“Deja vu On Obamacare”: In The Crossfire Tonight, Americans Begin Signing Up For FDR’s New “Social Security” Program
Voiceover: It’s December 1, 1936 — in the Crossfire tonight — Americans begin signing up for FDR’s new “Social Security” program — but can the post office handle the volume? And is it essential protection for seniors — or the slippery slope to socialism? In the Crossfire — Frances Perkins, secretary of labor, who supports the program — and congressman Daniel Reed, Republican of New York, who opposes it.
Good evening, I’m Upton Sinclair, on the left.
And I’m Freddy Hayek, on the right.
Sinclair: After 18 months of planning, President Roosevelt’s breakthrough Social Security program to ease poverty among senior citizens recently began its rollout, with application forms sent to post offices across the country — and with employers forced to register as well. Freddy, I think it’s a milestone for a civilized nation. After all, two dozen countries already have systems of social insurance on the books. And the whole idea was invented by a conservative, Otto von Bismarck, back in the ’80s as a shrewd way to assure social peace. Can’t you concede that morality, not to mention the survival instincts of the ruling class, requires a decent society to offer something like Bismarckcare to protect against destitution in old age?
Hayek: Spoken like a communist out to weigh the economy down, Up. Don’t you lefties see that your taxing and spending will put us on the road to serfdom?
Sinclair: Catchy phrase, Fred — might want to hold onto that for a book at some point. Let’s bring in our guests. Congressman Reed, here’s what you said about Social Security during the House debate over the legislation: “The lash of the dictator will be felt, and 25 million free American citizens will for the first time submit themselves to a fingerprint test.” One of your Senate colleagues said the new program would “end the progress of a great country and bring its people to the level of the average European.”
Not that there’s anything wrong with the average European. But isn’t this rhetoric a bit over the top?
Reed: Not at all, Upton. This is simply the reality. As another Republican in our caucus says, “Never in the history of the world has a measure been . . . so insidiously designed as to prevent business recovery, to enslave workers, and to prevent any possibility of the employers providing work for the people.”
Hayek: Secretary Perkins, you don’t look convinced.
Perkins: It’s always the same sob story from the party of wealth. The sky is falling, the lights of freedom are being extinguished, blah blah blah blah blah.
Reed: Plus, the darn thing doesn’t cover enough people.
Perkins and Upton: What?
Reed: It’s only slated to reach a couple hundred thousand Americans in 1940. And with very modest benefits.
Perkins: So your beef with a program you want to kill is that it doesn’t do enough for enough people in need?
Reed: Well, that, plus it’s very complicated and hard to sign up for. Have you seen the lines at the post office? People have no idea what to do. The wait can take hours.
Sinclair: You can’t blast a program for existing and also for being inadequate.
Perkins: Sure you can, Upton, if you’re a Republican. But my real problem with the GOP is different. More than 50 percent of our seniors live in poverty. You see them in the street every day. Charities are overwhelmed. These poor souls have nowhere to turn. They can’t afford food or medicine. And Republicans say there’s nothing the government of a great nation can do.
Hayek: Congressman, what say you?
Reed: Isn’t this socialism, Frances?
Perkins: Absolutely not.
Reed: Come, Secretary Perkins. Isn’t this a teeny-weeny bit of socialism?
Perkins: It’s a load of common sense and decency, is what it is.
Reed: It will discourage people from saving for their own retirement. And it creates incentives for employers to drop any pension coverage they offer now. They’ll assume everyone can just be dumped into the government system.
Perkins: No, congressman, it’ll save companies money by letting them tailor any pensions they offer to work atop the national minimum that Social Security provides. Some basic level of government-funded retirement security is good for business.
Reed: Then why does every thinking businessman in America oppose it?
Perkins: Don’t throw oxymorons at me, Dan. Mark my words: Social Security will end up bigger than anyone today can imagine, even as America grows much, much richer — proving that social insurance and capitalism are mutually reinforcing, not mutually exclusive.
Hayek: Such poetry, Frances — such misguided but lovely-sounding poetry!
Upton: After the break — some Democrats are urging FDR to go big on basic health coverage for every American, too — but the president says we can come back and address that question in a few years. Who’s right? Answers just ahead — when Crossfire returns . . .
By: Matt Miller, Opinion Writer, The Washington Post, October 30, 2013
“The GOP’s Hypocrisy On Obamacare”: Republicans Get The Vapors And Become Outraged About The Problems They Created
Last spring, the Senate Finance Committee held a hearing on implementation of the Affordable Care Act, otherwise known as Obamacare. Sen. Max Baucus, a Montana Democrat and the chairman of the committee, was not pleased with how things were going.
The Obama administration originally had asked for more than half a billion dollars to spend on public relations and outreach for the law. House Republicans had returned with an offer of nothing. That’s right: zero dollars. Without necessary funds, the Department of Health and Human Services worried it would not have the necessary money to pay for navigators to help people enroll in health care, for the technology needed to implement the exchanges and for the public relations campaign that was required to inform citizens about what the law actually did.
HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius made the controversial move of asking insurance companies and nonprofit organizations to donate money and help. Republicans were outraged. She asked for more money. She was refused.
Then, when she tried to move some money from the PR budget to replace cuts to other areas, Baucus became quite upset. He was concerned that if the administration did not do more to inform people about the law and get implementation going, there would be problems:
“A lot of people have no idea about all of this,” he said. “People just don’t know a lot about it, and the Kaiser poll pointed that out. I understand you’ve hired a contractor. I’m just worried that that’s gonna be money down the drain because contractors like to make money. … I just tell ya, I just see a huge train wreck coming down.”
As I’ve said before, it’s important to note that the “train wreck” Baucus was describing was a botched implementation because not enough was being done to make things go smoothly.
It wasn’t a description of the law itself but of what might occur if the government did not devote enough resources to making it work. Sebelius’ response was not surprising to those who were paying attention. She said that she was “incredibly disappointed” that all her requests for resources were being denied by Republicans.
That was then. Today, implementation has arrived, and if it’s not a train wreck, then it’s certainly close. The administration is still under fire because people cannot get the insurance they want through the exchanges. But while I will continue to point out the problems with implementation and fault the administration for mistakes they’ve made, how does one ignore the apparent hypocrisy from many politicians who are now “outraged” about the very problems they’ve helped to create.
Republicans refused to appropriate money needed to implement Obamacare. When Sebelius tried to shift money from other areas to help do what needed to be done, she was attacked by Senate Republicans. At every step, Republicans fought measures to get money to put towards implementation.
Is it really a surprise then that implementation hasn’t gone smoothly?
Federal legislators aren’t the only ones to blame. Let’s remember that original versions of the bill called for one big national exchange. This would have been much easier to implement. But conservatives declared that insurance should be left to the states and kept out of the hands of the federal government. So as a compromise (yes, those did occur), exchanges were made state-based instead of national.
As a precaution, the law stipulated that if states failed to do their duty and enact exchanges, the federal government would step in and pick up the slack. This was to prevent obstructionism from killing the law. Surprisingly, it was many of the same conservative states that demanded local control that refused to implement state-based exchanges, leaving the federal government to do it for them.
That made implementation much harder.
There have been books, webinars and meetings explaining how to sabotage the implementation of Obamacare. There have been campaigns trying to persuade young adults not to use the exchanges. It is, therefore, somewhat ironic that many of the same people who have been part of all of this obstructionism seem so “upset” by the fact that people can’t easily use the exchanges.
For goodness sake, the government was shut down just a few weeks ago because some of the same people who are now bemoaning poorly functioning websites were determined to see that not one dime went to Obamacare.
Lest you think I’m defending this month’s rollout, I encourage you to review my last article here. I still maintain that the administration has had a failure in management in overseeing and reporting on progress towards October 1. But I’m also sympathetic that they’ve had a hard job to do. I would like to see this go better. I’d like to see millions more get insurance. I’d like to see the law of the land function as well as it can, and if it doesn’t, I’d like to see Congress continue to amend it to make it work better. I’d like a better health care system.
What I cannot ignore, however, are the many people who actively worked to see implementation fail now get the vapors over its poor start. The truth is, they got what they wanted. A victory lap is somewhat warranted, not concern-trolling.
If, on the other hand, their concern is real, then I’m sure the administration would welcome their help in making things right.
By: Aaron Carroll, Director, Center for Health Policy and Professionalism Research, Indiana University School of Medicine, Special to CNN, October 28, 2013
“A Pliable Opportunist”: Spinning With The Political Winds, Marco Rubio Is Becoming The Next Mitt Romney
The Great Marco Rubio Recalibration continues.
Months after helping the Senate pass a sweeping immigration reform bill, the junior Republican senator from Florida has dropped his support for the legislation, saying he now favors a targeted, piecemeal approach to the issue.
It’s a stunning about-face from earlier this year, when Rubio’s soaring rhetoric and tireless efforts helped propel a comprehensive, bipartisan bill to a successful vote. And with that, Rubio risks appearing to have flip-flopped on a defining issue even faster than you can say “Mitt Romney.”
With the House resistant to take up a comprehensive immigration bill, Rubio’s spokesman on Monday said he believes a piecemeal approach is the only way anything will get done.
“The point is that at this time, the only approach that has a realistic chance of success is to focus on those aspects of reform on which there is consensus through a series of individual bills,” Rubio spokesman Alex Conant told Politico. “Otherwise, this latest effort to make progress on immigration will meet the same fate as previous efforts: Failure.”
Of course, a piecemeal approach will almost surely doom meaningful reform. The whole point of a comprehensive approach is give each side something they want, such as a pathway to citizenship for Democrats and tougher workplace enforcement for Republicans.
Conant added that Rubio always preferred a piecemeal approach (though many would debate that), but worked with the Gang of Eight anyway “despite strong opposition within his own party and at a significant and well documented political price.”
That gets at another force pushing Rubio away from his own bill: Public opinion. Or, more accurately, Republican public opinion.
Rubio’s standing within the GOP eroded all year as he was unable to convince skeptical conservatives the immigration bill was more than just amnesty for undocumented workers. Once one of the most popular GOP senators in the country, his approval rating slid into negative territory in his home state, and he fell to the middle of the pack in hypothetical polls of the 2016 GOP field.
To stem the bleeding, Rubio tiptoed away from the bill since its passage in June, saying after the government shutdown that President Obama had “undermined” the bill’s odds of passing by refusing to negotiate with Republicans over budget matters. Even before that, he took a backseat in finalizing the bill while two other GOP senators stitched together an almost comically robust border enforcement provision to win over the necessary Republican votes.
Though Rubio may indeed have preferred piecemeal bills all along, his walk-back could wind up earning him a reputation as a pliable opportunist.
“I’m not sure it has ever happened before that an architect of major legislation in the Senate has basically opposed its passage in the House,” Rich Lowry wrote in National Review. “The politics of this aren’t great for Rubio,” he added, saying the freshman senator would surely “take another hit, understandably, for his inconstancy.”
Inconstancy, though not unheard of in politics, is not a good habit to form. Accusations of flip-flopping dogged Mitt Romney’s presidential campaigns and kept him from winning over dubious voters. He tried to position himself, after years of presenting a moderate exterior, as a “severe conservative” to capture the GOP nomination. And, like Rubio, he ran away from his most visible legislative achievement: RomneyCare.
The move to the right didn’t work out so well for Romney, only further cementing his image as a man without convictions.
Rubio hasn’t earned himself quite the same reputation, and we’re a long way from 2016. But if he makes a habit of spinning with the political winds, the GOP will begin to see him less as the party’s savior, and more as the second coming of Mitt Romney.
By: Jon Terbush, The Week, October 28, 2013
“Obamacare Death Spirals”: The Latest Prediction Of Doom Hits The Conservative Blogosphere
A new meme has arrived on the scene from the voices and pens of the anti-Obamacare devotees who remain more committed to frightening than informing when it comes to healthcare reform.
It’s the Obamacare “death spiral”— and it’s coming to a conservative blog near you.
Through a series of articles already going viral—thanks to a piece published on National Review Online and one by my Forbes colleague, Dr. Scott Gottlieb –we learn that the threat of impending doom ‘du jour’ comes via an allegation that, due to the poor launch of the healthcare.gov website, younger and healthier participants will now be more likely to stay away than sign up.
This, the falsely fearful argue, will result in an insurance pool jammed with older and sicker people without the required participation of younger and healthier Americans needed to balance the pools.
The result of such an event?
As insurance companies are forced to pay out more claims —due to their older and sicker participant base—without sufficient premium income from younger and healthier people less likely to call upon the insurer to pay for medical care, the insurance company is forced to raise their premium costs so they don’t loose money. As this problem builds upon itself year after year, it becomes, as it is termed in the insurance industry, a ‘death spiral’ as, sooner or later, the insurers are forced out of business when the premium costs get too high to be affordable by much of anyone.
Clearly, the authors suffer from a lack of understanding of human behavior—particularly when it comes to young people who are not given to dealing with these sort of issues until the deadline approaches…meaning we really don’t yet know anything about the potential success or failure of the insurance pools available on the health care exchanges.
If you doubt this, you might want to review what took place with the forerunner of Obamacare—Romneycare.
According to Jonathan Gruber, one of the key architects of the Massachusetts health care exchange—a program that the overwhelming majority of Massachusetts residents favor and support—and one of nation’s leading experts on all things Obamacare, “Massachusetts launched its health insurance program at the beginning of 2007 but enrollment didn’t fully flesh out for a year. In fact, it was less than 6% of the year’s total by the end of the second month. (emphasis added)”
In other words, people of all ages tend to wait until the deadline is upon them before coming to grips with an obligation like purchasing health insurance. But if you have kids, you know that younger people are even more likely to delay matters such as this.
Yet, here we have the opponents of the Affordable Care Act, ready to declare the entire program DOA based on a prediction of ultimate demise via the ‘death spiral’—and all because the slow start of the federally operated state healthcare exchanges are precluding younger and healthier prospective participants from signing up during the initial weeks of availability.
Even stranger, Dr. Gottlieb argues that, as a result of the failures of the federal website launch and the negative cascading effect he suggests will likely follow, more people will be driven out of the exchanges due to higher premiums in future years. In its place, Gottlieb proposes, these people will turn to “off-exchange” policies, purchased by going directly to an insurance company, broker, etc. for policies that are not offered on the exchange.
Gottlieb writes—
“Over time, conforming and non-conforming insurance policies sold entirely outside the exchanges could look increasingly attractive to consumers; even accounting for the subsidies many people would get for staying inside the exchanges.”
Why would they do this? Because, Dr. Gottlieb suggests, the off-exchange policies will be cheaper.
Setting aside that I have no idea what Gottlieb is referring to when he speaks of “non-conforming” insurance policies as every individual insurance policy, whether available on the exchange or not, must, for all practical purposes, meet the basic benefits requirements set forth in the Affordable Care Act, I can’t quite fathom why buying less expensive insurance off the exchanges would be a bad thing.
There is a tendency among those dedicated to burying healthcare reform to miss the point when it comes to the objectives of Obamacare. They spend so much time working out how to creatively attack the law that they simply cannot recall why we needed healthcare reform in the first place.
At its core, the law is designed to do three things—get insurance company abuses under control, make healthcare coverage more readily available to virtually all Americans and institute a series of experiments designed to bend the cost curve in healthcare delivery.
This being the case, why would anyone care whether you buy your insurance coverage off-exchange or on-exchange, so long as you obtain healthcare coverage? What’s more, the individual mandate does not require that you shop on the exchanges—it only requires you to purchase a qualifying policy.
The healthcare exchanges are designed to create competition among insurance companies. Should it not work, and Dr. Gottlieb is correct that the events occurring on the exchange will produce lower costs of an off-exchange policy—even for those who qualify for subsidies which are only available on the exchange—then we will have learned that the exchanges did not create the intended competition.
But, if Gottlieb is right and people can buy a cheaper policy that meets the requirements of the ACA off-exchange, then the objective of the law will be accomplished.
The bottom line here is that, by any reasonable and rational metric, it is far too early to know whether or not the insurance programs offered on the healthcare exchanges will manage to maintain the balance required of sick versus healthy and old versus young. In the final analysis, the doomsayers may turn out to be right. Maybe it just won’t work.
Or, maybe it will.
This is something we will simply not know for quite a few years.
Therefore, where exactly is the benefit of predicting a dire result at this stage of the game based on no available evidence whatsoever? Can there be any possible use of this information aside from giving political opponents some newly minted ammunition? Will the knowledge that insurance policies offered on the exchanges could experience a death spiral—a possibility that has existed for health insurers since the dawn of the industry—do anything to improve the odds of success?
If there is anything we can be sure of, it is that there will be a great many surprises along the way as we make these major adjustments to our healthcare system—some that will be good and some that will not.
As for the suggestion that we are in some immediate crisis because the healthcare.gov website has not yet worked as required, Jonathan Gruber, again, provides a reasonable and rational explanation of what is really happening and what it means.
USA Today reports that Gruber describes the current situation as “DEFCON 1″—a political problem, but probably not a problem yet for the marketplace.
If healthcare.gov is not running by Thanksgiving, it would be “DEFCON 2″, a real problem because people want to get insurance by January, but it’s not a crisis.
The crisis, according to Gruber, arrives if people cannot get insurance until March of 2014.
Gruber added that, in Massachusetts, officials were not focused on how well enrollment went on a day-to-day basis. They looked at the long-term potential, and expected that people would sign up in time to avoid the penalty.
Finally, Gruber noted, “I’m pretty confident they’ll have it up and going by Thanksgiving.”
So, how about we leave the death spiral stuff in the back room until the moment comes to actually haul it out and parade it around?
After all, at the rate Obamacare opponents are tossing out and using up their theories of pending disaster, they will soon run through their play book and have nothing left in their quiver.
Wouldn’t that be a shame?
By: Rick Ungar, Op-Ed Contributor, Forbes, October 28, 2013
“More Of The Same”: Keeping Alive A Flawed And Self-Destructive Strategy, The GOP Fights On Against Obamacare At Its Own Peril
In the wake of the public uproar over the government shutdown, Democratic hopes for recapturing control of the House of Representatives next year have risen sharply. The party needs to pick up 17 seats, and the main question is whether the current furor against the Republicans will remain until the midterm elections of November 2014.
The House Republicans and their tea party allies, unbowed by their failure to defund President Obama’s Affordable Care Act, have signaled that they have just begun to fight. They have seized on his administration’s inexplicable botching of the law’s rollout to breathe new life into their efforts to kill “Obamacare.”
In so doing, however, they may be keeping alive the flawed and self-destructive strategy that took the country to the brink of financial default. Public opinion polls cited a record plunge in Republican popularity during the government shutdown, attesting to how poorly the tea party scheme to strangle Obamacare in its crib played on Main Street.
House Speaker John Boehner, still nursing the political wounds suffered for trying to appease the get-Obama caucus in the House, told the still-faithful on Wednesday, “We’ve got the whole threat of Obamacare continuing to hang over our economy like a wet blanket.”
Boehner may or may not be proved correct in that view. However, his observation suggests he and his caucus have no intention of getting off the track that led them over a cliff in the executive-branch shutdown, a fiasco for which the GOP gets primary blame.
Much will depend on whether the Obama administration can recover from the amateur hour of the law’s initial implementation and begin to deliver health insurance to the millions of Americans without it. The president seems to have taken his head out of the clouds over the technological screw-up by calling in more experts to straighten out the mess.
Contrary to its foes’ insistence that the law is Public Enemy No. 1, the uninsured public showed unexpectedly heavy interest in enrolling, or at least to exploring whether insurance offered under Obamacare would be good for them and their families. The jury is still out, much as it was on Social Security and Medicare when these programs were first enacted amid even louder laments of “socialism” and “socialized medicine.”
In any event, if the administration manages to overcome the law’s growing pains, the Democrats will have at least a chance to gain new political support among beneficiaries. Many of them are of income levels and ethnicities customarily inclined to vote for the party of Franklin D. Roosevelt and his breakthrough New Deal.
Meanwhile, exertions to keep the flame burning against Obamacare among the House Republicans and their self-appointed leader from the other side of the Capitol, Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, could be a blessing in disguise to Democrats pointing to next year’s congressional elections.
Their fund-raising arms are experiencing an usual upswing compared to the Republican cash solicitors. The Democrats will be targeting key House GOP incumbents up for re-election in admittedly strong conservative districts who have benefited from gerrymandering. At the same time, moderate Republicans in Congress are starting to band together to purge the tea party influence in their ranks.
The heavy hit on the Republican brand has been emphatically underscored by the post-shutdown polls. The question is whether voters fed up with the party’s increasingly sharp turn to ultraconservatism, one not seen since the days of Barry Goldwater, will remain turned off at voting time a year from now.
By then, Obamacare may or may not be a principal catalyst for decision-making at the ballot box, pro or con, on midterm election day. The same polls also indicate that Americans still worry much more about the state of the economy and, particularly, high unemployment than about the state of federally subsidized health insurance.
But for now, the House Republicans’ reply to all the criticism of their stand against Obamacare is a promise of more of the same, along with hope that the law will indeed collapse, helping them recover from the severe political damage they have inflicted upon themselves.
By: Jules Witcover, The Chicago Tribune, October 25, 2013
Share This Blog
Unknown Feed- An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
mykeystrokes.com 