Questions on Health Insurance For the Left

• How are we going to ‘save’ money by spending 900 billion over the next 10 years?

Certainly investment in certain areas can cost now and save later, but a 900 billion dollar tax outlay over the next 10 years doesn’t scream net savings to me. Not to mention that there is no analysis of alternatives. If I was to put forward such a convoluted system with so many assumptions and projections at work I’d be tossed out the room and probably lose my job.

• What happens when the savings don’t show up?

So, we’re going to save a bunch of money supposedly. What if we don’t? Are we going to scrap the whole thing? Close down certain systems? Or, just like other social outlays, are we just going to keep them running and dump money into them? There are thousands of assumptions in these projections, when reality hits (like, say, with all that stimulus funding to fix everything) what is the plan? Will we say “WHO COULD’VE SEEN IT COMING?”, shrug our sholders, and allocate another couple billion dollars to all the new programs created by this ‘reform’?

• How are you going to define affordable? What happens if the government ideal isn’t affordable?
  

I keep hearing that the various government ideals (co-op, government, etc.) will only enter the market if the market isn’t affordable. What does that mean? 10% of my income? 20% of my income? 10% of a median income? Who gets to define what is a correct amount to spend on health care? Second, what happens when the government option isn’t ‘affordable’? I mean, supposedly it won’t take ANY government support, so certainly we’ll just adjust our thinking to the market price for ‘affordable’. …..Or, we’ll shrug our shoulders, say “WHO COULD’VE SEEN IT COMING?”, and allocate money to the government run program to support it. I mean, no one saw the current flu issue, if that pushed insurance prices up would the government step in to help out, you know, just this once?

• Why do you have to be laid-off or fired to get access to a portable health care market?

So, the free market solution, advocated by many, many academics and politicians is that you purchase your own health insurance from an open market which has to compete for your business. Apparently that IS an option in the new system, but only if you get laid off. If you’re employed you’re stuck with whatever bullshit your company has selected for you. Since when does the left think that companies are looking out for their employees? Or is this only to protect your union buddies from having to give up their awesome company provided health insurance?

• How is a government organization going to be more efficient than a profit making company?

All research and evidence is that people function best when they’re aligned with an appropriate incentive for their task. For employees productivity is tied with your wage, for companies your profitability (and how much owners make) is tied with your efficiency, which allows you to under price or over compete with competitors, and make more money. How is a government run option, with no profit motive (and supposedly no government subsidy) going to be more efficient than other insurance companies? Couldn’t you just go start that insurance company today, be cheaper than other providers, and make a boatload of money? Is the idea to give indirect subsidies to this government option such as freedom from certain regulations, restrictions on other, non-governemnt insurance companies, and tax exemptions?

• How are you going to planning to take bureaucrats out of my health decisions?

I have a nifty system for keeping most bureaucrats out of my health care decisions. Its called an HSA. I save my money for health spending, then use it as I see fit. Mandating insurance for every individual, creating a government insurance company, and increasing the regulations around other health care companies is going to create a larger incentive to monitor, coordinate, and control my health spending. How does THAT minimize the amount of people involved in my private medical decisions?

• Why are you mandating “free” (0$ out of pocket) health screening?

Isn’t the idea that certain health care expenditures are ‘free’ at the point of purchase the economic bullshit that helped get us into this mess? Requiring certain types of screenings to be free isn’t going to help contain health care spending at all. In fact, it will drive up insurance costs as I will now be required to take a certain amount of money (the $ for screening), send it to my insurance company (as part of my plan costs), let them skim a bit off the top for ‘administration’, then send it to my doctor on my behalf. Horah, I’m still paying the money out of my own pocket, but someone else gets a cut too!

• Why are you limiting deductibles? What happens to my HSA?

If you’re happy with your existing insurance you’re allowed to keep it, unless you have an HSA account. Why limit deductibles on plans? Is this an ‘affordable’ concept again? If I make plenty of money am I not allowed to reduce my insurance payments by having higher deductibles? I’m allowed to do that for my car (and drive safer as appropriate as well) but not my health insurance? Am I going to lose my nice HSA account which marries a savings account to a high deductible insurance plan for truely catastrophic health issues as opposed to routine things like the stomach flu and broken limbs?

• Are you not worried that Republicans might eventually run your government health care system?

You spent considerable time the last 8 years telling me how horrible the Republicans were at everything. I mean, really, really bad people. Hell, they even fucked up Katrina and FEMA right? And those assholes tend to govern roughly half the time! Are you not the least bit worried you’re going to put those exact some people you really, really hate in charge of your health insurance?

• Do you think we’re going to fall for the ‘no-government-money-ever’ scam?

I keep seeing proposals to create entities in the health insurance market that are initially funded by the government but, we’re promised, will never ever take another federal dime. Right. Just like Fannie Mae. How dumb do you expect the American people to be? We KNOW that it is much easier to create the entity politically than it will be to fund it later. Funding can be a nice little rider on a bigger bill with little political risk. We don’t have to create a central government insurance now, we can just slowly turn our ‘independent’ one into it over time. A boil the frog approach if you will.

It will only take a little emergency, or some akward definition of ‘affordable’ to get the government to sign a little bill, just for a few billion till the program gets back on its feet. Then another. Oh, then a real emergency, here is some extra money. Pretty soon they’ll be able to “compete” with private insurance because they’ll have federal billions in the back pocket. Once those pesky independt companies are gone (or you know, protected via lobbying as a “independent” cabal) we can finally have that government run health care that certain people dream of.

Principles for a New Republican Platform

After the results of the last US election the GOP is forced to reconsider the constitution of their platform. There are some in the party who want to push further towards social conservatism, anti-intellectualism, and libertarianism. I think this is a major mistake. This strategy will only lead to further defeats as the American people reject the politics of exclusion, folksy-ness, and any kind of ideology. The American people need a pragmatic, centrist party, that is based on sound intellectual and economic principles. 

I propose the following principles for a revitalized and reformed Republican party:

1. Individual responsibility, risk taking, and ownership in all aspects of life.
2. Government should only provide services unable to be provided by the general market
3. Limited government intervention in business, life
4. Highly effective, well managed, and open government
5. Strong military for defensive purposes
6. Open and Free Trade
7. A minimum standard of life in the United States

Individual responsibility, risk taking, and ownership in all aspects of life.

This principle has been a core of Republican policy and thought since the beginning. The only person fully qualified to make decisions for you, is you. You should also have ownership and control of the aspects of your life including retirement savings, health care choices, education, employment, hobbies, and even sexual partners.  A belief in individual responsibility and ownership should also include a right to privacy. If we trust people to make the right choices, we shouldn’t have to look over their shoulder to double check.  People should, additionally own their personal information and have the ability to control that information at their discretion.

Government should only provide services unable to be provided by the general market

This principle is an extension of the general Republican belief in limited government with a Libertarian/economic flavor. If the free market can provide a service, such as mail delivery, education, issuing home loans, or providing annuities, then the free market should be in charge of these items. This does not limit a government from helping people with these services, it just requires the government execute these services through the open market. 

Providing such services that are deemed necessary for the entire country through  a competitive open market function would align service with incentives resulting in higher quality service at a lower cost. A government service spends public money to provide the mandated level of service, increased services does nothing for the department or the people executing the service. Spend that money on a private company to provide the same service and a profit motive will drive the provision of service and an increase in the quality of services provided. 

A simplification of the role of government would also allow it to be more effective in responding to issues and changes in the country.

Limited government intervention in business, life

Limited government is a core Republican value and I think should be a core Republican principle for crafting policy. I believe, as do many Republicans, that the role of government in day to life should be minimized, and doing so will result in smarter policy, cheaper government, and more effective services provided. 

Highly effective, well managed, and open government

The latest Republican leadership seems to have tried to sell limited government by running the place so poorly. It is not necessary to prove that large government is bad by making the government bad. While I, as a Republican, believe we should minimize government, I still think the remaining apparatus should be as well managed and effective as it can be. Government has become a quasi-welfare in its own right with large benefit packages, high wages, and unrivaled job security. Government operations should be managed in the same way that a publicly traded company is and offer comparable wages and benefits. Additionally, the operations of government should be as open as possible so that the people can know where their tax dollars are going and what they’re buying. Thanks to modern technology this is not an overbearing requirement.

Strong military for defensive purposes

America’s stature in the world is supported by its unrivaled military capability and this should continue. We should avoid involving ourselves in foreign entanglements, but we should be able to project power and operate around the world without equal. This can be accomplished with smart and well focused defense spending and a focus on modern military technology.

Open and Free Trade

Open and free trade enriches America and endears us to foreign countries. It should be the foundation of the Republican party that we should strive to have open and free trade with any country willing to reciprocate with us. Larger markets for American goods and cheaper goods from foreign countries increase our standard of living and the economy of both countries.

A minimum standard of life in the United States

This principle is not at odds with the others, no matter how loudly Republican stalwarts say it. Ignoring the calls of Americans to provide social safety nets will eventually relegate us to a permanent minority party status. We must find a way, guided by the principles above, to provide a safety net for income, retirement, and health care. 

Income – This can be provided through an insurance program that pays a minimum level of income while a person is unemployed.  Welfare must be backed up through incentives and programs to return to employment.  Could be provided through payroll taxes, open market insurance bids, and state run offices to distribute and motivate the unemployed. 

Retirement – A similar program to the above should be used to provide conditional annuity-style products for retirees who have been wiped out of their personal savings (401k, IRA, etc). Social Security style benefits would be provided only if personal holdings could not provide income and support and, being run by individual companies (through a bid process), the money stored for these programs would be properly invested instead of laundered through the Social Security administration. 

Health Care – Individuals should be motivated to obtain personal health care by removing the tax benefit of corporate health care and replacing it with an income tax rebate and penalty if a minimal level of insurance is not held by people making a certain amount of money. An open bid process would be used to provide coverage for low or no-income Americans by health insurance companies. An open bid process would place the administration of such programs in private hands, and force them to compete to provide the mandatory level of services, saving the American people and driving insurance and providers to lower costs and increase quality. Individual, rather than corporate, health insurance will foster competition and increase pressure on providers to compete on features, quality.

 

I welcome any feedback on these principles, please leave your thoughts in the comments.

How the GOP Should Prepare for a Comeback – WSJ.com

Finally, ideas are always the most important currency of politics and never more so than after a party loses. The relationship between GOP policymakers and conservative policy thinkers should be strengthened.

It’s not just conservative think tanks. There are independent scholars, academics, staff in governor’s offices and state legislatures, and knowledgeable people throughout the country who can help make the party’s conservative principles relevant today.

To do this effectively, candidates and party leaders must remember who they need to reach — young voters who tilt Democratic; Hispanics and Catholics; and suburban and exurban families who were bedrock Republicans, but who have become disenchanted with both parties.

via How the GOP Should Prepare for a Comeback – WSJ.com.

Back to the Basics in the Republican Party

With the numerous losses in the last few elections, it is clear that the Republican Party has to do some soul searching and reconnect with the American people. Granted, it is always hard to perform with a party member in charge who is so hated, but I do not think that was the only cause. The Republican party has lost the connection it had with the average person on home town issues.

The Republican party must restore these connections by returning to the quiet intellectualism, reserved foreign policy, and responsible economic policy that lead to the prominence of the party coming out of the 70s.

The Republican party has trambled on its own authority in the attacks on the “liberal collegiate elite.” What started as describing and demonizing these figures as smart but out of touch with the basics of human nature and economics degraded in to outright anti-intellecualism. We’re labeling not just some of our brightest supports, but our future leaders as against the party whenever they disagree with a platform. This has eroded the intellectual core of the party and threatens to impact the recruitment of smart and capable members in the future. This party built a base on leading from the brain, not from the heart, and we must return to our intellectual ways and regain the intellectual high ground in policy.

The old joke goes that the Republicans want the biggest military but don’t want to ever use them, while the Democrats don’t support the military but want to send it everywhere. That joke just doesn’t have as much relevance since the last few years. The party should recapture that spirit, at least the never wanting to use them. The Party of leading from the brain knew that foreign entaglement would just waste our money and engender ill will in the world. The military was to be reserved for only the most severe and necessary military adventures. Additionally, the party conflated a big military policy, designed to fight the Russians in a manner that didn’t require killing anyone, with a reasonable policy that holds at all times. The party of smaller, cheaper government should make the tough decisions to cut and curb military spending and benefits. We can have the best military in the world and reward/support our warriors appropriately without spending anywhere near as much as we do and without creating a secondary wellfare system.

Finally, the Republicans have to regain the high ground on Economic policy. The American economy is the most flexible, resiliant, and productive due to our use and support of a free market economy. Republicans used to understand the nuances of such as system and the need to create necessary regulation and controls to support these markets, in a manner to avoid ineffencies, and to minimize the trade offs between growth and safety. At some point we began to abandon the nuanced, subtle approach to regulation and simply cast it aside for good. (Or at least that is the perception.) We need to return to the party that was business friendly without forgetting the little guy.

A last note, we must remember that we should be the party of intelligent policy and leadership, not of partisan politics and obstructionist government. We must be willing to work with the Democrats in congress to find reasonable solutions to the problems of our country and work towards our Republican ideals and policies. Doing anything else will ensure that it will be many years before we govern again.

The Revolution by Ron Paul

The Revolution by Ron Paul

I recently read over Ron Paul’s The Revolution as  a sort of homework prior to going to see my better half’s family for the holidays. I have to say that I was pleasantly surprised. Like many in the economically conservative camp I lean pretty libertarian when it comes to money and politics. Also like many in the conservative camp, I thought that the Dr. was a bit insane since I had heard snippets of his positions during the Republican primaries.

This book lays out his views, principles, and many of his positions that he tried to articulate during the Republican primary. He lays out a compelling case for his positions, many of which that are more moderate than you think. Some of his more outlandish ideas, such as scrapping the Department of Education, are clearly, and reasonably laid out. Dr. Paul merely requests that the government obtain the power to create and run these organizations from the people via a clearly laid out constitutional amendment. His strongest disagreement is with the expansion of powers under the commerce clause.

I recommend any fiscal conservative and moderate liberal take a few hours and read this brief book. It spells out a reasonable and moderate conservative platform that should be well considered during the reconstruction of the Republican platform in the next few years.

McCain’s Nixon Politics

From the Economist:

Richard Milhous McCain

Nixon’s original insight remains as true now as it was in the late 1960s: lots of liberals do, indeed, look down on flyover Americans as stump-toothed imbeciles and, for some strange reason, lots of flyover Americans resent them for it. What is more, the culture wars have intensified since Nixon’s last election, supersized by the Roe v Wade decision on abortion in 1973.

I, like many Americans & The Economist, thought this election was going to be a major change. Both canidates had been willing to talk across party lines and debate the issues and getting things done instead of the usual partisan attacks. How wrong we all were. This article makes a similar point and relates the Republican strategy to that used by Nixon in ’72.

The question for McCain supporters is if this is what he now agrees and beleives in, or if he is just saying these things in order to win. Can we count on the history of McCain or the campaign?