Dick Conoboy
Total number of comments: 818
Recent Comments by Dick Conoboy
Tom,
Thanks for your comment, however, I found this in the analysis of HB 2157:
"Exceptions.
Several exemptions are established, including for certain AI systems that are acquired by or for
the federal government. Other exempt entities include regulated financial institutions, certain insurers, and certain health care entities, among other entities"I have gone to the bill to attempt to ascertain what this statement means, however, it great legislative tradition, the bill's language is generally incomprehensible to most speakers of English and contains numerous references to other pieces of legislation that bear on HB 2157. Such argle-bargle is beyond the capabilities of the public to parse.
For all intents and purposes private entitites should be excluded from health care provision with the exception perhaps, of janitorial services to government health care offices and maintenance of equipment.
Reading this and the previous articles on this topic make my teeth itch. We have abandoned the notion of the commons as all is commodified in a fog of legalistic argle-bargle and greed where we bark and snarl at one another.
"What is this you call property? It cannot be the earth, for the land is our mother, nourishing all her children, beasts, birds, fish and all men. The woods, the streams, everything on it belongs to everybody and is for the use of all. How can one man say it belongs only to him?" (Ousamequin- Massasoit of the Wampanoag confederacy during the early 17th century)
Carol,
Perhaps you remember Gen MacArthur's farewell speech to the cadets at West Point in 1962. I am not a great fan of some of what MacArthur did during his career but his words that day speak to the cadet code of Duty, Honor, Country which some, including cadets at the time, found a bit hoaky but there are gems within the speech that resonate to this day. To wit:
"Let civilian voices argue the merits or demerits of our processes of government. Whether our strength is being sapped by deficit financing indulged in too long, by federal paternalism grown too mighty, by power groups grown too arrogant, by politics grown too corrupt, by crime grown too rampant, by morals grown too low, by taxes grown too high, by extremists grown too violent; whether our personal liberties are as firm and complete as they should be. These great national problems are not for your professional participation or military solution. Your guidepost stands out like a tenfold beacon in the night: Duty, Honor, Country."
David,
Thanks. The presidential oath of office is short but still speaks to the Constitution as do the military oaths. That Trump could not escape.
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Thanks Carol. Nice to know that in some countries there is logic and planning based on science that prevails in health care domains.
Forrest,
My article that John quoted in his article, Vote No on 8201, above would be my response to your comment. This is not the time to play roulette with the people's money any more than we already do.
Sadie,
Your story is, unfortunately, not unique within those trapped in Medicare Advantage. Thanks for sharing it with us. With the open season now upon us, I think your story will be valuable background and a warning for those who might be looking at Medicare Advantage plans.
Janis,
My apologies for not have seen and moderated your comment when it appeared. I am happy that your plan is working for you but the sad truth is that your experience is not replicated across the board while the Medicare Advantage program steals billions of dollars from the Medicare Trust Fund. You may want to read the comment below yours from B. Sadie Bailey.
A substantial explantion of the rationale to vote NO on 8201 straight from Sen Bob Hasegawa:
"I apologize in advance for this long-ish message to discuss my objections to SJR 8201 on the ballot. Thank you for Voting NO on this ill-advised Constitutional amendment.
Here's why I Voted NO on SJR 8201 in the Legislature and why I'm asking you to please also Vote NO on the ballot.
*******
Please Vote NO on SJR 8201, a Constitutional Amendment that changes our state Constitution to allow our Long Term Care Trust Fund, funded by a payroll tax, to be invested (gambled) in the stock market. This proposal was rejected by the people at the ballot 5 years ago but has resurfaced again, this time with a $1/4 Million war chest.
I have both pragmatic and philosophical concerns about this proposal.
Pragmatic Concerns
Currently, our state Constitution prohibits gambling with taxpayer dollars in the stock market. Instead, it requires us to invest only in safe and essentially guaranteed investments like Municipal bonds, which are safe and guaranteed by the people. Municipal bonds return around 3.5% to over 5% based on the term length of the bond. The State Investment Board (SIB), who will likely be responsible for investing these funds into the stock market if 8201 passes, targets a return rate of around 7.5% in Wall Street, but of course this is not guaranteed and fluctuates greatly with larger economic cycles, which are out of the SIB's control.
It can take years for the stock market (and our taxpayer dollars invested in it) to recover from a crash. For example, consider these more recent economic downturns: Dot-Com bubble bust, the Great Recession (Housing bubble bust), and the Covid bust:
* From 2000-03 (Dot-com bust) the Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA) lost one-third of its value and took 7 yrs to recover (NASDAQ took over 15 yrs to recover).
* Around 2008-09 (Great Recession) the DJIA lost half its value and took over 5 yrs to recover.
* In 2020 (COVID) the DJIA fell over 37% in less than six weeks from February 12, 2020 to March 23, 2020.
During times where Wall Street fails to meet expectations that have been budgeted for, there's really only two recourses: 1) cut benefits, or 2) raise taxes. What are elderly supposed to do when the Long Term Care benefits they’re relying on are cut? Or what are workers who are already falling behind supposed to do when the payroll taxes they’re already paying for this benefit are raised?
No one knows where our economy and the stock market is going in the future, especially now with all the economic and political uncertainty we’re facing. This vote is about whether we keep prudent fiscal management policies of our tax dollars and retain those Constitutional protections, or do we discard them which, if changed now, will be lost in perpetuity, i.e. forever lost--It will impact generations to come.
If this measure is passed, we’d be throwing away the guaranteed ‘bird in the hand’ for the proverbial ‘two in the bush.’ This is a risky gamble with hard-earned taxpayer dollars, which we can ill-afford to lose when we’re relying on all those dollars to be there for services when they are needed. Chasing a possible marginal increase of 2-3% in a gamble on Wall Street over safe municipal bond returns, at the risk of losing some or maybe even most of our Trust Fund principle, is not a wise gamble nor a fiscally responsible choice and breaches our fiduciary responsibility to the people.
Worse yet, passage of this amendment opens the door for advocates to expand privatization of our tax revenue beyond the Long Term Care Trust fund and emboldens them to also retry their previous attempts to open up more, or all of our state's funds to speculation on Wall Street (see past failed bills and votes by the people against similar proposals below). This type of privatization of our tax revenue can spiral out of control.
Philosophical Objections
Besides the pragmatism of fiduciary and fiscal responsibilities, there's also the philosophical reason this is a really bad idea--If we're considering gambling our tax dollars that Wall Street corporate stocks will rise, we also must consider the following question,
"Where do Wall Street corporations get their profits from?"
The obvious answer is corporate profits come from the pockets of their workers and consumers. And of course, their Wall Street corporate aim is to maximize profits, which they do by keeping wages as low as possible and prices for their goods and services as high as possible. So, by betting on Wall Street, we're betting that the corporations will win, i.e. they'll succeed in maximizing their profits created by their workers and consumers by keeping wages as low as possible and prices as high as possible.
This helps explain the growing financial pressures on regular folk, which most of us are all facing now. Wages are not keeping up with inflation and the costs of living, which are escalating out of control along with corporate profits.
Asking workers and consumers to vote against their own self-interest is a very cynical view of the world, whereas our Constitution currently requires us to adhere to our fiduciary responsibility to the people by investing in safe and essentially guaranteed financial instruments like municipal bonds, which is really investing in the public good for projects we, the people need, i.e. investing in ourselves and our communities. This proposal basically shifts our fiduciary responsibility from acting in the best interests of the people, to acting in the best interests of shareholders—rooting for the stock market to maximize profits.
Furthermore, what happens when the Legislature is asked to consider corporate or industry regulations, tax preferences, or other issues that have an impact on Wall Street traded stocks? This brings a ‘conflict of interest’ question into many decisions the Legislature is faced with—is our fiduciary responsibility to the people of the state, or to shareholders?
I don’t think anyone disputes the need to fund Long Term Care for our growing numbers of elderly, but the plan, which has yet to pay out a single benefit, was originally passed by the Legislature 6 yrs ago without a reasonable financing plan, let alone a well vetted program implementation plan, and some proponents are now getting desperate. Desperation is not a good mindset for changing the long-standing fiduciary duty or protections in our Constitution and making such a critical financial decision to allow gambling our hard earned tax dollars into Wall Street.
***
Since we have no budget to run a campaign (proponents of 8201 have raised $1/4 Million so far), the best way to help defeat this proposal again is by word of mouth--talk with your friends, family, neighbors, local news outlets, and organizations you belong to and let them know about this proposal and your opposition to it.
I have faith that most voters will see through the paid commercial advertising noise. Nearly every constituent I’ve spoken with thinks SJR 8201 is a bad idea. Their initial reaction when they hear 8201 changes the Constitution to allow investment of our multi-Billion dollar Long Term Care Trust tax revenue into the stock market is almost always, “That doesn’t sound like a good idea!”