Tagged: economics
Obamacare Doesn’t Care!
I want to shout out this question to the blogosphere:
Is there ANYONE out there who benefits from Obamacare?
I’m asking in all sincerity.
I have not read the 1400 page bill. I am not an expert on the politics of health care. However, I am a partaker of our health care system, and have used it fully. I also realize that we won’t see the full benefits of Obamacare until next year. But from what I have seen so far, it scares me.
I had the opportunity to meet with my health insurance agent recently. What an eye opener! When she sent us our new rates for this year, it did not compute. I thought they would go down. My medical risk went down (by three points!) and Obamacare surely would provide some relief! But instead, my rates went up. I immediately set up an appointment (with my agent, unfortunately President Obama wouldn’t see me).
There seems to be this strange assumption that health insurance is the same as health care. Obamacare does not provide affordable health care to anyone (except those few extra people who now qualify for Medicaid). Obamacare mandates health insurance.
Don’t think for a moment that just because you have health insurance, that you automatically get health care. I have found that paying for an expensive family policy provides me with very little health care coverage. And with the new Obamacare guidelines, I am actually provided with even less than I had before Obamacare.
Tell me this: Does a policy that has a $7000 deductible before it pays for anything other than a minimal number of doctor’s visits considered to be health care? If I still have to pay for my medication, additional doctor’s visits, any tests I need and most surgeries, is it really accurate to say that having insurance also means that I have health care? And if I spend almost $700 a month for this policy, how in the world am I supposed to be able to afford to go to the doctor and get “health care.”
I will say that this policy provides fantastic insurance that comprehensively covers all of my health care needs IF I meet the $12,000 max out-of-pocket (up 20% from last year). So, to get great health care, it only costs my middle-class family $20,000 per year (premiums plus max out-of-pocket). What a deal!
I know, you might be thinking, “These aren’t typical prices. She had cancer.” Silly me, I thought it was people like me that Obamacare was going to help. But to put it in perspective, this year our rates went up $100 per month. Not because of me. The rates of our children went up, our perfectly healthy, non-income generating, dependent children.
My agent explained it this way; Obamacare dictates that the rates for the most expensive (high risk) policies cannot be more than THREE TIMES the rates of the least expensive (low risk). That might make you think that means the high-risk rates (mostly elderly) would decrease, and perhaps they have, just a teeny bit (although mine didn’t). But what that really means is that rates go up for the young and healthy.
As a nice little bonus, I now have a $1000 prescription deductible. Yes, you read that right. Before I get any prescription coverage, I have to pay $1000. This is not included in the $7000 deductible. This is in addition to that. Once I meet my $1000 deductible they pay a whopping 50%. But don’t worry, I’ll meet that deductible before we are half way through the year.
The problem is, Obamacare makes little rules that are supposed to help us – like eliminating caps on prescription benefits. The insurance companies have to make that up somewhere. “How?” By raising our prescription deductibles.
Tell me President Obama, where is the relief to the middle class? Isn’t that what you promised? No more excuses!
I now have to make a choice: Pay my mortgage and feed my family OR buy a health insurance policy that costs more than I can afford and still requires me to pay for almost all of my health care. Hmmm…
I innocently asked my agent, “With rates like these, there must be a lot of people who just don’t buy insurance. What is the penalty if we don’t have insurance.”
“$95″
Yes, that’s right. Just NINETY-FIVE DOLLARS. Per year.
Sign me up for that! I can’t afford $20k a year. I already had to pay almost that much. Twice.
I’m pretty sure that as long as I don’t have a cancer recurrence, we won’t come even close to that amount if we just pay for all our health care ourselves. If the cancer did come back, I’m pretty confident that all my medical expenses would be covered even without insurance. I’ve seen it happen over, and over, and over: hospital write-offs, grants, etc.
Although, perhaps as part of the sinking middle class, we may not be poor enough to qualify for many of those benefits. It really does pay to be poor. And it is just getting way too expensive not to be.
Once again I ask: Can anyone out there tell me how Obamacare benefits anyone, especially those who need the benefit?
Let’s look at some of my friends who make quite a bit less money than my family. Surely it will help them.
Some are on Medicaid. In some states (not mine) some will benefit from the Medicaid expansion. I confess, that will help some families.
The bulk of them don’t have insurance because they can’t afford it. They also don’t go to the doctor because they can’t afford it. Obamacare will now force them to pay money they don’t have for an insurance policy that will still require them to pay to go to the doctor, once again, with money they don’t have. How is that a benefit?
Instead, they will pay the miniscule $95 penalty and not have insurance. The only thing that changed was that they now have $95 less and still, no health care.
Forcing people to buy health insurance does not provide affordable health care. It seems obvious, although perhaps overly simplistic: the only way to make health care affordable is to reduce the cost of health care. This can only be done by confronting the giants that compromise the basic economic principle of supply and demand.
I won’t even get into what Obambacare is doing to businesses that are already under the heavy load of a tough economy.
It seems to me Obamacare is just making everyone pay a whole lot more money for a whole lot of nothing.
I’d love to know how Obamacare has affected you this year (good or bad). Please respond and share your stories!
Social Security for Who?
How did our generation get stuck with such a raw deal when it comes to Social Security? I’m not bemoaning the fact that my mother and grandmother get it; I’m sick of the way government handles our money! There wasn’t a whole lot of foresight in the creation of SS.
![obamas-debt-battaile-politics-1350946745[1]](http://thecivicarena.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/obamas-debt-battaile-politics-13509467451.jpg)
Is it really wise to let our government take our hard earned money and put it into a fund for the use of generations ahead of us to retire, masked as a ‘due’ for our own retirement, no less?! Did anyone ever think that maybe the birth rate would decline immensely? Did anyone think that maybe people would live longer and longer? How about a bad economy and high unemployment on top of that? Let’s think that through.
The Social Security taxes you now pay go into the Social Security Trust Funds and are used to pay benefits to current beneficiaries. The Social Security Board of Trustees now estimates that based on current law… In 2017 (it) will begin paying more benefits than it collects in taxes and… in 2041, the Trust Funds will be depleted. Because people are living longer and the birth rate is low, the ratio of workers to beneficiaries is falling. Therefore, the taxes that are paid by workers will not be enough to pay the full benefit amounts scheduled. So, according to the SS Administration, our generation will pay the tax but won’t be able to collect on it when we retire.
Of course, I have heard the argument that this is a simple math problem to be fixed with increasing taxes. When does that line of thinking ever stop?! And how much do you have to raise the taxes to compensate for all of the changes I just mentioned? Let’s learn from history and our mistakes. Quit having the government take things over that are too important to mess with. Do we really want to give the US Government the opportunity to make us relive the Social Security mess with our healthcare?
Will our children be asking us, “Why did you get us into such a healthcare mess we can’t afford, when you knew how Social Security failed?”
Was Jesus a Socialist or a Capitalist? #4: It’s Not Fair!
By David Moberly
We’ve been discussing fairness, God’s will for finances, and the Biblical approach to monetary policy. I think we’ve done a good job of debunking the idea that God is expressly Socialistic, but can we determine with certainty that He’s all in for Capitalism? Keep in mind that neither of these systems were in play in any era of Biblical Literature, so we can postulate at best. Here’s where the Scripture, “Love the Lord with all of your heart, mind and soul,” comes into play. We have to use our wisdom and experience to apply Biblical principles to modern socioeconomic thought. To conclude the series today, we will discuss the quality of life as it relates to federal fiscal policy, and how fairness is almost never the outcome of redistribution.
I want to start off by reminding the reader that the government does not create revenue.
They create currencies and monetary policy, they take money in the form of taxes (no goods or services are produced in this process), but they absolutely do not create anything tangible. Government’s fiscal purpose is to facilitate major costs incurred that cannot be handled by an individual such as law enforcement, interstate roads, and other large projects that require too much capital for an individual alone.
To claim that fairness dictates that tax dollars should funnel back to the poor misses two obvious facts:
1) The money used for this purpose was taken by another individual that had no choice in the matter.
2) Incentive is given for someone who has created no value to the economy and to society, to remain in the state they are in — unproductive.
These two elements lead to the corruption of a stable, growing economy. Which is really fair: allowing people to keep the money they’ve earned through the creation of goods and services? Or taking that money and giving it to someone else who has not earned income through the creation of goods and services? You may answer that charity demands such behavior! I would argue that charity seeks to give, not take, and never to make better those who are comfortable in failure. So who is being charitable, those who create the goods and services or those who only consume them? The chief aim of charity must be the betterment of the individual and consequently, the benefit of the collective whole — I believe it is a fallacy to call something charity when it misses either of these critical aims.
Most people believe in caring financially for the disabled; most are willing to temporarily support the unemployed or otherwise downtrodden. The problem exists only when programs to facilitate this giving become so large that they are unsustainable except in the very short term. This is the invariable result of any such program being handled on a federal level with less than adequate local oversight. Don’t even get me started on the tyranny of majority that exists in a modern democracy either. When all it takes for more free stuff is half the country plus one to vote for it, what hope does any economy have? Remember that government’s role in monetary policy is only to facilitate tax revenue in a way that is best for both the individual and the commonwealth. If you can answer how two years of unemployment benefits help the commonwealth, I’d love to hear that. If you can explain why almost half of the federal budget is needed to support re-distributive policies, I’m all ears as to how the balance of individual rights vs. rights of the nation as a whole are being met.
The truth is that these policies and programs are crippling to our economy. The truth is that these don’t stimulate growth, they cause capital and investment opportunity to stagnate. The truth is that these are not “doing charity,” only limiting the availability of productive people to create jobs or charity by their own (not mandated) creativity and benevolence. Lastly, if you can explain to me how it’s fair that earned income be allocated (against your will) to support anybody else who cannot support themselves — I’m all ears. Life may not be fair but neither is socialistic monetary policy. Therefore, the fairness argument holds no water!
Giving is good. Generosity is good. But let us not fool ourselves into thinking that the compulsory taxes we have no choice in, really cause us to be a better people and a better nation. It is well and good to believe that higher taxes help pay for the greater good, but call a spade a spade; forced confiscation of private wealth is only a popular concept to those who live on the “generosity” of others.
David is former of student of Boise State University where he holds an Associate of Arts with an emphasis in Economics. He is a recent graduate of Harvest International Training Center, where he received his Bachelor’s Degree in Biblical Studies. He is currently pursuing his Master’s Degree in Theological Studies and works as a Mortgage Lender for First Mortgage Company of Idaho. David is an Idaho born, lifelong resident currently living in Boise, ID. In February of 2013 he will be moving to Meridian with his new wife, Katey. He is passionate about how politics, spiritual truths and historical philosophy all play a key role in determining, “Que Veritas,” or “What is Truth.”
Was Jesus a Socialist or a Capitalist? #3: Diligence, Charity & Poverty
By David Moberly
Whenever I hear the argument, “higher taxes = doing your part” or “civic duty,” I involuntarily cringe a little. Let’s be honest — is involuntary confiscation of my income really any different than stealing? Even if others benefit from what has been taken by you; generosity — by definition — must be voluntary. If a starving man breaks into my house to steal food for his family, the meal he receives from me was NOT given voluntarily. Even if I’m happy to help the man, I cannot confuse that scenario with sacrificial giving. Here’s what Solomon (reputed to be the wisest man in Biblical Literature) had to say about wealth, hard work, giving, and laziness:
Proverbs 12:24 - The hand of the diligent will rule, But the lazy man will be put to forced labor.
Proverbs 13:4 - The soul of a lazy man desires, and has nothing; But the soul of the diligent shall be made rich.
Proverbs 21:5 - The plans of the diligent lead surely to plenty, But those of everyone who is hasty, surely to poverty.
Proverbs 10:4 - He who has a slack hand becomes poor, But the hand of the diligent makes rich.
Proverbs 14:21 - He who despises his neighbor sins; But he who has mercy on the poor, happy is he.
Proverbs 14:31 - He who oppresses the poor reproaches his Maker, But he who honors Him has mercy on the needy.
Proverbs 17:5 - He who mocks the poor reproaches his Maker; He who is glad at calamity will not go unpunished.
Proverbs 19:17 - He who has pity on the poor lends to the LORD, And He will pay back what he has given.
Proverbs 21:13 - Whoever shuts his ears to the cry of the poor Will also cry himself and not be heard.
It seems that people who advocate pillaging the income of the upper class for governmental support or redistribution are all too willing to spend the hard earned incomes of other people with very little evidence of generosity shown on their own part. They then tout their own goodness and generosity due to their political ideology, but this boasting is erroneous. The Bible tells us that God loves a cheerful giver (2Cor 9:7), and any gift given begrudgingly is not all that interesting to Him. I don’t think that means we should only give when we have warm fuzzies about it but generally, giving should be done with a habit of cheerfulness and generosity. Where is the generosity in excessive government taxation? How many smile at the thought of their paycheck being reduced by 30 – 50 % to fund overly-bureaucratic programs that may not even line up with the values of the owner of that plundered paycheck?
I would argue that Jesus didn’t advocate for the diligent people living on about half of their income because of government intrusion into the name of fairness. I would also argue that He would recommend not getting bent out of shape about money in general. Because He was “The Word Made Flesh” (John1), and came not to abolish the Law but to fulfill it, I believe His teachings would echo the sentiment of the Old Testament Law, Prophets and Psalms. I believe He would advocate working hard and not demanding the income of others to supplement your own lack. I believe He would advocate doing good to as many as you can. Neither of these are socialistic concepts — rather they spring from a heart that leans towards doing good for the poor and for carrying your own share of the weight. While He didn’t promote a lifestyle of living to build riches (He argued the opposite actually), He did promote the idea that, “To him who has, more will be given.” He advocated reward for labor, not reward for the labor of somebody else. Salvation is a free gift, so exact comparisons between spiritual things and earthly things is difficult, but I believe that we can sort out by His teaching, and the teaching of Scripture as a whole that man has a responsibility to work, earn and give to the best of his own ability — free from mandate and separate from legislation or forced “charity.”
David is former of student of Boise State University where he holds an Associate of Arts with an emphasis in Economics. He is a recent graduate of Harvest International Training Center, where he received his Bachelor’s Degree in Biblical Studies. He is currently pursuing his Master’s Degree in Theological Studies and works as a Mortgage Lender for First Mortgage Company of Idaho. David is an Idaho born, lifelong resident currently living in Boise, ID. In February of 2013 he will be moving to Meridian with his new wife, Katey. He is passionate about how politics, spiritual truths and historical philosophy all play a key role in determining, “Que Veritas,” or “What is Truth.”
Was Jesus a Socialist or a Capitalist? #2: Stewardship
By David Moberly
Last week we discussed the implications of wealth and sharing, but really only determined that God must not be necessarily against Socialistic or Capitalistic monetary policy. This purpose of this second post is to show that Christ endorsed risk and reward, and rejected the notion of equal results for all. We will address the issue of Stewardship this week, in light of the whole Bible, but mostly the four Gospels: Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.
In the Gospels, we have two different parables involving a wealthy land owner and his stewards. In the Matthew 25 version of the story, the Nobleman left talents to three of his hired stewards in the amount of five, two and one talent respectively (note the lack of equality.) After leaving for an extended time, he returned to find that the stewards had traded and secured a return on his investment in the amount of five, two and zero talents. He praised the shrewdness and diligence of the first two, but condemned the cowardly laziness of the third steward who was unable to increase the talent in even a very small amount. Jesus demanded his talent be given to the steward who had ten.
In the Luke 19 version of the story, the nobleman had left with his stewards an equal amount of one mina apiece to do business until his return. Upon his delayed return, the first steward delivered back to the master a total of ten minas, to which the master praised the steward and made him lord over ten cities. A second steward delivered to the master feive minas in exchange for the one he had been given. Again, this steward was praised and given rule over five cities, and enjoyed the favor of his master. Lastly, a cowardly and lazy steward delivered to the master a single mina, having earned nothing from it while the master was away. The master judged this steward with incredible severity and delivered the single mina to the steward with ten minas already.
The point of these two stories is to show that there are some endowments of natural or monetary gifting where there is complete inequality, and some that all humanity shares equal rights to. If Jesus was a socialist by nature, he would have divided the increase among the three stewards and in the name of fairness because the lazy steward had been hindered by society, poor fortune, etc. As it is, we see Christ endorsing the role of risk and reward, labor and creativity in His stewards. While these parables do not prove conclusively that Christ was an endorser of purely capitalistic increase, it does prove conclusively that he did not endorse socialism. Many verses in the Bible condemn the love of money, and many condemn those with no ability to handle money rightly. To properly balance the socioeconomic views of Christ, we must dissect all that the Bible has to say on money. That would be the longest blog ever, but suffice it to say:
- Christ did not condemn having riches, only loving them.
- Christ did not condemn being poor, only unwilling to labor.
- Other Bible writers were equally adamant about the believer’s responsible to work and share.
Paul says in 2Thessalonians 3:10, “For even when we were with you, we commanded you this: If anyone will not work, neither shall he eat. (NKJV)” He also tells us in 1Timothy 5:8, “But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever. (NKJV)” So we cannot assume that we are doing anyone an act of service if we undermine their desire to work hard and supply sustenance for their own family. The entire Bible is full of promises to the diligent and honest, with the rewards being much increase and savings.
Here is the safe conclusion as I read these parables along with the entire counsel of Scripture (more of which we’ll get into next week). All of us are accountable to God for laboring and providing for ourselves, while keeping our hearts free from greed. We should see opportunities to give as an honor, not a burden; for if God’s love truly abides in our heart, we will be happy to help those in true need. The danger of Socialism is that it promotes the exact opposite. It seeks to eliminate the consequences to the lazy or cowardly, and encourages shirking excellence and hard work. It encourages a reliance for existence upon somebody else, and discourages generosity due to the already over-abundance of government handout programs and excessive taxation.
To oppose Socialism is not to disdain the poor, rather to encourage them to stand on their own two feet (real love). This is NOT an excuse to be greedy or hardened towards the disenfranchised, but to love the opportunity to work to multiply the “talents and minas” that God has graciously given to each one of us. We’re to love earning, saving and giving. These are principles NOT found in Socialism!
David is former of student of Boise State University where he holds an Associate of Arts with an emphasis in Economics. He is a recent graduate of Harvest International Training Center, where he received his Bachelor’s Degree in Biblical Studies. He is currently pursuing his Master’s Degree in Theological Studies and works as a Mortgage Lender for First Mortgage Company of Idaho. David is an Idaho born, lifelong resident currently living in Boise, ID. In February of 2013 he will be moving to Meridian with his new wife, Katey. He is passionate about how politics, spiritual truths and historical philosophy all play a key role in determining, “Que Veritas,” or “What is Truth.”
Was Jesus a Socialist or a Capitalist? #1: Defining The Argument
By David Moberly
Recently, our President compared his concepts of wealth redistribution with his opinion of how Jesus would want him to live. President Obama is not the only Progressive to make this claim, this is a typical talking point for the Democratic Party in defense of their efforts to raise taxes on the wealthy in America. I’m all for living according to conscience; in fact, I’m all for that conscience playing a large part in affecting your legislation and politics. But let us examine whether or not his claim has merit. The premise is that the Bible (and Jesus) endorses the right of government to confiscate private wealth to re-distribute it, whether through programs or disparate taxation, to the impoverished or unemployed. Is this a teaching or concept that Christ taught or implied? This four part series seeks to describe God’s view of money and how that relates to government and everyday life.
Most would look to the story of the Rich Young Ruler as the evidence that Christ believed that wealthy people should always sell off their goods and distribute the proceeds to charity. This story certainly shows us that Jesus was in favor of sharing, giving and charity for the poor — no questions there. The real question is, does this story give us an aggregate view of Christ’s stance on wealth and charity in general, or could this be a case of personal advice given to one man, and not a blanket statement for wealth in general? Jesus concludes this story by telling the disciples that it is harder for a rich man to get into Heaven than for a camel to travel through the eye of a needle. In another example of Jesus’ teachings, He advocates giving to Caesar (government) what is due Caesar, and giving to God that which belongs to God. So we can conclude:
A) Wealth is not necessarily advantageous to eternal life (in fact, it can be a hindrance.)
B) God does indeed favor the idea of wealthy people giving their money of their own free will to help the poor.
C) God favors us paying the taxes we owe to our civil leaders.
None of these lead us to the obvious conclusion that re-distributive legislation is God’s will. They also do not give us a clear moral foundation that God is opposed to people having wealth. Most people in favor of taxing the rich heavily would not say that being wealthy is morally wrong, but rather that their responsibility to society is to either give more to help support those that cannot support themselves and/or pick up a larger share of the tab of government spending. They typically argue from a stance of “fairness,” since it is obvious that those who have money are clearly better with the handling of money than those who do not have money.
In fact, fairness really is the only intelligent argument for excessive taxation of the rich for the benefit of State and the Poor.
Often the arguments for social welfare attempt to show that unemployment and welfare actually benefit the economy. This is, of course, a very weak argument. Unemployment or welfare dollars may be immediately spent back into the economy, therefore creating less of a net loss of opportunity, but that is a far cry from being “beneficial” to the economy as a whole. Handout money, not unlike taxed income, has been transferred with no real production in return. Other advocates of socialist economics point to successful (typically temporary) programs that yielded successful results. Or they use arguments for countries that are not bankrupt as their reason for cling to Keynesian Economics. The argument may say something like, “If FDR hadn’t adopted socialism, America would not have recovered as quickly from the Great Depression.” Again, these arguments are very weak. For every successful country built upon re-distributive fiscal policies, there are multiple free market economies to counter the argument. To speculate that Keynesian Economics helped to climb out of the Great Depression is simply that, speculation.
So again, I would argue that the only intelligent argument for re-distributive tax policy is the argument “it’s only fair.” In the next three segments, we will explore the fairness argument in light of the teachings of Christ and of the Bible in general.
David is former of student of Boise State University where he holds an Associate of Arts with an emphasis in Economics. He is a recent graduate of Harvest International Training Center, where he received his Bachelor’s Degree in Biblical Studies. He is currently pursuing his Master’s Degree in Theological Studies and works as a Mortgage Lender for First Mortgage Company of Idaho. David is an Idaho born, lifelong resident currently living in Boise, ID. In February of 2013 he will be moving to Meridian with his new wife, Katey. He is passionate about how politics, spiritual truths and historical philosophy all play a key role in determining, “Que Veritas,” or “What is Truth.”
Who is the Real “Forgotten Man?”
The following is an excerpt from a book called “The Forgotten Man: A New History of the Great Depression,” by Amity Shlaes. She quotes a Yale philosopher named William Graham Sumner, who lived half a century before the Great Depression hit the United States.
“‘As soon as A observes something which seems to him to be wrong, from which X is suffering, A talks it over with B, and A and B then propose to get a law passed to remedy the evil and help X. Their law always proposes to determine…..what A, B, and C shall do for X.’ But what about C? There was nothing wrong with A and B helping X. What was wrong was the law, and the indenturing of C to the cause. C was the forgotten man, the man who paid, ‘the man who is never thought of.’
In 1932, a member of [Franklin] Roosevelt’s brain trust, Ray Moley, recalled the phrase, although not its provenance. He inserted it into the candidate’s first great speech. If elected, Roosevelt promised he would act in the name of ‘the forgotten man at the bottom of the economic pyramid.’ Where as C had been Sumner’s forgotten man, the New Deal made X the forgotten man — the poor man, the old man, labor, or any other recipient of government help. Roosevelt’s work on behalf of his version of the forgotten man generated a new tradition. To justify giving to one forgotten man, the administration found, it had to make a scapegoat of another.”
Thoughts? Agree? Disagree? Why?
Photo Courtesy of Dorothea Lange
