Don't Blame Obamacare?

An editorial in today's Boston Globe makes a number of assertions regarding health care insurance as part of its efforts in support of the Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare. At the risk of employing Claude Raines - style indignation (I'm shocked. shocked to find  the Globe is going in the tank for this Progressive attempt to control one-sixth of the nation's economy),These points beg for challenge.

For example, Senator Ted Cruz is taken to task for his concerns about families having their insurance coverage cancelled. "Oh no", says the Globe, which claims that these folks had plans providing only "threadbare coverage", such plans do not provide adequate catastrophic coverage. which could lead to huge medical bills for the family, which would ultimately dribble down to the taxpayers for payment.  We are not sure what basis the Globe has for this opinion, and while its possible that such a series of events could take place, they are clearly using a broad brush to bash the health care plans of 93 million Americans. let's look at the actual choices someone might make in choosing a health plan.

The place to save money in most health insurance plans is at the front end of the treatment process. By accepting higher deductibles and co-pays, significant reductions in premiums can often be achieved. Many, if not most, consumers are much more worried about a catastrophic illness, and its associated costs, than they are about having to write a check for a co-pay, especially if the family is relatively young and healthy.  Wise consumers will generally shop around for the best balance between coverage for incidentals and catastrophic illness. It seems incredulous that someone would go to the trouble of getting health insurance and not having catastrophic coverage that protect against a disastrous and high cost illness.

Government mandates also tend to increase costs. Much is made, for example about plans that do not cover pre-existing conditions. While this may seem unfair to some, the insurance company is basing its premium on the probability of an illness occurring. Under a mandate to cover pre-existing conditions, the probability is 100%. If the insurance company is required by law to cover an existing illness, the premiums must be increased to compensate. Think about a homeowner who could buy fire insurance only after his house catches fire.

So now, instead of the individual trying to purchase only the coverage they want, here comes the government telling you what coverage you must have, and, of course, pay for.

"Cruz and some other conservatives", are criticized for bemoaning the loss of choice that individuals will experience as the government steps in to decide what plan provisions they must have, justifying the loss of freedom as needed to protect against the supposed costs of treating serious illness that would flow to the taxpayer when the consumer's "cheapo" plans fail to pay. BTW, guess who pays for the subsidies to low income (400% of the poverty level !) policyholders.

Perhaps the computer "glitches" can be fixed, but the ACA itself is an unsuccessful attempt to put the bureaucrats in charge of a profoundly personal set of decisions. This poorly-conceived, badly -drafted, and still poorly-understood  behemoth of a Bill, that was rammed through Congress and continues to be promoted with a drumbeat of lies and misinformation, some of which comes from erstwhile respected journals, now needs to be repealed before any more damage is done to one of the world's premiere health care systems. Moreover, conspiracy theorists, who see the ACA as a stalking horse for a massive single-payer plan (long the ultimate of Progressive aspirations) are beginning to accumulate credibility beyond the fringes.

No Wasted Crisis

To paraphrase Rahm Emanuel, a good crisis should not go to waste. The roll out of Obamacare certainly qualifies as a major crisis, on multiple fronts, and it's not just the website. Nancy Pelosi famously said that we had to pass the bill to find out what's in it. Not exactly, Nancy.  The real learning experience, at least for the American people, is when those cancellation notices start arriving and we find out that the President apparently had his fingers crossed when he told us we could keep our exisiting insurance plans. The back peddling has been world class as the Administration scrambles to stay out in front of what is starting to become a disaster of epic proportions.

It seems as though he meant to say that you could keep your old plan if that plan meets all the mandates under the new law. A huge "If". And even though millions of Americans had been doing just fine with plans that fit their needs for coverage and deductibles, we now find out that these plans are actually sub-standard products being pedaled by unscrupulous insurance companies. Who knew?

Good Question. It turns out that those crafty little devils that designed Obamacare knew all along that the new law would trigger mass cancellations which would force people to go to the Exchanges for a "legal" replacement policy. Yesterday,a Forbes article spills the beans that the according to a report in the June 2010 edition of the Federal Register, administration officials were predicting "massive disruption in the private insurance market", and even more shocking, this chaos would include the "market for employer-sponsored plans". It looks like an estimated that 93 million Americans are suddenly finding themselves in the ACA's path of destruction. At this point, the hard core Koolaid-sippers are getting ready to say how Obama didn't know about this, which only adds to the increasingly voluminous subjects that our putative brainiac president didn't know about.

When we started writing this post, the theme was going to be that the crisis of the ACA might have a silver lining in that it might help more of the average Americans to finally wake up to the long-term dangers of the Progressive agenda. After more than a hundred years of mission creep, this movement has been chipping away at our freedom under the promise that the technical experts of the administrative state can run our lives better than we can. Under ACA, you are going to be forced to buy insurance that you may not want, with mandated coverages that you may not desire and at an increased cost that will throw a big wrench into many family's monthly budgets. But now, as we discover more and more about this orchestrated lie fest, the concerns may well be turning from one of concern over the government's inept administration to a concern about an organized program of mis-information. All things being equal, I think we would rather deal with incompetence.

In the interest of full disclosure, we were concerned that congressional Republicans made a mistake when they chose to make the de-funding of the ACA as their main negotiating point during the recent government shutdown. We are now coming to realize that they were spot on. This legislation monster needs a stake through its heart.

Is Anyone in Charge?

Talk about a target-rich environment, where do we start?  The bungled roll out of Obamacare begs for deserved ridicule, to which we would ordinarily be happy to contribute. Unfortunately, this slag heap of legislation is still poised to do untold damage to one of the world's most advanced and successful health care systems. And if you think because you aren't poor and have a plan that you are happy with, just wait. Rush Limbaugh thinks that Obamacare was actually designed to fail in order to set the stage for a single payer system. Unfortunately, or perhaps fortunately (for us),  they couldn't manage to have the blame for its failure to land on the health care providers and insurance companies. The Executive Branch owns this turkey.

Why should we be surprised? This Administration has established a long string of operational failures. Benghazi, Fast and Furious, and other Justice Department fiascoes, The IRS investigative scandals, the long and questionable reach of The NSA's surveillance, which has just again reared its ugly head. And the list goes on. The only constant is the continual insistence that none of it is the Chief Executive's fault, nor anyone else in the chain of command, as best we can tell.

Six months ago, former Obama advisor, David Axelrod argued, on national television, that the federal government is so vast, that the president simply cannot know everything that is going on. And while this comment was related to recent scandals, it can also be applied to day to day management. We happen to think that the current president lacks the experience and aptitude needed to provide even minimal management of the vast federal bureaucracy. Someone should explain to him about the Cabinet, and the delegation process. But in fairness to Mr. Obama, even an experienced organization man like, say, Mitt Romney, would be hard pressed to provide what would pass for effective management in the Private Sector to this behemoth, which, by the way, had achieved its truly gargantuan proportions long before the advent of the ACA.

Obviously, this state of affairs has been a long time in the making, but until relatively recently, the Congress could exert some control by virtue of the budgetary process. Unfortunately, we haven't had a budget for a few years now, but rather have relied on Continuing Resolutions. Ditto for deficit funding as we routinely produce debt levels of astronomic proportions.  Obamacare is badly written and still not well-understood by most Americans, some of whom, apparently, work for the federal government. In spite of its supporters' claims, its costs, as it tries to provide subsidized health insurance to millions, are sure to rise to gargantuan levels. Adding this program on top an effectively out-of control government is not only unconscionable, but, now that it has saddled future generations with a mountain of debt, may finally bring us to the breaking point.

It is long past the time to reign in these excesses and bring our government back in line, or at least, as a first step, into the same area code, with our Constitutional principles. If not now, when?

A Much Different Inauguration Speech

Morning in America

Thirty-two years ago last month, Ronald Reagan was inaugurated as the fortieth president of the United States. He is remembered for the many admirable qualities he personified, but chief among them, we believe, was his ability to communicate his views on the workings of government, clearly and understandably. Some might disagree with his conclusions, but the American system of government was designed to accommodate differences of opinion. While thirty-two years may seem like old history to some, it is interesting to see how some of his views are fully congruent with some of our contemporary issues.

Reagan took office during tough economic times. While it was spiking inflation rather than a lingering recession,  the effects on the American workforce were equally punishing. Here he speaks of the conditions facing the country in January of 1981:

"Idle industries have cast workers into unemployment, causing human misery and personal indignity. Those who do work are denied a fair return for their labor by a tax system which penalizes successful achievement and keeps us from maintaining full productivity."

And while inflation was the villain of the day, Reagan went on to identify a major underlying problem:
.
"But great as our tax burden is, it has not kept pace with public spending. For decades, we have piled deficit upon deficit, mortgaging our future and our children's future for the temporary convenience of the present. To continue this long trend is to guarantee tremendous social, cultural, political, and economic upheavals.

You and I, as individuals, can, by borrowing, live beyond our means, but for only a limited period of time. Why, then, should we think that collectively, as a nation, we are not bound by that same limitation?"

As he continued, he drilled down to identify what he saw as a major underlying cause of the current problems:

"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem.

From time to time, we have been tempted to believe that society has become too complex to be managed by self-rule, that government by an elite group is superior to government for, by, and of the people. But if no one among us is capable of governing himself, then who among us has the capacity to govern someone else? All of us together, in and out of government, must bear the burden. The solutions we seek must be equitable, with no one group singled out to pay a higher price."

Later, he continues to reinforce the links to our Founding principles:
 
"So, as we begin, let us take inventory. We are a nation that has a government--not the other way around. And this makes us special among the nations of the Earth. Our government has no power except that granted it by the people. It is time to check and reverse the growth of government which shows signs of having grown beyond the consent of the governed."
The contrast between this speech and the one we heard at last month's organization could not be greater. Click HERE to read Ronald Reagan's speech in its entirety. It reminds us of the attitudes and principles that could help pave the way of a return to "Morning in America."

Moving On

Helping the Seals Catch Osama

It is not without a large measure of disgust that we leave behind, at least for the moment, the quest for more information regarding the events of 9/11/2012 in Benghazi Libya. But it is now clear that we have received just about all the explanation and information we are ever going to get from the current administration.

It has been said, in so many words, that, in America, political partisanship should stop at the waters edge. We thought of this notion as we watched the testimony of the Secretary of State testify before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, at which the Democratic members of the committee heaped praise on the Secretary for her service over the past four years. Given that she was relinquishing her post, perhaps such testimonial was due,  but this was not the time nor the place. The meeting had been called to try and discern the causes of the Benghazi events, and who in the government should bear the responsibility. The media picked up where the Dems left off. The Boston Globe referred to those few senators asking the tough questions as "Benghazi blowhards".

As the Chief Executive of the United States, one would automatically look to the president to explain how one of our embassies came to be over run by an armed mob and our Ambassador murdered. We thought back quickly to the ubiquitous pictures of the Situation Room where the president and Secretary of State, among others, stared in rapt attention as the raid on Osama Bin Laden's lair was carried out. Success has many fathers (and mothers), failure is a lonely orphan.With regard to the events of 9/11/2012, we still have no idea where or when the president became aware of the unfolding events. But, he was quick to shift the responsibility down the chain of command. As is usually the case with this particular president, there was no cry raised by the media for further explanation.

We couldn't disagree more with the Secretary of State that "it doesn't matter"  how the raid on our embassy unfolded. But is was clear that anyone reviewing the information streaming in from Benghazi would have quickly realized that a full-blown terrorist attack was underway. Putting out a story attributing the attack to a spontaneous demonstration against an obscure video seemed laughable at the time, and even more laughable as the truth slowly leaked out. But the government stuck with this charade for days. And now, no one is quite sure just how that story was allowed to stand, up to and to including Susan Rice's marathon Sunday Morning appearances. The video was a fish story, but as bad as that fish story was, it was better, at least in the minds of some government officials, better than admitting the inept security precautions for our diplomatic corp and the totally inadequate response to the events as they unfolded, especially in the middle of an election.

So the official answer is that no one is really to blame, but we will make sure we do better next time. Algeria? Algeria is for the little people. The idea that the president's primary duty is to administer those vast areas of government for which he is directly responsible and the Secretary of State perhaps needed to pay attention to the management of her department rather than trying to amass a record number of frequent flier miles. In this day and age of the sound bite and the big idea, the management needs of the government are easily forgotten.

 And so we must, to some extent, move on less we become one of the lone voices crying into the wind. Gun control, immigration and the continuing saga of the federal deficit provide handy issues to redirect the attention of the electorate. But the questions of Benghazi will return, just in time for the 2016 presidential election, when we will hear that "those questions" have all been answered and the page has been turned. And the woman who couldn't find the time to read every cable, will be seeking the chief executive's job.

At Least She Showed Up

It all seemed to start with an extended love-fest orchestrated by the Democratic Committee Members, who fell all over themselves thanking Madam Secretary for her tireless service and olympian accrual of frequent flyer miles.

The take-away boiled down to just a few salient points:

The Secretary was, and presumable still is, fully responsible.

Nothing was her fault. It's a cruel world and stuff happens.

There were organizational lapses, and heads have rolled, sort of.

She can't read everything.

"What difference does it make?"

And isn't Congress partially to blame for its parsimonius funding?

Did we really expect a mea culpa?

For those searching for a more balanced analysis than what you might get from, say, the Boston Globe, check out the article on National Review On-Line.



http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/338619/benghazi-rhapsody-editors

Stay Tuned Today

At 9:00 this morning, The Secretary of State will appear before a public meeting of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee regarding the September 11th attack in Benghazi.
at 2:00 pm, she will meet with the House Foreign Affairs  Committee to discuss the same topic. Lawmakers continue to have many questions regarding the government's reaction, or lack thereof, on the terrorist attacks on the U.S. Consulate in which the American  Ambassador, and three other Americans, were killed. More troubling, perhaps, was the government-issued explanation which pointed to a spontaneous civil demonstration on the attack, rather than an organized terrorist attack. This explanatory disconnect, which was allowed to stand long after the truth was generally known, raised many questions, most still unanswered.

In our most recent post, we suggested that Madam Secretary might well leave office without appearing before congressional committees. We are pleased that she has finally heeded the call to appear and answer questions. Apparently she will do the former. We hope that she will also provide the widely sought information that is sorely needed to begin to heal this wound to the national psyche