Tag Archives: government

A Thought on Failure

Posted on by
Reply

Or at least President Obama’s quasi-admission of his own.  This excerpt is from Sunday’s CBS News interview with Charlie Rose.  There’s also more, including Obama’s whining that he hasn’t been able to “change the atmosphere” in DC, with his partisan, character-assassinating politics.

Rose: But suppose, I mean he clearly would say, ‘Let’s look at your record; let’s look at the fact the unemployment is at 8.2%, and it’s unlikely to change.  Let’s look at how effective the stimulus was.  Let’s look at your management of the economy.  Yes, it was a bad hand you were dealt, but you have not made it to what it ought to be.  That is the centrality of their campaign.

Obama: Exactly.  That is his argument, and you don’t hear me complaining about him making that argument, because if I was in his shoes, I’d be making the same argument.

Hmm….

As an aside, it’s also interesting to see Rose’s mindset so plainly: government should be managing the economy.

DoJ and…Racism

Posted on by
1

Speaking to the NAACP in Houston last Tuesday, Attorney General Eric Holder had this to say about Texas’ attempt to protect Americans’ voting rights by implementing a voter ID law that would help ensure that only eligible voters got to vote:

Many of those without IDs would have to travel great distances to get them—and some would struggle to pay for the documents they might need to obtain them.  We call those poll taxes.

The racism in Holder’s remarks is apparent.  As the WSJ pointed out

The Texas law stipulates that voters can use several kinds of ID to vote, including a driver’s license, passport, a US military ID, and (this being Texas) a handgun permit.  As for the “poll tax” canard, the law says the Texas Department of Public Safety will issue a free Election Identification Card if requested.

When was the last time Holder’s Jim Crow had a poll tax of $0.00?

But this is the new Jim Crow, Eric Holder style: anyone who votes Democratic (as opposed to democratic) should be allowed to vote, regardless of eligibility.  Never mind that the Supreme Court upheld a substantially identical voter ID law in Indiana just three years ago.  But Holder can’t attack Indiana; that state isn’t under his personal thumb, courtesy of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.  Texas is.

This is also the same Attorney General that, shortly after he assumed the position, threw out a case of New Black Panther voter intimidation of white voters that the Federal government already had won—at the end of the previous administration—and concerning which it was, literally, all over but the sentencing.  That case eventually led to the resignation of career Federal Prosecutor J Christian Adams.  This case also led to then-active Federal Prosecutor Christopher Coates’ testimony in front of the US Civil Rights Commission about the new DoJ’s policy of not seeking enforcement of voter laws when the victims weren’t people of color or when the suspected perpetrators were.

It would be interesting to hear Holder give the same speech to a more balanced audience.

Health Insurance vs Health Welfare

Posted on by
Reply

The question of universal health coverage is one well worth discussing at the national level; the goal of universal coverage is to make health care services ubiquitously available, for rich and poor alike.  It’s a laudable goal.  However, in order to have a coherent discussion, it’s necessary to review the terms of the subject.

Too often, though, the discussion assumes that health care and health insurance are so much a part of each other that they cannot be had separately.  This is wrong.  Health care is what you get from your doctor or hospital.  You’re getting treatment for a medical condition, advice about how to treat a medical condition, advice about how to avoid getting a medical condition.  In return for these health care services, someone pays the doctor or hospital money.

Many people pay for these services with cash out of their own pocket, and many more would prefer to do so, were they given the choice.

Others—the vast majority of Americans (I’m eliding the free riders in the market)—pay for these services by buying something we call insurance: they pay a periodic premium to a health insurance provider for a policy that obligates the insurance provider to pay (most of) the costs of a medical condition should that condition actually arise at some time in the future.  The insurance company makes its money by selling lots of such policies on the bet that few enough people actually will incur the covered condition within a given time frame that the aggregated premiums over that time frame will more than cover the actually required medical payouts.  That’s what insurance is, including health insurance: it’s one person transferring part, or all, of a risk of something untoward happening to him to another—an insurance company, for instance—in return for an agreed upon fee.  For that fee, the entity accepting the risk, or the agreed part of it, agrees to cover the cost of that untoward event should it actually occur, with the aggregated fees over lots of such agreements, being enough to cover the required cost payouts.

Health care and health insurance, thus, are entirely separate industries: one is the actual provision of services, and the other is simply a means of paying for those services.

But for the risk transfer, or insurance, industry to work, though, two things must occur: the first is that the fees charged for the risk assumptions must be voluntarily agreed to between the two parties to the risk transfer.  If the fees are dictated to one or the other side, without any market flexibility, they run a very strong risk of being too high for the one party to afford, or too low for the other party to be able to cover the agreed costs.

The other thing that must occur is that the fees must be consistent with the risk assumed.  To take an over-simplified example, if a man has a risk of a medical condition that costs $1,000 to treat, and the likelihood of his incurring that condition within the next year is very high, and he wishes to transfer 80% of that risk to an insurance company (i.e., get the company to pay $800 should the condition arise), then the insurance company must be able to charge a premium that, over the course of a year, sums to $800 in order to break even.  Of course, if the insurance company were to sell that same policy to lots of folks subject to that medical condition, actuarially it’s highly unlikely that all of them—even with the same risk—will incur that condition in the same year.  This would allow the insurer to sell the policy for a lower premium than it could if the customer population were limited to that original single person.

With lots of companies in the market selling policies for a given coverage, competition ensures that a single company does not abuse single-company monopoly power and overcharge.  Nation-wide marketability of that policy both enhances the competition and expands the customer base with the insured-against condition, thus increasing downward pressure on the policy’s premium—the risk transfer fee.  This downward pressure makes insurance more accessible to more people.

The actual situation facing us, though, is a market structure of government limits on the policies offered, government limits on the premiums allowed to be charged, and two critical government mandates: every individual must buy health insurance—must buy those government-limited policies—and every insurer must accept all customers.  There is little to no market flexibility—or pressure—to structure coverages to match the risks being transferred, nor is there much flexibility to match the fees charged to the risks being transferred.  This combination of government limits and mandates is a health welfare program of universal coverage.

My own view is that universal coverage is unnecessary, never minding its laudability, and that health welfare (or welfare generally) is actively suboptimal when it’s the first resort, rather than the last resort after market forces have taken their effect on prices and availability.

Because the welfare program’s risks and fees do not match, and because competition among health insurance purveyors is limited, inefficiencies will rapidly develop in the form of coverage payouts being too great for the premium income in some areas and too little for the premium income in others, with a strong bias toward too little premium income.  While companies’ desires to charge more, including “too much,” would be heavily constrained by competitive pressure, the government’s bias is to hold down costs to its voters, without regard in the short term to the market consequences, and the bias is unchecked.

This drives the welfare program to one or more of three outcomes: the insurance companies must prevail on the regulatory authorities to raise premiums, they must get tax dollar help from the government to make up the shortfall, or they must stop providing that insurance coverage.  All of these represent stark cost increases to the insurees: either they pay higher premiums today (even for conditions for which they do not want coverage or whose risks are very low, because those conditions are included in the required coverage allowed to be sold), their taxes go up tomorrow, or next week they lose their insurance coverage altogether until they move to another company—if one is left in business.  Indeed, this is the rationale for the Individual Mandate requiring everyone to buy insurance: all those extra premiums, hopefully from young, healthy Americans who aren’t likely to need a payout (and who also aren’t likely to want to buy the coverage) are intended to provide those extra monies and so avoid any of the three outcomes.

Justice Thomas’ Dissent

Posted on by
Reply

Justice Clarence Thomas’ dissent from the Supreme Court’s just published ruling on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, quoted below, is short, to the point, and worth studying.  His dissent also can be found at the end of the full ruling (together with the four Justices’ joint dissent), which itself can be read here.  Justice Thomas’ cites are omitted below.

JUSTICE THOMAS, dissenting.
I dissent for the reasons stated in our joint opinion, but I write separately to say a word about the Commerce Clause.  The joint dissent and THE CHIEF JUSTICE cor­rectly apply our precedents to conclude that the Individual Mandate is beyond the power granted to Congress under the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause.  Under those precedents, Congress may regulate “economic activity [that] substantially affects interstate commerce.”  I adhere to my view that “the very notion of a  ‘substantial effects’ test under the Commerce Clause is inconsistent with the original understanding of Congress’ powers and with this Court’s early Commerce Clause cases.”  As I have explained, the Court’s continued use of that test “has encouraged the Federal Government to persist in its view that the Commerce Clause has virtually no limits.”  The Government’s unprecedented claim in this suit that it may regulate not only economic activity but also inactivity that substantially affects inter­state commerce is a case in point.

It was this “substantial effects” test that permitted the ruling in Jones & Laughlin and which was dramatically expanded in Wickard.  Until these odious rulings are reversed, the dangerous lack of limits still extant in the Commerce Clause, the majority opinion in this case notwithstanding, remain a clear and present danger to our individual liberties.

Obamacare, the IRS, Privacy, and Whose Money Is It, Anyway?

Posted on by
Reply

Here is a partial list, courtesy of Elizabeth MacDonald of Fox Business, of the additional privacy invasions in which Obamacare requires the IRS to engage, in order to ensure that you, “private” citizen, are complying with the Progressive Government’s determination of what is appropriate for you.  Understand, you’ve lost the right to determine what level or type of health insurance coverage is appropriate—the Progressive Government will determine that for you.  You’ve also lost the right to determine what level of coverage is affordable according to your own—or your small (or large) business’ estimate—expense pattern and what you’ve decided you’re willing to pay—the Progressive Government will determine that for you.

According to the Taxpayer Advocate Office, we erstwhile private citizens must tell the government’s man, under Obamacare,

  • our insurance plan information, including who is covered under the plan and the dates of coverage;
  • costs of [our] family’s health insurance plans;
  • whether [any of us] had an offer of employer-sponsored health insurance;
  • cost of employer-sponsored insurance;
  • whether [any of us] received a premium tax credit;
  • whether [any of us] has an exemption from the individual responsibility requirement.

Moreover, the IRS under Obamacare is requiredauthorized to talk with folks about us with whom they never before had routine contact—all to ensure that we’re “paying our fair share.”  This list includes

  • new state-run insurance exchanges;
  • employers;
  • insurance companies;
  • government insurance programs.

Your W-2 no longer is enough; now the IRS will be quizzing your employer in great detail.  The fact that you do, or don’t, have health insurance coverage no longer is a private matter; the Progressive Government will be quizzing your insurer.

On top of this, if we must pay a penaltytax because we don’t have the Progressive Government’s definition of “adequate” coverage, that tax is designed to be the maximum collectable, not the minimum.  The tax is either a fixed dollar amount, or a percentage of our income above the filing threshold, whichever is greater.  Even common criminals, on conviction, don’t automatically get the maximum sentence in every case.  But then, your money really isn’t yours, anyway—it’s the property of the Progressive Government; it’s just ensuring it gets every bit of its property.  And the criteria for determining the size of our tax?  They include more destruction of our privacy:

  • the IRS determines our “household income,” the sum of the incomes of everyone living under our roof
  • the IRS will demand to know the insurance coverage of each person living under our roof.

If anyone is lacking proper insurance, you get the tax.

It’s just as bad for the small businesses that we “private” citizens run, now for the benefit of government rather than for our own purposes.  Here’s an example of the penaltytax “your” small business must pay.

Businesses with more than 50 employees are required under Obamacare to provide “adequate” health insurance coverage for all of their employees.

The tax is $2,000 per employee, but the business must first knock out from the math the first 30 workers—part-timers don’t count.

Example: If you have 51 full-time employees and 15 part-time employees throughout the year, and one full-time employee is receiving a tax credit to help them buy health insurance [because you’re not providing “adequate,” “affordable” insurance for that employee], your business will have to pay:

51 (the number of full time employees) – 30 (the first 30 employees are excluded)

21 x $2,000 = $42,000

Notice that: one employee is getting short-changed (according to the Progressive Government), so we pay the penalty on a multiplicity of employees.

Think about the effect this will have on hiring.

Read Ms MacDonald’s entire article to see a fuller the list of abuses Obamacare heaps on what used to be “our” businesses.

Remember all of this in November.