Category Archives: regulation

Some Just Can’t Be Helped

Posted on by
Reply

California is on the verge of a new gold rush. Expanded hydraulic fracturing—or “fracking”—at the Monterey Shale formation is sparking estimates that 15 billion barrels of oil could be accessed, along with millions of jobs and huge contributions to the domestic energy supply.

Even the state’s green-friendly Democratic governor, Jerry Brown, says “the potential is extraordinary.”

But standing in the way is a flurry of anti-fracking bills.  At last count, 10 were on the table, all introduced by Democrats seeking tighter controls over the controversial technology.

Never mind that there’s nothing controversial about fracking, except in the minds of “journalists” looking to peddle their stories and in the minds of “environmentalists” who would rather trash our economy—and so our environment—than do anything serious vis-à-vis our environment, or our economy.

Indeed, as Tupper Hull, Vice President of Strategic Communications with the Western States Petroleum Association notes,

Why would you want to curtail energy production, with a technology that has proved to be safe, and (deny) the folks in the regions of the state where those benefits are going to accrue?  That just doesn’t make any sense[.]

Aside from the general stupidity of this, my concern is that when California goes bust, they’ll come a-runnin’, demanding help, trying to con the Federal government into bailing them out.  With the tax dollars paid by the citizens of functionally bankrupt Illinois, paid by the citizens of nearly bankrupt New York, paid by the citizens of fiscally responsible Texas, paid by the citizens of….

Government Regulations

Posted on by
Reply

…state variety.

North Carolina is moving a bill along that would protect automobile franchisees in the state from competition.

Tesla says it is cutting out the middleman by allowing people to view different options in a showroom, but then ordering the car direct from the company online rather than buying from a salesman.  …lobbying groups say franchise dealers invest more locally and provide customer service that Tesla cannot.
…
The North Carolina law…prevents customers in the state from making electronic purchases directly through manufacturers….

The premises may or may not be true that franchise dealers invest more locally (probably true) or provide better customer service (possibly true), but these are business decisions, and performance in these two areas should be assessed by the buying public in a competitive market.  Government has no business regulating this; this law is solely to protect government-favored enterprises from competition.

Obamacare Fail

Posted on by
Reply

…again.

Employers are increasingly recognizing they may be able to avoid certain penalties under the federal health law by offering very limited plans that can lack key benefits such as hospital coverage.

Benefits advisers and insurance brokers—bucking a commonly held expectation that the law would broadly enrich benefits—are pitching these low-benefit plans around the country.

This, of course, is backwards.  The coverages here should be paid out of pocket.  The better policy would cover only catastrophic events—like hospitalization.

Then there’s this:

[E]mployers and benefits experts have understood the rules to require robust insurance, covering a list of “essential” benefits such as mental-health services and a high percentage of workers’ overall costs….

But a close reading of the rules makes it clear that those mandates affect only plans sponsored by insurers that are sold to small businesses and individuals, federal officials confirm.

The money-saving bare bones policies are only available to large companies.  The jobs producers remain stuck with the expensive, overwrought mandated policies that they cannot afford.  Nor can they afford the penalties Obamacare exacts for not affording them.

And this from Kansas Insurance Department Special Counsel Linda Sheppard:

The whole idea is to get healthy people in and not-so-healthy people in.

Never mind that healthy people don’t need to be in, since they don’t need the coverage, and so they shouldn’t be being forced in.

Progress

Posted on by
Reply

Recall that the DC Circuit had struck down President Barack Obama’s “appointment” of three of his folks to the NLRB, ruling in blunt terms that these appointments were unconstitutional since they had been made while the Senate was in session.

Now the 3rd Appellate Circuit, centering its opinion on the “appointment” of Craig Becker in March 2010, has expanded on that for its area of jurisdiction (Delaware, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania), ruling that rulings made by this unconstitutionally constituted board were without effect since the NLRB, lacking a quorum, had no capacity for issuing its rulings.  The 3rd Circuit’s ruling says in part

We hold that the “the Recess of the Senate,” in the Recess Appointments Clause refers to only intersession breaks.  As a consequence, we conclude that the National Labor Relations Board panel below lacked the requisite number of members [three] to exercise the Board’s authority.

The narrow outcome of the ruling is this:

…a disputed union election that occurred at a New Jersey nursing home.  The NLRB denied the nursing home’s motion that the board illegitimately forced the company to recognize unionized managers.  The Appeals Court ruled that the board did not have the authority to dismiss the motion because of the recess appointments.

The broader outcome of the ruling is to invalidate over 900 rulings issued by the NLRB while it had no quorum with which to do so, including more than 200 since the board’s current makeup was ruled unconstitutional by the DC Circuit, which has national jurisdiction in such matters.

This can have only salutary effects for our country.

A Grant of Dominion

Posted on by
Reply

…of one group of Americans over another, courtesy of President Barack Obama, congresswoman Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D, NV), and their Obamacare.

Dr Ezekial Emanual, ex-health-care adviser to Obama and presently senior fellow at the Center for American Progress strongly recommended this grant in a recent op-ed in The Wall Street Journal.

In touting Obamacare’s health “insurance” exchanges, he recommended government add overt pressure on our young to buy health “insurance,” in addition to the existing Individual Mandate requirement, because their participation is a necessary subsidy for others’ purchase.

Emanual began his push for this strengthening of the grant of a claim on one person’s private property to another with this…error:

Government exchanges on a national scale have never been tried before.

This is clearly untrue.  Canada, which is moving away from its national health “care” travesty, and Great Britain, which still is maintaining its National Health Service disaster, have already done this creation of health “insurance” on a national scale.  We know the failure that is pending.

Emanual had this in support of his push for extending that grant of dominion:

Here is the specific problem: insurance companies worry that young people, especially young men, already think they are invincible, and they are bewildered about the health-care reform in general and exchanges in particular.  They may tune out, forego purchasing health insurance and opt to pay a penalty instead when their taxes come due.
…
The consequence would be a disproportionate number of older and sicker people purchasing insurance, which will raise insurance premiums and, in turn, discourage more people from enrolling.  This reluctance to enroll would damage a key aspect of reform.

There are a number of things wrong with this.  In the first place, young people aren’t invincible and generally don’t think they are—this is just a cynically dragged red herring.  Young people, though, generally are healthy enough that both health “insurance,” especially the expensive, overwrought versions being pedaled by government, and health welfare, which is what the government’s product really is, are bad bets.

Insurance companies—when they’re allowed to sell true insurance policies—make their money by correctly assessing the likelihood of payout and adjusting the premiums they charge in advance of the expected payout accordingly.  The likelihood of payout for a young person (the odds of his getting sick) is quite low over any reasonable time frame.  The healthy young are wise to take that risk on themselves.

Secondly, young people aren’t as bewildered as Emanual makes them out to be.  They understand the risks they’re assuming, and they’re quite clear on the wisdom of the assumption.  They just don’t have the same assessment that Emanual—who apparently Knows Better—does.

Third, the penalty of the Individual Mandate itself is nothing more than a sinister enforcing mechanism of government’s grant of dominion over one man to another.

Fourth, the consequence of not following Emanual’s “recommendation” is simply the consequence of government’s demand for health welfare rather than allowing free market, competitively sold health insurance.  That consequence has nothing to do with the choices the young might freely make.

Emanual added further defense:

[W]e need to make clear as a society that buying insurance is part of individual responsibility.  If you don’t have insurance and you need to go to the emergency room or unexpectedly get diagnosed with cancer, you are free-riding on others.  …  The social norm of individual responsibility must be equated with purchasing health insurance.

Stipulating, arguendo (and only for that), that this is an accurate characterization, this justifies being forced to let others free-ride on me how, exactly?

Moreover, when I get sick and I’m uninsured, I don’t go to the ER and freeload—I pay for my infirm out of my own resources.  Just as my wife and I did when we were uninsured and paid for her biopsy and bilateral mastectomy out of our own resources.

Additionally—and this is a critical point that Progressives in general either can’t understand or simply ignore—helping those less well off is a matter of individual responsibility, not a government one.  Paying into government-provided welfare is legitimate, but only when government involvement is the last resort, not the default one.

Buying insurance or not, though—real insurance, not the present health welfare—has nothing at all to do with individual responsibility or with welfare.  That’s purely a personal economic and risk assessment choice.  Demanding that this man buy insurance so as to hold down that man’s cost for insurance is just, again, a grant of dominion to that other over the one: it’s government’s grant to another man of a claim superior to the one’s on his own property.

That’s tyranny, at best.

Emanual gave his game away here:

The president connects with young people, too, so he needs to use that bond and get out there to convince them to sign up for health insurance to help this central part of his legacy.

How cynical.  They should spend money on a thing they don’t need because Obama says that’s cool.  And to preserve a political legacy for Emanual’s hero.

Nor another man nor government has dominion over us.  Especially, government has no dominion over us; government, contrary to Emanual’s apparent understanding, is our employee.