Why Our Record Inequality?

 Financial FAQs

“Why are we the only developed country without universal health care, tuition free public college, mandated paid vacations and paid child leave, among other benefits, all major indicators of social well-being? We should not need a Michael Moore documentary, such as his latest Where To Invade Next, to tell us what we either no longer provide to our citizens or that cost more?” H Green/Huffington Post

CIA World Factbook

I first wrote a version of this column in 2016, on seeing what I consider to be Michael Moore’s best documentary, Where to Invade Next, a portrait of what other countries have taken from us that we no longer provide for our own citizens, a better standard of living

Nobelist Robert Shiller lamented this fact in a recent New York Times Upshot column. "Economic inequality is already a concern, but it could become a nightmare in the decades ahead, and I fear that we are not well equipped to deal with it."

In fact, the latest CIA World Factbook statistics have told Americans for years that we have a very unequal society; in fact the greatest income inequality in the developed world.

The US is ranked 102nd in the Gini inequality index of 145 countries that the CIA measures for income distribution. Only China of major countries is lower. Even Russia has less income inequality.

And it is this statistic that best highlights the social benefits that all Americans no longer enjoy. For instance, US residents going to public colleges and universities paid no tuition until the 1970s, making a university education prohibitively expensive. 

Another measure that helps to smooth out income inequality is an adequate national minimum wage, which is still $7.25 per hour in many states that did not enact a higher minimum wage of their own, whereas Australia’s national minimum wage, a country with similar demographics, is $16 per hour for a full time working adult.

Why aren't we equipped to deal with it? Dr. Shiller and even Angus Deaton co-discoverer with wife Ann Case of the exploding drug and suicide rates of non-college educated white adults, commenting on what he called the "grotesque expansions in inequality of the past 30 years," gave a pessimistic prediction: "Those who are doing well will organize to protect what they have, including in ways that benefit them at the expense of the majority."

And that has happened since the 1970s and the dominance of free market, so-called Laissez Faire ideologies that strove to cut taxes and government regulations for the sole purpose of protecting the wealth “at the expense of the majority” which has resulted in the election of Donald Trump twice.

Yet we do know how to level the playing field. We should reenact the labor laws of earlier years that allowed collective bargaining and disallowed the right to work laws in 25 states where a mass exodus from unions occurred with the loss of manufacturing jobs that paid higher wages and salaries. Then raise the income tax rate that prevailed before President Reagan succeeded in lowering taxes of the wealthiest 70 percent of Americans.

We could also pass real universal health coverage that all other countries enjoy. It would lower health costs--maybe to what it is in other developed countries, which is 50 percent less than Americans currently pay.

So, we do know how to enact economic programs that create a more equal society. European countries have succeeded via higher tax rates but provide many more services and at much cheaper costs than so-called private enterprise.

Private enterprise has been allowed to decimate the public good to such a degree that the CIA World Factbook showed an unpleasant fact; we are in danger of becoming a developing country in the company of other Third World, developed countries once again.

And because of it, the CIA announced this year the Trump administration is no longer allowing its publication, in a vain attempt to hide the damage over the last 30 years that such income inequality has done to our democracy.

Harlan Green © 2026

Follow Harlan Green on Twitter: https://twitter.com/HarlanGreen

Make Healthcare More Equal!

 Answering Kennedy’s Call

Healthcare is back in the news, and Republicans still don’t get its importance as an election issue in its continuing efforts to repeal Obamacare, the 2010 Affordable Care Act (ACA), enacted that I wrote about in 2017 in the Huffington Post.

The Republican Party is now Trump’s party, and nothing has changed. Trump’s failed effort in 2017 to repeal the health-care law was blasted at the time over the prospect of millions of Americans losing their health insurance. Senator John McCain killed Republican’s last attempt in 2017 when I first wrote about it.

“Americans have just avoided another health care disaster in voting down the Senate’s ‘skinny’ Obamacare Repeal and Replace bill,” I said then. “Even though maintaining most of the taxes to pay for the Medicaid portion, it would have made insurance coverage prohibitively expensive for those older and sicker users with the removal of the private and employer mandate requirements that would cause younger and healthier people to leave the insurance markets.”

“Republicans' Obamacare repeal bill would leave 17 million more people uninsured next year, and 32 million more in 2026, the Congressional Budget Office said in a 2017 estimate. Premiums would double by 2026…By 2026, three quarters of the population would live in areas with no insurers participating in the non-group market, due to upward pressure on premiums and downward pressure on enrollment, the report found.”

This is even “Although overshadowed in the national political discourse by discussions about the importance of the economy, immigration, or abortion, voters have expressed that health care continues to be one of their highest priorities,” said a recent Brookings commentary.

“In fact, a May 2024 poll by Pew found that health care was the third-highest issue priority for voters, garnering a robust 57% from respondents”, continued Brookings.

Yet former President Donald Trump on the 2024 campaign trail said once again that he is “seriously looking at alternatives” to the Affordable Care Act if he returns to the White House, reports the NYTimes, “reigniting his longstanding crusade against former President Barack Obama’s signature health-care law.”

Then why do Republicans continue to attack Obamacare when it is so popular? It’s total self-interest, the hubris of the entitled, now in stark relief. Republicans have opposed almost any government-run social welfare legislation. Remember Bush II’s attempts to privatize social security, which would have raised its cost astronomically and given his Wall Street backers a multi-billion-dollar windfall?

This first became evident in Ronald Reagan’s 1980 original campaign slogan, “government is the problem”, which was a ploy to divert at least $1 trillion from wage earners to the holders of capital by busting the labor unions and cutting taxes for the wealthiest. It was the start of a new Gilded Age that created great wealth for the top 10 percent and the great inequality we have today.

America now has the worst income inequality in the developed world, according to the CIA World Factbook. And studies have shown that those countries with the most inequality also rank lowest in healthcare benefits.

The U.S. was in 106th place of the 149 countries in income inequality as ranked by the CIA’s World Factbook; with a Gini inequality index of developing countries like Peru and Cameroon in 2017. Whereas Finland and the Scandinavian countries are at the top of equality rankings, Germany and France are 12th and 20th, respectively, as I’ve highlighted in past columns. The higher the index, the greater the gap between wealthy and poorer citizens of a country’s population.

Another June 2024 Hart Research And Protect Our Care Poll cited by Protect Our Care, a social welfare nonprofit, found that over 60 percent of voters view Obamacare favorably.

Its many features include pre-existing condition coverage and no-cost preventive care, as well as allowing young adults on parents’ insurance. There is also broad support (82% favor, 47% strongly favor) for permanently lowering the cost of premiums for people who buy insurance through the ACA.

ProtectOurHealth.org

A recent NY Times article reported that more than 45 million people are enrolled in Affordable Care Act-related coverage, according to a recent report from the Department of Health and Human Services. A record number of people — more than 20 million — have signed up for plans on the act’s marketplaces this year, according to the Biden administration.”

What would happen if Republicans return Donald Trump to power? Americans already have the worst health outcomes in the developed world, precisely because America is the only developed country—in fact, even of undeveloped countries—that doesn’t have universal coverage.

The result is one of the highest birth death rates, as well as diabetes, heart and other infectious disease rates—which are diseases usually associated with poorer, undeveloped countries and regions.

On the other hand, a 2016 Commonwealth Club study lists Obamacare’s benefits:

“…evidence indicates that the ACA has likely acted as an economic stimulus, in part by freeing up private and public resources for investment in jobs and production capacity. Moreover, the law’s payment and other cost-related reforms appear to have contributed to the marked slowdown in health spending growth seen in recent years.”

The accrued savings in health care spending relative to their projected growth prior to the ACA are substantial: Medicare alone is now projected to spend $1 trillion less between 2010 and 2020.

The lobbies behind the Obamacare repeal effort have succeeded in making more Americans ill. I don’t even want to imagine what percentage of the 32 million would ultimately lose their coverage, if Trump keeps his promise to repeal Obamacare.

Senator McCain said back then that now is the time for Republicans and Democrats to work together in “regular order” to craft something better, maybe a universal healthcare bill that insures all Americans?

That would truly make Americans healthier.

Harlan Green © 2024

Follow Harlan Green on Twitter: https://twitter.com/HarlanGreen

Let's Make America More Equal Again!-Part 2

 Answering Kennedy’s Call

Piketty-Saez

Why did our record income inequality begin to worsen in 1980, as can be seen from the above graph? The Arab-OPEC oil embargo of 1973 was the first indication that Big Business under the newly created Business Roundtable of corporate executives wanted more of the national income pie.

No one liked the long gas station lines and fears America could run out of oil, so it was relatively easy for fear mongers to push through economic changes that lessened the incomes of working folk and increased the incomes of Big Business.

The fossil fuel industry needed more money to find new oil sources, and create new technologies such as fracking, so they wanted a larger income share of the national income, which was achieved by suppressing wages and cutting taxes without cutting spending. and it became a national security priority with the ongoing cold war and arms race that followed.

The Reagan administration ran up the first $400 billion federal budget deficit during his eight years in part because tax rates for the wealthiest were slashed. The highest personal income tax rate was first reduced from 70 to 50 percent in 1981, then down to a 28 percent maximum personal tax rate in 1986 when he was re-elected.

Because most of the income gain went to the top 10 percent, the Reagan tax cuts became known as ‘trickle-down” economics. It could also be called “stealth economics,” because Wikipedia cites at the time, “people weren't substantially informed about the tax cuts, as an ABC News Poll in September 1986 showed that 63% of Americans didn't know enough about the Tax Reform Act of 1986 to say if it was good or bad.”

Republicans sold it to the public with an unproven theory. A Doctoral student named Arthur Laffer in the 1970s had convinced conservative Republicans with a diagram on a napkin (the so-called Laffer Curve) that lower taxes gave people the incentive to work harder and earn more, whereas higher taxes discouraged work.

It's hard to believe such a theory today because the federal budget deficit only grew under the Republicans’ trickle-down theory. GW Bush created the first $1 trillion deficit, and Donald Trump’s added another $5 trillion to the federal budget deficit with his tax cuts. That’s as good proof as any that lower taxation rates didn’t increase tax revenues enough to pay down the extra debt as promised.

Perhaps the most shameful result of the redistribution of Americans’ wealth, the richest country in the world, was we now had the worst income inequality of developed countries, as measured by the CIA’s authoritative World Factbook.

It measures the income inequality of countries with what is called the Gini Index coefficient of families that calculated the percentage of wealth held by a country’s different socio-economic brackets. A higher percentage means a larger share of a nation’s income is held by the wealthier segment of its population.

“The more nearly equal a country's income distribution, the lower its Gini index, e.g., a Scandinavian country with an index of 25,” says the World Factbook. “The more unequal a country's income distribution, the higher its Gini index, e.g., a Sub-Saharan country with an index of 50. If income were distributed with perfect equality the index would be zero; if income were distributed with perfect inequality, the index would be 100.”

The latest US Gini index Coefficient of family income was 39.8 percent, which is even higher than Russia’s, and close to that of African and South American Third World countries, whereas the European Union averaged 30.8 percent in its most up-to-date report.

That is why two out of three Americans are dissatisfied with the way income and wealth are currently distributed in the U.S. This includes three-fourths of Democrats and 54 percent of Republicans, according to a Gallup poll, I said last week.

It is also why much of that inequality is in the Midwestern rust belt states that lost blue-collar manufacturing jobs during the globalization and multi-nationalization of US corporations that President Trump promised to bring back again.

It is also why an election-denier even won one term as President and can endanger our Democracy with a Supreme Court majority now giving him a helping hand.

The most efficient way to right the inequality is to bring back tax rates that prevailed during Americans’ most prosperous times, the 1950s to 1970s when the maximum personal tax rate was 70 percent, or even higher.

The maximum tax rate was 92 percent during President Eisenhower’s administration because we were building the nation’s post-WWII infrastructure and modern technologies, as well as going to the moon.

President Eisenhower was reputed to have said, “Because high corporate tax rates create incentives for big business to spend on things like new locations, new hires, new equipment and product research and development which are deducted from taxable earnings, in other words, it’s better to spend a majority of earnings on expansion than to horde it and pay Uncle Sam 90% of it.”

No one likes higher taxes, of course. And much of the middle class bought into Reagan’s myth of trickle-down economics that brought on its demise and poverty levels we have today. But if Americans won’t pay the bill for modernizing the US economy, rather than put off payment with more borrowing, America’s record income inequality will not improve.

Harlan Green © 2024

Follow Harlan Green on Twitter: https://twitter.com/HarlanGreen

Our Record Income Inequality Needs Fixing

Financial FAQs

FRED

In an earlier column I imagined what could have been accomplished if the $2 trillion given to corporations in the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act had been put into upgrading our infrastructure, instead of given to corporations and used to boost their stock prices and executive incomes. We might have avoided what will become another severe, maybe Great Recession lasting years,as I said.

This downturn could be as disastrous for the US economy with upwards of 30 million applicants filing initial unemployment claims, and an unemployment rate that approaches 20 percent, if the $ trillions just raised in support of a revival is not put to better use.

The COVID-19 pandemic offers a once is a lifetime opportunity to make drastic changes in American capitalism that would level the playing field for salaried workers most affected with the loss of jobs. Most of the $$ must be spent in the public sector for infrastructure, education, healthcare, R&D, and environmental protection, it the US is to recover from this any future pandemic.

The decline in public spending encapsulates why America still has record income inequality equaling that of the Great Depression. Most economists agree the starving of government programs that would benefit working folk is a major cause of most recessions, including the Great Depression and Great Recession that must be corrected if there is to be a robust recovery.

And we are dependent on those salaried working folk to generate 70 percent of U.S. economic activity, yet at least 80 percent are earning no more than in the 1970s with inflation factored in.

I say this because we have always been a fragmented country with a weak federal system, a system of red and blue states still fighting over the same issues that prevailed during the civil war, resulting in the least regulated capital and labor markets in the developed world with no universal health care.

The record decline of the American worker’s income and labor organizations that supported it since World War II is a long story, though I will attempt to condense its history without too much simplification.

First a fact. The most recognized measure of income inequality is the Gini inequality coefficient, that calculates the percentage of income earned by different segments of a country’s populace. The U.S. ranks 118^th in the list of 157 countries compiled by the CIA World Factbook, which is below every other developed country in the equal distribution of national income—between Peru and Cameroon.

We know about our record income inequality from countless stories of rising poverty levels, homelessness, and the Occupy Wall Street movement that first focused attention on the extreme wealth of the top one percent of income earners. French economist Thomas Piketty and UC Berkeley economist Emmanuel Saenz were the first to plough through 100 years of tax returns that measured income differences of the wealthy and poor.

The rise in income inequality and poverty levels was also due to the decline in progressive tax rates. The maximum income tax rate topped out at 92 percent during Eisenhower administration, uniting Republicans and Democrats to build our modern post-WWII public infrastructure, before declining to 36 percent today.

After the 1973 Arab oil embargo that boosted oil prices and inflation to unacceptable levels, a new kind of economics was born. Some called it trickle-down economics, others supply-side economics. The idea was to shift most profits to the side of business owners so they would produce more by cutting taxes and regulations.

They used an old French economic theory as the justification for such a shift in economic thinking—Says Law named after an earlier French economist. It said that producers should maximize their profits, and enough would trickle down to the workers that produced their increased profits. Everyone would then be happy, there would be enough to go around, a rising tide would lift all boats, etc., etc.

However, lowered taxes did not raise all boats, but it did create soaring federal debt. And labor had lost its clout as higher-paid manufacturing jobs went overseas, leaving the U.S. with lower-paying, service jobs at warehouses and transportation hubs.

The end result was that most industries were deregulated creating today’s dog-eat-dog capitalism that has starved government of public services and rules that would mitigate the predatory behavior of modern capitalism.

All public sector investment consequently declined—in education, Research and Development (that created the Internet and sent us to the moon), and modern infrastructure that would boost our declining labor productivity.

There is really no other choice but reform of the economic system Americans live with. A country that unites behind the support of its workers by giving them a greater of our national wealth—sich asbetter healthcare, education, while fixing our infrastructure—and raising taxes enough to keep social security and Medicare financially sound—will put US on the road to a better recovery.

Harlan Green © 2020

Follow Harlan Green on Twitter: https://twitter.com/HarlanGreen

The Results of Record Income Inequality

Financial FAQs

We know the results of trickle-down economic theory that says lower taxes and government regulations are supposed to lift all boats, as epitomized in Republicans’ latest tax bill. After the ninth year of this recovery, just 10 percent of American household benefited at all from subsequent economic growth.

In spite of the huge stock market recovery that has the S&P 500 index of largest US corporations up more than 25 percent since 2009, only the top 10 percent of income earners increased their net worth.
The busted housing bubble was a culprit, but also labor practices that have literally either outlawed collective bargaining for many workers, or enacted so called right-to-work laws that enable union members not to pay dues, even if they have benefited from union bargaining.

The result is that 25 percent of American workers earn less than poverty-level wages of $24,000 for a family of four, and household incomes haven’t risen faster than inflation since the 1980s. The national minimum wage hasn’t risen above $7.25 per hour since 2009, either.

Princeton’s Nobel laureate Angus Deaton has studied poverty and its causes for most of his professional live.

He said in a recent Project Syndicate article, a progressive journal: “Making matters worse”, he said, “more than 20 percent of workers are now bound by non-compete clauses, which reduce workers’ bargaining power—and thus their wages. Similarly, 28 US states have now enacted “right-to-work” laws, which forbid collective-bargaining arrangements that would require workers either to join unions or pay union dues. As a result, disputes between businesses and consumers or workers are increasingly settled out of court through arbitration—a process that is overwhelmingly favorable to businesses.”

Graph: Marketwatch

This is while corporate America is expected to post its best quarter of profit growth in seven years, according to Marketwatch’s Ryan Vlastelica. “For the poorest American families, in the lowest fifth of wealth, their net worth shed 29 percent over that period. Drops of at least 20 percent were also seen in every income percentile except for those in the 80-89.9 percentile, where the decline was a more modest 5 percent. The wealthiest decile, however, saw a jump of 27 percent, as seen in the above chart.”

As I have covered in countless past columns, America actually ranks among the worst countries when it comes to income inequality, based on its Gini coefficient, a measure of the wealth distribution of a country’s residents. The coefficient for the U.S. is slightly less than 0.40, which puts it roughly even with Turkey and Botswana, and more unequal than nations as Israel, Greece, Spain, and Germany. Iceland, the most equal society measured by Deutsche Bank, has a coefficient below 0.25.

There are many remedies to this situation. One has but to look at past history. Our fastest growth period was during the 1950s and 1960s, when the top income-earners’ tax bracket was 92 percent, unions were strong, and corporate CEOs earned 25 times what their employees earned. This built both the physical and digital infrastructure that gave us the record prosperity of that era. We also developed the Internet, and landed on the Moon.That tax structure was a way of redistributing income where it would do the most public good. 

Today, corporate CEOs in the largest corporations earn on average 300 times what their employees earn. We enrich the already wealthy, in other words, and neglect to plant the seed corn that would create future prosperity.

Harlan Green © 2018

Follow Harlan Green on Twitter: https://twitter.com/HarlanGreen

Why Aren't Wages Rising Faster?

Popular Economics Weekly

Everything should point to higher wages and salaries ahead for employees with a 4.3 percent unemployment rate and record corporate profits, but corporate profits go mainly to their executives and owners (and their stockholders) these days. The result is stagnant wages and household incomes.

Graph: Econoday

“Real", or inflation adjusted average hourly earnings slipped 2 tenths in July to a year-on-year 0.7 percent. This reading has been under the 1 percent line since October last year. The monthly reading for this measure did finally show some life in the prior week's employment report with an unadjusted 0.3 percent gain, but it will take a continued run of strength to level out the 2-year trend line which remains in a deep downslope, says Econoday.

It’s as if corporate bosses no longer are interested in maximizing their growth, which is the normal way to maximize profits. They have been successful in boosting profits, but mainly through financial engineering—that is, stock buybacks paid with borrowed money, or mergers and acquisitions that consolidate markets into fewer players.

This increases their monopoly powers to boost profits and resist employee calls for higher wages. It has helped to keep the stock market humming, but not the economic growth that should accompany such profits.

Wages in the United States increased 2.95 percent in May of 2017 over the same month in the previous year. But a better idea of healthy wage growth in the United States is a historical average of 6.26 percent from 1960 until 2017, reaching an all-time high of 13.77 percent in January of 1979 and a record low of -5.77 percent in March of 2009, according to Trading Economics.

Graph: Trading Economics

This is what normal wage growth should look like, if workers were earning a living wage, and inflation was rising at a normal rate. The inflation rate in the United States averaged 3.28 percent from 1914 until 2017, and was 14 percent in 1980. Wages since then have been suppressed in the name of suppressing inflation, as employees’ bargaining power has been curtailed.

That’s why the national minimum wage is still $7.25 per hour, last raised in 2009, though some cities and states are beginning to raise it to $15 per hour, which is what economists calculate is the minimum living wage for a family of four. And that is just enough to cover what a household has to pay for housing, gas, food, clothing, and other everyday items.

But it’s an uphill battle when business interests rule the markets with little push back or bargaining power held by 80 percent of the workforce that are wage earners, and we wonder why so many refuse to return to work. So we shouldn’t wonder why U.S. labor productivity, which ultimately sets our standard of living, has remained so low of late. It increased at an average annual 2.5 percent from 1948-2007, but just 1.2 percent from 2010-14.

It’s also the reason the U.S. have the highest income inequality in the developed world. The U.S. ranks 106th of the 149 countries in income inequality as ranked by the CIA’s World Factbook with a Gini inequality index of developing countries like Peru and Cameroon. 

Harlan Green © 2017

Follow Harlan Green on Twitter: https://twitter.com/HarlanGreen

Why are Americans So Unhealthy?

Financial FAQs

Americans have just avoided a health care disaster in voting down the Senate’s ‘skinny’ Obamacare Repeal and Replace bill. Even though maintaining most of the taxes to pay for the Medicaid portion, it would have made insurance coverage prohibitively expensive for those older and sicker users with the removal of the private and employer mandate requirements that would cause younger and healthier people to leave the insurance markets.

This is really the latest precipice that’s been averted. Americans already have the worst health outcomes in the developed world, precisely because America is the only developed country—in fact, of most of the rest of the undeveloped world—that doesn’t have universal coverage.

The result is one of the highest birth death rates, as well as heart, diabetes, and infectious disease rates—which are diseases usually associated with poorer, undeveloped countries and regions.

Why has this happened in the America? Because Americans have the worst income inequality in the developed world, according to the CIA World Factbook. And studies have shown that those countries with the greatest inequality also rank lowest in healthcare benefits.

Graph: Last Tech Age

The U.S. ranks 106^th of the 149 countries in income inequality as ranked by the CIA’s World Factbook; with a Gini inequality index of developing countries like Peru and Cameroon. Whereas Finland and the Scandinavian countries are at the top of equality rankings, as I’ve highlighted in past columns. The higher the index in the graph, the greater the gap between wealthy and poorer citizens of a country’s population.

This is while congress has even been attempting to take away Medicaid benefits for the poor, elderly and infirmed? It doesn’t compute. Just 3 Senators—Lisa Murkowski, Susan Collins and John McCain—were courageous enough to stand up to the conservative lobbies that would only worsen healthcare outcomes.

What if conservatives had succeeded in repealing Obamacare? “Republicans' Obamacare repeal bill would leave 17 million more people uninsured next year, and 32 million more in 2026, the Congressional Budget Office said in an estimate Wednesday. It also said premiums would double by 2026. …By 2026, three quarters of the population would live in areas with no insurers participating in the non-group market, due to upward pressure on premiums and downward pressure on enrollment, the report found.”

On the other hand, a 2016 Commonwealth Club study lists Obamacare’s many benefits. “…evidence indicates that the ACA has likely acted as an economic stimulus, in part by freeing up private and public resources for investment in jobs and production capacity. Moreover, the law’s payment and other cost-related reforms appear to have contributed to the marked slowdown in health spending growth seen in recent years.”

Some of those benefits are:

· Health care spending growth per person—both public and private—has slowed for five years.
 
· A number of ACA reforms, particularly related to Medicare, have likely contributed to the slowdown in health care spending growth by tightening provider payment rates and introducing incentives to reduce excess costs. 

· Faster-than-expected economic growth and slower-than-expected health care spending have led to multiple downward revisions of the federal deficit and projected deficits.

· These trends have also been a boon to state and local government budgets, as job growth has improved state tax revenues while cost growth in health care programs has slowed. At the same time, expanding insurance to millions of people who were previously uninsured has supported local health systems and enhanced families’ ability to pay for necessities, including health care.

· The accrued savings in health care spending relative to their projected growth prior to the ACA are substantial: Medicare alone is now projected to spend $1 trillion less between 2010 and 2020.

We can thank Senators Merkowski, Collins, and McCain that the so-called ‘freedom’ lobbies behind the Obamacare repeal efforts have not succeeded in making more Americans ill. I don’t even want to imagine the increased death totals due to lack of care of the 32 million aged and infirm that could ultimately lose their coverage.

So now is the time, in Senator McCain’s words, for Republicans and Democrats to work together in “regular order” to craft a truly bipartisan healthcare bill that could actually improve the health of Americans.

Harlan Green © 2017

Follow Harlan Green on Twitter: https://twitter.com/HarlanGreen

What Healthcare System Do Americans Want?

Popular Economics Weekly

This is a quiz. What country had the second-highest mortality from noncommunicable conditions — like diabetes, heart disease or violence — and the fourth highest from infectious disease? Also, from adolescence to adulthood to old age, what country has the highest chance of dying an early death?

The United States of America—where else, since the U.S. is the only developed country in the world without universal health care? A recent New York Times Business Insider article by Eduardo Porter highlighted a recent study by the Institute of Medicine and the National Research Council of 16 of the richest countries in the world that set out to assess our nation’s health.

The results are devastating, and show how far America has fallen behind in caring for its citizens. And the new Senate version of repeal and replace Obamacare strips even more benefits and money from Obamacare

This problem should have nothing to do with ideology, and whether access to affordable health care should be a privilege or a right. Too many Americans are dying of drug overdose and violence. Too many Americans suffer from depression, a major cause of drug abuse.

And too many Americans are obese, making them less productive and more prone to accidents in the workplace. “The United States ranks in the bottom fourth among the 30 industrialized nations in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development in terms of days lost to disability,” says Porter. “Women will lose 362 days between birth and their 60th birthday; men about 336. Mental health problems like depression will account for most.”

Graph: LastTechAge.com

But all of these statistics hide the real problem—rampant income inequality. The U.S. ranks 106^th of the 149 countries in income inequality as ranked by the CIA’s World Factbook; with a Gini inequality index of developing countries like Peru and Cameroon. Finland and the Scandinavian countries are at the top of equality, Germany and France are 12^th and 20^th, respectively. The higher the index, the greater the gap between wealthy and poorer citizens of a country’s population.

And the poorer the person, family, or community, the more prone to illness and drug use is that person, or family, or community. This is where the Senate version of repeal and replace Obamacare hurts the most—in the poorer red states that voted for President Trump.

“What’s more, the United States’ higher tolerance of poverty undoubtedly contributes to higher rates of sickness and death,” says Porter. “Americans at all socioeconomic levels are less healthy than people in some other rich countries. But the disparity is greatest among low-income groups.”

Finally contributing to our health crisis is the incredible amount of violence—both due to guns (33,000 per year killed by guns), workplace accidents, and drug abuse, that a universal health care system could treat via mental health coverages as well.

In other words, there are much higher costs because we don’t have a healthy healthcare system and we the citizens are paying those costs, rather than those that are pushing the $1.1 trillion in tax cuts that Obamacare utilizes to pay for many of those costs.

Harlan Green © 2017

Follow Harlan Green on Twitter: https://twitter.com/HarlanGreen