Friday, November 22, 2013

soMe other Facting Charts

Image

Image









note that this chart reflects costs t0 2011, since then the rise in healthcare costs has been 1.5%, significantly lower than anytime in the past five decades


Bureau of Labor Statistics 2010
Average annual percentage increases in jobs, postwar Presidents:

Harry S. Truman (Democrat): increase of 2.95 percent a year
Dwight D. Eisenhower (Republican): increase of 0.50 percent a year
John F. Kennedy (Democrat): increase of 2.03 percent a year
Lyndon B. Johnson (Democrat): increase of 3.88 percent a year
Richard M. Nixon (Republican): increase of 2.16 percent a year
Gerald R. Ford (Republican): increase of 0.86 percent a year
Jimmy Carter (Democrat): increase of 3.45 percent a year
Ronald Reagan (Republican): increase of 2.46 percent a year
George H.W. Bush (Republican): increase of 0.40 percent a year
Bill Clinton (Democrat): increase of 2.86 percent a year
George W. Bush (Republican): increase of 0.01 percent a year
Barack Obama (Democrat): decrease of 3.0 percent a year

If you exclude Obama, Democrats averaged 3.03 percent annual job growth, compared to 1.07 percent for Republicans -- a nearly 3-to-1 advantage.

If you include Obama, the Democrats still held a significant edge. With Obama included, the Democrats averaged 2.03 annual job growth, compared to the same 1.07 for Republicans -- about twice as high as the GOP.











[Note that the statistics for Obama include job losses in the 1st quarter of 2009, which rightly belong to GW Bush, considering Obama wasn’t sworn in until January 20, 2009 and didn’t' have a cabinet in place during that time, much less have an ability to impact job growth. We were losing jobs at a rate of several hundred thousand a month when Obama took office. Still,  Obama has a net gain of jobs in his first five years in office.. This is one of the ‘tricks’ G0P apologists use when attacking Obama, accusing him of being responsible for job losses brought about by the Bush/Cheney recession.]


Dardedar’s blog, revisited:


Dardedar’s blog, revisited:

This is a response to Dardedar from a Republican challenging the assertions made by Dardedar after analyzing some economic data, including that from Michael Kinsley that showed how the country has fared better economically under Democratic Administrations for the past 60 years.

This is a bit dry, but it illustrates well a few key items. one thing I notice 9s that, as pointed out, the Republican spokesman here uses several tactics common among right wing pundits; changing the subject; straw men; unsupported assertions stated as ‘fact’, and an insistence that “fiscal responsibility” is the province of the GOP (which in this case is a circular argument, as it asserts that which the debate disproves.) (‘anti-circular’?)



Re: The Republican Record

Postby Dardedar » Wed Nov 05, 2008 11:08 pm
DAR
An acquaintance of a friend sent along this reply to my letter. I'll respond in the next post.

****
1) Stock market. Four of the five top Presidents for stock market growth are Republicans. The only democrat in the top 5 is Clinton. All that growth happened during the years republicans ran Congress (500 point on the DOW the first two years, 7000 points the last six...feel free to look that up). Those exact policies were free trade, balanced budget, and a tax decrease. All republican issues, and none of those are supported by Obama or the Dems today). So, looking at YOUR data, I see the stock market as better under Republicans.

2) Economic growth. First the citation used includes Hoover, which I think is a stretch. As I pointed out I believe Clinton's last six years, based on enacted policies, were Republican Congress policies not Presidential preference policies. Under those circumstances (using your data) the Republicans, since 1968 would come out better. Again I would point out what POLICIES caused economic growth. The only democratic growth that is above average in the last 40 years (again, by your citations) comes during the Clinton years. As for GDP growth I see it better off under Republican policies.

3) Deficits. Based upon the data cited in the OP there is no way to tell. They used real dollars, not adjusted for inflation. That clearly is NOT the way to measure this metric. During WWII (under a Dem) the deficit was 44% of GDP. Clearly MUCH bigger than it is right now as a percentage, but a small amount in dollars as compared to right now. Since they don't analyze the numbers correctly it is impossible to say (without more research) which party is better on this (and we would have to figure out how far back to go).

4) Job creation. "James Carville put it this way: "In the last fifty years, there have been ten Presidents--five Democrats and five Republicans--and the Democrats place first, second, third, fourth and fifth [in new job creation]… the chance of that occurring randomly is 1 in 252…”" James Carville must have gone to public school, because he's horrible at math. If you have 10 random events (coin tosses, President party affiliations), there is a 1 in 32, still not bad, but the data is skewed. That statement was made in 1996. It would have included Truman years and years that included the draft during a world war, and the draft during Kennedy and Johnson for Viet Nam. I can only assume (since there is no data cited) that he is including draft data in his "jobs" number. I think this counts as a "null" since the numbers cannot be verified.

5) Poverty. I see how they are analyzing the numbers, and I challenge it. There were minute drops under several Democratic Presidents and minute increases under Republicans. But if you look at the AVERAGE rate you will see a serious difference. GWB is slightly better than Clinton, who is slightly better than Reagan. But the HUGE difference is under Kennedy, where the poverty rate is double that of almost any other President since him. If you look back as far as this data goes (Kennedy) and ask "who had the highest poverty?" it would be Kennedy, then Johnson, with GWB coming in the lowest. I would also suggest that under FDR, or Truman the poverty would skyrocket. Based on this analysis I would give the Republicans the better score.

6) Spending. This is where I believe the President has less influence than Congress. I will add one additional data point here;

http://carriedaway.blogs.com/carried_aw ... %20GDP.GIF

If you look at the chart you will see that the ONLY significant time since 1977 that the congress slowed down their spending was when the Republicans took over Congress in 1994. But, I like the way YOUR data puts it. "The party with the best record of serving Republican economic values is the Democrats. It isn't even close." Unfortunately Kinsley uses the "apples to oranges" comparison of numbers in vastly different years (decades) to make his point, and thus the numbers are not usable. In this case I find the point a draw, since the Republican Congress went astray in the last six years of its existence.

So, where does this leave us? The six points of the article and how I look at the EXACT same data (with some addition for #6).

1) stock market. False
2) GDP growth. False
3)larger deficits. Cant Tell
4) job creation. Cant Tell
5) poverty. False
6) Federal spending. Draw

So, as I said earlier, the entire premiss revolves around those six things are better under Democratic Presidents. Looking at the SAME data, I come to completely different conclusions. Thus I declare your premiss denied (QED).
User avatar
Dardedar
Site Admin
 
Posts: 7826
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:18 pm
Location: Fayetteville


Re: The Republican Record

Postby Dardedar » Wed Nov 05, 2008 11:46 pm
DAR
In reply to the above rebuttal to my letter (top of thread). I don't know this person but since they are a republican apologist I'll use the name tag "REP."

****
REP
1) Stock market. Four of the five top Presidents for stock market growth are Republicans. The only democrat in the top 5 is Clinton.

DAR
That's nice, but you forgot to bring along any evidence whatsoever for your assertion. I have provided multiple lines of evidence showing otherwise and have others I didn't include due to space. You provide a mere assertion.

REP
All that growth happened during the years republicans ran Congress (500 point on the DOW the first two years, 7000 points the last six...feel free to look that up).

DAR
Why? It's not relevant to my thesis which is that these seven or so variables had better results under Democratic Presidents. What happened under the various Congressional rule is an interesting question and one worth exploring but it does not address my claim (except my #3 which refutes your unsupported claim).


REP
Those exact policies were free trade, balanced budget, and a tax decrease. All republican issues, and none of those are supported by Obama or the Dems today). So, looking at YOUR data, I see the stock market as better under Republicans.

DAR
I am not interested in what you can "see" but in what you can show, and your #1 shows nothing because it contains nothing beyond mere assertion.

REP
2) Economic growth. First the citation used includes Hoover, which I think is a stretch.

DAR
If you read my citation carefully you would know that the numbers for "investment growth" (not "economic growth") were also calculated with Hoover removed and the Demo's still performed 6x better.


REP
As I pointed out I believe Clinton's last six years, based on enacted policies, were Republican Congress policies not Presidential preference policies.

DAR
You may wish to believe that but it does not address my thesis which is an examination of a comparison of presidents.

REP
Under those circumstances (using your data) the Republicans, since 1968 would come out better.

DAR
Show this. Since you don't even state my #2 correctly I am not confident you have looked at this one carefully.

REP
Again I would point out what POLICIES caused economic growth. The only democratic growth that is above average in the last 40 years (again, by your citations) comes during the Clinton years. As for GDP growth I see it better off under Republican policies.

DAR
In my #4 reference I have provided evidence showing GDP growth has been better Democratic Presidents. This is an objective claim that can be measured and shown to be true or false. Again, the claim was, with regard to Presidents:

"American Gross Domestic Product has grown nearly three times as fast under Democrats as Republicans."

The data shows this is clearly true but rather than admit this you want to give credit to some undefined and unmeasurable category of "republican policies." This does not address my claim and curiously you don't even attempt to support your claim. And it's not clear you understood the claim of my #2. Perhaps read it again. It refers specifically to "investment growth."

REP
3) Deficits. Based upon the data cited in the OP there is no way to tell. They used real dollars, not adjusted for inflation.

DAR
Inflation happens in all presidential terms. The rate goes up, the rate goes down. I have provided evidence showing that the average annual republican deficit is four times larger than under Democratic Presidents. The idea that this difference can be made up by a difference in inflation, is laughable.

REP
That clearly is NOT the way to measure this metric.

DAR
Show this.

REP
During WWII (under a Dem) the deficit was 44% of GDP. Clearly MUCH bigger than it is right now as a percentage, but a small amount in dollars as compared to right now.

DAR
Then the large deficits of that time period should have really hurt the average annual deficit numbers for the Democrats. Curiously you want special consideration for Hoover but want Democrats to be credited with the cost of WWII! And that's okay, because Reagan/Bush spent so much (and Clinton paid down the debt) the republicans still end up the far bigger spenders. To avoid dealing with this bad result the constant dollar measurement provides you appeal to inflation. When that doesn't work you want to calculate the deficit relative to GDP. I remember when Republicans used to hate that trick.

This may be useful here:

http://traxel.com/deficit/deficit-perce ... -years.png

REP
4) Job creation. "James Carville put it this way: "In the last fifty years, there have been ten Presidents--five Democrats and five Republicans--and the Democrats place first, second, third, fourth and fifth [in new job creation]… the chance of that occurring randomly is 1 in 252…”" James Carville must have gone to public school, because he's horrible at math. If you have 10 random events (coin tosses, President party affiliations), there is a 1 in 32, still not bad, but the data is skewed.

DAR
If you are going to insult someone's math abilities and where they may have attended school it's best to have your numbers straight. You don't. Simply put, Carville is right, you're wrong (note the title of his book!). Perhaps your private school tuition could have been better spent elsewhere. If "you have 10 random events" or "coin tosses" as you say, this gives you odds of one in 252. Five gives you 1 in 32.
But this is incidental and a distraction from my point which is in fact true, the presidents with the top job growth numbers have been Democrats.


REP
That statement was made in 1996. It would have included Truman years and years that included the draft during a world war, and the draft during Kennedy and Johnson for Viet Nam. I can only assume (since there is no data cited) that he is including draft data in his "jobs" number. I think this counts as a "null" since the numbers cannot be verified.

DAR
The Nobel Prize winning Krugman does a comparison similar to Carville's except it is from July. Perhaps this is a chart from his book. Demo's hold the top four spots. GW Bush, is of course last.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/0 ... talking-2/

This is better:

"The Simple Arithmetic of Employment: Job Growth Is Always Higher When a Democrat Is In The White House"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-fid ... 24510.html

An excerpt:

"Remember the last time the number of jobs grew more rapidly under an Republican president? John McCain can't. Because he wasn't born yet. Over the past 75 years, one trend has held constant. Rapid job growth only occurs when there's a Democrat in The White House.

No Republican President -- not Eisenhower, not Nixon, not Reagan, not Bush -- has ever created more jobs, or created jobs at a faster rate, than his Democratic predecessor. It's not even close. The contrast has been especially stark over the past 16 years, when 23.1 million jobs were created under Clinton and less than 5 million were created under Bush. On average, job growth under Democrats is more than twice that under Republicans.

Whatever benchmark you use, the difference is dramatic. Since Truman was elected in 1948, 53.2 million new jobs were created during the 24 years when Democrats held The White House, and 38.3 million were created during the 36 years of Republican administrations."

--Source: The Bureau of Labor Statistics, seasonally adjusted non-farm payrolls.

DAR
This fellow examines the last 13 presidents. He also examines the record during Congress. Democratic Presidents hold the top six slots.

http://www.laprogressive.com/2008/08/08 ... idents-do/

REP
5) Poverty. I see how they are analyzing the numbers, and I challenge it.

DAR
Finally, a challenge!

REP
There were minute drops under several Democratic Presidents and minute increases under Republicans.

DAR
Well you gave up that challenge rather quick. I'll take it.


REP
But if you look at the AVERAGE rate you will see a serious difference. GWB is slightly better than Clinton, who is slightly better than Reagan. But the HUGE difference is under Kennedy, where the poverty rate is double that of almost any other President since him. If you look back as far as this data goes (Kennedy) and ask "who had the highest poverty?" it would be Kennedy, then Johnson, with GWB coming in the lowest. I would also suggest that under FDR, or Truman the poverty would skyrocket. Based on this analysis I would give the Republicans the better score.

DAR
Of course you would. But none of this refutes or even addresses my claim, which is specifically:

"With the exception of president Nixon, poverty went up under every Republican president since 1961. Under every Democratic president since 1961, it fell." Address the claim, don't change it.

REP
6) Spending. This is where I believe the President has less influence than Congress.

DAR
That's nice. Perhaps in my next letter I will examine the record of Congress. This letter is addressing the record of US Presidents.

REP
I will add one additional data point here;

http://carriedaway.blogs.com/carried_aw ... %20GDP.GIF

If you look at the chart you will see that the ONLY significant time since 1977 that the congress slowed down their spending was when the Republicans took over Congress in 1994.

DAR
Reagan didn't sign those spending bills? Amazing. Did Reagan ever submit a balanced budget?

Let's ask leftwinger Joe Scarborough (just kidding, he's a rightwing conservative Republican) to do some comparisons. This from his 2004 book:

"The White House's own numbers best illustrate how
shamefully the Party of Reagan has misspent our tax
dollars over the last ten years. When comparing its
fiscal record to that of the Clinton administration,
George W. Bush's White House loses in a landslide."
-- Republican Joe Scarborough, "Rome Wasn't Burnt in a Day, pg. 27

"Using the Bush White House's own numbers, the federal
government under Bill Clinton grew at an annual rate
of 3.4 percent. But over the past four years under
George W. Bush and his Republican Congress, the
federal government has grown at a staggering rate of
10.4 percent. More damning is the fact that... George
Bush never once vetoed a congressional bill." --Republican Joe Scarborough, "Rome Wasn't Burnt in a Day”, pg. 29


REP
<Snip> In this case I find the point a draw, since the Republican Congress went astray in the last six years of its existence.

DAR
The point "is a draw" because the Republicans did what I claim they do? Again, amazing.

Here is a very interesting chart:

Image

And he notes: "Interestingly, since Johnson, every Democrat has increased revenue more than spending. However in the opposite case, under all five Republican Presidents, since Nixon, government revenue has decreased and spending has increased."

I must keep this link, he makes my case over and over:

http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm

REP
So, where does this leave us? The six points of the article and how I look at the EXACT same data (with some addition for #6).

1) stock market. False
2) GDP growth. False
3) larger deficits. Cant Tell
4) job creation. Cant Tell

DAR
You forgot to provide a drop of evidence for #1. You completely changed the subject on #2. As I have shown the Republican deficits are twice as large in constant dollars without even considering Bush II (#3). Krugman supports my job creation claim so we actually "can tell" and, unlike your near complete lack of references I provide two more and have several other sources supporting this claim as well.

REP
5) poverty. False

DAR
You already conceded #5 is true. Your words: "There were minute drops under several Democratic Presidents and minute increases under Republicans."

REP
6) Federal spending. Draw

DAR
I provide data showing Republican spending is almost double, you provide... "the Republican Congress went astray." Well yes they did, and that is the point in question isn't it? Where I went to public school, that wasn't a draw. Maybe your private schools operated differently?

Another useful chart on federal spending:

Image

ibid

REP
So, as I said earlier, the entire premiss revolves around those six things are better under Democratic Presidents. Looking at the SAME data, I come to completely different conclusions. Thus I declare your premiss denied (QED).

DAR
That's a little premature to say the least. When you did address the actual premise, you didn't support your conclusions. Almost without exception you provide no references supporting your claims and most of the time you stray from engaging my actual claim. Maybe you will try again. I hope so. And do remember the premise which is that these categories are better under Democratic presidents. Appeals to Congressional records would be interesting (see my footnote #3 which addresses this) but not relevant to this actual premise.

regards,

Darrel

Economic Benefits of Food Stamps







 This chart comes from Mark Zandi, via Dardedar’s blog,  I thought it interesting because of the current argument about food stamps. Checking just two of the items on the page, note that food stamps bring in $1.73 for every dollar spent, a net boost to the economy of 73 cents on the dollar, whereas corporate tax cuts return a paltry $o.30 on the dollar, a net LOSS of 70 cents.

We need to try some ‘trickle up’ for a while


 Dardedar’s 2008 blog:

in reading more from Dardedar’s 2008 blog, his article
(which I just reprinted)
was challenged by a Republican reader, whose conclusions from the data were exactly opposite those of Dardedar. 

Noting that m0st of them were basically unsupported assertions rather than facts backed by evidence, Dardedar addressed the objections one-by-one and provided more documentation to support his points. This exchange is so relevant to today’s issues I will reprint more of it in future posts. (hint: Dardedar’s original conclusions withstood the challenge).

For anyone interested in the truth behind many economic claims in these times of G0P mis- dis- and piss-poor information, you can get a lot of it here

The Republican Record

 

 This is an analysis I found by a newly minted US citizen in 2008. Since that time we have suffered through W's 2nd term & the worst of the Bush/Cheney recession, and 5 years of the Obama administration, which, though plagued by the uber-partisan obstruction of the tea party, shows undeniable progress in job creation, deficit reduction and a skyrocketing stock market. in other words, things don’t look any better for the GOP since the statistics included here.

The sad thing is that honest conservatives have many very good ideas and ideals that should represent all Americans’ beliefs and desires. This honorable stance has been poisoned by the rise of the tea party, which has hijacked people’s sincere beliefs through dis-information and outright lies, and a hyper-partisan hatred of the current President which has infected our entire political system and put American Democracy itself at risk.


Thanks t
o Dardedar  for this illuminating posting from 5 years ago
 
 
 

The Republican Record

Postby Dardedar » Wed Oct 29, 2008 2:15 am
DAR
A little letter I am sending around:

*****************
As a Canadian who recently became a citizen, I am, along with my eighteen year old son, very much looking forward to voting for the very first time. Like many citizens, I am interested in supporting the party with the best track record on the economy, job creation, small government and fiscal responsibility. Setting aside all of the political chatter and what each side claims about their record I thought I would look into this. Here is what I found.

Which party is better for the stock market? Slate magazine checked the numbers (in 2002) and found that since 1900, Democratic presidents have produced a 12.3 percent annual total return on the S&P 500 compared with an 8% return from the Republicans. Stock Trader's Almanac examined Dow appreciation and found similar numbers (13.4 percent versus 8.1 percent). [1]

Just weeks ago the New York Times examined how an investment of $10,000 would have grown under each party during this time. They found that a $10,000 investment in the S.& P. 500 would have grown to $11,733 if invested under Republican presidents only. If we exclude Herbert Hoover's disastrous depression numbers the growth rises to $51,211. The same investment made during Democratic presidents only, would have grown to $300,671.[2]

Does having a Republican Congress help the market? No, the record shows that a Democratic controlled Senate provided a higher return and a Democratic controlled House also enjoyed a higher return. [3]

How about growth of GDP? American Gross Domestic Product has grown nearly three times as fast under Democrats as Republicans. Since 1930, the annual mean growth in real GDP under Republican Presidents has been 1.8 percent; under Democrats, 5.1 percent. [4]

Which party has had the largest annual deficits? Over the last 75 years, Republican administrations have had an average annual deficit of $83.4 billion. The average for Democratic presidents is one fourth of that, only $20 billion. [5]

How about job creation? James Carville put it this way: "In the last fifty years, there have been ten Presidents--five Democrats and five Republicans--and the Democrats place first, second, third, fourth and fifth [in new job creation]… the chance of that occurring randomly is 1 in 252…” [6]

How about poverty? With the exception of president Nixon, poverty went up under every Republican president since 1961. Under every Democratic president since 1961, it fell. [7]

Which party is better at “small government” and keeping federal spending down? Since 1959 federal spending has gone up an average $35 billion a year under Democratic presidents and $60 billion under Republicans. So it’s no surprise to find Republican presidents have increased the national debt much faster, more than $200 billion per year, versus less than a $100 billion per year under Democrats. And this is not even counting the second term of G.W. Bush. [8]

There are many more categories to consider, inflation, unemployment, income gain. I found they all trend in favor of the Democrats and like the above it’s usually not even close. And the trend holds up even if lag factors are figured in.

It’s curious how effective false advertising has been for the Republican party. Contrary to the story they have sold nearly half the country, America has done very well under Democratic presidents, and in fact far better than under Republican presidents.

Darrel [...]
Fayetteville, Arkansas

[1] Slate magazine, http://slate.msn.com/id/2071929/
[2] Bulls, Bears, Donkeys and Elephants,
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2008 ... CHART.html
[3] Slate magazine, http://slate.msn.com/id/2071929/
[4] George Mason’s University, History News Network, http://hnn.us/articles/8301.html
[5] ibid
[6] “We're Right, They're Wrong,” (1996) James Carville, pg. 13
[7] Census poverty data, see: http://democraticshortlist.com/compare.htm
[8] Michael Kinsley, Washington post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ar ... 5Apr1.html

Bonus: Republican Governors associated with lower growth:

viewtopic.php?p=23882#p23882
User avatar
Dardedar
Site Admin
 
Posts: 7826
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:18 pm
Location: Fayetteville

Friday, October 25, 2013

Why I support the ACA.




I think the Affordable Care Act (ACA) (aka "Obamacare") is undoubtedly a good thing for the country, here is why


(not in any particular order)

Prices
By bringing in millions of new customers and using private insurance companies to foster competition, prices have (and will continue to) come down.

 The prices on the exchanges are all lower than projected, and health care costs are rising at the slowest rate in over a decade.

The ACA has a rule that insurance companies have to spend 80% of the money they take in from premiums on actual healthcare (as opposed to advertising or teams of lawyers figuring out how to deny coverage, etc). The insurance industry has already had to refund millions of dollars to people because they violated this rule. What this means is they cannot ‘pass along costs’ to consumers, whether they lose money in the stock market, spend money defending lawsuits, or have to include more services in what they reimburse to doctors and hospitals, they cannot just raise rates, they still have to spend 80% of premium income on actual healthcare.

Coverage
The insurance coverage is being offered by the same private companies who were already offering it, but with restrictions on what they are allowed to do. The ACA requires them to offer ‘full coverage’ even on the cheapest plans. Previously, cheap plans didn’t cover much, had high deductibles and unrealistic yearly caps and lifetime limits. This made the plans not only outrageously expensive, but provided lousy coverage as well.

The insurance companies can no longer cheat people by denying coverage or refusing to pay by using ‘pre-existing conditions’ to cherry-pick only healthy people. This means everyone will be getting needed treatment, and overall we will be healthier as a result.

The ACA uses the same healthcare providers as before, so people who already had insurance aren’t being forced to change Doctors, or Hospitals. (There is a lot of misinformation over this being put out there, so it’s important to research when one hears claims that imply this is the case)


The ACA includes a lot of free screenings and mobile clinics, providing much needed advance warning of potentially dangerous situations. There is also a focus in the ACA to promote  ‘wellness’ instead of ‘treating sickness’ which leads to a healthier populace .


Healthcare Costs
The ACA will do what the real conservatives wanted, take people off the ‘free ride’ at emergency rooms and put them into the system as paying customers.  Of course, many will receive subsidies, so plenty of people will still get a ‘free ride’ of sorts, but it will be at clinics and with paid doctors, not via the most expensive form of healthcare, emergency room.

Because of the individual mandate, millions of people will actually pay for insurance without subsidies, or only partial subsidies. That brings money into the system.

We have to remember that the system was totally 'fup' already, and already costing us a fortune. Because the insurance companies ‘cherry-picked’ who they covered and what they covered, healthcare statistics were skewed and overall healthcare costs were drastically higher. By making the overall system more ‘honest’, healthcare dollars will be spent more efficiently, and overall healthcare costs will come down. Waste and fraud are being removed from the system, inefficiencies are being refined, and the focus is moving towards healthier people, not just taking care of people once they get sick.


And again, because the rules make every policy cover basic health services, overall insurance plans are better, which results in people receiving better treatment.

Summary
The ACA uses private insurance companies, which fosters competition and reduces prices. Quality is held at a high level by rules as to what all policies have to cover, and the ‘80-20’ rule.

Insurance companies are restricted from the most egregious tactics they have been using to deny coverage and refuse payments

Insurance companies previously kept people out of the system and forced them into emergency rooms for both basic healthcare and remedial treatment, which drove up costs drastically.

The ACA provides coverage for millions of people who were uninsured, literally saving lives while making millions of people’s lives better 9n the process.

When we consider the out-of-control rising costs of the previous system, the removal of waste and inefficiency from that system, the removal of unfair practices from the previous system, overall lower cost of healthcare, affordable healthcare for millions of people and the inclusion of millions of people into the healthcare system, it all adds up to a great change to America’s healthcare system and a great thing for the American people.

Wednesday, July 24, 2013

If You Can't Beat 'em, Cheat 'em!


...The GOP's block the vote efforts


Given that...
~The concept of 'one person, one vote' is at the heart of Democracy and is a fundamental right of all American citizens         ~

and that...
~The "right to vote" is constitutionally ‘guaranteed’ by the 15th, 19th, 23rd, 24th and 26th amendments, that collectively restrict the tactics states may use to try to prevent people from voting~

It is an egregious violation of the job of elected politicians and borders on treason against the citizens of the United States when a political party intentionally tries to prevent people from voting .

Meet the new Tea Party GOP

(or, as I call them due to their constant nay-saying, negativity and noxious lies about President Obama "The Troll Party Republicans")

 CONCLUSION BASED ON  A PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE;
~The various Voter I.D. laws being passed have nothing to do with preventing fraud but are instead intended to reduce Democratic votes by making it harder for potential Democratic voters to cast a ballot. ~


{NOTE: A List of numbered footnotes is pasted at the end of this documentl}


1.  GOP state Legislatures Are Passing Voter I.D. Laws (VIDLs)
    ~Generally, if a state has a Republican Governor they are signed into law, if they have a Democratic Governor the Voter I.D. Laws are vetoed. Many of the laws have been struck down by SCOTUS   *{1}.

2. There is no voter fraud by impersonation

     ~Voter Impersonation Fraud is statistically zero (o%). *{2}
According to the Brennan Center, in elections across several states from 2000 to 2004 the documented fraud rate never approached the 1% mark.

 There are numerous studies and reporting from virtually every state that all reflect the same reality, there has been virtually no voter fraud by impersonation. This is strong evidence that the real purpose of VIDLs is not to prevent fraud. It simply doesn’t exist.


3. Voter I.D. Laws are a Waste of Taxpayer Money
   ~Budget-conscious state officials would not spend money out of the State Treasury on what is at most a handful of questionable ballots unless there were some other benefit to do so. Winning elections is just such a benefit *{3} This is more strong evidence that preventing voter fraud isn’t the reason for VIDLs.

4. Voter I.D. Laws disproportionately affect black and other minority voters
    ~The I.D.s allowed in each state differ, and in every case the I.D.s allowed are ones Republican voters are more likely to have, and Democratic voters lack.  A classic example of this is Texas, where a State College Student I.D. is not allowed, but a concealed weapon gun permit is. This type of variation in the methods and procedures is highly incriminating, the odds of it happening by chance and in every case favoring one party over another is, statistically-speaking, Vastly Improbable. *{4}. One claim commonly made about about voter I.D.s is that 'everyone has a driver's license' or 'if you can't produce a photo I.D. something is wrong with you'. Both of these are ignorant claims, as the evidence shows.

5.  Voter I.D. Laws are a de-facto Poll Tax
The VIDs required are not free, and are often difficult to acquire.  By requiring an I.D. which costs the voter money, it has the effect of being a Poll Tax, which would be a violation of the 24th Amendment *{5}. IN addition to the racially discriminatory outcomes of VIDLs, they violate the spirit of the Constitution, which tries to make sure everyone gets to exercise their Constitutional right to vote.

6. In addition to VIDLs, GOP officials have used several other tactics to make it more difficult for Democratic voters to cast a ballot.  
These measures include;
a) Limiting the hours the polls are open;
 b) Reducing the # of booths in Democratic polling places;
c) Lowering the time in which registration forms must be submitted
d) Reducing the number of offices where VIDs can be obtained
e) Making it a felony to turn in a registration with a false name on it (these two tactics virtually eliminated voter-registration drives, which tended to register far more Democrats than Republicans);
f) 'Scrubbing' the voter-registration rolls; and
g) Making robo-calls with incorrect dates to 'remind people to vote' on the wrong day.   *{6}


7. GOP Officials publicly stated VIDLs helped them in elections

    ~Various Republicans in state offices have said publicly that the VIDL law was the reason they did better in that state than predicted. *{7}

8. SCOTUS Eliminated protections against discriminatory laws
    ~In a 5-4 ideological split vote in 2013, the SCOTUS ended a Constitutional requirement that some or all areas in 15 states get advance approval from the Justice Department or a panel of federal judges for all changes to voting laws, procedures and even polling place locations. That provision was enacted because those states had been found to discriminate in the past. *{8}
  

 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX


FOOTNOTES:

(Note to Troll Party Right Wingers (I won't insult real Republicans, whom we desperately need, by calling these fact-deprived tea partiers 'republicans'): this is how you present evidence for your claims. Yes, it's more difficult than just writing any old bullshit you can dream up, but it also stops you from sounding like an ignorant buffoon)


*{1}  ______________________________________
State-by-state list of Voter I.D. Laws

In 2011, Republicans in 38 states introduced legislation that would make state-approved photo-ID cards a requirement to vote. Seven states signed it into law: Alabama, Florida, Kansas, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Texas, and Wisconsin.

*{2}  _______________________________________
Allegations of double voting are among the most common assertions of voter fraud. According to the Brennan Center report, in elections across several states from 2000 to 2004 the documented fraud rate never approached the 1 percent mark.   (emphasis added)
In fact, for Missouri in 2000 and 2002 the documented fraud rate was 0.0003 percent; in 2004 it was zero in New Hampshire and 0.0002 percent in New Jersey; in 2004 there were no substantiated reports of any intentional double voting in Wisconsin; and in New York the documented fraud rate was 0.000009 percent.


“Vote Fraud, Intimidation, & Suppression in the 2004 Presidential Election,”
Author Mark Hearne, American Center for Voting Rights 2005
This 72 page document is the only one produced by the highly-partisan ACVR,  it reported no documented account of any individual impersonating another at a polling place. Yet it recommended that “states should adopt legislation requiring government-issued photo ID at the polls and for any voter seeking to vote by mail or by absentee ballot.” (emphasis added)

* {3 }_______________________________________
2012 Final Report  from the Voting Rights Institute

“We found that if each of these 35 states enacts photo ID legislation, taxpayers across the country will pay at least $276 million and up to $828 million for this unnecessary legislation”












* {4}_______________________________________
The Wisconsin Legislative Fiscal Bureau, for example, found that 20 percent of Wisconsin’s residents do not now have the identification required to vote. That includes 70 percent of African-Americans under the age of 25, 177,000 elderly people, 36 percent of young voters, and approximately 224,000 college students whose student ID cards fail to meet their state’s new ID requirement. In brief: a lot of potential Democratic voters. Similar biases against minority voters can be found in every voter-suppression bill enacted across the country.  (emphasis added)


 Prior to 2006, no state required a voter to show a government-issued photo ID card in order to vote.
The suppressive effects of these bills are well-documented: 11 percent of Americans—approximately 23 million citizens of voting age lack proper photo ID and, as a result, could be turned away from the polls on Election Day. Those without photo ID are disproportionately low-income, disabled, minority, young, and older voters. Numerous non-partisan organizations have debunked claims of widespread voter fraud, the purported basis for these laws.   (emphasis added)

*{5}  _______________________________________
The 24th Amendment Section 1.
“The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay poll tax or other tax.”

*{6}  _______________________________________
Florida has reduced the number of early voting days, cut in half the number of early voting hours, ended voting on the final Sunday before the election, and imposed tough restrictions on civic groups conducting voter-registration campaigns.
Testifying at a Senate Judiciary subcommittee hearing on January 25, University of Florida political science Professor Daniel A. Smith questioned the color-blind provisions in Florida’s 2011 law:
[Even though African Americans comprised only 13 percent of total voters and 22 percent of early voters in Florida in the 2008 General Election, they accounted for 31 percent of early voters on the final Sunday of early voting. Hispanic voters, who comprised 11 percent of total voters and 11 percent of early voters in the 2008 general election, accounted for 22 percent of the early voters on the final Sunday of early voting. By closing polling places on Sunday, Florida shuts down the nonpartisan, church-based “Souls to the Polls” campaigns in African-American and Hispanic congregations.

According to a study from NYU's Brennan Center, 11 percent of voting-age citizens lack necessary photo ID while many people in rural areas have trouble accessing ID offices.
(emphasis added)



*{6}  _______________________________________
Robo-calls by GOP to deceive Democratic voters:
Arizona
http://gawker.com/5958045/robocalls-from-gop-congressman-send-democratic-voters-to-polling-places-miles-away-from-their-precinct
Wisconsin
Florida
Massachussetts
http://holliston-hopkinton.patch.com/groups/politics-and-elections/p/robo-call-says-election-is-wednesday
Maryland, Mississippi, and others
http://www.866ourvote.org/issues/deceptive/through-the-years


*{7}  _______________________________________
"Pro-Second Amendment? The Castle Doctrine, it's done," said Turzai. "First pro-life legislation -- abortion facility regulations -- in 22 years, done. Voter ID, which is gonna allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania, done."
(emphasis added)

Incredibly, the guy admits openly to 3 different tactics the GOP is using to thwart the will of the majority in the USA. Abortions are a right guaranteed in the Constitution, yet the GOP is doing everything they can to make it de-facto illegal.

Not quite as egregious but still a fully bogus issue is the continuing claim by Republicans that requiring I.D. and background checks for purchasing a gun is tantamount to ‘taking away our guns”. No one has said anything about abridging the 2nd Amendment nor about taking away anyone's legal right to buy a gun, yet Right Wing talking heads and bloggers have used this lie to gin up opposition to even the most basic attempts to keep our nation safer from massacres by making it more difficult for unstable people to purchase military-grade weaponry.

It is interesting to note that the Troll Party Congressional rookies don’t want to require an I.D. to buy a sub-machine gun to try to prevent violent massacres of innocent people, but are totally committed to demanding a photo I.D. to prevent non-existent voter fraud. 
*{8}  _______________________________________
In a 5-4 ideological split vote in 2013, SCOTUS ended a Constitutional requirement that some or all areas in 15 states get advance approval from the Justice Department or a panel of federal judges for all changes to voting laws, procedures and even polling place locations. That provision was enacted because those states had been found to discriminate in the past. Some of them in the recent past, like the last election. 

Addendum:
As soon as SCOTUS ruled that the federal government needed to update the rule (and charged the heavily-partisan Congress to do so, which of course they won't), several states that had Voter I.D. Laws that had ALREADY BEEN FOUND UNCONSTITUTIONAL wasted no time in putting those same laws into effect. Keep in mind that SCOTUS didn't say those plans were OK, only that the power the Federal government had to require them to be submitted for approval had to be updated, so the Feds didn't have jurisdiction to demand oversight under the current plan.

So the states that had these Voter I.D. schemes blocked under the Constitution  Texas for one, went head with discriminatory Voter I.D. Laws., thereby proving the need for such oversight, thereby proving that SCOTUS was wrong in their judgement. Incredible.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57595695/after-voting-rights-act-ruling-states-tighten-voting-laws/


 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX


RATIONAL THOUGHTS ON AN IRRATIONAL SCHEME

It shouldn't matter what your name is or that we identify voters by name, so long as you don't vote twice you should get to vote if you are an American citizen.
 
 If everyone lined up in a big long line, no names would be needed, just step up, mark your ballot and be done with it. The only possible reason names are needed is to ensure the right person votes and no one votes twice. Since you must be registered to vote, you shouldn't need tpo use your name. You just need a way to link you to the registration (ie..voter # 183664). This thought experiment leads us to the realization that the correct place to deter any kind of Impersonation Fraud is in the registration process.

Even taking the time to research and write this blog post is spending too much time on the problem of voter fraud by impersonation, there is so little of it.  It is virtually impossible for any level of voter impersonation to work to any significant level, because the person who was supposed to vote would then not get a vote. It's far too much work to get away with than would be other types of fraud. How is fraud by impersonation going to work? The answer is it won't, and that's one of the reasons there hasn't been any. 

If the GOP were truly interested in stopping fraud, there are plenty of other places to look, the 2000 and 2004 elections provided many opportunities for an investigation.

Another place to look for fraud would be the company called 
Voters Outreach of America, that the GOP hired to register voters in 2012, and that ended up throwing away reams of registrations of people who registered Democratic.

So there are types of fraud that do exist, but the one type of fraud that doesn't occur is voter impersonation.

Another strong clue to the GOPs' real intentions is the variety of types of ID acceptable in different states. 

A 'real,  serious plan' to enact Voter I.D. at polling place would take place  years ahead of time, with plenty of time for voters to be well-prepared. A single system, or perhaps one or two variances would be enacted, and the types of I.D. required would be any reasonable I.D., with the intent to allow as many people to continue to vote as possible. The government would do an outreach program to assist the poor, the disabled and/or the elderly people who might have difficulty in obtaining the proper I.D.  The thrust of the effort would be to make sure that people weren't being disenfranchised.
That is NOT how the Troll Party GOP went about it.

One things that would NOT happen in an honest effort would be that in every case, the types of I.D. denied would not ALL be strongly Democratic.  Without intent, such a result is statistically referred to as Vastly Improbable, which is to say impossible. 

The fact that it has ended up like that is a telling clue to the GOPs' real agenda:
 ~Make it so hard for Democrats to vote in some areas that you significanlty reduce the number of votes, possibly changing the results of the election.~

If the Republicans were honestly trying to clean up elections, they would take a look at the way the 2000 and 2004 elections were run, things like Diebold installing last-minute software updates in Georgia voting machines, for instance, and how the statistically impossible happened when Max Cleland lost a race in which he was 14% points ahead the last few days before the election.  Or the wide-scale disenfranchisement of voters undertaken by the secretary of state Katheryn Harris in Florid, where she 'scrubbed the voter rolls' to supposedly remove names that shouldn't be on the list, but in reality removed thousands of people who are qualified to vote. The process Ms. Harris used was to remove 'black' sounding names.

 Those are well documented incidents where real fraud is highly likely to have taken place. There is simply no reason to enact Voter I.D. laws other than it's a barely plausible excuse for legally preventing thousands of Democratic voters from casting a ballot, if one is willing to hold their nose and close their eyes and ears one can do things like this



It is interesting to note (and aggravating to contemplate) that the troll party congressional rookies don’t want to require an I.D. to buy an automatic weapon, despite the very real danger from such weapons, but are totally committed to preventing non-existent voter fraud.   It is virtually impossible to reconcile these two things with a straight face unless one admits to the obvious, the Voter I.D. Laws do make sense because the real purpose of them is to help the GOP win elections.