Tag Archives: responsibilities

The Veterans Administration Is Not Getting Better

Posted on by
1

VA Secretary David Shulkin, according to an IG report, has been misappropriating VA funds for his and his family’s personal benefit, and he’s been abusing his authority to require a subordinate to act as his “personal travel concierge.”  He

improperly accepted a gift of Wimbledon tennis tickets….

And his Chief of Staff, Vivieca Wright Simpson, apparently tampered with evidence:

made false claims to a VA ethics official by altering an email to get official approval for Dr Shulkin’s wife to take part in the trip as an “invitational traveler,” a status that meant the VA would cover her expenses. Her airfare cost taxpayers $4,312.

Shulkin and his fellow travelers (not only his wife) spent an exhausting 3 and a half days in business-related meetings out of their 10-day trip.  That’s some jet lag.

Of course, Shulkin and his staff denied all of this and complained that the week the IG gave him to respond was, somehow, not enough time.  Must have been still jet lagged.

He’s paid the money back?  He should have known better in the first place.  If the leadership cannot be counted on to perform, how can anyone else be?  Reallocate the VA budget—every single dollar of it—to vouchers for our veterans.

 

Veteranos Administratio delende est.

A New Insurance Plan

Posted on by
Reply

Idaho has one.  Blue Cross of Idaho says it’s going to take advantage of newly issued State regulations to start marketing a plan that won’t meet Obamacare requirements, and they’re going to sell the plan alongside its existing Obamacare-compliant plans.

The Idaho Department of Insurance last month became the first state regulator to say it would let insurers begin offering “state-based plans” for consumers that involved practices generally banned for individual insurance under the ACA, including tying premium rates to enrollees’ pre-existing health conditions.

In particular,

The new Blue Cross state plans’ premiums would vary based on an enrollee’s health status—for instance, for one of its new plans, the insurer suggested that the best rate for a healthy 45-year-old could be around $194.67 a month, while a person of the same age with worse health could pay as much as $525.69. For one of its “bronze”-level ACA plans, the premium for a 45-year-old, regardless of health history, would typically be around $343.09, the insurer said.

Risk-based premiums.  What a concept.  And lower risk brings a premium roughly half the Obamacare risk-be-damned charge.

Welfare Reform: MIA

Posted on by
Reply

Senate Republicans and Progressive-Democrats agreed in principle to a two-year budget deal that sets outer bounds on spending allocations that are yet to be debated and passed in the two Houses.  The deal increases defense spending by $165 billion over the next two years, and it increases domestic spending by $131 billion over those two years.

But at what price?

One price is the potential for a return to $1 trillion deficits.  To an extent, that’ll be reduced by a growing economy as the tax reform law begins to take effect.

The larger price, though, by far, is the lack movement on the big three budget failures: Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid transfers.  These remain not on any track toward privatization, or with that last item, not on any track toward reducing to zero transfers.

In 2016, the Federal government spent almost $950 billion on Social Security payments and a bit over $590 billion on Medicare.  Federal Medicaid transfers to the States in 2016 ran some $325 billion.

Fixing those would be produce a large reduction in deficits to the point of budget surpluses, which could be used to run down our national debt.  And the fixing would produce a large return to the personal responsibility that has contributed so strongly to our nation’s greatness and prosperity.

A New Welfare Trap

Posted on by
Reply

This one is in the offing at the State level, and comes as a result of the punitive tax for not buying health coverage was repealed last December.

At least nine states are considering their own versions of a requirement that residents must have health insurance….

And

Maryland lawmakers are pursuing a plan to replace the ACA mandate, which requires most people to pay a penalty if they don’t have coverage. California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Minnesota, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington, as well as the District of Columbia, are publicly considering similar ideas.

Notice that.  These are Progressive-Democrat-run states.

The less well off who couldn’t afford either the penalty or the remaining costs—high deductibles, low per centage of plan provider payments even after “coverage” kicked in—under Obamacare still won’t be able to afford mandated coverage in these States.

Beyond that, they won’t be able to leave the State and relocate to one that doesn’t inflict these costs.  Their already limited economic resources are a barrier to such relocation.  Added to that, though, will be the lack of portability of the mandated coverage plans: having been dragooned into one by, say California or DC, they won’t be able to take it with them, even to Connecticut or Minnesota.  Or to a State that doesn’t require them to buy something they don’t want.

Progressive-Democrats really are that desperate to keep their welfare “recipients” trapped in welfare cages. Aside from that bit of self-serving…nonsense…the move also demonstrates the Progressive-Democrats’ utter contempt for us Americans.  We are, their behavior and policies say, just too mind-numbingly stupid to be entrusted with our own choices.  We have to be led by our Betters, forced for our own good, to do certain things.

Working for a Living

Posted on by
Reply

Indiana has joined Kentucky in getting approval to add a work requirement to its Medicaid program (separately: Federal approval should not be a requirement; the program should be a State-run and -funded program only).

Of course, there are objections.

Democrats and consumer groups are decrying the GOP push, saying it is antithetical to Medicaid’s goal of expanding health care.

That’s plainly not true, though (I’ll ignore the conflation of health care with health care coverage).  The push is exactly what’s needed to make health care coverage available to all who want it.  The plan, even as minimal as this one is (the work-related requirement would apply only to a small segment of Indiana’s Medicaid enrollees), will facilitate availability, not limit it.  By making it possible for folks to get off this welfare program and into jobs that can enable them to buy their own coverage—if they want it—it will allow the State’s Medicaid dollars be committed to those who truly need Medicaid because they’re too old, too young, and/or too infirm to get desired coverage on their own.