning humor writer and the author of a satirical novel titled The Diary of Amy, the 14-Year-Old Girl Who Saved the Earth. I liked it. It is entirely disarming and strikes a good balance between humor and seriousness. There are enough jeremiads and diatribes and rants on this topic out there. Luckily, this isn't one of them because Scott's scathing social critique and mordant wit are delivered via a charming narrative device: a smart, earnest, precocious 14-year-old girl.]
A 14-YEAR-OLD GIRL EXPLAINS HOW WE CAN STOP THE ADDICTION TO ECONOMIC GROWTH THAT’S DESTROYING THE EARTH
Hi! I’m Amy Johnson-Martinez, the 14-year-old girl who’s saving the earth from environmental destruction. A lot of people don’t understand how the destruction of the earth is connected to our addiction to economic growth. Actually, a lot of people don’t even realize that we’re addicted!
Personally speaking, I think it’s kind of weird that economists don’t tell us about this. So I guess it takes a 14-year-old girl to tell you about it!
Economists always say, “The economy has to keep growing or else it will collapse.” But it can’t grow forever, because the earth is running out of resources. Actually, it’s already starting to happen. That’s a big reason why the economy is getting worse.
Our economy is giving us a totally stupid choice: Save the economy or save the earth. It won’t let us save both! I personally think that’s pretty crazy!
On my journey to save the earth from environmental destruction, I figured out pretty quickly that the main problem is the economy. Pretty much every time there’s an idea that would make things less destructive and more sustainable, the argument against it is always: “It will be bad for economic growth.”
That’s when I found out the economy has to grow or else it collapses. But when I asked why, nobody knew the answer. So I had to figure it out myself.
I looked at a bunch of economic books, but none of them said anything about why we’re addicted to economic growth. I couldn’t even find out how the economy could grow. That’s another basic question: How can money grow?
Isn’t that an interesting question?
This led to another question, “How is money introduced into the economy?”
The answer wasn't easy to find. At first I thought the answer was that the government prints it, but that was back when I was young and naive. It turns out that the government prints only a tiny percentage of the money in circulation, and the rest is just promises, based on future growth (which is kind of weird if you think about it.)
Then I found out about “quantitative easing,” which sounds intellectually sophisticated. But it’s not the “real” answer, because quantitative easing only creates more promises. And the only way to live up to these promises is by overall growth of the economy. So we’re back to where we started: How does the economy grow?
Since I couldn’t find any answers in books about contemporary economics, I tried looking at books about the history of economics. I focused a lot on John Maynard Keynes, who was from England and invented the basic economic ideas we still use.
I found something interesting that he wrote in 1933. It’s the first thing I found that talks about economic growth. Basically, he thinks it’s important to have the economy grow, but when everybody is doing OK then growth should stop:
Suppose that a hundred years hence we are eight times better off than today. The economic problem may be solved.
The economic problem, the struggle for subsistence, always has been the primary, most pressing problem of the human race. Thus for the first time since his creation man will be faced with his real, his permanent problem – how to use his freedom from pressing economic cares, how to live wisely and agreeably and well.
When the accumulation of wealth is no longer of high social importance, there will be great changes in the code of morals. The love of money will be recognized for what it is, a somewhat disgusting morbidity, one of those semi-criminal, semi-pathological propensities which one hands over with a shudder to the specialists in mental disease.
I see us free, therefore, to return to some of the most sure and certain principles of religion and traditional virtue – that avarice is a vice, that the exaction of usury is a misdemeanor, and the love of money is detestable.
But the prediction that economic growth would end poverty hasn’t happened. In fact, even with all the economic growth that’s happened since then, poverty is getting worse. Obviously, the idea that economic growth will end poverty isn’t right.
I had to look up what the word “avarice” means, and basically it means “greed.” I also had to look up what “usury” means. It means to charge interest on loaning money. It’s a religious word and at one time all religions were against it as unethical.
Even though the quote was interesting, it didn’t answer the question about how money can grow. So I had to go back even farther. The ideas of John Maynard Keynes were influenced by another guy – John Law.
What a weird person! According to one book, in addition to being a banker and an economist he was “a gambler, swindler, rake and adventurer forced to flee the British Isles after killing an opponent in a duel.” This kind of person helped invent our economic system?
I found something in a book about John Law that seemed important: “Law made clear the distinction between a passive treasury, where money just accumulated, and an active bank, where money was created.”
Banks create money? That was news to me! I thought they just kept money and loaned some of it out.
The answer has to do with the “fractional reserve system” which started in the 1700s. It used to be that money was sort of a “receipt” for gold. The receipt was called a “banknote,” which was printed by the bank. But then some bankers figured out they could print more “receipts” than the gold they had, therefore they only had a “fraction” of the gold compared to the “receipts” (actual money).
That explains how it came to be that banks could create money, but it didn’t explain how money could “grow” – since banks were only allowed to print a certain percentage extra.
Then, some bankers figured out a way to become even more wealthy with this “extra money” they could print themselves. What they did is to give out the money in the form of a loan. Since they charged interest on the loan, they would get back more than they gave out. This next part is where the addiction starts.
Let’s say you get a loan for $100, but because of the interest you pay back $110. Here’s an interesting question: Where did that extra $10 come from?
It didn’t come from you, since you can’t create money. Only banks can – by making loans. So the extra money could only come from one place: More loans! If you trace money to where money comes from, it almost always comes from a loan.
People can get personal loans, but what’s more important for the economy is business loans – loans to start or expand a business. Of course all the loans have interest, which means paying back more money. But we’ve already figured out that money is “created” by banks issuing loans. So to pay off past loans, somewhere else in the economy there has to be new loans which create more money. But then THOSE loans have to be paid off with money, which means MORE loans.
It always comes back to the banks making more loans to pay off the existing loans. This has been going on for hundreds of years, which is how the economy “grows.”
Economic growth needs more money, but more money needs more economic growth, which needs more money. And it doesn’t stop. It can’t stop.
That’s not only how the economy grows, but why it HAS to grow. We can never get to a point where growth is “enough.”
This is why we’re addicted to economic growth. We’re not creating money; we’re creating debt!
Like with any addiction, we keep doing it even when it’s not working any more. This is why even when it’s obvious that economic growth isn’t solving unemployment or ending poverty or doing any of the other stuff it says it can do, we keep trying it anyway. It’s why even though we have more money than ever before in history, we still need more.
The funny thing is that the solution is super-easy. All we have to do is stop the banks from creating money as debt.
You know what’s really interesting? I discovered that our greatest president Abraham Lincoln figured this out and tried to stop it. Lincoln tried to fix the problem by having the government print a kind of money called “greenbacks”—$450 million of interest-free money. But the banks did NOT like this because they wanted to create all the money themselves! So they bought up all the “greenbacks” and forced the government to buy them back in exchange for gold.
Lincoln had the right idea, but he didn’t go far enough. We have to eliminate interest on ALL money. The answer is actually super-easy.
To end the addiction to economic growth and save the earth, this is what we need to do: End the creation of money as interest-bearing loans. Put an end to fractional reserve banking and make it so banks can’t create money. Then give the U.S. Treasury the exclusive right to issue U.S. currency free of debt.
Of course, the big banks won’t like this, because they make money from keeping us addicted. But as I learned in school, we live in a democracy which means companies aren’t the boss of us; we’re the boss of them. Yay for democracy!
Let’s stop the addiction before the economy collapses and destroys the earth, which is very beautiful. In fact, it’s my favorite planet!
Fuck the federal reserve - its existence is the root of the problems, because it allows the government to have a blank check to do whatever it wants and like in Eddy Murphy's Raw, say "and this mooley over here's going to pay for it." You heard what I said, mooley, PAY FOR MY FUCKIN CANDY!!!!
:dance:
Acid Trip
11-06-2013, 02:22 PM
Here is the only paragraph you need to read:
To end the addiction to economic growth and save the earth, this is what we need to do: End the creation of money as interest-bearing loans. Put an end to fractional reserve banking and make it so banks can’t create money. Then give the U.S. Treasury the exclusive right to issue U.S. currency free of debt.
And she's right.
PorkChopSandwiches
11-06-2013, 02:30 PM
and in that case, you're at the mercy of the one assessing your problem...deeming it an emergency or not
I've heard too many scary stories about triage in ER waiting rooms...people left to die because whatever problem didn't seem serious
one guy up here died on a gurney in a hallway because of appendix complications
When you have an emergency and go to the hospital, its the same hospital and staff with or without insurance. So, in that scenario he would have died either way
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.