Understanding the "Lines Around the States"
- Details
- Created: Thursday, 16 March 2017 11:48
- Written by Ax D. WhiteMan
I
t seems every conservative healthcare insurance plan advocates removing "The Lines Around the States." That is, to allow insurance companies to sell healthcare policies across state lines.
(credit @PeteHegseth for drawing the lines!)
Most people don't understand what is being proposed here. In reality, a quick google search of the top healthcare insurance firms in the US shows that they all sell policies in all 50 States. The issue is that each State has it's own regulatory control over the insurance industry. Other than minor demographic differences, the thing that makes an insurance policy cheaper in New Mexico than Texas is the cost of meeting State regulatory requirements.
In effect, removing "the lines around the states," is nullifying each States ability to establish its own Insurance regulations.
This may not be a bad thing, and it's certainly been done in other areas. States have been denied the right to define marriage and legal residency status - why not healthcare?
The answer is that the question ignores the obvious problem. That is, that regulatory requirements are a major driver of healthcare costs, and IF Federal Law were to demand that a person in New York could buy a healthcare policy that meets the State regulatory requirements of New Mexico, it would almost certainly also prescribe additional Federal requirements that would not only diminish any savings to the person in New York, but would cause an increase for people in New Mexico.
To a great degree, ObmamCare has already done this. Regardless of what is "legal" in a certain state - if a policy doesn't meet the Federal requirements established by ObamaCare, one is subject to a Federal Tax penalty.
Even if one abolishes ObamaCare, and allows healthcare insurance to be sold "across state lines", one needs to understand they are just substituting the regulations of one state for that of another. The point here is that residences of each state are completely capable of petitioning their government to reduce the regulations that drive healthcare costs. Mostly, the extensive list of "mandated" coverages found in most states.
Insurance "Mandates" are effectively a "Tax" by another name. It is the special interest, crony wing of the insurance industry. These are coverages that most people would decline, but the State has determined that any legal policy MUST have. These items range from addiction treatment to sex change operations. Every State effectively tells its citizens that they are too stupid to choose the correct health coverage - and that the State will choose for them. This would be analogous to going grocery shopping and being required to start with a basket full of tofu, sprouts, tampons, condoms, and rogain. When you complained that you don't need ANY of those things and have almost no money left for what you want, the answer would be to ask you to apply for food stamps - because you can't afford to feed yourself.
The "mandate" aspect of insurance creates the environment for special interests to lobby regulators to include their products and services as a mandated benefit. It may be that most folks wouldn't buy insurance for alcoholism re-hab - especially those that don't drink. Doesn't matter, in most States - you buy it anyway - it's the law.
The over riding point here is that to dramatically reduce the cost of healthcare insurance, people of each State can do so by working within their OWN State. If people contact their State Representative, and demand more cost effective regulations or to allow a "non-compliant" classification of Health Insurance to be sold in their State.
These non-compliant policies would come with a specific warning that they don't meet the State recommended standards, and that they buyer understands the risks. These would be plans that would be reviewed by the State ONLY to meet financial standards - that is, that the Insurance Company has adequately demonstrated the financial capacity to satisfy claims. If such policies were made available, it's likely that buying coverage for ONLY what one believes is needed - would become very cost effective.
In conclusion, it's not "the lines around the States" that make healthcare expansive - it's the "mandates within the States" - that could and should be addressed by every citizen - of every state.
Add a commentRepealing ObamaCare - Here's How...
- Details
- Created: Thursday, 05 January 2017 12:20
- Written by Ax D. WhiteMan
Michelangelo: "You Just Chip Away Everything That Doesn’t Look Like David"
Or so the story goes, Michelangelo answered when asked how he sculpted the iconic statue of David. OK, so it might not be true - the point is still valid, and it offers insight on how to repeal ObamaCare. In other words...
"You Just Chip Away Everything That Isn't a Good HealthCare Plan"
This is a fairly simple concept. The fact is that ObamaCare, is part of the current system, and unlike Democrats, Republicans should realize that incremental, rather than comprehensive reform is preferred. The most practical and politically expedient way to "repeal" ObamaCare is to incrementally remove the most egregious aspects first, and only after removing as much of "the bad" as possible, make an assessment if what remains of the law.
Step 1. Repeal "The Individual Mandate" - This is a no brainer. This was always the most unpopular aspect of ObamaCare, and the most brazenly unconstitutional. More importantly, it really doesn't work. If the GOP wanted to score some additional political points, they could retroactively cancel all the IRS penalties and interest charges assessed over the past two years. The "Individual Mandate" was the basis of the Constitutional challenge to ObamaCare.
It was widely believed that to defeat the "Individual Mandate" was tantamount to repeal. This should be done as a regular order bill - NOT a reconciliation bill. Make Democrats defend the mandate and the tax. A large number of those penalized are recipients of EITC and are stunned to find out their annual EITC stipend is so low due to an ObamaCare penalty.
Step 2. Repeal "The Employer Mandate" - Even if one accepts this as a well intentioned aspect of ObamaCare; it's impact has been a disaster. Employers have twisted themselves into pretzels to avoid the thresholds requiring compliance. This has caused lay-offs and reliance on part-time rather than full time workers.
Step 3. Repeal Coverage Mandates - The "Bronze, Silver, Gold, Platinum" aspects of ObamaCare are an affront to freedom and capitalism and an insult to individual intelligence. This aspect of ObamaCare essentially designs all health care plans and requires all insurance companies to offer exactly the same thing. This destroys all incentive to devise a creatively structured plans to meet the varied needs of individuals. Several "coverages" would rarely be purchased by most individuals. Most Mormons wouldn't buy coverage for alcohol treatment, and most single guys wouldn't buy pregnancy coverage. Mandated "Coverages" are certainly a leading cost driver of health insurance.
Step 4. Repeal (or revise) "EMTALA" - Passed in 1986, this is perhaps the most abused legislation in history. This is the "Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act" which was based on the concept voiced by Donald Trump during his campaign that "we won't have people bleeding to death in the streets." This law was presented as a basic humanitarian requirement that hospitals could not refuse seriously injured people based on ability to pay. It has since morphed into a general grant of "everything to everyone" regardless of means to pay. This law, as much as any other law has been a cost driver in the medical industry.
There are obviously many other aspects of ObamaCare that could be "chipped away" incrementally before beginning to build back to create a better framework of laws to govern health care insurance.
Once the law is significantly stripped of its worst features, it would be worthwhile to consider allowing the HealthCare.gov site to continue as a portal for individual health care products offered by qualified carriers. The government should qualify policies only for financial solvency, and allow them to be valid in any State. This would be a way of removing the "lines around the States."
Doing all of the above, would reduce disruption in the marketplace, and set in motion the market forces required to make healthcare coverage affordable and accessible - for those who want it.
Of course, that means it's pretty sure it won't happen.
Add a commentRecount? -Make My Day -Dems Never Win POTUS Again
- Details
- Created: Monday, 28 November 2016 13:48
- Written by Ax D. WhiteMan
Hillary Clinton has decided to join the recount effort started by Jill Stein. It's been widely reported that the strategy is not to overturn the election results; but to delay certification of the votes beyond the date of the electors voting (December 19th) thereby denying Donald Trump the requisite 270 electoral votes to be President. They believe this would add to the narrative that Trump is illegitimate having lost the popular vote, and then being "named" President by Congress.
The next Constitutional step would be for the race to be decided by the House of Representatives - but not by simple vote. Each State is allowed a single vote, making Wyoming equal to California.
Republicans dominate House State Delegations 34 to 13 with 3 ties. Obviously Trump wins this vote. But it does tend to turn the process into something of a cluster.
So Be It. - It's a "cluster" that the GOP will win for the foreseeable future.
The GOP has been far to reluctant to fight the Democrats in the gutter where they live. Consequently, they've consistently gotten their asses whipped by refusing to fight. Trump has shown signs of ending that tendancy. Now is as good a time as any to do so.
The GOP response should be:
Go ahead with your bogus recount strategy, you've given us the template to win every future Presidential election. Regardless of outcome, we will file for recounts in enough states to deny the winner 270 electoral votes, and throw the election to the House - where we will win - EVERY TIME.
Check out the chart below, not only do Republicans dominate the "numbers" but every single one of the 12 identified "swing states" is a solid Republican State in terms of Congressional Delegations.
So, Dems, you want to recount?
You want to create a template to have every Presidential election decided by the House?
Go Ahead - Make My Day...
| House Congressional Del. | Maj. Dem | Maj. Rep | “Swing” States | ||
| State | Democrat | Republican | 13 | 34 | |
| Alabama | 1 | 6 | 1 | ||
| Alaska | 0 | 1 | 1 | ||
| Arizona | 4 | 5 | 1 | ||
| Arkansas | 0 | 4 | 1 | ||
| California | 39 | 14 | 1 | ||
| Colorado | 3 | 4 | 1 | Rep | |
| Connecticut | 5 | 0 | 1 | ||
| Delaware | 1 | 0 | 1 | ||
| Florida | 10 | 17 | 1 | Rep | |
| Georgia | 4 | 10 | 1 | Rep | |
| Hawaii | 2 | 0 | 1 | ||
| Idaho | 0 | 2 | 1 | ||
| Illinois | 8 | 10 | 1 | ||
| Indiana | 2 | 7 | 1 | ||
| Iowa | 1 | 3 | 1 | Rep | |
| Kansas | 0 | 4 | 1 | ||
| Kentucky | 1 | 5 | 1 | ||
| Louisiana | 1 | 5 | 1 | ||
| Maine | 1 | 1 | Tie | Tie | |
| Maryland | 7 | 1 | 1 | ||
| Massachusetts | 9 | 0 | 1 | ||
| Michigan | 5 | 9 | 1 | Rep | |
| Minnesota | 5 | 3 | 1 | ||
| Mississippi | 1 | 3 | 1 | ||
| Missouri | 2 | 6 | 1 | ||
| Montana | 0 | 1 | 1 | ||
| Nebraska | 1 | 2 | 1 | ||
| Nevada | 1 | 3 | 1 | Rep | |
| New Hampshire | 1 | 1 | Tie | Tie | |
| New Jersey | 6 | 6 | Tie | Tie | |
| New Mexico | 1 | 2 | 1 | Rep | |
| New York | 18 | 9 | 1 | ||
| North Carolina | 3 | 10 | 1 | Rep | |
| North Dakota | 0 | 1 | 1 | ||
| Ohio | 4 | 12 | 1 | Rep | |
| Oklahoma | 0 | 5 | 1 | ||
| Oregon | 4 | 1 | 1 | ||
| Pennsylvania | 5 | 13 | 1 | Rep | |
| Rhode Island | 2 | 0 | 1 | ||
| South Carolina | 1 | 6 | 1 | ||
| South Dakota | 0 | 1 | 1 | ||
| Tennessee | 2 | 7 | 1 | ||
| Texas | 11 | 25 | 1 | ||
| Utah | 0 | 4 | 1 | ||
| Vermont | 1 | 0 | 1 | ||
| Virginia | 3 | 8 | 1 | Rep | |
| Washington | 6 | 4 | 1 | ||
| West Virginia | 0 | 3 | 1 | ||
| Wisconsin | 3 | 5 | 1 | Rep | |
| Wyoming | 0 | 1 | 1 | ||
Above Table data excerpted from https://ballotpedia.org/United_States_House_of_Representatives
Add a commentIs "Losing" a Republican Value?
- Details
- Created: Thursday, 27 October 2016 12:24
- Written by Ax D. WhiteMan
In the past months we've heard much of "Republican Values." The NeverTrump crowd seems obsessed with claiming moral superiority based on their rejection of the GOP nominee - based on "Republican Values."
They might be right.
Because the only consistent underlying "Republican Value" of the last 30 years is LOSING.
Yes, this is the unshakable value to which, at all costs, Republicans cling. They may waiver or falter on other common Republican interests, you'll find much disagreement on immigration, foreign policy, abortion, gay marriage, or spending priorities - but they all universally agree - they MUST Lose.
This is the point at which the establishment GOP parts with Donald Trump and his supporters, who seem diametrically opposed to losing. Yes, they've even had the temerity to cheer for WINNING! This is not to be tolerated by the GOP elders and the elites of Conservatism Inc.
Hyperbolic?
Maybe. But lets look at some history....
In the 40 years prior to 1994, the House of Representatives was dominated by Democrats. During that time "The House" dominated public policy and often even foreign policy. During that time, Republicans won the White House about half the time, but almost always yielded to a Democrat dominated House, often citing the "power of the purse,' to which they were irrevocably bound.
In 1973 the Democrat Congress denied funding for any further military operation in Viet Nam. A compliant Republican President declared he "had no choice" but to order the immediate evacuation of Viet Nam. This required the U.S. crash it's own helicopters into the sea and abandon thousands of Vietnamese allies to be slaughtered by the North, or risk drowning.
But hey, what could they do? Congress controlled the budget - right?
Then came 1994. The Republicans took control of the House. Now they could control the purse strings. Not exactly. Newt Gingrich came to blows with Bill Clinton over the budget and a "shut down" ensued. After weeks of being pilloried by the media, the "shut down" was on the verge of being "won" by Gingrich - when the Bob Dole interceded and demanded a loss. Rather than getting a balanced budget, the GOP settled for a 7 year plan to get to a balanced budget.
But wait, there's more....
In 2000 Bush was elected President, Republicans won the House, and Republicans tied in Senate seats - which would give the tie breaking vote to the Republican Vice President. Yes. Republicans held both the legislative and executive branch of Government. But, the GOP value of "losing" kicked in. Elected Republican Jim Jeffords announced he was leaving the party and would caucus with the Democrats. Once again - the Republican value of "losing" prevails.
But wait, there's more...
In 2004 the GOP had an opportunity not only to gain ground in the Senate, but to gain in ideological strength. The sitting leftist Senator from Pennsylvania, Arlen Specter, faced a strong and credible challenge from the far more conservative Pat Toomey. Sitting President GWB, The RNC, and sitting Senator Rick Santorum ALL campaigned vigorously for Specter and Specter managed to win his primary challenge by less than 1%.
The ensuing GOP Senate Majority was largely muted by the left leaning Senators that consistently opposed George Bush, and finally due to losing the House in 06 - maintaining once again, the party value of "losing."
Yep, still more...
When opposition to ObamaCare seemed to invigorate Republican energy - even leading to the special election of a Republican Senator from Massachusetts - the previously mentioned Specter, decided he must switch parties and become a Democrat. ObamaCare passes, and the Republican value of "losing" prevails.
Since that time, Republicans have dominated State House and Governor elections. Almost as quickly as they were won, much like the GOP Congress, those institutions have largely receded to irrelevancy. Republican State Governments are consistently subservient to pressure from Federal authorities above, and seem to always allow liberal City governments below to institute leftist policies. Those that resist (Indiana, North Carolina), are pilloried, and eventually abandoned by the GOP.
Then comes Trump. He says three things.
-Immigration is out of control - I'll stop it.
-Stupid trade deals are bad for us - I'll end them.
-Pointless foreign wars are, pointless - I won't get into them
This resonates overwhelmingly with a segment of the electorate that has been dead to the GOP for two generations. He gains more popular support than any GOP candidate, ever.
Then adds one over-riding thing above all.....
When they attack me, I'll fight back - and I'll win.
This my friends, is not consistent with Republican Values.
Add a comment