Category Archives: Politics: National

Guns And Abortion

Spy vs Spy

If you wanna listen to a debate on policy that is all about form but is specific policy agnostic, listen to republicans and democrats debate abortion and guns.

  • Both sides feel that their cause is protected by the constitution
  • Both sides feel the others cause isn’t, as currently represented, protected by the constitution.
  • Both sides advocate policies that would eliminate the right.
  • Each side has taken to regulation, citing safety, to restrict access to the right.

Guns or abortion, the debate is the same.

And the true wacko’s are the loons on the extreme of both issues.

Food Stamps – Wrong Solution

Food Stamps

It’s a little old, but this story has been in my stack for a few days:

(MoneyWatch) It is late October, so Adrianne Flowers is out of money to buy food for her family. That is no surprise. Feeding five kids is expensive, and the roughly $600 in food stamps she gets from the federal government never lasts the whole month. “I’m barely making it,” said the 31-year-old Washington, D.C., resident and single mother.

When reading that story the more interesting question regarding social policy is not, “How do we feed this family?”  Rather, the more interesting question is, “How do we prevent such family structures from forming?”

I’m a married father of two living in a two person income household.  My wife and I are both professional managers in a Fortune 50 company.  When someone in my peer group reports that they have 4 kids, much less 5, my reaction is always, “Really?  FOUR kids?  How do you do it?”

A recent post discussing the subsidies of Yale educated professionals has generated a LOT of emotional responses.  However people feel about the fact that people receive benefits, no is disputing the fact that this couple is free to live the life they choose.  I would submit that Ms. Flowers fits that same case.  Namely, if you wanna have 5 kids feel free, however, if you find that you are unable to support those children, don’t look to society to support them for you.

No one is saying that Ms. Flowers isn’t at liberty to build her family as she sees fit.  I’m just saying that I should have the same liberty as it applies to my property.

Affordable Care Act Helping The Poor

Poor Artist

Came across this article in the NY Times this morning:

For Mark and Elisabeth Horst, both artists in Albuquerque, the risks of signing up for a bronze plan were outweighed by the prospect of getting it free. The Horsts, who make $24,000 a year between them, qualified for $612 in monthly subsidies, but the cost of a bronze plan was $581 a month.

The Horsts are the couple pictured above.

I object to redistribution in general but have to admit to having sympathy for folks who fit the mental picture of “the poor”.  Struggling factory worker barely getting by.  Single mom who can’t pay rent, electric bill AND the water bill.

But THESE ‘effing people?!?  I have to work my ass off to support these people’s health care?

The article goes on to to quote Mr. Horst as claiming to be in good health, so I’m guessing that they are making 24k is that they CHOOSE to make 24k, not because life has dealt them some shitty hand.  These are people who CAN work, COULD work but are making the choice NOT to work.

And we’re taking care of them like children.

Look, I’d like to wake up every day and draw.  Or color.  Or make clay ashtrays too.  But I don’t; I go to work and bring home the bacon.

And because I do – these people get to color.

Awesome.

In honor of the working poor:

Voter ID Laws And Paying The Social Debt

I was listening to NPR the other day and Diane Rehm was on.  I’m not sure what the official subject of the show was, but the conversation moved focused race in America.

One of the topics covered involved the voter ID laws being passed in many states in recent years.  The usual points were made in that these voter ID laws impact:

  1. The poor
  2. Minorities

I have my usual response to item 1 in that the cost of IDs is hardly onerous or burdensome.  But, be that as it may.

It was during the discussion that I was struck by thoughts surrounding item 2.  Rather than all this hand wringing over laws that make sense but disproportionately impact minorities creating this manufactured tension, why not address why minorities are disproportionately impacted.

I suspect that no one believes that a black attorney or a Hispanic doctor either doesn’t have ID or would find it difficult to get one.

Just another case of trying to manipulate outcomes to be equal rather than the opportunities.

Anyway, one of her guests was Richard F. America.  He discussed reparations in America and specifically mentioned this topic through the words of his book, “Paying The Social Debt.”

I though the conversation interesting enough, and the point of view different enough from mine, that I wanted to read the book.  So I went to Amazon:

Paying The Social Debt

I’m sure there are a ton of good reasons, but I was just struck by the stones required to charge a hundred bucks for a book on paying social debts.

Medical Doctor Alternatives

Doctor

I think that one of the reasons our medical care system is so expensive is that the system is not built to match procedure to appropriate expert.

For example, there are very skilled landscapers in this world capable of designing and building stunning works of art in the natural world.  And then there is the need to have your lawn mowed.  Imagine how expensive it would be to obtain a contractor to mow your lawn if you were required to hire that highly skilled, trained and often time licensed landscape designer.

Another example I came across was during a conversation with my mother-in-law.  We were discussing health care and costs and I mentioned that it’s unfortunate that I need to see an MD to have a finger reset, x-rayed and cast when I’m sure it could be done by a PA at most and perhaps a nurse at worst.

[ there may be cases where this is possible – i was using the specific example to make the larger point ]

She objected claiming that if it was her, and had she the insurance that she indeed has, she would insist on not only a doctor but then an orthopedic specialist.

Why the editorial?  I saw this and was confronted that without allowing price to act as a signal, we may not be getting optimal results:

Midwives, nurse practitioners, physician assistants and other non-doctors do as good a job as MDs in the care they deliver — and patients often like them better, a World Health Organization team reported on Thursday.

These non-physicians are especially effective in delivering babies, taking care of people infected with the AIDS virus, and helping people care for chronic diseases such as diabetes and high blood pressure, the team reported in a WHO bulletin.

The findings extend from the poorest nations to the United States and Europe, they said. While some physician groups have resisted wider use of such professionals, they should embrace them because they are often less expensive to deploy and are far more willing to work in rural areas, the WHO experts said.

“There are some obvious advantages in terms of relying on mid-level health workers,” WHO’s Giorgio Cometto told NBC news in a telephone interview.

“They take less time to be trained. Typically, they cost less to remunerate. In some countries they are more likely to be retained in rural areas.”

David Auerbach, a researcher at the Rand Corp., says other studies have shown the same thing. “There’s really not much difference you can find in the quality,” he said.

But we don’t allow the delivery of medical services be exposed to the market.  And so people are not going to shop their needs on said market.  Additionally, we have special interest groups, read AMA, that lobby to create legislation that make it illegal to see anyone BUT a doctor for such commoditized services.

 

Obamacare – Econ 101

Monopoly Free Market

It’s a simple concept; make a thing more expensive and the demand for that thing is reduced:

Andy Puzder, the CEO of CKE Restaurants Inc. which is the parent company of Carl’s Jr. and Hardee’s, told Megyn Kelly on “The Kelly File,” that his company and others will choose to hire part-time employees instead of full-time employees because of increased costs from the health care law.

He said in the six months in 2013 before the Obama administration delayed the employer mandate, which requires companies with over 50 full-time employees to provide health coverage to all full-time employees, employers were already reducing worker hours to prepare for the law.

“It’s very simple if you increase the cost of something businesses will use less of it,” Puzder said. “If you decrease the cost they will use more of it. So if you increase the cost of full time employment, there will be less full time employees. If you decrease the cost of part time employment, you’ll have more part time employment.”

I am reminded of Hanlon’s Razor:

 Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.

It is becoming increasingly clear, even to Obama’s supporters, that he is stupid.

Pino Is Right – Sebelius Blames Claims Obama Kept Promise

Kathleen Sebelius

Last night at about 6:30 I opined on how long it would take the administration to deflect blame on the policy cancellations from Barack Obama to the insurance companies.

It took about 18 hours:

The White House has struggled to defend President Obama’s 2009 claim as thousands of people receive notifications that their insurance companies are dropping their plans.

“Is he keeping his promise?” Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) asked Sebelius.

“Yes he is,” the Health and Human Services secretary responded.

She repeated the administration’s argument that, if people are losing their plans, it is because of insurance companies and not the new healthcare law.

“If a person had a policy in place in March 2010, liked that plan, and the insurance company made no changes to disadvantage the consumer, those policies are in place, you keep your plan if you like it, and that goes on,” Sebelius told the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

“People though who had a medically underwritten policy, were paying more than their neighbor because they happen to be female … they will have a new day in a very competitive market,” she added.

Many insurers have stopped offering plans that do not comply with regulations issued by the Health and Human Services Department outlining basic levels of coverage. Consumers who have received such notices are often left with more expensive options.

These people simply lied.  It’s not like the traditional campaign speech promising no school on Fridays and a pretty girl for every boy.  They knew that people, by the millions, would lose their coverage and they kept saying that they wouldn’t.

The next sound bite?

“Yes, you DID lose your plan, however, it will be replaced by one that is better.”

Bold Faced Lie

Obama said that if you were happy with your insurance plan you could keep it.

Democrats knew all along that some patients would lose their health insurance plans under the new law, Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) acknowledged on Tuesday.

Although President Obama had vowed repeatedly that, under his signature healthcare initiative, those who like their plans could keep them, millions of patients are reportedly in individual plans that don’t meet the law’s minimum coverage criteria, forcing them to buy better insurance.

Hoyer, the House minority whip, said Democrats were aware that such a shift was coming. He defended the change by arguing that those patients would ultimately benefit by getting better insurance, many of them at a lower price than they currently pay.

The insult that I’m incapable of purchasing insurance that meets my needs aside, they lied.

Affordable Care Act – Young People

College Kids

The Affordable Care Act is in the “Open Enrollment” phase.  And for many Americans, it’s the first time that they ‘re shopping for insurance.  And as they go through the process, they’re going to have to make some decisions.  And I get that the whole thing might be overwhelming, I have to shake my head at this analysis:

 Young adults could pay relatively little up front for Obamacare, only to pay a lot later.

They may be more likely to buy cheaper plans on the health care exchanges, but they are often less informed about how high out-of-pocket costs, including deductibles, can erase any savings realized from the lower premiums, potentially leaving them with crippling bills, experts told CNBC.com.

“I think the exposure is pretty high. It’s way higher than most people are used to,” said Karen Pollitz, a senior fellow at the Kaiser Family Foundation, the health policy research group. “There will be some people who will, for whatever reason, end up getting high-deductible health plans, and I think some of them may not like it.”

Forget, for a second, what “could pay relatively little up front” means.  The fact is that most likely these young folks face two facts:

  1. They weren’t buying insurance before and would be exposed to the same crippling bills.
  2. They are highly unlikely to ever encounter such eventualities.

As for point 1, while they would be exposed to the same crippling costs, at least now that cost is limited.  Anyway, the point is, that people all over creation are forgetting that we are talking about insurance – the protection against risk.

When I was young, my dad would implore me to purchase just such a catastrophic plan.  And now, as I manage young college graduate entering the corporate work force for the first time, I coach them the same way.

Buy the least expensive high deductible plan you can find.  Then, fund an HSA to the max up to or exceeding that deductible.  For the young, the benefits are two fold.

  1. You are fully protected in the event of a life changing financial occurrence.
  2. You have time on your side to grow that HSA.

One last thing.  The article mentions the cost of such a plan:

“I was looking at Texas earlier today,” Pollitz said. “They had a bronze Blue Cross plan that was $250 a month … for a 40-year-old. The bronze had a $6,000 deductible

The cost before the ACA?

Now, how expensive in insurance for a 30 year man in the same ZIP?

The plan that offers $5,000 – 0% -No charge after deductible?

$62.24

The plan with the lowest deductible that is the cheapest looks like this:

$2,500 – 30% – $40 office visits:

$99.40 a month.

It will be fun to watch this thing as it moves from enrollment to functional plan.

Government Shutdown – Thomas Sowell

Thomas Sowell

Thomas Sowell offers his take on the shutdown:

Even when it comes to something as basic, and apparently as simple and straightforward, as the question of who shut down the federal government, there are diametrically opposite answers, depending on whether you talk to Democrats or to Republicans.

There is really nothing complicated about the facts. The Republican-controlled House of Representatives voted all the money required to keep all government activities going — except for ObamaCare.

This is not a matter of opinion. You can check the Congressional Record.

As for the House of Representatives’ right to grant or withhold money, that is not a matter of opinion either. You can check the Constitution of the United States. All spending bills must originate in the House of Representatives, which means that Congressmen there have a right to decide whether or not they want to spend money on a particular government activity.

Whether ObamaCare is good, bad or indifferent is a matter of opinion. But it is a matter of fact that members of the House of Representatives have a right to make spending decisions based on their opinion.

ObamaCare is indeed “the law of the land,” as its supporters keep saying, and the Supreme Court has upheld its Constitutionality.

But the whole point of having a division of powers within the federal government is that each branch can decide independently what it wants to do or not do, regardless of what the other branches do, when exercising the powers specifically granted to that branch by the Constitution.

The hundreds of thousands of government workers who have been laid off are not idle because the House of Representatives did not vote enough money to pay their salaries or the other expenses of their agencies — unless they are in an agency that would administer ObamaCare.

Since we cannot read minds, we cannot say who — if anybody — “wants to shut down the government.” But we do know who had the option to keep the government running and chose not to. The money voted by the House of Representatives covered everything that the government does, except for ObamaCare.

The Senate chose not to vote to authorize that money to be spent, because it did not include money for ObamaCare. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid says that he wants a “clean” bill from the House of Representatives, and some in the media keep repeating the word “clean” like a mantra. But what is unclean about not giving Harry Reid everything he wants?

If Senator Reid and President Obama refuse to accept the money required to run the government, because it leaves out the money they want to run ObamaCare, that is their right. But that is also their responsibility.

You cannot blame other people for not giving you everything you want. And it is a fraud to blame them when you refuse to use the money they did vote, even when it is ample to pay for everything else in the government.

When Barack Obama keeps claiming that it is some new outrage for those who control the money to try to change government policy by granting or withholding money, that is simply a bald-faced lie. You can check the history of other examples of “legislation by appropriation” as it used to be called.

Whether legislation by appropriation is a good idea or a bad idea is a matter of opinion. But whether it is both legal and not unprecedented is a matter of fact.

Perhaps the biggest of the big lies is that the government will not be able to pay what it owes on the national debt, creating a danger of default. Tax money keeps coming into the Treasury during the shutdown, and it vastly exceeds the interest that has to be paid on the national debt.

Even if the debt ceiling is not lifted, that only means that government is not allowed to run up new debt. But that does not mean that it is unable to pay the interest on existing debt.

None of this is rocket science. But unless the Republicans get their side of the story out — and articulation has never been their strong suit — the lies will win. More important, the whole country will lose.

Indeed.

It is fact that spending bills originate in the House of Representatives.  I would rather have the House vote to allocate enough money to the budget short of the amount required for Obamacare and then let the actors figure out what they wanna cut, but that’s details.