by | ARTICLES, BLOG
The Chicago Tribune has published a Sunday editorial calling for Obamacare to be re-written. The Chicago Tribune.
The Tribune goes through the myriad of delays that the Administration has announced in the last few months, contrary to the actual written law, and then they go further. They question the ability of Obama to actual ignore parts of the law he deems inconvenient or difficult to implement under the dates created by Congress — and signed into law by Obama himself.
“The administration asserts that it can make these changes under the president’s broad executive authority. Yet critics make a compelling argument that the president is stretching the limits. Former federal appellate Judge Michael McConnell, director of the Constitutional Law Center at Stanford Law School, writes in The Wall Street Journal about a different sort of mandate: the mandate in Article II of the Constitution that the president “‘shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.’ This is a duty, not a discretionary power. … As the Supreme Court wrote long ago (Kendall v. United States, 1838), allowing the president to refuse to enforce statutes ‘would be clothing the president with a power to control the legislation of Congress, and paralyze the administration of justice.'”
Like most issues of presidential authority, this isn’t cut and dried. Presidents do have broad discretion on how laws are enforced. But they’re on shaky ground when they decide whether to enforce a law. It’s not hard to understand why: Imagine the outcry if President Mitt Romney refused to enforce, say, Obamacare”
Yes, imagine that. Imagine Romney (or Bush?) trying to do what Obama has done. What’s more, The Chicago Tribune calls into credibility Obama’s excuse to circumvent Congress and administer his changes by fiat. Obama blames a toxic environment in Congress, but the Tribune isn’t even buying it.
“Tweaks? Obama isn’t making tweaks. He’s trying to circumvent major flaws that began flaring when the law was enacted. Hence the many carve-outs, delays and special deals that have been piling up since he added his signature to Obamacare on March 23, 2010.
The president crusaded for this law and has embraced its nickname. But he did not write the law. Congress did. Major changes are necessary — he has stipulated by his actions that this law as constituted cannot work — and Congress should legislate them for his review.”
The Chicago Tribune sums up the sloppy, slippery implementation of Obamacare by calling for it to be rewritten. The fact that the one of the most adament cheerleaders of Obama has 1) turned its back on this signature piece of legislation and 2) questioned Obama’s tactics, is quite alarming. When such a major ally discovers that our Emperor indeed has no clothes, it reinforces the need for Obamacare critics to press on in their fight to repeal this monstrosity of a law.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, ECONOMY, HYPOCRISY, OBAMA, OBAMACARE, POLITICS
Eye-opening words of HHS Secretary Sebelius yesterday:
“This is no longer a political debate; this is what we call the law,” Sebelius told a group that includes Democrats and Republicans, elected officials, political appointees and bureaucrats. “It was passed and signed three years ago. It was upheld by the Supreme Court a year ago. The president was re-elected. This is the law of the land.”
Except when it is not.
If this is the law of the land, why is our President of the United States picking and choosing the parts of law that he wants to implement and/or delay?
Just this morning, Forbes is reporting “that another costly provision of the health law—its caps on out-of-pocket insurance costs—will be delayed for one more year”.
Recently, there was a delay in the employer mandate.
Before that, “there was the announcement, buried in the Federal Register, that the administration would delay enforcement of a number of key eligibility requirements for the law’s health insurance subsidies, relying on the “honor system” instead”
And for starters in April 2012, there was a delay of Obamacare’s Medicare cuts until after the election.
Oh, and don’t forget the security flaws and delays recently revealed. Deadlines for security safeguard have been missed, and the date to implement that system has been moved to September 30 (one day before the exchanges open).
Here’s the problem. Sebelius and the Obama Administration want to use the argument “It’s the law of the land!” when they are criticizing Republicans for questioning Obamacare. At the same time, they are not followign the “law of the land” when they are moving deadlines, delaying implementation of the law, and using the honor system.
Michael McConnell wrote an excellent piece last month in the WSJ entitled ” Obama Suspends the Law: Like King James II, the president decides not to enforce laws he doesn’t like. That’s an abuse of power”
He points out the simple fact that “Article II, Section 3, of the Constitution states that the president “shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” This is a duty, not a discretionary power. While the president does have substantial discretion about how to enforce a law, he has no discretion about whether to do so”.
Indeed. When Obama decides to pick and choose the parts of the law he wishes to execute, he is not upholding “the law of the land”.
Is Obama using Obamacare to set up a series of precedents for which he easily dispenses with troubling or inconvenient laws or statutes, in order to expand his Presidential powers?
There are many reasons why Americans should continue to be wary of Obamacare. These include:
Fiscal — Staggering costs of the system, rising costs of premiums, etc
Medical — Not being able to keep your doctor or healthplans as promised. Concerns about rationing, death panels, etc.
Personal — Your information is, at this time, not secure, and is overseen by unregulated “navigators” (think TSA)
Operational — Obamacare was signed into law in March 2010. It was expected to be fully implemented January 1, 2014. Yet in those almost four years, Americans have seen delays, missed deadlines, cost changes, and more. If Obamacare can’t even be implemented without substantial missteps along the way, what confidence does the public have that it will run efficiently and properly?
Constitutional — Obama is ignoring deadlines contained in the law and delaying parts that are problematic
Americans will have varying opinions as to which of these concerns above is most acute. However, the Constitutional aspect might very well be the most troublesome. Invoking the “law of the land” when chastising your political opponents, while simulataneously ignoring the “law of the land” is the height of executive hubris. An expansion of power by the Executive Branch undermines our entire American system of government.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, BUSINESS, ECONOMY
Detroit is not too big to fail.
The city of Detroit must take its lumps, as difficult as they may be to swallow. But the city of Detroit is to blame. They made a very bad calculated error. They thought their decades of cronyism and sweeping promises were good and economically viable. The people didn’t realize, or really didn’t care, that they were sold a lot of snake oil from public service sectors and unions that were promised too-good-to-be-true benefits and rewards.
But Detroit must not be bailed out because there are a great many other localities in the same boat as Detroit, that operated on the same premises. We simply cannot afford this financial baggage. Thatcher warned us decades ago, “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.”
One of the most difficult facets of Detroit’s economic woes is the fact that the state of Michigan constitutionally protects the rights of public service pensions. But pensions systems function as a vendor as a budget item to be paid; therefore, there should be no (other) protection for them than any other vendor — to do so is a clear form of cronyism. It is typically very difficult to get constitutional provisions passed at all, and yet some states, like Michigan and New York for example, managed to get it done. So this mindset of economic self-protection has clearly long been pervasive; these states have had the constitutional pension protection in place for some time.
The constitutional protection for public pensions is rather duplicitous because of how such money is protected when finances or the economy sours. You see, when states and cities raise money via taxes, the purpose is not for profit-making, and they don’t make decisions based on profits and such. First and foremost, their job is to take care of citizens. You would think with that being the case, it would therefore be really important to the elected leaders to make certain that the bondholders (who execute money in large quantities to help finances projects to benefit the citizenry) would know that their bond money is protected first and taken care of first. This is common sense.
A lot of the time in municipalities, the bonds that are issued are General Obligation (GO) bonds. GO Bond money is usually considered first in line for protection because of the enormous sums of money issued. Bondholders have to be promised by the locality that they get paid back first as an element of protection, a form of collateral if you will. In exchange for that guarantee, the GO Bonds are usually issued at lower rates than other types of bonds. That iron clad arrangement enables the GO Bonds rates to be very affordable for projects (think “smart money”), specifically because the bond has the guarantee of the locality that the money is financially protected. Other bonds don’t have that guarantee and therefore have a higher rate.
But if there are constitutionally protected items (like a pension system), they get put at the top of the list for protection, even ahead of GO bonds. This is an enormous problem. GO bonds have no actual and true collateral — only the “full faith and credit” of the borrowing locality. What kind of hypocrisy is it now to say to the bondholders that the money which was was borrowed to pay for education and teachers and government projects for the betterment of Detroit citizens now won’t get paid back — because we have to first pay for the teachers and unions and public service retirement pensions?
Detroit must be allowed to go through the proper process and not be propped up. This is a city that continuously and consciously made outrageous and untenable financial decisions with no accountability. A bailout for this behavior and operation will have a rippling effect on other localities which practiced this same kind of cronyism. Why should other taxpayers now be responsible for shouldering such gross economic negligence of a city rife with economic corruption?
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, OBAMA, OBAMACARE
Reuters is reporting today that Obamacare is in dire straits down for another reason: security. The government has missed important deadlines for implementing the proper measures in order to safeguard our information.
“CMS – the agency within HHS that is running Obamacare – had set a May 13 deadline for its contractor to deliver a plan to test the security of the crucial information technology component.
A test was to have been performed between June 3 and 7. But the delivery deadline slipped and the test – assessing firewalls and other security elements – is now set for this week and next”
The new deadline for implementing the system is September 30, precisely one day before the October 1st implementation date.
So the big questions to come away from this announcement are:
1) If the security system is not ready for the October 1 deadline, will Obamacare still proceed?
a) If so, will citizen data be safe? How?
b) If not, how will that affect consumers?
2) This is one of several examples of Obamacare issues (including running out of money prematurely and delaying Obamacare for businesses, among others). If the government has been able to get right the mere IMPLEMENTATION of a law of this size and scope, how are we supposed to be confident in its ability to adequetely and effectively run Obamacare come January 2014?
by | BLOG, ECONOMY, OBAMA, POLITICS
On Wednesday, Obama tried to change the national conversation about the long string of questions dogging the White House. He decided he is back to being serious about jobs. Very serious. Serious enough to talk about jobs for an hour at Knox College in Galesburg, Illinois. This speech was touted as the kick-off to a series of events and talks aimed to get refocused on jobs.
A funny thing happened on the way to the recovery. In the midst of his speech, Obama slips in a scolding remark to his critics:
“But with this endless parade of distractions and political posturing and phony scandals, Washington has taken its eye off the ball. And I am here to say this needs to stop. (Applause.) This needs to stop”
He is very brazen. To come out and call the scandals “phony” is downright delusional. What’s worse, by inserting it in the context of his speech about jobs and the economy, it purposely gives the suggestion that Obama’s critics are at fault.
“If only they would stop bothering me and asking me questions about what we are doing. Don’t they know I’m in charge, anyway? They won’t leave me alone to fix the economy and create jobs. They are being mean.”
Be aware. This tactic is going to continue to be repeated during his jobs apology tour and into the fall before election season. Obama is shaping the narrative that the Republicans et al. are too busy criticising him to tackle real issues, and it’s their fault the economy is still sluggish.
Keith Koffler, the White House watchdog reporter, makes a great point — if this was President Bush, you know darn well that the Democrats and media would not let up on talking about and reporting about these “phony scandals”.
by | ARTICLES, OBAMA, OBAMACARE
Staggering costs. Gross mismanagement. Delays. If these current problems with Obamacare aren’t enough to persuade you to support its full repeal, maybe this latest revelation will: The Federal Data Services Hub
What is this Hub, and how is it related to Obamacare? According to the folks over at Rare.com
“The Data Hub is a comprehensive database of personal information being established by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to implement the federally facilitated health insurance exchanges. The purpose of the Data Hub, according to a June 2013 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report, is to provide “electronic, near real-time access to federal data” and “access to state and third party data sources needed to verify consumer-eligibility information.”
As Rare.com astutely points out, “in these days of secret domestic surveillance by the intelligence community, rogue IRS officials and state tax agencies using private information for political purposes, and police electronically logging every license plate that passes by, the idea of the centralized Data Hub is making lawmakers and citizens nervous”.
What kind of information will be stored in the Federal Data Services Hub? Why sorts of your…data. This inlcudes “income and financial data, family size, citizenship and immigration status, incarceration status, social security numbers, and private health information. It will compile dossiers based on information obtained from the IRS, the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Defense, the Veterans Administration, the Office of Personnel Management, the Social Security Administration, state Medicaid databases, and for some reason the Peace Corps”
And who will be in charge of your secure info? The government has it all figured out. They even have a catchy name: “Navigators”: “The hub will be used on a daily basis by so-called Navigators, which according to the GAO are “community and consumer-focused nonprofit groups, to which exchanges award grants to provide fair and impartial public education” and “refer consumers as appropriate for further assistance.” Thousands of such people will have unfettered access to the Data Hub, but there are only sketchy guidelines on how they will be hired, trained and monitored”
So there you have it. A completely intrusive, centralized information database combining health, financial, and citizenship information, overseen by officials no more professional than the current TSA. If Obama can artibrarily ignore the PPACA starting date of January 1, 2014 for businesses, than the House and Senate need to takes the reigns and push for a delay (or better yet — a full repeal) of Obamacare for individuals as well.
There is too much to risk — financially and personally — to keep Obamacare on the books.
by | ARTICLES, OBAMA, OBAMACARE
Three major Unions, including James P. Hoffa of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, wrote a letter to Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid this past week. In the letter, they echoed the sentimeng of millions of Americans who are concerned about Obamacare.
The opening salvo is scathing. “When you and the President sought our support for the Affordable Care Act, you pledged that if we liked the health plans we have now, we could keep them. Sadly, that promise is under threat,” letter said. “Right now, unless you and the Obama Administration enact an equitable fix, the ACA will shatter not only our hard-earned health benefits, but destroy the foundation of the 40 hour workweek that is the backbone of the American middle class.”
The reason why this letter is attention-grabbing is the fact that the Unions have been the staunchest supporters of Obama through thick and thin. And interestingly, they acknowledge that in this letter. They write, ” We have also been strong supporters of you. In campaign after campaign we have put boots on the ground, gone door-to-door to get out the vote, run phone banks and raised money to secure this vision. Now this vision has come back to haunt us.”
Ouch.
If you don’t want to read the letter in its entirety, Wall Street Cheet Sheet does a quick little analysis. “The letter lists three complaints. First, that the law creates an incentive for employers to keep workers’ hours below 30 hours per week. Second, that millions of Americans, including a great majority of union members, are covered by nonprofit health insurance plans. But with the implementation of Obamacare, union workers will be “treated differently and not be eligible for subsidies afforded other citizens.” Finally, the letter argued that while union, nonprofit plans will not receive the same subsidies, they will be taxed to pay for those subsidies”
The interesting questions is — will Obama respond? Will changes happen? The Unions don’t seem too sure. In fact, they charge that “Unless changes are made, however, that promise is hollow”.
This strongly worded letter is all too revealing. Obama used the Unions to get elected, and how he’s folding on them since they’ve outlived their usefulness. For the Unions to deride Obamacare in this fashion is encouraging. If even the big Unions refuse to get behind Obamacare anymore, it gives more weight for Congress to work with, especially in the Senate, when considering the law and its repeal.
by | FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, OBAMA, OBAMACARE
Obamacare was sold to the public as universal health insurance. Insurance, in and of itself, is an exchange of a premium payment in return for a guarantee against specific loss criteria — such as damage or death. Prime examples of this are home and life insurance. And yet, health insurance in our country is not merely a guarantee against loss due to ill health; it encompasses much, much more. In this way, health insurance doesn’t follow the examples of other insurance industries, and therein lies a major reason for Obamacare’s growing economic difficulties ($1.85 trillion) and growing opposition.
Typical health insurance plans nowadays function by providing both insurance and coverage of certain medical costs. With ObamaCare comes the individual mandate, which most people understand the meaning to be that everyone is required to purchase for themselves a health insurance policy (hence the idea of “universal coverage”). The rationale in favor of the individual mandate is to safeguard against societal calamity — that if someone doesn’t have health insurance and they get into an accident or get sick, he doesn’t become a burden on society.
A mandate to buy health insurance might not sound so terrible on the surface to some, because it dictates the purchase of something that just about everyone wants to buy anyway since it is sensible to do so. But what makes Obamacare’s individual mandate so odious is that it it forces people to buy a product comprised of both insurance and a slew of pre-selected, prepaid medical care – which includes paying for stuff they don’t need. This intentionally misuses people’s ability to buy their own reasonably priced insurance. And because the mandate requires coverage to be universal, you have to include everything and everyone, such as preexisting conditions, high risk, etc. Therefore, the individual mandate requires an-insurance-that-is-not really-just-insurance, making reality very different than what it is thought to be.
From an economic standpoint, the individual mandate is a terrible idea because its sole purpose is to obfuscate the true cost of caring for those persons whose circumstances or risk, such as preexisting conditions or age, would result in paying more for health insurance. By controlling the prices through artificial means instead of private competition, the individual mandate creates a misallocation of resources, which is a failure of the fundamental principles of Economics 101.
A second major problem with the individual mandate as it is written is that you can forgo coverage in lieu of paying a penalty and then if you develop a condition, you can still get coverage without being denied due to a pre-existing condition. Unfortunately, this only serves to make prices more expensive for those who are healthy because there must be funds to cover those who are not.
I would argue that having health insurance coverage should not be a mandate in the strict sense of the word; i.e, one should not be required to purchase it. That being said, I also think that people should regard the ownership of a health insurance policy (a “true insurance”) as a basic necessity for proper living. The attitude toward health insurance coverage –- by citizens, legislators, and insurance companies alike —- truly needs a paradigm shift if health care is to be reformed for the better. The health insurance sector must be restructured to resemble other insurance industries such as life, fire, and home; in doing so, they will create a more competitive and dignified system as well as fulfill the purpose of safeguarding against an unforeseen disaster. Therefore, the actual components of what comprises “health insurance” (currently insurance and pre-paid medical care) must change.
The idea of helping everyone to carry health insurance sounds like a lofty goal. However, the individual mandate is the wrong way to attain this. From human point of view, the idea that all persons have coverage may be good, but imposing the mandate is bad for liberty. Turning basic economics on its head, it incentivizes the wrong things and creates most expensive health care possible.
The government has never been efficient with other people’s money. The economics of the current health care law will only serve to reduce the quality of health care for our citizens because it lacks free market competition. A health care reform solution could be focusing on providing a ” true insurance” product that everyone could have – one that protects against having an extraordinary event happen whose economics is more than can be afforded. Obamacare is not an insurance; it is pre-paid medical care system whose product provides for all at all costs. Imposing an individual mandate for such a program is ultimately economically unsustainable. The current health care law should be overturned for the sake of the economic health of this country.
