EFTA01133078.pdf

From: Gregory Brown <I To: undisclosed-recipients:; Bce: [email protected] Subject: Greg Brown's Weekend Reading and Other Things.... 09/29/2013 Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2013 10:03:49 +0000 Attachments: Can Rouhani_or_Obama_deliver_on_any_deal_Faharad_Zaharia_TWP_September_25,_20 13.d—oex; Eugene Robinson„Obama's reality_eheck_Eu_gene Robinson TWP September_27,_201 3.doexrExposing_the_Pay_Cap_NYT Editorial Boa-rd Septerntier 24—„2013.doex; Lasting_Damage_From_the_Budget_Fight_NYILEditorial_Boardieptember_25,_2013.do cx; How Conservatives_Cooked_A_Blue_Meth_GOP_Howard_Fineman_Huff_Post_Septembe r 25,_2013.docx; dbama Announces That He Spoke With_lranian_President_Hassan_Rouhani_By_Phone_ Luktrohnson Huff Post_09-_27_20T3.docx; Obamacarejes Better_Trian You Think Dean Baker Huff Post_09_23_2013.docx; Speedy_Trains Transform Cna_RYT Septemger 23,_201f.doex; The Biggest_dbamaeare_ehange Wonc_Affect_MOst_Americans'insuranceieffrey_You ng_fluff Post_September 29,_20r3.doex; The Emliarrassment_offenator_Ted_Cruz_NYT_Editorial_Board_September_24,_2013.do cx; Hispanics Grow Cool_to G.O.P.„Poll_Finds_Laurie_Goodstein_NYT_September_27,20 13.doex; Bobby_Womack_bio.docx Inline-Images: image.png; image(1).png; image(2).png; image(3).png; image(4).png; image(5).png; image(6).png; image(7).png; image(8).png; image(9).png Dear Friends.... We are truly experiencing a new golden age in television today in America, and there is no better example of this is HBO's political dramatic series The Newsroom created and principally written by (Emmy Award—winning political drama The West Wing) Aaron Sorkin, which premiered on June 24, 2012 and now is in its third season. The series chronicles the behind-the-scenes events at the fictional Atlantis Cable News (ACN) channel. It features an ensemble cast including Jeff Daniels as anchor Will McAvoy, who, together with his staff, sets out to put on a news show "in theface of corporate and commercial obstacles and their own personal entanglements". Other cast members include Emily Mortimer, John Gallagher, Jr., Alison Pill, Thomas Sadoski, Dev Patel, Olivia Munn Sam Waterston and Jane Fonda. EFTA01133078 Over the past two weeks, in a two-part presentation titled Election Night, the story line was based on the Presidential election night of November 6, 2012. When Romney press adviser Taylor Warren challenges ACN anchor Will McAvoy credentials as a Republican (RINO or Republican In Name Only) and he responds with the following. I call myself a Republican because I am one. I believe in market solutions and I believe in common sense realities and the necessity to defend themselves against a dangerous world and that's about it. The problem is now I have to be homophobic. I have to count how many times that people go to church. I have to denyfacts and think that scientific research is a long-con. I have to think that poor people are getting a sweet ride and I have to have such a stunning inferiority complex that I fear education and intellect in the twenty-first century. But most of all, the biggest new requirement really and only is that I have to hate Democrats and I have to hate Chris Christiefor not spitting on the President when he got off Air Force One. The two party system is crucial to the whole operation. There is honor to being the loyal opposition and I am a Republicanfor the same reason that you are, so I hope that your voice gets louder in the nextfour years. I chose to start this week's offerings with this as a way to figure out why there is so much hatred in the country. When you take a look at political discussions from the late 1940's through the late 1.97co's you generally find a high degree of civility. And though we always have had partisan politics the discussions were more polite, and the differences not as great as today. When you look back at the discussions involving folks such as Hugh Scott, Jake Javits, Everett Dirksen, Nelson Rockefeller, Barry Goldwater and Margaret Chase Smith on the Republican side and Hubert Humphrey, Frank Church, Henry Jackson, Sam Ervin, Stuart Symington and Warren Magnuson on the Democratic side you see well-articulated positions on issues and negotiated compromise. The same was true during the 198os when Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neal famously negotiate a number of compromises while being ideological opposites. Obviously, one can blame a lot of it on 7x24 "hate" radio/TV/Internet, right wing religion and over the top capitalism of win at any cost and little win/win. But why is there some much hatred in America and why is it so political. We have to find our way back to celebrating commonality. We have to be much more tolerant. Most of all we have to have empathy for others, as well as take responsibility for those who are less fortunate. Finally, we have to understand that inequality breeds contempt and contempt breeds hatred and until we reverse this trend, the hatred and resulting poverty, violence and dysfunctionality will continue and eventually destroy us. This we have to change and we need to change it immediately. Compromise can't be a dirty word in a country needing team work. And when Republicans are checking other Republican's credentials what chance is for them to compromise with Democrats or with anyone who doesn't exactly agree with them. Ideological arrogance should not be tolerated in any democracy, especially here in the melting pot of American which thrived on its diversity and can only continue if we honor everyone's point of view in search of commonality. EFTA01133079 This week the country witnessed one of the most egregious examples of arrogance during freshman Texas Senator, Ted Cruz's 21 hour and 19 minute personal filibuster (against Obamacare) to stop the Senate from moving forward on a budget resolution vote to avoid a government shutdown, which passed unanimously, too to zero. More importantly we should interpret his actions not as legislation but as performance, as the result of his faux filibuster was always a foregone conclusion, especially when Cruz voted along with his other 99 colleagues and many of the highlights of what he said, were so silly that Saturday Night Live won't have been able to spoof them. Ted Cruz's fake filibuster is the latest skirmish in what Russ Limbaugh called, "thefightfor the soul of the Republican Party." And the fact that both partisan and mainstream media, Republican Party leaders and a small but vocal percentage of Republican voters are taking him seriously is feeding the dysfunctionality in Washington. And although Mr. Cruz would like us to see him as a young Jimmy Stuart in Mr. Smith Goes To Washington, the reality is he is not, especially after voting along with his other 99 colleagues in support of the bill he had filibustered against. And like his filibuster he is a fraud, a carnival barker with political ambition seeking attention with nothing to offer but fear, innuendo, distortion, condemnation, divisiveness, intolerance, hatred and lies. He is the worse kind of politician, as he matter who he hurts, as long as it advances his personal ambition. One could understand his actions if he offered solutions, but he has none, thus he is a fraud, a hypocrite and like Senator Joe McCarthy of the 194os and 5os, all that he offers is fear. To better understand and appreciate the absurdity of Ted Cruz's marathon speech please see Stephen Colbert's critique (VIDEO) website: http://www.hulu.com/watch/537750 The Embarrassment of Senator Ted Cruz By THE NEW YORK TIMES EDITORIAL BOARD Ted Cruz of Texas, the public face of the aimless and self-destructive Tea Party strategy to stop health care reform, began an endless floor speech on Tuesday with the theme of "make D.C. listen." But even his Republican colleagues had long since stopped paying attention to his corrosive bombast, fired of his pious insults to his own party and unimpressed with his eagerness to shut down the government in pursuit of an ideological dream. Like hard-liners in the far right corner of the House, Mr. Cruz has grabbed for every possible lever in his campaign against President Obama's health law, fully aware that he will not succeed but eager for the accolades and donations that will inevitably follow from the Tea Party's misguided faithful. In the process, he has demonstrated how little he understands Senate rules and, more important, how little he appreciates the public's desire for a collaborative Congress. Mr. Cruz's campaign to defund health reform consists largely of an absurd plan to filibuster the very House bill that kept the government from closing and defunded the health law, a notion that was rejected by the Senate minority leader, Mitch McConnell, and most Senate Republicans. After he lost their support, he began an extended tirade anyway, a stunt that might resemble a filibuster but in fact will have to end Wednesday morning before a prescheduled vote on the House bill takes place. In just the first hour of his speech, Mr. Cruz said his fellow senators were no more sincere than professional wrestlers and that accepting the health law was like appeasing the Nazis. His own goal of tearing down the law, he said, was a dream on par with President John F. Kennedy's promise to put a man on the moon. This combination of grandiosity and pure nastiness helps explain why the senator has become the least popular man in Washington. EFTA01133080 But it also shows why the Tea Party's plans will inevitably fail. Americans may remain confused about the health law, but they aren't interested in a government shutdown or credit default to get rid of it. Mr. Cruz may love the spotlight, but, when it fades, he will find he was only speaking to himself. Lasting Damage From the Budget Fight by THE EDITORIAL BOARD The budget crisis manufactured by Congressional Republicans will never succeed at halting health care reform, but it has already caused long-lasting harm. It will preserve the deeply damaging spending cuts, known as the sequester, that are costing jobs and hurting the lives of millions. Most of the attention given to the House's temporary spending resolution has focused on the provision in it to defund President Obama's health law. The Senate plans to drop that wording, and, if the House doesn't agree, the government will shut down on Tuesday. But even without the provision, the resolution itself is pernicious because it preserves through mid-December all the blunt and arbitrary sequester cuts that began in March, making it much less likely those cuts will be replaced with more sensible cuts and revenue increases for the rest of the 2014 fiscal year. The only other change to the resolution that Senate Democrats will try to make is to limit the duration of the stopgap resolution to mid-November, hoping to use the next six weeks to negotiate a more responsible budget. Although many Democrats in both chambers would prefer a resolution that repudiates the sequester cuts now, they are resigned to what is known as a "clean C.R.," a continuing resolution that simply continues the abysmally low spending levels of 2013 into the first weeks or months of fiscal 2014, which begins on Tuesday. To insist on a fight would mean Democrats would have to bear partial responsibility for a government shutdown if a continuing resolution is not approved in time — a burden now borne entirely by Republicans obsessed with stopping health reform. But any hope that Congress will use the stopgap period to negotiate a better budget is slim. It has already been six months since the Senate passed a realistic budget to replace the sequester with cuts of $975 billion, mostly from agriculture supports and efficiencies in medical spending. It also raises $1 trillion in revenue by removing tax breaks enjoyed by corporations and wealthy individuals. The House has yet to respond to the Senate budget. Its Republican leaders have refused even to sit down with Democrats if revenue increases are on the agenda. Manipulated by a Tea Party wing that wants cuts even deeper than the sequester, the leaders are no more likely to budge now. They know that once low levels of discretionary spending are enshrined in law, the reduced budgets become the new baseline from which the right wing will demand further cuts each year. That means the country will be stuck with the sequester-level cuts for the foreseeable future. It means more than 57,000 students will not get their Head Start seats back, and 140,000 low-income families who lost their federal housing assistance will be stuck in unaffordable or substandard homes. Thousands of scientists have been laid off and vital medical research projects have stalled. More than 85 chief Federal District Court judges signed a letter last month saying their cuts have been so deep that public safety is now at risk. A continued sequester will force unnecessary and damaging furloughs of all F.B.I. employees, and of 650,000 civilian employees of the Defense Department. And it means the economy will continue to sputter. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that ending the sequester could create up to 1.6 million jobs. EFTA01133081 The worst thing about governing by a stopgap measure, however, is that it eliminates real debates about priorities, new investments or tax reform, which are impossible when the threat of a shutdown is constantly looming. Every day that lawmakers argue about preventing a government shutdown is a day they are not discussing what government should be doing for the country's benefit. What is the Most Screwed Up Thing About Your State? Check This Chart Chris Miles:09/22/2013 For all the U-S-A, rah rah that goes around, the United States can be a shameful place. The below map lays out some of the statistically worst things about each state. It covers everything from health to crime to travel to drug use. Some states don't have it so bad (Ohio, the "nerdiest") but others really kind of suck (Mississippi has the highest rate of obesity at 35.3% of total population ... and ranks poorly in the most number of categories. These include highest rate of child poverty at 31.9%, highest rate of infant mortality at 10.3% lowest median household income at $35,078, highest teen birth rate at 71.9 per i,000 women aged 15 to 19 and highest overall rate of STDs. Phew.) It's not i00% science proof ... some of the metrics are taken from purely qualitative rankings (i.e. North Dakota). It's supposed to be a bit tongue-in-cheek, but some of the stats will really shock you. The United States of Shame What is your state the worst at? Corp Bestiality orate taxes o urObteest Drunk driving Infertility \ sta Homeless population w eakest , gOv't eUrn :e /driven influence Drug use ent F} violence on state Nerd- Anon Taxes Crime 1:i Least es ed 'green' state tic. Porn — Abortion usage 4.a state _sae V- .0ot,9,. Cocaine 1>+,,,,, Rs t ^ use Poorest _L ‘e-stittaistor- AIDS ''Ge,,. health Cancer deaths c ii Corruption salary Female Wont px,0,0i0sen Anti- criminals Social credit c:8-. score 0IS e Most 'f ee/ I:Ateclelearl: o* sickly es /e High school 3 a (24 graduation C.o eci.„ -Ink. ,1 ,•• 0. hey 0 e•4oerett. e J. Suicide , is t COSS alb Living , pleat* tans Rationale and statistics: EFTA01133082 Most stats taken from America's Health Rankings and the U.S. Census unless otherwise noted. (Note - data varries and is not based on 2013 numbers) 1. Alabama: highest rate of stroke (3.8%) (tied with Oklahoma) 2. Alaska: highest suicide rate (23.6 suicides per 100,000 people in 2004) 3. Arizona: highest rate of alcoholism 4. Arkansas: worst average credit score (636) Source. 5. California: most air pollution (15.2 micrograms per cubic meter) 6. Colorado: highest rate of cocaine use per capita (3.9% total population) 7. Connecticut: highest rate of breast cancer Source. 8. Delaware: highest abortion rate (27 per 1,000 women aged 15 to 44) 9. Florida: highest rate of identity theft (122.3 reports per 100,000 people) to. Georgia: sickly based on highest rate of influenza 11. Hawaii —highest cost of living (tied with California) Source. 12. Idaho - lowest level of Congressional clout Source. 13. Illinois: highest rate of robbery (284.7 incidences per 100,000 people) 14. Indiana: rated the most environmentally unfriendly by NMI solutions Source. 15. Iowa: highest percentage of people age 85 and older (1.8 percent) (tied with three other states) Source. 16. Kansas: poorest health based on highest average number of limited activity days per month (3.5 days) Source. 17. Kentucky: most cancer deaths (227 per 100,000 people) (BONUS fact: Kentucky also has the highest rate of tobacco smokers — 25.6%) 18. Louisiana: highest rate of gonorrhea (264.4 reported cases per 100,000 people) Source. 19. Maine: dumbest state claim based on lowest average SAT score (1389) Source. 20. Maryland: highest rate of AIDS diagnosis (27.6 people per 100,000 people) Source. 21. Massachusetts: worst drivers claim based on highest rate of auto accidents Source. 22. Michigan: highest unemployment rate (13.6%) 23. Minnesota: highest number of reported tornadoes (123 in 2010) Source. 24. Mississippi: highest rate of obesity (35.3% of total population) BONUS facts: Mississippi ranks poorly in the most number of categories. These include highest rate of child poverty (31.9%), highest rate of infant mortality (10.3%) lowest median household income ($35,078), highest teen birth rate (71.9 per 1,000 women aged 15 to 19) and highest overall rate of STDs. 25. Missouri: highest rate of bankruptcy (700 out of every 100,00o people) Source. 26. Montana: highest rate of drunk driving deaths (1.12 deaths per 100 million miles driven) Source. 27. Nebraska: highest rate of women murdered annually 28. Nevada: highest rate violent crime (702.2 offenses per 100,000 people). BONUS fact: Nevada also has the highest rate of foreclosure (one in 99 houses). 29. New Hampshire: highest rate of corporate taxes Source. EFTA01133083 30. New Jersey: highest rate of citizen taxation (11.8%) Source. 31. New Mexico: antisocial claim based on lowest ranking in social heath policies Source. 32. New York: longest average daily commute (30.6 minutes) Source. 33. North Carolina: lowest average teacher salary Source. 34. North Dakota: ranked last in ugliest residents report as chosen by The Daily Beast. Source. 35. Ohio: nerdiest state claim based on highest number of library visits per capita (6.9) Source. 36. Oklahoma: highest rate of female incarceration 37. Oregon: highest rate of long-term homeless people 38. Pennsylvania: highest rate of arson deaths (55.56 annually) Source. 39. Rhode Island: highest rate of illicit drug use (12.5% of population) Source. 40. South Carolina: highest percentage of mobile homes (18.8%) Source. 41. South Dakota: highest rate of forcible rape 76.5 per 100,000 42. Tennessee: chosen most corrupt state by The Daily Beast. Source. 43. Texas: lowest high school graduation rate (78.3%) Source. 44. Utah: highest rate of of online porn subscriptions Source. 45. Vermont: infertility claim based on lowest birth rate of any state (10.6 births per 1,000) (tied with Maine) Source. 46. Virginia: highest number of alcohol-related motorcyle deaths Source. 47. Washington: most cases of bestiality (4 reported in 2010) Source. 48. West Virginia: highest rate of heart attack (6.5 percent of population) 49. Wisconsin: highest rate of binge drinking (23.2 percent of population) 50. Wyoming: highest rate of deadly car crashes (24.6 deaths per loo,000) Source. Website: http://www. olicymic.com/articles/64665/what-is-the-most-screwed-up-thing-about-your-state-check- this-chart Two incredible and serendipitous things recently happened; the unexpected proposal from the President of Russia, Vladimir Putin that could rid Syria of its chemical weapons and stop the march to war by America, which was quickly accepted by Syrian President Assad and sort of embraced by the Obama administration. And the sober, candid and politically astute interview that Iran's new President Hassan Rouhani where he suggested the possibility of forging an agreement over their nuclear program and overtures designed to ease a generation worth of animosity between with the US as well as an olive branch to Israel by condemning the Nazis and acknowledging the Holocaust, to show that he did not support the views of his predecessor the religious hardliner and former Iranian President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. As evidence of things going in the right direction, on Friday the U.N. Security Council unanimously approved a resolution that could rid Syria of its chemical weapons and should dial down the hostilities in the country. Bravo.... EFTA01133084 With Putin seizing on a comment made by Vice President Biden suggesting that that the US attack on Syria could be halted if Assad would turnover his chemical arsenal and Iran's leaders, seizing on perceived flexibility in a private letter from President Obama, have decided to gamble on forging a swift agreement over their nuclear program with the goal of ending crippling sanctions. The Iranian positive reaction to the letter provides critical insight into a decisive and unexpected shift in strategy by the moderate new president as Iran struggles to restore vitality to the economy of his country and undo years of hostile relations with most of the world under the former president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Then on Thursday the United Nations' five big powers reached agreement Thursday on a legally binding U.N. Security Council resolution that would require Syria to dismantle its once-secret chemical weapons program or face the threat of unspecified measures, according to senior U.S. and Russian officials. The deal reached by Britain, France, the United States, Russia and China followed several days of high-level talks in New York. The talks culminated Thursday afternoon with a face-to-face meeting between Secretary of State John F. Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov. Also on Thursday, Secretary of State John Kerry, along with fellow diplomats, met briefly with his Iranian counterpart, marking the highest-level meeting between the two countries since the Iranian revolution of 1979. EU foreign policy chief, Catherine Ashton, later described the talks as "substantial" and said they had set the stage for a new round of negotiations over Iran's nuclear program Oct. 15-16 in Geneva. Speaking to reporters later, Kerry warned there was still "a lot of work to be done" but added he welcomed the "change in tone." And Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif said he was "satisfied with thisfirst step." These two events this week have definitely open a window of opportunity for the US, Russia, Syria, Iran and Israel to ease generations of animosity between the countries and avoiding further bloodshed in the Middle East. After decades of hostility between the above parties relations it will take years and possibly decades before relations are close to normalization. But the fact that a month ago, President Obama was petitioning Congress for its approval to attack Syria and John McCain was suggesting that Iran was next, we should all be encouraged by this week's events and that these adversaries are trying to settle their differences with diplomacy instead of bombs and bullets. ****** EFTA01133085  The White House released the above photo of Obama on the phone with Rouhani Web Link: http://www.huffingtonpost.tom/2013/09/27/obama•rouhani•phone n 4CO5063.html President Barack Obama said Friday that he spoke by telephone with Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, in what was the first communication between the leaders of the two countries since the Iranian Revolution in 1979. The call came after U.S. officials said earlier this week that the two would not meet at the U.N. General Assembly. The officials said that a meeting would be too "complicated" for the Iranians given the country's internal politics. "The two ofus discussed our ongoing efforts to reach an agreement over Iran's nuclear program," said Obama. "I reiterated to President Rouhani what I said in New York: while there were surely be important obstacles to movingforward and success is by no means guaranteed, I believe we can reach a comprehensive solution." "Resolving this issue could serve as a major stepforward in a new relationship between the United States and the Islamic Republic ofIran, one based on mutual interest and mutual respect," he said. A senior Obama administration official told reporters later Friday that the call was initiated by Rouhani's team, and that the Iranian president had expressed a desire to speak with Obama before he boarded a flight home to Tehran Friday afternoon. The request came as a surprise, the White House said, especially after Iran had declined the U.S.' invitation to meet at the General Assembly. Nonetheless, the invitation to connect directly with Obama had remained "open." The fifteen minute call took place around 2:3oPM, said the official, who spoke on background in order to discuss ongoing negotiations. Rouhani speaks fluent English, but the two leaders spoke through an interpreter, as is common practice for high-level diplomatic calls. The official said that leaders in Congress were notified that the call would take place ahead of time, as was the government of Israel, a longtime U.S. ally that has hostile relations with Iran. Obama opened the call by congratulating Rouhani on his election victory earlier this year. Both leaders went on to express their determination to resolve the issue of Iran's nuclear program peacefully and expeditiously, said the official. Overall, "the call was quite cordial in tone." But some contentious issues were raised, including the whereabouts of three American citizens: Amir Hekmati and Saeed Abedini, both of whom are currently in Iranian custody, and Robert Levinson, who went missing in Iran in 2007. Obama urged Rouhani and the Iranian government to help the Americans get EFTA01133086 home to their families. Going forward, the official said, ifs unlikely that Obama and Rouhani will maintain regular phone contact, because the substance of any nuclear negotiations must occur within the international framework known as the P5+1. "There's a lot of technical discussion that needs to take place." Both Rouhani and Obama have delegated future nuclear talks to their foreign ministers: Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif and U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry. Lets congratulate and support the sober minds who chose to dial down the level of fear and condescension and instead chose reaching out to solve the issues that have us teetering on the edge of war through diplomacy. Bravo.... THIS WEEK's READINGS With House Republicans voting a bill to fund the government without funding the Affordable Healthcare Act, better known as Obamacare, this week in The Huffington Post, Jeffrey Young wrote - The Biggest Obamacare Change Won't Affect Most Americans' Insurance - to add clarity to this spurious and phony issue. As I said time and again, even supporters of Obamacare will concede that it isn't perfect, but it is definitely better than doing nothing. But then hardliners in the Republican Right philosophy believe in smaller government, therefore any legislation that has the appearance of government intrusion is poison to them, even when it can add protection to those in need. Lost in this fight are the actual facts of how the Affordable Healthcare Act works, its benefits and disadvantages, to which Jeffrey Young article tries to address. EFTA01133087 The biggest part of President Barack Obama's health care overhaul is just days away from its debut, and the American public remains confused. For many consumers, the most important question is personal: What do I have to do? If you're one of the roughly 8o percent of Americans who already has health insurance through an employer or is enrolled in a government program like Medicare, the answer is: probably nothing. On Oct. 1, new health insurance websites will debut in each state. Some will be run by the state, and others will be run by the federal government. These sites, called health insurance exchanges or marketplaces, are designed to serve those without insurance and those who buy insurance on their own. Seven million people will purchase private health insurance on the exchanges for 2014, the Congressional Budget Office projects. An additional 9 million will use the exchanges to enroll in Medicaid or the Children's Health Insurance Program, two joint federal-state health programs for low-income people. The number of uninsured will drop by 14 million next year, the budget agency projects. For nearly everyone else -- the 170.9 million people covered by employers and the 101.5 million enrolled in government health programs -- the ballyhooed launch of the Obamacare exchanges will mean little, according to health care, consumer and business experts. "If you have employer coverage now, do not worry," said Lynn Quincy, a senior policy analyst at Consumers Union in Washington who specializes in health care issues. "If you're on Medicare now, please don't worry," she said. Still, a lot of people are worried over the introduction of a new way to buy health insurance and the health care law's "individual mandate" that nearly every legal U.S. resident obtain health coverage or face a tax penalty. EFTA01133088 People who don't get health insurance will have to pay $95 dollars or 1 percent of their annual income - - whichever is higher. That amount will rise each year until it hits $695 or 2.5 percent by 2016. The mandate has numerous exemptions, including for financial hardship. Most company health plans already meet the health care reform law's standards for benefits and affordability, as do government health programs like Medicare, Medicaid and military benefits. "For the vast majority of the population, the individual mandate will be a non-event," said Larry Levitt, the co-executive director of the Program for the Study of Health Reform and Private Insurance at the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation in Menlo Park, Calif. The open enrollment period for 2014 health plans bought on the exchanges begins Oct. l and runs through the end of March. People will use the exchanges in their home states to compare the price and benefits of various insurance plans. The exchanges also are the only way to get the financial assistance available to those who earn less than four times the federal poverty level, which amounts to $45,960 for a single person this year. EFTA01133089 Who Will Use Obama's Health Insurance Exchanges? The opening of the Obamacare health insurance exchanges on Oct. 1 is the most significant change to health coverage market in decades. But they mainly will be used by a small sliver of Americans: the uninsured and people who buy health insurance directly. Buy their own insurance: 3.6% Uninsured: 15.4% Where do Americans get health coverage? The main sources of health coverage are employer-provided plans and public programs like Medicare. People who have these types of coverage most likely will keep them. Buy their own insurance: 3.6% I At work: 44.8% i. Government plan: 20.7% Who are the uninsured? The uninsured rate varies by many factors. Hispanics, young adults, Southerners, and the poor disproportionately lack health insurance. RACE & ETHNICITY AGE REGION HOUSEHOLD INCOME 29.1% r 27.2% 1 24.9% 1 21.4% 19.0% 18.6% 7.8% 17 0% 4.7 15.1% 15.0% 11.9% 10.8% 9.2% 7.9% o. mt -C M ar O 1̀ § 82e i .. .o 0. go wN 4' On N. rm 0 4> be Wag OM 49 z CNI W N Notes: The estimates by type of coverage are mutually exclusive; people THE HUFFINGTON POST did not have any other type of health insurance during the year. Source: U.S. Census Bureau EFTA01133090 Those shopping on the marketplaces will see changes. People who currently buy their own insurance will find that some cheap, skimpy plans sold to individuals today won't be available, and some younger, healthier people may see higher sticker prices -- especially if they don't qualify for tax credit subsidies. Others will gain access to coverage they didn't have and get help paying for it. Survey after survey shows the public to be confused, anxious and misinformed about what health care reform does and how it will affect them. Fewer than half of Americans think they know enough about the law to understand how it affects them, according to poll findings the Kaiser Family Foundation published last month. More than a third believe they'll be worse off, 23 percent think they'll be better off and 37 percent say it won't make much difference. When Congress wrote the law known as the Affordable Care Act, their idea was to maintain Americans' current health coverage as much as possible, to boost consumer protections in the health insurance market for individuals, and to cover the uninsured. That doesn't mean all workers will keep what they have. The Congressional Budget Office predicts that 7 million fewer people will get their health insurance through work by 2023, although jobs will remain the most common source of health coverage for Americans. People who work part-time, have low- wage jobs or are employed by smaller companies are most likely to lose their job-based benefits and to use the exchanges instead. There's already been a steady drumbeat of news stories about companies changing health benefits, like Trader Joe's and Home Depot dropping part-time workers from their health plans. While this phenomenon is real and disruptive to those workers, the outliers shouldn't be cause for concern for most people who have job-based health benefits, said Helen Darling, the president and CEO of the National Business Group on Health, a Washington-based association of large employers. A survey of U.S. employers found that 93.5 percent of companies definitely or very likely will continue to offer health benefits to workers, compared to 1 percent that definitely won't or are very likely not to, according to a report the International Federation of Health Benefit Plans, a London-based trade group, issued in May. Employers provide health benefits both as a means of attracting and retaining employees and because they aren't taxed like wages (so they're cheaper than raises). "No one is going to say, Whoops, we just decided that we're not going to give you health benefits because we don't think they're that important.' It just isn't going to happen," Darling said. And experts don't expect large employers to make more changes or raise premiums much more than if the health law hadn't been enacted, she said. But anecdotes about individual companies are causing some worry among workers -- worry fomented by Obamacare opponents and the media, Darling said. "It's more the press that is drumming up attention in a negative way, much of it being driven by people who want to make it a negative experience," Darling said. Likewise, the debate over whether Obamacare will cause health insurance premiums to soar on the exchanges -- so-called rate shock -- needlessly confuses people who have coverage from work, Levitt said. "They see these headlines that premiums may skyrocket and they think that's them," he said. It's not; it's about insurance people buy directly. In fact, a survey of employers the Kaiser Family Foundation and the Health Research and Educational Trust published last month showed job-based health insurance prices rose an average of just 5 percent for single people this year. "There's no reason to think that's going to change dramatically," Levitt said. On the individual market for health insurance, some people, especially those who are younger and healthier, may see higher premiums, not counting the available tax credits. Others will pay less than today. That's largely due to new rules, such as requiring better benefits than commonly available on the individual market today, guaranteeing coverage to people with pre-existing conditions and limiting how much more older people can be charged than younger consumers. Medicare beneficiaries have even less cause for concern, Quincy said, even though a Kaiser Family Foundation poll found that older Americans disapprove of the Affordable Care Act at higher rates than younger people. Express Scripts, which manages prescription drug benefits for health insurance plans, surveyed Medicare enrollees and discovered many misperceptions -- including 17 percent who think they have to buy coverage on the exchanges. In reality, it's illegal for a health insurer to sell a plan through the exchange to someone on Medicare. People on Medicare don't need to do anything different this year than they have in the past, Quincy said. "The main message is: Nothing has changedfor you. You're good to go." EFTA01133091 Next week the main part of Obamacare will begin to kick in. This is the state level exchanges that will allow the uninsured to be covered. Beginning on October 1, people will be able to sign up to get insurance in their state regardless of their health. Most people signing up on the exchanges will qualify for subsidies based on their income and family size. This means that the cost of insurance will be less than the advertised price. This is good news. It means that tens of millions of people who are uninsured now will likely be insured in the next year or two as a result of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). However, this is actually the less important aspect of the program. The more important part is that those of us who now have insurance will have real health care insurance for the first time. Most of the insured get covered through their job. This creates an obvious problem. If they develop a chronic illness, they may be unable to keep their job. Once they are no longer employed, workers will be left trying to buy insurance in the individual market. Insurers don't want to insure people who are sick. If a person with a chronic health condition applies for insurance in the individual market, they would be facing premiums of tens of thousands of dollars a year, making it unaffordable for all but the very wealthy. This situation will end with the start of the exchanges. Workers who lose their job because of an illness will still be able to find affordable insurance. This will provide a huge element of security that is currently lacking. In effect, most workers will have true health insurance for the first time. Workers of all ages will benefit from this transformation of the insurance market, but it will be especially important for older workers in poor health. There are a large number of older workers who struggle to stay employed despite bad health, because this is the only way that they will be able to afford insurance until they are old enough to qualify for Medicare. Many of these people will now find insurance to be affordable with the subsidies on the exchanges even if they do not work. Some critics of Obamacare have argued that it will undermine incentives to work. In the case of older workers in poor health they are right, and this will be good. There is much real basis for criticism of the ACA. Private insurers are the sole providers of insurance. Not only are we not getting universal Medicare, we did not even get a public option, the right to purchase a Medicare-type plan that would compete with private insurers. The drug companies and medical equipment suppliers both end up as winners under Obamacare. They will be able to secure even greater profits from their government-provided patent monopolies since the ACA does little to rein in costs. As a result, we will still be paying close to twice as much for drugs and medical devices as people in other wealthy countries. This is a guaranteed recipe for bad health care since the enormous profits provided by these patent monopolies give drug companies an incentive to push their drugs even when they may be harmful. And we will still be paying twice as much for our doctors as people in other wealthy countries. These failures on cost controls will add hundreds of billions of dollars to the cost of health care each year. The fact that so many states refused to go along with the expansion of Medicaid will leave millions of working poor uncovered. Undocumented workers were explicitly prohibited from being covered through the exchanges. And the plan will effectively penalize many workers who get insurance through union-sponsored plans, since they will not be eligible for subsidies through the exchanges. These are serious complaints about the inadequacy of Obamacare that will have to be addressed in the years ahead. But none of these problems changes the fact that the ACA is an enormous step forward. Most of the country will now have real security in their access to health care. The agenda now has to be to extend this security to the rest of the country and to squeeze the parasites out of the health care system. Please feel free to see the attached Huffington Post article — Obamacare: It's Better Than You Think - by Dean Baker. Lies And Distortions Of The Health Care Reform Debate Healthcare In America Is Already 'The Best In The World' One of the more positive sounding admonitions from health care reform opponents was that the United States had "the best health care in the world," so why would you mess with it? Well, it's true that if you want the experience the pinnacle of medical care, you come to the United States. And if you EFTA01133092 want the pinnacle of haute cuisine, you go to Per Se. If you want the pinnacle of commercial air travel, you get a first class seat on British Airways. Now, naturally, you wouldn't let just anyone mess with someone's tasting menu or state-of-the-art air-beds. But like anything that's "the best," the best health care in the world isn't for everybody. The costs are prohibitively high, the access is prohibitively exclusive, and the resources are prohibitively scarce. Death Panels The only thing that perhaps matched the vastness of the spread or the depth of the traction of the "death panel" lie was the predictability that such a lie would come to be told in the first pla