President Barack Obama was often accused of playing ruthless “Chicago politics” by his Republican enemies. But Obama’s biggest mistake lay not in cynicism but misplaced idealism.
Obama Mistake No. 5: Believing that public and private employers would voluntarily comply with the law.
The Affordable Care Act (ACA) requires employers to provide insurance for part-time employees who work more than 30 hours per week. Yet many employers claimed–without having to offer proof–that they couldn’t afford it.
So they limited part-time workers’ hours to 29 per week instead.
Obama was clearly surprised at this. But he shouldn’t have been.
Greed-fueled businessmen always try to avoid complying with the law–or achieve minimum compliance with it.
The Act doesn’t penalize companies for not providing health insurance coverage for part-time employees who work fewer than 30 hours.
Predictably, employers:
- Moved fulltime workers into part-time positions;
- Refused to provide their employees with medical insurance; and
- Avoided fines for non-compliance with the law.
Some employers openly showed their contempt for President Obama–and the idea that employers have any obligation to those who make their profits a reality.
One was John Schnatter, CEO of Papa John’s Pizza, who said:
- The prices of his pizzas would go up–by 11 to 14 cents per pizza, or 15 to 20 cents per order; and
- He would pass along these costs to his customers.
John Schnatter
“If Obamacare is in fact not repealed,” he told Politico, “we will find tactics to shallow out any Obamacare costs and core strategies to pass that cost onto consumers in order to protect our shareholders’ best interests.”
Thus, President Obama should have required all employers to provide insurance coverage for all of their employees, regardless of their fulltime or part-time status.
This would have produced two substantial benefits:
- All employees would have been able to obtain medical coverage; and
- Employers would have been encouraged to provide fulltime positions rather than part-time ones.
Employers would thus feel: “I’m paying for fulltime insurance coverage, so I should be getting fulltime work in return.”
If Obama considered this option, he decided against pressing for it.
Obama Mistake No. 6: Failing to closely study his proposed legislation.
Throughout his campaign to win support for the ACA, Obama had repeatedly promised: “If you like your health insurance plan, you can keep your plan. If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. Period.”
But the 906 pages of the law held a fatal catch for the President’s own credibility.
The law stated that those who already had medical insurance could keep their plans–so long as those plans met the requirements of the new healthcare law.
If their plans didn’t meet those requirements, they would have to obtain coverage that did.
But many Americans wanted to keep their current plan–even if it did not provide the fullest possible coverage.
Suddenly, the President found himself facing a PR nightmare–charged and ridiculed as a liar.
Even Jon Stewart, who on “The Daily Show,” had supported the implementation of “Obamacare,” ran footage of Obama’s “you can keep your doctor” promise.
Jon Stewart
The implication: You said we could keep our plan/doctor. Since we can’t, you must be a liar.
All of which points to a final warning offered by Niccolo Machiavelli: Whence it may be seen that hatred is gained as much by good works as by evil….
Former Democratic Presidential nominee Hillary Clinton said that, if she were elected, she would seek incremental changes in the ACA. That possibility became moot when she lost the 2016 election to Donald Trump.
Vermont U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders, on the other hand, wants a single-payer plan.
A single-payer plan would prove simpler and more comprehensive than the ACA. But the chances of its passing a Republican-dominated Congress are absolutely zero.
The election of Donald Trump seems to have finally doomed the ACA–except for one thing: Since it became law, in 2010, 22 million Americans who had never before obtained healthcare insurance now have it.
This includes even Republicans who voted for Trump–without realizing they would be losing their only tie to medical care. And now many of them are finally realizing this truth.
Thus, Republicans in the House and Senate now find themselves besieged by angry constituents at town hall meetings.
These Republicans care nothing for Americans who would be left without medical care. But they do care about their own futures–as members of Congress.
This has led to three schisms among Republicans:
- Those who still demand the complete repeal of “Obamacare.”
- Those who want the Act repealed and then replaced with an entirely different healthcare plan–which Republicans have yet to agree on. Developing this could literally take years–during which time former ACA members would have no insurance.
- Those who want Republicans to first create an alternative healthcare plan, win its Congressional approval, and then repeal the Act.
Republicans expect Democrats to sign on with their “Obamacare replacement plan.” But Democrats have made it clear: “You repeal it, you’re on your own in replacing it.”
Republicans spent eight years demanding the repeal of “Obamacare.” But now they fear that its repeal will lead to the repeal of their own political ambitions.
ABC NEWS, AL PACINO, ALLSTATE INSURANCE, ALTERNET, BANK OF AMERICA, BANKS, BUZZFEED, CBS NEWS, CHARLES SCHWAB, CNN, DAILY KOS, DRUG CARTELS, DRUG TRAFFICKING, FACEBOOK, GREED, MAFIA, MERRILL LY NCH, MERRILL LYNCH, MONEY-LAUNDERING, MOTHER JONES, MOVEON, NBC NEWS, NEWSWEEK, NICCOLO MACHIAVELLI, NPR, ORGANIZED CRIME, POLITICO, RAW STORY, REUTERS, SALON, SCARFACE, SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, SLATE, THE CHICAGO SUH-TIMES, THE CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE, THE DAILY BEAST, THE HUFFINGTON POST, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, THE WASHINGTON POST, TIME, TWITTER, U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT, USA TODAY, USA TODAY CNN
“SCARFACE” AND REAL-LIFE BANKSTERS
In Business, History, Law, Law Enforcement, Social commentary on March 3, 2017 at 10:37 amIt’s a scene familiar to anyone who’s seen Scarface, the 1983 classic starring Al Pacino as a Cuban drug dealer who makes it big in the cocaine business.
Tony Montana (Pacino) is holding court in his Florida estate. His visitor is a WASP-ish banker.
Bankers as a rule don’t make house calls. But Tony is no ordinary customer–his men literally haul bags full of bills into the bank when making deposits.
Except that now the banker has some unpleasant news for Tony:
“We’re not a wholesale operation. We’re a legitimate bank. The more cash you give me……the harder it is for me to rinse.
“The fact is I can’t take any more of your money unless I raise the rates on you.”
TONY: You gonna raise…
BANKER: I gotta do it.
BANKER: The IRS is coming….
TONY: Don’t give me that shit! Let’s talk. I’m talking. I go low, you go high. I know the game. This is business talk.
BANKER: Let me explain something. The IRS is coming down heavy on South Florida. There was a Time magazine story that didn’t help.
There’s a recession. I got stockholders I got to be responsible for. I got to do it, Tony.
TONY: We’ll go somewhere else. That’s it.
BANKER: There’s no place else to go.
TONY: Fuck you, man! Fuck you! I’ll fly the cash myself to the Bahamas. BANKER: Once maybe. Then what? You’ll trust some monkey in a Bahamian bank with millions of your hard-earned dollars? Come on, Tony. Don’t be a schmuck. Who else can you trust? That’s why you pay us what you do. You trust us.
Stay with us. You’re a well-liked customer. You’re in good hands with us.
(At this point, movie audiences burst into laughter. The line, “You’re in good hands with us” seemed directly lifted from the slogan used by Allstate Insurance: “You’re in good hands with Allstate.”)
Now, fast forward to 2014.
A Reuters news story dated May 21, 2014 noted that investigators from the Federal Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) were probing Charles Schwab and Bank of America Corporations Merrill Lynch brokerage.
The SEC wants to determine if these brokerages violated anti-money laundering rules that require financial institutions to know their customers.
Broker-dealers are required to establish, document and identify customers and verify their identities in compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act.
In 2012, David Cohen, the U.S. Treasury Undersecretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence David Cohen, ordered regulators to guarantee that financial institutions are identifying the true beneficial owners of their accounts.
The reason: Drug cartels and terrorist groups have become highly creative in hiding and transferring their illegal funds.
According to sources close to the investigation, Charles Schwab and Merrill accepted shell companies and persons with phony addresses as clients.
In both cases, some of the accounts were eventually linked to drug cartels. Some of those accounts held hundreds of thousands of dollars; others held millions.
A Texas rancher and Charles Schwab client transferred money to a holding company that was actually a shell company.
Most of the Schwab clients being investigated lived near the Mexican border. Some were linked to Mexican drug cartels.
Click here: Exclusive: SEC probes Schwab, Merrill, for anti-money laundering violations – sources | Reuters
No further stories could be found on the Internet to update the progress of these investigations.
In fact, the government should have assumed long ago that brokerage companies were engaging in such behavior.
As Niccolo Machiavelli warned in The Discourses, his landmark book on how to preserve freedom within a republic:
All those who have written upon civil institutions demonstrate…that whoever desires to found a state and give it laws, must start with assuming that all men are bad and ever ready to display their vicious nature, whenever they may find occasion for it.
Niccolo Machiavelli
If their evil disposition remains concealed for a time, it must be attributed to some unknown reason; and we must assume that it lacked occasion to show itself.
But time, which has been said to be the father of all truth, does not fail to bring it to light.
Whenever the creating of wealth becomes an end in itself, all other ends are sacrificed to this.
Greed begins in the neurochemistry of the brain. A neurotransmitter called dopamine fuels our greed. The higher the dopamine levels in the brain, the greater the pleasure we experience.
Harvard researcher Hans Breiter has found, via magnetic resonance imaging studies, that the craving for money activates the same regions of the brain as the lust for sex, cocaine or any other pleasure-inducer.
But snorting the same amount of cocaine, or earning the same sum of money, does not cause dopamine levels to increase. So the pleasure-seeker must increase the amount of stimuli to keep enjoying the euphoria.
Federal investigators need to view large concentrations of wealth as sources for at least potential corruption.
And they should ruthlessly–and routinely–investigate those sources, whether in the vaults of the Mafia or of major financial institutions.
Share this: