Good thing we passed that stimulus bill

In February of this year President Obama painted a pretty grim picture of the future of the US economy if swift and decisive action was not taken in passing his stimulus bill.  His stimulus bill would save or create four million jobs. With the stimulus, unemployment would peak at just under 8 percent.  If nothing was done, we'd lose five million jobs and unemployment would peak at 9 percent. 

So how have the White House's projections faired thus far?  After losing another two or three million more jobs, we're only off the pace by a little over six million jobs.  Unemployment?  It now stands at 9.8 percent.  

Good thing we passed that stimulus bill, huh?

Keep your eye on the bill

The latest House version of health care reform clocks in at 1,990 pages. Supposedly it stands at nearly nine inches tall and weighs over nineteen pounds in printed form. Whether you are for a government-based solution or a market-based solution, you should be alarmed by the sheer size of this thing. One can only imagine what special interest perks and kickbacks to big business are included in this monstrosity.  Think anyone in Congress will actually read this version?

We deserve better, and we must demand better.  Write your congressman and let them know how you feel!

What's the big deal about Linda Thompson's unemployment, you ask?

Linda Thompson, Harrisburg City Council member and mayoral candidate, was recently asked a series of questions by the Harrisburg Patriot News. I'd like to highlight two specific questions, and her responses:

Question: When were you unemployed, and from what organization did you lose your job?
Thompson: “I didn’t lose my job. I voluntarily resigned from my employment with the Urban League of Metropolitan Harrisburg.” (She did not answer when.)

Q: How long did you collect unemployment? How long were you unemployed?
Thompson: “Approximately six months to 1 year.” 

The article also notes that Linda Thompson was quoted in a recent debate as saying "I've taken all of my unemployment checks that I had before I started Loveship and put every dime of it into Loveship." 

 

Section 402(b) of the PA Unemployment Compensation law states that "a claimant shall be ineligible for benefits for any week in which his/her unemployment is due to voluntarily leaving work without cause of a necessitous and compelling nature. A claimant who voluntarily quits continuing work has the burden of proof in establishing good cause for quitting; and, that such cause was real and substantial, leaving the claimant no other alternative. The burden is on the claimant to show that, prior to quitting continuing employment, he/she made every reasonable effort to maintain the employer/employee relationship."

On the application itself it specifically asks the applicant the reason for their separation from their employer.  Now the reason why all of this is important is that if Ms. Thompson did in fact resign from her employment then she may have perpetrated a fraud if she reported otherwise on the application.  Furthermore, the Urban League of Metropolitan Harrisburg would have been complicit in this fraud if they did not contest Ms. Thompson's reason for separation and subsequently her claim for unemployment compensation benefits.  

Ms. Thompson also stated that she collected benefits for "approximately six months to 1 year."  Typically unemployment benefits are exhausted after 26 weeks unless certain economic conditions are met, at which point state and federal extended benefits may be available.  Potentially Ms. Thompson may have defrauded both the state of Pennsylvania and the Federal Government of additional funds if she did in fact voluntarily resign from her employment yet still collect unemployment compensation benefits. 

Do I think that this matter will be investigated further or that Ms. Thompson will be prosecuted?  No, I do not.  However, I do think that it's important for the citizens of Harrisburg to look past the campaign slogans and sound bytes and take a long hard look at the candidates' records and character when deciding who they want to be the next mayor of Harrisburg.

The PA Senate takes a crack at single payer

Many thanks to our friends at Pennsylvania Revolution for bringing this matter to our attention. 

Senate Bill 400, sponsored by Jim Ferlo, is the "Family and Business Healthcare Security Act."  This rather benign-sounding bill is anything but; it's everything that progressives in the US Congress are dreaming of and more.  To put it bluntly, this legislation if passed would put a single payer health care system in place in the state of Pennsylvania.  It's mostly filled with the vague, feel-good language you've come to expect from government, aiming to do things such as "(i)nvestigating proposals for innovative approaches to the promotion of health, the prevention of disease and injury, patient education, research and health care delivery."  Make no mistake, this legislation's aim is nothing less than a complete and total usurpation of the health care system from top to bottom.

Here are some of the highlights:

An 11 member board appointed by the Governor, the President pro tempore of the Senate, and the Speaker of the House of Representatives composed of individuals representing hospitals, organized labor, consumers, business, agriculture, physicians, public sector employees, nurses, pharmacists, long-term care facilities, and social workers.  The initial board gets to set their compensation (aka salary and benefits).  How nice!  

Some of the board's specific duties include:

• deciding who is eligible for the plan, adopting a benefits package for participants of the plan
• acting directly or through one or more third party contractors as the single payer administrator for all claims for health care services made under the plan
• deciding what is "fair and reasonable" regarding reimbursements to providers
  
• implementing policies and developing mechanisms and incentives to assure "culturally and linguistically sensitive" care
  
• establishing rules and procedures for implementing a no-fault compensation system to deal with issues of malpractice
  
• recruiting a "health advisory panel" that will advise the board on things such as "the establishment of policy on medical issues, population-based public health issues, research priorities, and scope of services (you know, instead of you and your doctor deciding what's best for you)
• establishing a centralized electronic health record system containing all of your medical information
• employ and fix the compensation of agency personnel as needed by the agency to properly discharge the agency's duties 
  

This legislation also aims to create the "Pennsylvania Health Care Agency" which would "administer the plan and is the sole agency authorized to accept applicable grants-in-aid from the Federal Government and State government. It shall use such funds in order to secure full compliance with provisions of Federal and State law and to carry out the purposes established under this act. All grants-in-aid accepted by the agency shall be deposited into the Pennsylvania Health Care Trust Fund established under this act, together with other revenues raised within this Commonwealth to fund the plan."  The executive director would be appointed by the governor.  Oh and by the way, the board, advisory panel, and agency have immunity i.e. you essentially have no one to sue should their actions cause you direct harm.    

Who's covered, you ask?  EVERYONE!  You heard me right.  Citizens, non-citizens, legals, and illegals.  There is a "presumption of eligibility" clause indicating that in instances of emergency they will cover you and sort it out later.  They will reimburse any participating provider who "renders humanitarian emergency or urgent care" to non-eligible patients.  

The board will establish one benefits plan to which everyone will be a member.  Long-term care is provided for those who can no longer care for themselves.  There are no exclusions for pre-existing conditions.  There are no co-pays, deductibles, or other point-of-service charges if you go to a participating provider.  On the downside, any treatment determined by the board to be non-therapeutic (i.e. palliative treatments that ease the pain of cancer patients) won't be covered.  

The board wants total control over participating providers.  Any capital investments valued at $1 Million or more (including studies, surveys, etc.) or that change the bed capacity by 10%  must be approved by the board. There is also a provision for required investments: "The board is authorized to adopt programs to assist participating providers in making capital investments responsive to best practice recommendations."

How will this leviathan be funded, you ask?  First, employers (including those that are self-employed) will be taxed 10% of gross payroll.  If, as a consumer, you choose to not participate in the system, you will be subject to the "Individual Fair Share Health and Wellness Tax" of 3% of your income.  For those of you that lose their jobs in the health care industry as a result of this legislation, you will be eligible to receive up to $5,000/month for two years or until you find a new job, whichever comes first.  You can also get training assistance of up to $20,000 to help you get a new job.            

As I've written previously, reform can best be achieved through market-based means and any additional government intervention in the health care marketplace is counterproductive.  Considering the Republican majority in the PA Senate, the likelihood of this legislation passing is slim; yet given the events of the last year or so, I personally wouldn't take anything for granted.  Write your PA Senator and let them know how you feel about the matter.  

 

 

Say "No" to Government Health Care

A recent study shows that the average premium for a company-provided family health insurance plan has risen 131% over the last decade.  I'd venture to say that everyone agrees that the system needs to be reformed; however, the manner in which to reform is a highly contested matter.  Any reform should lower the cost and increase the availability of health insurance to the average American.  The best option that our government has come up with thus far is the Baucus Bill.  Even if you believe the rosy projections about $500 Billion in savings from Medicare, this bill will still cost in excess of $800 Billion, leave 17 million citizens uninsured, and dramatically raise the cost of health insurance for both individuals and families in America. 

Perhaps instead we should be looking at market-based solutions.  In Pennsylvania, companies like Hershey Co. have cut their costs in half and encouraged competition in the marketplace by only sending their employees to highly-rated hospitals.  Vermont has greatly reduced ER visits by providing their elderly citizens with counseling services to help manage their chronic conditions before they become critical.  Through a system of incentives, Safeway has been able to cut costs by 40%.  Whole Foods has been able to insure more of their employees while simultaneously reducing costs using similar methods.      

Government programs are rife with fraud and have a propensity for cost overruns.  Medicare alone burns up about $100 Billion per year via fraud and its 1990 projection (forecasted in 1965) was off by almost 750%.  As I've written previously, regulation is costly and actually serves to increase the cost of health insurance.  There is no need to spend $1 Trillion to reform the health care industry in America.  With the stroke of a pen and essentially no spending health care costs could be cut dramatically simply by allowing for the sale of health insurance across state lines.  The market is far more powerful than the government could ever dream to be.  Let's all just keep our money and allow the market to do its thing.       

Nevermind that man behind the curtain

In a recent article about the House's Financial-Rules Overhaul, The Wall Street Journal quotes Rep. Paul Kanjorski (D., Penn.) regarding the need for more government regulation:  "Billionaires on Wall Street have had their day, egged on by a culture of greed, deregulation, and a survival-of-the-fittest attitude that ignored the harsh effects those things inflict upon larger society."  This view of the financial system neglects the government's role in the equation.  

The government often tilts the playing field to the advantage of their politically-favored allies.  Speaking of the financial-rules overhaul, consider Barney Frank's derivatives bill that exempts Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  Of course U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission Chairman Gary Gensler merely sees this little oversight as an "unintended consequence."  It couldn't possibly have anything to do with the thousands of dollars in campaign contributions that Barney Frank has received from the two government-sponsored entities.

There is a culture of corruption in Washington, D.C.  These people put in two and a half day work weeks, collect their six figure salary and benefits packages, and sell us down the river every chance they get.  People like Charlie Rangel, who writes the tax code, mind you, that neglect to declare millions of dollars in income and face no consequences when they're caught breaking the very laws that they wrote.  Our elected officials allow special interest groups to write thousand-page bills, refuse to read them, and then vote against allowing the bills to be posted online for all of us to read before they vote on them.  What are they trying to hide?  And who's really running the show?

The latest CBO estimate of this year's budget deficit is $1.4 Trillion dollars.  This is roughly triple George Bush's much-maligned budget deficit from his last year in office.  Organized crime is turning from the drug trade to Medicare fraud because the money is easy and the penalties aren't nearly as stiff.  We need to ask ourselves here, is it really capitalism or corporate greed that is the villain?  And if it's not, should we be looking to the government for solutions, or is it the government that's really the problem?

When will the bailouts end?

Tiger Management founder and chairman Julian Robertson told CNBC "It's almost Armageddon if the Japanese and Chinese don't buy our debt," Robertson said in an interview. "I don't know where we could get the money. I think we've let ourselves get in a terrible situation and I think we ought to try and get out of it."

So why are we bailing out the US Postal Service to the tune of $4 billion?

Al Gore doesn't care about the environment

Visualize Kanye West.  

The Wall Street Journal reports that "A tiny car company backed by former Vice President Al Gore has just gotten a $529 million U.S. government loan to help build a hybrid sports car in Finland that will sell for about $89,000."

OK, so let me get this straight - we gave Al Gore half a billion dollars to build cars that nobody probably wants and he's not even going to be building them here in the US?  Could it be that even Al Gore realizes that it is more cost-effective for corporations to conduct business abroad than it is to do it in the US?  According to the Tax Foundation, the 2006 corporate tax rate in Finland was 26% compared to 39.3% here in the US.  

I wonder if the mainstream media will be critical of Al Gore for sending jobs abroad...I won't hold my breath.    

Health Care Reform: Invoke the Commerce Clause!

The Commerce Clause has been invoked by Congress to regulate every conceivable type of behavior even when said behavior has nothing to do with interstate commerce. One of the original intents of the clause was to prohibit states from instituting protectionist tariffs and the like thereby hurting the national economy as a whole.

Right now if you live in Pennsylvania you cannot buy a cheaper insurance policy from a company in another state.  You can do this with your auto insurance, home owner's insurance, flood insurance, etc., but not your health insurance.  For all of this talk about choice and competition, you'd think that instead of just making something up Congress would remember the Constitution for once, use one of their enumerated powers, and enact a simple solution that would lower the cost of health insurance immediately:  Allow for the sale of health insurance policies across state lines!

This would greatly reduce health care costs and would literally not cost a single dime of taxpayer money.

Debt Be Not Proud: The Sorry Tale of America's Out-of-control Spending

This article provides a little back-story on how we got to where we are today.  Here's a little preview:

The U.S. debt exploded in the last half-century from a fateful intersection of 1) a national economic trauma; 2) a fundamental change in the prevailing economic theory; 3) ill-considered political fund raising reforms after Watergate; and 4) reforms in Congress that made spending impossible to control.

Regulation drives up health care costs

As a Washington Post article reports, Vice President Joe Biden recently spoke at a meeting of state insurance commissioners contending that tighter regulation of the insurance industry is critical to health reform.  Apparently the Vice President is oblivious to the fact that regulation is actually driving up the cost of health insurance in America.  According to the Council forAffordable Health Insurance, here is a list of 2009 mandated benefits that must be included in every insurance policy sold to every man, woman, and child in the state of PA from pediatrics to geriatrics:

Alcoholism/Substance Abuse

Ambulance/Transportation Services

Ambulatory Cancer Treatment

Autism

Breast Reconstruction

Cervical Cancer/HPV Screening

Chemotherapy

Diabetic Self Management

Diabetic Supplies

Drug Abuse Treatment

Emergency Service

Home Health Care

Mammography

Mastectomy

Mastectomy Minimum Stay

Maternity Minimum Stay

Mental Health Parity

Orthotic and/or Prosthetic

Ovarian Cancer Screening

PKU/Metabolic Disorder

Telemedicine

Well Child Care

Now some of these obviously make sense, but others, depending on your age and sex, are benefits that you are paying for but can't possibly even use.  Consumers should be able to tailor their health insurance policies to their own unique needs.  Allowing consumers to do so would greatly reduce the cost of health care in America.  

Peter Schiff dispels the myth of the jobless recovery

The Recovery That Isn't - "U6, the Bureau of Labor Statistics' most complete measure of unemployment, has risen to a dismal 17%."  Seems that Bernanke had a bit of a "Mission Accomplished" moment with his announcement that the recession is over.

Cap and Trade?

Only the government would advocate a plan that gives permits to pollute instead of simply fining polluters.