Remember when Obamacare was going to reduce health care costs?
At the time Obamacare passed, most of you probably understood that (another) massive government intervention into health care wasn't going to reduce costs, but those folks who rely on the New York Times for news sure were in for a surprise this week.
Health insurance companies across the country are seeking and winning double-digit increases in premiums for some customers, even though one of the biggest objectives of the Obama administration’s health care law was to stem the rapid rise in insurance costs for consumers.
Particularly vulnerable to the high rates are small businesses and people who do not have employer-provided insurance and must buy it on their own.
In California, Aetna is proposing rate increases of as much as 22 percent, Anthem Blue Cross 26 percent and Blue Shield of California 20 percent for some of those policy holders, according to the insurers’ filings with the state for 2013. These rate requests are all the more striking after a 39 percent rise sought by Anthem Blue Cross in 2010 helped give impetus to the law, known as the Affordable Care Act, which was passed the same year and will not be fully in effect until 2014.
And, via the Review-Journal, the news isn't any better for Las Vegas' University Medical Center.
The Affordable Care Act will cost University Medical Center tens of millions over the next six years, hospital officials warned on Monday.
While the law, known as Obamacare, is designed to expand health insurance to everyone, it comes with a few catches for urban public hospitals such as UMC; it drastically reduces other forms of federal funding and doesn't expand insurance coverage to illegal immigrants, hospital CEO Brian Brannman told Clark County commissioners.
The result will be an estimated net loss of more than $52 million through 2019, he said.
Depressed yet? Here's more good news. President Obama doesn't think the country has a spending problem. He thinks we have a health care problem that the country just "solved" with Obamacare. Good grief.
What stunned House Speaker John Boehner more than anything else during his prolonged closed-door budget negotiations with Barack Obama was this revelation: "At one point several weeks ago," Mr. Boehner says, "the president said to me, 'We don't have a spending problem.' " ...
Mr. Boehner looks battle weary from five weeks of grappling with the White House. He's frustrated that the final deal failed to make progress toward his primary goal of "making a down payment on solving the debt crisis and setting a path to get real entitlement reform." At one point he grimly says: "I need this job like I need a hole in the head."
The president's insistence that Washington doesn't have a spending problem, Mr. Boehner says, is predicated on the belief that massive federal deficits stem from what Mr. Obama called "a health-care problem." Mr. Boehner says that after he recovered from his astonishment—"They blame all of the fiscal woes on our health-care system"—he replied: "Clearly we have a health-care problem, which is about to get worse with ObamaCare. But, Mr. President, we have a very serious spending problem." He repeated this message so often, he says, that toward the end of the negotiations, the president became irritated and said: "I'm getting tired of hearing you say that."
More: Here's Thomas Mitchell's take on this mess.
(h/t Hot Air)
Read more"What about the lunatics that spend $16.4 trillion and want another check?"
Here's a Friday feel good from CNBC host Rick Santelli. I'm all about calm and detailed presentations showing how the federal government's spending is unsustainable, like this one from NRO's Yuval Levin, but after a week where so many of the"smart" people pretended a $62 billion tax hike was something significant, it's time for some righteous indignation.
Enjoy.
Here are the charts from Levin's blog post. If I was Rick Santelli, I'd be yelling this next sentence, "It's a spending problem, stupid!"
"Why would we want to help somebody?"
If you were a fan of the hit TV show Seinfeld, you likely recall the series finale. The storyline of that episode finds Jerry, George, Elaine and Kramer stranded in a rural Massachusetts town after their Paris-bound plane is forced to make an emergency landing.
While killing time waiting for new transportation, the four friends witness an unfortunate man being robbed and carjacked in broad daylight. They respond characteristically — not by helping him but by savagely mocking him.
The joke, however, is on them. They are immediately arrested by a nearby police officer, who informs them that they've just violated a local "Good Samaritan Law" requiring individuals to assist those in danger. A baffled George speaks for the group: "Why would we want to help somebody?"
I don't know whether Steve Schafer ever watched Seinfeld, but I'm having a fun time imagining his facial expressions were he ever to see that particular episode.
Schafer is the main character in a story from Wednesday's Las Vegas Review-Journal, which chronicles his frustrated attempts to play the part of the Good Samaritan at Lake Mead. In a perverse inversion of the Seinfeld plot, National Park Service officers have repeatedly spurned Schafer's offers to help recover the bodies of drowning victims — and thereby bring closure to those victims' loved ones. He has the equipment, the know-how and the heart to offer his services free of charge. All that's missing is bureaucratic consent.
It has become an all-too-familiar tale in modern America — compassionate individuals offering to help those in need but being told that they can't because such responsibilities fall solely in the domain of government. The typical government line, especially in situations involving some danger, is that to allow assistance from private individuals raises concerns over safety and liability. But according to the R-J story, Schafer thinks the real obstacles are "bruised egos and red tape" — a claim supported by examples, provided in the article, of other parks around the country being much more receptive to help.
Whatever is driving this government obstruction — liability concerns, bruised egos, red tape or some combination of all three — the underlying problem is a fundamental shift, particularly pronounced in recent years, in the American mindset when it comes to helping our neighbors. George W. Bush summed up this modern way of thinking quite well when he said that "when somebody hurts, government has got to move."
The problem is that quite often, as in Schafer's case, a private individual is better positioned or even better equipped to get the job done. Recent tragedies like Hurricanes Katrina and Sandy and even the Gulf oil spill produced maddening examples of generous and skilled individuals seeing their attempts to lend help quashed by government guardians. How many people across the country are denied the help they need because those best able to provide it aren't DHS-, FEMA- or HHS-approved?
But it's not just the victims that suffer under this mindset. After all, when it becomes the government's job to move, the rest of us don't — and eventually lose the compulsion to. The result is the erosion of what has long been one of the most defining and laudable facets of the American character.
It's inspiring and heartening to know that there are still people like Steve Schafer among us. But how long until even society's most generous individuals respond to crises by channeling George Constanza: "Yeah, why would we want to help somebody?"
Thanks for reading, and I'll see you next time.
Andy Matthews
NPRI President
Will higher taxes on the "rich" solve America's budget deficit?
On the right is our country's 2011 budget deficit. Way down on the left is the amount of the higher taxes that just passed through Congress.
So do we have a revenue problem or spending problem? You decide.
(h/t Zero Hedge)
CCSD Officials: Transparent when they want to be
Hope everyone had a joyous Holiday season and Happy New Year! The blogging was a little light over the past couple weeks because of vacations and such, but it's a new year and there's a ton to write about, so let's jump right in.
CCSD's response to many legal public records requests.
Take a moment a read Paul Takahashi's piece on how the Clark County School District repeatedly denied record requests from the Las Vegas Sun.
But despite its proclamations of being transparent with the community, the district has refused to grant repeated public records requests from the Sun for graduation data from the three schools. ...
For the past four months, the Sun has been requesting that the district provide a variety of student data to demonstrate quantitatively the gains made at the turnaround schools during the 2011-12 school year.
The district complied with most of the Sun's requests for data, such as the number of discipline incidents, teacher turnover and average daily attendance rates. However, it has declined to release a key indicator of the turnaround's success: graduation rates for the class of 2012. ...
Moreover, the preliminary graduation rates — even if unverified by the state — still are public documents financed by taxpayer dollars, Smith said. Open records law specifies the district must cite a legal statute that exempts it from releasing public information.
"All records are perceived to be open unless there is a specific exception by law," Smith said. "(Graduation rates) are a matter of public record."
Although the School District claims it has no legal obligation to release graduation data because it considers them "worksheets/workpapers," nowhere in its two-page letter does it cite a state law that prohibits it from releasing this data, Smith said.
This, as NPRI knows from first-hand experience, one example of which Takahashi cited, is a disturbing pattern at CCSD. Delay or deny public records they don't want released; trumpet records they want to spin positively.
Superintendent Dwight Jones has written that the District is "committed to transparency," but CCSD hasn't lived up to his promise.
It's a new year. A great resolution for CCSD would be to comply with Nevada's Public Records law and be transparent in both word and deed.
A holiday wish for you
I was asked the other day if I was planning any New Year's resolutions. Since I already lead a flawless life, I see no need.
I jest, I jest.
Seriously, though, I'm sure that many of you participate in that annual ritual of pledging to learn a new skill, kick a bad habit or otherwise improve something about yourself in the year ahead. A few of you may even stick to it beyond mid-January.
Well, here's something I hope you'll all pledge to do, not next year, but during the few days remaining in this one:
Take a break.
For those who are entrenched in our public policy battles — and I mean not only those of us who make our living that way, but those who follow the process closely as well — it's easy to forget that there's more to life than debates over tax policy, charter schools and prevailing-wage laws.
Don't get me wrong: Those debates are extremely important. And you can be sure that we at NPRI will be fully engaged in them in the year ahead.
But for now, with the holiday season upon us, I hope you'll take some time to clear your head, enjoy the company of your loved ones and reflect on the deeper things that make this a uniquely special time of year.
I don't need to tell you that 2012 has been an arduous year in so many ways. But just as our victories and achievements are more enjoyable because they are shared with those closest to us, so, too, are our setbacks easier to endure because of the strength we draw from each other. Over the next few days, I hope you're able to surround yourself with the people and things that strengthen and comfort you the most, to put aside the worries that weigh on your mind throughout the year, and to have a joyful and peaceful holiday.
And to the staff here at NPRI, this all goes for you, too. Anyone who follows our work closely has likely gotten to know some of us, or at least our public personas, to some degree. In particular, Geoff Lawrence, Victor Joecks and I tend to be the ones who give the speeches, do the TV and radio interviews and get our names in the newspaper, and it's often said that we are the "faces" of the organization.
I can't say enough about how much I admire Geoff and Victor for their intelligence, work ethic and devotion to the cause that NPRI serves. But the same is true for each and every person who works here at the Institute. Not all of the names are well known, but the reason we've been able to thrive as an organization is the unyielding commitment of each and every member of our team.
I am so blessed and grateful to be a part of that team — and deeply indebted to my predecessor, Sharon Rossie, for her role in building it — and I want to offer my sincerest gratitude to the entire staff at NPRI for making the past year so amazing. It's an honor and a joy to work alongside all of you, and I hope you have a wonderful holiday season — and a much-deserved rest.
Best wishes to you all, and may God bless you.
Andy Matthews
NPRI President
How to make local government work: Lessons from Indianapolis
Indianapolis Mayor Greg Ballard explains how Indianapolis addressed a $150 million shortfall and still improved city services, all without raising taxes.
Some obvious lessons abound for local government leaders in Nevada...
Principles
Earlier this week, Gov. Brian Sandoval announced that he would extend Medicaid to able-bodied, childless adults with incomes over the poverty line. While there are plenty of practical reasonsthat this decision will have a negative impact on Nevadans, whichNPRI's Geoffrey Lawrence has outlined here, what the governor said in defense of his decision is even more alarming.
I couldn't sit here and defend to any of you $16 million that just went away because of principle. I think, when you take the opportunity to look through all of this, at least the fiscal part of this, it makes perfect sense. (Emphasis added.)
A little background: Because the federal government has promised to cover the costs of Medicaid expansion for the first three years, it appears Gov. Sandoval is able to shuffle some currently provided services onto the federal government's tab.
But while saving money is usually a good idea, it's not a good deal if you're going to be stuck with a larger bill in the long run — which Nevada's taxpayers, in this case, would be. This is like a used-car dealer giving you $500 cash back and "no payments for the first two months" on the $25,000 car you purchased. You'd be laughed at if you claimed you made the deal to "save money," but that's analogous to what the governor is claiming here.
But what's more troubling is that Gov. Sandoval has, by his own admission, sacrificed a principle for short-term gains.
The very reason you have principles is to help you do what's rightdespite the allure of short-term and usually temporary gains.
Consider principles in a different context. Let's say you're a parent. In raising your children, you would try to instill many principles in them — tell the truth, do unto others as you would have them do unto you, obey your mother and father, etc.
Why are those principles so important? Because it's easy to tell the truth? Because it's easy to follow the Golden Rule? Because it's easy for kids to obey their parents?
No. You make a point of teaching your children principles precisely because it's easier, in the short run, to lie, to be self-centered and to mouth off to Mom and Dad.
Principles help teach children the importance of foregoing immediate gratification in order to do what's right — which also helps them avoid the long-term negative consequences that follow from taking the wrong actions.
That's also why principles are so important in government. Every government action has both short- and long-term consequences, and often those consequences are contradictory. In the case of Medicaid expansion, you have the contrast of short-term savings with long-term liabilities.
Adhering to principle would have helped Nevada's taxpayers tremendously — even if the benefits came primarily after Gov. Sandoval left office. And while some are seeking to attach a provision that would sunset the expansion if the federal match rate were to go down, such a move, though prudent on its face, would be effectively worthless. Just look at the "temporary" tax increases passed in 2009, which the governor has already promised to extend through 2015, to see how "sunsets" of government expansions turn out.
Gov. Sandoval claims he made the right decision by abandoning a principle for $16 million.
But if you understand how important principles are, you know he sold that which is most precious for chump change.
What do you think about this? You can email me, but I encourage you to call Gov. Sandoval and politely offer your thoughts. His office number is (775) 684-5670.
Take care,
Andy Matthews
NPRI President
Remind you of any Nevada politicians?
Great news: Sen. Segerblom a fan of housing bubbles
One of the most important lessons in public policy (and life) is that every action has both short- and long-term consequences — and often those consequences are contradictory.
Consider the housing bubble. We had Keynesians like Paul Krugman actually calling for a housing bubble to boost the economy in 2002. Then we had "the government's distortion of mortgage finance through the Community Reinvestment Act and the government-sponsored enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac." And, of course, we had the Federal Reserve's manipulation of interest rates.
Those factors (and many more) contributed to an unprecedented rise in home prices until 2007, when the bubble burst and housing prices came crashing down. The factors that helped create the bubble in the housing market in the short term were the same factors that created the crash and decline in housing prices in the long term.
One Nevada-specific factor that is creating a mini-bubble in housing is AB 284. As Nevada Journal's Steven Miller details, under AB 284, a paperwork error can now send lenders and mortgage servicers to prison.
[Lenders and mortgage servicers] are now liable to be charged with a category C felony if, in their filing of the numerous new documents the law (AB 284) requires, a document contains what some government prosecutor might choose to see as a “false representation concerning title.”
The mandatory sentence set by statute for such a felony is imprisonment in the state prison for least one year and fines of up to $10,000.
AB 284 also, in the view of critics, gave virtual hunting licenses to lawyers representing defaulting borrowers. It did this by placing the equivalent of bounties on any lender’s failure to disclose every prior known beneficiary of the deed of trust in a notarized affidavit. Any such mistake by a lender is, to a borrower’s lawyer, worth the greater of $5,000 or treble the amount of actual damages, plus “reasonable” attorneys’ fees and costs.
As a result of AB 284, Notice-of-Default filings, which are a necessary step in the foreclosure process, fell dramatically in 2011 when the law went into effect.
This has led to thousands of houses that are in default, but where the mortgage holder is unable to foreclose on those houses and sell them. This is sometimes called the shadow inventory, whichhousing experts predict will delay Nevada's housing recovery by two to three years.
But in the short term, the lack of inventory is creating another bubble and driving up housing prices in an unsustainable way.
Since we just lived through a massive real-estate bubble, you would hope lawmakers would do everything possible to avoid creating another one.
Not Sen. Tick Segerblom. Instead of trying to defuse this government-created housing bubble, he's defending it.
John Restrepo, principal of RCG Economics in Las Vegas, called [the housing bubble created by AB 284] “a bit of an artificial spike not likely to be sustained as it is today, depending on how the law is changed.”
The politics of easing restrictions for banks (by changing AB 284) are dicey and likely to face opposition.
Sen. Tick Segerblom, D-Las Vegas, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said he’d listen (on changes to AB 284) to Cortez Masto, a fellow Democrat.
But, he said, “I’m extremely reluctant to change anything that everyone agrees has raised property values in the state of Nevada.” (Emphasis added.)
We know how the government-creating-a-housing-bubble story turns out. Would someone let Sen. Segerblom know it doesn't end well, even if it appears attractive in the short term?
