John Maynard Keynes on Healthcare

For years, Great Britain and the rest of Europe have been running their governments in a way that is more beneficial to their populaces than the system the United States has had in place for decades. It is the governments obligation to provide for its populous the most necessary functions. Among those functions is healthcare. Most of the modern world has seen the validity of this argument and currently has a universal system of healthcare in place so that no individual is left without healthcare; healthcare in the modern age is 100% necessary for everyone.

That which act.theteaparty.net calls a “government takeover of healthcare” which “takes funding from Medicare, increases taxes, and contains an unconstitutional individual mandate that requires every American to purchase insurance,” is nothing of the sort; those who oppose the passing of the Affordable Care Act are attempting to deny individuals their right to healthcare. They strongly oppose the passing of the law although it is the only logical system to ensure a fair system of healthcare. With the passing of the Affordable Care Act the United States made its greatest leap in social equality since the days of the new deal. What Marco Rubio calls a system “snowballing into a full scale disaster” is instead a social equalizer and tool the nation can use to secure lasting care for those who have previously been denied healthcare due to preexisting conditions or who have simply been unable to afford the prices that abusive corporations have placed on those services necessary to survival.

In reality, the Affordable Care Act, or ACA as it is frequently referred to as, is not the most perfect system for providing healthcare as it still relies upon individual corporations for the sale of health insurance instead of a single body such as the government to have total control over the sale, distribution, and management of healthcare. However, those who oppose the passing of this marvelous law calling it an infringement of rights and unconstitutional are simply uninformed and don’t understand the full implications of the law and its details. For example, Marco Rubio wrote in a Wall Street Journal op-ed:

When ObamaCare was debated and passed in 2009 and 2010, none of its proponents, including the president, told the American people that the law granted the federal government the authority to bail out insurance companies at the expense of taxpayers. But now their dirty little secret is out, and it should be wiped out from the law.

Such talk is unconducive and reflects the desire of many misinformed individuals to remove a law which they have never taken the time to fully appreciate; an example of the misinformed group of individuals is evidenced by the statement made by Senator Marco Rubio. The “dirty little secret” he mentions is in fact a safeguard for the consumer, protecting the consumer from market collapses and unfortunate events which might cause an insurance company to fail. Were a corporation such as AARP to fail, millions of individuals relying on insurance from the corporation would lose their coverage in what could only be considered a total catastrophe. This portion of the law, allowing the government to intervene and protect a failing corporation, is simply a measure taken by the government to make absolutely certain that, should a major corporation crash, the burden would not fall on the average consumer leaving them without insurance in a world where insurance is the new automobile, everyone must have one to function well in a first world society.

The benefits of the Affordable Care Act in the US are so numerous and evident that it is indeed rather surprising that so many people still oppose the system. For one, it removes all discriminatory procedures that were adopted by insurance agencies in the past; no longer are people discriminated against by virtue of their preexisting conditions. Also, the Act strengthens coverage for those people on medicare, a social system of healthcare which has been in place and loved since its beginnings in 1966. Insurers cannot drop coverage if one becomes disabled or ill; in the past it was a well known issue that many people lost coverage after becoming disabled or chronically ill. It is highly beneficial to have a provision that allows adult children to stay on their parents’ plans until the age of 26, especially in a nation where, according to The Atlantic, 53% of recent college graduates are unemployed. Now, under the ACA, many insurance companies are providing preventative services such as mammograms at no out of pocket cost. It is most obvious that the Affordable Care Act is one of the most revolutionary pieces of equalizing legislation in the US since the days of the suffrage movement; with the ACA the US is one step closer to total equality.

UPI commenter Peter Morici wrote naively in an article titled Obamacare: Arrogance, Corruption and Abuse that “The rich will keep their doctors, while the rest scramble and often go without prompt attention to emerging illnesses or any attention at all.” This, however, is also untrue. The common misconception about universal systems of healthcare is that they take ages to get treatment to those in dire need. However, this is a baseless claim. If a patient is in a life or death situation and needs an MRI after a severe accident, for example, they can go to the hospital and get one that day. They don’t have to wait the frequently believed four months for treatment during which they could have met a premature end. Also, by definition, it is the Affordable Care Act; it is designed so that those who are able to pay higher premiums will have slightly higher premiums and those who are unable to pay for these higher premiums will have lower premiums. Everyone will thus be able to afford healthcare.

People in Canada love their healthcare system. People in Finland love their healthcare system. People in the United Kingdom love their healthcare system. In fact, every developed nation with a government provided healthcare system has a majority of citizens who love the social system of healthcare. For them, it works now, it has worked in the past, and it will continue to work. It is only fear that compels Americans to believe that a more universal healthcare system is a bad thing for the nation as a whole. It is a new and foreign system to most Americans. Before the populous gets used to the idea it will receive a constant flow of some level of opposition; when, however, the populous has finally grown accustomed to the new system, they will see that the new system’s advantages far outweigh its costs and the benefits exceed the benefits of the old system.

Peter Morici seems to also believe that the new system is a “classic prescription for monopoly profits at health insurance companies and outlandish executive bonuses.” This is, however, also incorrect, as evidenced by the plethora of insurance providers still in business. The system under the ACA does not rely solely on one monopolistic firm, but rather on a network of firms that operate under specified guidelines and are, therefore, in constant competition with each other, keeping monopolistic theories out of the range of probability. Morici also believes that “Simultaneously, the ACA made illegal many perfectly adequate private and employer-based policies and required insurance companies to offer one-size-fits-all alternatives in each county across the country.” After countless hours of research and studies, the specifications of what were necessary and thus mandatory within plans were decided upon and written into law. This meant that the aforementioned employer-based policies which were considered by some to be “perfectly adequate,” did not provide the necessary aspects of insurance that everyone must have. Thus, the plans could not have been “perfectly adequate” in the first place. On top of that, although many companies have implemented one-size-fits-all alternatives that meet only the minimal requirements set forth in the ACA, there is still leniency when it comes to more insurance than what the minimal requirements specify. In short, there are numerous other options to the standard option.

Having fallen drastically behind the rest of the world in the area of healthcare, the United States is finally beginning to set itself along the proper path. Healthcare is nothing bad, as some people would like others to believe. In fact, a universal system of healthcare is the most socioeconomically fair system of ensuring that everyone have access to the necessary systems and treatment options to grow a healthy populous. It is the governments duty to protect its citizens from injustice and harm. There is nothing just about people being denied health insurance due to preexisting conditions or a lack of finances. The government of the United States of America has finally reached a point where it can begin to expand its social systems to foster a more accepting, healthy, and respectable nation. The first step on that road to social equality is accepting that universal healthcare is morally justified and total necessary.

John Maynard Keynes on Taxation

The avoidance of taxes is the only intellectual pursuit that still carries any reward. Taxation is a device used to implement wrongful money extracting from the citizens of the United States. At this rate most ideas or implemented theories on the current economic government will eventually die out. I concur that the optimal opinion of the people would to lower taxes in each state. It makes economical sense to do according to the research I submitted many years ago. A simple theory I proposed logically makes sense, and many Americans can take it into accordance. Put modestly if inflation is lowered then that will result in employers making capital investments, which would then have an outcome of hiring more employees. This will hence leave to major investment created by investors, which will then restore the economy and mend the failing growth. The fact that other economists believe that taxes are beneficial are completely incorrect. It is quite a blasphemy that the hard-working American citizens should have to pay extra money to a government economical system, which is clearly failing. Employers will not increase employees to produce items, which will not be sold due to an incompetent demand. I also theorize and believe the lower the business conditions the more capital investment shall be reduced. I strongly believe those business shall not take to advantage investment opportunities, which effects the reduction of overall expenditures and employment. It is my overall principal to say the conglomerate spending in the economy has a direct effect on output and inflation. The Great Depression was occurring during my span of existence. The ideas presented above were my attempt to understand the mystery of it all. I believe optimal economic performance could quite indeed be achieved. It is just the means by how this could be done. Going back to the stimulating issue of taxation, I believe lower taxes will approve current economics performance. I have always repeated the same phrases with taxation into regards taxes will stimulate demand, the Depression would have turned around in a heart beat if my beliefs and theories were implemented! You see, the aggregate demand by the activist stabilization and economic intervention policies by the government are constantly influenced. I believe in a demand-sde theory, even though this will help the economy in the short, run I guarantee it will be proven to work. Aggregate demand is completely influenced by a plethora of economic decisions that occasionally behave spontaneously. Now fiscal and monetary policies can affect aggregate demand. There are quite a few principles I also believe in relating to aggregate demand. Also according to my well popular beliefs the changes in aggregate demand have a short run outcome on real output along with employment. Inflation rises, when unemployment falls. In the long run, we are all dead. Fluctuations or changes in spending or also government expenditures could quite cause the output to fluctuate as well. We all know that government spending will increase, which means output will hence increase. I also strongly believe in the multiplier effect. This meaning output increases by a multiple of original change, which originally cause it. The multiplier must be greater than zero, which is the only snag in my theory. Now, prices and wages respond quite slowly to change in supply and demand. This will then result into small shortages, for a brief period of time, and along with that surpluses mostly regarding labor. Milton Friedman acknowledged, “under any conceivable institutional arrangements, and certainly under those that now prevail in the United States, there is only a limited amount of flexibility in prices and wages.” Yes all of this relates back to taxation because everything is linked together, to help the struggling economy.  I strongly do not believe any type of unemployment is ideal. It is thoroughly subject to the caprice of aggregate demand, and because prices adjust gradually! This is the only way the economy will for sure work out. I believe and many of my followers believe unemployment to be high on average too variable. There needs to be much theoretical justification. Recessions and depressions I believe are not part of the economic business cycle, and just are market responses to unattractive opportunities. Also my followers and fellow philosophers believe in advocating activist stabilization policies. This will reduce the amplitude of the business cycle. The government cannot know when to fine tune everything at full employment. Changes in policies, can always mess up some of my theories. Changes affecting the economy could take months to restore proper balance. I truly believe that unemployment needs to be resolved. All of the evidence I have research concludes the costs of low inflation are very minute! The government action which regulates economic value judgments are based on macroeconomic fluctuations significantly reduce economic well-being. The government has to improve its free market system. That is not even an option. There is a definitive way to cure recessions if my theories are utilized.  Now on regards to the current economic state in 2014 I have many opinions. How come the modern economists did not listen or implement my practices and theories. Raising taxes will not make the economy better or lower the national debt. I have been repeating this phrase and many others up to my death. If an item is pricey, then point blank less people will buy the specific product. Let us take for example a watch. Some watches cost thirty dollars others cost five-thousand. Why would you get more of a more expensive watch, when the only purpose is to tell time.  This concept relating to cost is also similar to that of income. A peaked income will result in the less income you will finally see. Taxation is always fluxed when incomes rise. The government often times takes too much of the citizens money. The economy is swimming with tax dollars, we will most likely never see again. The government does not let the people have full knowledge of every issue arising. Back to the original idea of raising taxes. It is an idea not even worth mentioning in the recession. Raising taxes will just wreck havoc amongst the entire nation! There will be pandemonium in the streets, and chaos spread through the country. It is just an extra weight added onto each loyal citizen. Extra taxes mean less income, and less spending, which fuels the economy. Nor should the argument seem strange that taxation may be so high as to defeat its object, and that, given sufficient time to gather the fruits, a reduction of taxation will run a better chance, than an increase, of balancing the budget. Income needs to be maximized, and result in reveues. “For to take the opposite view today is to resemble a manufacturer who, running at a loss, decides to raise his price, and when his declining sales increase the loss, wrapping himself in the rectitude of plain arithmetic, decides that prudence requires him to raise the price still more–and who, when at last his account is balanced with nought on both sides, is still found righteously declaring that it would have been the act of a gambler to reduce the price when you were already making a loss. From a business perspective it s not logical to say the least to raise prices in a time of need. Cutting prices on the opposite spectrum will increase sales, which the same ideas should be applied to taxes. Raising taxes does not improve the problem, it just creates an even grander one. Once again repeating my previous statements, the solution is to not raise taxes. Even though it seems by looking at much of the data the tax rates have been lower, the government creates hidden taxes. With so many taxes being in the modern world, I am quite content I am not living in this era. This generation will be swimming in debt and recession if the taxes are not regulated or lowered. It seems there is taxation on telephones, gas, cable, almost everything, which can cause inflation and higher prices of goods. It seems nothing I said in regards to taxes have stuck with this government. Back in my day my theories were proven, but it seems today there is no logic involved with decision-making. Why should the government raise taxes if I have repeatedly stated taxes should be lowered in order to get out of a recession? All in all, like I have stated throughout my entire rant….the solution to get out of debt is to not tax the citizens.