Monthly Archives: August 2017

Collapsing Obamacare

Posted on by
Reply

These data are from the Kaiser Family Foundation.  There was such hope by the health care coverage providers at the start; then the realities of the “market” place hit, and hit hard.  Following the early expansion of coverage providers into ObamaMart, the drop-off in companies between 2016 and 2017, and the resulting collapse of choice—in too many counties, even of any availability at all—is stark.  It’s expected to get worse in 2018 and 2019, too.

The State-by-State drop off is presented in the table below, constructed from KFF‘s table at the link.  The average drop-off across all States is nearly 23%.

Obamacare must be eliminated, and a free market set of parameters that would facilitate actual health insurance must be set in place.  Republicans need to get on the stick, and promptly.

Location Number of Issuers in 2014 Number of Issuers in 2015 Number of Issuers in 2016 Number of Issuers in 2017 Per Cent Drop-off
Alabama 2 3 3 1 66.7%
Alaska 2 2 2 1 50.0%
Arizona 8 11 8 2 75.0%
Arkansas 3 3 4 3 25.0%
California 11 10 12 11 8.3%
Colorado 10 10 8 7 12.5%
Connecticut 3 4 4 2 50.0%
Delaware 2 2 2 2 0.0%
District of Columbia 3 3 2 2 0.0%
Florida 8 10 7 5 28.6%
Georgia 5 9 8 5 37.5%
Hawaii 2 2 2 2 0.0%
Idaho 4 5 5 5 0.0%
Illinois 5 8 7 5 28.6%
Indiana 4 8 7 4 42.9%
Iowa 4 4 4 4 0.0%
Kansas 3 3 3 3 0.0%
Kentucky 3 5 7 3 57.1%
Louisiana 4 5 4 3 25.0%
Maine 2 3 3 3 0.0%
Maryland 4 5 5 3 40.0%
Massachusetts 10 10 10 9 10.0%
Michigan 9 13 11 9 18.2%
Minnesota 5 4 4 4 0.0%
Mississippi 2 3 3 2 33.3%
Missouri 3 6 6 4 33.3%
Montana 3 4 3 3 0.0%
Nebraska 4 4 4 2 50.0%
Nevada 4 5 3 3 0.0%
New Hampshire 1 5 5 4 20.0%
New Jersey 3 5 5 2 60.0%
New Mexico 4 5 4 4 0.0%
New York 16 16 15 14 6.7%
North Carolina 2 3 3 2 33.3%
North Dakota 3 3 3 3 0.0%
Ohio 12 15 14 10 28.6%
Oklahoma 4 4 2 1 50.0%
Oregon 11 10 10 6 40.0%
Pennsylvania 7 8 7 5 28.6%
Rhode Island 2 3 3 2 33.3%
South Carolina 3 4 3 1 66.7%
South Dakota 3 3 2 2 0.0%
Tennessee 4 5 4 3 25.0%
Texas 11 14 16 10 37.5%
Utah 6 6 4 3 25.0%
Vermont 2 2 2 2 0.0%
Virginia 5 6 7 8 -14.3%
Washington 7 9 8 6 25.0%
West Virginia 1 1 2 2 0.0%
Wisconsin 13 15 16 15 6.3%
Wyoming 2 2 1 1 0.0%

Brexit and Taxing

Posted on by
Reply

Great Britain’s Chancellor of the Exchequer Philip Hammond has committed to the EU that, if he has anything to do with it, the Brits will remain, post-Brexit, a “socially responsible” nation with a taxing régime that will match the EU’s taxing régime.  In other words, he’ll do his best to prevent Great Britain from attracting business by being a business-friendly, tax competitive nation.  Like Ireland is, with its 15% tax rate.

The Wall Street Journal has characterized Hammond’s commitment to economic disarmament “a mistake for the ages.”  I think the WSJ is mistaken.

Philip Hammond was, and is, a Remainer. His actions here sound like active sabotage to this poor, dumb Colonial.

Rule of Law

Posted on by
1

The DC Circuit Court stacked by President Barack Obama (D) seems to be iffy on the thing.  In an appeal concerning whether the monies the Federal government pays to health care plan providers as subsidies so the plan providers will hold down premiums and deductibles can actually be paid—the funds never were appropriated by Congress, so the payments aren’t legitimate, ruled the trial court—the Circuit Court ruled in part:

The States have shown a substantial risk that an injunction requiring termination of the payments at issue here…would lead directly and imminently to an increase in insurance prices, which in turn will increase the number of uninsured individuals for whom the States will have to provide health care[.]

That may well be true, and if true, it would be unfortunate.

However.

The law is clear: monies not actually appropriated by Congress cannot be spent by the Federal government—the money, in a very real legal sense, does not exist.  It’s also illegal to take funds from other, actually extant, appropriations to spend on non-appropriated-for activities.

The decisions whether to appropriate, and then to spend, are solely political decisions, and judges cannot—may not under our Constitution—decide in any way other than what the law actually says; in particular, they don’t get to rule in accordance with what they wish the law to say.  Doing the latter is nothing other than judge-made law.

In this case, the appellate court plainly has chosen rule by men—via judge-made law, here—over rule of law.

What’s in a Name?

Posted on by
Reply

Quite a lot, actually, and the Left has this right—even if they’re on the wrong side of the naming question.  DoJ has begun referring to those who’ve entered the US illegally as “illegal aliens,” and the Left has gotten its collective panties in a twist over it.

Here’s Chicago Tribune journalist Todd Slowik:

The phrase “illegal alien” plays into assumptions that immigrants living in this country without proper documentation are criminals[.]

Without proper documentation: in other words, in the US illegally.  Which is a crime, which makes these folks criminals.  Now, I’m one of those squishes who thinks illegal aliens whose only crime is entering illegally, and who since have been solid, contributing members of their community, should be offered a path to make good on their (really quite minor—on the order of a traffic violation) crime and then a path to legal permanent residency and eventual citizenship.  Illegal aliens who aren’t contributing members or who commit additional crimes ought to be tried for those additional crimes, and for the illegal entry now that that has become a problem; if convicted, jailed; and at the end of their sentence, deported with no option for reentry.

Hiding behind euphemisms—undocumented, unauthorized, migrants—just hides the damage illegal aliens who commit additional crimes do.  Just ask the two women who were raped in Portland, OR, because the city’s councilmen considered the PC rights of a multiply-deported illegal alien were more important than the right to security of those two women.  Just ask Kate Steinle.  Oh, wait.   Just ask the victims of MS-13 barbarians.  Oh.  Keep waiting.

As a side note, Fox News insider has it wrong, too, as they demonstrate in the opening sentence of their piece:

The Justice Department began calling illegal immigrants “illegal aliens….”

Illegal aliens aren’t immigrants, either.  Immigrants are in our nation legally.

Senate Workings

Posted on by
2

Senator Jim Lankford (R, OK) had some thoughts on this in Tuesday’s Wall Street Journal.  In the main, he was pushing back against the desire of some to get rid of the filibuster, and he offered instead some other corrective actions that are worth considering.  In the main, I agree with him on the filibuster; although I believe that the Progressive-Democrats, when (not if) they next become the majority party in the Senate, will get rid of the filibuster altogether, and for the same reason they got rid of the filibuster on judge nominations other than for the Supreme Court: to stop those uppity Republicans from getting in the way.

In the main, I agree with his rules change suggestions, too, but I don’t think they go far enough.  As you readers might guess, I have a couple of ideas of my own.

  1. Get rid of the rule that limits hearings to two hours on days when the Senate has other business to conduct, also. Surely members of the greatest deliberative body can do more than one thing simultaneously.
  2. Get rid of the filibuster on matters relating to spending and taxing.

That last isn’t to keep the obstructionist Progressive-Democratic Party from getting in the way, even though the present incumbents of that Party have plainly said they won’t work with Republicans on budgeting, debt, funds allocations and spending, or on taxing unless the Republicans agree to do things the Progressive-Democrat way.  No, it’s to allow actual budgets and tax programs to be enacted and the debt actually addressed.

There’s a reason American voters chose the majority party to have that majority, and the most important task Congress has is the purse strings of the Federal government.  Everything else—everything—flows from that imperative, and if that one isn’t satisfied, nothing else that Congress does that’s more serious than naming a building after someone will matter.