Month: July 2019

Open Borders- A False Choice

            The Law

Title 18, §1325. Improper entry by alien

• (a)  Improper time or place; avoidance of examination or inspection; misrepresentation and concealment of facts
• Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.

The History

Under Title 18,§1325 of the Federal Code it is misdemeanor crime to cross the US border outside of the legal “ports of entry.”  That same section also provides for non-criminal fines that can also be imposed.

Prior to 1929, it wasn’t a “crime” to cross the border outside of the ports of entry locations.   People who illegally entered the United States were still deported, but, they simply weren’t charged with the “crossing” crime.  They were, legitimately, charged with being illegal “residents.”

The reasons for the 1929 law were clearly racist, aimed as much against Asians as Mexicans. It was marginally enforced through the Depression.  Deportations were more likely for illegal residents then, as competition for scarce Depression era employment.  Once World War II began, there was less enforcement as the need for workers increased.  

Today

Today the law still remains on the books, defined as a “First Degree Misdemeanor.”  Both the Obama and Trump Administrations have used this law to take custody of migrants found coming across the border outside of the few “ports of entry.”  This criminal “charge” under the Trump Administration has become the justification for detention camps, child separation, and now child detention camps. 

The logic the Trump officials argue is this:  migrants crossing outside the ports of entry are breaking the law.  Lawbreakers must be punished, and if we don’t hold them, they might disappear into the US population and avoid punishment.  Therefore we must put them in detention.  

Castro’s Solution

It is already illegal to be “unlawfully present” in the United States. That simply means that someone is in the US without legal permission.  So the difference between “improper entry” and “unlawful presence” is that a migrant who crosses the border to ask for asylum, a legal right, is not necessarily “unlawfully present.” They are in fact legally allowed to come in to ask for asylum.

If, as former Housing Secretary Julian Castro calls for, §1325 was removed, the result then would not be “Open Borders.”  

It would work this way.  The Border Patrol (getting out of the detention camp guard business and back to what they are supposed to do) would apprehend those crossing the border outside of the ports of entry.  Those with a lawful purpose, seeking asylum, would be processed and released, to return later for their asylum hearings.  When this was done in the past by ignoring §1325; 85 to 90% return to appear at the hearings.  They wanted to be in the United States legally.

Others apprehended, smuggling drugs or people or for other reasons, could either be charged with the crimes they committed, or for being “unlawfully present.”  Those would then be held for trial, just like any other criminal.

The False Choice

This is not OPEN BORDERS, as the Trump administration has claimed.  They have created a false choice, their detention camps or unregulated access to the United States.  The choice really is, DETENTION CAMPS (or more correctly, concentration camps) or HUMANE TREATMENT and recognition of the legal right to claim asylum under US Law.

The benefits:  the United States would no longer be in the “detention camp” business, and worse, in the child separation business.  The Border Patrol would also not be in violation of Federal Court Order in the Flores Agreement, that states that they cannot detain children for longer than 72 hours.  And the cost of caring for the migrants would be carried by their relatives already in the US, or the humanitarian agencies along the border, and not by the US Government.

The drawbacks:  it would require an increase in the number of prosecutors, defense lawyers, and judges to deal with the asylum claims.  Currently there is a backlog of close to a million claims nationwide; whether we imprison folks or not, we need to expand our legal system for this issue.  

Oh, there’s one more benefit.  We wouldn’t need a “WALL” to stop folks.  We could spend that money more wisely somewhere else, maybe in aid to the Northern Triangle of Central America, where even Republicans agree the migrant crisis begins.  The anticipated WALL cost of $40 billion would go a long way towards changing conditions at the source. That might make the rest of these responses less necessary.

Before the Deluge

Tornados in the Midwest, heat wave hits the East Coast, a named hurricane (Andrea) formed before the official season begins.  This is our new normal:  weather extremes.

Baseball and Climate Change

We can’t look at any one event and say:  that’s global warming, that’s climate change.  I read an interesting baseball analogy, used by a sixth grade teacher in Oklahoma in a lesson about climate change.  She said it’s a lot like baseball in the “steroid” era.  During that time, more home runs were hit than in any time before.  The reason: some baseball players were using muscle building steroid drugs, enabling them to hit the ball farther.  

The teacher made the point that just because a player hit one home run, didn’t mean that player was using steroids.  The only way to really know was to look at the player over time, over seasons.  When a pretty good ball player hit fifteen home runs one season, then comes back twenty pounds heavier and hits forty the next year, it might be reasonable to guess he was on steroids.

It’s the same with climate conditions.  No one hurricane or tornado is evidence of global warming, even the category four or five storms we have seen in the past few years.  It’s the number of major storms we now see, seemingly a guarantee to have two catastrophic hurricanes or more in any season.  Just like the ballplayers, there were always home runs, but now there are so many more of them.

Live at Eleven

Tornados, blizzards; it’s not just the intensity, it’s the number of storms at that intensity. That’s the evidence to show we have changed our environment.  

Yesterday we had our annual “street flood” on my block; it rained a couple of inches in less than an hour. Our city has done a great job improving the drainage but no one, including “we the flooded,” is willing to pay to prevent the “annual” inundation. As long as it’s only once a year, we live with it.

So we went out and played in the water, yelled at the trucks speeding through the flooded street and pushing waves into the garages, and hoped that there wasn’t another “pop-up thunderstorm” coming soon.  Another two inches and the fun would be over, the floods would be in the house.

It was a joke on Facebook, come and see the new “waterfront” property.  On an obviously slow news day, the WCMH Channel 4 television station sent a crew out to shoot the scene.  There was a “live at eleven” broadcast right from our driveway (really.)  When I asked why this was important tonight, the crew said it was better than last night’s murder.  I guess that makes sense.

It’s Our Choice

The city has made our flooding problem once a year, instead of once a month.  That’s a financial choice made by our community.  But should the climate make the once a year flood a monthly event, then we will be faced with a financial choice.  Either we spend a lot more to enlarge the storm sewers, or we spend a lot more to repair the constant flood damage to our property.  

That’s the same choice we are making about all of the climate change issue.  We can spend the money and change our priorities now to reduce the damage we are doing, or we can spend the money and change our lives to fit the new environment we are creating.  We can get steroids out of baseball, or everyone can take steroids.  Either way, we are making the choice, and we will pay the price.  We are still, as Jackson Browne once sang, “Before the Deluge.”

Don’t Bet the Ranch

According to Forbes Magazine, Sports bookies think Donald Trump is a shoe-in to win.  In a listing of the “odds” on the website Sports Betting, betting a $1 on Trump would earn you back only $1.11. The next best bet is on Harris, with $1 returning $2.75.  

It’s not so hard to imagine that sports betters are willing to get into this “horse race.”  These days with legal online betting, you can put a wager down on almost anything.  Even such a “blue-blood” sport as women’s tennis has a betting line, and the recent upsets by a teenager at Wimbleton have “shaken the betting world.”

I’m not a gambler, but I do know that successful gamblers use past performance to predict future outcomes. It makes sense that an incumbent President, with good economic numbers, and a clearly dedicated core of support, would be the “odds-on” favorite to win the White House.  

History Doesn’t Lie

History seems to make Trump that good bet.  

Bill Clinton won re-election in what seems like similar circumstances.  He won his first Presidential election with less than a majority, only gaining 43% of the popular vote in 1992 (Note: this was a three-way election, Bush had 38%, and Ross Perot 19%.) He lost control of the House of Representatives in 1994, and was investigated by Independent Counsel Ken Starr during the 1996 election.

But the economy improved in his first term, and the 1996 Republican nominee Bob Dole came from the conservative side of the Republican Party.  In the primaries, he went even farther to the right to offset his strongest opponent, Pat Buchanan.  Clinton himself was from the middle of the political spectrum.  More liberal Democrats (like me) saw him as “Republican-Lite.”   Clinton won in 1996 with 49% to Dole’s 41%.

George W Bush also won under similar circumstances.  He defeated Al Gore, literally by “a hanging chad” in the election of 2000, losing the popular vote but eking out an Electoral College victory.  And while the Democratic candidate in 2004, John Kerry, seemed to have a solid chance, Bush was able to ride his strong performance during 9-11 to a second term.

He Fits the Bill

So what’s different with the Trump 2020 candidacy?  He too had a minority of the popular vote in 2016.  He also has improving economic numbers, with the job market growing and the stock market setting record after record.  And the loyalty of his base is undeniable.  Even a President who talks about the Continental Army capturing airports during the Revolutionary War doesn’t seem to shake their confidence in him.

Trump lost the House of Representatives in 2018 to the Democrats, and is under something like twenty different investigations, from his personal finances to cooperating with the Russians to win in 2016.  And the Democrats are likely to nominate a “liberal” opponent. Even if a more moderate candidate like Joe Biden wins, he will be forced to move to the Left in the primaries.

The Gambler’s Choice

If you are a cold, dispassionate gambler, you probably don’t put money on the 2020 general election at all. There’s no profit to be made on betting on Trump, and the odds, and history, are against anyone else.

But, my non-Trumpian friends, don’t tear up your tickets yet.

Like Trump or not, we know one thing more than anything:  he has upended political tradition, changed the way politics works, and has made “unconventional” and “unprecedented” the norm.  That’s one of the things that makes “the Resistance” crazy; Trump does things that would have destroyed the Presidency of anyone else, from Obama to Reagan.  It doesn’t seem to matter, he blindly plows on ahead with his 40% cheering him on.

The saysing goes, “there’s is no such thing as a little bit pregnant.”  If you are “unprecedented” then the precedents of the past shouldn’t apply.  If you break the “norms” then you can’t expect the norms of the past to count.  The inertia of past performance, of history, won’t apply as strongly to a President who is rejecting history left and right.

Look inside the numbers: the employment numbers are good, but wage growth is stagnant.  That means people are finding work, but the work doesn’t pay the bills.  No wonder employment is up, people need to hold down two jobs to make it.  

The stock market is booming, in large part because of the Trump Tax Cut. It gave billions of dollars (actually over a trillion) mostly to business.  And the businesses did what you’d expect:  they turned a bigger profit thus pushing the Market even higher. Those cuts don’t seem to have translated into stronger American industry, and the average voter isn’t feeling “good” about their personal finances.

How Do They Feel

Trump won the Electoral College through a very slim margin in three states, 77744 votes out of 120 million plus to be exact (here’s the Trump World essay on that.)  The best analysis is that those voters got exactly what they wanted, an “unprecedented” President who didn’t believe in “norms.”  

The question anyone betting now has to ask, is this:  now that those voters got what they wanted, are they happier for it?  If the answer is yes, then Trump really might be the safe bet. But, if the answer is determined by the unimproved  economic quality of their lives, then it’s likely they will act in an unprecedented manner, and do what angry voters often do:  throw the bum out.

Independence Day Rage

How can I express my feelings about what my country; under the 50 Star Flag, in the name of its citizens, in my name; is doing to migrants on the border?  What can I write that can possibly explain the horror, the frustration, and the disgust l feel in what my fellow Americans are allowing in El Paso, the Rio Grande Valley, and probably all over the United States?  How can we respond to a Border Patrol (CBP) that views migrants as less than human, treats them like cattle to be warehoused, and jokes about it on Facebook?

It’s Our Emergency

Why is this not a “national emergency?”  Where are the buses, the emergency shelters, the MRE’s (meals ready to eat used by the military)?  Hell, there’s a Subway Shop just down the street, they should send a six-footer over and knock on the door.  This is not out in the desert, hidden from view.  This warehousing of humans is occurring in plain sight, right in the middle of our towns.

This is not a “necessary” outcome of more migrants coming to the border.  Republican Congressman Will Hurd of Texas, claims that some of the fault lies with the “traffickers” or “coyotes.”  He’s right, those folks are profiting from getting migrants across the border.  But no matter how you slice it, it’s not the “traffickers” or “coyotes” that are being held responsible in this mass incarceration.  We aren’t holding the traffickers, we have their victims.

We are holding those VICTIMS in mass detention.

Government Created

Many migrants coming to the border is not a new problem.  The problem is the Trump Administration response.  They determined that migrants crossing the border were criminals to be jailed:  jailed without hearing, without due process, and without legal recourse.  The regular places to hold folks in detention, many of them run by private contractors (the same ones who run private prisons) and not the government, are filled.  

This left the overflowing backlog to sit in the “holding cells” at the Border Patrol stations.  No one provides a place, so they just stack up to capacity, then over-capacity, and then even more.  We now have rooms literally full of people, so full that they can’t lie down to sleep and can’t move.  The migrants call them “ICE boxes,” and not just because are in Immigration and Customs Enforcement, ICE, buildings. They are kept so cold that the migrants feel like their freezing to death.  I suspect it’s to keep the smell down, since it may be months between showers, or a change of clothes. 

We are doing this to men, women, and children.  The “rules” say that these migrants should be in “holding” for seventy-two hours, there are now many who are exceeding forty days.  Children, by Federal Court order; cannot be held by Homeland Security for more than three days. They must be turned over to the Department of Health and Human Services.  

But the children aren’t processed fast enough, and their overwhelming numbers have swamped the Border Patrol, grinding the process to a halt.  There are relatives who could take the children; there are HHS shelters available for them.  Instead, they are trapped in rooms, sleeping on floors, no showers, no clean clothes, for weeks.

Fix This!!

No matter what, it will take some time to alleviate this catastrophe.  Even if the Trump Administration came to their senses, and allowed the migrants parole to humanitarian agencies or relatives, it would take a while to process the requests.  But it would be a start, and an eventual end, to the atrocity that the Trump Administration is committing now.

In the meantime, there are still quick and effective solutions to the detainment problems.  Call up the Texas National Guard.  Use their armories as temporary shelters.  There’s one in Corpus Christi, one in Laredo, and two in El Paso.  There are showers, and gyms were cots can be put in, and ready food available.  Use the guardsmen to help supervise, not just guard.  We do it all the time in hurricanes and other natural disasters.  We should be even faster to act when it’s a manmade one.

The Fourth of July

Today is the Fourth of July, Independence Day.  We celebrate the “immigrants” coming to America who, to quote Hamilton “…get the job done.”  We talk about patriotism and pride in what our nation has accomplished.  But it’s hard to take pride when it’s our nation, in our name, under our flag, doing this today.  Independence Day is a day to highlight with fireworks.  What is happening on the border is so shameful that they tried to hide it from us all.  They should, because it’s wrong.

The Facts

$140:  that was the cost for the Nike “Betsy Ross Flag” trainers. So before we go too far into the arguments about the shoes, they were $140 shoes.  When I was running significant distances (a few years ago) I bought running shoes at $100, now that I’m a slow jogger, I stick with my old faithful Asics at $75.  So there’s that.

Betsy Ross:  while legend has it that she sewed the flag for George Washington, it probably didn’t happen.  Washington didn’t cut down the “cherry tree” either, and he probably told a lie or two.  So there’s that as well.

The Story

The flag, thirteen red and white stripes, a blue field in the corner with thirteen stars in the field; was the original flag authorized by the Second Continental Congress on June 14, 1777.  There were lots of flag makers in Philadelphia, and any of them could have made it.  Whoever did, it became the first “official” flag of the United States.

Today’s story:  Nike produced shoes to honor the Fourth of July with the original thirteen star flag on them.  Colin Kaepernick, NFL quarterback who began the “kneel during the National Anthem” movement, now on contract as a Nike spokesman; claims that the flag is symbolic of the racism of the founding fathers, and shouldn’t be honored.  He also stated that some white nationalists groups used the flag for “their” symbol. Nike withdrew the shoes from sales (though you could buy a pair on the “gray” market, now for over $2000.) 

The History

Many of the founding fathers were slave owners, Washington, Jefferson, Madison, among them.  Many weren’t, such as John Adams, Alexander Hamilton (though his wife’s family did) and Roger Sherman.  Slavery was a part of the thirteen colonies, as much as it was a part of the United States through the Civil War.  The impact of slavery, seen in racism and discrimination, still echoes in our nation today.

Kaepernick kneeled rather than stand for the flag during the National Anthem as an opportunity to highlight the injustice and brutality many black people face.  His message was that this country wasn’t perfect; this was his way to use the spotlight of the NFL, where 70% of the players are black, to highlight the issue. A vast majority of the fans are white. 

Kaepernick specifically stated:

I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color.  To me, this is bigger than football and it would be selfish on my part to look the other way. There are bodies in the street and people getting paid leave and getting away with murder.”  (NFL)

That was his right, his freedom of speech, and I back him.  I also agree with him about what happens “in the street.”

Today’s Standards or Yesterday’s

However, I do not think we can simply paint our entire past over with the “red paint” of racism.  Yes many of our founding fathers were racist; they were men of their time. The real brilliance of the founding fathers, was that despite their own flaws and actions, they were able to see beyond to a nation that could be better than all of them.  You see it in Jefferson’s “…all men are created equal…” and in Madison’s “…more perfect union,” and in the First Amendment right that Kaepernick is exercising.  The founding fathers made their ugly deal with slavery and pushed it onto future generations to fix.  They had too many problems to solve to do them all at once.

None of that makes slavery acceptable, or right, but it does provide perspective into our past.  They were aware, (“woke?”) of the total injustice of slavery, but could not find a way to get rid of it without destroying the nation they were building.  

So the “Betsy Ross flag” does represent men who allowed slavery, or made their “deal with the devil of slavery” to get their nation.  But it also represents the nine thousand black men who fought for the Revolution under that flag, some as freedmen, and some as slaves that would never see freedom.  And more importantly, it represents the vision that those Americans, white and black, had for the future.  The vision has yet to be fulfilled, but without their effort, it would never even started.

Get Your Own Flag

Some say that white nationalists have co-opted the Continental Flag, just as they long ago overtook the Army of Northern Virginia battle flag (the “rebel” flag .)  But in researching the topic, there are very few references to white nationalism and the thirteen star flag, and when it was used, it was paired with other racist symbols.

And, unlike the Flag of the Army of Northern Virginia, the Continental Flag started out as the flag representing ALL of our United States. It was our first national flag. We should not easily give it up to the extremes, it represents all of our history. Those extremists wave one flag more than any other, it is the current 50 Star Flag. We’re not giving up on that one either.

The flag of the Continental Marines, the “Don’t Tread on Me” snake flag, for two centuries was a symbol of revolutionary fervor.  It was only ten years ago that the “Tea Party” movement co-opted it into a politically conservative and anti-federalism flag. Since, “citizen-militia” and “sovereign nation” groups have joined in and the “rattlesnake” has become an extremist favorite.

And then there is the “inside baseball” white nationalist, parked in a local nature reserve, who put the “true” Confederate flag on his truck bumper. The sticker says: “for those who know.” He’s not wrong, their are few who do.

Nike is a private company, and can market, not market, or change their mind without permission.  But the “Betsy Ross flag” represents much more than the narrow views of a few current extremists. It also means more than the 18th century racism of our founding fathers. It represents the hopes and dreams that are the foundation of our nation, the dreams of Jefferson, Madison, Hamilton and the rest.  While their dreams were not fulfilled, they remain our own.  It is for that reason, that we should not allow the Continental Flag to be “co-opted.” It should be honored.

It’s fascinating listening to Republicans today.  Horrified by Donald Trump, the President their Party chose, these “never-Trumpers” are now telling the Democrats what candidate to nominate.  

The Devil’s Bargain

I can’t blame them for turning away from Trump. Skipping the entire litany of terrible things he is responsible for, everyone should be repelled by at least two actions.  First, his embrace of dictators from Kim to Putin to MBS.  Trump has excoriated the leaders of, as Putin would say, “liberal democracies,” but it’s all hugs and smiles for tyrants that murder.

Second are the intentional atrocities at the Southern Border.  We know that Presidential Advisor Stephen Miller and former Attorney General Jeff Sessions set in place a program to “send a message” to Central America. The message was simple:  we don’t want you to come to the United States, and we will treat you inhumanely if you do.

The result of this policy was child separation, and now, the unacceptable conditions of both child and adult detention centers.  We, the United States, have “crimes against humanity” occurring on our border, by our government agents, in our name.

Republicans were asked to swallow so much in return for Supreme Court Justices and tax cuts.  It is no wonder that many are gagging now, and want out of the “devil’s bargain” they made to avoid Hillary Clinton.

Not Your Call, Not My Business

But don’t tell us Democrats who to chose for our Presidential candidate in 2020.   We see a vote against Trump as a moral imperative and would welcome yours. But, we aren’t going to nominate a “Republican-lite” in order to get it.  If you want that, Bill Weld is running, John Kasich would if he could:  go find a way to fix your own Party.

But of course, you can’t. The Republican Party has been totally infected with Trumpism: it will take the destruction of the Party to rebuild.  Just as Democrats don’t want your advice on who to nominate, we shouldn’t presume to tell you how to rebuild your Party.  But it does seem that “good” Republicans have voluntarily muzzled themselves, and it’s hard to believe that’s just because they are afraid of Presidential “tweets.” 

It must be something more than just fear of losing votes.  A little unsolicited advice:  check how much Russian money has gotten into the campaign coffers of the “good” Republicans. 

What’s Right for Democrats

The Democratic Party is going through a process.  Sure, right now some candidates are answering questions about bussing for school desegregation, eliminating the Electoral College, reparations for slavery, and American bilingualism.  These are issues that are important to segments of the Democratic electorate, and that’s what the primary process is all about.

But Democrats recognize the big problems of our time:  health care costs, climate change, income disparity, women’s health rights, institutional racism, and the failure of the world order the United States has led since World War II.  We have more than twenty candidates offering diverse solutions to these problems. Some of those solutions seem extreme, some are sound; we have eight months until the first caucus and primaries.  We will sort through all of the choices, and find the candidate that has the best chance to forward our solutions.

A Coalition

The formula for a Democratic coalition to win the Presidency is sound.  It’s not just about winning a majority; Democrats proved in 2000 and 2016 they could do that and still lose the Presidency.  Even with the same 2016 vote:  Wisconsin and Michigan now have Democratic Governors, and there were big Democratic gains in the House of Representatives in 2018.  The “generic” situation has changed.  There’s no “sure thing” in politics, but that definitely includes the re-election of Donald J. Trump.

It’s Our Party

Democrats are going to represent Democrats.  We are a party of women’s and minority rights, we are a party of the working class. In the face of Trumpism, the Democratic Party is going to be true to it’s own base, and it’s own values.  It’s OUR Party.  But you’re welcome to join in.  My God, if you could swallow Trump last time, you should be able to stomach health care for all and choice.  And if you can’t, we will do without your vote. 

Paying for Health Care

Small Business

A friend of mine runs a small business, with about twenty employees.  He shared with me the costs of providing health insurance for his staff. 

 One employee, in their early thirties with a spouse and two children, costs $17400 per year for coverage, even with a $10000 deductible.  The cost is divided between the employer and employee, and has continued to rise at ten percent per year.

While my friend didn’t share the salaries of his employees, it’s a small business, and no one is making a huge salary.  This insurance cost is $1450 a month, shared by the employee and the employer.  It’s a big chunk, either out of the employee’s pocket, or in money not available to my friend to use for pay-raises.  And the cost just keeps growing.

For the past three decades, the United States has been debating the costs of health care.  As the nation has argued, the price we pay continues to escalate.  Today, the US has the most expensive health care in the world.  For those with good insurance, it is some of the best care in the world, but for those who don’t have insurance, the cost of care makes it inaccessible.  

The Problem

We know all of this.  13.7% of Americans DO NOT have health insurance (VOX.) We know that some of those Americans choose not to purchase insurance, “rolling the dice” and banking on their good health and luck.  But many do not choose, they simply cannot afford insurance, and aren’t “poor enough” to qualify for government paid insurance, Medicaid.  

And what about the Affordable Care Act, “Obamacare”?  If filled in some of the gaps, helping many of those caught in between having enough money for necessities, but not enough for insurance.  But it wasn’t perfect in the first place, and the present White House is slowly cutting away the supports of the ACA.  The prime funding for it, “the individual mandate” requiring everyone to either have insurance or pay a fine, is gone. And while the ACA is cheaper than competitive private insurance, it certainly isn’t cheap.

Medicare for All

Last week, twenty Democrats running for President debated health care.  All twenty agreed that changes should be made in how our nation provides it.  But that’s where the agreement ended.

The most “radical” plan calls for the end of private insurance.  Everyone would be enrolled in a government plan, “Medicare for All.” This is not the “free” medical care Republicans decry.  Medicare for All costs, and would be paid for by increased taxes.  The difference for most Americans would be that instead of paying for private insurance, they will pay Medicare taxes, presumably less than the private costs.

It has the benefit of “economy of scale.”  Everyone will be on some variation of the “same plan.”  Pharmaceutical companies can only negotiate with one entity, the government.  And private health insurance profits are gone.

“Everyone loves Medicare” is the battle cry of the Medicare for all folks, and that’s generally true. But there is a, perhaps fatal, flaw in the plan.  It would require that over two-thirds of the country (Census) give up their private insurance, and switch over.  Many, perhaps most Americans, are pretty happy with their health plans, even if they complain about the rising costs.  To ask almost 218,000,000 to give up their insurance for an “unknown” plan would seem to be more than difficult, and definitely bad politics.

Hybrid Plans

So there are multiple “hybrid” plans, including a “public option” allowing government sponsored insurance to compete with private insurance plans.  It’s difficult to see how this could be cost effective for the government, and has the drawback of folks paying for private insurance also paying taxes for government insurance (sort of like the parents who send their children to private schools, but still pay public school taxes.) 

Then there is the option of “re-booting” the Affordable Care Act. That allows the government to subsidize private plans. It also creates the incentive of requiring everyone to either have insurance or pay a fine, as the ACA was originally constituted.  The ACA’s biggest problem was getting insurance companies to participate in areas where there was little competition.  That created areas (particularly rural) where ACA costs were extremely high.

Republican Alternatives

While all of these ideas have their flaws, there is one thing for certain.  The President and the Republican political leaders haven’t offered any alternatives.  Their choice seems to be to go back to the insurance era of twenty years ago, when insurance companies could refuse to cover pre-existing conditions, and simply not cover those with higher risks. That leaves many Americans “bare” of coverage, pushing the cost of their limited care onto hospitals and government.

There doesn’t seem to be a “great” option, but doing nothing isn’t an option either.  My friend’s business is struggling with the cost of insurance, and his experience is typical.  Insurance is absorbing more and more of the income available for both the business, and the employee:  ultimately it is unsustainable.

One way or another, change will have to come.