Tag Archives: regulation

An Illustration

Posted on by
1

…of why government is unsuited to run what are essentially business operations.

Not to keep picking on Obamacare, but this program really is a poster child for why government can’t do this sort of thing. All year long, the Federal government has been trying to revamp its failed ObamaMart, euphemistically known as Healthcare.gov. Here’s the status of that effort.

  • ObamaMart still is transitioning to new government contractors to manage basic functions. This transition has been going on since the first of the year. They’re not even stable yet on what companies have been hired to do the work.
  • Some back-end functions, including a system to automate payments to insurers, are running behind schedule—still. These functions were supposed to be fully operational last October 1, at the initial deployment of ObamaMart. The revamp can’t get this right, either.
  • [N]ew versions of some functions still will need to be tested with insurers before open enrollment begins 15 Nov. Actual testing is a new wrinkle. Welcome to be sure, but even though CDS has said that ObamaMart was never seriously tested the first time, apparently CDS still is only testing some parts—spot checking.
  • [The] exchange for small businesses, delayed by technical problems last year…will “launch” without some functions.
  • [T]he system to funnel subsidy payments to plan providers for the benefit of plan purchasers (remember that back end?), originally supposed to be ready for the launch in October, then later set for completion by mid-March, is now scheduled to be fully operational in 2015—well after the enrollment period for purchasing 2015 plans has closed.

These highlights demonstrate a terrible performance, by an entity that has no concept of the cost of money and that has none of the performance incentives that a competitive environment in a free market economy provides.

For Progressives, Some Lives are More Important than Others—A Follow-up

Posted on by
Reply

A bit over a year ago, I wrote about King Cove, AK’s, attempt to get an 11-mile road built to Cold Bay so they could get folks quickly to Cold Bay’s all-weather airport and thence to a hospital. For 30 years, the Feds have been blocking King Cove’s road because the lives of animals are more important than those of the humans who live in King Cove. And die there, as 19 have, recall, over the last three decades because they couldn’t get to medical treatment in time.

Here’s the current status of that shameful situation.

A group of native tribes in Alaska is suing the Obama administration after being blocked for years from building an emergency road from their fishing hamlet to a vital airport over preservation concerns.

The suit, filed in the US District Court for the District of Alaska, claims the Interior Department’s refusal is a violation of federal law and argues no other reasonable transportation alternative exists.

They say they know taking the issue to court will likely make an already lengthy process even longer but say they have exhausted all other options.

And this from Robert Dillon, a spokesman for Senator Lisa Murkowski (R, AK):

Secretary [of the Interior Sally] Jewell has ignored the King Cove folks for six months—despite her very public promise to find a viable alternative to the land exchange.

You can imagine their frustration with Interior when they can’t even get Jewell to acknowledge them. Jewell may be hoping this issue just going away, but it won’t. The people of King Cove are fighting to keep their families safe—that’s not something you give up on.

Recall that the land swap Jewell refused involved 43,000 acres elsewhere in Alaska for the 1,800, or so, needed for King Cove’s short road.

But Jewell thinks the lives of bears, caribou, and birds are more valuable than the lives of a few hundred financially poor Aleut native Americans.

Another Aspect of American Education

Posted on by
Reply

The College Board, makers of the SAT college “readiness exam” that high schoolers across the country take and supporters of the Common Core standards that so many Americans and American school districts dislike on the merits, now wants to bring PRC “teachings” to our children’s classrooms—in 20 school districts across the US, so far.

The tool for this intrusion is the College Board’s partnership with Confucius Institutes, an agency under the control of the People’s Republic of China government and which will act as College Board’s “partner” in this venture.

The College Board carefully ignores that connection with the PRC government. The College Board also carefully ignores the fact that

Hanban—the Chinese state agency that supervises, funds, and provides staff to Confucius Institutes—may bully teachers or censor lessons within American classrooms.

The College Board also chooses to leave unmentioned the Confucius Institutes’ “seven taboos,” or unmentionables, little things like:

freedom of speech, universal values, judicial independence, and the mistakes of the Communist Party.

However, the President of the College Board, David Coleman, does say this, loudly, and often:

Hanban is just like the sun. It lights the path to develop Chinese teaching in the US. The College Board is the moon. I am so honored to reflect the light that we’ve gotten from Hanban.

Coleman says pretty much all there is to say on the matter, even if he doesn’t realize that.

It’s time our local communities take back control over their/our American education.

The Meaning of the Recent European Union Parliamentary Elections

Posted on by
Reply

Spiegel Online International wrote earlier in the week about the EU’s parliamentary elections. From those elections, there could be a power shift away from the European Council, made up of the heads of the EU member nations, toward the European Parliament, made up of Members of the European Parliament elected by the citizens of the member nations.

This power shift is possible because of two things: one is that the citizens cast their votes for their MEPs based in large part on dissatisfaction with the EU leadership in what in the US would be the Executive Branch—including the European Commission President—with the proximate outcome of a large increase in the number of MEPs representing various euro-skeptic parties at the direct expense of the pro-EU parties.

The other is that these citizens, through their new MEPs, now want their say on who their next Commission President should be, and they have a clear preference. However, the Commission, the traditional determiner of the President with the EU Parliament simply rubber stamping the choice, want to retain that decision, and they want someone else.

That’s a long introduction with which to get to the point of this post. The IOS had this to say, in part, on the matter:

[I]n many countries, the vote’s outcome was more a reflection of domestic political frustrations than a broader statement on European issues.

That, though, is the nature of federations. The constituent states vote their individual interests as determined by the citizens of those states, by design, and compromises among those states’ MEP contingents occur, to be implicitly ratified or rejected by the states’ citizens in the next round of MEP elections—Adam Smith in the political world.

As long as the EU continues to not understand that simple fact, it always will be fraught with the sorts of economic and political failures it has experienced—and still is experiencing— every time there’s even a minor crisis in politics or economics.

It appears as though the misunderstanding will continue for a long and dangerous time.

It comes down to who, in the end, is responsible for choosing the next head of the Commission, a body of 33,000 employees that is in charge of proposing new legislation and monitoring compliance with EU treaties. Is it up to the voters? Or up to the governments of EU member states?

And This Tidbit Re Obamacare—Finding Out More of What Is In It

Posted on by
Reply

Even The New York Times is starting to figure it out.

Many employers had thought they could shift health costs to the government by sending their employees to a health insurance exchange with a tax-free contribution of cash to help pay premiums, but the Obama administration has squelched the idea in a new ruling. Such arrangements do not satisfy the health care law, the administration said, and employers may be subject to a tax penalty of $100 a day—or $36,500 a year—for each employee who goes into the individual marketplace.

The ruling…by the Internal Revenue Service…blocks any wholesale move by employers to dump employees into the exchanges.

Many employers—some that now offer coverage and some that do not—had concluded that it would be cheaper to provide each employee with a lump sum of money to buy insurance on an exchange, instead of providing coverage directly.

And

When employers provide coverage, their contributions, averaging more than $5,000 a year per employee, are not counted as taxable income to workers. But the Internal Revenue Service said employers could not meet their obligations under the health care law by simply reimbursing employees for some or all of their premium costs.

Of course, in a sane world, such reimbursement would be equivalent to providing coverage, just letting the individual

Never mind that such reimbursements are exactly that coverage—especially since the reimbursements are paid only when there’s been a health plan bought: sort of contained in the meaning of “reimbursement.” But then Big Government would have to accept that individuals are fully capable of exercising their own choice—their own judgment—in the matter, rather than needing Momma IRS’ judgment.

There’s more in the NYT‘s piece….