WELCOME TO THE BLOG This blog reflects my views of current political issues.. It is also an archive for columns in the Sky Hi News 2011 to November 2019. Winter Park Times 2019 to 2021.(paper publishing suspended in 2021) My Facebook page, the muftic forum, posts blog links, comments, and sharing. Non-political Facebook page: felicia muftic. Subscribe for free on Substack: https://feliciamuftic.substack.com Blog postings are continuously being edited and updated.
Monday, February 24, 2014
Saturday, February 22, 2014
Obama's velvet foreign policy in Syria, Ukraine, and elsewhere
In the wake of the end of the cold war, the rise of radical
Islam, and the Arab Spring, the world
and US foreign policy are still sorting
themselves out. Voices
in the US range from Sen. John McCain’s speak loudly and carry an imaginary big
stick to others who want us to speak
loudly and carry a threatening, but small stick. They criticize Obama’s policy which has
become speak softly and carry a flexible
willow switch wrapped in diplomatic velvet that
prods and pokes and occasionally stings with economic and drone weaponry.
The proponents of
“loud” need a reality check. Most US
voters realize that
bluster can lead to blunder. After
the Iraq invasion and the Afghanistan frustrations, how else could the US
public conclude? Wielding big sticks is not popular in a nation weary of war
and wanting to turn inward to resolve its own domestic problems . The small stick
approach in time is viewed by those at whom it is shaken as bully
bluster not to be taken seriously.
President Obama’s foreign policy has evolved based on his pledge to end the wars and later
shaped by experience, while ignoring charges from the right that he leads from behind or has weakened US
influence. Besides, budget deals have not restored the military’s
former glory as both wings of the
political parties try to shoehorn their priorities into budgets constrained by
fears of bankrupting the country.
After the Arab
Spring, the uprisings in Egypt and abortive attempts to establish a western style
democracy, Syria and Ukraine are the newest tests of Obama’s
US foreign policy.
Military Intervention in Syria risks an outcome similar to Iraq’s and Afghanistan’s. A
diplomatic end to the deadly civil war will
depend upon Russia . Stepping up aid to refugees internally and externally is in both
Russia’s and US interests since it reduces pressure to increase US intervention to end a humanitarian disaster, probably
explaining Russia’s UN Security Council “yes” vote Saturday. Neither country wishes to see Syria dominated by militant
Islam. These common goals could lead to wider cooperation.
Resurrecting cold war emotions on either side is very
unhelpful, as much as US proponents of
“loud” promote it and Russia views the West as engaged in a power struggle
with them. In spite of that, the Ukraine resolution contains hope for beginning even better relations with Russia that could lead to
cooperation elsewhere and will have an
impact beyond borders. Western Europe who brokered the Ukraine compromise
and Russia fear violence on their doorsteps. Pres. Obama simply picked up the telephone
and called Russia’s President Putin, peace
returned to the square, Ukraine’s
besieged pro Russian president retreated from Kiev to friendlier parts, and the
demonstrators took over the national government . The final solution of how to govern a country
split between pro Russian and a pro Western population is not resolved but kudos to Obama for getting the ball rolling in his velvet way.
There are other countries such as Bosnia with significant
numbers of their population seething in anger at non-responsive, corrupt, and ineffective, divided governments, who will be watching the Ukraine situation as a template for a
strategy for change. What happens in the
Ukraine will influence how other such conflicts will play out.
Saturday, February 15, 2014
Boehner and McConnell fall on swords to stop Tea Party bitten by amnesia bug
This past week, John
Boehner, House Speaker and 27 of his
fellow Republicans, fell on their swords to aid their party when they joined with Democrats to raise the
debt ceiling with no strings attached
and to block Tea Party threats to shut down the government again. The
Senate then passed the legislation on a party line vote, though enough Republicans led by minority leader Mitch McConnell, voted to break
the filibuster rule requirement of 60 votes. The GOP leaders realized
the Tea Party must have been bitten by the amnesia bug.to try to repeat their
last fiasco and other failed strategies.
Last fall, Boehner
let the Tea Party have their way and the GOP did shut down the government.
The political backlash was so severe , Republicans even feared they would lose seats in the 2014
midterms and set up another Democratic win for the White House in 2016. The GOP was
saved by the bungled roll out of
Obamacare, charges the President’s” lied” about keeping insurance, and a budget deal.
That Boehner’s action risked his speakership and Mitch McConnell gave fuel to
Tea Party opponents in his upcoming primary shows that the Tea Party has nearly completed their takeover of the Republican party. In Colorado,
traditional business oriented Republicans
are only bystanders in a battle between the Tea Party Express and local ultra
conservatives to see who can endorse the most conservative
candidate to take on Democrat Sen. Mark
Udall in November. Similar battles
elsewhere guarantee that Democratic
candidates for state houses and Congress
in blue and purple states will have an advantage in facing the most extreme opponents who will have
problems pivoting to the center to appeal to moderate middles in the general election.
This year the situation is different . The web site works.
As of February 1 nearly 14 million are
already covered by Obamacare (3.3 million through the exchanges; 7 million
through Medicaid expansion and 3 million
young adults on parents’ policies). An
estimated 60% of the 5 million losing individual
insurance have found other insurance policies or qualified for cheaper ones.. By
the 2014 mid terms, the administration projects six million will have signed up through Obamacare exchanges. .
The Tea Party still is adamantly advocating total repeal and no replacement. All those benefiting by November 2014 will not look kindly on candidates wanting to take
away their newly acquired affordable
insurance coverage.
The Tea Party’s domination of the GOP will also help Democrat’s chances of holding onto the Senate
since key states with large Hispanic populations swung blue in 2012 by their disaffection with the GOP’s perceived
hostility, Colorado included.. Thanks
to Tea Party fanatics in Congress, Boehner was forced to back down from any
compromise or even a piecemeal approach to immigration reform this year.
The Tea Party continues to alienate unmarried women, a must win voting block. Anti
choice platforms and Insults continue, the latest by former Gov. Mike Huckabee who opined women
wanted the pill because they could not
keep their “libido” under control. The GOP ‘s repeal of Obamacare
would eliminate Obamacare
standards that prohibit higher premiums
for women or covering mammograms
and birth control pills sans co-pays. Since women comprise much of the
minimum wage workforce, GOP opposition to raising it is one more turnoff.
Obama's most recent delay in ACA implementation for small businesses will have little impact
Analyses from industry and Kaiser Health indicate little impact on the ACA financial soundness...as reported in the Boulder Daily Camera
My observations of article's conclusions:
Very few will be affected...especially companies with over 100 employees, because most already provide insurance. It may affect those with with 50 to 99 employees who may have been planning to keep as many employees as they can under 30 hours. The delay is only to 2016 and large businesses have a delay until 2015. Since so many of these delays affect so few, the impact on the implementation of the Obamacare financing is minimal. That is not true for individual mandates, where the impact of a delay would have major consequences because so many would be affected. The ACA's financial security depends upon getting younger, healthy into the pool to spread the risk of covering pre-existing conditions around and fining businesses and individuals for not participating.
My observations of article's conclusions:
Very few will be affected...especially companies with over 100 employees, because most already provide insurance. It may affect those with with 50 to 99 employees who may have been planning to keep as many employees as they can under 30 hours. The delay is only to 2016 and large businesses have a delay until 2015. Since so many of these delays affect so few, the impact on the implementation of the Obamacare financing is minimal. That is not true for individual mandates, where the impact of a delay would have major consequences because so many would be affected. The ACA's financial security depends upon getting younger, healthy into the pool to spread the risk of covering pre-existing conditions around and fining businesses and individuals for not participating.
Saturday, February 8, 2014
The GOP should apologize for its sins of commission and omission in its war against Obamacare
Even after the web site was fixed and Pres. Obama apologized
for misspeaking, , the GOP’s war against Obamacare (ACA) rages on blithely spreading misinformation. While the GOP gleefully called the President a
liar for promising those individually insured could keep their insurance if they liked it, the
current Republican campaign against
Obamacare is full of sins of omission and commission. It is the GOP’s turn to
apologize.
Mitch McConnell, GOP
Senate Minority Leader, flat fibbed when
he misrepresented a report from the Congressional Budget Office(CBO).
He wrongfully claimed it meant that 2.5 million jobs would be lost
thanks to Obamacare. Jobs would not disappear, but the CBO estimated that 2.5 million who had jobs would
leave of their own choice, but not by employers killing job positions. GOP ads are
already promoting their twisted version
of the CBO report.
Prior to
Obamacare some were locked into their
jobs because they needed employer provided insurance since that
was the only way to get pre-existing conditions covered or to be able to afford
coverage for their families. Obamacare frees them to retire early, start their
own business, go part time, or stay home
to care for their parents or young
children.
The GOP countered that such choice is bad because it would encourage people to stop working,
reduce the workforce, and thus harm the
economy. The CBO report indeed predicted
there would be workforce reduction by 2024 by 2.5 million.
That is about 1.5% of the total workforce, not
exactly earthshaking and not because Obamacare killed jobs.
A recent anti ACA ad omits so much information, it borders on deceptive advertising. Five million
individually insured got letters from insurers discontinuing their substandard
policies. To continue beating war drums that the President lied about their keeping insurance, an outside conservative
group is running a commercial in our market that features a lupus sufferer who complains her $50 per month insurance now is $325, her deductibles are too high, she has to take on a second job, and she has
to change doctors. She should be asked some hard questions. Did she apply for a subsidized health policy in the ACA exchanges ?
Was her annual income too high to qualify for a subsidy? .What was her prior
deductible with such low ball coverage of her old policy? The health care
exchanges include a wide variety of insurance providers. Was her current
physician participating in any of them? An estimated 60% of those
receiving the letters can qualify for
premium subsidies in the exchanges, or hardship exemptions, with access to better catastrophic insurance.
Some GOP senators are
pitching a
replacement to Obamacare that buries a critical downside in small
print. Their proposal would relieve employers, health care and device providers,
individuals, and insurers from mandates
and being taxed or getting fines for not providing or getting insurance. Good for them but bad for most everyone
else. It would replace the funding to
subsidize premiums with raising
taxes on the 60 % of Americans who get
insurance through employers. The plan would
declare most health insurance
benefits taxable income, Forbes estimated that would be a tax increase of
$1345 a year for a family of four in the
25% bracket. http://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewherper/2014/01/28.
Families making between 300%-400% above the poverty line would lose Obamacare insurance
subsidies.
Version of above at www.skyhidailynews.com Feb. 15, 2014
Version of above at www.skyhidailynews.com Feb. 15, 2014
What the CBO reported: “The estimated reduction stems almost
entirely from a net decline in the amount of labor that workers choose to
supply, rather than from a net drop in business’ demand for labor, so it will
appear almost entirely as a reduction in labor force participation and in hours
worked relative to what have occurred otherwise rather than as an increase in
unemployment (that is, more workers seeking, but not finding jobs) or
underemployment (such as part-time workers who would prefer to work more hours
per week).”
Friday, February 7, 2014
Monday, February 3, 2014
Michael Barone, in a column published in the Wall Street Journal Feb. 2 2014 and on line, chides the elite in Washington who designed Obamacare for misreading America. His thesis is that sign up is slow and limited because not everyone wants health insurance, particularly those in lower income levels, because they are "disconnected " from society and others do not want all of the various services Obamacare requires in all insurance policies.
This is an amazing column that ignores a basic piece of Obamacare... There was not one reference to mandates and fines which were specifically designed to "encourage" free riders to sign up for insurance. In fact, the originators of that approach did recognize that human behavior would try to free ride the system...and that approach was designed by the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, that did not misread the American public. Now, of course, it is the crusade of the right to do away with mandates and leave us all stuck with the free rider costs shifted to our premiums when those that use the system cannot pay their bills.
Amazingly, not mentioned in the column too is the deadline period for sign up is still two months away, the fines this first year are minimal and will increase significantly over the next two years. This is another case of those opposing Obamacare to declare it dead before it is totally implemented.. The fines for free riders increase dramatically in the two upcoming years. In addition, those in lower income brackets get subsidies and maybe Medicaid if they are fortunate not to live in the red states which did not expand Medicaid eligibility, leaving those "socially disconnected" with no choice but to free to ride again because they cannot afford either the exchanges or they are left out of the expansion.
What is even more contradictory is that the conservative wing is the one fighting Medicaid expansion, and recent GOP proposals would give us all the option of being free riders. That would mean eventually the total demise of health care insurance reform since either all participate and expand the pool to make it possible for all with varieties of health conditions to pay something in or, failing that, taxpayers would have to make up the difference to make health care insurance affordable for those who need subsidized premiums. Current proposal from 3 GOP senators: the latter is what they plan: to make those who get their insurance from employers pay by making their health insurance benefits taxable income. ...a virtual tax increase for all who get insurance from employers increase to make insurance affordable .
This is an amazing column that ignores a basic piece of Obamacare... There was not one reference to mandates and fines which were specifically designed to "encourage" free riders to sign up for insurance. In fact, the originators of that approach did recognize that human behavior would try to free ride the system...and that approach was designed by the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, that did not misread the American public. Now, of course, it is the crusade of the right to do away with mandates and leave us all stuck with the free rider costs shifted to our premiums when those that use the system cannot pay their bills.
Amazingly, not mentioned in the column too is the deadline period for sign up is still two months away, the fines this first year are minimal and will increase significantly over the next two years. This is another case of those opposing Obamacare to declare it dead before it is totally implemented.. The fines for free riders increase dramatically in the two upcoming years. In addition, those in lower income brackets get subsidies and maybe Medicaid if they are fortunate not to live in the red states which did not expand Medicaid eligibility, leaving those "socially disconnected" with no choice but to free to ride again because they cannot afford either the exchanges or they are left out of the expansion.
What is even more contradictory is that the conservative wing is the one fighting Medicaid expansion, and recent GOP proposals would give us all the option of being free riders. That would mean eventually the total demise of health care insurance reform since either all participate and expand the pool to make it possible for all with varieties of health conditions to pay something in or, failing that, taxpayers would have to make up the difference to make health care insurance affordable for those who need subsidized premiums. Current proposal from 3 GOP senators: the latter is what they plan: to make those who get their insurance from employers pay by making their health insurance benefits taxable income. ...a virtual tax increase for all who get insurance from employers increase to make insurance affordable .
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)