Tag Archives: political economy

Health Plan Coverage and Contraception

Posted on by
Reply

The Wall Street Journal has noted that the Trump administration has taken regulatory action to reduce, if not eliminate (the Supreme Court still has to do its job vis-à-vis a Little Sisters of the Poor case, as does Congress legislatively, contra a short handful of Republicans who prefer Obamacare intact over any step toward getting rid of it), the requirement that health plan providers provide contraception to women at no cost to those women coverees and do so regardless of any question of conscience or religious tenet.

Naturally, Progressive-Democrats and the Left generally have their collective panties in a wedgie over that.  However, they carefully ignore certain inconvenient facts.

One inconvenience is the actual cost of contraception—to the user, not the rest of us who must pay for these “free” items.  Contraceptive pills can be had at places like Walmart for $9/mo, vaginal contraceptives are cheaper, condoms (don’t men have a role here, too?) are $6.50 the dozen.  These are not prices that will shatter anyone’s piggy bank.

Contraceptives are used to treat medical conditions, and they can be terribly expensive?  That’s the other inconvenience.  No they aren’t; those aren’t contraceptives.  They’re medications used for treating a medical condition; they happen to have a (if not the) major side effect of being anti-conceiving.  Insurance plans already covered such meds, and Obamacare could have, too, but the Progressive-Democratic Party eschewed that when they rammed through Obamacare.

In the end, there’s no reason anyone should pay for contraceptives other than the users.  Full stop.

Two Health Insurance Markets?

Posted on by
Reply

The Wall Street Journal has misunderstood the situation and the proposal [emphasis added].

President Donald Trump’s executive order on health insurance, the most significant step so far to put his stamp on health policy, is designed to give more options to healthy consumers. It also could divide the insurance market in two.

What Trump is purportedly going to do with his Executive Order is

  • instruct[] federal agencies to loosen rules on health plans that the administration says have driven up premiums and reduced insurance offerings
  • direct the Health and Human Services, Labor, and Treasury Departments to lay the groundwork for the growth of association health plans, coverage that would have fewer mandated benefits than many current plans available to small employers and individuals [and] that wouldn’t be subject to the full range of ACA requirements, such as the mandated package of benefits.
  • departments, in addition, will be told to take steps to expand the availability of short-term medical plans …  allow people to once again buy plans in that category that could last for almost a year.

However, rather than create two health insurance markets, these actions would do no more than begin to create one health insurance market.  There is no extant health insurance market; there is nothing present to become part of “two markets.”  What we have presently is neither insurance nor a market for it.  What we have is a health coverage welfare program that has some (very poor) options from which we’re required to select one for ourselves.

The beginnings of a health insurance market, in addition to being an actual market for health insurance, would, though, lessen the importance of the mandated welfare program—to the benefit of all of us, including those trapped in that welfare program.

Estate Tax and Tax Reform

Posted on by
Reply

Senate Republicans seem unable to understand this subject, also.

Others [Republicans] say their desire to eliminate the [estate] tax must be balanced against other priorities including tax cuts for businesses and middle-class families.

This is disingenuous. Eliminating the estate tax explicitly favors middle-class families and businesses: it’s the small businesses and farms that are owned by middle class families that are the most harmed by this death tax.

Aside from that is this piece of irrelevancy:

Estate tax repeal would reduce federal revenue by about $239 billion over the next decade, according to the Tax Policy Center.

Interesting, but unimportant here. Government has yet to show a need for that money.

Another Example

Posted on by
Reply

…of government regulatory failure.  The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, which regulates, among other financial institutions, brokerage houses, has its own investment portfolio.  FINRA charges fees from those it regulates for their privilege of being regulated.  And

In years when FINRA’s fee revenue exceeds forecasts and investment gains are strong, the regulator can rebate fees paid by firms it regulates.

Investment gains are strong.  However, FINRA turns out to be a crappy investor, getting just two-thirds of the return since 2004, when the regulatory body’s investment portfolio was created, that a simple-minded standard portfolio mix of 50% each of bonds and stocks would have gotten in the same period.  Its return shortfall, 3.4% vs that standard portfolio’s 6%, is a real money shortfall: $440 million for a portfolio of $1.6 billion.

And that has real impact on the regulatees that are so privileged: not only have there been no fee rebates since 2014, FINRA is raising fees on its regulatees to make up for its failure as an investor.

Go figure.

Some Early Thoughts on the Tax Reform Proposal

Posted on by
Reply

…triggered by Laura Saunders’ piece in Wednesday’s Wall Street Journal.

Beginning with the headline and thesis of her piece: Winners and Losers Under the Trump Tax Plan. Because Government should be about picking winners and losers instead of just protecting a level free market for all.  Sure.

Now a couple of specifics.

People with large medical or disaster deductions. Each of these write-offs on Schedule A has significant hurdles and is only available to taxpayers with large unreimbursed expenses

This one isn’t particularly relevant to tax reform. It just means that four Republican Senators who prefer preserving Obamacare intact over even a first step toward repealing/replacing it need themselves to be replaced with Republican Senators who are serious about getting rid of Obamacare and its destructiveness.

Losing the State tax deduction? That only impacts a couple of States with enormous spending habits; those citizens need to correct their State government errors.  The citizens of the other States don’t need to be dragooned into indemnifying the foolishness of those couple of States.

The mortgage deduction loses value under tax reform? Yeah, and? Punish those who don’t itemize by taxing them more (vis., not raising the standard deduction) so others can have a deduction? Beyond the cynicism of this special interest nonsense, our tax code shouldn’t be in the business of social engineering in the first place.

This proposal is a good first step in tax reform.

Now we just need to disabuse politicians that every bill is the last word on a subject rather than an interim as we move toward our goal: a flat tax in the neighborhood of 10% on all income, regardless of source, and the elimination of all deductions, credits, and other froo-froo.