Tag Archives: political economy

Obamacare and Health Coverage Cost Growth

Posted on by
Reply

President Barack Obama promised us, all those years ago, that if only Obamacare were enacted, a family’s health plan premium would drop by $2,500 per year, and no one would lose their employer-provided health plan. Period.

These two graphs from The Wall Street Journal draw a different…picture.ObamacareCost

These graphs cover the period since 1999. As the upper graph shows, the premiums for employer-provided health insurance and, since Obamacare’s passage in 2010, for employer-provided health plans, have risen at a steady pace—unchanged by Obamacare, and specifically, no drop in premium cost. It’s the same with the employee’s share of those premiums; that share’s pace of increase also has been unaffected—that is, no drop in cost—from Obamacare.

Now look at the lower graph. After spiking in Obamacare’s year of enactment in 2010, the per centage of businesses offering health plans to their employees has fallen to the lowest level in the 15 years depicted.

At best, Obamacare isn’t lowering employer-covered workers’ health coverage costs. There has been, though, a sharp decrease in the number of folks even offered employer-provided plans.

(That wages have risen much more slowly than health plan premiums is a different subject.)

Jobs

Posted on by
1

According to Friday’s jobs report, the headline number, the unemployment rate, dropped a skosh to 6.1%. But there’s more to it than that.

  • the long-term unemployed dropped to 3 million, but they’re still over 30% of all of US unemployed
  • the employment-population ratio was 59% for the third consecutive month

and

  • the civilian noninstitutional population was 248,229,000, up 206,000 from July, but
  • the civilian labor force was 155,959,000, down 64,000 from July

Then there’re these data:

  • nonfarm employment was up 142,000, against economists’ expectations of an increase of around 225,000 jobs
  • revisions to earlier estimates for June and July showed that the economy added 28,000 fewer jobs than initially reported
  • government figures still offer little evidence that workers are seeing higher wages or that people who left the labor force during the recession are returning in large numbers
  • the measure of unemployment that includes those working part-time but who would like full-time jobs remained at/above 12%

And

  • labor-force participation rate dropped to 62.8% to reach, again, 40-year lows

Now think again about those economic “gains” about which our Progressive President bragged just a bit ago.

The Problem with a Law

Posted on by
Reply

In 2012, the Labor Department threatened to seize the blueberry crops of a couple of Oregon farmers until they settled a Labor complaint and signed away their right to appeal the settlement. With crops at risk of rotting away, the farmers settled, agreeing to pay Labor more than $240,000. The alleged “crimes” were Labor’s claims the farmers had violated minimum wage requirements under the 1938 Fair Labor Standards Act. Labor used the threat of seizure of these perishable crops to extort the settlement.

After signing and getting their crops back, the two farmers sued.

The courts were unimpressed with Labor’s behavior.

By using the threat of rotting crops as coercion, the feds trampled due process. In January, Magistrate Judge Thomas Coffin ruled Labor had prevented defendants from having “their day in court.”

In February, Labor asked US District Judge Michael McShane to review Judge Coffin’s decision. Judge McShane agreed with the original ruling, noting the growers had challenged “unique circumstances” involving “a highly perishable product at peak harvest.”

Yew betcha. Hence the extortionate nature of Labor’s behavior. “Nice crop you got there….”

Congressman Kurt Schrader (D, OR) has been equally unimpressed with Labor’s behavior. He’s now writing a bill that would “exempt certain perishable agricultural commodities” from this sort of action.

Schrader doesn’t go far enough, though. The law should be rescinded altogether. The Federal government has demonstrated conclusively that it can’t be trusted with it.

Economic Gains

Posted on by
3

President [Barack] Obama used Labor Day to tout the country’s economic gains under his leadership….

Let’s look at those gains.

  • he’s increased the national debt in his six years by 70%—it stood at $10 trillion at the end of 2008; it’s now over $17 trillion
  • median income has fallen—it stands now at $53,900 compared with $56,700 in December 2007 at the start of the current economic dislocation
  • job creation is only just back to pre-Panic levels, 6 years into his administration, compared with normal economic recovery needing only 2-3 years to get to this point
  • unemployment rate now stands at 6.2%, dropping 1.1 points over the past year—still 20% above full employment, and again years behind schedule
  • labor force participation rate is at an historic low
  • GDP growth remains anemic at 1.5%-2.5% year on year (with this year’s growth rate projected to be in the 2.5% range) compared to a normal economic recovery growth rate in the 4.5%-6.5% range.

And this graph sums it all up:RecoveryComparison_Cox

Obama, in the same appearance, also claimed that “higher wages and other progress for workers can only be achieved through a Democrat-controlled Congress.”

Really? Can our country afford more of this Progressive progress?

Obamacare and ObamaMart Strike Again

Posted on by
1

In the continuing story of ObamaMart’s still incomplete (!) backend, the part of the Web site that takes the citizen’s input and sorts it, collates it with other government information, and then passes it on to other relevant parties—the health plan providers, for instance, and the IRS—there’s this:

Because of complicated connections between the new health care law and income taxes, the Department of Health and Human Services must send out millions of new tax forms next year.

The forms are called 1095-As, and list who in each household has health coverage, and how much the government paid each month to subsidize those insurance premiums. Nearly 5 million people have gotten subsidies through HealthCare.gov.

If the forms are delayed past their Jan 31 deadline, some people may have to wait to file tax returns—and collect their refunds.

A delay of a week or two may not sound like much, but many people depend on their tax refunds to plug holes in family finances.

That folks should better plan their withholding (where possible) and not extend Uncle Sugar a year-long interest-free loan is a separate story. Such planning is typical, and the folks who do this the most are the poorest among us—the very folks President Barack Obama and his ilk claim to be trying to help.

And there’s the coming collapse of employer-provided health plans.

Analysts predict that as ObamaCare takes hold, it will mean the end of employer-provided insurance….

The Wall Street research firm S&P IQ went even further, predicting 90% of such plans will disappear.

Now, I don’t see such an eventuality as necessarily a bad thing. Employer-supplied health plans should be what employer-supplied insurance plans used to be, when the practice began: a matter of employment compensation negotiation between employer and (prospective) employee. What interests me here is the hypocrisy of the thing.

President Barack Obama promised, repeatedly, that

you can keep your plan and your doctor, no matter what[.]

If you lose your employer-supplied health plan, you lose with that “your plan and your doctor” bit. Which, of course, Obama knew at the time he was making those promises. He even bragged about it to then Majority Leader Eric Cantor at the infamous health summit.

Also, when Presidential Candidate Barack Obama was debating Presidential Candidate John McCain in 2008, he decried McCain’s health insurance industry reform proposal as being destructive of employer-supplied health insurance.

[T]his would lead to the unraveling of the employer-based health care system. That, I don’t think, is the kind of change that we need.

Hmm….