LyrArc Article Gist
This Economist magazine editorial says the Republican plan for health care with its roll back of Medicaid expansion by limiting funding to states after 2020, and by scaling back subsidies especially for older Americans and not basing them on income levels, is likely to have its own problems just as the Affordable Care Act. One concern is that keeping healthy people in the market with a mandate that everyone have insurance is present but in a milder form with premiums going up by 30% in one year if they change their mind. There is concern that this may not work among insurers leading to an increase in premiums, pricing people out of the market in "a death spiral." This could lead to more people being priced out of the market as premiums rise. About 12 million people were added to Medicaid by increasing eligibility level to $16400, or 138% of poverty line- this reduced the uninsured from 16% in 2010 to 8.8% today. The Economist concludes that the Republican health care bill has its own problems, and that this bill does not clear up the problems in Obamacare by substituting Ryancare as the Republican bill is called. Peggy Noonan writing in the WSJ says this may have negative consequences for the new Republican base shift to populist support. Critics on the right like Rand Paul see even the reduced subsidies as an entitlement program, yet the Republicans can only change parts of the Affordable Care Act as they need 60 votes in the Senate where they only have a small majority.   ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The Republican House Health Care pLan in 2017 relies on tax credits of between $2000 and $4000 based on age. Under the Affordable Health Care Act the elderly poor in high cost insurance areas received additional help. These people would lose over $2000 per person and may forgo full coverage or coverage entirely under the Republican House Health Care Plan. A report by Standard & Poor's estimates about 2 to 4 million people who are in 50's and 60's not yet qualifying for Medicare might lose their coverage they now have under ACA. The Republican plan also gives incentives through tax credits higher for older people, $4000 for a 60 year ol and $2000 for a 25 year old. Under the ACA the insurers are not allowed to charge more than three times what is charged for younger people, under the Republican plan this goes up to five times. 

LyrArc Article Gist
Congressional Budget Office analysis that shows 14 million more people uninsured in 2018 under the Republican House health care plan, this increases to 24 million by 2026.

LyrArc Article Gist
Weigel of the Washington Post compares how the Affordable Care Act was passed in Congress in 2012 with the push by Speaker Ryan and the Trump administration for the American Health Care Act in 2017. Republicans he says are making the same mistake as Democrats by rushing this through Congress. There is no broad consensus on whether all Americans should be entitled to health care as in Europe and Japan for their citizens, and health care is priced in a way to make it expensive for the state to provide- until the twin problems are solved by creating a new culture in the U.S. that sees things differently, politicians will come up with their own plans based on their interests and which groups they serve.

LyrArc Article Gist
House Democrats in the U.S. see the Republican health care plan making the same mistakes in 2017 that the Democrats made in 2008. With the passage of the bill in the House of Representatives with a vote margin on May 4, 2017, rushed through in the way the Obama bill was also rushed through, the nation remains as divided as ever on the issue of health care. The Republicans favoring limiting subsidies and cutting Medicaid, and using some of the savings for a tax cut. The Democrats favoring mandated coverage for all and large subsidies to reduce the number of uninsured Americans, with expansion of Medicaid for very low incomes. Democrats in the House say the Republican House bill will result in Republicans losing seats in the House in midterm elections.

LyrArc Article Gist
The WSJ responds to president Biden ramping up renewable energy plans and linking Republicans with Senator Rick Scott's plan for sunset provisions on federal legislation every 5 years that Biden says would include Medicare and Social Security. WSJ is critical of Biden's renewable energy plans and calls for increasing production of oil and gas to meet energy shortages and price increases. It is also against a wealth tax, Biden's $2 trillion Workers and Families Plan, and Biden's plan for Medicare to negotiate drug prices. WSJ says real disposable personal income increased $4205 under the Trump presidency 2017-2020, and has since declined by $374 with high inflation depressing purchasing power. The impact of climate change requiring brave choices and strong action is missing in the Republican plan as Republicans focus on attacking Democrats controlling the presidency and Congress on the issue of inflation. The issue of remaking supply chains are on both the Republican and Democratic agendas with president Trump giving more rhetoric against China's role in dominance of supply chains and Mr. Biden taking stronger action in Theodore Roosevelt's style of carrying a big stick and quiet posture in restoring America as a manufacturing powerhouse. The impact of climate change is short term rather than long term as seen by the heat wave in South Asia today, the fires in North America and Europe. Republicans are losing sight of the importance of making the shift on renewable energy quickly with some short term pain, as they push for oil and gas solutions and a less effective program for renewable energy. Mr. Biden is taking on bigger risks in the short term in the midterms and beyond but following a sound policy of aggressively pushing renewable energy. This can also be seen in the importance renewable energy is being given even in countries with a need for coal and natural gas such as India. Modi's plans in India are to buildup renewable energy capacity with aggressive targets for 2030. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
This report in the Economist points to the improved situation for Mexico after the scare from Trump's plans to build the wall and deport large numbers of immigrants. The peso dropped by 15% between mid November 2016 and January 2017, but has since recovered, and non-oil exports were up 5.5% in February 2017 over prior year with the manufacturing growth in the U.S.  Growth forecasts are now up from about 1% GDP growth previously to 2% for 2017, close to the 2.3% in 2016. Much of the change in mood in Mexico is a result of the failure of the early travel bans being blocked in the courts, the failure to get health care legislation through Congress, and the effort by the trade advisers and economic advisers around Trump to move Trump's positions more to the centre and closer to traditional Republican party positions. Wilbur Ross, the Commerce Secretary, says " a sensible agreement" can be reached with Mexico. Peter Navarro, trade adviser, talks about making "a mutually beneficial regional powerhouse." Robert Lighthizer, a veteran from the Reagan days, is likely to be made the new U.S. Trade representative. Still as the Economist points out the "20% border adjustment tax" continues to be supported by Paul Ryan in Congress to pay for tax cuts. But certainly the mood has lifted in Mexico in the first 100 days. This is true for economic policy in relation to China and Germany, and the close circle of Ross, National Economic Council head Gary Cohn, and Secretary of State Tillerson is moving Trump to the centre in policy statements to get things done. Mexico is faced with internal challenges of reestablishing the rule of law, improving infrastructure, reducing red tape and corruption, addressing problems in the education system, to promote economic growth. These challenges may prove to be as large as the external challenges were once thought to be. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Liz Goodwin and Riley Beggin report from Hillard Ohio where Amazon is building a large data center using land adjoining a school and a park for children. Parents are collecting signatures for a ban. About 70% of Americans are opposed to the data centers building in their local area, after an aggressive push with tax breaks and incentives provided by some states. Virginia, Georgia, Texas, and Ohio most aggressive data center builders in the US by 2026- construction jobs, and investment, as pros, electricity usage and use of farmland cons. Ohio's governor DeWine paused tax breaks after realizing that it cost the state $1 billion in lost revenue. Amazon says it has invested $70 billion in the state since 2016. Democrat politicians are not taking up the bans because of some unions supporting the data centers for jobs created in construction. Another reason is that politicians in general face attacks from the tech companies donating to campaigns against them if they call for a ban. Sherrod Brown Democrat in Ohio asks data centers to pay for their electricity but has not supported a ban-  “With data centers, we make sure the investors pay for electricity. Not the people who live in Zanesville or Coshocton or in Cambridge.” The big reason to support it from the jobs perspective is stated by the unions. Tim Burga of the AFL-CIO in Ohio says-  “These are creating good union jobs, both in the construction, but also in the keeping them secure and maintaining them."  Now you have a public frustrated particularly in quiet suburbs of America who see this as an intrusion into their lives, which means Republican and Democrat, Red State and Blue State, makes little difference. Construction workers and unions excited about the prospects for decent jobs after the Obama and Bush elites shipped 5 million jobs (Lighthizer USTR estimate) to China over 2000-2016, and transferred $20 trillion in American wealth to foreign countries by blindly accepting unfair trade with China, EU, Canada, Mexico. And see this as part of the MAGA effort to bring back the supply chains to America for all manufactured products in the interests of reliable supply, national security, and the promise of good paying jobs for the communities across America that depended on these jobs since the industrial revolution inthe US at the turn of the century in 1900. It took only 2 decades to wipe them out under what Lighthizer and Jamieson call "shortsighted leadership" of  Republican Bush and Democrat Obama and their corresponding elites. These communities were hit more than once, twice, thrice, four times in fact- in 2009 by the banker's aided and abetted financial crisis, by Bush starting and Obama continuing the Afghan Iraq wars on different pretexts (diverting trillions of dollars that otherwise go to job creation and manufacturing, new technologies), and then by Covid in 2019. This is the America in which the data center building spree is taking place- a plus if done right and with some carefully thought out plan for water/electricity usage costs and for AI guardrails, protection for farmland and areas near parks and schools, and residential suburbs.   ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The WSJ looks at Elizabeth Warren's Medicare for All plan that marks a major shift for the U.S. economy.  Households would see their costs go down by $11 trillion, boosting their ability to spend on other goods and services. Because income and wealth was highly skewed in the past three decades in one direction, the spending capacity of lower and middle income households was pushed down. This and other similar plans would help restore a higher level of spending and with it an essential element of inflation of 2-3% to the U.S. economy which was missing in the last decade. This sets the tone for the kind of broad based recovery that happened after 1950 that strengthened America's middle class and made it the core of the economy, the core of the post World War II recovery in America and Europe. The plan would be paid for by higher taxes on corporations, tax rate of 21% for corporations going back up to 35%, and reverse depreciation schedules in the 2017 Republican tax law. The argument that this would reduce business investment does not hold that much says the WSJ because amid new trade tensions business investment has declined over the last 2 quarters, and has been sluggish overall. The other source for the estimated $13 to $20 trillion cost of Medicare for All plan of Elizabeth Warren is a 6% annual wealth tax on billionaires, in an attempt to have all pay their fair share and reduce wide disparities in wealth. Mark Zandl, chief economist of Moody's Analytics, says his sense is at the end of the day from a macroeconomic view- because $11 trillion in the hands of 80% of households who could boost spending after lagging behind in the last decade- the negative effect on business investment will be cancelled out by the higher consumer spending. The overall effect and today's context is infused in this analysis. Private insurance, premiums for insurance, and out of pocket cost that the public pays would disappear in this new system where all health payments pass through the government. Health insurance premiums paid by employers would convert into a new employer Medicare contribution to the government starting at an amount employers pay now and adjusting gradually toward national averages over time. Smallest businesses are exempted. Mr. Zandl says the most important aspect of this now is that Mrs Warren has shown that her plan's revenue sources match the cost so that the plan would not lead to deficits increasing and pushing interest rates higher, leading to negative effects on the economy. Republicans under Mr. Trump have paid little attention to expanded deficits caused by their tax law, and economists across the landscape have also shown less concern. Still attacks are made if the plans don't add up. For this reason a sound assessment in today's context of depressed consumers and an overall impact becomes essential. The WSJ quotes from a pre- assessment of Warren's plan by Simon Johnson, a Massachusetts Institute of Technology economist who co-wrote it with Mr. Zandl and Betsey Stevenson of the University of Michigan. What they point out is that putting cash in the pockets of the lower and middle class for spending makes a lot of sense today, and taking money out of the pockets at the way upper wealthy end,  does not contract the economy at all. Other effects they say are constructive by letting all workers get health coverage from the government instead of employers, this makes it easier to change jobs increasing labor mobility and productivity. A worker getting a better job and better utilization of skills could then shift without looking at the employer health care plan. Warren says there would be a five year transition so that workers in health care insurance industry can work in other insurance fields and in Medicare, no one would be left behind. The important thing being to build America's middle class again. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
CEO's of more than 80 large U.S. companies have come together behind a plan that would reduce the U.S. federal deficit with tax revenue increases and reduced spending. The CEO statement was organized by the Fix the Debt campaign, a bipartisan effort inspired by Republican Alan Simpson and Democrat Erskine Bowles of the 2010 Simpson-Bowles Deficit Commission. The CEO statement calls for an overhaul of the U.S. tax code to eliminate or reduce deductions, credits and loopholes (reduction of tax expenditures also referred to as "broadening the base"). The CEO statement says any fiscal plan to succeed has to control increases in health care spending, make Social Security solvent, and include "comprehensive and pro-growth tax reform, which broadens the base, lowers rates, raises revenues and reduces the deficit." This is the first time a large group of business leaders have supported raising taxes as part of an overall solution. This puts together elements of the Bowles-Simpson plan, reduces deductions and loopholes, lowers rates as part of overall tax reform and cutting spending. The CEO statement says the Simpson Bowles recommendations for $3 in spending cuts for every $1 in tax increases was an "effective framework" for tackling a problem that affects the economic well being and security of the U.S....

LyrArc Article Gist
In this insightful essay Peggy Noonan, former spokesperson for president Reagan, says that Republicans like Speaker Ryan with the Republican Health Care bill are making the same error made by president Obama.. Noonan says she had suggested a different way for president Obama to show compassion for the uninsured- first wait till the 2008 financial crisis was tackled, tackled waste and fraud in Medicare first, then look at the option of expanding Medicare to help the uninsured, and not the approach taken of swiftly focussing on the Affordable Care Act early in the first term disregarding Republican objections. She says Republicans are making the same mistake now by ignoring the impact the bill would have on Trump's base of working class Americans who may be affected by the bill's provisions not taking into account incomes in offering incentives or subsidies. Noonan says Trump did get one thing right in calling it a "carnage" for the worsening opioid epidemic in America which has hit rural areas and parts of the midwest hard. Noonan says Eberstadt has correctly documented the collapse in working class Americans wages and standard of living, and Caldwell the opioid epidemic at another level to their health. She also supports journalist Carlson who questioned Speaker Paul Ryan's judgement about eliminating the tax on wealthy investors in new legislation in a Fox News interview, as she says responding to the sense of America at the moment means listening to the sense of being left out of ordinary Americans, who have done not as well as the wealthy who have benefitted from a surging stock market.  ...

LyrArc Article Gist
This NYT editorial points out that the cuts to Medicaid amount to taking out a fourth of its budget and are sure to hurt low income Americans. The cuts are about $880 billion over 10 years for Medicaid. The $300 billion less in subsidies over ten years is likely to hurt the elderly. It also points out that removing the individual mandate will make it harder to reduce premiums as fewer healthy adults offset the costs of sick patients.

LyrArc Article Gist
This report in the WSJ by Peterson and Hackman shows how the American Health Care Act proposed by Speaker Paul Ryan provides less financial support and allows premiums to go higher for seniors approaching retirement in the 50-64 year age group. Premiums are allowed to go up 5 times that of premiums of young people in the Ryan House  plan compared to 3 times in the Affordable Care Act. Subsidies in the form of tax incentives provide $2000 to younger people going up by age not income to $4000 in the Ryan House plan. By contrast someone 60 years old making $20,000 a year can get Affordable Care Act credit of $9874, and making $40,000 a credit of $6752, according to analysis by Kaiser Family Foundation. The Ryan plan makes health care costs lower for young people in an effort to bring more young people who use less services into the system to support its overall financial condition. Another feature of the Ryan Plan is that it allows only for CPI index +1% even if health care costs are rising faster. Deep cuts to Medicaid affect lower income seniors on Medicare. As a result the AARP organization representing seniors has come out in opposition to the Ryan bill. The GOP plan wants to reduce premium costs yet in the process it makes vulnerable seniors with lower incomes pay more, which is likely to hurt Republicans who won by winning a large part of the senior vote. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
NYT reports show the Republican health care bill AHCA 33 votes short of passing the House and likely to fail. Conservative Republicans were looking to whittle down the safety net in the Affordable Care Act, and moderate Republicans could not stomach the whittled down bill removing guarantees of essential benefits for instance. The basic problem- no real consensus among Americans about providing health care to all Americans, and no real solutions possible as long as there is acceptance of disproportionately high levels of medical care costs for treating each disease in the U.S. compared to Europe and other countries.

LyrArc Article Gist
The major provisions of the Republican House healthcare bill that passed by a vote of 217-213 are- 1. To help people buy insurance coverage the bill offers $2000 to $4000 a year, upto $14,000 a year in credits based mainly on age, reducing them for families making $150,000, individuals making $75,000. 2.  Under the Affordable Care Act insurers cannot charge older Americans more than 3 times for same coverage they offer to younger people, the new bill makes this 5 times. This would increase premiums for older Americans and reduce it for younger Americans. This is the most controversial part of the bill. Older Americans supported the Republican party in the presidential election. 3. The new bill ends Medicaid as an open ended entitlement and places this on a budget with cuts of $880 billion over 10 years. 4. To mollify conservative Republicans a provision allows state to opt out some provisions of the ACA that requires minimum benefits such as maternity care and emergency services. It retains coverage for pre-existing conditions to mollify moderate Republicans. The bill provides states with $138 billion over 10 years to subsidize premiums, provide coverage for pre-existing conditions, mental healthcare and drug addiction. 5. The bill removes the taxes imposed under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) on high income people of about $300 billion over 10 years by repealing a payroll tax increase and tax on investment income. This bill and the ACA offer 2 competing visions on healthcare, both bills passed only by a margin of 4-5 votes in the House. The ACA overlooked the impact on premiums causing discontent among middle income Americans. The new bill lets premiums rise for older Americans in order to keep premiums down for other Americans. This shows the many tradeoffs involved and choices being made, and the lack of a consensus on the issue of healthcare in the U.S., becoming a highly politicized issue instead of the way it is treated in western Europe.     ...

LyrArc Article Gist
With the rushed approach adopted by the Trump administration not enough consideration was given to winning support in the House from 25 conservatives in the Freedom Caucus. Without their support the bill cannot be passed in the House of Representatives. The fight also includes one over what are essential health benefits including whether  maternity care would be included. As a result some moderate Republicans are also expressing opposition on the grounds that less people will be covered and fewer benefits will be provided under the Republican House plan called AHCA. President Trump has not involved himself in the details, and the bill comes very early in the first 100 days, leading to the perception that health care has become a partisan conflict without really grappling with the problems of high cost of health care and creating a solution that all can support. Democrats are seen as having made the same error early in Obama administration's first term. President Trump sees this as a much needed win with a drop in his approval ratings, making this even less of an effort to come out with a good plan.  ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Gerald Seib of the WSJ points out that the winners in the passing of the Republican healthcare bill in the House by a 4 vote margin are Speaker Ryan who never wanted the job in the first place, and president Trump who showed he could cajole Republicans into getting it passed because he likes winning. Now comes the hard part says Seib, when it goes to the Senate- House conservatives are not going to be happy when they find major changes they dislike. If the bill clears the Senate in a modified version Republicans will now have to own any issues with healthcare, including says Seib things that may not work out for pre-existing conditions- or for groups that are disadvantaged, including older people.

LyrArc Article Gist
The Washington Post survey of 1200 readers on how the Republican healthcare plan of Speaker Ryan and the House of Representatives looks to them, how it affects them in their lives. Here Somasekhar of the Post gives the stories of 5 Americans. Some see the prospect of losing their insurance under the Republican plan even as they reach an older age, others a smaller segment says the Post, whose premiums jumped under the Affordable Care Act say they faced high premiums and high deductibles. The Post says the large majority of opinions have expressed anxiety over the proposed Republican Ryan House plan for healthcare. One of them is an uninsured poor farmer, Mr. Woosley,  income about $18000 who gained benefit from expanded Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act,  one Mr. Smith, 32 years, a personal injury attorney who faces paying $10,000 if he did not take insurance and $10,000 if he took insurance because of high premiums so a wash either way deciding to do without it, one a tech worker Mrs. Powers, 62 years, income $22,000 on year and $4000 the next, from middle class during the tech boom but facing fewer opportunities and uncertain income from part time work, hit by the deep recession facing fewer opportunities as she gets older and now the prospect of losing insurance without government subsidies, one who is from the middle class who sees little benefit from the Affordable Care Act and is forgoing insurance because of the high premiums yet faces a penalty for not being insured under the ACA, another Mr. Blanchard, 52 years, is from the middle class, a computer programmer who lost his job in downsizing, earns $100,000 as a consultant self-employed, pays $767 in premium a month and relies on the Affordable Care Act which helps him gain freedom from working at a company that could downsize,  another is a middle class programmer Mr Riffle,age 44, and his wife, who does not qualify for a subsidy with a $71,000 family salary from working 4 jobs between himself and his wife- this person finds it too expensive for his salary to buy insurance $900 a month and $14,000 deductible under the Affordable Care Act. His views are worth listening to as they go to the crux of the problem- he says he may not be any better with the Republican plan. He sees the real problem as the high cost of health care in the U.S. and the only way this can be fixed is for members of Congress to be asked to use the insurance exchanges they create. If this sample is representative it shows that there are real problems with both the Affordable Care Act and the Republican plan, that the high cost of health care the problem lurking behind every plan that does not squarely address this, and till that happens and members of Congress experience what ordinary people face, this problem can never by fully solved.   Woosley, Smith, Powers, Blanchard, Riffle, and their personal experience is at the crux of what is right and wrong  with the Affordable Care Act, and also with the new Republican plan of Speaker Ryan and the House of Representatives. For every Woosley, Powers and Blanchard who benefit, there is a Smith and a Riffle who are indifferent or are affected by the high cost under Affordable Care Act and the current system of medical care with its high cost. The Affordable Care Act does not  tackle high cost, for that to happen the culture in America that makes it possible and acceptable to charge high prices must change. Another problem apart from bringing health care costs is that any solution needs to have the whole country behind it. If the notion that all people are entitled to basic health care is to stand, the whole country needs to believe it as they do in countries like France, Britain, Germany and Japan. If this has to be made a workable proposition health care has to be offered at a price that makes this possible to achieve, and that idea also needs the deep and broad sense of support from the culture in America similar to that in these other countries. Until that happens politicians in America will get elected and turned out of office in turns on issues such as health care, based on which side they take and which problems they choose not to face squarely and responsibly. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
This report in the WSJ points to president Biden's speech to a joint session of the US Congress that providing two years of free community college would "change the dynamic" for education in America taking the first step to correct a dangerous drop in college enrollment for young men in America and ensuring working class families have access to college education. The last thirty years of skewed wealth distribution, loss of manufacturing in America, have created alarming distortions in  the access to college education for working class families. Mrs. Biden is a fervent advocate for community college access in today's America, as a community college teacher for 30 years. Biden's $45.5 billion 5 year plan would waive tution for 2 years of public community college. States would have to opt-in to participate, and federal government would provide 100% funding in the first year, decreasing contribution by 5% each subsequent year, with states picking up rest of the cost. It is quite shocking that this is being dropped from the Biden $3.6 trillion Families and Workers Plan that is now being whittled down to $2 trillion. Not because it is not badly needed for American economic competitiveness, and helping workers and families. But because following narrow parochial interests the National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities opposes it. And because the US Congress is evenly split between Democrats and Republicans 50-50 in the Senate. The Association of Independent Colleges sees a shift to community colleges and a sharp drop in its enrollment. Community colleges saw a dangerous drop in enrollment of 12% to 4.5 million students in 2020 from the spring of 2019, according to National Student Research Center. Never was a program more badly needed, as American men are alarmingly falling behind in enrollment. Here are some responses to the failure to take even the first steps to broaden college access so that America can return to economic competitiveness. "What kind of world do we want to live in?" Martha Kanter, College Promise. "That's kind of a devil's choice, isn't it? The whole system has to work from infant care all the way through." Senator Tina Smith, Democrat of Minnesota. This is because child care and children's education will be funded yet a struggling generation of college students will be left out. US Chamber of Commerce opposes a $45 billion program that is critical to American competitiveness with China and other countries. US Congress drops a program that at $45 billion is only about 2% of the $2 trillion package and which is critical to economic competitiveness. Former Republican Governor Bill Haslam of Tennessee supports community college access as a pillar of economic development and it passed the supermajority in 2014. Mike Krause, Republican former director of the state higher education commission says- "I have been surprised by the lack of enthusiasm for what is really a massive workforce development concept that also provides a path to the middle class. You'd think that would hold some appeal for Republicans and Democrats." The lack of clarity and concentration, lack of unity of purpose to get all vaccinated,  is visible in America's vaccination drive. That same lack of clarity and concentration, lack of unity of purpose, is visible in America's faltering efforts at correcting serious and alarming problems for access to college and American competitiveness in the world. Julie Bykowicz and Douglas Belkins wrote this article in the WSJ.   ...