Tag Archives: political economy

Obamacare, Take Two

Posted on by
Reply

…aspirin, and call your doctor in the morning. If you can find one.

Actually, this Take Two is an Obamacare second year look. I went to healthcare.gov to see what was what, after I’d done a couple of comparisons last year.

The good news is that the Web site works much more smoothly now. The bad news is that the Web site works much more smoothly now.

Taking advantage of that smoothness, I looked at some Gold plans offered in my area. As before, I selected Gold because that coverage comes closest to what I get through my wife’s employer. The failures of these plans still exist: coverages I don’t want and don’t need are forced on me (I told my doctor at my last annual that I wanted my IUD. I was paying for it, and I wanted what I was paying for. I told her that it didn’t matter where she stuck it, it was likely to fail, and I’d be back in a couple of weeks for a replacement. She chuckled over that.)

Every Gold plan offered—all seven of them—had premiums plus deductible plus out-of-pocket caps totaling in the neighborhood of $17k per year. Every year. I’d pay all of premiums and deductibles before any plan paid a single penny of my expenses, and I’d still have those caps. Certainly, that’s down from last year’s nearly 27 stacks, but still…. Those costs also are for only one person, even though I’d told ObamaMart that I was looking for coverage for two.

I can’t get a Catastrophic plan in my area anymore. Recall that last year, I could get one that—after premiums plus deductible plus out-of-pocket caps—would generously pay 60% of my costs. No more.

I looked at the down-rated Silver plans, too; there are 11 offered in my area now. Total costs ran from $19k to $23k. For coverage of one person.

There are 7 Bronze plans for me; these cost in the neighborhood of $20k. ‘Course, the folks buying these are likely to be subsidized, so they won’t be paying those 20 stacks. You and I will. In addition to the $17k-$23k (depending on our plan) we’ll pay for our own coverage.

It just doesn’t get any better than this. At least while Obamacare is in the way.

Taxing Europe

Posted on by
Reply

Speaking at a gathering of the Group of 20 major economies in Brisbane, the former prime minister of Luxembourg defended his position, saying a lack of cooperation between European Union member states created a system where “very low taxation of companies” was legal. “Things of that kind could happen because of the divergency between national tax legislation,” he said.

European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker said that like he thought low taxes were a bad thing. Leaving more money in the hands of the folks who earned it, instead of transferring it to Government Know Betters is a bad thing.

Contra our own President Barack Obama and his Democratic Party, I don’t want us to be more like Europe.

Another Installment of the Obama Recovery

Posted on by
Reply

The number of part-time workers who’d rather work full time remains heavily depressed. Here are some numbers, via Nick Timiraos in The Wall Street Journal.

  • 3 million full-time workers hired just this year, but the number of full-time workers is still around 2 million shy of the level before the recession began in 2007
  • number of workers who are part time for economic reasons is 4.5% of the civilian workforce, down from a high of 5.9% in 2010 but well above the 2.7% average in the decade preceding the recession

Yeah, we’re doing wonderfully well. Sure.

Democratic Party Principle

Posted on by
1

A couple days ago, one of Obamacare’s primary architects, Jonathan Gruber, said this about the need for the tactics used in order to get the thing passed.

This bill was written in a tortured way to make sure CBO did not score the mandate as taxes. If CBO scored the mandate as taxes, the bill dies. Okay, so it’s written to do that. In terms of risk-rated subsidies, if you had a law which said that healthy people are going to pay in—you made explicit healthy people pay in and sick people get money, it would not have passed…. Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage. And basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really, really critical for the thing to pass…. Look, I wish Mark was right that we could make it all transparent, but I’d rather have this law than not.

Despicable as that is, though, what really bothers me are two other things.

In a subsequent interview with MSNBC‘s Ronan Farrow, Gruber had this exchange with Farrow regarding those remarks:

“Do you stand by the comments in that video?,” MSNBC host Ronan Farrow asked Gruber, referring to a video of Gruber explaining how a lack of transparency helped Obamacare pass into law.

“The comments in the video were made at an academic conference,” Gruber said. “I was speaking off the cuff and I basically spoke inappropriately and I regret having made those comments.”

Notice that: Gruber regrets the remarks, but he does not at all regret the underlying principle he espoused. He stands by his claim that Americans are too stupid to understand the issues at hand, and he stands by his claim that it’s entirely appropriate to lie to us in order to get his way.

The other thing that bothers me is the lack of senior Democratic Party officials’ repudiation of Gruber’s underlying principle. I’ve not seen even any rank and file Democrat repudiating it. Apparently, this is a principle of the Democratic Party at large—we’re dumb, and it’s OK to lie to us to get past the impediment to their policy enactment that our dumbness presents.