May 20, 2012

ICYMI: Post on KSL today–”Obama plays politics with same-sex marriage”

KSL ran my post today arguing that Obama’s announcement last week about gay marriage is more about politics of getting reelected than about courage or leadership.

From that post:

With polls showing public opinion shifting in favor of gay marriage at the same time as his opponent gains on the economy, Obama put his finger in the wind and timed his announcement on gay marriage to make maximum impact.

It’s not leadership. It’s polling. And polling says that Obama is losing on the economy but could galvanize support of the liberal base. It’s a lot easier than talking about the dismal job situations of 20.1 million people, and it keeps Romney out of headlines for another month. [cont...]

Surf on over to KSL to check it out.

 

Before you eat another french fry… [infographic]

Before you eat another french fry, think about this:

 

Tough love, you could say. I’m gonna miss my fries.

[The Weight of the Nation]

 

What do running guns and running up a tab have in common?

WASHINGTON, DC - APRIL 16:  Jeff Neely, region...

WASHINGTON, DC - APRIL 16: Jeff Neely, regional commissioner for the General Services Administration's Public Buildings Service Pacific Rim Region takes the 5th Amendment and refuses to testify before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee on Capitol Hill April 16, 2012 in Washington, DC. Neely was was in charge of a 2010 Las Vegas convention for 300 people where the agency spent about $823,000. (Image credit: Getty Images via @daylife)

We’ve all got our panties up in a bunch over the waste of tax dollars by the General Services Administration in a lavish Las Vegas conference, and it has started to result in resignations. That’s only over wasted tax payer money, though. In the Department of Justice’s failed “Fast and Furious” operation, guns went over the border to Mexican drug lords and killed a US agent. Why aren’t we seeing  resignations there?

Booze, Bikes, and Bust at Tax Payer Expense in Las Vegas

GSA chief Martha Johnson acknowledged a “significant misstep,” and admitted that taxpayer dollars were “squandered” during the October 2010 training conference in Las Vegas. Among the items on the tab paid for by the government were a reception billed at $31,208, $6,300 in “commemorative coin sets,” $3,200 for a “mind reader,” and a stunning $75,000 for a training exercise to build a bicycle.

That’s right. $75,000 to build a bicycle. I hope that bicycle is made of solid gold.

The outrage, which was spelled out all over the faces of indigent congressmen yesterday on Capitol Hill, has resulted in the resignation of the chief of GSA and two aides (one of which billed nearly $2,000 to their room during the conference).

As if it might calm the tempest, Jeff Neely, the guy who organized the debacle conference, sat silent as congressman after congressman grilled him during an oversight hearing. Blame it on the fifth amendment:

Jeff Neely, the GSA official who organized a lavish 2010 conference for the agency, sat motionless–save for several eyebrow raises–as ranking House Oversight Committee chairman Elijah Cummings (D-M.D.) accused him, a regional commissioner, and his wife of having “used taxpayer funds to bankroll a lavish lifestyle.” The grilling occurred in front of a national audience at the first of at least four hearings this week on the conference scandal.

And when it came time for Neely to apologize or defend himself, he only uttered one phrase.

What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas.

“Mr. Chairman, on the advice of my counsel, I respectfully decline to answer based upon my Fifth Amendment constitutional privileges,” Neely repeatedly responded Monday

Nice. Nothing says “I respect the American tax payer and the oversight responsibility of Congress” like refusing to testify.

When asked by Rep. Jason Chaffetz why they all received bonuses when there was a pay freeze, GSA official Martha Johnson, who has resigned over the Vegas splurge, found herself in the crosshairs:

“The senior executives were entitled to bonuses under our — we’re entitled to bonuses. I don’t believe the pay freeze affected those bonuses,” Johnson responded.

Rep. Chaffetz chewed out Johnson for using the word “entitled” to justify the bonuses senior GSA officials received during the so-called “pay freeze” under President Obama’s watch. Johnson attempted to take it back but that did not stop Chaffetz from lambasting her.

“Oh, I think you did mean entitled. I think that is the fundamental problem that America gets and that government doesn’t get. There are a lot of good federal employees that work hard. They’re patriotic and they’re frugal with their money. But when you see this widespread abuse of money and then you, as the former administrator, says, ‘Well, they’re entitled to it.’ That’s where there is frustration just steaming out of our ears,” Chaffetz said.

“It is totally unacceptable and for the President of the United States to look the American people in the eye and say, ‘Well we have a pay freeze in place,’ while you’re getting bonuses and going on trips is totally unacceptable,” Chaffetz finished.

Catch video of the exchange here.

In any case, resignations are happening, and perhaps more will follow.

Et, tu, Fast and Furious?

Meanwhile, remember Operation: Fast and Furious?  The ATF operation involved the systematic transfer of as many as 2,000 firearms from the United States federal government to the hands  of Mexican drug cartels and resulted in the death of ATF agent Brian Terry in December 2010 by one of those guns has yet to result in the resignation of the main official responsible.

Official portrait of United States Attorney Ge...

Namely, we’re talking about Attorney General Eric Holder who’s agency ran the operation and who has yet to fire anyone for the fiasco.  To date, his resignation has been called for by one hundred twenty-four congressmen, three senators, two governors, and one presidential candidate (obviously, not Barack Obamathe other one). Even the Director of the ATF, Kenneth Melson, was only reassigned.

Interestingly, there are signs that the White House is blocking Congress’ investigation into Fast and Furious. Utah’s Rep. Jason Chaffetz has told reporters that former NSA staffer Kevin O’Reilly’s “personal attorney indicated that he’s more than willing to talk to the committee, on the record, under oath.” However, “[i]t is only the White House and the White House Counsel that is saying they will not make him available.”

In other words, they won’t let the witness testify.

What’s the lesson? You can endanger Americans, put guns into the hands of Mexican drug lords, and allow American agents to die, and still keep your job, but you can’t waste tax dollars.

Both are wrong, and both are messed up. Worse, guys like Jeff Neely are blowing off responsibility while Eric Holder is playing a game of dodge and weave. Perhaps, the worst aspect is what it says about President Obama. Neither of these people would stay in office if the President did not continue to offer them his full support.

Yet in office they still remain…

[The Inquisitor][Yahoo][Los Angelos Times][CNN][Politico][The Daily Caller][Real Clear Politics]

Obamacare before the Supreme Court: “The Emperor Has No Clothes!”

Courtroom illustration shows Deputy Solicitor General Edwin Kneedler speaking to Justice Antonin Scalia and Chief Justice John Roberts of the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington

In a case of “the Emperor has no clothes,” the justices played the part of the skeptic to the Obama Administration’s protestations of Obamacare’s constitutionality.  With the oral arguments on constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act over, let’s take a look back at the reactions to the arguments:

First, the crux of the argument? That the government cannot regulate “inactivity,” an angle that has been pushed by Georgetown professor Randy Barnett:

On Monday, as the court began three days of arguments, questioning by the nine justices suggested they were ready to review the law now rather than wait until it has fully kicked in. That lays the groundwork for arguments for the challenge championed by Professor Barnett: that Congress’s power to set rules for commerce does not extend to regulating “inactivity,” like choosing not to be insured.

Apparently, the Supreme Court is buying the argument, much to the Obama Administration’s dismay.

In “Obama’s Supreme Court Disaster,” Adam Serwer says that the government’s lawyer Donald Verilli should be glad that the Supreme Court doesn’t allow cameras in the court room; his performance was that bad.

Stepping up to the podium, Verrilli stammered as he began his argument. He coughed, he cleared his throat, he took a drink of water. And that was before he even finished the first part of his argument. Sounding less like a world-class lawyer and more like a teenager giving an oral presentation for the first time, Verrilli delivered a rambling, apprehensive legal defense of liberalism’s biggest domestic accomplishment since the 1960s—and one that may well have doubled as its eulogy.

Investors Business Daily feels bad for Verilli, but doesn’t blame him. The Affordable Care Act just isn’t constitutional, the editorials says.

We almost felt sorry for Donald Verrilli, the solicitor general who had to defend the constitutionally indefensible. Over three days of intense interrogation by nine Supreme Court justices, Verrilli failed to muster a single coherent, reasonable argument in support of the ObamaCare law’s constitutionality.

Instead, his shambling, unfocused talking points left the government case in disarray — underscoring what a poorly conceived, badly designed law this was in the first place, and why it must be overturned.

Some think that the disasterous arguments have put the Obama Administration on the defensive over the heart of Obamacare, the individual mandate on Americans to buy healthcare insurance.

That’s a purely political argument to a constitutional question. [White House Press deputy press secretary] Earnest  offered no defense along the lines of the precedential history of Congress and the commerce clause. It is the reach and scope of commerce-clause authority that is at the heart of the high court’s scrutiny of the health care law.

A week ago, ACA supporters were looking forward to a triumph. Now, they’re counting their losses. What happened?

Perhaps the most telling moment was during a question from Justice Kennedy. Ilya Shapiro describes it:

By this point the government’s head appellate advocate was on his heels, dodging increasingly skeptical queries, until Justice Kennedy delivered what in poker would be seen as the key “tell”:

JUSTICE KENNEDY: I understand that we must presume laws are constitutional, but, even so, when you are changing the relation of the individual to the government in this, what we can stipulate is, I think, a unique way, do you not have a heavy burden of justification to show authorization under the Constitution?

Although you can’t hear it on the audio recording, the audience gasped.

Just like that, the headlines started changing.

The law isn’t dead, yet though, say supporters.

As Mark Twain might say, reports of Obamacare’s demise are greatly exaggerated. While the conservative justices expressed considerable reservations about the law’s scope, Justice Kennedy, the key swing vote, also noted, near the very end of the argument, that the unique context of the healthcare market may be sufficient to validate the “individual mandate.” The biggest challenge the government has faced in defending the law has been the articulation of a limiting principle, and by argument’s end it seemed that Justice Kennedy might have heard one that he could sign on to. If he does vote to uphold the law, it’s possible that Chief Justice Roberts will join him, in the interest of not having the case decided by a single vote, in which case the vote would be 6-3.

On the other hand, Dr. Milton Wolf in the Washington Times is more than sanguine about the demise of Obamacare. He’s predicting complete overturn, and, if not, the downfall of America.

The die is cast: Obamacare will not survive. This is not a prediction of how the Supreme Court will rule on President Obama’s health care takeover, mind you. It’s the harsh reality that if Obamacare does not die a judicial or political death – or better yet, both – it will die an economic death, and if it does, it will take America down with it.

Obamacare’s costs are exploding in the land where budgets already have burst. The $900 billion bargain-basement 10-year cost estimate that Mr. Obama promised for his overhaul recently ballooned to $1.8 trillion. Of course, these are still just estimates, and considering that the government underestimatedMedicare’s cost by a factor of 10, who really knows how massive the final price tag will be?

Welcome to the United States of Greece, where our $15.6 trillion national debt has surpassed the size of our total economy.

Which begs the question: if not Obamacare, what? Healthcare reform is clearly necessary. In the Chicago Tribune,

“One way or another, Congress will have to revisit it in toto,” Justice Antonin Scalia said of the health law.

One way or another.

That should be a clarion call in Washington. The prospect that the court will strike down all or part of the law known as Obamacare hands political leaders of both parties a formidable challenge — and a vast opportunity: a second chance to get health care reform right.

On that point, James Pethokoukis asks “What will Republicans do if the Supreme Court kills healthcare” reform and suggests that perhaps combining Rep. Paul Ryan’s plan (block grants to states for Medicare0 with future president Mitt Romney’s plan (known as the “Hubbard Plan“) might be workable.

The Hubbard Plan has five elements: 1) allow all Americans to deduct from income taxes all their healthcare expenditures—premiums, employee contributions, out-of-pocket costs, etc.; 2) deregulate insurance markets to foster nationwide, portable health insurance; c) making health information more available; d) control anti-competitive behavior such as hospital mergers; e) malpractice reform.

In the meantime, stay tuned. The law hasn’t been overturned, yet, and still may stand. While you’re waiting, jog on over to the Sweaty Federalist for his snark on some of the arguments being made to uphold the law.

[AEI] [Glenn Hubbard] [Mother Jones] [Washington Times] [Investors Business Daily] [National Journal] [The Nation] [Chicago Tribune] [New York Times]

Huffington Predicts the Demise of Obamacare

[h/t Aaron Bludworth]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Obamacare Proponents Brace for Supreme Court Smackdown

 Jason Kane is a recovering rock star and an attorney in Salt Lake County. He is an occasional contributor to Publius Online.

______________________________________________________________

In the days leading up to the Supreme Court oral arguments on the constitutionality of President’s Obama’s signature health care law, there was no end to the media speculation about which conservative leaning justice(s) would leave the dark-side and vote to uphold Obamacare. We were treated to a barrage of statistics touting the popularity of Obamacare, reminders that Republicans had supported mandates in the past and other specious arguments that have no bearing on the constitutionality of the law. Self-assured Progressives, it seemed, had little concern that socialized medicine was in any danger.

After one day of arguments that didn’t go particularly well for the government, the Obamacare cheerleaders seem to be in full back-peddle mode. One blog post at the Daily Beast is especially entertaining, arguing that if the individual health insurance mandate is struck down, it will actually be a boon to Obama’s reelection. Obama would no longer have to defend the controversial law and be free to run on his other spectacular achievements, like killing Bin Laden and… killing Bin Laden. This line of thinking, of course, flies in the face of common sense and everything we know about politics. Losing is bad for business and tends to embolden the opposition. In this particular election year, it also happens to help rid Romney of much of the health care baggage that continues to poison the well with many Republicans.

To be sure, I think it is premature to start dancing on the grave of Obamacare. But the tough skepticism exhibited by Justice Kennedy, the left’s only hope in a 5-4 decision, gives Obamacare proponents good reason for concern. We cannot foretell the outcome based on oral arguments alone, though they do seem to hold particular weight in this case. At the very least though, the seeds of self-doubt have been sewn among the Progressives. We should allow ourselves savor this rare phenomenon while it lasts.

Educational Saving Accounts for High School Students is Good Step

Utah State Representative John Dougall of American Fork

Rep. John Dougall, known in Utah legislative circle as an “ideas guy”* and “freight train“** for the breadth and creativity of the bills he’s carrying this year, had a great idea: why not let high school students and their parents pick the public school solution that best meets their educational needs?

It’s a step in the right direction, if just a small step.

Every once in a while, a good idea comes along. One such idea was that parents should choose where and how their children get educated, and if that type of education means taking them out of the public education system, the tax dollars should, with reasonable restrictions, follow to the school of choice.

In Utah, voters put the kibosh on the school choice/vouchers idea, and we have since returned to the perennial debate about how to improve public education centered on, primarily, paying more of the state budget to public education. Never mind that dollars per student has not proven to be a very good indicator of student success…

The idea is still out there, but in lieu of flaunting the will of voters, Utah’s legislators have opted to, so to speak, let that sleeping dog lie until interest shifts.

Meanwhile,  we have Rep. Dougall’s step in the right direction.  The bill, appropriately named HB123, would “require the state to put most of the money it now sends to high schools into education savings accounts for students in grades 9-12. Bill sponsor Rep. John Dougall, R-American Fork, said that could equal about $6,400 per student per year.”

Could making public schools compete with each other drive quality up?

Where could that money be spent? The student couldn’t just drop out of high school and allocate the money to parents to “home school” him. Rather, the money is limited to public institutions and select private, nonprofit universities (sorry, University of Phoenix). That means charter schools, public online schools, public universities (USU, UVU, SLCC, UU, SUU, and Dixie State), as well as, perhaps BYU (it’s private, non-profit and, frankly, it’s pure awesome sauce; however, it wasn’t named specifically, so I’m just speculating that it is included).

Because it only shifts where money is spent, the bill does not dramatically increase ongoing costs. The fiscal note indicates that there is a one time cost for a financial accounting system and an annual cost of $2,000,000.

Even with a low fiscal impact, however, Utah legislators aren’t ready to allow even such a small step. On Friday the House Education Committee narrowed the scope of who could use the education savings accounts down to just 11th and 12th graders. Because, you know, so much education happens during that last year of high school.

Despite how much the money may be lost on those afflicted with senioritus, it is a step in the right direction and gives the state the opportunity to test the education savings accounts as a pilot program. Rep. Dougall said

Because no one wants their kids living at home forever.

“I think we can have more faith in students and parents in this state than some believe we should have [...] I think they’re much more capable and able to choose for themselves what education makes sense for them.”

‘Nuf said. Give the people who know the students best–their parents–the credit and the ability to choose where, and how, their children’s education is accomplished. No one has a better incentive to see that their dependents are well on the path to independence than parents. No one.

It’s good idea, and it’s a good step in the right direction. Take a moment and email or call your legislator to let them know that you support HB123.

[Salt Lake Tribune] [HB123 Fiscal Note] [HB123]

*Speaker Lockhart, Utah County Lincoln Day Dinner, 2011)

**Ok, that’s what I called him.

Retirement Plans? Private Investment is still Smarter than Social Security

Well, maybe ‘smarter’ isn’t the best word (see headline). Perhaps ‘a better investment’ would be more accurate.

[...]private capital investment remains remarkably safe over the long term. Despite recent declines in the stock market, a worker who had invested privately over the past 40 years would have still earned an average yearly return of 6.85 percent investing in the S&P 500, 3.46 percent from corporate bonds, and 2.44 percent from government bonds.

In contrast, Social Security,

  • Once the safety net for the poor, is the safety net for most retired Americans. Nine out of ten people age 65 and older receive Social Security benefits.
  • As of 2009, 55,905,731 Americans–rich or poor–received Social Security benefits. In 2011, it cost us $727 billion.
  • Once funded by 159 workers per beneficiary, there are so many Social Security beneficiaries that there are only 1.75 workers in the labor force  per Social Security recipient to fund it. That’s down from 2.9 in 2010 and the most dramatic drop since 1955.
  • Today, it is completely unfunded. The Social Security trust fund has been raided so many times by politicians, that there’s no longer any money in it…just IOUs.

So, which system do you want to be covered by when you retire? One that has paid out an annual return of 6.85 percent or one that’s completely bankrupt and funded from current tax dollars? Apparently, America is split on that question:

  • 50% of the workforce has no private pension coverage.
  • 31% of the workforce has no savings set aside specifically for retirement.

I have only one question if you are part of that 50% or 31%: are you crazy?

APROPOS: See also my review of Congressman Jason Chaffetz‘s notable effort to reform, fix, and revitalize Social Security to make it solvent again here.

Obama’s 2012 Budget Proposal is a Trip to La-la Land.

What would you say if I told you that the Obama Administration is proposing a budget that cuts spending  in an amount about the equivalent to coupon for a penny off of your Wendy’s value meal?

Let’s be clear: for an administration that has had to deal with the worst economy in decades, the Obama Administration has proven an uncanny ability to live in La-la Land when it comes time to make a budget. Each year it submits a dreamily out of reality budget, and each year, both Democrats and Republicans in Congress vote it down.

I don’t say this to attack the Obama Administration on its handling of the economy…at least not directly. Rather, I point it out because the federal budget is how the executive branch sets its priorities for the coming year. As yet, over the course of his tenure in the White House, the President has not had a budget survive Congress, even when his party controlled both the Senate and House.  This is unprecedented in American history.

It is widely accepted by economists that once national debt exceeds 90% of GDP (gross domestic product or the value of everything a country produces in a year),  ”annual economic growth tends to be about one percentage point lower.”  As of this writing, the current GDP for the US is about $14.58 Trillion. Our national debt? $15.087 Trillion, or about 103.45% of GDP.

That’s right. We’re in the territory where the debt starts to slow economic growth.

Just how much money is $15 Trillion, anyway? That’s the equivalent of one person spending almost $20 Million a day since Jesus was born.

Where has all that money even gone to? How did we get so deep in the hole without building every American a palatial home complete with a Rolls Royce and driver?

But I digress. The budget.

So, without having yet passed a budget during his Presidential career, a weak  economy, national debt higher than the market value of everything Americans will create this year, and his reelection campaign all on the docket for 2012, what does the President propose in his 2012 budget?Barack Obama - Caricature

Does he tact to the right to find a middle place where the Republicans can compromise? Does he propose solutions that can strengthen the economy?

NOPE.  Senator Sessions of Alabama and budget hawk Congressman Paul Ryan of Wisconsin recently said that

Although it claims to include $4 trillion in deficit reduction, the president’s budget actually contains virtually no credible deficit reduction at all. Under his plan, the government is projected to borrow $11.2 trillion over the next 10 years. This is roughly the same amount of debt we are expected to incur under realistic projections of current policy. The budget does not change our debt trajectory.

In other words, the President is doing a lot of talking, but not a lot of walking. He’s promising a fiscally responsible budget from the the lectern, but hoping no one will notice that the budget he submitted to Congress actually adds to the national debt.

But Senator Sessions and Congressman Ryan are just Republicans doing what Republicans do when the guy in the White House is a Democrat, right? They’re just the party in opposition.

They aren’t alone in their analysis.

Enter the Wall Street Journal which said that the President’s budgeting skills earned him a “fiscal record [that]  is the worst in modern American history[]” and that he is pointing to a “mirage” when setting projections for growth.  Want more gory details?

  • One CATO analysis says that the budget proposed only gives savings of “$24 billion in a $3.8 trillion budget.” That’s 1/158.333333th of the budget. Kind of like going to buy a $2.99 value meal at Wendy’s with a coupon for about $.02 off of your meal. Actually, even less than that.
  • According to the WSJ, “[f]our years of spending of more than 24% of GDP, the four highest spending years since 1946. In the current fiscal year of 2012, despite talk of austerity, Mr. Obama predicts spending will increase by $193 billion to $3.8 trillion, or 24.3% of GDP.”
  • And “[a]nother deficit of $1.327 trillion in 2012, also an increase from 2011, and making four years in a row above $1.29 trillion. The last time that happened? Never.”  Ouch.
  • Tax “[r]evenues at historic lows because of the mediocre recovery and temporary tax cuts that are deadweight revenue losses because they do so little for economic growth. The White House budget office estimates that for the fourth year in a row revenues won’t reach 16% of GDP. The last time they were below 16% for any year was 1950.”

PS. None of that debt includes what current tax payers will have to pay out to current and future retirees for Social Security.

How does the Obama Administration think this budget is possible? How can they A) raise spending and B) cut the deficit?

Easy. Raise taxes on anyone making more than $200,000 (see my analysis of the so-called “Buffett Rule” here) and economic growth at 17.8% of GDP.  Tax rates will increase, in some cases very dramatically. “[C]apital gains to 30% from 15% today; dividends to 30% from 15%; the estate tax to 45% from 35%.” Even the payroll tax cut, which is probably the only thing going for employers, is only slated to last another 10 months, at which point President Obama wants it to end.

According to Michael Tanner at CATO, that’s not going to help the economy, not by a long shot:

Instead, what the budget does contain is a renewed call for tax increases on people and small businesses making as little as $200,000 per year. In addition, there’s the usual panoply of tax hikes on energy products, businesses, investment, and pretty much anything else the president can think of. The budget also helpfully points out that 2013 is the year in which most of the new taxes under Obamacare will take effect. Overall, the president would increase tax revenue to 20.1 percent of GDP. That’s a huge increase from the current 15.4 percent, and higher than the post–World War II average of 18.0 percent. Tax increases of that magnitude cannot help but slow economic growth and job creation.

 Furthermore, ”even if the President were to get every penny of the tax hikes he wants, his budget would never balance. The closest he would ever come would be in 2018, when the deficit would be only $575 billion. After that, deficits begin rising again, reaching $704 billion by 2022.”  (Deficits are the difference between what we raise in tax revenues and what we spend beyond that. Think of it like credit card debt you incur when you spend more in a given month than you earn. Pretty much, we’ve spent more than we earn for so long that we owe more than we are will earn in any given year…and that’s not taking account that we need to pay it all back).

Democrats denounced George W. Bush for allowing so much red ink, but his deficits averaged only 3.5% of GDP if you don’t count 2001 but do include the 10.1% of 2009. Mr. Obama’s deficits have averaged 9.1% of GDP if you count 2009, as you should because his $800 billion stimulus passed that February.

Let me sum it up: budget = President’s plans, and President’s plans = status quo. Because, as one friend put it, “why pass a budget that causes you to compromise when you can pass a bunch of continuing resolutions that keep the Republican controlled House out of the picture?”

That’s playing politics, not good policy, and its bad government policy, bad for our economy, and bad for America.  With the national debt proving to be a giant drag on the economy, the Obama Administration is living in a dream where taxes are high and the economy grows at rates it hasn’t seen–ever.

APROPOS: Did I say that the President was planning on paying for his budget increase with taxes on the rich through the Buffett Rule? Oops. My mistake. Just kidding. Turns out, according to this guy, he doesn’t even put the Buffett Rule into the budget, despite devoting substantial space to it in his State of the Union speech. Grandstanding, much?

[The Washington Post] [Wall Street Journal] [CATO]

Enhanced by Zemanta

Our Healthcare System: Could Reforming Medicaid Free Up Money For Education?

Just because conservatives, myself included, believe (quite rightly) that the individual mandate portion of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is completely outside of the scope of what Congress is constitutionally permitted to regulate, it doesn’t mean that we also believe that nothing should be done to improve our health care system.

Indeed, what was once  the best healthcare  in the world has become expensive, byzantine, and difficult to understand.  We could argue about the reasons–repeated government interventions in the healthcare market going back several decades, the rising cost of living, an exploding Baby Boomer generation, longer life spans, and so on–but the reality is: it’s more expensive, and it’s hurting all of us, especially those on the lower end of the economic spectrum.

We’ve all had the experience of dealing with the logothetes of one insurance company or another, of  hospitals, or Medicaid and Medicare administration. It’s almost never easy to find an answer, and it’s a daunting and intimidating process.

I can’t help but pause here and wish that the next time I call I could find a helpful “Mr. Incredible”-like insurance agent ready to help me.

Gilbert Huph: I’m not happy, Bob. Not happy. Ask me why.
Bob (aka “Mr Incredible”): Okay. Why? Gilbert Huph: Why what? Be specific, Bob.
Bob: Why are you unhappy?
Gilbert Huph: Your customers make me unhappy.
Bob: Why? Have you gotten complaints?
Gilbert Huph: Complaints I can handle. What I can’t handle is your customers’ inexplicable knowledge of Insuricare’s inner workings. They’re experts! Experts, Bob! Exploiting every loophole! Dodging every obstacle! They’re penetrating the bureaucracy!

If  you’ve not had to deal with said bureaucracy, stay tuned. You turn will come. Mine came when on Christmas Eve a year ago, we found ourselves in possession of a two and a half year-old with a small metal bead stuck up her nose. You know the kind–they’re like the bearings in a skateboard.

We were visiting family in a different state, out of our “network,” and the doctor’s office we ambushed fifteen minutes to closing lacked the tools necessary to remove the bead. Kindly, the office called around to each clinic in the area, but again, no luck. Every office was either closed or lacked the right tool.

Our next stop was, you can guess, the Emergency Room. To make a long trip into a short story, let me summarize: two hours later, we waited for all of twenty seconds in a small room while a doctor inserted a small tool into our daughter’s nose and removed the metal bead with almost no pain or blood. It was just that easy.

We were half way to the car in the parking lot before we realized that not only had we never been asked our billing information, but we had also been told “oh, well get it later” every time we offered to give it.

My wife returned to give our billing address to the hospital, asking at the same time what the damage (to our checking account) would be. Not only did no one know, but they didn’t know how to find out.  Several weeks would pass before we got the bill. Would you believe it was upwards of a thousand dollars?

For all of the twenty seconds it took the doctor to remove the bead? If you’re shocked, it’s with good reason. Don’t get me wrong: I don’t begrudge the doctor his skills, his availability in the ER on Christmas Eve, or his costs (which include, no doubt , insurance costs and medical school). In fact, I laud him for it.

No, what I begrudge is all of the other factors that went into creating the bill. Despite our effort that same night to pay the bill (at that point, we actually had cash and a check book), the hospital accountants (see the above mentioned logothetes) had to perform an analysis that was not limited to just the doctor’s time, insurance, and costs…

…or did it? What were those costs? All of the people who came to the ER for routine care they couldn’t afford to take to regular clinic? That the hospital expected to be picked up through Medicare payments?  When it came down to it, it really had little to do with the value of the care or the additional costs caused, largely, by distortions to the market from government intervention.

English: Barack Obama signing the Patient Prot...

Image via Wikipedia

Which brings us back to the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare. Is it the wrong way to deal with the healthcare problems? Perhaps. Is it constitutional? Not likely. But being both poor policy and unconstitutional does not mean that there are not other ways to address healthcare’s problems.

In today’s Salt Lake Tribune, Pat Jarvis, noting that perhaps it wouldn’t be so hard to fund education if we could save costs in places like Medicaid. “We waste $1 trillion annually on inefficient and poor quality care,” said Jarvis in the Salt Lake Tribune.  ”One of the costs of that waste, much of which comes from tax revenues to support public health programs like Medicaid, is the lack of adequate money for public education. That is particularly true in Utah, where we have the lowest per-pupil expenditure in the nation.”

Logothetes of the world begin to quiver in fear. And pay their union dues.

Jarvis gives seven ideas for reforming our healthcare system on a state wide basis. Without levying a direct opinion on whether they would work, I think it at least bears observation that they all deal with reallocating incentives to change how healthcare is managed.

Let’s begin with Medicaid. Here is a list of seven reforms that would save hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars over the next 10 years:

1) Millions of Utah tax dollars are being spent on administrative expenses for Medicaid managed care. This program can be eliminated without any impact on essential services to Utah’s medically needy and the health care providers that serve them.

2) Millions of dollars are wasted annually on excessively high pharmaceutical costs because the already existing Medicaid preferred drug list is too limited in its application in Utah.

3) U.S. health care financing, including Medicaid, routinely pays for inappropriate care. Establish a Medicaid Benefit Commission this year with authority to identify commonly performed medical/surgical interventions which have little or no clinical science behind them. Second, adjudicate medical malpractice claims for Medicaid beneficiaries without punitive damages or jury trials.

4) Reduce obstetrical and newborn care costs paid by Medicaid through rewarding high performing hospital practices, which reduce elective inductions and the related unnecessarily higher rates of c-sections and NBICU admissions. And increase eligibility for post-natal contraceptive services for women delivering babies financed through Medicaid.

5) Reduce use of long term care services through better financed home health care delivery.

6) Develop improved quality care strategies for high cost Medicaid financed chronic health problems.

7) Develop a statewide hospital injury prevention program.

Could this work? There’s no doubt that the motivation to reform entitlement programs like Medicaid seems to come primarily from the right and the large, silent majority in the middle. Democrats, content to ride on the life or death of Obamacare before the Supreme Court, have repeatedly avoided discussion about the long and short term costs of failure to reform Medicaid. Even long term Republicans in Congress have, at least until recently, failed to lead out on entitlement reform.

If there was ever a time to begin assessment of our priorities to find a way to create a sustainable healthcare system accessible to all, now is that time. The reality is that these options are fast becoming non-negotiable, and the window of time to fix them is becoming smaller. It’s time to look at and pass substantive reforms.

APROPOS: If you’re interested in “the rest of the story,” I spent many a day calling and negotiating with the hospital and the ER. Would you know that the more they hear from you, the more specific the bills become? And the more specific they get, the better they can actually assess the real cost of the procedure? At the end of the day (which day was sometime in May, almost five months after our two-year old stuck a metal bead up her nostril), we ended up paying  a fraction of the original bill, yet something that I was glad to pay in appreciation for getting that bead out of my daughter’s nose.  If only it hadn’t taken so long to get a straight answer from the bureaucracy.

For more on healthcare and entitlement reform, see also my posts on “The Human Cost of Ignoring Medicaid Reform” and “Pension Reform: What’s Your Plan?”

[Salt Lake Tribune]