Monthly Archives: October 2017

Two Health Insurance Markets?

Posted on by
Reply

The Wall Street Journal has misunderstood the situation and the proposal [emphasis added].

President Donald Trump’s executive order on health insurance, the most significant step so far to put his stamp on health policy, is designed to give more options to healthy consumers. It also could divide the insurance market in two.

What Trump is purportedly going to do with his Executive Order is

  • instruct[] federal agencies to loosen rules on health plans that the administration says have driven up premiums and reduced insurance offerings
  • direct the Health and Human Services, Labor, and Treasury Departments to lay the groundwork for the growth of association health plans, coverage that would have fewer mandated benefits than many current plans available to small employers and individuals [and] that wouldn’t be subject to the full range of ACA requirements, such as the mandated package of benefits.
  • departments, in addition, will be told to take steps to expand the availability of short-term medical plans …  allow people to once again buy plans in that category that could last for almost a year.

However, rather than create two health insurance markets, these actions would do no more than begin to create one health insurance market.  There is no extant health insurance market; there is nothing present to become part of “two markets.”  What we have presently is neither insurance nor a market for it.  What we have is a health coverage welfare program that has some (very poor) options from which we’re required to select one for ourselves.

The beginnings of a health insurance market, in addition to being an actual market for health insurance, would, though, lessen the importance of the mandated welfare program—to the benefit of all of us, including those trapped in that welfare program.

A Bit of Schadenfreude

Posted on by
Reply

…for me from Fox News Insider:

And this, from the demographic most critical to the NFL:

The [men aged 34-54] group went from 73% favorable and 19 percent unfavorable to 42 percent favorable and 47% unfavorable.

This is what happens when an industry overtly, proudly, attacks our nation’s flag and national anthem and insults our veterans and our Gold Star families.

False Apology

Posted on by
Reply

UNLV Professor (or at least that’s her title) Tessa Winklemann is saying that the mass murder in Las Vegas last week was at least partially President Donald Trump’s fault.  UNLV has chosen to play down the slur.

While we respect academic freedom in the classroom and the right to free speech, we believe the comments were insensitive, especially given the series of events this week and the healing process that has begun in the community[.]

With this vapid, empty remark, UNLV has shown that it condones Winklemann’s behavior; school management is merely making a pro forma statement.

Far worse, though, is Winklemann’s later statement.

I regret that my comments caused more pain during this difficult time. Emotions were running high and I wish I would have been more thoughtful in how I directed the conversation.

Notice that: she expressed a bit of regret for the outcome of her misbehavior, but she offered not a syllable of apology for her misbehavior.

That’s dishonest.

Estate Tax and Tax Reform

Posted on by
Reply

Senate Republicans seem unable to understand this subject, also.

Others [Republicans] say their desire to eliminate the [estate] tax must be balanced against other priorities including tax cuts for businesses and middle-class families.

This is disingenuous. Eliminating the estate tax explicitly favors middle-class families and businesses: it’s the small businesses and farms that are owned by middle class families that are the most harmed by this death tax.

Aside from that is this piece of irrelevancy:

Estate tax repeal would reduce federal revenue by about $239 billion over the next decade, according to the Tax Policy Center.

Interesting, but unimportant here. Government has yet to show a need for that money.

“New Commitment To, and Connection With, Each Other”

Posted on by
Reply

That’s what Ana Palacio, Spanish Foreign Minister at the turn of the century, disingenuously claims is needed in Spain following the recent Catalan separation referendum.

Spaniards need to work toward a new commitment to, and connection with, each other and the constitutional system.

But apparently Catalans are not Spaniards according to Palacio, since she also insists

“Dialogue”…is pointless given that Catalan secessionist authorities refuse to live up to or even recognize their responsibilities under the law.

This, in the face of Madrid’s conscious decision to try to suppress the referendum with violence—almost 900 Spanish Guardia– and Policia-inflicted casualties on unarmed Catalans—when, knowing full well that an unhindered referendum would have defeated separatism, Madrid could have arrested the ringleaders peacefully. In fine, Spanish law could have been enforced peacefully; Madrid chose violence.

Responsibilities under law, indeed.

Madrid doesn’t want to work toward a mutual connection; it wants only abject surrender and subjugation of an impertinent population.