Hi Kossacks
It has been a little while since I have written. And this little diary promises to be rather mundane. But I wanted to add a small comment to the ongoing conversation regarding ObamaCare that is rarely pointed out.
While it is true from a purely moral perspective, that the ACA protects millions from not having access to health care, and therefore is the right thing to do, what is often missed is that it is the only thing we can do...
More below
Bush himself spoke of "world markets" and world labor forces. Though most of what Bush said isnt very truthy, this certainly was. The world itself has changed and we compete in a place now where the cost of product is very much driven by the cost of labor. President Obama, along with conservative lawmakers up until about 10 years ago, saw the rising cost of medical care (insurance primarily through the employer) as an existential threat to the balance of costs for products from the U.S. Indeed, the cost of medical care, as well as the cost of simple access to that care, was rising far faster than homeland inflation, as well as world average inflation. The simple fact of the matter is that our smallest companies - making up about 70% of the companies in the U.S. were at a loss as to how to offer these benefits any longer.
With the rise of the importance of paper wealth - the banking sector - this doesnt matter much to the uberrich, since their profits do not necessarily count on value added production. However, to manufacturing minded people, this leaves only two options: continue to reduce profit margins - for commodity products this is under about 5% at this point - or let the workers go without medical care benefits. But the second doesnt make much sense if you are a manufacturer. Afterall, these are the people that BUY your products! (AKA the Ford rule). So, if 60% of household bankruptcies are cause by medical bills (or related to them), then this is not such a good choice. One finds that sales suffer unless you can tap into foreign markets or labor. Bush advocated this approach, but left us bleeding jobs. What is more, the smallest of our companies cant do this. Much of their business is local.
In the end, the free market simply doesnt lower the costs of health care as we have all witnessed over these past 50 or so years. So what is a small company to do?
The point of ACA is to lower costs per head overall (as well as to provide access). The free market system had given us nearly $10K/year per person in health care, nearly double what our competitors are spending - regardless of where the money comes from. This massive drain on U.S. worker wealth was, and still is taking its toll on our competitiveness overseas. (I offer this without proof since I have still not mastered linking to charts on these blogs - sorry). But the argument is one of simple economics and one the Republicans used to agree with strongly. There is a reason ACA was based on a republican blueprint - it was designed to help with this situation. Democrats bought in because it helps the population in general. SO it really should be a "win-win."
Oddly though, the current situation with the GOP is terribly different than in the days of helping business. I have seen a number of reasons why written here on the KOS, as well as other places. But there is really enough blame to go around - the rightwing media that refuses to call out demonstratively false statements by lawmakers, the radicalization of congressional districts through gerrymandering, an educational system that places personal belief above scientific and historical fact (I point out that Ted Cruz is HARVARD educated - must be a proud day for them!).
To my point let me give an example: here in my little part of the world (NC) we have a teahadist running to replace Kay Hagan (one of our better senators - not perfect mind you, but better). His campaign statement to the Charlotte Observer (a local news print) was that "he believed in the America that his parent grew up in, where hard work got you ahead in life..." Now this gentleman looks to be about 50-ish. Meaning his parents grew up at a time in the South where they could take comfort in Social Security, long term employment with benefits, and wealth accumulation granted by the GI bill. Yes, indeed, an America generated and promulgated by the (your guessed it) U.S. government.
But here is the catch. In the South, in that America, you only got those things if you were a white male. Well, I was raised by a women - one of many whose father was absent. And her chances of promotion were zero. Her chances of owning a home were slim. Her chances of being little more than a S&*t because she was unmarried with a child, were little to none. Yes we did survive, and flourished, because the great satan of womens rights helped us. So, while I guess it is fine for Paster whats his name to want a return to the old south of the 1950's - it just isnt for the majority of us now is it?
So what is it about the ACA that is so evil? I guess it is the fact that now all of us undesirables will have a chance to have something that only they were privileged to, because as I said above, it isnt economics. And, it seems, this makes the kingmakers here in the South mad - as does Blacks who vote - hispanics that can drive - and unwed mothers than might actually get paid for their work. Like the privileged families of Rome, they would rather see it burn than to share the spoils of the continent we stole from the natives. And, as with these historical examples, the drive to remain Anointed by God, is wrapped up in the unshakable belief that somehow they, and they alone deserve to rule.
"The size of Government" "freedom" and "getting ahead through hard work" are merely catchphrases for the same thing - "the rules of America are set up to let me rule - not you!" In the end, this never works - or in their own language - God has seen fit to destroy every empire that has tried.