What's next for Obamacare?

This shouldn't be a real question. In fact, maybe it isn't a real question. In an ideal world - one in which facts and data ruled the day rather than punditry, misinformation, and outright lies - Obamacare would be given a chance to work. Data would be collected, and the program would be judged on whether or not it actually expanded coverage to uninsured Americans and held down costs. For quite some time I've been saying that the jury is still out on Obamacare while simultaneously deploring Republican attempts to derail the program before it ever had a chance to work based on nothing other than...well lies.

To date there hasn't been even a shred of evidence that anything Republicans have said about Obamacare is true, and even if there were, their lack of any other ideas for fixing our broken healthcare system is hard to hide. They've been able to shield themselves behind the wall of attacking Obamacare for years, but behind that facade is an absolute vacuum of proactive thinking.

From death panels to job killer, we've heard wave after wave of attacks from Republicans with no data or even reliable anecdotes to back them up. Until, perhaps, now.

Last week, the Congressional Budget Office reported that due to Obamacare, the size of the workforce could decrease by as many as two million full time positions. Obviously this is an alarming headline, but delving deeper into the report, we find that that projection is not based on the stunting of private sector hiring, but on the assumption that as more people gain insurance coverage from outside the workplace many of them will choose to work less. So while the end result is a net loss of jobs and hours, the reason isn't because employers are choosing not to grow companies because they can't afford it, but because people may choose not to work because they don't need insurance provided by their employer.

I see both pros and cons here. A net reduction in jobs - though as the report details, it isn't the jobs that will be lost so much as it is the hours totaling a net loss of two million jobs - could have an impact on growth. Whether we look at the loss as one of fewer hours or one of fewer jobs, we are still looking at fewer rather than more, and generally that means less productivity. So it is possible that by reducing the number of workers and/or the number of working hours, Obamacare could indeed have a negative effect on economic growth.

Of course having said that, we need to ask ourselves what the purpose of economic growth is. After all, the economy is not a living, breathing entity that needs to grow. The whole purpose of a steadily growing economy is to provide a higher quality of life for those lucky enough to participate in such an economy. In that case, this report might not be such a bad thing. If people choose to work less because they feel more secure then we've actually made progress. The conservative counter point to this would be that we don't want people becoming lazy and relying only on subsidies rather than on their own income to purchase insurance, and this is certainly something we should monitor and be mindful of moving forward, but that's not happening yet. And of course, libertarian Republicans should (but probably don't) love the idea of freeing up workers to make their own decisions about how often they need to work to support themselves. After all, isn't that the point of libertarianism; freeing up people to make decisions and take control of their own lives? Giving workers that freedoms seems like a good thing. That's what the American dream is, right? The ability to move from job to job and improve your quality of life? Finally, there is an argument to be made that by reducing the labor force, wages will actually go up as there will be fewer people competing for jobs. Given the unsustainable and growing income gap between the rich and poor in this country and our dwindling middle class, this can only be a good thing.

The question now becomes, which of these things will happen? Will a reduction in working hours totaling nearly 2 million jobs stunt economic growth enough to dampen the quality of life for all of us, or will workers now earn higher wages as a result of decreased competition and more flexibility and upward mobility. I don't know for sure, but I posit that no one else does either. All we have is projections, and even the most recent one is no death knell for Obamacare - though the Republican spin machine will no doubt spend millions trying to make it one.

For the time being, the best approach is to see what happens. When trends start to develop we'll have a more clear sense of whether this is ultimately good or bad, and until then we'll be subjected to the same talking points from both sides that we've been hearing for the last few years. What's next for Obamacare should ultimately be decided once we've seen if Obamacare will be a boon to the American people or a hindrance, but alas, it is very possible that it's fate will be determined well before then, in fact, it's possible that Obamacare's fate has already been decided because of all the negative attack, misconceptions, and lies spread about the program.

I'm curious to see moving forward if Obamacare becomes the job killer Republicans have long predicted - though without evidence - or if it will ultimately benefit the American people. Either way, the CBO report adds a new layer of complexity to the argument, and should elicit a serious and thoughtful conversation from people on both sides of the debate...like that will happen.

Being Israel's Friend

American politicians love to talk about how their support (or America's support) for Israel is "ironclad." If I were an Israeli, this would trouble me somewhat since ironclads were a product of Civil War era engagements. I would feel better if America's support for Israel were titanium-alloy plated or something of the sort. Alas, as an American who supports Israel, I don't see that America's actions are titanium-plated, iron-clad, or even cloth-covered. What I see when I observe America's relationship with Israel is a big brother who lets a little brother run amok doing things that are ultimately detrimental to that little brother's well-being, while simultaneously failing to stick up for that little brother when he does actually need help.

What do I mean by this? For starters, being someone's ally (or someone's friend for that matter), doesn't mean letting them do anything they want to their own detriment. As a friend, it is my job to tell a friend when he or she is engaging in destructive behavior. America seems incapable of telling Israel that the ongoing expansion of settlements in the West Bank is isolating Israel from the global community. Sanctions and boycotts are already coming in from Europe, and as the population of occupied Palestine grows, Israel will be forced into making the decision between existing as a Jewish state or existing as a democracy. Many in the global community already view Israel as an apartheid state, and while many in the US may scoff at that notion, Israel is undeniably moving in the direction in which a Jewish minority exercises control over a Palestinian majority in what is already viewed by the global community (including the United States) as occupied territory, NOT part of Israel.

While the US tacitly condones Israel's expansion of settlements - while paying lip service to the idea of a two state solution, but doing next to nothing to pressure Israel into stopping it's self-destructive encroachment of Palestinian territory - the US has failed to intervene in Syria, a major arms conduit through which missiles flow from Iran to Hezbollah before often being lobbed into Israeli cities.

I've been making the case for humanitarian intervention in some form in Syria for months now, long before chemical weapons were used. But there is a more realpolitik reason to intervene, and that reason is our alliance with Israel. The end of Assad could well mean a decreased flow of weapons from Iran into Lebanon, destabilizing and hopefully delegitimizing Hezbollah. This is a good outcome for Israel, and that nation has already launched strikes in Syria to ensure that weapons are not misplaced or worse.  Helping end the Ba'ath party's rule over Syria not only ends a slaughter and hopefully paves the way for a more stable Democracy next door, but it will eliminate the arms pipeline from Iran to Hezbollah whose fighters, by the way, are fighting and dying next to Assad's forces in order to preserve his regime.

But rather thank taking touch and necessary action - telling Israel what it needs to hear and more proactively ending the bloodshed in Syria - the US allows Israel to pursue its own destruction internally while doing nothing to ward off external threats. If this is what "ironclad" support for Israel looks like, then it's pretty safe to say that the US does not have the best interests of Israel in mind.

I do stand by Israel. I believe in that Israel. I believe in America's alliance with Israel, but that doesn't mean that we should stand idly by while a group of right-wing religious extremists lead Israel country the path of losing its Jewish identity, nor does it mean that we should avoid engagement when Israel could truly use our help. Right now we are failing to meet either of those benchmarks for true friendship, and I would argue that Israel will be worse off as a result. If we are really Israel's friend, we will push them to do what they need to do and give them support when it is needed.