In the wake of the last report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics–a report reflecting the effect of Trump’s insane approach to economic matters–the Mad King responded by firing the chief labor statistician, Erika McEntarfer, a highly respected expert.
Trump has now nominated one EJ Antoni to be the chief labor statistician for the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Robert Hubbell reports that Antoni would be leaving his job at the arch-conservative Heritage Foundation, “where he specialized in generating economic propaganda that had only a passing acquaintance with economic reality. In other words, he is a perfect candidate to create fake reports about the imaginary performance of the US economy.” As Hubbell notes, although it’s rare for members of a profession to criticize one another publicly, Antoni has been an exception; he’s drawn withering criticism from numerous respected members of the economic community.
Should average Americans care who heads up the Bureau of Labor Statistics? Or for that matter, which government pooh-ba is put in charge of determining whether government should fund development of a vaccine against, say, bird flu? How much are our everyday lives affected by obscure government agencies that are charged with determining the outlines of our shared reality?
That seemed like a good question to ask Chatgpt, so I did. The AI pinpointed a number of consequences, including misguided monetary policy, with the Fed raising or lowering interest rates inappropriately, risking recession or runaway inflation. Also, in normal times, Congress and the White House rely on BLS data to design stimulus programs, tax changes or spending cuts. (These, of course, are not normal times. Bad numbers lead to bad decisions, and we can expect some terrifyingly bad decisions as a result of this latest attack on facts and real-world evidence.)
The AI also noted that it isn’t just government that relies on the data generated; private companies use BLS data to forecast demand for their products, to set wages and to make hiring and location decisions.
There was a lot more, but the bottom line was that “inaccurate BLS data can ripple from policy boardrooms to factory floors, from Wall Street to Main Street, and from short-term market moves to long-term structural harm. Even though BLS regularly revises its data to correct errors, the damage from bad initial reports—especially in fast-moving markets or politics—can’t always be undone.” In other words, even good-faith efforts by competent analysts will sometimes generate inaccurate results, and those errors can damage the economy. How much more damage can fanciful numbers manufactured for political reasons do? (Don’t look now, but we’re about to find out…)
Trump’s assault on the Bureau of Labor Statistics is consistent with MAGA’s other frantic efforts to ignore and reject much of contemporary reality. Unfortunately for these angry, unhappy people, replacing accurate economic data with propaganda will not magically usher in a more robust economy, just as jettisoning sound science will not make Americans healthier, and rewriting American history will not return White “Christian” men to social dominance.
It will simply destroy the American experiment.
If I decide that gravity is just a “theory” and jump off a tall building, my rejection of that “theory” won’t save me. Fudging the numbers at the Bureau of Labor Statistics won’t help Americans find jobs or afford groceries. No matter how desperately MAGA folks want to bend reality to their will, it just doesn’t work that way.
It’s easy to lapse into despair at the daily destruction of the America we once inhabited. There’s no use whitewashing the fact that an anti-science “health” administration threatens the lives of thousands of people unnecessarily, that insane trade “policies” will inflict enormous damage on the economy, and that– thanks to the Mad King– our global stature may never recover.
Those things and many others even worse are all true. But it’s also true that our government was far from perfect, and that the wholesale destructruction we are experiencing will–when the fever breaks–leave us with a task that is arduous, but that also will represent an opportunity to–in Biden’s phrase–build back better.
I have occasionally quoted my cousin, an eminent cardiologist, for insights into America’s fragmented healthcare system. Today, I’m sharing an op-ed he recently published with a co-author whose expertise is financial. They are looking beyond the devastation, and explaining how we might eventually build a better health system.
__________
HOW THE DEMISE OF MEDICAID MAY BENEFIT US ALL
By Morton Tavel, MD, and Paul Nolan, CPA
The recently passed “Big Beautiful Bill,’’ among its many deficiencies, contains changes that will negatively impact the already suboptimal nationwide Medicaid programs. Among these changes is a reduction of the federal funding for these various state programs, which, according to estimates of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), these provisions could result in 11.8 million fewer people enrolled in Medicaid over the next decade, meaning a loss of all financial support of healthcare for many of our neediest citizens. But, as is suggested by this title, how could such an apparently egregious act pave the way for better national healthcare? Let us now delve into the obvious answer:
PRESENT HEALTHCARE IN THE UNITED STATES
Currently, national healthcare is provided through a fragmented healthcare system, with private health insurance companies competing with each other and the government. Private insurers offer health insurance primarily through employers. The government also supports healthcare coverage through programs such as the Affordable Care Act (ACA), Federal Employees Health Benefit Plans, and Veterans Benefits, Medicare, and Medicaid. In many plans, premiums are collected through payroll taxes and general tax revenue, often leaving significant out-of-pocket costs (copays, deductibles, and coinsurance), at an unsustainable cost. The overall healthcare cost in the United States is approximately 18 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP), the highest in the world. This compares with costs in other western nations that generally range from 10-12% or lower, yielding national health and mortality rates equal or better than those of the U.S.
WHY ARE HEALTHCARE PRICES SO HIGH IN THE U.S.?
Although comparison shopping makes sense when we buy consumer goods, such normal market forces do not apply to healthcare. Negotiation of prices of various treatments is seldom available, and as costs of tests and treatments constantly rise, the multiple private insurance plans provide no effective means to control prices, simply passing on the expenses to consumers. Although the Affordable Care Act (ACA) has introduced insurance reforms that reduce the average costs to individuals, this nation’s presently excessive overall price tag continues to rise, and given our current healthcare structure, there is no evidence that these costs can be controlled. Thus, more measures are needed to solve this problem.
Insurance companies, in addition to their inability to limit prices, have balked at ACA’s requirement to spend at least 80-85 percent of their revenue on health care. By contrast, more than 98 percent of Medicare’s expenditures are devoted to this end. Estimates vary, but one-quarter to one-third of our current healthcare costs are driven by insurance companies’ profits together with their administrative costs. Thus, roughly half of these costs could be recovered under a single-payor system.
MEDICAID
Medicaid began in the 1960s, as was Medicare; however, Medicaid was not created as medical insurance but rather as a broad public welfare program to provide states with the opportunity to receive federal funding for services given to eligible, needy people, providing many important supportive, non-medical, functions. By contrast, Medicare was formed to provide broad healthcare insurance coverage for all citizens, but it has been limited to the elderly, for reasons explained below. As a result, Medicaid functions by default as a broad welfare safety net for more than 70 million impoverished Americans with spending of over $860 billion in combined state and federal funds. On average, the federal government covers about 70 percent of the program’s costs. In addition to hospital care, Medicaid recipients are covered with a broad range of custodial services that include helping those with chronic illnesses, disabilities, or age-related self-care limitations with activities of daily living that include eating, bathing, dressing, toileting, walking, and continence, etc. Although Medicaid is a joint federal and state program, each state has the flexibility to administer the program differently within broad federal guidelines. Therefore, eligibility criteria for Medicaid inclusion varies unevenly from state to state, relating to factors such as personal income, assets, dependents, disability status, and age. Although all states are required by federal law to provide Medicaid’s mandatory healthcare benefits, each state decides its own criteria for covering many specific medical procedures and payments. The average yearly national Medicaid expenditures for all needy individuals are placed at approximately $8,800. But these amounts vary widely from state to state, ranging from $10,000-$13,000 in most New England and middle west, south central, and mountain states. This is contrasted with approximately $4,000-$6000 in east, south central, west south central, and mountain states. Florida falls in this latter, lowest spending group, at approximately $5,500.
Thus, Medicaid is an inherently inequitable low-level healthcare system. In addition to relegating a substantial number of people into an inferior status, it also compensates physicians less, and in comparison to Medicare, Medicaid caregivers receive an average two-thirds of these fee amounts, often barely sufficient to support office expenses. This leads to substandard care and frustration for the caregivers. This factor alone causes many physicians to limit or refuse care for such recipients. By contrast, Medicare’s Physician Fee Schedule pays more fairly and consistently across the nation.
Although Medicare is a primary payor of hospital charges, one vital role played by Medicaid is in the support of long-term care in the U.S., covering a major portion of spending on nursing home services. In 2022, Medicaid spent approximately $154.4 billion on these long-term care services, paying for nursing home care for periods that meet the program’s eligibility limits that vary by state. Abetted by support of patients’ hospital charges, Medicaid also acts as a financial lifeline to rural hospitals, which is a major factor contributing to their viability.
COULD A SINGLE PAYOR (MEDICARE-STYLE) PROGRAM PROVIDE A SOLUTION?
At its inception in 1965, the architects of Medicare believed that establishing a successful program for the elderly would serve as a steppingstone toward future general coverage. To gain support, their approach was to introduce a program that could be incrementally expanded later, rather than presenting a universal health insurance plan upfront. However, the political landscape during the cold war era was marked by much anti-communist sentiment, and the idea of universal healthcare was derided as “socialized medicine;” however, because of Medicare’s current wide public acceptance and satisfaction, this label is no longer applicable. Nevertheless, political fears of excessive costs have limited the idea of Medicare expansion. Contrary to popular belief, this method, as we explain, could be far more economical than our current system. Moreover, if we wish to adhere to our egalitarian principles, i.e., basic healthcare available to all, an effective remedy is to replace the entire system with a single payor entity, resembling “Medicare for all.”
Ideally, Medicare and Medicaid would be best combined into a single administratively efficient financing system. Eliminating Medicaid’s role in healthcare is justified because, as noted, such a low-level system provides substandard, poorly compensated medical care. Billing under a single entity would save medical care providers vast amounts of overhead, while also reducing the headaches that trigger much provider burnout that is increasingly being recognized. If properly structured, this consolidation would allow Medicare to assume support for all hospital expenses, both rural and metropolitan, thus providing for evenly distributed, cost efficient, and national support of long-term care.
CONTROL OF DRUG PRICES
The cost of prescription drugs varies widely among health plans from state to state. In efforts to decrease drug prices, pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) work as middlemen between drug manufacturers, insurance companies and pharmacies, leveraging their large buying power to negotiate lower drug prices to benefit users such as Medicare Part D plans. PMBs, through negotiation, do obtain price concessions and rebates from drug companies, retaining a portion and remitting the rebate balance to insurance companies which in turn are expected to reduce prescription costs for consumers. However, depending upon the portion of the rebates retained by the PBMs, this can even drive up the price of available drugs. Since the Inflation Reduction Act was enacted, Medicare now negotiates directly with drug companies, which could, if expanded, eliminate the PBMs and provide a means for a single payor to control the entire pricing structure. The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs provides a model for this process by direct negotiation of drug prices, resulting in payments of roughly half the retail price of drugs.
COMPENSATION OF CAREGIVERS AND HOSPITALS
Medicare has a detailed method of setting compensation for both physician and hospital services, all of which are lower than those of private insurers. According to the findings of 19 recent studies comparing Medicare and private health insurance payment rates for all services, private insurers paid nearly double Medicare rates for all hospital services, ranging from 141% to 259% of Medicare rates. For physician services, private insurance paid an average of 143%, ranging from 118% to 179% of Medicare rates. As noted, a single payor would eliminate Medicaid’s meager present caregiver’s compensations.
VARIED COVERAGE PLANS
Instead of adopting a strict single-payor system, the U.S. may need additional tiers of care as provided presently by private insurers. These strata could offer extra services beyond basic care, such as private room options, shorter waiting times for non-urgent issues, elimination of co-pays, long-term care, and dental care. Such extras could be provided for patients who are willing and able to pay them in addition to a basic single-payor system. Such a structure would also allow the privately run insurance companies to continue involvement, much as they are presently providing in the form of Medicare “supplement” or “gap” plans.
OTHER ADVANTAGES OF UNIVERSAL COVERAGE
Since the entire population would ultimately participate in a basic single payor system, automatic coverage would be provided for everyone, including those with pre-existing conditions, another stumbling block eliminated! This would also eliminate the controversial need for an individual mandate.
Although employer-financed coverage could simultaneously be continued, individuals so covered could opt out at any time to enter a single-payor governmental sponsored system. This choice would provide a means for employers to reduce their financial burdens, while allowing patients the flexibility to move freely within a national system without losing coverage.
WHY HEALTHCARE MORE COST-EFFICIENT IN OTHER ADVANCED COUNTRIES AND COULD PROVIDE A MODEL FOR US.
Advanced western nations have adopted universal healthcare as a basic right that is mandatory for all citizens. In all systems, (Canada and Germany are two examples) the government acts as a central authority that supervises universal fee schedules, either by direct mandates or through other means such as by negotiation among a combination of insurance providers, public funds, and caregivers. This usually results in lower, fixed costs for all services.
In this nation, the federal government, specifically through the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), sets the prices for hospital and physician services. These prices are not negotiated like in the commercial insurance sector. CMS uses different payment systems for various types of services, such as inpatient and outpatient prospective payment systems for hospitals and for the fee schedule for physicians. CMS updates the payment rates for both hospital and physician services annually, incorporating changes in costs and other relevant factors. If the U.S. were to establish a uniform overall pricing structure in a single payer system, this would closely parallel those of the other advanced nations noted above and result in reduced healthcare costs for the entire nation.
CONCLUSION
Although no system is perfect, the federal Medicare system works reasonably well; by contrast, the federal-state Medicaid system doesn’t. Folding Medicaid into Medicare-for-all would adopt the long-delayed visionary 1965 universal healthcare plan. We are now presented with a timely opportunity to make important corrections, permitting the replacement of Medicaid in its present form, while at the same time, embarking on a truly effective healthcare system for all that has been long overdue.
In a recent newsletter, Paul Krugman succinctly described what Trump has done to the economy. Granted, his economic ignorance is only a part of the current devastation–there are also the daily assaults on the constitution and individual liberties, and the continuing restoration of the Confederacy and its out-and-proud racism and misogyny…
But a lot of people who don’t care about the American Idea or fundamental fairness do care about their bottom lines. So Krugman’s summary ought to matter. Here’s that summary:
He has imposed high tariffs, undoing the effects of 90 years of trade negotiations. His deportation policies are already creating labor shortages and supply disruptions in multiple sectors of the economy. His Big Beautiful Budget Bill, aside from being cruel, is fiscally irresponsible. Deportations will undermine Social Security and Medicare. His drastic cuts to scientific research will undermine U.S. technology, and hence long-run economic growth.
That recap was an intoduction to Krugman’s analysis of why the stock market hasn’t tanked (yet), which he attributes to faith in the promise of AI. (My jury is out on the question of whether that “promise” is really a threat…) He also points out that the market has historically been a poor predictor of longer-term economic trends.
Whatever the market’s performance means–or doesn’t–it’s impossible to read that quoted paragraph without recognizing the enormity and inevitability of decline in American prosperity unless the mindlessness and madness aren’t reversed.
I wonder whether Trump voters will find the restoration of Confederate statuary and philosophy worth the economic costs…
A quick status report: I am improving each day, but my guess is that this site will continue to experience glitches, probably attributable to my medicated status. Yesterday, the emails failed to send at the scheduled time–fortunately, my techie son intervened and was able to fix the issue. Every day, it seems, there’s something. (The day after my brief hospital stay, an uninsured driver t-boned our daughter’s car; fortunately, she and our granddaugher were just bruised, but the car was totalled. The next day, my husband pulled out a kitchen drawer and it–and he– collapsed. Again, fortunately, he’s fine, but I’m getting a bit leery.)
I really appreciate all the kind words, and your willingness to hang in there with me! This too will pass–and if we’re lucky, MAGA will pass too…
___________
Today’s will be a “quickie,” because I’m focusing on something you all already know (and I still can’t sit at the computer for long periods of time.)
This week’s job report was weak–shockingly weak. That wasn’t a surprise to anyone who passed Econ 101 (or to pretty much anyone who can read); we are just beginning to see the effects of Trump’s idiotic tariffs. But of course, the Mad King responded to the unfavorable data as is his wont: with anger and denial. How dare reality deviate from his imagined brilliance? So he fired the person in charge of analyzing and publishing the data.
As the folks at Lincoln Square noted,
One basic character of the politicization necessary to create an authoritarian regime is that public employees are reluctant to share information that displeases their political bosses. When those bosses can fire them, the incentives to suppress uncongenial information, or provide false information, become overwhelming.
Over time, life in these countries become bifurcated. Statistics become propaganda. There is an official reality, which many proclaim but few believe, and actual reality. And at some point actual reality catches up with the fantasy.
Reality, of course, is a place Trump has yet to visit.
Ever since Trump assumed office, civil servants have been reluctant to contradict the various moronic eruptions emanating from the Oval Office and from the assortment of clowns comprising what passes for a cabinet. So Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s anti-science beliefs about vaccines are rapidly degrading public health, and the fossil fuel tools at the EPA are pretending that there’s no such thing as climate change. Etc.
People who are unwilling to “go along to get along” are fired.
Those who survive will keep telling us that the Emperor’s new clothes are magnificent, and what’s left of America’s credibility will continue to tank.
Every day, we Americans awake to another assault on the foundations of our governing system. As we attend to each day’s news, each day’s effort to deconstruct constitutional government, we are in danger of losing the big picture, the scope of the losses we’re suffering.
I don’t know whether this “firehose” approach is a conscious strategy; Trump’s already substandard intellect and mental health are declining at such a rapid rate that restraints on his impulsiveness–never strong–are similarly declining. Intentional or not, however, it’s working to distract us.
We simply cannot allow the rapidity with which MAGA is dismantling American government to obscure the big picture, the overall damage. Recently, Heather Cox Richardson included that overview in one of her essential “Letters,” and her description is worth citing:
Six months into the second Trump administration, on the sixtieth anniversary of the law that symbolized the modern American state by establishing Medicare and Medicaid, it’s clear we are indeed in a revolution designed to destroy the government we have known in favor of the radical right-wing government envisioned by those who wrote Project 2025.
From the beginning, the administration declared war on the words that protected equal rights for all Americans, fired women and racial minorities from leadership positions, and attacked transgender Americans. It worked to replace civil servants with loyalists who embraced the tenets of Project 2025, putting people like former Fox News host Pete Hegseth at the head of government agencies. Yesterday Greg Jaffe and Maggie Haberman of the New York Times reported that in a break with past practices, Hegseth, now secretary of defense, is requiring nominees for four-star general positions in the U.S. military to meet personally with Trump.
It worked to dismantle the government by refusing to release the money Congress had appropriated to fund the existing government. Thanks to billionaire Elon Musk at the “Department of Government Efficiency” and Russell Vought—another author of Project 2025—at the Office of Management and Budget, the administration illegally impounded funds, slashing through funding for foreign aid, cancer research, veterans’ benefits, air traffic control staffing, and so on, claiming to be eliminating “waste, fraud, and abuse.” That fight is ongoing.
Richardson proceeded to enumerate the extent to which MAGA is implementing Project 2025–shrinking or abolishing government programs that serve ordinary people while further enriching the wealthy. The party of “limited government” is dramatically expanding government’s power.
The administration set out to purge the country of what extremists claimed was “leftist” influence in law firms, media, and universities. It illegally blocked lawyers from law firms that represented Democrats from access to federal buildings, making it impossible for them to represent their clients. It sued media outlets for alleged bias, and it withheld congressionally appropriated funds for universities.
There’s much more, as we all know– that daily firehose of assaults on the government of We the People, assaults aimed at replacing the America we thought we knew. substituting cronies for civil servants so that “royal court” can invite bribery and engage in open corruption with impunity.
We the People need to keep that big picture in mind. We need to ignore the self-engrossed pundits mucking around in the weeds, criticising various Democrats and focusing on perceived past errors. We have one job. ONE JOB. We need to take Congress back from the GOP invertebrates who will go down in history either as complicit fascists or disgraceful quislings.
