Waxman: Reality conflicts with what I expected…

Since ObamaCare was signed in to law a number of companies have begun doing exactly what they said they would be forced to do and what I mentioned, almost 3 weeks ago, they would do (in Theory, Practice, Smoke, and Mirrors). They’re announcing hits on earnings, delaying the hiring of new employees, laying off employees, and reducing benefits.

But, according to Obama’s economists, ObamaCare was supposed to make things better not worse. Why are these companies doing this?

Businesses are getting hit with a number of things, complements of ObamaCare. First up is that providing prescription drug benefits to retirees is no longer tax deductible. This will cost the average Fortune 500 company that chooses to continue this benefit about $112 million per year in extra taxes. This may be chump change to economists playing with numbers in a spreadsheet or Congressfolk spending other people’s money, but it is very real to people running real businesses that need this money to pay employees.

It’s real money that has to come from somewhere. Real businesses can’t simply raise taxes to cover it or change a number in a spreadsheet. They either need to increase the cost of their products (which lowers sales so doesn’t help) or they need to reduce costs which is often best accomplished through reductions in the number of employees or the costs per employee (eg, reduce pay and benefits). Unfortunately other cost savings options either don’t exist or take several years to begin offering any savings.

And Henry Waxman is acting all confused over this. According to Byron York, writing for the Washington Examiner, Waxman sent a letter to CEO’s of several of the companies who have said that ObamaCare will cost them hundreds of millions of dollars and result in reductions in benefits, layoffs, etc. He wants them to come before Congress on April 21st to defend their actions. York wrote:

Waxman's letter suggests he does not accept the company's decision. "The new law is designed to expand coverage and bring down costs, so your assertions are a matter of concern," Waxman wrote to Stephenson, in addition to letters to Verizon CEO Ivan Seidenberg, Caterpillar CEO James Owens, and Deere & Company CEO Samuel Allen. The companies' decisions, Waxman wrote, "appear to conflict with independent analyses."

Well, no surprise here that they conflict. And just who did these ‘independent analyses’? Business people who run real businesses that employ people and contribute to our economy?

Government is good and we need government, but let’s remember that government doesn’t make anything (OK, except I suppose it now makes unprofitable GM cars). It doesn’t contribute to the economy. Every single government employee, every dollar paid out by the government for healthcare, is paid for by people and businesses who do make things. It’s the people who grow our food, build our houses, and make our clothes who contribute to the economy and whose efforts pay for every cent spent by the government.

Does Waxman understand this? Is he or Obamaosi really surprised by the actions these businesses are being forced to take? Interestingly, I don’t think they’re surprised. I fear that what we are seeing was their intention. If businesses can no longer afford to provide healthcare benefits to their employees, where will their employees turn? Why, the government of course. We’re not all socialists now, but just wait a few years.

A solution for the pre-existing conditions problem?

When challenged about the unprecedented, and very likely un-Constitutional, federal mandate that every person in the U.S. purchase health insurance, Democrats common retort is that without the mandate we cannot address the problem of insurance companies turning people down for pre-existing conditions. Not.

Their rationale is that without the mandate, but with a requirement that insurance companies not discriminate based on pre-existing conditions, people will just wait to purchase insurance until they have a need for it. If true this would indeed violate the very essence of insurance which is to spread out the risk of unpredictable expenses.

There is perhaps another option. Insurance companies can be required to not discriminate on pre-existing conditions when someone is transferring from one insurer to another. In other words, nobody is required to purchase health insurance. There is no un-Constitutional federal mandate. If you already have insurance though and simply need to transfer from one insurance company to another then the company you are transferring to must accept you, pre-existing medical conditions and all.

If you choose not to purchase insurance then you will be on your own for most medical expenses. But once you are in the insurance pool, and as long as you stay in it, then you’ll have no problems transferring. This eliminates the pre-existing conditions problem, protects the integrity of the insurance companies, and doesn’t violate our Constitution.

The End ?

"When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic"

- Benjamin Franklin*.

Yesterday we took our biggest step yet towards socialism in the U.S. and also witnessed perhaps the most tyrannical action in 200 years. We haven’t witnessed the end of the republic, but we have witnessed the potential beginning of the end.

Our great country hasn’t come to an apocalyptic end with the passage of Social Security or Medicare nor by the incremental creep of increasing taxpayer funded welfare programs. It won’t from ObamaCare either.

Sadly, if ObamaCare is implemented it will be the middle-class who suffers the most.

Today we ALL share the same great healthcare system. The approximate 87% who have insurance all see the same doctors in the same clinics and hospitals and receive the same high level of care. The waiting room in my doctors office is always representative of a cross-section of our country. Whites, Blacks, Hispanics, young, old, rich and poor. I’ve seen well-known wealthy waiting the same as union laborers waiting the same as people on government assistance. Even the 13% uninsured have access to the exact same hospitals and emergency rooms.

The future will likely include a split healthcare system similar to Canada and the U.K.. A private one for the top 15-20% of wage earners, the wealthy and upper middle class, and a public one for everyone else. The private system will be largely identical to what we all share today. We’ve actually started to see this already. Many doctors and clinics will not see Medicare patients because they can’t afford to provide care for what the government pays. In New York and other heavily regulated states an increasing number of doctors no longer even accept insurance and only see those who can pay out of pocket.

The system for the other 80%? It will still have some great and caring doctors, nurses, and other caregivers. But it will not be able to provide today’s level of care to all comers. It will not be able to afford it nor will enough people choose to work in this lower pay system. Waits for care will increase just as in Canada and the U.K. With scarce resources we’ll begin to see prioritization, likely along the lines of future contributions to society (EG, younger workers will receive priority over those who can’t or don’t work – the older, etc.).

But all is not so gloomy.

The Good

There could be some good from this.

Foremost, we might finally see some practical limits placed on the commerce clause of our U.S. Constitution along with some re-assertion of the state’s rights that our founders intended. More on this later.

Second, we may see an awakening of a populace who have become complacent about our creep towards socialism.

Yesterday was a sad day for our country. But I’m still optimistic.

* Widely attributed to Benjamin Franklin though not absolutely confirmed.

Tiger Arrested for Prostitution

Interestingly, that is the one headline about Tiger Woods we haven’t seen in the past several months. Tiger, nor any of the women he paid so well to service him, have been arrested or charged with prostitution.

I’m assuming it’s not an issue of celebrity because Hugh Grant, Charlie Sheen, Sen , and thousands of other famous folk have been arrested for prostitution.

It’s apparently not that only transactions below a certain dollar amount count as prostitution because Tiger appears to have paid less than Elliot Spitzer on at least a couple of occasions.

The form of payment maybe? If payment is of goods and services rather than greenbacks it is no longer considered prostitution? This would seem to make the most sense since it is also the measure applied to the most ubiquitous form of prostitution – guys buying dinners and gifts for girls to get them in bed. If so then I predict a huge increase in purchases of jewelry from Target (of approximately $250 value) along with a corresponding increase in returns of these gifts. “Prostitution officer? I didn’t pay her, I just gave her a gift!”

Such a fuzzy line we’ve created…

Theory, Practice, Smoke, and Mirrors

Note: I’m just beginning to look in to this. The following may be way way way off base. More to come when/if I have more time. Stop by if you find anything supporting or contradicting (though I won’t be around this week)…

It’s fascinating to read the opinions and testimony of various economists regarding Obama’s healthcare plan. A long and distinguished list have weighed in on numerous aspects, in particular, the money saving features.

A big chunk of the ‘savings’, as much as 3/4’s, is described thus.

Under the plan companies will, according to economists, do one of 3 things:

1 – Larger companies, those with more than about 250 employees, will hold the value of ‘Cadillac plans’ (the health plans provided to nearly all employees, including union employees in large companies qualify as ‘Cadillac plans’) to just below the level that triggers the proposed excise tax. In other words they will reduce coverage. Initially this tax will be triggered on any amount spent on healthcare and insurance in excess of $10,200*. The difference, approximately $4,200 per employee will be paid in additional salary to the employees.

2 – Many smaller companies will cease providing health insurance, encourage employees to purchase insurance through the government marketplace, and elect to pay the proposed $2,000 fine. The difference between what they are currently spending (approx $7,000) and the $2,000 fine will be paid to employees as additional salary.

3 – Some smaller companies will make no change and will continue with their current health plan.

Nice theory, won’t happen in practice. And I’d think they know it.

Competition, locally and globally, is fierce. Few employees will see any increase in salary as the economists predict. That is simply not reality. This theory though does seem to do a good job of hiding the true costs of Obama’s plan.

Despite theory being wrong, all is perhaps not so bad. One way large employers will reduce the costs of their plans (to keep them under the $10,200 excise tax limit) will be to place employees with risky, and thus more expensive, health behaviors in a separate plan with severely limited coverage. This will include employees who are overweight, smoke, drink heavily or are a drug abuser. If you get a speeding ticket or are otherwise documented as a high health risk you could find yourself in this pool as well. This will allow low risk and healthier employees to have better coverage for the $10,200 companies will be allowed to spend. Theoretically, this will encourage employees to make healthier choices so that they can join the healthy plan that offers better coverage.



* Note that on average these companies spend about $14,400 per employee per year on heathcare and, with few exceptions, every full-time employee from bottom to top receives the same plan (many companies also offer these plans to part-time employees at a pro-rated cost). Glenn Beck and a couple of others have said that government employee healthcare costs are considerably more, perhaps as much as twice. Employee benefits industry reports that I have studied have not supported this.

TSA and what we can look forward to with healthcare

Yesterday I flew in to Chicago O’Hare to connect with a flight to Amsterdam. I had an hour and thirty minute connection which shouldn’t have been a problem…

Well, TSA in terminal 5, the international terminal, was a cluster to behold. I was greeted at the security checkpoint by a mass of about 150 and an estimated 50 minute wait. This just for the passport / boarding card check. Even with a flight that had started boarding and a departure in less than an hour I was told, twice, that I had to stand in the line. After 15 minutes in line and listening to a woman walk up and down the line quietly asking for anyone on SAS flight number something or other I asked about my KLM flight. She looked horrified. Apparently I should have been directed to the rush line earlier. She took me there.

Movie Theatre’s have large LCD displays over the ticket taker indicating what movies are currently seating. Why TSA can’t do the same for flights currently boarding and that thus have priority screening, I don’t know.

Once cleared through the passport check I was to choose among 5 lines for x-ray. About 7 people in each line, shouldn’t be a problem. I made my choice and waited some more. All was OK for a few minutes and then my line ground to a halt. I noticed that every time there was suspected contraband the screener checked the bag, stopping our line dead in its tracks until the screener resolved the problem. I really lucked out, there were 5 people in a row whose carry-on’s required hand searching and re-screening. An average of 4 minutes each.

In 18 of the 20 minutes it took our line to process 5 people, the line next to us got 27 people through. All of them, by the way, folks who had come through the passport check behind me.

I now had less than 10 minutes until my flight was scheduled to depart. I mentioned this to one TSA gal and asked if there was anything she could do. “No, we’re getting everyone through as quickly as possible.” I offered that it might be best if, when they encountered a bag with contraband in it, that it be pulled aside, someone other than the screener deal with it, and allow the screener to continue with those in line (most of whom did not have contraband).

“We don’t need your lip.” Was her reply. “We’re getting everyone through as quickly as possible.”

There was nothing I could do. I had no options. I was stuck.

Is this what we can expect with government run healthcare?

We have what is unquestionably the best healthcare system in the world. World leaders and the rich and famous come to the U.S. for the exact same healthcare as our union workers, CEO’s, bus drivers, unemployed, and even bloggers. Why would we want to turn our health over to the government?

Voting against welfare and healthcare is un-Christian

“Those voting against healthcare are leaving their Christianity in the closet.”

“It’s the Christian thing to do.” – referring to the need to support increased government welfare programs.

“Anyone who votes against government helping the poor and defenseless cannot call themselves a Christian.”

These and similar quotes are heard often from various supporters of increased government social programs.

But, where in the Bible does it tell anyone to take money from someone else (rich or poor) and give it to others (rich or poor)?

As Christians we are indeed called to help the poor. "There will always be poor people in the land. Therefore I command you to be openhanded toward your brothers and toward the poor and needy in your land." Deuteronomy 15:11

There should be no doubt about this and every Christian should help the poor to the extent that they are able. "If anyone has material possessions and sees his brother in need but has no pity on him, how can the love of God be in him? Dear children, let us not love with words or tongue but with actions and in truth." 1 John 3:17-18

However, we are called to do so as relatives, individuals, or churches. Never as governments. It scares me to make assumptions about scriptures and what the writer or God might have meant. But, every time I hear politicians and others talking about how the government needs to do more for the poor, how the government needs to take more from the wealthy in taxes and give more to the poor, I think of this verse:

"They devour widows' houses and for a show make lengthy prayers. Such men will be punished most severely." Mark 12:40

Perhaps more important, God makes it clear that rather than handouts, we are to provide opportunities for the poor and less fortunate to help themselves.

Among many similar verses, Leviticus 19:10 says "Do not go over your vineyard a second time or pick up the grapes that have fallen. Leave them for the poor and the alien. I am the LORD your God."

This is very wise advice.

Someone who is simply given a handout develops no real appreciation for it. They don’t value it. And the more often they receive something for nothing, the less they value what they’ve received. Besides the intrinsic in this is that people who don’t value something can be more wasteful – of food, healthcare choices. Why be a conscientious consumer if it doesn’t cost you anything?

Someone who is given a handout begins to expect more handouts. The more someone receives from others, the more they expect. It’s human nature. Instead of appreciating what they’ve received from others, they begin to complain when they don’t receive it or if they receive less or if what they’re receiving doesn’t increase. Soon that expectation turns into a right – people have filed lawsuits when the handouts stopped or were reduced!

Someone who receives their livelihood with little or none of their own effort develops low self-esteem.

Someone who receives handouts from a far-off faceless government has no appreciation for what they’ve received and for the fact that behind their handout are people who’ve given something up in their own lives to provide the handout.

Those who receive welfare, be it foodstamps, welfare checks, or free healthcare, have little incentive to improve themselves. They have little or no appreciation for what they are receiving, and do not feel that they are a part of the rest of society.

There are shining exceptions, but unfortunately few and far between.

And on the other side is the animosity that these handouts generate. When people who work hard for their money see a significant chunk of it going towards taxes they become irritated. When they see a lot of these taxes then going to help poor people who do not seem appreciative it, who do not seem to be working towards getting off of welfare or helping themselves, who use foodstamps to buy junkfood while listening to their $300 ipod, who have among the highest obesity rates in the population, …this animosity turns to anger. And then when they hear more and more calls for more and more money to be poured in to social welfare programs…


On the other hand, following what the Bible teaches produces a far different result.

Someone who receives support and assistance from an individual or even their church has a much greater appreciation for what they’ve received. They value it more. They know the person or people who they received it from and they know that these people made sacrifices in their own lives to help others. Besides valuing and appreciating what they have received, they have a sense of being loved and cared for by these people.

Someone who works for what they’ve received may have an even greater appreciation. Aside from appreciation and value though, they’ve put their own effort into it. Their self-esteem is improved because they have earned their livelihood themselves. They feel more a part of normal society.

Receiving assistance from those closer to us, relatives, individuals, and our church, also has the benefit of providing a lot more than just material assistance. Closer support often comes with assistance in better managing our lives and support for making better decisions.

And that animosity people feel toward the unappreciative poor? Here it is replaced by enthusiasm. People, even many grinchy kinds of people, enjoy helping those who are genuinely appreciative and who are working and doing their best to help themselves.

The upshot is that instead of people angry on one side that they’re not getting enough handouts and people angry on the other that they’re being taken advantage of, we have appreciation and enthusiasm. We have people working together.

Now, which sounds better?

"Jesus answered, If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.'" Matthew 19:21

Rick Perry Win - Nothing to cheer about.

Rick Perry very handily won the Texas Republican Primary yesterday and did so against Kay Bailey Hutchison, who is often believed to be the most popular politician in Texas. Apparently not.

Hutchison is not a fiscal conservative. On that point, I’m glad she was voted down. From what I know of him Perry is at least somewhat fiscally conservative and says the right things about state’s rights and federalism.

On the other hand, his comments about, and treatment of, the FLDS Mormons at Yearning for Zion Ranch is completely and utterly repulsive. To support, in any way, the removal of 500 children from their parents ONLY because you disagree with their polygynous lifestyle is reprehensible. As became evident in the follow-on court cases, there was no evidence whatsoever to justify the government raiding the ranch and taking the children. I strongly disagree with many elements of Mormon theology and some elements of their lifestyle, but unless they are harming others, there is no cause for action against them.

Knowing all of this I get ill every time I see Rick Perry speak.

Boorish Behavior

Note: I wrote this earlier and forgot to post…

This morning I was in my favorite café writing the previous post about Harry Reid and rationing healthcare. When I sat at my table I noticed a college-aged girl sitting at a table by herself not too far away from me. About an hour later she was joined by a friend. They talked and laughed, kind of loudly. Maybe 30 minutes later a 3rd friend joined them and their collective loudness increased. It wasn’t just their talking, which was quite louder than it needed to be for all of them to hear, but every few minutes they would erupt into raucous laughing cackles.

Their loud talking was distracting, but I was fairly successful in tuning it out. The cackles were another thing entirely, completely interrupting my train of thought with each outburst.

After some time I finally leaned over and asked if they could “use their inside voices”.

They weren’t amused. One of them was quite offended. But they did quiet down. And I quit bugging them. (that last sentence added just so I could use quite, quiet, and quit in one paragraph ). Two guys sitting on the other side of their table from me mouthed their thanks for my saying something.

About 15 minutes later they announced, somewhat loudly, “Let’s get out of here.”. And off they went. Of course, unlike most patrons of this wonderful café, they didn’t bother to remove their dirty cups so the table would be clean for the next person.

As I was getting ready to leave a woman walked over and thanked me for saying something. I appreciated that.

Where do we draw the line? What behavior is acceptable and what behavior is not. At what point is it proper to correct someone else’s behavior?

If I’m in a drinking pub in Scotland I’d never say anything to someone about being too loud or obnoxious. It’s acceptable and rather expected. There are nuances though. For one, a pub is not a pub is not a pub. Loud and obnoxious isn’t as acceptable in a pub that sells as much food as drink. Loud and obnoxious is more acceptable later than earlier.

In cafés around Europe loud and obnoxious behavior is quite unacceptable and it’s not unusual for staff or others to say something to loud folk (who are often American). Same goes for trains and other public places. In many European countries there’s a pretty strong belief that you should do what you can to avoid interfering with or irritating others. They talk just loud enough for their friends to hear.

In the U.S.?