An Open letter to Congressman David Young

November 19, 2017

An Open letter to Congressman David Young:

Dear Congressman:

Your email this morning asked me whether I oppose or support the provision of the 2018 tax bill you approved this week to repeal the individual mandate of the Affordable Care Act.   Of course I oppose that provision.  Even more, I oppose this portion of your message:

“The individual mandate requires everyone to purchase health insurance, whether they want to or not, and imposes a financial penalty on those who do not purchase health insurance. Repealing the individual mandate will not change any other part of the Affordable Care Act.”

I oppose your statement on two grounds: (1) It is interviewer bias, suggesting (not subtly) that people approve the repeal.  (2)  This is a lie. That’s pretty strong language for an open letter to a congressman, so I’ll say it again:  This is a lie.

The individual mandate made its way into Obamacare during the congressional debates which led to its passage.  For insurance to work, all must participate.  Proposals during the debates to have universal coverage were rebuffed by Republicans who proposed the individual mandate as a compromise.  If all do not participate, those who think they don’t need health insurance can opt out, leaving only those who think or know that they do need it.  Those who file no claims help pay for everyone, including those with claims. This is how insurance works.

It is argued that people who forego insurance will simply pay for their health care directly.  But that’s not how health care works.  Since 1985 federal law has required health care providers to care for anyone with an illness or injury regardless of ability to pay.  This policy constitutes universal coverage.  We’ve had it for years. The costs of caring for uninsured Individuals are born by the rest of us.   The individual mandate requires participation by all and is an important part of how we pay for our long-existing universal coverage.  That’s why it’s a lie to say repealing the mandate will not change any other part of the Affordable Care Act.  It will underfund it. 

Your opposition to the individual mandate is unwise, Congressman.  Stop trying to trick your constituents into thinking repeal would be good for them.


Thank you, David J. Nelson  

To: Congressman David Young

These lies appeared in letter I received today from my congressman: 

• This week, Republicans in Congress released a framework of a plan to fix our broken tax system to create a fair and simple tax code.
• Iowans know how to spend their money better than the federal government.

I replied to Congressman David Young as follows:

It’s past time to abandon the two big lies in this message. 

1) The R’s proposed tax “reform” will help the very few rich who contribute to your campaign fund, not middle class hardworking Iowans.  The Kochs own you, we don’t. 

2) The federal government does things with tax proceeds that ordinary people cannot do for themselves at all, much less in a better or wiser manner.  If you want to debate the proper role of government, do so without resorting to that tired old false argument.

Quit parroting the lies of the Republican playbook and starting speaking truth to your constituents.  Please.

Right vs. Wrong

Proposals to ban all Syrian refugees from the USA are calls for an abundance of caution.  They assume we cannot screen for terrorists adequately because there may be some uncertainty.  Marco Rubio presented the argument.  He said allowing 10,000 refugees into our country would be wrong because admitting one bad one represents a greater harm than the good of providing refuge to 9,999 others.  But that is backwards.  He really said that helping 9,999 people is not as important as being certain that there will not be one bad guy in the bunch.  That is simply not true. 

We should take controlled and reasonable risks.  Unless we are willing to do so, we must admit to being ruled by the politics of fear.  And the politics of fear never brings out the best of us.  It has put Japanese-American citizens in internment camps, executed innocent people through aggressive prosecution and prevented law-abiding citizens from boarding airplanes.

The politics of fear preys on our fears and breeds cowardice.  It is wrong.  This is a time for courage, not cowardice.  We must reject the politics of fear simply because it is the right thing to do.

Ditch the flawed case for lower taxes and less regulation.

Ronald Reagan rode into the White House on this horse.  Our federal debt, however, soared under his reigns. Under President Bill Clinton, labeled a “tax and spend liberal,” we achieved the first federal government surpluses in the memory of most living Americans.  Then George W. declared a new war on taxes and regulations.  His legacy: the worst recession since the Great Depression.  Today, Kansas faces an economic crisis because of another misguided trip down this road. Gov. Brownback slashed taxes to stimulate economic growth.  The results?  Its rate of growth now significantly trails the national average, revenues have shriveled up, government spending is being slashed, and Brownback’s political career is over.

So why do politicians continue to tout lower taxes?  Why do they continue to condemn “big government?”  Why does anyone criticize sensible government regulation in the wake of the economic debacle after Wall Street financiers were turned loose to create new and toxic “investment” products in the last decade?

The answer may lie in the fact that economics are complicated and widely misunderstood while simple statements are inviting.  It’s easy for politicians to persuade people to vote against their own self interests.   George W. argued for lower taxes saying it was our money and we knew better than the government how to use it.  The Koch brothers, Carl Rove and friends argue today that lower taxes for “job creators” stimulates the economy.   But any economist will tell you that the most significant driver of economic growth is consumer spending, followed closely by government spending.  Investment does not lead spending.  It follows spending.  The person ahead of you in the check-out line is driving growth, not the Kochs. 

It’s time to give those in the highest income brackets a turn at paying their fair share rather than cutting public spending on education to reduce their taxes.  Not many politicians have the courage to make that case, but they should.  Gubernatorial candidate Jack Hatch made just such a recommendation in his first televised debate against incumbent Iowa Governor Terry Branstad.  Their relative standing in recent polls suggests that his wisdom fell on deaf ears, but it’s not too late for Iowa voters to wake up and realize that they should vote for candidates like Hatch who are willing to give government a chance to work.  Let’s support those willing to provide government with sufficient revenues, for a change, by restoring the progressive tax rates that worked so well for us in the past.  In the 1950s, when marginal tax rates were in the stratosphere, people still went to work.  They still consumed food, clothing and shelter.  They still invested in businesses.  It worked just fine.  We should try it again.

Mandates!

Congress passed the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act in 1986.  It requires hospital emergency rooms to provide emergency care to all persons regardless of citizenship and ability to pay.  It’s been the law of the land for 27 years.  Hospitals pass along the costs they incur under this law to those of us who buy health insurance through their rates.  There does not seem to be a ground swell of opposition to this law, but there is a lot of opposition to the individual mandate provision of Obamacare.  If hospitals are required by law to care for us, why should we not be required by law to carry the insurance that would pay for that care?  Why do critics of an individual health insurance mandate not call for repeal of the Emergency Medical Treatment Act?  Following the same reasoning, why don’t they call for repeal of laws requiring us to carry liability insurance in order to drive our cars?  I don’t get it!

Conflicting Liberties: Guns vs. Life

Another mass shooting, this time in Washington, D.C., reminds us that Americans have a right not to be killed by Americans who have a right to bear arms.

Why can our legislators and courts not recognize that unfettered gun rights are infringing on our right simply to be alive? Shouldn’t it be the other way around? Shouldn’t our right to live be unfettered at the expense of our right to bear arms?

Romney's Secret Weapon

Romney’s fiscal policy includes a secret weapon which he declines to reveal because it has a fatal flaw.  The weapon is the marvelous effect lower tax rates have on the wealthy:  it makes them want to create jobs for the middle class.  The secret is that this works only when Tinker Bell and the Tooth Fairy rain star dust and quarters down on rich people.  The flaw, as any child knows, is that this works only if we really want it to.  Tinker Bell and the Tooth Fairy will know we really want it if two-thirds of America’s voters want it to work and vote for Mitt Romney.  Since two-thirds of America’s voters cannot agree on anything, this flaw is fatal.

Similar schemes never worked for Reagan, Bush, Sr. and Bush, Jr.  Unless two-thirds of American’s voters vote for Romney, his plan will also fail, and he has already explained that 47% of us will never do that.