The Zeitgeist with Howard Barbanel

 

Americare: The Prescription for America if Obamacare is Struck Down or Repealed

(This appeared originally in the March 30, 2012 issue of The South Shore Standard) 

This week the Supreme Court heard three days of arguments on the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act which is more popularly known as “Obamacare.” The bill that was signed into law two years ago rolls over more than 2,000 pages of clauses, provisions, mandates and regulations. Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi famously said at the time that “we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it.” Many have said that Obamacare is something a lot more than mere health legislation, rather it contains no end of measures to restructure society and redistribute wealth and income. It has also been called one of the largest tax increases in history.

Among the stealth tax increases buried in the bill are a surcharge of up to 2.5 percent of adjusted gross income on anyone not buying qualifying health insurance as defined by the Federal Government; an employer mandate tax of $2,000 for full time employees for companies employing more than 50 workers who don’t offer health insurance; a 3.8 percent surtax on investment income for families earning more than $250,000, which also includes profits from the sale of a home; an excise tax on so-called “Cadillac” health care plans that “wealthy” people may have; an increase in the Medicare Payroll Tax; a doubling on the tax for early non-medical withdrawals from health savings accounts; Parents of special needs students will see certain tax breaks rescinded because of a new $2,500 annual cap on Flexible Spending Accounts (FSAs) which are now unlimited and which many parents use to pay tuition for these kids.

But wait – there’s more – there’s a new 2.3 percent excise tax on medical device manufacturers for items retailing for over $100.  The ability to deduct itemized medical expenses from one’s income tax has been made more difficult. Presently medical expenses in excess of 7.5 percent of adjusted gross income can be deducted. There is a new level of 10 percent of AGI as of 2013. If a family has had to deal with traumatic or catastrophic care, more of those enormous expenses will now come out of their pockets. There are new taxes on health insurance companies, on drug companies and the list goes on and on.

In selling the plan to the American people, President Obama said that it would bring the costs of healthcare and health insurance down by covering more people and spreading risk. However in the two years since the bill’s passage most Americans are footing appreciably higher monthly bills for their health insurance, whether the expense is being paid by private business, public sector government agencies or individually. Health care costs continue to skyrocket unabated. Insurance companies unabashedly inform their customers that double-digit increases are directly attributable to Obamacare. In public opinion polls, the majority of Americans want to see Obamacare repealed or overturned. Obamacare in great measure cost the Democrats control of the House of Representatives in the 2010 midterm elections.

The tax provisions of Obamacare are not what’s before the Supreme Court however. It is the issue over weather the government can compel its citizens to buy something on the private market. The White House says the bill is important to cover millions of Americans who currently are uninsured. However, the bill would not extend an insurance umbrella over every uninsured American at all. There would still be tens of millions who will still be without coverage even if the bill survives a negative Supreme Court ruling, so, while more people would have coverage, a huge number of Americans won’t regardless.

The Court might strike down the law based on the government forcing people to buy a product from private businesses. For example, some of the conservative justices asked the government’s lawyers that if Obamacare is upheld, what would keep the government from mandating that all Americans buy cell phones for safety or that people buy burial insurance or that people buy broccoli or be compelled to join a health club for the public good? Where would it end? The Administration argued before the court that although their primary defense of the legislation is via the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, at the same time all of this represents a tax or it’s within the government’s taxing power even though it’s not officially labeled as a tax. Trying to have it both ways.

I think the Democrats and Republicans are both right and wrong. The Democrats are right in that Americans need to have some kind of formalized health coverage as we all pay for uninsured people going to emergency rooms in the form of higher health insurance premiums. They’re wrong in that the government ought not force its citizens to buy major medical coverage for everything from pediatric, geriatric or bariatric treatments they may never need. The Republicans are right in that: a) the government should not compel its citizens to buy anything on the private market and b) massive redistributive tax increases should not be bundled in with any reforms of healthcare. They’re wrong in that there needs to me a measure of basic coverage for all Americans.

The answer is for the government to provide what I’m calling “Americare,” which would be analogous to Medicare and Medicaid but for all Americans not on those two existing government plans now. “Americare” would be catastrophic and emergency health care coverage if one were struck by a bus, fell out a window, had a heart attack on the street, etc. It would be paid for by deductions from everyone’s paychecks much like Social Security is today. It would be national and fully portable. It would be a public agency and the premiums would be a tax which is fully and unambiguously within the government’s purview. Anyone desiring health coverage above and beyond trauma care would have to purchase it (or not) from private insurance companies but would not be compelled to do so. The tax burdens on Americans should also be rolled-back to pre-2010 levels and no one penalized for having a lot of coverage if that’s where they want to spend their money.  To bring the cost of healthcare down, Congress needs to enact Tort Reform, imposing caps on malpractice lawsuit awards so as to lower the cost of malpractice insurance for doctors and hospitals and lower the cost of endless litigation. Also, private health insurance ought to be available nationally, across state lines to foster greater competition and economies of scale to drive costs down – and this insurance needs to be completely portable and not tied to one’s place of employment. That would be real and meaningful health reform for all Americans.

 

Neo-Shtetl-ism

(This appeared originally in the March 23, 2012 issue of The South Shore Standard) 

There is an old joke about two Jews who were shipwrecked and marooned on a desert island in the South Pacific. They were stranded there for 20 years and being Jews they were very industrious. They domesticated the wild animals, drained the swamps, tilled the soil. After 20 years they were finally rescued. The ship’s captain came ashore and the Jews gave him a tour of the island. They showed him the fields and flocks and all they accomplished and the captain was very impressed. Finally, they came to a clearing in the middle of the island. In this clearing were three huts. The captain asked, “what are these huts?” One of the Jews answered proudly, “these are our synagogues!” The captain did a double-take and replied, “wait a minute, there are two of you but you have three synagogues?” The other Jew answered, “one I go to, the other one he goes to and the third one, neither one of us would step foot inside.” 

This combination of unity and divisiveness among Jews is as old as time. Even Moses was subjected to it in no uncertain terms. Just as humorously, most Jews want to be president of the company, Prime Minister of Israel but not president of their shuls, which doesn’t stop groups of a dozen shtarkers from starting their own shuls on nearly every corner of densely populated Jewish neighborhoods. Here in The Five Towns I’ve already lost count of the number of Orthodox synagogues and tiny shteiblach (minyans typically of under 75 people held in private homes).

One reason so many shuls get created is for convenience – minimizing the Sabbath walk in poor weather is always a good thing. Another reason is to create an environment where your shul or shteibel is somehow to be seen as more rigorous than the one down the road. There is a full blown competition in many Orthodox quarters to present oneself as more outwardly frum (religiously observant) than the next guy. This all may come as a surprise to non-Orthodox Jews in an era of rampant assimilation and disaffiliation, they along with non-Jews might also be surprised to learn that Orthodox religious and cultural life is far from uniform and monolithic – in fact there are a million shades of gray and in many quarters the closer you are to black the better. Many would also be surprised to learn that most of the differences between the myriad groups of Orthodox Jews is not theological in the least, but rather cultural.

Back in the 60s the Black Panther movement proffered the slogan “black is beautiful,” this could be transposed into many Orthodox circles today where a full-out offensive is underway by many Orthodox Jews to try and steer most Orthodox Jews as far to the right culturally as possible. This takes the form of peer pressure to conform to socio-cultural mores so as to be accepted by the wider community. “Black” refers to the sartorial color of choice among the Brooklyn-centered “yeshivish” and Haredi (sometimes called Hassidic or Ultra-Orthodox) sectors of Orthodoxy. Black is seen as pious, modest and “high-level.” Color alone is not enough, the cut and length of what you wear is also important along with what hat (if any) and which kipa (skull cap) sits perched atop or in front of your head. For women there is a fixation with covering as much of oneself as possible and in not necessarily a flattering way. There is pressure to eat in only certain dining establishments and buy food only from certain markets (even assuming all of your choices are Glatt Kosher to begin with), to decorate your home with certain furniture, use conforming tablecloths, vacation in the same places, send your kids to the same schools and arrange their marriages like in the Old Country. It is an ideology that says the more covered up your women, the higher the dividers (mechitsas) in your shul, the right brim on your Italian fedora, then the more “authentic” you are seen to be. It also deals with issues such as whether one has a television or computers in your home as well.

Just as a black hole in space sucks up and envelops all light, so too is the black Orthodox movement (it should be said it is an ad-hoc movement) making a strenuous effort at trying to consume Modern Orthodoxy. In Israel the “Modern Orthodox” are called the “National Religious” and can be clearly identified by their knitted kippot, their often heroic army service, devotion to Zionism and the state and participation in mainstream life. Here in the U.S. there are no elite units in the Israel Defense Forces, so the way for many to prove just how Jewish they are is to envelope oneself in the black.

The ripple effect of all this rightward running is an atmosphere where Modern Orthodox people are made to feel somehow less devout and less culturally Jewish for embracing aspects of American culture. The supposed “authentic” Jewish culture being flogged by the right wing is actually a case of misplaced nostalgia for the imagined glories of shtetl (small Jewish village) life in Eastern Europe, principally in Poland and Russia from the 18^th and 19^thCenturies. The garb emulates that of the wealthy nobility of those countries centuries ago.  There is also a gauzy Fiddler on the Roof nostalgia for the imagined blissful uniformity and religious warmth of that time and place.

Truth be told, those days in the Pale of Settlement were some of the worst and most oppressive times the Jewish people ever endured anywhere at anytime. Jews were compelled to live in these towns and couldn’t reside elsewhere. They were subject to no end of violent anti-Semitism which culminated in the Holocaust. Grinding poverty, dismal medieval living conditions and a severe lack of economic and educational opportunities led to hopelessness and no future for Jewish children. It’s what prompted millions of Jews to flee to America, Israel and other places. Breaking the bonds of this oppression and helplessness were one of the prime motivations of Theodor Herzl and the founders of political Zionism.

Wearing the garb of Russo-Polish nobility can be seen as a form of “Stockholm Syndrome,” whereby captives start identifying with their captors. How is this “authentically” Jewish? What if one’s forebears didn’t come from Poland or Russia? Before the 18^th Century did Jews dress this way? No way. Rakish black Italian fedoras were unknown to Jews even a generation ago or during the Middle Ages or the Renaissance or to Sephardic Jews living around the Mediterranean or Middle East or to Jews in ancient Israel. Just as the Amish in Pennsylvania have ossified their attire to early 19^th Century fashion, so two have many Orthodox. But this emulation of our tormentors is misplaced. Better to be grateful to America and American culture. No country or society has ever been as good to the Jews as America has been. Religious Jews should be sporting the Brooks Brothers look, not that of Minsk.

A small minority of rigorous Orthodox also are in subconscious envy of right-wing Islam in the way they manage to coerce their women into burkhas and hijabs and coerce adherence to Islamic proscriptions of alcohol, Western culture and the like. They see how whole countries can be compelled and harbor a secret wish to be able to do the same. In Israel there are actually some Jewish sects who have their women attired like Saudis. There is a perception among many Orthodox that somehow all this is to be admired and that these people “are on a high level.”

Many (if not most) Orthodox residents of The Five Towns moved here specifically to have a small slice of the American Dream while maintaining their fealty to the verity of the Torah (bible), combining participation in mainstream American economic and cultural life along with respect for and observance of millennia-old Jewish laws and traditions. They made a choice not to live in Boro Park, Williamsburg, Flatbush or Midwood. They don’t want to be told that guys wearing jeans and a button-down shirt instead of black pants and a wrinkled white shirt makes someone somehow less authentic. They don’t want to hear that wearing a knitted kipa instead of a huge black velvet one makes you less righteous or that using non-white tablecloths makes their children less marriageable.

There is a palpable cultural push-back in progress among the American Modern Orthodox where people are saying “we don’t want to be shtetl-ized,” “we don’t remember 19^th Century Russia fondly,” “we can adhere to the Torah and be Americans too.” Just like Israel’s National Religious (Daati Leumi) have no religious or cultural insecurities, Modern Orthodox American Jews are starting to publicly say that forced cultural conformity has nothing whatsoever to do with one’s level of religiosity and that living in and being a part of the world is not inimical with faith and Torah observance.

 

What’s Possible and Impossible: Why Santorum Can't Get the Nomination

(This appeared originally in the March 16, 2012 issue of The South Shore Standard)

It is a fascinating world when two states in the Deep South with Republican voting populations 75 and 80 percent comprised of Evangelical Christians give victories to a staunch Roman Catholic. It signals a fungibility of religiosity that makes the devout of one faith OK with the devout of another. We’re obviously talking here about Mississippi and Alabama, two states that a generation or two ago would have just as soon not voted than vote for a Catholic but who this year gave pluralities to Rick Santorum.

It’s also interesting that while Evangelicals will vote for a Catholic these days, there is still a reservoir of intolerance for Mormons. In fact, many Evangelical voters have no problems voting for Newt Gingrich who, although Protestant, could not be classified as anything approaching a saint in his personal life. Mitt Romney has had no end of trouble winning in Evangelical districts but that’s not the real story here.

The media trumpets were blaring at full bore on Wednesday about Santorum’s supposed trouncing of Romney. Although Romney came in third in those two aforementioned contests in the heart of Dixie, because they were proportional primaries, Romney picked up a pretty fair number of delegates from those states and wasn’t terribly far behind Messers. Santorum and Gingrich by percentage or popular vote. Most of the media all but ignored the fact that Romney took the Hawaii primary and the contest in American Somoa. The media conveniently overlooked that Alabama’s contest was an “open primary,” meaning that anyone could vote in it whether you’re a Republican or not and that in these kinds of contests Democrats have been going for Santorum in a big way to hurt Romney’s chances of facing President Obama in November. It’s not a true reflection of Republican sentiment.

The Santorum people and the media would like you to believe that this is still a tight contest for the GOP nomination. From an actuarial, statistical and probability standpoint, it probably isn’t. Let’s look at the current numbers and at the races ahead:

All the primaries and caucuses until April 1^st award delegates on a proportional basis. Even if Romney were to come in second or third, he picks up delegates. Right now Romney has a projected 492 delegates out of 1,144 needed to secure the nomination. Santorum has 235. Gingrich and Ron Paul are far behind. Santorum needs resounding victories in the proportional delegate contests and majorities in the winner-take-all states even to catch up to Romney. Is this even possible?

Missouri caucuses this week until the 24^th with 52 delegates at stake. On Sunday the 18^th, Puerto Rico votes in a winner-take-all race for 23 delegates. Romney should win that. On the 20^th Illinois votes for 69 delegates. Look for a Romney win in the urbanized and suburban north of the state. On the 24^th Lousiana’s 46 delegates are up for grabs. Romney should do well there or split fairly evenly with Santorum and Gingrich.

In April, with nearly all races “winner-take-all,” Romney has a royal flush of opportunity. On April 3^rd there is Washington D.C., Maryland and Wisconsin – not Evangelical heartlands. Ninety-eight delegates in play there. On April 24^th there is another “Super Tuesday,” or “Big East Tournament” in the form of primaries in Connecticut (28 delegates), Delaware (17), New York (95), Pennsylvania (72) and Rhode Island (19). Look for Romney to take everything in the “Big East” except Pennsylvania. How can Santorum surmount all that? Not very likely. Other big states like California (172 delegates) and New Jersey will go to Romney. It is mathematically nearly impossible for Santorum to overtake the former Massachusetts Governor.

Romney currently has been winning 54 percent of the delegates on average. He’s also garnered 40.5 percent of the national popular vote in the primaries to Santorum’s 24.9 percent. All Romney has to do is proceed at the same exact pace and come June he’ll assuredly be the nominee.

There is the possibility that Romney won’t be able to win on the first ballot, coming up 100 or so delegates short. This is where the electoral wild card comes into play – listen for talk of a Romney-Santorum ticket, mimicking the Regan-Bush ticket of a few decades back which brought the conservative and moderate-establishment wings of the party together successfully and overcame a sitting one-term Democratic president. You heard it here first.