Obamacare “Fix”

Health and Human Services is claiming—carefully buried in one of their blogs, rather than on the Web site’s front page—that among the fixes they have in place is the ability for potential health insurance buyers to check out the policies and premiums on offer before they’re required to create an account (to register) and start giving up personal information.

Sure enough, they’ve got a cool new SEE PLANS NOW button on the front page of HealthCare.gov.  Along with the warning that, as of today (24 Oct 13), I only have 158 days to figure out a way past this…software…and get enrolled.

So, how’d that button work?  Not very well, as this attempt (24 Oct, still) demonstrates:

There’s a button added, and the problem has been passed along.

The old “a problem passed is a problem solved” meme.

Notice in passing, too: that’s a 37-character “Reference ID” that I’m supposed to read over the phone to someone in HHS’ call center for HealthCare.gov.  Yeah.

A Typical Bureaucracy

Via the Washington Examiner comes this Obamacare bureaucracy organization chart.  Maybe it’s satirical.

This damning charge about Obamacare preparation by that bureaucracy comes from the same link:

Federal officials did not permit testing of the Obamacare healthcare.gov website or issue final system requirements until four to six days before its Oct 1 launch, according to an individual with direct knowledge of the project.

How does that work, exactly?  Oh, wait—maybe the WE is overstating the case a bit—does any bureaucracy with that organization look like it’s capable of making any decision more complex than whether to get a cup of coffee on the way back from the rest room?

Plus this: The officials running the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services decided they would act as the systems integrator, the central coordinator for the entire program.  Pay no attention to the fact that the CMS is, itself, an agglomeration of lots of disparate organizations.  Or that the officials “in charge” there have no concept of organizational, much less systems, organization.

But RTWT.

And this, from The Wall Street Journal, on President Barack Obama’s Rose Garden version of a Shamwow Infomercial pitch–Operators are standing by! [I stole that line from Chris Stirewalt]–and his touting his 800 number as the fix to all the…kinks…in his Obamacare:

[W]e called the hotline on Monday and the automated menu redirected us to Healthcare.gov, which in turn told us to get in touch with someone at the call center.

Yeah.

Jim DeMint: We Won’t Back Down on ObamaCare

My title is taken from Jim DeMint’s Wall Street Journal op-ed of the same name.  In his piece, he makes the following points.

The reason [the Heritage Foundation, and other conservatives chose this moment to fight] is simple: to protect the American people from the harmful effects of this law.

And

More and more people have had their work hours cut, their jobs eliminated and their coverage taken away as a result of this new law.

Further, research by Drew Gonshorowski of the Center for Data Analysis at the Heritage Foundation indicates that

…the hardest hit by the increases will be young adults.  “A state that exhibits this clearly is Vermont…where the increase for 27-year-olds is 144% and the increase for 50-year-olds is still 60%, but far less.  All states exhibit this relationship.

DeMint has lots more; you get the idea.  However, he’s missing some key factors.  No Conservative, and almost no Republican—not just the Heritage Foundation—will back down on Obamacare, but they need three things in order to do more than “not back down,” in order instead actually to succeed concerning Obamacare:

They need better tactics.

They need better communication skills.

They need better candidates with whom then to win actual elections and thereby gain majorities in both houses of Congress and win the White House.  President Barack Obama was taunting Republicans when he said,

You don’t like a particular policy or a particular president, then argue for your position.  Go out there, and win an election.

But he’s right.

Conservatives’ and Republicans’ current tactic of burning the bridge and then trying to cross the river won’t work.  Until elections are won, what must be done is to clear out some of Obamacare’s more blatant nonsense. This includes things that even Progressives in the Senate agree on, like the job-killing medical device tax; things that even Conservatives should be agreeing on, like the tax on union and big employer “Cadillac” health insurance plans (Conservatives also need to lose their Progressive-like knee-jerk resistance to anything a union might like.  Unions and Conservatives might never be friends, but there’s much about Obamacare on which unions and Conservatives can be allies.)  Conservatives also can push to repeal the administration’s OMB diktat that the law doesn’t apply to Congressmen and their staffers: that mendacious, taxpayer-funded subsidy for buying health insurance, on the Obamacare exchanges or anywhere else, needs to be withdrawn.

Until elections are won (and continuing after), they need actually to talk with their constituents—and with their Democrat neighbors’ constituents—directly, where these Americans, these voters, live.  Further, they need to do so with a unified, coherent message of how Conservative policies will help the individuals they’re directly speaking with.  It’s insufficient to send an occasional email (while then deciding not to respond when recipients email back), or to make speeches on the House or Senate floor, or to give sound-bite interviews on the steps or in the halls of Capitol Hill.

Finally, in order to win those elections, Conservatives and Republicans need to do a better job of selecting candidates in their primaries and then running them in the elections.  Their handling of the Cuccinelli candidacy in Virginia and the Lonegan candidacy in New Jersey is (and was)…poor.

When Republicans and Conservatives come up with a coherent message, when they improve their tactics, when they select better candidates—and support them—then Republicans and Conservatives will be able to answer Obama’s taunt and actually take control of the Congress and the White House.  Then, and not sooner, they’ll be able to replace Obamacare and, oh by the way, get spending and our debt under control.

Food Stamps and Farm Support

Why do we even have food stamps and farm support?  Here’s a brief, over-simplified history.  During the Great Depression, with unemployment at historic levels and mom-and-pop farms failing at a high rate (not enough income from not enough sales of produce to an unemployed population), Franklin Roosevelt pushed through Congress a pair of bills that had negative impacts on the unemployed and on those farms (and that prolonged the Depression, but that’s for a different post).

Those two bills were wage controls in the form of a mandated minimum wage that an employer could pay—or that a prospective employee could accept—and a mandated minimum price at which a farmer was allowed to sell his produce (thus, farm supports).  Think about that: in a time of enormous unemployment (Obama’s 10% unemployment in 2009 was full employment, and today’s 7.2% is Phat City compared to Depression levels), Americans were priced out of the labor market.  And at the time those Americans couldn’t get work, they had no income from which to pay those artificially inflated farm prices.

Roosevelt thought about that, and the light went off in his head: he pushed through Congress a mechanism for giving subsidies to the poor (read: unemployed) so they could afford to buy food (thus, food stamps). (It didn’t occur to this Progressive to rescind his minimum wage and price support programs so the markets could clear, folks could get work, and they could buy their own food.)

That’s the long and short of it: food stamps and farm supports are Depression-era attempts fix a failing economy.  Today, Americans pay over $14 billion annually in the form of farm support tax money transfers, and we pay nearly $80 billion per year in the form of food stamp tax money transfers (to a near-record 47 million Americans).

What to do about this?  Much has been made, especially by conservatives and by Conservatives, of States’ Rights—the 10th Amendment, and all that.  What too often gets overlooked, though, is the dual of that: States’ Obligations.  The States should be taking care of themselves on this, not taking money from the taxpayers of other States’ citizens.

My solution is in two parts.  One part is to take all money the Feds currently send to the States for farm support and food stamps and convert the funds to block grants, making the year of conversion the baseline year.  Every year after that, reduce the size of each block grant by 10% (let’s say) of the baseline amount until the money being sent to each state for each program is $0.  This gradual, but steady, forced reduction gives the States time to break their addiction to OPM and to adapt to relying solely on internal State funds for what are essentially internal State problems.  Aside from that, the good citizens of nearly bankrupt New York or nearly bankrupt Illinois have no business being forced to send their tax money to a nearly bankrupt California or a flush Texas.

The other part is to get rid of the ethanol mandates.  American refineries are required by the EPA to blend over 18 billion gallons of ethanol into their gasoline.  The primary source of that ethanol is corn, and as recently as 2011, 40% of US corn production went to ethanol rather than to food.  That elevates the price of a broad range of food, and not just corn-based food, at that.  Food that eats corn—beef and chickens, for instance, and the eggs from corn-fed chickens, get elevated prices from that diversion.  It spreads further: the prices of corn substitutes, like wheat, soya beans, and so on, are also elevated by this diversion.  The States’ problems funding their own food stamp programs (to the extent any of these programs persist when the States discover they can’t fund them with OPM) will be greatly reduced by the increase in food affordability due to the elimination of this pernicious mandate.

More Obamacare Fallout

Among the requirements of Obamacare is this: insurance companies selling individual health plans no longer can sell cheaper, bare-bones plans for very low premiums; instead, these companies must offer a mandated bundle of “benefits”—regardless of whether those “benefits” are wanted, or even needed, by the purchaser.  Of course, the premiums for these broader, less useful policies are far higher, too.  As a result, and because they don’t consider the gains from the resulting insurance market worth the cost of the changes,

Aetna, American Family Mutual Insurance, Humana, Independence American Insurance Company, Reserve National Insurance Company, Standard Security Life Insurance Company of New York, Companion Life Insurance, and United Security Life and Health Insurance have all informed the [Nebraska] insurance department of their intent to stop selling health insurance to individuals—and in some cases—groups.

In the Nebraska health insurance market, these companies are small players, but they’re major companies in the health insurance industry.  Their example will be carefully watched, and the remaining players are, rather tautologically, small companies.

The Cornhusker Kickback bought a lot, didn’t it?  The kickback later was rescinded, certainly, but the vote that was bought with it was not refunded.  And here we are.