The US Postal Service has announced that it will scale back mail delivery to five days a week, beginning August 1, but continuing package deliveries on Saturdays, and keeping post offices open and stamp purchases still available as well.
This decision will affect people who have tended to send bill payments close to the deadline, and now know that they will not be delivered on a Saturday.
And the problem of many Mondays being holidays also could mean that there will be weeks where mail delivery would be only four days, with three days in a row of no mail delivery at all.
So a suggestion is that the Postal Service arrange that on weeks where there is a Monday holiday following a Saturday, that mail delivery still be done on those Saturdays, so as to guarantee five days a week delivery.
I think the Internet has hurt the postal service. People paying bills online, emailing or texting instead of sending letters, etc.
As much as this might be an inconvenience for many , you have to agree that the latest CBO estimate on the effects of the Affordable Care Act is more troubling but of course not a surprise for most of us who actually studied the law. So now the government estimates that 7 million fewer people will have employment-based health insurance as a result of the Affordable Healthcare Act; in August, that figure was estimated to be about 4 million people. The revision is the net effect of several considerations, with the largest factor being the reduction in marginal tax rates, which reduces the tax benefits associated with health insurance provided by employers. See page 61: http://timeswampland.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/cbo-budget-2013-2023.pdf
I remember someone saying ” if you like your insurance you can keep it” ! LOL
That same person said “I don’t think we are going to be able to eliminate employer coverage immediately. There’s going to be potentially some “transition” process (Obama-care) I can envision a decade out, 15yrs out …” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3tTgr3fG_tg
Ok. I’m confused. What does healthcare have to do with the topic of the postal service cutting Saturday mail? %)
Just that what is going to happen to those 7 million losing their health insurance coverage will be a little bit more inconvenient that the Post Office closing on Saturdays.
I haven’t heard anything about that. Obviously must be some Faux News spin.
WordPress wouldn’t let me post the link so I’ll just state this: I check daily news headlines at My Way News. You can Google that for the link.
Can you clarify what link you are referring to, White Southern Christian Progressive? Is this contradicting Fox News Channel on health care losses of seven million people as Juan brought up, or what?
Gentlemen, here is the CBO link, http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43907 Once you open the link click on “read complete document” (pdf). Then you look at page 61 under heading “Fewer People with Employment Based Coverage” and read. This is no Fox News, it is the Government, the CBO. The publication is ” The Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2013 to 2023.”
Professor,
The website is a search engine, like Google or Yahoo. The website has daily news headlines like Google or Yahoo do. The headlines there are from the Associate Press. None of the headlines I’ve seen there have said anything about people losing healthcare because of Obamacare.
Interesting, but then many think there will eventually be Medicare for all, which most Democrats wanted, but Obama backed off, knowing it could not be achieved in 2010, and that a step forward, working with private health insurance companies, was the first step toward an ultimate Medicare for all, or mostly all, people.
You mean Universal Government run Healthcare instead of Medicare for all… I know , that is the end game. Now how do they achieve this? Well drive up the cost of private insurance companies, then the government will say “See we tried , but they are so greedy that we must have a centralized government run healthcare system” and of course some , the low information voters, will say, ” yes, these dam evil insurance companies are so greedy”. As a matter of fact a few “drones” made that comment today on the webpage I first read the news. As planned, some blamed the “evil” greedy corporations. This was so predictable. Nothing new here. And some in the insurance industry bought into the “mandate” money…
I optimistic that we’ll eventually have Medicare for all too! 🙂
Good grief!
Juan I wonder as well, what does your entry have to do with the post office issue? But since you brought the subject up, let’s take a look at the bigger picture, shall we?
I would like to know your actual resource for you statements. Surely you are not referencing such strong accusation with a one article? I checked with the CBO and I do not find the report your specified…
It’s not unusual for writers to pick and choose their own facts when writing about a subject and it’s confusing to most readers. The articles do NOT tell the whole story.. this is dishonest. The hope is readers will not understand the issue fully, may not take the time or make the effort to check statements for validity and empirical evidence for statistics.
Now, let’s discuss the ACA…Affordable Care Act but you can call it Obama Care.
The most recent released draft from the federal government addresses the benefits, market rules, and rating practices for no group coverage. Before the ACA (nickname “reform act†it was widely acknowledged that non-group health insurance system was broken. Problems include restricted access, limited benefits, very high administrative costs, ( a whole other issue), denials, and frequent, unannounced premium increases. These increases are not subject to oversight so insurance companies did pretty much whatever they wanted. Before the ACA went into affect, insurance companies hiked premiums for coverage in some states…while their profits skyrocketed 132% to 150% at a time when the group market is experiencing low increases and the economy was suffering. These uncalled for increases have raised concern about these pricing practices and how if affects the insured. Yes, many could possibly lose their current insurance, but not for the reasons your suggest. The reason should be obvious to anyone who understands health care markets. I don’t think you are among them.
The ACA seeks to address many of the issues, essentially restructuring the non-groups health insurance market starting in 2014 by instituting new rules and new policies for increased transparency as well as price competition…you know..like in the free market, but fair? Newly available and cost-sharing subsidies from the federal government will enormously expand the number of people who will now be able to get insurance coverage. Yes, some people may lose their current insurance as companies change some policies to better coverage.
Juan, with so many changes and new participants, there understandably is a great deal of speculation about what the insurance programs will look like and how premiums in 2014 will compare to premiums estimates if the ACA did not exist. Fortunately, the ACA Act has built into it the ability to fine tune it as we see what works and what doesn’t.
The Independent Advisor Payment Board, IPAB, a panel of health care experts will work on strategies to cut waste in healthcare. Unfortunately this panel has been demonized, much like the “death panels†of Sarah Palin’s empty brain. The members have been described as heartless bureaucrats who would come between patients and their doctors and deny care. That’s utter BS! The panel is made up of some the best and smartest health care experts in the country. I am happy to say there are Nurses included on the panel along with providers from a number of practice specialties, medical economic experts and members from groups of care providers like the National League of Nursing, The American Medical Association CDC, and NIH.
The point here is that Obamacare, the ACA law specifically prohibits decisions which would deny care–but nobody seems to care about the fine print.
Overall, we do expect, and the CBO concurs, that the average, unsubsidized premiums for non group will be somewhat higher. The important fact often ignored by conservatives is that most people will be getting much better insurance! This is important Juan. In the current managed care arena, patients are charged higher and higher copays, while reimbursement is decreased for health care providers, and dozens of hoops added for both the patient and providers to jump through as well as increased denials. Many people simply are at the mercy of the health insurance companies because the insurance companies count on the fact that most people do NOT understand their policies and do not know how or when to appeal denials. Denials are very common and can vary from state to state, policy to policy AND even with-in the insurance company itself..depending on who processed the claim!
The ACA requires that insurance companies provide packages of essential benefits that are often not covered now. And while patient cost sharing will still be high….health care is costly and getting more so, everyone’s out of pocket cost will be capped, which is not the case today…an important point! Health care costs currently have no caps and this is what is driving the disasterous issues of health care for Americans today. We are facing serious economics and cost of health care must be brought down. A recent Institute of Medicine analysis estimates that a third of what we spend on health care is wasted!
Fortunately providers nation wide ARE developing strategies to lower cost of services while improving patient out comes. It can and is being done….driven by the ACA launch!
Another very important part of the ACA is guaranteed coverage to patients with pre-existing conditions. This may increase some premiums and patients with more complex needs come into the system. Costs is the primary reason people do not have health care insurance, and new subsidies (combined with cost-sharing assistance so lower income families can use the coverage) significantly reduce the financial barriers in 2014.
New premium subsidies will attract large numbers of new applicants to the non-group market, many in good health. The individual responsibility provision of the ACA will add an additional incentive for health people to purchase coverage, and restricting access to annual and special enrollment periods will reduce the likelihood that people will wait until they develop health care problems before seeking coverage. In addition, to address transition issues (I.e., the concern that the less healthy will be first to enrol), the ACA provides for $20 billion (a meaningful amount given the size of the market) in transitional reinsurance to offset adverse selection (loss of some current insurance plans) in the first three years of the program.
Juan, I suggest if you want to discuss this very complex issue with any proficiency, you read the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act….Obama Care, before you attempt to give information about it. I have, it’s not impossible as some conservatives insist and in fact many in congress refused to even read it before they made any decisions about it.
Margaret Mitchell, MSRN, CNS
“Return to Sender-Address Unknown” ; )
Maggie, Please where are you checking? I have it here! http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43907 or look for “The Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2013 to 2023” on Google and then on page 61. Sorry but the CBO is my source, not a newspaper article. I even copied word for word from the CBO report. If you do not like what the CBO estimates, well you should file your grievance with the CBO not with me. By the way,I have studied it. And I still think it is a bad idea. You continue with you utopian centralized leviathan, the best and the brightest can micromanage the life and healthcare of hundreds of millions. I find it amusing. I repeat these are the CBO estimates. Now regarding the so called “death panels” I suggest you stop using Palin as a shield and just have a talk with Paul Krugman, I’m sure you know who he is. See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aogCaGv9i78 and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tDnvmOQDkkw
Thank you for that Maggie! 🙂
WSCP – Faux News? No. Try reding the CBO report…
Wow, what a discussion! And Paul even added some humor! LOL
Maggie, you are an encyclopedia of knowledge about the ACA, being a nurse as a major plus. I am overwhelmed by your detailed knowledge and analysis of the law. You have floored me with your discussion!
Juan, I see what you are saying on Page 61 of CBO, but realize an estimate so far ahead in years is not very reliable in the first place.
I am tempted to sit here, eat popcorn, and enjoy this debate, which all began, ironically, over a postal cutback in service! LOL
So go at it, Lady and Gentleman, and with comedy relief from Paul! LOL
The age-rating rules of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA )and the blanket prohibition on pre-existing condition exclusions will destabilize insurance markets. Effective in 2014, Section 1201(4) of PPACA imposes new federal rules on how health insurers may “rate,†or price, their products. Under the new rules, insurers will be allowed to vary premiums for coverage in the individual and small-group markets using only four factors: (1) by self-only versus family coverage, (2) by geographic “rating area,†(3) by age, and (4) by tobacco use. Under prior law, insurers and employer self-insured health plans are required to provide coverage to enrollees in employer-sponsored plans on a guaranteed-issue basis and are prohibited from varying premiums based on individual health status. Sections 1201(2) and (4) of PPACA extend those requirements to the individual market as well, effective January 1, 2014. The effects of PPACA’s new rating rules will be to increase premiums (particularly for younger adults), increase the costs of coverage subsidies, and destabilize insurance markets.
Younger adults will be particularly hard-hit by PPACA’s new restriction on age rating of premiums. The natural variation by age in medical costs is about 5 to 1—meaning that the oldest group of (non-Medicare) adults normally consumes about five times as much medical care as the youngest group. Thus, if an average 64-year-old consumes five times as much medical care as an average 21-year-old, PPACA’s stipulation that an insurer cannot charge a 64-year-old more than three times what it charges a 21-year-old will have the effect of artificially “compressing†normal age-related premium variations. This mandated “rate compression†forces insurers to both under-price coverage for older people and overprice coverage for younger individuals. Actuaries estimate that the effect will be to increase premiums for those ages 18–24 by 45 percent and those ages 25–29 by 35 percent while decreasing premiums for those ages 55–59 by 12 percent and those ages 60–64 by 13 percent. Forcing insurers to significantly overprice coverage for young adults will also result in more subsidies going to healthy young people than would otherwise be necessary if insurers had instead been allowed to continue charging lower premiums that more accurately reflect their lower health care costs. So, while younger adults generally tend to be in good health, they also tend to earn less than older workers with more experience. That combination makes young adults more sensitive to changes in the price of health insurance and more likely to decline coverage if it becomes more expensive. Indeed, young adults are already the age cohorts that are most likely to be uninsured. According to the latest Census data, 31 percent of those ages 19–24 are uninsured and 30 percent of those ages 25–29 are uninsured. Those two cohorts combined (ages 19–29) account for 30 percent of the total U.S. uninsured population and 36.6 percent—over a third—of all uninsured adults. Thus, imposing rating rules that artificially increase the cost of health insurance for uninsured young adults is contrary to the goal of increasing health insurance coverage.
Ronald; that is my point! In August the CBO underestimated, they said 4 million would lose the coverage. Now they say, 7 millions. What if they still are underestimating? You know very well the CBO’s history of underestimating deficits and debts!
Good grief!
Oh Maggie, the person who refused to read it was Nancy Pelosi, remember,”we have to pass the bill to find out what is in it..” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=usJ-pMomvLQ Or Democrat John Conyers “Why would I read the health care bill if I don’t understand what’s in it?” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t32ckkdlcao
Juan when you start spewing the Heritage Foundation practically word for word you lose all credibility as far as I am concerned. I don’t think you do know the bill, you just pretend you do LOL!
The Heritage Foundation is committed to one thing…anti Obama.
Any organization that touts Rush Limbaugh as a primary member is laughable.
The ACA is complex and it does need to be adjusted. If the Republicans had worked WITH the President and helped create and develop the bill instead of working to destroy it, then we might be further along than we are now!
Whether you want to admit it or not, our health care system is broken, inefficient and to expensive..often beyond the reach of even middle class families. I have worked in it for for almost 40 years so I think I can speak with some authority and expertise.
Americans are suffering because of this broken, profit driven health care insurance system. Lack of access to care, to affordable health insurance and rising health care costs is ruining families. This is the United States of America! You right wingers are constantly ranting that American needs to lead… What we should only lead when it comes to our military and war? We shouldn’t lead when it comes to the welfare of our own citizens? Give me a break!
FYI-the US spends substantially more on health care per capita than other developed countries. This does not mean our health care is better.. Based on findings of several studies on comparison data of health status the US system does not perform better…does not lead in health care for our citizens than systems in countries that spend less. On many measures the US health status is inferior. Why is ok? We have the best, most expensive military in the world but our health care is in the gutter. Sorry is unacceptable to me and most compassionate, intelligent human beings .
The growth of health care costs in our country a long-term threat to our country. Of course those on the right complain that the government should not be responsible for health care for Americans. They rant that doing so poses a long term threat to public and private budgets. I believe these scar, fear mongering budget projections should be viewed skeptically particularly when brandished by right wing deficit hawks who want to cut government according to their conservative or libertarian ideology.
Before I defer to amateurs outside their fields of expertise who opine that we need to ration health care to Americans, I will instead rely on medical economic experts why US health care costs are totally out of line compared to those in other countries. It’s not rocket science. The problem with the U.S. health care system is not that Americans use too much health care compared to other countries, but that Americans, as consumers and taxpayers, pay far more than people in other countries for the same medical goods and services….like pharmaceuticals , than any other country.
In response to the Supreme Court decision on the constitutionality of the ACA I think Rabbi David Saperstein said it best and reflects the feelings of the majority of Americans:
“Today is a bright day for our nation, especially for those whose access to health care is fragile. Today’s historic ruling on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is a victory for those who believe that health care is a fundamental right, and especially given the lead opinion by Chief Justice Roberts, a victory for the court itself.
For too long the U.S health care system has been plagued by injustice and inefficiencies. Today‘s ruling ensures that the ACA will go forward and Americans will now have the chance to see the benefit’s the individual mandate can bring to their health, such as prevention and emergency care, affordable prescription drugs, and insurance despite preexisting conditions. .
The ACA can now bring the health insurance system closer to reflecting our higher aspirations, not the lowest common denominatorâ€.
Do I continue with my utopian centralized leviathan, the best and the brightest can micromanage the life and healthcare of hundreds of millions idea… You’re damned right… I am my brother’s keeper. And Juan, you do not amuse me.
Juan you and I are so far apart in our beliefs and humanity I can hardly stand to read your entries. You obnoxiously purport an expansive comprehension of every topic, and or situation when in reality, you are a fake. Sorry, I call them as I see them.
You can continue to live in your corrosive, destructive beliefs that the interests of some individuals are more important than the welfare and the interests of the community, the corporation, and the nation. The right wing in this country has become so fringe and extreme that it exists by catering to such fringe and selfish people. This tactic, this strategy, and it’s outcomes have been terribly destructive to our nation, our economy, and our people. A society or an organization will be ruined by the selfish and their selfishness. So it goes, so it always goes.
*****Dr. Feinman, thank you for your very kind words. Coming from you, they mean a great deal. I have followed your blog for years and have always found you to be fair, just and always factually correct. You are an brilliant educator and a decent human being to the core.
Thank you for the years you have devoted to this blog and to your readers.
Thanks, Maggie, for your kind words in return! I try my best, but do not claim to have all the answers, but I continue to try to learn what is truth and what is falsehood!
Maggie,
I feel the same way in regards to Juan’s entries.
Maggie: Why is it that if one does not agree with the statist solutions to everything then one is considered to have corrosive, destructive beliefs, selfish and the scum of the earth practically? I didn’t insult you. Since when are the statists the owners of all that is good, compassionate, loving and caring? I studied the ACA during a spring semester last year at the UM Law School, and wrote a 43 page paper on it. And my Professor was of course a left wing nut job! LOL! So I know all the so called benefits. It was very fun refuting and pointing out the many inconsistencies regarding those so called benefits. I used all sources from the statist left to the Heritage and more, so I don’t see what is the problem if I use one of the sources? In any event you do not reply nor refute what I have posted. Instead you insult and go on an anger rant. You and the left are not the sole proprietors of compassion and caring. You as you admitted believe a small intellectual elite can decide and micromanage what is best for the rest of us us, from what we should eat, drink, and our healthcare. I know all about the studies where it is claimed that the US health care system is deficient when compared to other countries. The thing is they don’t compare apples to apples. My favorite is the infant mortality rate comparison. How can you make a true comparison when some countries consider that if a baby dies up to 24 hrs after birth they consider it as not having been born alive while in the US if a baby dies a minute after birth it is considered as born alive and is counted for the mortality rate? Also the left always compares the US with Cuba! As if the Cuban government gives reliable statistics. Finally when Republicans met with Obama in that phony live TV Healthcare Summit talk about the ACA, when McCain finished reasonably laying out the concern his constituency had regarding the law and the special deals within the law all Obama could say is the election is over, all you are doing is repeating talking point etc etc . That was just a perfect demonstration of the cockiness and disrespect Obama has for those that don’t agree with him and those that point out certain flaws he does not want to hear about. He just cannot tolerate it, he is just like you, very intolerant. As you said yourself “I can hardly stand your entries”. Just like the President , he can hardly stand dissent. And you guys are suppose to be the “liberal” and “tolerant” bunch!? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_i0bDbYUUhY
One more thing Maggie, this started because I pointed out the CBO estimates the 7 million people were going to lose coverage due to the ACA. I even posted the link and page number to it. All you said was that the report does not exist. Talk about denial.
Juan
You calling anyone who is not Conservative “statists” is an inuslt.
The Framers did not view “We the People†exclusively as individuals, as the Preamble makes clear:
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Those words plainly do not mean “you’re on your own.â€
The Framers clearly did not establish or envision a society based on radical libertarianism.
No,I am not calling anyone who is not a conservative a statist, I just call statist those who promote such policies which are statist. If you believe that the solution to most of our problems come through government intervention, then you are a statist. Of course there are a variety of degrees, but I believe it was at the Democrat National Convention that the phrase “Government is the Only Thing we all belong to”. Based on “We the People†written in the U.S. Constitution, we do not “all belong to the government,†the government belongs to us. The United States government is paid for by the people and the politicians who serve in the United States government are elected by the people. Finally “We the People” is not the same as “We the Masses.” We are free individual citizens with individual rights, not a collective mass. We cooperate freely with each other, not forced to by top down government. We are a generous, and sharing people. As individuals that make up our civil society we are the most generous people on the face of the earth, with no other government or people donating the millions of dollars we do for international charity and aid. And I am not talking about government foreign aid. So we as free citizens of this nation have for over two centuries taken care of our brothers and sisters , family and not family, and neighbors , that have been in need. All this without the centralized bureaucratic leviathan. This is not radical libertarianism, nor has it ever been a you are on your own nation.
ROFLMAO!
I define progressivism as the belief that we should use the tools of government to advance important individual and societal goals that individuals cannot reasonably achieve on their own and/or that the free market will not provide.
The Right’s philosophy of vilifying government as an evil entity that needs to largely be eliminated is detached from reality and does little to benefit the American people.
Whether we need more government in this country really depends on the answer to three other questions. First, is there room for improvement in government programs? Have we reached the limits of what government can do in most policy areas, or could expanding these current programs produce significant added benefits for the public? Second, are any of our current social and economic problems worsening? Are we facing new and serious threats to our well-being? If so, this would logically indicate the need for more government. And finally, can we rely on markets and individual effort to solve these current and emerging problems? If so, then we don’t need more government. But if markets and individual initiative are not up to the task, this bolsters the case for a more collective, governmental approach.
Here are some rebuttals I agree with concerning the Right’s criticisms of government: http://www.governmentisgood.com/feature.php?fid=14
Again , excessive government power is bad, not government per se. I am not promoting the abolition of government, that would be anarchy, and I am not an anarchist. Only people are either good or evil. History shows that the greater the government the smaller the individual. It is the nature of man in power. That is why its power over our lives must be limited. To your 3 questions, history has proven that government never reaches its limits as to what some believe it can do in most policy areas. For the left it is never enough. I remember Medicare , Medicaid these programs were going to solve the healthcare issue for the elderly and poor.The war on poverty was going to end poverty. But it wasn’t enough. It is a repetitive exercise, the promoters of government programs come up with a new program for this or that issue, the problem is not solved,and then unintended consequences provoke more problems. What is the response? “If you would only give us more power we will get it right this time.” In other words you know why there is never an end? Because utopia is just that ,it is unachievable. And that’s the catch. We have lived for more than 8 decades in an ever expanding government with more and more power over our lives. And there is no end in sight. In a few years , because of the failure of the ACA , I bet you anything that Democrats will want to expand it even more, to have more power, just to make things right. It is an un-contsricted vision of the world, when in reality the most we can do are trade-offs. That we are limited in what it is humanly possible to do, that we cannot micromanage the life, fortunes and health of over 300 million people.
Sighs and rolls eyes.
A very interesting discussion, and I applaud White Southern Christian Progressive, for her definition of “progressivism”.
Juan, do you propose wiping out the New Deal and Great Society, all because there are flaws and imperfections? It sounds like you would wish for such a “utopia” as the “laissez faire” Gilded Age of the last third of the 19th century!
The destructive effects of statistm. If this were not true, it would be unbelievable. You could not make this up, let alone imagine it. Argentina’s food prices are out of control. Just ponder what an absurdity that is. Argentina arguably has the best beef and grain growing regions on the planet. The Pampas are grasslands that run from the cooler south to the subtropical regions of the north. They are roughly equal in size to the United States’ agricultural zones; but with only one-eighth the population of the United States, almost all of Argentina’s produce is available for export. Argentina has outproduced America in beef products at times. A relatively small population blessed with an enormously large fertile agricultural base; it is inconceivable that Argentina should be having to freeze food prices. Yet, President Cristina Kirchner’s Administration is having to do just that. When one looks at Argentina’s history, one stands amazed at how its governments can make such abysmally bad decisions with frightening regularity. It beggars description. Argentina has food, oil, gas, natural wealth, and industry. It has high rates of literacy, with a primarily European population; and no major racial problems. In 1929, it was the fourth richest per capita country on the planet. Only the USA, Britain, and Canada outperformed Argentina. By 1945, after grain and beef sales during the war, even Britain was in debt to Argentina.
The first decades of the twentieth century were a period of increasing prosperity and political freedom. The first freely elected government took power in 1916 and by 1929 Argentina was the fourth richest country in the world in terms of income per head. A coup in 1930 ushered in a series of military governments which lasted, with brief intervals of civilian rule, until 1983.
Argentina has suffered a succession of regimes of both the left and right, all of which practiced government interference in the economy at levels of incompetence and corruption so massive that it has become the stuff of world-renowned legend. Musicals have been written about it. Argentina has now dropped out of the top 50 countries in per capita income. How do you wreck a country like Argentina? It should have been the first or second richest country on the planet, surpassing even us Americans. Food for thought. Pun intended.
Exactly right Professor!
Juan, what you have discussed and explained about Argentina is indeed a great tragedy of horrible proportions. I was well aware of much of this before you explained it so well here.
However, to use the example of Argentina as, somehow, the forerunner of what the United States will or might become, is unfair, as we are not about to have a military dictatorship, and are not about to elect Juan Peron types, and if you try to say Obama is like Peron, you will lose ALL credibility.
The US will never be like Argentina, but the only way it could happen is IF we allow the top one or two percent, already the wealthiest elite in the whole world, to continue to destroy our economy by their selfishness and greed, and willingness to ignore the rights and needs of 98 percent of the population, as has been occurring, due to the right wing extremism of the Reagan and Bush years.
Any sane person who gets away from ideology knows that it is the Progressive Era, The New Deal, and The Great Society, which ameliorated the worst aspects of unbridled capitalism, and that Reagan and Bush II and their party have done everything imaginable to bring us back to the pre Progressive Era–the Gilded Age. That is the REAL threat to America, and what is happening now is a necessary transition, or else, a complete breakdown of American society for the benefit of an elite oligarchy.
So Argentina is not the US, unless we allow it to happen, and we are not about to do that, whether you like the trend we are in, or not. American democracy and opportunity will be strengthened by the American people working against the power of the Koch Brothers, and their ilk, and the power of Walmarts and others who think this country is their “playground”, and that they are living in the age of Rockefeller, Morgan, Vanderbilt, Ford, Rockefeller et al BEFORE regulation and social justice came along and transformed America!
Juan, also, I wish to point out that Argentina has been a nation that has allowed the military and the Catholic Church to have too much power, which has done great harm.
That is one reason why President Eisenhower warned against the “Military-Industrial Complex” taking over America, so well stated in his Farewell Address on January 17, 1961. Too many Presidents have allowed this to develop further, particularly LBJ, Nixon, Reagan and the two Bushes, lesser so under Carter, Clinton and Obama.
And that is why the GOP connection to the Religious Right is so dangerous, and allowing their right wing agenda to determine the issue of women’s rights to an abortion, gay rights and gay marriage, and promotion of “creationism” and “intelligent design” over evolution, is setting America back, rather than dealing with the 21st century we live in. We are supposed to have separation of church and state, as the Founding Fathers emphasized, with most of them not believing in organized religion, or at least skeptical about it, and instead promoting Deism and the Enlightenment.
So the battle against the Military Industrial Complex and organized religion controlling our politics is the battle to prevent America from becoming another Argentina, indeed a tragic story!