Government-Mandated, Privately-Funded Welfare

Healthy consumers could see insurance rates double or even triple when they look for individual coverage under the federal health law later this year, while the premiums paid by sicker people are set to become more affordable, according to a Wall Street Journal analysis of coverage to be sold on the law’s new exchanges.

And

The exchanges, the centerpiece of President Barack Obama’s health-care law, look likely to offer few if any of the cut-rate policies that healthy people can now buy….

At the same time, the top prices look to be within reach for many people who previously faced sky-high premiums because of chronic illnesses or who couldn’t buy insurance at all.

And

Several big provisions in the law taking effect in six months affect rates for the estimated 20% of Americans who don’t have coverage through an employer, Medicare or Medicaid.  Plans must be available to consumers regardless of their health and must cover certain items such as hospitalization, maternity care and prescription drugs.

This is naked wealth redistribution—welfare—paid for, in part, on the backs of the young and healthy, who need no insurance.  Moreover, these young, as all Americans, ought to be able to choose for themselves the risks they’re willing to run; Government has no role to play here.

The rest of this welfare is paid for by the insurers: those policies that are required to be available to all comers, in the emergency rooms, must be provided by the insurers under Obamacare, at premiums that have nothing to do with the risk being covered—including the actual now-prior existing condition diagnosed in those ERs.  Watch the losses mount as these policies are canceled as soon as the emergency is past.

The Wall Street Journal article goes on, but these are the highlights.

There are other redistribution facets to Obamacare that are nor mentioned in the article, also.  Unmentioned here is another massive welfare payment suite, paid for by insurers: all of that coverage, all of those plans “that must be available…regardless of health,” must be available in hospital emergency rooms, and they must be buyable in real-time.  Watch the insurers’ losses mount as these policies are canceled as soon as the “emergency” is past.

Another thing that’s missing is the availability to the poor and much of the middle class of Health Savings Accounts.  True enough, these folks don’t have much money to put aside, but they are functionally prevented from putting away any of what they do have for their future health problems by the requirements for having HSAs at all.  Government won’t allow these except for those with a high-deductible policy—typically in the $3,000 and up range.  Our poor and much of our middle class can’t afford that much out of pocket expense, so they’re denied the opportunity to save for their own future health.  Deeper into the middle class, individuals and families still have other imperatives that limit their willingness to spend that much to get an HSA.

Certainly, with actual insurance in a free market, high risk pools will have higher premiums, but they’ll be able to get policies—even those with preexisting conditions.  But the rest of the rates will go down, and the market as a whole will go down, even with the higher premiums for higher risks.  A broader range of policies will exist, also.

These are the wages of welfare dishonestly masqueraded as insurance.

Another Harebrained Idea

Congressman Eric Swalwell (D, CA) and two colleagues, Steve Pearce (R, NM) and Cynthia Lummis (R, WY) actually think this is a good idea.  They want to

amend House rules so lawmakers can vote remotely through a secure communications system[.]  The resolution would allow lawmakers to vote on bills that require a two-thirds majority in the House to pass, meaning they are being considered under a suspension of regular rules and are typically noncontroversial….

Further,

Under the proposed resolution, lawmakers and witnesses would be allowed to participate in committee hearings held in Washington via secure videoconferencing technology….

No.  This defeats a major purpose and a major advantage of requiring an in-person quorum in order to conduct business and to vote on that business: getting our elected representatives in the same room together for face-to-face interaction.  No matter how good the virtual links get, they cannot be the same as being there in person, seeing, hearing, and interacting with everyone and everything on the floor and not just with the parts conveniently within camera or microphone range.

Also, it overstates the noncontroversial nature of votes requiring a two-thirds majority: little things like a veto override, or an impeachment vote.

It also overstates the noncontroversial nature of bills needing a suspension of regular order to pass, including a vote on the suspension of the rules.  As recently as the 108th Congress (the 2003-2004 session), for instance, the House considered some 920 bills under suspension, and only about 620 achieved final passage.  That seems a shade controversial to me, especially those 300 that failed.

Leave things alone, guys.  It won’t hurt you to show up in your place of work and do a little work there.

Regulation and Free Speech

A mandate of the Dodd-Frank financial law, [a] Securities and Exchange Commission rule requires companies that use certain minerals linked to violence in the Democratic Republic of Congo and surrounding region to file a report with the SEC saying what steps they took to verify the minerals weren’t taxed or controlled by rebel groups.

Never mind that those steps involve proprietary information.  Or that the government-mandated message would tar the companies, inaccurately, with a bigotry brush.

The National Association of Manufacturers and the US Chamber of Commerce, representing a broad group of businesses, in a hearing in federal district court in Washington said the regulation is unconstitutional because it forces companies to make disclosures linking their products to human-rights violations.

Paul Keisler, a lawyer representing the NAM and the Chamber, argued the rule is just a Scarlett Letter requirement and represents, further, government-mandated speech, not free speech.  Even so,

SEC Assistant General Counsel Tracey Hardin…argued the rule wasn’t different from advertising restrictions requiring fast-food restaurants to post the calories contained in their menu items or cigarette labels containing warnings about the dangers of smoking.

This, though, is just a cynical conflation of two widely disparate situations.  The one impacts directly the health (or not) of the user.  The other has no impact on the user, nor does it on the purported victims, since the minerals of interest here have a ready world-wide market, demonstrated by the high prices those minerals command.

Wait—there’s Citizens United.  But, no, Mr Corporation, that doesn’t count.  Just sit down and say the words Government gives you to say.

Effect of Quantitative Easing

Martin Feldstein, Council of Economic Advisers Chairman under President Ronald Reagan, described some in a recent Wall Street Journal op-ed.

  • unemployment has declined to 7.6% from 8.2%
  • there has been no increase in the ratio of employment to population
  • no decline in the teenage unemployment rate
  • virtually no increase in the real average weekly earnings of those who are employed
  • decline in the number of people in the labor force in the past 12 months…exceeded the decline in the number of unemployed

And

The Fed’s forecast of substantial employment gains rests on the assumption that real GDP will grow by about 2.5% during the four quarters of 2013 and by more than 3% in 2014.  That would represent a substantial rise from the growth rates of less than 2% in 2012, 1.8% in the first quarter of 2013, and a likely 1.7% in the second quarter.

And

Meanwhile, low interest rates are generating excessive risk-taking by banks and other financial investors.  These risks could have serious adverse effects on bank capital and the value of pension funds.

Additionally, these moves have hurt our seniors, who depend on fixed income instruments for their income.

On the flip side, we have gained a substantially increased risk of high inflation.

In sum, cut it out.

A Disgusting Court

A while ago, I wrote about racism on the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court wrote in its DOMA ruling

What has been explained to this point should more than suffice to establish that the principal purpose and the necessary effect of this law are to demean those persons who are in a lawful same-sex marriage.

And

…no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect [of DOMA] to disparage and to injure….

And so on.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in dissent of this ruling [emphasis in the original],

At least without some more convincing evidence that the Act’s principal purpose was to codify malice, and that it furthered no legitimate government interests, I would not tar the political branches with the brush of bigotry.

Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in his dissent [emphasis in the original, cites omitted],

[T]he majority says that the support­ers of this Act acted with malice—with the “purpose” “to disparage and to injure” same-sex couples.  It says that the motivation for DOMA was to “demean,” to “impose inequality,” to “impose…a stigma,” to deny people “equal dignity,” to brand gay people as “unworthy,” and to “humiliat[e]”their children, (emphasis added).

I am sure these accusations are quite untrue.  To be sure (as the majority points out), the legislation is called the Defense of Marriage Act.  But to defend traditional marriage is not to condemn, demean, or humiliate those who would prefer other arrangements, any more than to defend the Constitution of the United States is to con­demn, demean, or humiliate other constitutions.  To hurl such accusations so casually demeans this institution.

The Supreme Court wrote in its California Proposition 8 ruling that the private group bringing the case to the Court had no standing to do so, even though this is the group that was instrumental in getting Proposition 8 onto the ballot and passed in the first place.  Only State Government officials had standing to defend the proposition in court, and they had refused to mount a defense.

The Court thereby ruled that the people have no standing to defend their own voice, only the State can (not just may) do this.  The Court has thereby ruled that the people no longer are sovereign; Government is sovereign.

This is a disgusting Court, and Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Scalia are justified in their seeming embarrassment.