Error in Judgment

A CVS store in Beltsville, MD, was robbed earlier in the week, and the manager, an Army veteran, intervened in the attempt. CVS fired him for the effort.

It seems two men jumped the pharmacy counter and forced the pharmacists to open their safe so the two thugs could steal the controlled drugs inside. Our army vet had his cashiers call the police, and he locked the doors so the thugs couldn’t leave.

In the end, the thugs got away, anyway. When the vet’s boss arrived afterward, he fired the vet—for intervening. The vet, a bigger man than some, said this about his firing:

My boss, when he came in to deliver the news, he was sick to his stomach. He didn’t want to, but he didn’t have a choice.

Actually, the boss did. Misguided CVS policy, or not, the boss didn’t have to fire the man; he could have stood as tall as his employee.

Remember these errors in judgment, by both the boss and by CVS, as you contemplate doing business with CVS.

Trump’s Plan for Replacing Obamacare

Republican Party Presidential candidate Donald Trump finally has made public his plan for eliminating and replacing Obamacare. His plan consists of the following seven points:

  1. Completely repeal Obamacare. Our elected representatives must eliminate the individual mandate. No person should be required to buy insurance unless he or she wants to.
  2. Modify existing law that inhibits the sale of health insurance across state lines. As long as the plan purchased complies with state requirements, any vendor ought to be able to offer insurance in any state. By allowing full competition in this market, insurance costs will go down and consumer satisfaction will go up.
  3. Allow individuals to fully deduct health insurance premium payments from their tax returns under the current tax system. Businesses are allowed to take these deductions so why wouldn’t Congress allow individuals the same exemptions? As we allow the free market to provide insurance coverage opportunities to companies and individuals, we must also make sure that no one slips through the cracks simply because they cannot afford insurance. We must review basic options for Medicaid and work with states to ensure that those who want healthcare coverage can have it.
  4. Allow individuals to use Health Savings Accounts (HSAs). Contributions into HSAs should be tax-free and should be allowed to accumulate. These accounts would become part of the estate of the individual and could be passed on to heirs without fear of any death penalty. These plans should be particularly attractive to young people who are healthy and can afford high-deductible insurance plans. These funds can be used by any member of a family without penalty. The flexibility and security provided by HSAs will be of great benefit to all who participate.
  5. Require price transparency from all healthcare providers, especially doctors and healthcare organizations like clinics and hospitals. Individuals should be able to shop to find the best prices for procedures, exams or any other medical-related procedure.
  6. Block-grant Medicaid to the states. Nearly every state already offers benefits beyond what is required in the current Medicaid structure. The state governments know their people best and can manage the administration of Medicaid far better without federal overhead. States will have the incentives to seek out and eliminate fraud, waste and abuse to preserve our precious resources.
  7. Remove barriers to entry into free markets for drug providers that offer safe, reliable and cheaper products. Congress will need the courage to step away from the special interests and do what is right for America. Though the pharmaceutical industry is in the private sector, drug companies provide a public service. Allowing consumers access to imported, safe and dependable drugs from overseas will bring more options to consumers.

The first point seems confusing. Repealing Obamacare would include elimination of the Individual Mandate. However, would simply repealing the IM satisfy this candidate on this point? The rest of Obamacare is damaging enough separately from the IM.

The second point seems internally inconsistent. A plan that complies with one state’s requirements won’t necessarily comply with another state’s requirements, and so that plan could not be sold in both states. This failure, though, does not prevent a vendor from offering insurance in any state; there are a plethora of vendors—UnitedHealth, Blue Cross/Blue Shield, Aetna, for instance—already sell health coverage plans in any state; they just don’t sell the same plan across state lines.

Regarding his sixth point, I’d add the requirement that those block grants be reduced by 10% of the first year’s grant (which would be taken as the baseline grant for a given state) every year until the grants reach zero. Simply block granting is a good start, though.

On the whole, the plan is based on free market principles, as Trump claims on his Web site. Subject to clarifying the two points of confusion, this outline looks like a good start to a candidate debate on competing health care reform plans. Marco Rubio has a somewhat less specific, but generally market-oriented plan, and John Kasich has one that’s centered on the health care and health cost coverage providers. The three plans should be explored in detail in the coming debates. The outcome then would form the core of a useful Congressional debate in the coming term about how to reform and salvage the health provision and health cost coverage industries that have been so heavily damaged by the Democratic Party and its Obamacare.

Can’t Have That

The European Commission, the bloc’s antitrust watchdog, in January ordered Belgium to recoup about €700 million ($765 million) from some 35 companies after concluding that a Belgian tax-discount plan for multinationals was distorting competition within the EU’s single market.

Distorting, sure. Because competition existed in a manner that didn’t suit the Know Betters who are the Commission. The “scheme” in question, alleged to be an excess profits scheme, was marketed by Belgium as Only in Belgium. This was another terrible affront to the Commission, which doesn’t like market differentiation that it hasn’t approved. Worse, it

allowed certain corporations to reduce their tax base by between 50% and 90%, the EU said.

Because leaving money in the hands of those who earned it means Know Betters can’t control the money’s disposition according to their own august whims.

Competition is bad. It puts customers—individuals—rather than Know Betters in charge of their affairs.

The PRC’s Currency

The PRC’s Premier Li Keqiang and its People’s Bank of China Governor Zhou Xiaochuan had some words about this at last weekend’s G-20 conference.

China emerged from the weekend Group of 20 meeting with a new measure of trust from major trading partners that it won’t significantly devalue the yuan.

Zhou was quite explicit.

There is no basis for persistent [yuan] depreciation from the perspective of economic fundamentals[.]

What this means, too, is that from within its centrally managed economy, the government is defining “economic fundamentals,” and so the government also has no intention of allowing the currency to float; it’ll continue to manage that value for government purposes in every respect.

Global Warming, Again

A guest essayist at Watts Up With That has an interesting article. Here’s the closing paragraph (as usual, RTWT):

In summary, approximately 81% of the warming in the last century may have resulted from all anthropogenic influences, as suggested by figure 4 [see the article]. This includes water vapor, CO2, methane, nitrous oxide, and land use changes to the albedo and thermal mass. CO2 may account for as much as 52% to 56% of the contribution from anthropogenic drivers (See Figs. 1 & 2). Fossil fuel-CO2 represents less than 75% of anthropogenic CO2. If we were successful in completely phasing out fossil fuels over the next 100 years, we would have a reduction of 50% in average CO2 emissions. If the Earth is warming at a nominal rate of 1°C per 100 years from all influences, then we can hope, at best, for a reduction in temperature increase of 20% (0.54×0.75×0.50) or 0.20°C. That is to say, if the world were to phase out fossil fuels in the next 100 years the warming would be 0.80 degrees instead of 1.00°C! Unfortunately, eliminating fossil fuel use will probably not be successful in significantly reducing future temperature increases, even if it can be accomplished.

A whole two tenths of a Centigrade degree, out of a climatista-expected entire one Centigrade degree. Imagine that.