Category Archives: regulation

Some Lies of Obamacare

Posted on by
Reply

It seems, now, that President Barack Obama’s administration knew of the potential for the ObamaMart failure as early as last March (but, no, not Obama himself; he only hears about things from the newspapers, not from anyone in his employ).  Then, apparently, they promptly lied about that potential ‘way back then.

Key administration officials at the White House and Department of Health and Human Services received briefings this past spring from McKinsey & Co, a private consulting firm that reviewed more than 200 documents and conducted interviews with HHS staff to identify potential problems before the Oct 1 rollout.

…including insufficient testing and evolving requirements. The report also warned that the program relied too heavily on outside contractors.

And

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, Medicare Chief Marilyn Tavenner, and Gary Cohen, a Medicare and Medicaid oversight official, attended a briefing on the firm’s analysis on April 4[.]

Then

Sebelius testified at an oversight committee hearing two weeks after being briefed on the McKinsey report that the implementation of ObamaCare was on track[.]

The seeming lie nature of Sebelius’ testimony—certainly, problems identified in March could have been addressed by Rollout Date—is indicated by the fact that when Healthcare.gov ObamaMart launched, those problems, or problems very like those identified by McKinsey, remained in place, unresolved.

Free Speech, Progressive Style

Posted on by
Reply

A day after he questioned President Obama’s decision to unwind a major tenet of the health-care law and said the nation’s capital might not go along, DC insurance commissioner William P White was fired.

White did acknowledge that the Deputy Mayor who fired him didn’t specifically lay the cause off to White’s reluctance to rubberstamp Obama, but the DM didn’t give any other reason, either.  And the timing of the firing is…curious.

In a statement White issued after Obama announced his ObamaFix, White said in part,

The action today undercuts the purpose of the exchanges, including the District’s DC Health Link, by creating exceptions that make it more difficult for them to operate[.]

A senior city official, carefully speaking only anonymously, said White’s statement should have been sent to Deputy Mayor Victor Hoskins for prior approval first.  So, the DC Mayor reserves to himself the actions of DC Health Link and he reserves to himself authority for determining the validity and legality of insurance policies sold in the district—not the insurance commissioner’s office.

Yeah.  And if the political line isn’t toed, if the political, pre-written speech is not carefully recited, you’re out.

Hmm….

Free Speech, Belgian Style

Posted on by
Reply

Didier Bellens, CEO of Belgacom (Belgium’s largest telecommunications company) has been fired.  He complained too much about government regulation and taxes.

As The Wall Street Journal described it,

Over the years, Mr Bellens has launched a number of broadsides against the government.  Friday’s dismissal comes after the latest attack, in which he asked a business club breakfast in the chic Brussels suburb of Uccle, “Who’s the worst shareholder?”  His answer: “The Belgian state.”

Yep.  The Belgian government owns 53.5% of Belgacom.  And the government disapproved of Bellens’ political—even business—speech.  Last Friday, Prime Minister Elio di Rupo fired Bellens, announcing

The repeated, accumulated outbursts have irreversibly damaged the confidence of the Belgian state in Mr Bellens[.]

There can’t even be an argument that Bellens hadn’t been performing up to snuff from a business perspective.  Stefaan Genoe, a telecommunications analyst at brokerage Petercam, had this about Bellens’ results:

Overall, Belgacom has evolved very well strategically during his tenure.  It has a very healthy balance sheet.

Dividends are still attractive, at 8 or 9%[.]

And the Progressives in our own government want to Europeanize us.

Hmm….

Should It Be?

Posted on by
Reply

Fox News asked, over the weekend, whether ObamaCare can be saved.  But the real question is whether it should be—that hasn’t been established, yet.

Indeed, the basic question is whether this country should be providing universal health welfare—which is what Obamacare attempts to do; this law eliminates any insurance aspect from its purported health “insurance” program—at all.

Obamacare, as it stands, is not what Americans want.  Poll after poll, across the three years since the law’s enactment, demonstrate this.  The law’s internal contradictions, quite apart from its masquerade as insurance, make its efficacy—its very legitimacy—nonexistent.

Obamacare has the poor subsidizing the better off: young and healthy are required to buy “insurance” they don’t need at inflated prices in order that older Americans can buy “insurance” at artificially depressed prices.

Single men and empty nesters are required to buy “insurance” that covers women’s prenatal and maternity care—as well as the extremely cheap commodity of birth control pills so that women of child-bearing and rearing age can buy these coverages at artificially deflated prices—and get their birth control pill for “free.”

Millions of Americans (5 million and counting in the private individual market, the ObamaFix notwithstanding, with small business policies to follow in a few months and the employer mandate to take effect in a year) are being forced off their insurance policies, policies for which preference has been demonstrated both by Americans’ purchase of them and the hue and cry over their loss, all so that they will be driven into the ObamaMart to buy government-approved “insurance” at much higher premiums and much higher deductibles.

The law’s design is explicit: to redistribute wealth.  Period.  This is a redistribution of wealth from those who don’t have it to those who, if not exactly wealthy, generally are better off and certainly more established.  This is a redistribution of wealth, also, from one group of sort-of-haves to a different group—government preferred—of sort-of-haves.

Blinder Strikes Again

Posted on by
Reply

Professor Alan Blinder (Economics and Public Affairs, Princeton University) opened his Wall Street Journal op-ed, this time, with a correct statement.

But a badly designed website doesn’t signify a badly designed policy.  The goals, principles and major design features of the ACA are barely affected by the government’s health-exchange website catastrophe.  If you liked the basic ideas before, you still should.  If you didn’t, you still shouldn’t.

True enough, the ObamaMart Web site is just the front end of Obamacare (it’s also the back end, handling all of your personal financial and medical history and doing so in an enormously error-prone fashion and so far with no security at all—security has never been seriously tested), it is not Obamacare itself.

But from here, as is usual with Blinder, it’s all downhill.  First is his typically Progressive dishonesty in his characterization of those who oppose Obamacare:

…the enemies of health-care reform are telling [Americans] that ObamaCare is a failure.

Of course, because Obamacare is the only way to reform the health insurance industry (which Blinder also dishonestly conflates with health care).  It couldn’t possibly be that there are other ways to achieve reform, like the half-dozen, or so, House offerings that reform through patient-centric—that is to say, individual American-centric—market solutions.  No, Progressives know that Americans are too stupid to make their own decisions.

Then he gets to his point:

The three central elements of ObamaCare are insurance reform, getting (most of) the uninsured covered, and containing the upward spiral in medical-care costs.  Each remains in place.

He sees this as a plus, not the failure that it is.  Sad.  In turn:

There is no insurance reform, only the destruction (leaving aside its nationalization) of the insurance industry.  The price of an “insurance” policy now is completely divorced form the risk being “insured.”  The young are being required to pay inflated prices for policies they do not need, generally do not want, and cannot afford solely and explicitly to pay for the depressed prices the old otherwise would pay.  Single men and empty nesters are being required to purchase prenatal and maternity coverage, children’s dental coverage, even contraceptive coverage (as if this commodity wants “insurance” coverage at all) so that women, in particular, and families generally, who might actually…benefit…from such policies can pay lower rates for them.  The list goes on.  This isn’t insurance, it’s naked wealth redistribution.  Even when there’s no wealth to redistribute.

“Getting most of the uninsured covered?”  That wasn’t the original promise; that started out being “all of the uninsured.”  Whether we wanted the insurance or not.  Aside from that, it’s not even coming close to getting all covered, because of Blinder’s third point:

Costs, of this health welfare program, anyway, are spiraling rapidly out of control.  The premiums available already are well documented to be in the two- and three-digit per centages higher—and that’s just for the premiums.  Deductibles are skyrocketing.  These are costs that have to be paid by the “insuree” before his coverage kicks in.  And it resets every year, while those premiums and the costs of being sick just keep on keepin’ on.

And there’s Blinder’s cynical non sequitur:

Millions of people under the age of 26 are already benefiting by being kept on their parents’ policies.

Yet,

To make universal coverage work, the government needs to bring [young people] into the insurance pool as counterweights to the high-risk people.

Meaning that millions of the young folks Obamacare so desperately needs to buy “insurance” so as to fund artificially low premiums for the rest aren’t buying “insurance;” they’re just jacking up the cost of their parents’ “insurance.”  How does that work, exactly, Alan?  How are these “millions of people under the age of 26” being brought “into the insurance pool as counterweights?”

And his bodice-rending closer:

[T]he status quo ante was so unacceptable.  America cannot be a humane society if we leave 15% of our population uninsured.  America cannot be an efficient society if we spend 50% to 100% more of our incomes on health care than other countries, and yet don’t get better health outcomes.  We can’t let a botched website get in the way of goals that big.

Unfortunately, Progressives like Blinder remain in the way, actively blocking market solutions and individual choice (we’re too stupid to be trusted with our own choices, remember) that actually would bring down the costs of true insurance on the one hand and the costs of health care on the other.  And leave a significant per centage of us without health insurance because that’s our choice.