Category Archives: Socialism

04.29.13
by

Yahoo News: PROMISES, PROMISES: Social Security pledge at risk

<p> FILE - In this July 15, 2011, file photo, members of Progressive Change Campaign Committee upset over potential cuts to Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security walk to President Barack Obama's campaign headquarters in Chicago, to deliver 200,000 signatures from people who are refusing to donate or volunteer for his re-election campaign if Obama cuts entitlement programs. As the population gets older, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are eating up more and more of the federal budget, squeezing the ability of the government to pay for other programs. Today, the three massive benefit programs account for 44 percent of federal spending. Left unchanged, they will account for more than 60 percent in 25 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office. (AP Photo/David Banks, File)

The issue:

As the population gets older, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are eating up more and more of the federal budget, squeezing the ability of the government to pay for other programs. Today, the three massive benefit programs account for 44 percent of federal spending. Left unchanged, they will account for more than 60 percent in 25 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

Unless Congress acts, the trust fund that supports Social Security is projected to run out of money in 2033. At that point, the retirement and disability program would collect only enough in payroll taxes to pay about 75 percent of benefits.

Medicare’s hospital insurance fund is in worse shape. It is projected to run out of money in 2024. At that point, it would only be able to pay 87 percent of costs, according to projections by the trustees who oversee Medicare and Social Security.

___

The campaign promise:

Obama rarely mentioned Social Security during his 2012 re-election campaign. Four years earlier, he was more forthcoming.

In a 2008 speech to AARP: “John McCain’s campaign has suggested that the best answer for the growing pressures on Social Security might be to cut cost-of-living adjustments or raise the retirement age. Let me be clear: I will not do either.”

On Medicare, Obama told the Democratic convention on Sept. 6, 2012: “Yes, we will reform and strengthen Medicare for the long haul, but we’ll do it by reducing the cost of health care, not by asking seniors to pay thousands of dollars more.”

___

The prospects:

Obama has already offered to break part of his 2008 pledge on Social Security. Twice in negotiations with GOP leaders, he agreed to adopt a new measure of inflation that would result in smaller cost-of-living adjustments, or COLAs, for Social Security recipients. Both deals fell apart. But now Obama has put forward the idea in his own proposed federal budget. If adopted, it would gradually trim benefit increases in Social Security, Medicare and other programs while raising taxes.

His proposed changes, once phased in, would mean a cut in Social Security benefits of nearly $1,000 a year for an average 85-year-old, $560 for a 75-year-old and $136 for a 65-year-old.

Obama and Republican leaders in Congress have held off-and-on talks about possible changes to entitlement programs since 2011, as part of their efforts to reduce government borrowing. But a deal remains elusive. Republicans insist any agreement must include deep spending cuts, while Obama says any deal must include more tax revenue. And many Democrats in Congress are protective of the entitlement programs that Obama now is willing to touch.

—-

Click below for the full article.

http://news.yahoo.com/promises-promises-social-security-pledge-173052710.html

04.27.13
by

Forbes: GOP’s Dave Camp: Why Not Put All Federal Employees Onto Obamacare’s Exchanges?

WASHINGTON, DC - DECEMBER 20: U.S. Rep. Dave ...

In response to this week’s brouhaha regarding attempts by members of Congress to avoid having to enroll themselves and their staff members in Obamacare’s health insurance exchanges, Michigan Republican Dave Camp, Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, has offered a new proposal: Why not put all federal employees on the exchanges? It’s an attractive idea, but it has some downside: it would dismantle a popular model of market-based health reform.

“If the ObamaCare exchanges are good enough for the hardworking Americans and small businesses the law claims to help, then they should be good enough for the president, vice president, Congress, and federal employees,” said Camp’s spokeswoman in a statement.

The political principle is straightforward, but it would come at a price. Putting all federal employees on the exchanges would obliterate the most market-oriented insurance program run by the government, the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program, or FEHBP. Indeed, the FEHBP has long been considered a model for market-based reform of the Medicare and Medicaid programs.

In the FEHBP, employees get to choose amongst a wide variety of plans offered by private insurers. The employer–the government–then subsidizes about three-fourths of the cost to the employee. The employee can choose a more generous or expensive plan if he wants, but he has to pay for a portion of the difference in price, and vice versa. As a result of this approach, FEHBP plans have organically evolved to contain the benefits and financial features that consumers want. By contrast, any minor change to Medicare requires an act of Congress.

Obamacare’s exchanges are closer in concept to FEHBP than traditional Medicare, but the exchanges heavily constrain the ability of plans to alter their design as consumers’ preferences evolve.

—

Click below for the full article.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2013/04/26/gops-dave-camp-why-not-put-all-federal-employees-onto-obamacares-exchanges/

 

04.26.13
by

Motley Fool: Do These Obamacare Winners Look Like Losers Now?

Have the Obamacare winners become losers? When the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, or PPACA, was first passed, most analysts pegged hospital systems as obvious winners from the new law. That viewpoint also held true last year as the Supreme Court upheld much of Obamacare.

The stock market clearly agreed. Immediately after the Supreme Court decision, hospital stocks surged. Community Health Systems  (NYSE: CYH  )  jumped 8%. Health Management Associates  (NYSE: HMA  )  shares rose 7%. The largest private hospital chain, HCA Holdings  (NYSE: HCA  ) , soared by 10%.

Since the high court ruling, few sectors have performed as well as hospitals have. Community Health Systems shares rose as much as 88% by late March. Likewise, HMA stock nearly doubled. HCA shares rose more than 50% during the same period. No hospital stock performed better than Tenet Healthcare  (NYSE: THC  ) , though. Tenet’s shares skyrocketed 140%.

That was then. The performance of these stocks in the month of April thus far tells a much different tale.

Spring backwards? Community Health Systems shares are down almost 13% since the beginning of April. HMA isn’t far behind, with shares falling 12%. HCA stock has dropped 7.5%. What about the biggest winner: Tenet? It’s now the biggest loser, with shares plunging more than 16% this month. Has the luster of Obamacare worn off?

Many hospitals wanted the ACA to succeed. The industry’s lobbying organization, the American Hospital Association, actively supported the legislation and even submitted an amicus brief to the Supreme Court in support of the individual mandate.

The primary reason behind support for the bill stemmed from the prospects of millions of currently uninsured Americans gaining insurance. Many hospitals must write off large amounts of money when individuals with no insurance cannot pay for the care provided. If more people gain insurance under Obamacare, hospitals hope that these write-offs will decrease significantly.

However, many currently uninsured Americans could choose to pay fines rather than obtain insurance. If this scenario becomes widespread, the benefits to hospitals could be dampened.

Others suspect that the costs of the ACA could minimize the advantages for hospitals. Bob Kirby, a director with Fitch Ratings, said last year that “it is unclear if the incremental revenue generated from increased utilization and lower levels of uncompensated care will offset the potential compression in margins.”

All in the timing Obamacare’s timing could also be problematic. Even if millions of uninsured Americans buy insurance as hoped for, that scenario won’t happen until 2014. In the meantime, hospitals are dealing with some of the challenges of the ACA.

—

Click below for the full article.

http://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/planning-to-retire/2013/04/26/what-gen-x-doesnt-know-about-social-security

04.25.13
by

Forbes: Congress Seeks to Opt Out of Participating in Obamacare’s Exchanges

As Obamacare was winding its way through the Senate in 2009, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R., Iowa) slipped in an amendment requiring that members of Congress, and their staff, enroll in Obamacare’s health insurance exchanges. The idea was simple: that if Congress was going to impose Obamacare upon the country, it should have to experience what it is imposing firsthand. But now, word comes that Congress is quietly seeking to rescind that provision of the law, because members fear that staffers who face higher insurance costs will leave the Hill. The news has sparked outrage from the right and left. Here’s the back story, and why this debate is crucial to the future of market-based health reform.

Sen. Grassley’s original idea was to require all federal employees to enroll in the exchanges, instead of in the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program, where most gain coverage today. Indeed, a previous Senate Finance Committee amendment proposed putting members and staffers on Medicaid. But “fierce opposition from federal employee unions” sank Grassley’s effort, and he had to water his amendment down to only apply to Congress and congressional staff.

Staffers grumble about being stuck on the exchanges

Ever since Obamacare became law, this has been a source of grumbling among the congressional staffers I talk to. One aspect of the Grassley amendment is that it originally appeared to exempt staffers who worked for congressional committees, and congressional leadership, because those staffers didn’t work for specific Members of Congress. (My understanding is that the Office of Personnel Management has since clarified the regulations to include all staff, including committee and leadership.)

—

It is always fascinating when politicians pass unconstitutional laws that are supposedly good enough for the people but not good enough for them.  Click below for the full article.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2013/04/25/congress-fearing-brain-drain-seeks-to-opt-out-of-participating-in-obamacares-exchanges/?partner=yahootix

04.25.13
by

Forbes: Big Brother Has A New Face, And It’s Your Boss

Recently, the CVS Caremark Corporation began requiring employees to disclose personal health information (including weight, blood pressure, and body fat levels) or else pay an annual $600 fine. Workers must make this information available to the company’s employee “Wellness Program” and sign a form stating that they’re doing so voluntarily.

CVS argues this will help workers “take more responsibility for improving their health.” At one level, this makes a certain sense. Because the company is paying for their employees’ health insurance, they naturally prefer healthier workers. But at a deeper level, CVS’ action demonstrates a growing problem with our current system of employer-provided health insurance. If our bosses must pay for our health care, they will inevitably seek greater control over our lifestyles.

Although most Americans take it for granted that they receive health insurance through the workplace, this is an artifact of federal tax rules from World War II. When the U.S. government imposed wartime wage controls, employers could no longer compete for workers by offering higher salaries. Instead, they competed by offering more generous fringe benefits such as health insurance. In 1943, the IRS ruled that employees did not have to pay tax on health benefits provided by employers; in 1954, the IRS made this permanent.

The federal government thus distorted the health insurance market in favor of employer-based plans. If a company paid $100 for health insurance with pre-tax dollars, the employee enjoyed the full benefit. But if the employee received that $100 as salary, he could only purchase $50-70 of insurance after taxes. Over time, this tax disparity helped employer-based health insurance dominate the private insurance market. In 2008, over 90% of non-elderly Americans with private insurance received it through their workplace.

Hence, government policy artificially injects the employer into the relationship between a patient and the health insurance system. Normally, what a worker ate or whether he smoked at home would be of no concern to his boss (unless it affected job performance). But U.S. government policy makes it the employer’s business.

To make matters worse, ObamaCare reinforces this status quo. ObamaCare requires large employers to offer health insurance to workers (or else pay a penalty). As a result, more people are discussing how best to link employment to healthy behavior. For example, the New England Journal of Medicine recently featured a pair of high-profile editorials debating the merits of allowing companies to discriminate against smokers, “for their own good.”

Furthermore, ObamaCare pays government grants to encourage companies to implement these “wellness programs.” Hence, employers who wouldn’t otherwise concern themselves with workers’ lifestyles now have an incentive to do so in order to collect federal funds.

—

This is very well written and informative article.  For those that wonder why employers are involved in health insurance (and not home owners insurance, car insurance, etc.) it was simply because of government intervention.  Salary freezes caused the creation of “benefit packages.”

What do you think about government intervention like price freezes and the constitutionality of them?  Click below for the full article.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulhsieh/2013/04/25/big-brother-has-a-new-face-and-its-your-boss/

04.24.13
by

Daily Ticker: The Economic Argument Is Over — And Paul Krugman Won (Big Surprise, Some Keynesian Claims Victory)

For the past five years, a fierce war of words and policies has been fought in America and other economically challenged countries around the world.

On one side were economists and politicians who wanted to increase government spending to offset weakness in the private sector. This “stimulus” spending, economists like Paul Krugman argued, would help reduce unemployment and prop up economic growth until the private sector healed itself and began to spend again.

On the other side were economists and politicians who wanted to cut spending to reduce deficits and “restore confidence.” Government stimulus, these folks argued, would only increase debt loads, which were already alarmingly high. If governments did not cut spending, countries would soon cross a deadly debt-to-GDP threshold, after which growth would be permanently impaired. The countries would also be beset by hyper-inflation, as bond investors suddenly freaked out and demanded higher interest rates. Once government spending was cut, this theory went, deficits would shrink and “confidence” would return.

This debate has not just been academic.

Those in favor of economic stimulus won a brief victory in the depths of the financial crisis, with countries like the U.S. implementing stimulus packages. But the so-called “Austerians” fought back. And in the past several years, government policies in Europe and the U.S. have been shaped by the belief that governments had to cut spending or risk collapsing under the weight of staggering debts.

—

Of course Keynesians are claiming victory.  When the bill comes due on the national debt, inflation goes wild, and a dollar crisis happens, what will they claim then?  What do you think about this writers victory claim?

Click below for the full article.

http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/economic-argument-over-paul-krugman-won-150247189.html

04.23.13
by

Marketwatch: The slowdown is more than a soft patch, Goldman Sachs got it wrong before they got it right

For months, economists and the media have proclaimed that we are in full-recovery mode. While the markets were at record highs, unemployment had not improved, economic growth was stagnant and most corporate earnings had little to do with an increase in sales and revenue and were based on moves like laying-off thousands of people and shedding non-performing assets.

Last week, Goldman Sachs Group Inc. — one of those bullish outfits projecting enthusiasm — reversed its earlier upbeat message, saying that consumer spending is slowing down, which will likely have a negative impact on future growth. The significance is that most analysts and economists are coming to grips with the fact that the economic data doesn’t support stock-market valuations at these levels.

What economists and analysts failed to connect is the contrast between reality and the stock market — the low consumer spending, paltry economic growth, weak hiring by companies and reckless quantitative easing by the Federal Reserve while the stock market soared.

So, let’s look at everything Goldman Sachs (and many others) missed, and the chain of economic events.

The importance of consumption on the overall economy should not be overlooked. While in the economic cycle, it is production that comes first, as it provides the income necessary for individuals to consume, it is ultimately consumption that completes the cycle by creating the demand.

Despite repeated bailouts, programs, and interventions, economic growth remains mired at sub-par rates as consumers struggle in a low growth/high unemployment economy. Businesses, which have been pressured by poor sales, higher taxes and increased government regulations, have learned to do more with less. Higher productivity has led to less employment and higher levels of profits.

The dark side of that equation is that less employment means higher competition for jobs which suppresses wage growth. Lower wage growth and incomes means less consumption, which reduces the aggregate end demand. In turn, lower demand for products and services puts businesses on the defensive to “do more with less” in order to protect profit margins. Wash, rinse and repeat. This is why deflationary economic environments are so greatly feared by the Fed as that relationship between production and consumption is incredibly difficult to break.

I don’t believe that the current slowdown is just a “soft patch,” but is instead the end of the expansionary cycle that began in 2009. That belief is simply based on the fact that economies do not grow indefinitely but cycle between expansions and contractions.

In the current economic environment, where the consumer is caught in a balance sheet deleveraging cycle, economic contractions occur more frequently than they do under more normal economic conditions. This is not an indictment of fiscal or monetary policies, but simply a statement about the cycles of an economy.

So where does that leave us now and the remainder of 2013?

At some point, despite the ongoing interventions by the Federal Reserve, the stock market will revert to the underlying fundamental story which has been slowly deteriorating over time. The question that remains to be answered is simply how long can the Fed’s artificial intervention programs continue to elevate asset prices?

—

Click below for the full article.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-current-slowdown-is-more-than-a-soft-patch-2013-04-23?siteid=yhoof2

04.21.13
by

Motley Fool: Will Obama Really Confiscate Your Retirement Savings?

The budget proposal President Obama recently submitted had several provisions designed to increase government tax revenue. But one provision concerning retirement accounts triggered alarm bells for many Americans, raising fears that the government will confiscate your retirement savings.

Why people think confiscation is possible The provision in the Obama budget calls for tax laws to “prohibit individuals from accumulating over $3 million in tax-preferred retirement accounts.” Specifically, the budget refers to a complicated formula that involves figuring out how much money a person would need in order to buy an annuity contract that would guarantee annual payments to retirees of $205,000 for the rest of their lives. The proposal would raise $9 billion over the next 10 years, according to the budget’s forecast.

Immediately, many analysts jumped to the conclusion that the provision might involve actually taking away money from retirement accounts. CNBC’s Larry Kudlow described the measure in a special editorial in the New York Sun as an “incredible and arbitrary limit or tax on — or even possible confiscation of — IRA-type tax-advantaged savings account [emphasis added].”

Past confiscation fears Constitutionally, the idea that the government could simply confiscate your retirement savings without compensation goes directly against the due process and takings clauses of the Fifth Amendment. More skeptical analysts will note that retirement accounts make up trillions of dollars in assets that major banks Bank of America (NYSE: BAC  )  and Wells Fargo (NYSE: WFC  )  and many other major financial institutions use to drive profits, giving them a huge incentive to use their political power to ensure that those assets don’t disappear instantaneously.

Yet this isn’t the first time that the issue of confiscation has come up. Even before President Obama was elected, Congress looked at a proposal to replace 401(k) plans with government-managed retirement accounts. Under the plan from Prof. Teresa Ghilarducci of the New School’s Schwartz Center for Economic Policy Analysis, these accounts would have had savers contributing 5% of their pay to a government-run retirement plan that would invest in bonds paying a fixed, guaranteed return over the rate of inflation. Ghilarducci’s plan did not propose confiscation, and as she described in an interview with Seattle talk show host Kirby Wilbur at the time, “Whatever you have in your 401(k) now will keep its tax break.”

Moreover, historians point to the 1933 executive order that required individuals to deliver gold coins, bullion, and certificates to banks in exchange for regular currency at a rate of $20.67 per ounce as being functionally equivalent to confiscation. With the government proceeding to devalue the dollar to $35 per gold ounce the following year, those who complied with the order suffered a substantial loss of purchasing power. Indeed, many gold investors use that same argument in arguing against bullion ETFs SPDR Gold Trust (NYSEMKT: GLD  ) , iShares Gold (NYSEMKT: IAU  ) , and iShares Silver Trust (NYSEMKT: SLV  ) , preferring instead to take physical possession of their gold and silver to ensure its safekeeping themselves.

Click below for the full article.
04.19.13
by

The Motley Fool: Obamacare and Sequestration Crush UnitedHealth

In this video, health-care analyst David Williamson discusses how Obamacare and sequestration are weighing on shares of insurer UnitedHealth (NYSE: UNH) . David breaks the managed care company’s quarter into Clint Eastwood-inspired good, bad, and ugly segments, helping investors in UnitedHealth, and related stocks, to find out everything they need to know from this bellwether’s earnings, and what to expect going forward.

When President Obama was re-elected, shares of UnitedHealth and other health insurers fell immediately. Is Obamacare a death knell for health insurers, or is the market missing out on some of the opportunities the law presents? In this brand new premium report on UnitedHealth, The Motley Fool takes a long term view, honing in on prospects for UnitedHealth in a post-Obamacare world. So don’t miss out — simply click here now to claim your copy today.


Click below for the full article.

http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2013/04/19/obamacare-and-sequestration-crush-unitedhealth.aspx

04.18.13
by

Business Insider: Here’s What We Know About The Sad State Of Wall Street Now That Earnings Are All In

In the last week or so every Wall Street bank has reported its earnings, so now  it’s time for the takeaways.

As usual the headlines of the week didn’t tell the whole story.

A quick glance looks like this: JP  Morgan beat estimates with a 33%  jump in profits, Morgan  Stanley‘s profits dipped but the bank still  beat expectations, Goldman  Sachs is taking champagne  showers, Bank  of America is eeking  out some kind of improvement, and Citi  is finally coming into its own after shedding a load of toxic assets.

Now for the news you can read between the lines.

Sales and trading is on life support, especially if you trade fixed income,  currencies or commodities. The traders at Goldman Sachs did better than everyone  else, but as CNBC’s  John Carney pointed out, they were still down 7% for the quarter.

Bank of America’s S&T revenue fell 20% (run by Tom Montag, who still gets  paid more than BofA CEO Brian  Moynihan) and Morgan Stanley got killed, with its revenue falling 42%.

On the other hand, Wealth Management, once one of the most boring sectors on  The Street, is carrying banks. This is especially true at Morgan Stanley (where  the unit is up 48% from this time last year) and Bank of America, where  assets under management grew $67.7  billion year-over-year to $745.3 billion.

Another business where Wall Street is making some cash is in debt  underwriting. Thanks to our current low yield environment, companies that were  unable to issue bonds before can do so now. The demand to buy these bonds is  there from clients searching for yield any way they can get it. Wall Street is here to help.

—

Click below for the full article.

http://www.businessinsider.com/wall-street-banks-q1-2013-earnings-2013-4