Category Archives: regulation

Government and Legislative “Intentions”

Posted on by
Reply

Halbig v Sebelius is a case that opened last Tuesday in the DC District Court that challenges the legality of Obamacare subsidies, and through that the applicability of the Employer and Individual Mandates, in states that have ObamaMart—Federal health insurance exchanges—rather than state-run exchanges.

The case hinges on what the Obamacare law says vs what Government says it says and what Congress’ “intentions” were.  Leave aside for now then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s remark that it was necessary to pass the law to know what was in it along with the admissions of most Representatives and Senators that they had not even read the 900-page law before they voted on it; following is the argument:

Judge Paul Friedman asked how far, and where, he should go to look for more information about what Congress actually intended with Obamacare.  Plaintiffs—Halbig, et al. (et al. consists of three more private individuals and eight businesses scattered across six states that have ObamaMart running because those states declined to set up state-run exchanges)—said the place to go was the law itself: what does the law say, explicitly, in its text.

Government, on the other hand, says to see the text of the law, but also go further and divine Congress’ intentions when it passed the law.

Which brings me back to Pelosi’s remark and those admissions.  Congress didn’t know what was in the law when it passed it; that information didn’t become available until after it was passed.  Not knowing what was in the law when it was passed plainly means that Congress cannot have known its intentions for the law when it passed the law.  Government’s insistence on divining intentions in this case, then, demands a level of mind reading that’s beyond even the talents of a Federal District Judge.  Or those of appellate or Supreme Court judges, which is where this case will go, no matter Friedman’s ruling.

Yet the question matters a very great deal: are citizens in states that have ObamaMart rather than state-run exchanges eligible for premium subsidies, and from that do the Employer and Individual Mandates apply in those states?  The text of the law says that subsidies are available only for those who buy policies through the state exchanges.  Government argues that those phantom intentions were that the subsidies were to be available for policies purchased through ObamaMart, also.

This matters because subsidies in the 34 states where ObamaMart operates in lieu of state-run exchanges amount to hundreds of billions of dollars of Federal (deficit, debt-building) spending, and those Mandates represent hundreds of billions of dollars (albeit fewer hundreds than those subsidies) of individual and business spending by non-subsidized purchasers of Obamacare policies in order to defray somewhat the costs of those subsidies (and, a separate significance, to pay “insurance” sellers artificially inflated premiums in order to support those sellers’ artificially depressed premiums for subsidized and elderly buyers)

What I Can See Now With ObamaMart

Posted on by
1

President Barack Obama’s ObamaMart—that HealthCare.gov contraption—is up and running, or so Obama and his chief shill, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, claim (even though some very serious—dangerous—warts remain).  I decided to try it out and see what the Obamacare law itself would offer me in terms of plans that are cheaper and better than the ones I have through my wife’s employer (which, knock wood, still are legal…so far).

Aside from the dental plans still being required to offer newborn and maternity care coverage (scroll the top window to the second image), here’s what I found without having to give up “my information,” from a not particularly random walk through the ObamaMart erected here in Texas.  I looked for plans available for my spouse and me, ages 62 and 60.  For a baseline, my existing health plan, available through my wife’s employer, charges a $1,700/year premium, has a $3,000 deductible, covers 80% of our medical costs after the deductible, and it’s so far still legal.  We have this High Deductible plan because it’s required in order to have an HSA.

The first plan in the list that comes up in ObamaMart is Blue Cross Blue Shield’s Bronze “Blue Advantage Bronze HMO 006” plan.  This plan comes with a $9,800/year premium and a $12,700 deductible.  Bronze plans only cover 60% of post-deductible costs, though, so we’d be paying $22,500/year just to get to the point of BCBS picking up the next 60% of our expenses.  For that year.  Next year would be a whole new $22,500 before coverage began.  The financially astute will note that those annual costs approach the annual limit on a 401(k) contribution for my age cohort.  Hmm….

And what coverage do I get for that princely sum—besides “free” contraceptives, prenatal, newborn, and maternity care for us empty-nesters, I mean?  The DETAILS button does not have the answer.  Or even any details.  I get no information on what’s actually covered.  The Summary of Benefits and Plan Brochure links on the popup that appears under the DETAILS button just take me to PDF files that assure me that if we go outside the BCBS network, our coverage is zilch.  In truth, before Obamacare we had to talk to an insurance salesman to see a policy.  But I thought Obamacare was supposed to be better, as well as…cheaper….

It takes a Gold Plan to give us the 80% post-deductible coverage that our present plan has, though, so that’s the next look.  The top of the list here is BCBS’ “Blue Advantage Gold HMO 001” plan.  This one wants a $17,000/year premium, but it only charges a $9,750 deductible to make up for it, for a total annual cost of $26,750/year before coverage actually kicks in.  If I thought I could afford any part of a 401(k) under the Bronze plan, this Gold cost disabuses me of that foolishness.  The Gold’s DETAILS button is just as vague and useless as the Bronze’s, too.

Yeah, I’m better off, now that ObamaMart has been “fixed.”

Banking Regulations

Posted on by
Reply

Are they anti-bank?  They’re certainly in the way of getting new organizations into the banking business.  The total number of banks in the US has fallen from a peak over 18,000 to under 6,900 this year.  The first new bank to be Federally chartered since December 2010 [sic], the Bank of Bird-in-Hand in Bird-in-Hand, PA, opened last week after spending 7 months in charter Hell working on getting permission to open.  Here’s a sample of what BiH had to go through to be allowed to operate as a private business.

  • [T]he backers behind the Bird-in-Hand group raised about $17 million from investors.
  • Brent Peters, Bank of Bird-in-Hand CEO, estimated the group spent about $800,000 in preparing its application for a new charter
    • consulting and legal fees
    • rent on a temporary office
    • salaries of top managers, four of whom were on the payroll one month before the bank won FDIC approval
  • [L]ay out internal policies and procedures in detail
  • [S]pecify the systems in place to, for example, guard against cyberattacks
  • Paid consultants analyzed the local lending market and the feasibility of opening a bank there
  • The FDIC interviewed senior management and contacted banks competing nearby

All that because the feasibility of doing business and that business’ internal practices are for government to determine, not that business.

Government asks competitors what they think because competitors get a voice in whether a new bank should be allowed to operate in their territory.

Sounds pretty anti-bank to me.

The Government’s Health Care Site

Posted on by
1

HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius is busily shilling HealthCare.gov as up and running smoothly—but please,

you may want to visit HealthCare.gov in off-peak hours when there is less traffic—mornings, evenings, or on weekends.

And,

Have your information ready when you log on, and comparison shop to get the best deal.

Because you still can’t get into ObamaMart—HealthCare.gov—to see actual plans and what they cover (over and above those contraceptives, prenatal and maternity care, pediatric and child’s dental care that every man or childless couple or empty nester need) without giving up “your information.”  And you still can’t get in to see actual premiums and deductibles that you’ll pay without giving up “your information.”  Never mind that amazon.com, Walmart, Barnes & Noble, or any other on-line or brick and mortar store do not require this as a condition to go in and poke their shelves.  This is your government speaking.

But wait—there’s more!

Critical parts of the back end still aren’t there.  The functions, for instance, needed to transfer to the insurer “your” subsidy aren’t built, so either you’ll still be paying full freight, or your insurer will be forced by the Obama administration to front you the money when you see the doctor the plan allows you to see or go to the hospital the plan allows you to visit.

There’s still no security, so “your information” is freely available to any hacker who wanders by and wants to poke around in your personal financial and health information.  Mike Rogers (R, MI) says

It still doesn’t function right…The security of this site…doesn’t meet the minimum standards of the private sector.

And “work was only just starting to address some of the identity-verification issues as well as enrollment data,” and “the administration hadn’t yet been able to guarantee accurate enrollment data was coming out of the site.”

And HHS delayed for a year the requirement that small businesses get Obamacare insurance policies through ObamaMart.  Even though the data the businesses enter on the paper forms they’re now “allowed” to use have to be entered manually, by ObamaMart workers through that same ObamaMart.

And the IRS—the same gang that’s busily trying to stifle political speech of those groups of whom Obama disapproves, the same gang that routinely reveals the confidential tax information of those disapproved groups, still is in charge of passing around all of the financial data included in “your information.”

And on.  And on.

A Cost of Obamacare

Posted on by
Reply

Anecdotal, certainly, but anecdotes are data, and they can accumulate into trends.  This one comes from Fox News‘ “Kelly File.”

One late-middle-aged family with two college-age children were paying $500/mo for a health insurance plan that suited their needs.  President Barack Obama’s Obamacare, though, termed that plan inadequate and so illegal: the family got one of those ubiquitous cancelation letters.  The new health “insurance” plan they got runs them $1,250/mo.

With that explosion in their pocketbook, this family did what any American family does and what the Obama administration refuses to do seriously: they budgeted.

“That’s actually a little bit more than my monthly mortgage on my home, so you can imagine that you have to start thinking about, you know, where is the extra money coming to pay for the policy,” the mother said.

They made a list of things that had to go in order to afford the new plan: charitable donations, extra mortgage payments, “splurges” such as more frequent haircuts, and so on.

Courtesy of Obama and his Obamacare, charity is hurt—that should be a government welfare program, anyway, eh?—accelerated debt pay down is hurt (isn’t that how we got into this mess, excessive debt?), less money to spend on the private economy, ….

The mother added, with considerably more economics acumen than Obama,

…maybe not eating out as much, not going to the movies, that directly affects small business in our community[.]