Category Archives: political economy

An Unintended Consequence

Posted on by
Reply

The health coverage plan providers, companies like Humana, Aetna, Anthem, et al., are gaming the Medicare system to keep their Medicare bonuses coming in.  Surprise.

It seems that when Obamacare was passed, it included a system of paying bonuses from Medicare to those plan providers that got sufficiently high ratings on the quality of their plans.

But wait….

Medicare ranks privately managed plans…on a five-star quality scale and provides financial bonuses to providers of top-ranked plans. [A plan-holder’s] plan was set to be downgraded, which would have cost Humana its bonus. So the company merged plans covering [the plan-holder] and more than a million others into different contracts with higher scores. That preserved the bonuses.

That’s called cross-walking, and it’s entirely legal, if maybe a tad shady.

This is the sort of thing that happens, though, when Government intrudes itself too far into a marketplace.  Private enterprise is more agile than government bureaucracies can ever hope to be, and they can move much faster than any government bureaucracy can hope to do.

It’s also why black markets flourish in centrally planned economies.

The existence of this ability to cross-walk is a function of our Federal government’s intervention in what should be a free, competitive market.  The question wouldn’t even exist if we had an actual health insurance industry that operated free of Government fetters in an actual freely competitive market.

Biofuel Mandates

Posted on by
1

The Wall Street Journal had a piece titled Biofuel Mandates Are a Bad Idea Whose Time May Be Up that centered on the possibility that these might get watered down, or even eliminated, sometime “soon.”

The Renewable Fuel Standard, which forces oil refiners to mix corn-based fuel into gasoline, is one of history’s great policy boondoggles.

Well, NSS.  The only things it’s done of practical consequence have been to serve as a backdoor subsidy for farmers and to drive up the cost of corn, corn substitutes, and food that eats corn.  And to drive up the cost of gasoline and to create ethanol fuel-related automobile engine maintenance costs.

But that’s the problem with Government mandates in general when they’re intended to create a market for a particular product.

As a mandate, the time for this one on biofuels never was.

Federal Student Loans and State Regulators

Posted on by
Reply

The Trump administration has told States to stop regulating companies that service Federal student loans; that’s the Federal government’s job.  The States have demurred.

The whole thing could—and should—be made moot by the Federal government getting out of the student loan business altogether.  The Feds have no business here; it’s a private enterprise arena, and the States should be free to regulate, or not, to their hearts’ contents on intrastate student lending.  The Feds’ only role here should be to regulate Commerce…among the several States and not to compete in that commerce.

An Interesting Move

Posted on by
Reply

Work for welfare is a tried and true means of helping folks who need a hand up and further for helping them get out of the government-dependency cage.  Wisconsin is applying an interesting twist to the thing.

Wisconsin is relying on an unusual argument to tie new work requirements to food stamps: it says it needs the workers.

And

[Wisconsin’s] labor force grew 1.2% in 2017, and the state’s jobs listings website shows nearly 100,000 positions unfilled. Mr Walker believes some of the 925,000 people on the state’s FoodShare program could help.

Governor Scott Walker (R):

We can’t afford to have anybody on the sidelines.  This is as much as anything a workforce issue.

Yewbetcha.

This could work.  The program will, though, in addition to helping Wisconsin’s poor and worker shortage, invite movement into Wisconsin by (oh, say) Illinois citizens.  To the extent that jobs remain available from Wisconsin’s historically low unemployment, this would be good.  A risk, though, is that the program might lead to overshooting the jobs available, leaving the costs of the program expanding while its benefits—employment of welfare recipients—stagnate or fall off.

You Didn’t Earn That

Posted on by
Reply

The European Commission has criticized seven member states for “aggressive” tax practices, whereby governments try to undercut others to attract multinational companies.

Pierre Moscovici, European Commissioner for Economic and Financial Affairs, Taxation, and Customs doesn’t like competition; he actually thinks it interferes with the “integrity of the European single market.”

[T]hese practices have “the potential to undermine the fairness and the level playing field in our internal market and they increase the burden on EU taxpayers.”

This, of course, is nonsense on a number of fronts.  The Commission has yet to justify the high taxes of those member nations that are so put upon by the others’ low(er) tax rates.  The Commission has yet to say how competition is disintegrative.  The Commission has yet to explain why the playing field cannot be leveled by those high-tax nations lowering their tax rates and thereby also lowering the burden on those EU taxpayers who are citizens of those high-tax members.  The Commission has yet to demonstrate that tax competition creates, in any way, an uneven playing field—especially since the varying national tax rates are fully within the control of those nations.

Besides, that money belongs to EU Governance, not to the people who earned it or whose enterprises earned it.  And you member nations: your sovereignty belongs to us.