Tag Archives: economics

Another Non-Existent Idea for Health Care Reform

Posted on by
Reply

The Republican Study Committee has offered yet another Obamacare alternative in a long line of Obamacare alternatives Republicans have offered in the past two-three years.  The gist of the latest alternative is this:

Title I – Repeal of Obamacare

Title II – Increasing Access to Portable, Affordable Health Insurance

  • levels the playing field between those who receive insurance from an employer and those purchasing it in the individual market: replacesthose with qualifying health plan receive an SDHI of $7,500 (individuals) or $20,000 (families) which will apply to income and payroll taxes, and will increase at CPI-U
    • 1) the current uncapped tax benefit for employer-sponsored health insurance
    • 2) the self-employed tax deduction with an above-the-line standard deduction for health insurance (SDHI)
  • full SDHI goes to the individual or family regardless of the cost of the policy bought—the SDHI above the cost goes right into the individual’s or family’s pocketbook
  • expand access to and allowable expenses for health savings accounts (HSAs), increase the maximum allowable contribution into HSAs, and allow employers to offer a larger benefit for successful completion of a wellness program

Title III – Improving Access to Insurance for Vulnerable Americans

  • expand federal support for state high risk pools to $25 billion over 10 years
  • guarantees that individuals with pre-existing conditions can move between the large group, small group, and individual health insurance markets, so long as they maintain continuous coverage

Title IV – Encouraging a More Competitive Health Care Market

  • allows Americans to purchase health insurance products across state lines
  • permits small businesses to pool together to negotiate better rates

Title V – Reforming Medical Liability Law

  • caps non-economic damages, and limits attorney fees

Title VI – Respecting Human Life

  • prohibits federal funds authorized or appropriated by this act from covering abortion, except in the case of rape, incest, or when the life of the mother is jeopardized
  • ensures that no state pro-life or conscience protection laws will be preempted

But this doesn’t exist; Democrats say Republicans have offered no alternatives.

Wages of Surrender

Posted on by
Reply

In a recent Washington Examiner column, Byron York discussed dissension in Senate Republican ranks, centered on a series of maneuvers proposed by Senator Ted Cruz (R, TX) to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R, KY) that, with Republican unity, would force a Senate vote on the House-passed CR that would fund the government into mid-December while withholding funds from Obamacare.  This, just incidentally, would put Democratic Senators in 2014’s vulnerable states on record as actively supporting a law that the majority of Americans—including the majority of these Senators’ bosses—do not like and do not want.

Buried in that article was this:

…one [Republican] aide opposed to the defunding maneuver. “They [Senate Republicans] will have just filibustered their own bill and shut down the government.  They will be solely responsible for shutting down the government.”

No.  The Democrats and President Barack Obama will be responsible for shutting down the government.  They’re the ones blocking a bill that funds it, or vetoing a bill that funds it.  But the aide—and the Republican Senators who agree with him—cannot see that, much less make the argument over shutdown responsibility.

That’s what happens when Republicans cede the terms of the argument.  They willingly accept the Democrat framing of the discussion: “No, we don’t want to shut down the government” instead of making the more accurate argument: “The Democrats, President Obama, want to shut down the government—they’re against the bill that would fund it.”  That’s what happens to men who are spring-loaded to surrender rather than fight an inconvenient fight.

Obama is winning: the Republican Party is destroying itself before his eyes.

Because Stuff Happens

Posted on by
Reply

Another seemingly mendacious defense of Obamacare.  Congressman Jackie Speier (D, CA) decries objections to unqualified or even unvetted Obamacare “Navigators” having access to individual Americans’ health and financial data.  Speier dismisses the concerns as just a

systematic effort by some Republican state officials to obstruct implementation of the Affordable Care Act[.]

She’s joined by HHS spokesman Brian Cook, who insists,

The navigator program is similar to Medicare counselors, which have existed for years and never faced this kind of criticism from Congress.  The shameful and unprecedented attempt by some in Congress to bully and intimidate these private organizations is clearly an ideologically driven attempt to prevent uninsured Americans from gaining health coverage.

Never mind that personal medical and financial data weren’t so easily hacked into when Medicare was being gutsed up.  Hey, stuff happens, and we should just live with it.

Wrong.  These people know stuff happens, and they should be getting in the way of it, not excusing it.

Obama’s Government Shutdown

Posted on by
Reply

Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew had this to say in a Tuesday speech to the Economic Club. The President

will not accept measures that would tie a debt-limit increase to defunding or delaying the Affordable Care Act.  There are not and will not be negotiations about the debt limit.

There it is in so many words.  President Barack Obama insists on blowing up our economy and trashing what’s left of our national credit rating because his ego will not let him negotiate—anything—on the debt ceiling.

Obama’s shutdown.  Obama’s trash.  He’s even setting up for his shutdown.

Now That’s Just Dumb

Posted on by
Reply

House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp of Michigan and others are quietly floating the idea of accepting a slightly higher tax on capital income in order to win support from Democrats on tax reform.

“Capital income” includes both capital gain and dividend income.  But if you raise the taxes on investment, you’ll get less of it.  Any high school student of economics knows this.

[C]ommittee insiders in the House tell us that Republicans have been weighing the trade-off between higher taxes on capital in exchange for lower rates on wages and salaries and small businesses.

To what end?  This tax policy just distorts the market and our economy, even more than the existing tax-code-as-social-engineering-tool already does.

Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus of Montana, a Democrat, wants to equalize the rates for capital gains and taxes on wages and salaries.  For Democrats, he has said, this is a matter “of basic fairness.”

Fair or not, I agree with the idea of equalizing “the rates for capital gains and taxes on wages and salaries.”  A flat tax of 10% on all income, regardless of source, does the trick.  And a low, flat tax won’t distort our economy.  Although, it will take away a vote buying tool that members of both parties use for personal political gain: promising “lower taxes” by Republicans and selling tax credits and subsidies by Democrats.  That’s not dumb.