Romney for President?

Crony capitalism, disaster capitalism, lies and super pacs. Now Romney wants to reduce capital gains from 15% to 0%, eliminate corporate taxes altogether, and reduce income taxes (the wealthy would be the prime beneficiaries). Romney says he can do this and still balance the budget without touching military spending, Social Security or Medicare. It is a snow job, pure and simple. Thirty years of reducing taxes on the rich, two unfunded wars, a Medicare prescription plan that pays pharmaceutical companies whatever they want (no negotiation), reduced revenues due to Bush's recession, and we are told that spending is the problem?

The rich pay a smaller percentage of their income than the middle class in federal taxes, and most of their income is exempt from payroll taxes. Yet we are told that the poor are taking money out of the rich man's pocket, even though it is clearly the rich who are taking from the rest of us.

We have effectively eliminated our borders and invited the 50 cents-an-hour workers of the world to take American jobs using unfair free trade agreements.

We force corporations to pay for health insurance for long term full-time employees, then blame taxes and regulations for difficulties in competing with companies in other countries that have universal health care. And those who make minimum wage or are not full-time employees need not apply for health insurance.

We are told that jobs are the number one priority, and watch while state after state tries to balance budgets by eliminating public sector jobs of hundreds of thousands of teachers, police, firefighters, maintenance and highway workers.

We are told Social Security needs fixing and privatizing, even though it is self-funded (except for the misguided tax holiday), has a $2.6 trillion surplus (increasing to at least $3.3 trillion dollars by 2020) to handle baby boomers retiring, and can pay full benefits for the next 25 years.

The firewall between investment banks and commercial banks was eliminated, and ten years later, exactly as predicted, the economy crashed. Republicans blame Democrats for the state of the economy, even though the crash happened during Bush's presidency.

The price of crude oil is set on the world markets, and speculation in oil future's markets has increased dramatically, yet we are told that somehow Obama is to blame for high gasoline prices. Those prices rise or fall world-wide, and the major difference in gasoline prices across the globe is due to taxes. The Keystone XL pipeline is touted as necessary, even though it will lead to only 50 permanent jobs, and any output will be sold abroad, not here in the U.S. And there is a reason that Canada does not want the pipeline to be built to their seaports. It is called the environment.

Conservatives are willing to take the United States to the brink of default in their stubborn insistance on not ending any tax cuts, but point to the national debt as the fault of spending instead of reduced revenues.

Conservatives are falling all over themselves proclaiming their godliness, while they implement socialism for the rich and diaster capitalism for the rest of us. They are leaving most of us to fend for ourselves in their version of social darwinism for the less well-off, preferring individual responsibility without social responsibility.

Oil Speculation

CNN's Jack Cafferty asks, "Should price controls be imposed on gasoline?"

My answer is that it is not just Wall Street that is the problem. Crude oil prices are determined on a “futures” market at the NYMEX or ICE (Intercontinental Exchange). Traders need only put down a small fraction of the price to control a larger amount of futures contracts (leverage). The oil futures market is now dominated by speculators (70% versus 30% a decade ago) who never intend to take delivery of any crude oil. Not only should speculators be required to put at least 50% down, but there should also be limits on the amount of oil that speculators could trade in the energy futures market. Time was that prices were determined by supply and demand. Trading futures and allowing speculation has added an expensive middleman which costs consumers (both here and worldwide) dearly.

See Sen. Bernie Sanders' post, "Crack Down on Oil Speculators".

Medicare "Improvement Standard" Improperly Applied

The Center for Medicare Advocacy talks about the improper interpretation and erroneous implementation of an "improvement standard." Basically, treatment under Medicare should not be denied on the grounds that a patient's underlying condition will not improve. From their self-help packet:

As an overarching principle, the Medicare Act states that no payment will be made except for items and services that are "reasonable and necessary for the diagnosis or treatment of an illness or injury, or to improve the functioning of a malformed body member." 42 USC §1395y(a)(1)(A). While it is not clear what a "malformed body member" is, clearly this language does not limit Medicare coverage only to services, diagnoses or treatments that will improve illness or injury. Yet, in practice, beneficiaries are often denied coverage on the grounds that they are not likely to improve, or are "stable," or "chronic," or require long-term care, or "maintenance services only." These are not legitimate reasons for Medicare denials.

Also from the Center for Medicare Advocacy is an article about the improper denial of coverage:

Neither the Medicare statute nor its implementing regulations mentions or suggests an improvement standard in the context of diagnosis or treatment of illness or injury...The general statutory standard for Medicare coverage is one of medical necessity; that is, the standard is whether a given service is 'reasonable and necessary.' The same subsection of the law does use the word 'improve,' but only in the specific and limited context of authorizing Medicare coverage 'to improve the functioning of a malformed body member.' This use of 'improve' is the only reference to improvement in the statute...[T]here is no overarching improvement standard in the Medicare statute."

From the self-help packet, your first step after a denial would be to ask that a claim be submitted:

Submit a Claim: If a Medicare beneficiary is told that Medicare coverage for therapy is not available.... ask the health care provider to submit a claim to Medicare. The submission of a claim to Medicare is the only way to obtain a formal Medicare coverage determination and to access the Medicare appeals process if coverage is denied. The provider must submit a Medicare claim at the patient’s or representative’s request.

I did send letters to my representatives, including Obama, about this issue, a copy of which I posted elsewhere on my website. Also, there is a lawsuit about this improvement standard underway, with an update posted here.