Thursday, December 24, 2009

The Senate Health Bill Nonsense, Vol 1.

I am about 80 pages into the Senate Health Bill (AKA Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or PPACA) and already the nonsense begins in gross quantities.

For instance:

‘‘SEC. 2701. FAIR HEALTH INSURANCE PREMIUMS.

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—With respect to the premium rate charged by a health insurance issuer for health insurance coverage offered in the individual or small group Market—

‘‘(A) such rate shall vary with respect to the particular plan or coverage involved only by—

‘‘(i) whether such plan or coverage covers an individual or family;
‘‘(ii) rating area, as established in accordance with paragraph (2);
‘‘(iii) age, except that such rate shall not vary by more than 3 to 1 for adults
(consistent with section 2707(c)); and
‘‘(iv) tobacco use, except that such rate shall not vary by more than 1.5 to 1; and

‘‘(B) such rate shall not vary with respect to the particular plan or coverage involved by any other factor not described in subparagraph (A).
Even life insurers price insurance based on smoking preference. So health insurers cannot varies premiums by more than a factor of 1.5:1? Does Congress even check with the Surgeon General to assess the risks here? This factor alone means higher premiums for us non-smokers since the insurance companies will have to price insurance for the smoker first, then discount back to find the premium for the non-smoker.

Then it goes on to say:

‘‘SEC. 2705. PROHIBITING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST INDIVIDUAL PARTICIPANTS AND BENEFICIARIES BASED ON HEALTH STATUS.

‘‘(a) INGENERAL.—A group health plan and a health insurance issuer offering group or individual health insurance coverage may not establish rules for eligibility (including continued eligibility) of any individual to enroll under the terms of the plan or coverage based on any of the following health status-related factors in relation to the individual or a dependent of the individual:

‘‘(1) Health status.
‘‘(2) Medical condition (including both physical and mental illnesses).
‘‘(3) Claims experience.
‘‘(4) Receipt of health care.
‘‘(5) Medical history.
‘‘(6) Genetic information.
‘‘(7) Evidence of insurability (including conditions arising out of acts of domestic violence).
‘‘(8) Disability.
‘‘(9) Any other health status-related factor determined appropriate by the Secretary.


So as the name insurance would imply, people buy it to avoid risk and the insurance company much price the policy to provide for greater revenue than expense associated with the policy. So with the above 9 criteria removed from pricing the policy, I would imagine the insurance company will have to assume everyone has all 9 of the above risk factors and will be forced to price every policy as such. This DOES NOT mean lower premiums for current policy holders. It's impossible, or it will force bankruptcy on the insurance providers. Hummm.....maybe that's what they want so there is no option but the government option?

Can you imagine if an auto insurance company could not price an auto policy if they could not rate the insured based on driving record, number of previous accidents, etc? Everyone would be forced into a higher policy to cover all their risks.

Wednesday, December 23, 2009

You are locked into Obamacare.

This is a great article from an MD answering the question "Can I get out of Obamacare?"

American Enterprise Institute

Some highlights:

In effect, the plan creates a single national health-insurance policy. Consumers' only real option is to trade higher co-pays for lower premiums. But we'll all get the same package of benefits established by a series of new agencies and an "insurance czar" seated in Washington.

The overriding goal of this reform is to turn health insurance into a more "egalitarian" benefit that's the same for everyone, regardless of income, personal preference or need. So rules written under President Obama to implement the Obama plan are a sure bet to intentionally curtail anyone's ability to wrap around this national coverage with a supplemental policy or to contract privately with doctors to pay your way out of its limitations.


It is easy to see how Obama plans to lower "costs." Everyone will now have to pay for standardized care. This means more care for some, but less for others. To save money, some things will certainly be left off the Czar's approved health insurance coverage itinerary. Seems like a lot of power for any bureaucrat (or bureaucracy) to handle. Plus, how does that bureaucrat know what is good for me and my family (and for that matter, yours)? I wonder if a lower life expectancy is considered a "cost?"

Sunday, November 22, 2009

Tuesday, November 10, 2009

Government Cable (aka Government Health Care)

Shlaes on Hayek

I wrote the following letter to Ms. Shlaes regarding her article on Bloomberg today:

Ms. Shlaes,

I enjoyed your article in Bloomberg today, but disagree with your last point, that Americans will not embrace socialism.

A significant portion of Americans will resist, but an even greater portion will not. When half the US population pays no income tax today, socialism has already set in. Getting something for nothing and having the minority haves pay for the majority have-nots is socialism. Having government bureaucrats decide winners and losers in the economy is socialism.

Socialism sounds like a great panacea in rhetoric and we have a man in the Presidency that is one of the best at rhetoric. Unfortunately socialism's failures take time. It took the Soviet Union decades to fail. It won't be until the standard of living drops to unconscionable levels will there be a revolution to unseat the socialist movement. It is easy to sell the majority of the masses on the rob Peter to pay Paul economy without them giving consideration to the long-term ramifications.

The utopia that Socialism seems to be on paper is one thing, the reality is quite another. Hayek had perfect clarity to this fact.

Respectfully submitted,

Monday, November 9, 2009

Why Would Business Hire New Employees?

The recent House Bill restricting health care in this country is bound to have a nasty side effect, more unemployment.

Now that employers are mandated to provide coverage it will be prohibitive to hire new employees whose productivity does not warrant the cost of insurance on top of an already high (relatively speaking) minimum wage.

Minimum wage legislation has already forced the unemployment rate of those ages 16-24 over 25%. Health care mandates will make a bad situation even worse. Those people in our economy with few skills are going to experience a very bleak future and will not get the skills and experience needed to move up the economic ladder.

For the party that claims to watch out for those at the bottom of the economic food chain they sure do all they can to harm them.

Sunday, November 1, 2009

Letter To Washington

Dear Congressman:

I am a constituent that is a frequent letter writer to your office. Normally, I am writing to you about a particular issue that is in the headlines, today I am not. Instead, I am writing to give you an idea how the decisions you, and the rest of Congress, are making are paralyzing the economy and business.

While I am not writing the letter on behalf of my company, the issues that I am going to outline drastically effect the decisions made by me and the company that employs me. As a direct result of your actions in Washington, you and the other members of Congress are affecting the competitiveness of our nation and the standard of living that all Americans enjoy today.

My job involves trading a commodity by-product of refineries. These are the refineries that produce transportation and heating fuels that make our economy so productive. State of the art technologies at work in these plants give consumers and businesses the lowest cost energy anywhere in the world. This means that consumers can consume more and business can invest in more machinery that leads to our high, relative standard of living. Congress is threatening this industry with regulation and taxes that will hurt the competitiveness of our domestic refining infrastructure. Whether it is over-reaching environmental legislation or cap-and-trade taxes, this kind of burden adds tremendous cost. This cost must be passed on to consumers or the businesses will close. Either one of these consequences is devastating. Higher costs mean less economic growth and a lower standard of living. Instead of consumers consuming more goods and services, they will be pressed into spending more money on energy. If business cannot pass on these new costs, they will close. This means loss of high-paying jobs in the industrial sector the means so much to the country’s prosperity.

The company I work for is dedicated to following the letter of the law. However, there are so many conflicting and overlapping agencies at all levels of government that it is paralyzing our business and many others. When a business does not know the rules and legal expectations, they are very hesitant to make investments. In addition, they are forced to tie up more capital and resources to maintain compliance thus reducing the investment in plants, property and equipment that to are key to economic growth. Government has to become less burdensome and complex so business feels confident they can make investments that will make our economy more productive.

Congress must also stop subsidizing inefficient businesses in this country with legislation. Inefficient business mean a loss of productivity that is the key to economic growth. Two prime examples are agriculture and shipping, but there are hundreds more examples I could choose. A few examples in the agriculture segment are dairy and sugar farming (not to mention feed grains like corn, wheat and rice).

Today there is a glut of milk on the market. Consequently most dairy farmers are now looking at producing milk at a loss. The reason the price of milk is so low is over supply based on current levels of demand. When this happens in any other industry, the highest cost producers go out of business and the market corrects itself with no help from government. This situation leaves only the very best, most efficient producers operating dairies and redirects the other resources to more efficient areas of the economy. No doubt this creates localized pain when a farmer goes out of business, but why should the taxpayers be left with the burden of supporting that farmer? If that farmer were making paper, furniture or computers the government would not support him. The agriculture lobby has gotten strong because there is money in it. Washington needs to get tough and say no to handouts.

The other example I referred to is sugar. Perhaps no other example is so wrapped up in special interest and government interference. Because of import tariffs and production limits on sugar, US consumers pay two to three times the world market price for sugar. Why? To protect a very small industry, primarily in Florida, with tremendous clout and to support the high price of corn syrup in grain growing regions of the country. No doubt this has saved jobs in these industries, but it has cost many more as consumers had to pay more for sugar than they should have. Industries where sugar is a primary ingredient have moved production overseas because they cannot be profitable paying more than market prices for sugar. This particular situation plays out in any industry where government gets involved. No matter the temptation, government has to stop determining winners and losers in business and let markets decide who succeeds and who fails.

As a taxpayer, I am appalled at what the US Government does in the shipbuilding business. Due to the legislation passed in 1920 known as the Jones Act, the US Shipbuilding business has enjoyed a position in the world market for ships that has made it terribly inefficient and driven the cost of vessel freight between US ports to unreasonable levels. In addition, it has driven the cost of Naval vessels for our own defense to ridiculously high costs for the taxpayers.

I recently received a quote for a vessel that would move the commodity that I trade. If I were to build a Jones Act vessel (one that could move between US ports), the price would be over $100 Million. I can have the same vessel made in Korea today for $30 Million. Not only is the price cheaper, but I can also have it a year sooner. Unfortunately, I cannot take that Korean vessel, loaded, between US Ports due to the Jones Act. This is a terrible outcome for businesses that are trying to compete. I cannot buy and sell with my own countrymen at a price that is competitive with foreign traders in foreign flagged vessels that only move product in or out of the US. To make matters worse, I hear the Navy is buying several high-speed ships at a cost of nearly $400 Million each. I can only imagine how much these vessels would cost if the US Shipbuilders had cost structures that forced them to compete with the Asian builders. The US Taxpayer is getting fleeced only to protect a small industry with very good political connections that have been in place for nearly 100 years.

If the citizens of this country are to continually see our standard of living rise and enjoy the fruits of economic growth, then business has to be allowed to thrive. After all, this is where real jobs are created and real wealth built. There is no better way to do this than to reduce, or even eliminate, corporate income tax. No better stimulus could be designed than a program to eliminate the corporate income tax.

Corporations make capital investment based on after-tax returns. When the government takes nearly 40% of all income on investments, it means that business must have incomes that are 40% higher in order for a capital investment to yield a return that warrants the risk. Imagine all the investment that businesses could make if the return threshold was lowered by 40%! This new investment would mean more jobs for everyone since someone would have to build the new machinery, buildings and transportation networks that new investment would require. Consumers might also enjoy lower prices as the cost of taxes is passed on directly to them. If not, companies would either pay more in dividends (that are taxed as income) or have even more money to invest in productive assets starting this entire cycle over again. A zero tax environment would attract scores of foreign investment, as the US would again be the best place to invest.

Growth in the Federal bureaucracy means more human resources and productive capital are in non-producing, government jobs rather than in production of consumer goods and services. These are jobs that play no role whatsoever in economic growth as they do nothing but force more cost on society. More government jobs mean more taxation on an already stressed private sector. Even worse, this bloated government bureaucracy has over-lapping regulatory authority that complicates all compliance matters as it relates to business. Washington must realize that it is impossible to create greater prosperity and a higher standard of living with a bigger government machine.

The US is losing its competitive edge. It is not too late to stop the decline, but Washington has to make it happen. This is not a Republican or Democrat issue, it is a matter of securing the country’s future. I want my kids to enjoy a better quality of life than mine, just like I enjoy a higher quality of life than my parents. Unfortunately, that history of prosperity and economic growth is now at risk due only to decisions made by politicians catering to special interests. What needs to be done is take the incentive out of lobbying the government for money or special protections, stop having the government determine winners and losers in commerce, and eliminate the tax burden on business. These very simple steps are all that are needed to turn the country around.

Congress is truly destroying the goose that lays the golden eggs and that goose is the entrepreneurial spirit that is historically unique to the United States of America.

Respectfully submitted,

Tuesday, March 17, 2009

We Should All Be Afraid

Regardless of your opinion on the recent bonus payments to AIG executives, what the CONgress is considering just might be the greatest loss of liberty in the history of the USA.

If Congress was serious about not paying bonuses to AIG, they should have stopped giving them money months ago.  Instead, we now learn that a few hundred million is being paid out of the $150B they received.  In the grand scheme of things, this is a very small percentage.  Kind of like the small percentage that a few billion in earmarks that CONgress just authorized in the form of earmarks in several hundred billion in omnibus spending.  After all that was their argument for the earmarks.

Now for the scary part.  If CONgress can target individual people with specific taxes that aim to take 100% of what they earn/make, we should all be afraid.  This means that CONgress is no longer the voice of the people, but instead a group of power hungry bureaucrats that will do anything to anyone to stay in power.  Now I do not like the idea of giving AIG executives a penny, they obviously did not earn it.  However, if the company did not have the money they could not pay it.  CONgress created that animal with money and a specific set of rules.  This is just another example of how CONgress cannot respond effectively to market activities.

Once these members of CONgress realize they now have the power to target individuals, the AIG confiscation will just be the beginning.  Wait until they target people that have different social views, religious views, or any of host of reasons (think gun ownership, etc).  

Americans are losing more and more liberty every day.  We should all be afraid.