Recent comments
ADHD: Hunter in a Farmer's World
Thom Hartmann has written a dozen books covering ADD / ADHD - Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder.
Join Thom for his new twice-weekly email newsletters on ADHD, whether it affects you or a member of your family.
Thom's Blog Is On the Move
By webmaster
Hello All
Thom's blog in this space and moving to a new home.
Please follow us across to hartmannreport.com - this will be the only place going forward to read Thom's blog posts and articles.
We paid them 1.15 for every dollar to incentivize the private insurers for Medicaid Part D - Joe Biden. And now look at what we have.
180 billion is going to health insurance companies on Medicare Advantage.
Paul Ryan R- Wis and Xavier D- Los Angeles are having a rowe. Xavier is pointing out that Ryan always glorifies the CBO, but today he is saying they must have been given the wrong numbers by the administration. The word Food Fight! was brought up.
CBO reduce the deficit by a trillion dollars.
Stimulus investment needs to be injected directly into the communities. Expecting the big banks and Wall Street to lead is ridiculous.
Re: health care
To anyone who is against the current health care reform on the basis of a "we can't afford it" claim (whether that is true remains to be seen), or solely because of their hatred for the current president, I challenge them to tell someone to their face, that any money that may or may not have to go to help them get health care coverage, SHOULD and WILL NOT go to help them because it's funding warfare.
I challenge all of them in Congress who are also against this reform to do the SAME!!
Globally, health care is a privilege yet in a privileged society, it's a RIGHT!!
@ Mitch - the dirty little secret of "lean manufacturing" is that most companies that took up the mantra used it as a means to eliminate jobs. I am speaking from the side of a practitioner. My former employer, like most, did not see a benefit in following the creed of lean: After an initial cut in manpower, the remaining employees will be guaranteed employment. Most employers do not utilize their new found efficiency and profits to seek additional work, choosing instead to pocket the profits.
The thing that Republicans, Tea Baggers and Libertarians for get when it comes to running a country is "No representation without taxation!". This goes for heath care as much as anything else I grew up in the UK and I paid higher taxes than I do here but the return was so much higher.
The Bush's tax cuts are the Pink Elephant. Thom's question hit right to the issue. "When have tax cuts stimulated the economy?" Bush's tax cuts have put us in our current situation,and it's a slap in the face when those who followed in lock step behind the last administrations boondoggle conveniently divorce themselves from any culpability, and have the odacity to laud the exact economic policies that were the cause of recession.
If you model the economy as a rope and a wagon, supply side economics is trying to push a wagon uphill with a rope. for the economy to be successful, we need to fill the wagon when necessary and pull to fill a need.
Just yesterday the House voted overwhemingly to strip insurance companies of their ant-trust status. The current pace in the Senate sholud see them take this up sometime in 2018.
RE: The caller who called for us to legislate against ABJECT GREED. Now, in effect, he was calling for a PARADIGM SHIFT AWAY FROM MATERIALISM AND TOWARD GREATER EMPATHY (which guest Jeremy Rifkin was addressing).
But I don't think Tom got it, since Thom seemed to be attempting to disprove the efficacy of taking an empathic stand; Thom's solution was the usual tables and charts and tax brackets response without a moral message -- that is, a materialistic response solely. Just "reigning in" ABJECT GREED is not the same as taking a stand to make it economically and socially unnacceptable.
I think I see what the caller was talking about. Uncontrolled Capitalism is ANTI-SOCIALISM; all that caller seemed to want is a SOCIALISM where the participants want a cooperative and empathic response by government reflecting most humans' natural cooperation and caring. Pure Materialism must be replaced with something new. Materialism is the problem, so it cannot also be the cure!
Just was reading last night about how we got locked into our competitive, dog-eat-dog Scientific Materialism Paradigm, and what an eye-opener. It really got me to seeing what a mistake we Liberals and Progressives make when we defend Darwinism as if it were the highpoint of evolutionary Science! Darwinism PROVIDES the scientific justification for ABJECT GREED by the "strongest" in our culture!
All Darwin did was apply British unfair social class structure to the idea of evolution! Look:
o British class hierarchy indicated that the strong (by blood or money) were deserving of their status
o Darwin was a member of the British upper class
o Darwin struggled for over 20 years to see in his naturalist notes an evolutionary pattern -- without success!
o Then a young naturalist -- a British COMMONER named Wallace who was working in southeast Asia wrote a theory of evolution. It noted that living organisms adapt to the changing environment as the weakest succumb and the rest proceed to evolve.
o Wallace sent his manuscript to Darwin, requesting Darwin's assistance in getting the manuscript published. Darwin esssentially stole Wallace's theory in what is known as the "Delicate Arrangement" and REFRAMED it to reflect Darwin's own upperclass worldview: Instead of Wallace's view that the weakest drop away leaving all other organisms to proceed on the evolutionary journey, Darwin reframed this as ONLY the strongest win the evolutionary battle. This was indeed the point of scientific justification for social class dominance and established a further entrenchment (which we cannot shake) of SCIENTIFIC MATERIALISM.
o How different things would be today if Wallace's original ideas had not been overlayed with the existing dominator mindset/worldview!
Progressives should think twice before they defend Darwinism! Please! It is so part and parcel of the Paradigm we need to overcome!
And that caller is on to something that is KEY to the solution -- recognizing ABJECT GREED and preventing its expression. I salute him!
Until about 1983, most companies employed purchasing, material, and labor transactions in a manner that is similar to supply side economics. By the end of the century few successful companies did not switch to the more demand side economics policy called "lean manufacturing" which reduced inventory (supply) until a demand was present. Maybe we should take note of that change and start trying to raise our demand side because supply always rushes to fill a demand.
One guest on Thom’s show doesn’t want to pay for the health care of those who don’t take care of themselves. On some level neither do I. Nor do I want to pay for those injured by dangerous activities or those made ill by corporations dumping toxins into the environment essentially making people subsidize profits with their health.
Leaving aside for now the matter of the health problems created by corporate behavior, and dangerous activities, why not tax substances like tobacco, alcohol, saturated fats, salt, sugar, whatever… or dangerous activities like skiing, in direct proportion to the health costs society has to pay to treat these problems? This avoids the problems of trying to regulate these substances/activities.
While responsible citizens would know the risks and avoid/minimize the above, we know most people don’t think that way. So for them, this creates a market feedback mechanism we don’t have today that links behavior to costs. If someone gets sick because of unhealthy lifestyle habits, their health care is paid for by the revenue pool created by these taxes. And the bigger the pool the better. In fact the only way this might work is for a Single Payer system into which all those extra taxes are funneled. Likewise, if some foods, or activities promote health, they are subsidized.
Of course this would not eliminate the need to pay into a health insurance pool to cover all the other infirmities and injuries humans suffer from. It’s just a partial funding mechanism for Single Payer.
The Dem proposal for selling across state lines includes minimum coverage requirements to limit the credit card effect. The Repubs argue this will result in the 13% increase in premiums. What they don't admit is the coverage is better, paying for many of the out-of-pocket expenses the insurer currently pays.
Jay Rockefeller whipped out the Well-point and Wendell Potter cards. Profit first, people second. Often employees are incentivized to kick people off your insurance contract. 44/50 states deny coverage like this and make it legal. So how can we leave health care to the states? The shark that swims just below the water, and you dont see it until you feel the teeth of that shark. They are not under anti trust. They do what they want because they so dominate the market. Its money. It makes me sick. It shouldnt happen in America. Its not alot of fun seeing a kid with leukemia (whom I knew and gives name) whose insurance runs out and then he dies. A ripacious industry unknown to the nation ...You have to have a big pool. Medical loss ratio: 87% of all revenues on health care- for small businesses they are in the high 60's and 70s.
ulTRAX February 25th, 2010, 9:12 am - Your comment is awaiting moderation.
ulTRAX February 25th, 2010, 11:24 am - Your comment is awaiting moderation.
Maybe there's a filter that doesn't like the 2 links to my blog. Let's try that again:
Senator Chuck Schumer and Representative Chris Van Hollen have been working on legislation to put the evil Citizens United genie back in the bottle. There approach can be found here:
http://vanhollen.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=169969
But are there are other possible avenues of attack to push corporations out of politics?
What about the IRS tax code?
Currently religious and non-profit entities receive tax-exempt status on the condition they NOT engage in political campaign activities. This is NOT considered a restraint on their First Amendment free speech laws. If these groups violate this agreement, they lose that perk.
http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=161131,00.html
Corporations receive numerous benefits such as limited liability protections and tax benefits such as the ability to write off expenses all designed to facilitate commerce.
Why can’t the tax code be changed to make these tax benefits conditional on corporations NOT engaging in political campaign activities?
Technically this would NOT be a restraint on corporate free speech any more than it is with those religious and non-profit organizations.
Corporations, likewise, would remain free to engage in political activities. Only they, too, would be faced with the choice that such involvement would end all of those special benefits in the tax code. Changing IRS code could possibly be done in time to prevent a massive avalanche of corporate money from affecting this year’s election.
I contacted the offices of Chuck Schumer at 202-224-6542 and Chris Van Hollen at (202) 225-5341 last week to suggest this idea, but the current proposal still does not include it.
If you see any merit in this idea I urge you to call your Senators and Representatives. The clock is ticking for this year’s mid-term elections.
OK, that one went through... so let's try the original again:
ulTRAX February 25th, 2010, 9:12 am - Your comment is awaiting moderation.
Senator Chuck Schumer and Representative Chris Van Hollen have been working on legislation to put the evil Citizens United genie back in the bottle. There approach can be found here:
http://vanhollen.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=169969
But are there are other possible avenues of attack to push corporations out of politics?
What about the IRS tax code?
Currently religious and non-profit entities receive tax-exempt status on the condition they NOT engage in political campaign activities. This is NOT considered a restraint on their First Amendment free speech laws. If these groups violate this agreement, they lose that perk.
http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=161131,00.html
Corporations receive numerous benefits such as limited liability protections and tax benefits such as the ability to write off expenses all designed to facilitate commerce.
Why can’t the tax code be changed to make these tax benefits conditional on corporations NOT engaging in political campaign activities?
Technically this would NOT be a restraint on corporate free speech any more than it is with those religious and non-profit organizations.
Corporations, likewise, would remain free to engage in political activities. Only they, too, would be faced with the choice that such involvement would end all of those special benefits in the tax code. Changing IRS code could possibly be done in time to prevent a massive avalanche of corporate money from affecting this year’s election.
I contacted the offices of Chuck Schumer at 202-224-6542 and Chris Van Hollen at (202) 225-5341 last week to suggest this idea, but the current proposal still does not include it.
If you see any merit in this idea I urge you to call your Senators and Representatives. The clock is ticking for this year’s mid-term elections.
http://reinventing-america.blogspot.com/2010/02/tax-code-and-citizens-un...
It's pretty unfair for the website to have a member of the day contest, yet hold some blog responses for "moderation"... thus off the website, now for over an hour.
When you say Laffer, is this the Laffer of the Laffer Curve at http://www.lcurve.com - the one showing disparity in class?
Laffer is given time to spew his bile because 41 Repubs, 5 or 6 Dems, 1 Independent and arguably 1 President buy this guy's garbage.
"Oh my god, that's just silly' does not make for a really good rebuttal. Why are we still taking these guys seriously?
Harkin making the case as to why you cannot go step by step and you must go comprehensive, IE MASS costs dropped by 40 some percent. However, when other states did step by step, the insurance companies skyrocketed their premiums as incremental reform.
Laffer's complaining that Thom has facts in front of him.
You'd think an economist talking about his own ideas would know the facts ... or maybe have them in front of him too.
Forget Laffer. He's a nut.
The Democrats seem much more in agreement and unified than the Republicans. The Republicans seem fractured in terms of whether they are towing the Luntz line or not. It is an Obama hallmark to tell stories, and plenty of Democrats are using stories, Tom Harkin just read another tear jerker, as did Reid, and of course The President spoke of his daughters and his mother.
Laffer wants to get rid of all tariffs. What about our trading partners' tariffs? Dropping ours has not resulted in them opening their markets to our products. What they will take is our investments to produce our products and sell them back to us.
Laffer: "It didn't work, so let us try it more!"
Both Tom Harking and Chuck Schumer, and MAX Baucus all have said that really both Democrats and Republicans agree on just about everything. Are the Republicans so ashamed of that? Just like when Scott Brown helped out on the Jobs bill? Is the Republian media just trying to say, along with my buddy Mr. Luntz, that there is a division when truly, there is not.