I wish every preacher, politician, prophet and prognosticator could read (or re-read) THE UNPRECEDENTED EXPANSION OF THE GLOBAL MIDDLE CLASS: AN UPDATE (2017) by the Brookings Institution, non-profit organization devoted to independent research and policy solutions. https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/global_20170228_global-middle-class.pdf Just as an aside, some conservatives consider Brookings part of the “deep state,” i.e. certainly not a Trump supporter.
I commented on that document at my blog in May 2017. I’d forgotten the eye opening research and conclusions and re-read it today. In light of the current pandemic and the self-flagellation I hear from educated, comfortably middle-class Christian Americans about health disparities, systemic racism, income gaps, struggling inner cities, and failures to thrive of various populations this report is truly stunning.
Here it is: About TWO-THIRDS of the WORLD are now middle class. Think on that a moment. When my great grandfather (b. 1828) set out as a young man to “go west” about 95% of the world existed in overwhelming poverty and the government provided none of the social services we expect today. All that charity was left to the churches and local communities—taking care of the sick and poor and providing children (who often worked in factories or as farm labor) with an education.
In 1990, more than a third of people on Earth lived on less than $1.90 a day, adjusted for local prices (this is the line the World Bank uses as its main metric). By 2013, barely 10 percent of people did; the rate had been cut by more than two-thirds. And most of the recent growth of the last 2 decades has not been among white people (aka Europe and North America) but among Asians and Africans. Even in the U.S. the riches ethnic groups are Asians—Indians and Filipinos. https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/the-biggest-asian-origin-communities-in-the-united-states.html
Of course, the obligatory reporting on global climate change and the percent of rich households (not middle class) consumption being in the U.S. is reported in the Brookings document. But then, think on this: “India today (2015) is already richer than Germany was when it introduced social insurance for all workers in the late 1880s. Indonesia is richer than the U.S. was in 1935, when the Social Security Act was passed. And China is richer than Britain was in 1948, when the National Health Service was introduced.” Social programs did not building the middle class—capitalism did. Brookings, being left of center didn’t say that, but it’s there, in print, and on-line.
Destroying the Trump economy (which actually came after this amazing report) and attempting to make us more dependent on government rather than the values that built our country and those of the countries rising today are critical for those who want global power. Whether you think that means Soros or a global cabal of capitalists, or “woke” international corporations, we seem to be in the battle for our lives.
We need to get back to work and to stop listening to those who are trying to defeat us.
Great news, right?
80% of Americans rate their health-care quality as excellent or good. Except it was 76% under Obama in 2015, and 83% under Bush in 2007.
All studies showed before Obama decided to take over health, that nearly 85% of Americans were satisfied with their health insurance (which is not always the same as health care), in fact, some didn't want insurance, others just hadn't signed up for state or federal government plans. Didn't matter. He wanted the power. Jail or fine if you didn't have the level of insurance the government demanded. So what if you're happy with what you have? It wasn't what Yo'mama Obama wanted.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/245195/americans-rate-healthcare-quite-positively.aspx
Have you ever seen this statement--"Americans have a shorter life expectancy compared with residents of almost all other high-income countries." I wish they'd qualify that by race, ethnicity, immigration status and age. Are Swedish Americans less healthy than ethnic Swedes in Sweden? Finnish Americans worse off than those born in Helsinki? German Americans? Drugs, auto accidents, and gun deaths wipe out a big swath of young Americans which unfortunately drastically alters our life expectancy national statistics. Losing weight, eating a healthy diet, and exercising more are good for you as an individual, but probably won't change national statistics as long as those 3 killers are present.
Here's what the journal "Circulation" determined: "Adherence to 5 low-risk lifestyle-related factors (never smoking, a healthy weight, regular physical activity, a healthy diet, and moderate alcohol consumption) could prolong life expectancy at age 50 years by 14.0 and 12.2 years for female and male US adults compared with individuals who adopted zero low-risk lifestyle factors."
Simple, right? Popular health journals and websites (usually sponsored by pharmaceutical companies) have jumped on that one. Buckets of articles and bags of advice have come from that. But. As young adults, people (like me in the 1960s or my parents in the 1930s) observing those five lifestyles were probably not involved in violent gangs, car chases while drunk, stealing to support an opioid habit, or eating wings at the local bar and washing them down with 12 beers several times a week. Those five lifestyles often include a monogamous marriage, higher education levels, stable jobs, church attendance, strong family and friend relationships. It's not that grandma who smoked like a chimney and drank six beers a day didn't live to be 105, or that cousin Ralph dropped dead jogging at age 40, but they are the exception.
I haven't read the whole article, but I know how it will be cited: support take over by the government of our health insurance because look how unhealthy Americans are. Studies in countries with socialized medicine that compare their healthiest and their least healthy show the same spread as the U.S. and that there are income gaps, education disparity and socio-economic differences which government health insurance doesn't change.
This article is free access. “Circulation” is one of the best peer reviewed journals you can read on cardiovascular issues. https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/full/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.117.032047
The Democrat policies you say you care about are: “Most are in the area of social issues: common-sense gun control, affordable health care for all (can't wrap my head around the fact that gun ownership is a right, but healthcare is a privilege), increase in federal minimum wage so it at least matches the poverty level minimum, pro-choice.”
They all sound rather vague, but that’s not what the Democrat party means with those words.
1. We all know the issue isn’t “gun control,” because some of the worst disasters have happened in cities that have that. The goal is confiscation for all except the government and private security guards to protect entertainers and politicians. It’s never been anything else. Democrats are almost as patient as terrorists—and it is always incremental.
2. Healthcare—we already had 5 federal/state medical plans before Obama decided to make NOT having it a crime punishable with a fine or jail time. Native Americans have had cradle to grave health care for many years, and they are the least healthy and poorest of American minorities—at least if they live on the reservation. My brother-in-law was a full blood Indian who grew up in Huntington Beach, CA, and used all the rights and privileges the rest of us have, plus a few from his tribe. He had a public employee pension, but died at 73, not for lack of health care, but lack of agreeing to a colonoscopy. I think it was the take over of one of the largest industries that Republicans objected to. If he had begun without the mandate, or not forcing religious groups to buy contraception/abortion, he would have had no problem growing it to single payer. But it was never about healthcare, it was always about power. Also, the government no matter who is in the White House is eyeing the deductions or credits for medical care by employers and employees—they (it) believe that is rightfully their money.
3. We already have 123 federal wealth transfer programs, and many started out to help the sick, poor, elderly, etc., (those who tug at our heart strings), but as time goes on more people are added as they expand, until now we’re at the point that 62% of the people who receive entitlements or assistance are well above the poverty line. Nonpoor households received 48% of the $2.4 TRILLION distributed in 2015. And about 31% were in the upper half. There’s just something about a government entitlement plan that is like our waist sizes (at least mine) and expands as we age. These programs don’t necessarily reduce poverty, but they certainly employ a lot of middle class bureaucrats in state and federal government. If poverty were to disappear tomorrow, on Thursday we’d have a new class of poor—all those folks who work upstream from the poor. (figures from “The high cost of good intentions” by John F. Cogan, 2017)
4. As far as minimum wage goes, that’s another feel-good, guilt trip. A tiny fraction of wage earners are at minimum—I think it’s 2.9% of all workers. And even at the old $7.50/hr figure, if a 2 adult earner household was working 40 hours a week at $7.50, that household has gone beyond the level for qualifying for most important benefits like SNAP, Medicaid, Section 8, WIC, etc. Low income doesn’t mean stupid, so if it were me at that job, I’d cut my hours or refuse a promotion so I could continue qualifying for about $22,000 a year in benefits. It’s quite possible for EITC for a man with a family to have a stay at home wife and 3-4 kids who is better off than the man earning $60,000/year because the government pays him to earn below $50,000 and it’s non-taxable. The average family income of a minimum wage earner is $53,113 and they are more likely to have some college than the average American worker. Why? They are not the primary earner of the family!
5. And pro-choice.? Well, there goes your concern for the weakest and most vulnerable in society. Again this is incremental. All the talk these days from the left is that abortion is OK right through the full 9 months—it’s legal to poke a hole in the skull to make sure the baby’s dead on arrival, and the more radical Democrats have moved that to 2 years out from birth. It will come. Soon the Democrats’ drive for euthanasia of the elderly and severely ill will meet up in the middle with their desire to end the lives of children who are not perfect or who come at an inconvenient time. At the age of my readers and family, it might be wise to have your EOL documents stated clearly, because the Democrat party is coming for you.
https://www.cathmed.org/assets/files/LNQ59%20FINAL.pdf
A response:
Norma;
I really like the point that you are making about the slow incremental loss of freedoms, rights and government intrusion in every facet of our lives.
And I share your concerns that will be happening to the old folks and agree that you need to work on a plan.
There is always this argument about being reasonable and accepting of progress and small changes but when you look at it over time the impact on the American Way of Life is significant.
While not directly germane to the border security discussion, it is relevant to the issue of slowly stripping law abiding citizens of their rights and putting government in control over every aspect of our lives, whether it is healthcare, education, physical movement, gun ownership, property ownership, etc. etc.
I see this with my two youngest kids in elementary school. We live in Maryland. The school supplies that we buy become community property – property ownership is one of the hallmarks of capitalism and freedom (and communism the opposite). The result is that the kids go through 100 pencils, 10 erasers, … a head per year and the teachers beg for more before the school year is over because they have run out. Sounds like the Kolkhoz (State owned Farm) in the Sowjet Union that could never succeed of making a fraction of their crop plan and had to import most their grain from the USA.
The kids and parents are highly discouraged to pay for lunch with cash out of their wallet – learning the use of money is fundamental to a capitalistic society. Result, the kids have a lunch account and have no concept of what stuff costs and how to make choices. Sounds like Obamacare for the low income people.
A month ago, I learned that the children are no longer taught cursive writing. I was told that WE ONLY TEACH PRINTED LETTERS for the last 5 years now. When I raised the issue that they would never be able to attain a decent speed of writing, I was told, that the direction is that at some point the kids would only be typing.
DOES ANYBODY UNDERSTAND THAT THIS SETS UP A TOTAL SURVEILLANCE STATE?
The children are undergoing mandatory behavioral testing annually which was part of common core legislation under Obama. What does this look like. It’s frightening. It reminds of how the Communists identified those who were potential dangers for the dictatorship regime.
The kids read a story about some animal pet that will be put to death UNLESS a child is willing to say some lies. Only with these lies could the pet animal be saved. The testing involves asking the children various questions about their opinions on this story.
I wrote a letter to the school that I am opting my kids out and they don’t have permission to be testing. They told me there is no ‘opt out’ allowed. I met with the principal and was redirected to the assistant principal who is in charge of testing. To my surprise, he confided to me that he as 4 children that will be tested soon and he has been thinking about how he gets around this because knowing what he knows he thinks it’s very dangerous too. After he explained all of the rules to me we found a loophole around it and it has worked now for the last 3 years. Although I would not be surprised if the authorities will show up at my door step one day. If you look at the parent group websites in protest of this testing, they have been largely unsuccessful protecting their children.
We had hoped that with a Republican governor this nonsense would stop, but it hasn’t.
So while I don’t own guns, don’t shoot, I have to completely sympathize with the people who want to uphold their constitutional gun rights.
But those rights have been slowly eroding piece by piece and have been converted to hunting rights and gun ownership. The Constitution was not about guns for hunting. It was about safeguards against an oppressive regime.
So it is important to recognize that there are consequences when you allow the forfeiture of citizens rights and you are not paying attention.
Parents of ill children go through so much! Hold this family in your prayers!
“Lily had clinic today. It was her typical monthly check up. Her numbers still look good. I’m waiting for the day they are all in the normal range but that will probably be a while.
We have been working to get her infusions started for her IGG treatment. The process has definitely tried my patience—it’s been 2 weeks now. Not only are Lily’s numbers extremely low which is dangerous but we have a vacation planned at the end of this month and I’m nervous her traveling with such a low immune system.
We have been blessed overall with good insurance and Vandy who has fought for Lily. However these home infusions go through a different provider that works with Blue Cross for approval and then CVS to set up the infusions. I work in the insurance world so I understand the hoops they put up, but the process has been exhausting. I’m pretty sure Blue Cross and CVS wish they had never heard of us as I have set up daily calls with them to discuss their progress with approval.
Finally we got approval today. They say we can start soon. My definition of soon was today but I understand their definition maybe more like later this week. Ha!
Anyway prayers for these infusions to get started, Lily to tolerate them, and for her to get enough prior to our trip for her to be at a safe level would be appreciated.
Later this week, Lily returns to the endocrinologist for a follow up on the issues with her thyroid.”
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the average American family earned $74,664 (before taxes) and spent $57,311 across various expense categories in 2016. [not sure what is “family”—probably means household—doesn’t give number of people]
1. Taxes 2. housing 3. transportation 4. food 5. pensions and insurance 6. Entertainment and contributions 7. health care
Taxes are the biggest chunk. $18,900 each year, and then housing, $18,886. “Following housing costs, transportation ($9,049), food ($7,203), and pensions and personal insurance ($6,831) topped the list for the biggest ticketed items on most Americans' budgets. For the majority of people who prefer not to cook, the cost of dining out could add up big. The occasional luxury experience may not seem like a big drain on the average budget, but entertainment, cash contributions, and apparel and services accounted for nearly $7,000 (over 10 percent) of most Americans' annual expenses.” Health care was $4,612. That said, health care increased almost 67% between 2006 and 2016, 8 years of which Obama was taking over our health insurance choices.
https://www.creditloan.com/blog/how-the-average-us-consumer-spends-their-paycheck/
If you know any Obama supporters who don't yet see the intention was not better or cheaper or more fair health insurance, but single payer so the government could control our lives, smack them. There might still be a brain cell or two working you could activate. http://townhall.com/columnists/halscherz/2015/11/04/the-human-toll-of-the-bureaucratic-state-in-healthcare-n2075710
One of the untold stories regarding the negative effects of Obamacare on our healthcare system, is the irreparable harm being done to our rural healthcare network. iVantage Health Analytics reported that since 2010, there have been 56 rural hospitals that have closed their doors- the latest, Mercy Hospital in Independence, Kansas. There are an additional 283 rural hospitals across America on the brink of closure. 35% of rural hospitals are operating at a financial loss, but this was not always the case. Obamacare is a big part of the problem.
The plan is that it will get so bad and so expensive, the voters will beg for single payer. Marx was definitely wrong. You don’t need impoverished workers to revolt; only dumb, non-thinking well-off voters.
“Workplace stress — such as long hours, job insecurity and lack of work-life balance — contributes to at least 120,000 deaths each year and accounts for up to $190 billion in health care costs, according to new research by two Stanford professors and a former Stanford doctoral student now at Harvard Business School.”
I would have guessed that irritation with supervisor or co-workers would have been the biggest cause of stress. I remember how stressful it was when my supervisor threw the phone through the window when she was mad at something (not me), then pulled it back in by the cord and threw it through a second window. The windows were closed. Now that’s stressful. These days, the light weight phones couldn’t break a sweat, let alone a window.
http://www.gsb.stanford.edu/insights/why-your-workplace-might-be-killing-you
“The insolvent Iowa-based health insurance cooperative, CoOportunity Health, had to be taken over in December by Iowa insurance regulators. Iowa and Nebraska's Guarantee Associations - and state and federal taxpayers - are now on the hook for millions in claims the insurer could not pay.
CoOportunity Health wasn't a traditional health insurer. Rather, it was a taxpayer-funded, non-profit health insurance cooperative (co-op) established under the Affordable Care Act (ACA). The co-op program is plagued by numerous flaws. When co-ops were established, they had no customers and no historical actuarial data to assist in setting plan premiums. Startup funds and cash reserves were mostly borrowed from taxpayers. According to industry data only one of the 23 co-ops was profitable last year (a 24th co-op located in Vermont failed before it even got off the ground). While some of the remaining co-ops are losing money because of small size, others appear to have the strategy of losing money to gain market-share at taxpayers' expense.”
It’s been a lot of years since I added a baby to our health insurance, but as I recall, we simply called our agent, who then probably filled in the blanks on a form, and like magic the little one had insurance from the minute we supplied the information. Not today. Not under Obamacare. Story from Sharyl Attkisson.
“A true story. About a baby who was born on June 4, 2014 A.D., in America. The baby’s name is Hannah Johnson, 8 lbs 14 oz. Green eyes, brown hair and a beauty to behold. When Hannah was born (the very first newborn to be added to the health insurance rolls of our office since healthcare.gov went live) we printed out the Change Form from SelectHealth’s website and faxed it in, just like we had always done. The reason we did it that way was because, to our knowledge, no one told us to do it any other way. So off it went, on June 30, 2014. On July 7th we called in to SelectHealth to make sure that the baby had been added, because neither we nor the insured had received anything confirming that little Hannah was on the policy.
Fortunately though, SelectHealth informed us that they had received our request and that the addition was being processed. They confirmed that “the addition was being processed” because apparently no one ever told the customer service reps at SelectHealth that they would need to add the baby some other way. When a few weeks passed without any confirmation that the baby was indeed insured, Hannah’s mom called into SelectHealth to follow up on the policy endorsement. She continued this process, calling in to her insurance company to inquire about little Hannah’s status, for a couple of months without any resolution. In fact it wasn’t until mid September, a good three months after Hannah’s birth, that SelectHealth told Hannah’s mom that they actually couldn’t change her health insurance policy. That all changes to the policy needed to be routed through healthcare.gov. “ Read the rest of the story here—it gets worse.
What bias? Last night I watched a heart wrenching program on 60 minutes on the problems in Appalachian Virginia--no recovery from the recession, coal jobs drying up, and too poor (i.e., too rich) for Obamacare (all this on Obama's economic watch), yet at the end, it is all laid at the feet of the GOP who didn't approve the Democrat governor's Medicaid increase plan. So I looked that up--and see there's a whole other story there for CBS to look into, like how the states that take Obama's carrot, finance this expansion when it is withdrawn.
One woman interviewed said she couldn't afford the insurance offered by McDonald's where she worked. But she was a smoker (part of her health problem) which could have paid for her insurance co-pay. Even one pack a day is about $1660 a year.
This story was first covered in 2008--now the health situation is worse.
This is not the complete segment, but contains information about the background. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/on-the-road-with-the-health-wagon/
The irony of all this is we the people pay for the health insurance through reduced paychecks (aka benefits). But we get an income tax deduction by not paying taxes on that part of our paycheck we never saw. The government is lusting for that deduction which I think amounts to more than the "losses" of the mortgage deduction, and by 2018 we'll be seeing significant changes. Obama thinks our benefit is his. By destroying the employer based system (which also gets a tax break for providing it) the federal government hopes to get huge gains. It's a 2-fer--health care costs go up because of gov't interference in the market, then we get to pay higher prices, and taxes. It's not really about what is covered and what isn't—condoms or orthotics-- but about how to mess it up so badly no one will want it and beg for something really neato like the VA offers.
http://www.kiplinger.com/article/spending/T027-C001-S001-a-tax-on-health-benefits.html
Of the 6.6 million uninsured American children in 2009 (7.2% of all children), about 2/3 were actually already eligible for health coverage through Medicaid or CHIP. About 40% of that 7.2% were children of illegal immigrants, but are American citizens by birth. Now with Obamacare, things will really be screwed up, and it's possible if CHIP funding lapses (which logically shouldn't be needed if we've got this other wonderful plan), there could be more uninsured children than before the ACA.
Now, I'm no math genius, but if 92.8% of all American children were insured either by private insurance or their parents' employer, and 40% of the uninsured were children of illegal immigrants, and 2/3 were eligible for a government plan already in place, were there no geniuses in this administration would could figure out a way to help these children without messing up every other child's plan?
Statistics from JAMA, May 7, 2014.
Posts
All Comments
