Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
STOCK MARKET WATCH -- Tuesday, 9 September 2014
[font size=3]STOCK MARKET WATCH, Tuesday, 9 September 2014[font color=black][/font]
SMW for 8 September 2014
AT THE CLOSING BELL ON 8 September 2014
[center][font color=red]
Dow Jones 17,111.42 -25.94 (-0.15%)
S&P 500 2,001.54 -6.17 (-0.31%)
[font color=green]Nasdaq 4,592.29 +9.39 (0.20%)
[font color=red]10 Year 2.47% +0.05 (2.07%)
30 Year 3.23% +0.04 (1.25%) [font color=black]
[center][/font]
[HR width=85%]
[font size=2]Market Conditions During Trading Hours[/font]
[center]
(click on link for latest updates)
http://tools.investing.com/market_quotes.php?
[/center]
[font size=2]Euro, Yen, Loonie, Silver and Gold[center]
[/center]
[center]
[/center]
[/center]
[HR width=95%]
[font color=black][font size=2]Handy Links - Market Data and News:[/font][/font]
[center]
Economic Calendar
Marketwatch Data
Bloomberg Economic News
Yahoo Finance
Google Finance
Bank Tracker
Credit Union Tracker
Daily Job Cuts
[/center]
[font color=black][font size=2]Handy Links - Economic Blogs:[/font][/font]
[center]
The Big Picture
Financial Sense
Calculated Risk
Naked Capitalism
Credit Writedowns
Brad DeLong
Bonddad
Atrios
goldmansachs666
The Stand-Up Economist
The Automatic Earth
Wall Street on Parade
[/center]
[font color=black][font size=2]Handy Links - Essential Reading:[/font][/font]
[center]
Matt Taibi: Secret and Lies of the Bailout
[/center]
[font color=black][font size=2]Handy Links - Government Issues:[/font][/font]
[center]
LegitGov
Open Government
Earmark Database
USA spending.gov
[/center][font color=black][font size=2]Handy Links - Videos:[/font][/font]
[center]
Charlie Rose talks with Roubini
Charlie Rose talks with Krugman
William Black: This Economic Disaster
Bill Moyers with Kevin Drum and David Corn
[/center]
[div]
[font color=red]Partial List of Financial Sector Officials Convicted since 1/20/09 [/font][font color=red]
2/2/12 David Higgs and Salmaan Siddiqui, Credit Suisse, plead guilty to conspiracy involving valuation of MBS
3/6/12 Allen Stanford, former Caribbean billionaire and general schmuck, convicted on 13 of 14 counts in $2.2B Ponzi scheme, faces 20+ years in prison
6/4/12 Matthew Kluger, lawyer, sentenced to 12 years in prison, along with co-conspirator stock trader Garrett Bauer (9 years) and co-conspirator Kenneth Robinson (not yet sentenced) for 17 year insider trading scheme.
6/14/12 Allen Stanford sentenced to 110 years without parole.
6/15/12 Rajat Gupta, former Goldman Sachs director, found guilty of insider trading. Could face a decade in prison when sentenced later this year.
6/22/12 Timothy S. Durham, 49, former CEO of Fair Financial Company, convicted of one count conspiracy to commit wire and securities fraud, 10 counts of wire fraud, and one count of securities fraud.
6/22/12 James F. Cochran, 56, former chairman of the board of Fair, convicted of one count of conspiracy to commit wire and securities fraud, one count of securities fraud, and six counts of wire fraud.
6/22/12 Rick D. Snow, 48, former CFO of Fair, convicted of one count of conspiracy to commit wire and securities fraud, one count of securities fraud, and three counts of wire fraud.
7/13/12 Russell Wassendorf Sr., CEO of collapsed brokerage firm Peregrine Financial Group Inc. arrested and charged with lying to regulators after admitting to authorities he embezzled "millions of dollars" and forged bank statements for "nearly twenty years."
8/22/12 Doug Whitman, Whitman Capital LLC hedge fund founder, convicted of insider trading following a trial in which he spent more than two days on the stand telling jurors he was innocent
10/26/12 UPDATE: Former Goldman Sachs director Rajat Gupta sentenced to two years in federal prison. He will, of course, appeal. . .
11/20/12 Hedge fund manager Matthew Martoma charged with insider trading at SAC Capital Advisors, and prosecutors are looking at Martoma's boss, Steven Cohen, for possible involvement.
02/14/13 Gilbert Lopez, former chief accounting officer of Stanford Financial Group, and former controller Mark Kuhrt sentenced to 20 yrs in prison for their roles in Allen Sanford's $7.2 billion Ponzi scheme.
03/29/13 Michael Sternberg, portfolio mgr at SAC Capital, arrested in NYC, charged with conspiracy and securities fraud. Pled not guilty and freed on $3m bail.
04/04/13 Matthew Marshall Taylor,fmr Goldman Sachs trader arrested, charged by CFTC w/defrauding his employer on $8BN futures bet "by intentionally concealing the true huge size, as well as the risk and potential profits or losses associated."
04/04/13 Matthew Taylor admits guilt, makes plea bargain. Sentencing set for 26 June; faces up to 20 years in prison but will likely only see 3-4 years. Says, "I am truly sorry."
04/11/13 Ex-KPMG LLP partner Scott London charged by federal prosecutors w/passing inside tips to a friend in exchange for cash, jewelry, and concert tickets; expected to plead guilty in May.
08/01/13 Fabrice Tourré convicted on six counts of security fraud, including "aiding and abetting" his former employer, Goldman Sachs
08/14/13 Javier Martin-Artajo and Julien Grout charged with wire fraud, falsifying records, and conspiracy in connection with JP Morgan's "London Whale" trade.
08/19/13 Phillip A. Falcone, manager of hedge fund Harbinger Capital Partners, agrees to admit to "wrongdoing" in market manipulation. Will banned from securities industry for 5 years and pay $18MM in disgorgement and fines.
09/16/13 Javier Martin-Artajo and Julien Grout officially indicted on charges associated with "London Whale" trade.
02/06/14 Matthew Martoma convicted of insider trading while at hedge fund SAC (Stephen A. Cohen) Capital Advisors. Expected sentence 7-10 years.
03/24/14 Annette Bongiorno, Bernard Madoff's secretary; Daniel Bonventre, director of operations for investments; JoAnn Crupi, an account manager; and Jerome O'Hara and George Perez, both computer programmers convicted of conspiracy to defraud clients, securities fraud, and falsifying the books and records.
05/19/14 Credit Suisse, which has an investment bank branch in NYC, agrees to plead guilty and pay appx. $2.6 billion penalties for helping wealthy Americans hide wealth and avoid taxes.
09/08/14 Matthew Martoma, convicted SAC trader, sentenced to 9 years in prison plus forfeiture of $9.3 million, including home and bank accounts
[HR width=95%]
[center]
[font size=3][font color=red]This thread contains opinions and observations. Individuals may post their experiences, inferences and opinions on this thread. However, it should not be construed as advice. It is unethical (and probably illegal) for financial recommendations to be given here.[/font][/font][/font color=red][font color=black]
37 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
http://www.businessinsider.com/scottish-independence-and-conservative-control-2014-9
A "Yes" vote in the Scottish Independence Referendum would radically reshape politics on both sides of the British border — and it's now looking like it might happen.
Until recently, the "No" campaign enjoyed a comfortable lead in the polls. Few people in England, Wales and Northern Ireland fully appreciated the impact that a Yes vote could have on the face of British politics. As that lead is fast evaporating, perhaps it is time they did.
If Scotland leaves Britain, it will reshape Britain completely, turning it into a country with virtually permanent Conservative Party control of the government in Westminster.
Yet another poll released Monday showed the Yes and No campaigns are neck and neck heading into the final stretch before the September 18th vote. It provides further support to findings in previous polls showing the pro-independence camp gaining momentum and will no doubt continue to weigh on financial markets, which have finally woken up to the risk of breaking up the union. The pound is already being sold off in international currency markets.
With the prospect of an independent Scotland looming ever larger left-leaning voters in Britain also have something to worry about, however. A vote to break up the union would see the Labour Party lose its 41 Scottish MPs, meaning the hurdle for the party to gain and maintain a majority could be about to get much higher.
To put this problem in perspective: Of the 11 Labour-led administrations since the 1920s, only six would have been likely without Scottish MPs. Indeed without Scotland, Labour could have been in power only once in the first half of the century.
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/scottish-independence-and-conservative-control-2014-9#ixzz3CoLJYPVp
A "Yes" vote in the Scottish Independence Referendum would radically reshape politics on both sides of the British border — and it's now looking like it might happen.
Until recently, the "No" campaign enjoyed a comfortable lead in the polls. Few people in England, Wales and Northern Ireland fully appreciated the impact that a Yes vote could have on the face of British politics. As that lead is fast evaporating, perhaps it is time they did.
If Scotland leaves Britain, it will reshape Britain completely, turning it into a country with virtually permanent Conservative Party control of the government in Westminster.
Yet another poll released Monday showed the Yes and No campaigns are neck and neck heading into the final stretch before the September 18th vote. It provides further support to findings in previous polls showing the pro-independence camp gaining momentum and will no doubt continue to weigh on financial markets, which have finally woken up to the risk of breaking up the union. The pound is already being sold off in international currency markets.
With the prospect of an independent Scotland looming ever larger left-leaning voters in Britain also have something to worry about, however. A vote to break up the union would see the Labour Party lose its 41 Scottish MPs, meaning the hurdle for the party to gain and maintain a majority could be about to get much higher.
To put this problem in perspective: Of the 11 Labour-led administrations since the 1920s, only six would have been likely without Scottish MPs. Indeed without Scotland, Labour could have been in power only once in the first half of the century.
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/scottish-independence-and-conservative-control-2014-9#ixzz3CoLJYPVp
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_PAY_ECONOMYS_WEAK_LINK?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2014-09-08-17-14-14
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The U.S. job market has steadily improved by pretty much every gauge except the one Americans probably care about most: Pay.
The unemployment rate has sunk to a nearly normal 6.1 percent. Employers have added a robust 2.5 million jobs the past 12 months. Layoffs have tumbled.
Yet most people are still waiting for a decent raise. Friday's August jobs report confirmed that average hourly pay has crept up only about 2 percent a year since the recession ended five years ago - barely above inflation and far below the gains in most recoveries.
Just why pay has been so weak and when it might strengthen are key issues for the Federal Reserve in deciding when to raise interest rates.
The trend has mystified analysts.
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The U.S. job market has steadily improved by pretty much every gauge except the one Americans probably care about most: Pay.
The unemployment rate has sunk to a nearly normal 6.1 percent. Employers have added a robust 2.5 million jobs the past 12 months. Layoffs have tumbled.
Yet most people are still waiting for a decent raise. Friday's August jobs report confirmed that average hourly pay has crept up only about 2 percent a year since the recession ended five years ago - barely above inflation and far below the gains in most recoveries.
Just why pay has been so weak and when it might strengthen are key issues for the Federal Reserve in deciding when to raise interest rates.
The trend has mystified analysts.
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2014/09/obamacare-roundup-fun-irs-auto-renewal-trap-continued-relentless-creation-second-class-citizens.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+NakedCapitalism+%28naked+capitalism%29
Lambert Strether of Corrente: Just let me repeat my basic perspective once again. From ObamaCare and Its Opportunity Costs:
Fun with The IRS
It looks as though dealing with ObamaCare’s tax consequences — remember when only people with money had “tax consequences”? — is going to be just as fun as dealing with healthcare.gov was. Since ObamaCare grants subsidies based on your estimated income, it then must recalculate your subsidies at tax time based on your actual income, and then either give you money back, or take money from you. And who doesn’t enjoy a big fat crapshoot at tax time? Especially when the recalculation demands a shit ton of complicated forms that have never been used before. Politico describes step one, sending out plan details:
Just going into “fixed it for ya” mode here for an instant, by “said Mark Ciaramitaro” the writer surely must have meant something like “said Mark Ciaramitaro, extruding his feeding tube,” since tax preparers like H&R Block will be the parasitical rent-seeking siphonoptera profiting from ObamaCare’s complexity. But I digress. Then step two, the new form 1095A:
What could go wrong? And then there’s step three, the 1040 itself. Remember that, incredible as it may seem, that although there is a mandate to purchase health insurance under ObamaCare, and even a penalty, the IRS can’t put a lien or a levy on you for not paying it. So people who just skipped all the hassle could end up being better off than people who tried to comply, but got hung up in the complexity:
So, once again, ObamaCare nudges you into a minefield without any signage. (And just be sure to record everything if you can. It’s your only protection.) But it’s an ill Rube Goldberg device that blows nobody good! From American Public Media’s Marketplace:
With the H&R Block example, the rent-seeking from ObamaCare’s complexity is of crystalline clarity; it’s like when some entity decides to dump stuff (say, three dozen armored personnel carriers) into the ocean instead of a landfill, and then call it an artificial reef, and in fact you do end up with an ecosystem of sorts. Well, ObamaCare is the artificial reef, and H&R Block are artificial fish living in that reef. But so are they all, all artificial fish: The web developers, the navigators, the consultants, the trainers, the marketing weasels, the CEOs, etc., etc. None of them should exist in the first place. And never mind the toxicity as the APCs rust out, eh?
The Auto-Renewal Trap
From Kevin Drum, the setup:
National Journal gives the detail:
Remember Cass Sunstein, genius, and his “nudge theory”? Where “choice architectures” set default options so that they “nudge” people to more socially desirable outcomes? Well, Obama set the default for ObamaCare to autorenewal, right? Back to Drum, who describes the result:
So, that’s the outcome that Obama regards as socially desirable. I keep saying ObamaCare is a minefield without any signage; auto renewal is a fine example of such a minefield. You auto-renewed, then? Blam!
Second-Class Citizens Wherever You Look
Two figures tell the tale. First, ObamaCare takes from the almost-poor and gives to the poor. From the Brookings Institute:
It’s like reverse noblesse oblige, isn’t it? The more you make, the less you give! (Granted, in percentage terms. But ya know, redistribute a yacht cover or two and bale of Hermes scarves from the Top Tenth (first class) versus redistribute the kids’ college fund or repairing those shock absorbers or a few nights out at the Olive Garden (second class), all so some poor shrub doesn’t keel over and die for lack of care, and who wants that… Who feels it more, modulo the ol’ ego mego way up there at the top of Maslow’s hierarchy (“self actualization”)?
And then there’s this, the kind ofinexcrementalist framing that makes my back teeth itch. Read the headline on the chart, which I’ve also helpfully annotated, in the spirit of clarity:
Again, it’s the topsy turvy world of ObamaCare advocacy. The headline: “Where Obamacare Has Made The Most Progress.” But that’s not what the map is really telling you, is it? If you accept that lack of health insurance leads to excess deaths, then there are excess deaths in every state except the three top states: Vermont, California, and Rhode Island. (I’m being charitable; even those three have excess dates.) Why is this anything other than a miserable failure?
Single payer would save those lives. Everybody in the country would have equal access to health care, simply by virtue of being a citizen. Any other solution on the table — see “Neoliberalism Expressed as Simple Rules” for the policy parameters — means that people live and die at random, by accident, simply because of whatever state or city or county they ended up in. Those in first class (dark green arrows) go to Happyville. Those in second class (light grey arrows) go to Pain City. It’s a crap shoot, the luck of the draw. This is life and death! How is this in any way acceptable? It baffles me that “progressives” — do note the “progress” in the headline — don’t see the moral issue here.
*************************************************************
TROLL PROPHYLACTIC It may be that you personally have benefited from ObamaCare. In a program of ObamaCare’s size, it’s only natural that some would benefit. My question for you is this: Do you think that all should benefit as you have, and if so, what are you doing about it? The same reasoning applies to those who say that ObamaCare has benefited X millions of people. Why should not all benefit as some do?
WELL SAID, SIR!
Lambert Strether of Corrente: Just let me repeat my basic perspective once again. From ObamaCare and Its Opportunity Costs:
The key point to remember in all discussions of ObamaCare is that neither it, nor indeed the entire private health insurance “industry,” should exist. They are rent-seeking parasites, economic tapeworms. One does not improve a tapeworm; one removes it.
Fun with The IRS
It looks as though dealing with ObamaCare’s tax consequences — remember when only people with money had “tax consequences”? — is going to be just as fun as dealing with healthcare.gov was. Since ObamaCare grants subsidies based on your estimated income, it then must recalculate your subsidies at tax time based on your actual income, and then either give you money back, or take money from you. And who doesn’t enjoy a big fat crapshoot at tax time? Especially when the recalculation demands a shit ton of complicated forms that have never been used before. Politico describes step one, sending out plan details:
The insurance exchanges and employers must send consumers details about their health plan and benefits or exemptions in time for them to file a tax return. If any of that information is delayed or wrong, tax refunds could be delayed. …
At this point, the new forms look “very daunting” for taxpayers, said Mark Ciaramitaro, vice president of health care services at H&R Block. “Overall, we expect the complexity level is just going to go up for a significant group of moderate- to low-income people, whether they got insurance through the marketplace or they didn’t.”
At this point, the new forms look “very daunting” for taxpayers, said Mark Ciaramitaro, vice president of health care services at H&R Block. “Overall, we expect the complexity level is just going to go up for a significant group of moderate- to low-income people, whether they got insurance through the marketplace or they didn’t.”
Just going into “fixed it for ya” mode here for an instant, by “said Mark Ciaramitaro” the writer surely must have meant something like “said Mark Ciaramitaro, extruding his feeding tube,” since tax preparers like H&R Block will be the parasitical rent-seeking siphonoptera profiting from ObamaCare’s complexity. But I digress. Then step two, the new form 1095A:
Exchange enrollees won’t be able to file their taxes until it sends them a 1095-A form, and there are some concerns that the forms will be late, especially in states with struggling exchanges.
What could go wrong? And then there’s step three, the 1040 itself. Remember that, incredible as it may seem, that although there is a mandate to purchase health insurance under ObamaCare, and even a penalty, the IRS can’t put a lien or a levy on you for not paying it. So people who just skipped all the hassle could end up being better off than people who tried to comply, but got hung up in the complexity:
But if they completely ignore the question of having health coverage, now a new line on the standard 1040, it’s unclear how the IRS will respond, says George Brandes, vice president of health care programs at Jackson Hewitt. The result, he worries, could be that filers trying to comply with the law are penalized with delays while those ducking it aren’t.
“You’re at much greater risk for having things gummed up if you’ve done what you’re supposed to do,” [another minefield!] Brandes said. “We’re not name calling here — it’s just sort of a recognition of the reality of how this is going to work.”
Tax Foundation economist Alan Cole agrees and, like many experts, doesn’t expect the IRS to vigorously enforce the law’s individual mandate in its first year, using this upcoming filing season more as a trial run.
“You’re at much greater risk for having things gummed up if you’ve done what you’re supposed to do,” [another minefield!] Brandes said. “We’re not name calling here — it’s just sort of a recognition of the reality of how this is going to work.”
Tax Foundation economist Alan Cole agrees and, like many experts, doesn’t expect the IRS to vigorously enforce the law’s individual mandate in its first year, using this upcoming filing season more as a trial run.
So, once again, ObamaCare nudges you into a minefield without any signage. (And just be sure to record everything if you can. It’s your only protection.) But it’s an ill Rube Goldberg device that blows nobody good! From American Public Media’s Marketplace:
H&R Block is expected to report its earnings Wednesday afternoon, and analysts feel good about the tax-prep giant’s future. Actually, they feel pretty great about the industry as a whole.
The source of their optimism is the Affordable Care Act, thanks, says George Brandes with Jackson Hewitt, to the tax-prep business truism: “Complicated taxes equals more people needing help.”
The IRS says 140 million people file tax returns every year, with about 60 percent being done by professionals. Northcoast Research analyst Kartik Mehta expects that percentage to increase.
“We haven’t seen this type of a complication to the tax return in a long, long time,” he says.
Mehta says the real winners will be the brand-name preparers who can afford to blitz the airwaves come tax time.
The source of their optimism is the Affordable Care Act, thanks, says George Brandes with Jackson Hewitt, to the tax-prep business truism: “Complicated taxes equals more people needing help.”
The IRS says 140 million people file tax returns every year, with about 60 percent being done by professionals. Northcoast Research analyst Kartik Mehta expects that percentage to increase.
“We haven’t seen this type of a complication to the tax return in a long, long time,” he says.
Mehta says the real winners will be the brand-name preparers who can afford to blitz the airwaves come tax time.
With the H&R Block example, the rent-seeking from ObamaCare’s complexity is of crystalline clarity; it’s like when some entity decides to dump stuff (say, three dozen armored personnel carriers) into the ocean instead of a landfill, and then call it an artificial reef, and in fact you do end up with an ecosystem of sorts. Well, ObamaCare is the artificial reef, and H&R Block are artificial fish living in that reef. But so are they all, all artificial fish: The web developers, the navigators, the consultants, the trainers, the marketing weasels, the CEOs, etc., etc. None of them should exist in the first place. And never mind the toxicity as the APCs rust out, eh?
The Auto-Renewal Trap
From Kevin Drum, the setup:
F]ederal subsidies are calculated based on a “benchmark” plan, and this means that low-income taxpayers can buy the benchmark plan at pretty low cost. However, since Obamacare encourages competition (yay!), your region might have a whole bunch of new, lower-cost plans [of equal quality? Drum doesn't know, and neither do we] available next year. This means the benchmark will be recalculated, and if you want to keep your low payments you’ll need to switch to one of the newer plans.
National Journal gives the detail:
The White House has already set up an auto-renewal process, making it easier to stick with the status quo.
As cheaper plans come into the marketplace, millions of consumers will see the cost of keeping their plan rise. But they might not know it.
HealthCare.gov isn’t able to automatically recalculate the subsidies existing consumers are eligible for. [Who wrote the spec for this turkey?] So, while the dollar value of your financial assistance drops, you can only find out that’s happening by going back into the system and asking for a redetermination as part of the shopping process.
Consumers who auto-renew their policies will get the same dollar value of subsidies they got last year—even though changes in the marketplace all but guarantee that will no longer be the right subsidy amount for millions of people.
“That’s the totally crazy part,” Pearson said. “They’re basically going to send them what they know to be the wrong subsidy.”
The IRS will eventually {and, apparently, spontaneously] figure out how much financial assistance you should have received, and will reconcile the difference on your taxes {and pay you the interest on the money you paid that you didn't have to. Not].
As cheaper plans come into the marketplace, millions of consumers will see the cost of keeping their plan rise. But they might not know it.
HealthCare.gov isn’t able to automatically recalculate the subsidies existing consumers are eligible for. [Who wrote the spec for this turkey?] So, while the dollar value of your financial assistance drops, you can only find out that’s happening by going back into the system and asking for a redetermination as part of the shopping process.
Consumers who auto-renew their policies will get the same dollar value of subsidies they got last year—even though changes in the marketplace all but guarantee that will no longer be the right subsidy amount for millions of people.
“That’s the totally crazy part,” Pearson said. “They’re basically going to send them what they know to be the wrong subsidy.”
The IRS will eventually {and, apparently, spontaneously] figure out how much financial assistance you should have received, and will reconcile the difference on your taxes {and pay you the interest on the money you paid that you didn't have to. Not].
Remember Cass Sunstein, genius, and his “nudge theory”? Where “choice architectures” set default options so that they “nudge” people to more socially desirable outcomes? Well, Obama set the default for ObamaCare to autorenewal, right? Back to Drum, who describes the result:
Since you’re no longer buying the benchmark plan, your subsidies will go down and your annual premium will go up.
So, that’s the outcome that Obama regards as socially desirable. I keep saying ObamaCare is a minefield without any signage; auto renewal is a fine example of such a minefield. You auto-renewed, then? Blam!
Second-Class Citizens Wherever You Look
Two figures tell the tale. First, ObamaCare takes from the almost-poor and gives to the poor. From the Brookings Institute:
It’s like reverse noblesse oblige, isn’t it? The more you make, the less you give! (Granted, in percentage terms. But ya know, redistribute a yacht cover or two and bale of Hermes scarves from the Top Tenth (first class) versus redistribute the kids’ college fund or repairing those shock absorbers or a few nights out at the Olive Garden (second class), all so some poor shrub doesn’t keel over and die for lack of care, and who wants that… Who feels it more, modulo the ol’ ego mego way up there at the top of Maslow’s hierarchy (“self actualization”)?
And then there’s this, the kind of
Again, it’s the topsy turvy world of ObamaCare advocacy. The headline: “Where Obamacare Has Made The Most Progress.” But that’s not what the map is really telling you, is it? If you accept that lack of health insurance leads to excess deaths, then there are excess deaths in every state except the three top states: Vermont, California, and Rhode Island. (I’m being charitable; even those three have excess dates.) Why is this anything other than a miserable failure?
Single payer would save those lives. Everybody in the country would have equal access to health care, simply by virtue of being a citizen. Any other solution on the table — see “Neoliberalism Expressed as Simple Rules” for the policy parameters — means that people live and die at random, by accident, simply because of whatever state or city or county they ended up in. Those in first class (dark green arrows) go to Happyville. Those in second class (light grey arrows) go to Pain City. It’s a crap shoot, the luck of the draw. This is life and death! How is this in any way acceptable? It baffles me that “progressives” — do note the “progress” in the headline — don’t see the moral issue here.
*************************************************************
TROLL PROPHYLACTIC It may be that you personally have benefited from ObamaCare. In a program of ObamaCare’s size, it’s only natural that some would benefit. My question for you is this: Do you think that all should benefit as you have, and if so, what are you doing about it? The same reasoning applies to those who say that ObamaCare has benefited X millions of people. Why should not all benefit as some do?
WELL SAID, SIR!
