Maggie's Farm

After my morning prayers, and thanks for Republican victories in yesterday’s elections that may help stop the ObamaCare obomination in its tracks, I picked up my morning newspaper and on page 3 read the article, “Move to put spiritual care in health bill.” (Sorry, my local newspaper’s website is down for overhaul, but here’s the complete wire service dispatch.)

This is exactly one of the absurdities that argues against ObamaCare or most further government takeover of healthcare. Special interests intrude their mandates, and costs, on us all, even with little justification outside their mustered political power.

One of the battles in Congress is over a provision of the House ObamaCare bill that would require insurers to pay for prayer treatments as for other medical treatments. It was proposed by a Republican congressman, whose district includes Principia College, a Christian Scientist school.

There’s some evidence that a patient’s morale affects their recovery. There’s some evidence that prayer can improve a patient’s morale. There’s, also, much more evidence that prayer will not cure most ailments and, indeed, there are sufficient studies that substituting prayer for proven scientific medicine can prolong or worsen serious ailments that otherwise could be alleviated or cured.

I, personally, like the saner holistic approach to medicine, to add proper diet, exercise, some vitamins, and yoga to one’s health regimen. And, I pray. But, to require that medical insurance cover these is insane, and costly, crowding out the core scientific medicine that is essential. Many who are uninsured are, thus, priced out of coverage due to the costs of mandates for usually lesser effective treatments, like chiropractry or acupuncture or massage, being added into insurance. Further, adding in very expensive in vitro fertilization, as desirable as it may be for those infertile to enjoy having children, is similarly counterproductive to our main concerns about improving health care. If they want children, pay for it, or accept your fate. There is not a legal nor moral obligation for taxpayers or others who buy insurance to buy children for them.

This argument in Congress over whether to include insurance coverage for prayer is an absurd but indicative example of what we can expect when special interest government runs health care.

Addendum: The above are just a few more examples of some of the points that The B made in his Insurance Freedom post this week. It is, indeed, insane. Furthermore, I never heard of paying for prayer. Prayer is one of the few things that remains free and untaxed.

Addendum: Christian Science practioners do charge.  Other "clergy" may and will, as well, if they can get paid by insurance.

BTW, see my comment below about which "mandate" I'd like to have in my insurance!

Why the heck should anyone care about how health insurance agents will fare under ObamaCare?

Under the House bill, for example, the Small Business Administration will help businesses and individuals figure out how to obtain affordable coverage. (The bill provision is titled, “Assistance for Small Employers.”) Health insurance agents are not precluded from providing advice. But, the SBA will be allowed to bypass agents.

A health insurance agent is required to complete initial and regular formal training courses in the subject (including ethics), pass initial and periodic tests, and are screened by their state and by insurance companies for criminal or personal conduct (including declaring bankruptcy) that may negatively affect their reliability to be licensed to provide agent services. In addition, through professional associations, through insurer education programs, through self-study, and through competitive pressures, health agents stay current on the latest laws and offerings from various insurers. Furthermore, almost all health insurance agents are independent businesses or work for independent agencies, not beholden to the insurers but to their customers. Importantly, individuals, small and larger businesses have priorities more important and pressing than becoming experts in health insurance or its interactions with other laws or aspects of their primary concerns, and heavily depend upon qualified, trusted health insurance agents. Lastly, many health insurance agents have extensive credentials and experience. For example, I attained earned, tested, rigorous certifications – Chartered Financial Consultant (ChFC), Registered Employee Benefits Concultant (REBC), Registered Health Underwriter (RHU), Chartered Life Underwriter (CLU) – that, along with other experiences outside health insurance (I was a senior financial and business operations exec for Fortune 100 and small companies for 15-years before becoming a health insurance agent) and years of experience as a health insurance agent (I’ve been at it for two-decades). This delivers wide-ranging values to my clients and of the interactions of their health insurance with their broader business, regulatory and financial affairs.

Does anyone expect the staff hired or created by the SBA to have this independence, experience or training? If so, get real!

Surely, there are some health insurance agents who are lesser or incompetent, or who are crooked, or who steer some business toward favored insurers for added volume bonuses. However, the less competent exist in a highly competitive market, where they lose business to the more energetic and competent in delivering value to clients. The crooked or shady are winnowed out similarly plus by stiff regulations and prosecutions.

This is just another aspect of the losses that individuals and businesses will suffer under ObamaCare.

A leading expert and opponent of Obamacare, Grace-Marie Turner, writes in the New York Post:

The 1,990-page bill the House leadership unveiled Thursday would impose a dizzying barrage of new regulations on employers, and force them to either provide government-specified health insurance or pay a penalty of up to 8 percent of their payroll.

Even firms that now provide health benefits get slammed -- since that coverage may not meet the government's definition of "acceptable." …

The head of the National Federation of Independent Business, Dan Danner, said the reform bill's huge cost "will ultimately come out of small business owners' pockets and prohibit them from growing, investing in their business and hiring new employees." …

The pain continues: The bill would also subject businesses and employees to a bigger, hidden tax -- a shifting of costs from public to private payers.

The legislation would expand Medicaid -- the joint federal/state program designed to insure low-income Americans -- to cover another 15 million people. But Medicaid payments to doctors and hospitals are well below market rates -- and often below their costs of providing care.

A study by the independent actuarial firm Milliman Inc. concluded that families with employer-based health insurance already pay $1,788 a year in hidden taxes to compensate for underpayments by government programs. That figure will plainly grow under the House bill.

For a final blow, the bill imposes surcharges on high-income individuals that will certainly hit many small business owners -- who pay business taxes through their personal-income tax forms.

Also, read The Worst Bill Ever.

For disclosure, I’m nearing retirement, and have shrunk my successful business. I am not going to directly suffer as a health insurance agent or small businessman, although I will as a taxpayer and as someone who cares about quality health care for myself and others if ObamaCare passes.

It was reported earlier today, here and here, that the machine-picked liberal Republican candidate whose poor polling -– and lack of support from Republicans -- led to her withdrawal from the race threw her support to the Democrat instead of to the Republican who challenged her – Doug Hoffman.  Hoffman is polling neck-and-neck with the Democrat for this upstate New York Congressional seat.  The outcome of this race will send an important signal to Washington waverers about what should be their upcoming congressional votes affecting the course of our country.

Congressman Darrel Issa just sent out an interesting and telling email about how important Obama sees this election:

Astonishingly, the Republican nominee in the special election has dropped out, and endorsed the Democrat! Just hours before she endorsed the Democrat, she received calls from Barack Obama's chief of staff Rahm Emanuel. She also received calls from the Chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, Senator Chuck Schumer. Was Scozzafava promised something in return for her endorsement of the Democrat? Time will tell.

Issa says,

Volunteers continue to pour into upstate New York, but we are short of funds to pay for their transportation, lodging and meals. This race has turned into an all out battle between the White House and the conservative base of the Republican Party. Apparently all tactics are on the table.

Issa asks that urgent contributions be made via his own Political Action Committee to help elect conservative Republican Doug Hoffman, send the White House and Congressional Democrats the message that we’ve had enough of their ruinous tax-and-spend-and control our lives, send Republican hacks in Washington the message that truer Republican principles and support are required, and not let Obama and Emanuel run the Republican Party.

Instead of sending your contributions via Issa, send them directly to Doug Hoffman’s campaign.  The link is here to donate and to learn more about Hoffman.

We already know that Obama-style politics is payola politics, trying to buy off votes and power with our taxes and earnings. Say ENOUGH!

When I left New York City in 1968, after graduating college, I like many of my fellow graduates from working and lower middle-class families sought our opportunities elsewhere, and most metropolitan elsewheres were better than NYC.  The job market was still strong in NYC, but opportunities for advancement better elsewhere, the costs of living and taxes lower, the public services better, public safety higher.

Today, the New York City disease has spread more widely around the country.  Most major metropolitan areas, the hub of most states, have seen their infrastructure serving the upward mobility and the financial and personal security of their upward-striving or holding-on working and middle class deteriorate over the past 40-years.

Still, there’s striking differences among the states, and the results show.

William Voegeli writes in today’s Los Angeles Times, "The Golden State isn't worth it."  Voegli compares California to Texas, “Our high-benefit/high-tax model no longer works, especially compared with low-tax states like Texas.”  Voegeli says, “These alternatives, of course, define the basic argument between liberals and conservatives over what it means to get the size and scope of government right….[T]he superior public goods that supposedly justify the high taxes just aren't being delivered.”

It’s not ideologues who are moving.  For example, I recently ran into a couple I was friendly with in San Diego during the ‘90’s, he a French doctor-scientist and she a Dutch-Indonesian.  They compared San Diego favorably in all respects (except cuisine) to living in Europe, and were happy to be here.  Then they moved to a better job in Silicon Valley, where despite higher income they could afford a house half the size and they felt surrounded by selfishly aggressive strivers.  Then they moved to Austin, Texas, where they could afford a much larger house for their family, in an excellent neighborhood with top schools, the cultural life is vibrant, and the daily courtesies among residents are welcoming and provide good role models for their children.  These products of Europe are a reality test of America.

Voegeli continues: “Overall, the Census Bureau's latest data show that state and local government expenditures for all purposes in 2005-06 were 46.8% higher in California than in Texas: $10,070 per person compared with $6,858.”  Between 2000 and 2007, “16 of the 17 states with the lowest tax levels had positive "net internal migration," in the Census Bureau's language, while 14 of the 17 states with the highest taxes had negative net internal migration.”

Why?

The high-benefit/high-tax model can work only if things are demonstrably not equal -- if the public goods purchased by the high taxes far surpass the quality, quantity and impact of those available to people who live in states with low taxes.

Today's public benefits fail that test, as urban scholar Joel Kotkin of NewGeography.com and Chapman University told the Los Angeles Times in March: "Twenty years ago, you could go to Texas, where they had very low taxes, and you would see the difference between there and California. Today, you go to Texas, the roads are no worse, the public schools are not great but are better than or equal to ours, and their universities are good. The bargain between California's government and the middle class is constantly being renegotiated to the disadvantage of the middle class.

How?

None of this happens by accident. California's interlocking directorate of government employee unions, issue activists, careerists and campaign contributors has become increasingly aggressive and adept at using rhetoric extolling public benefits for all to deliver targeted advantages to itself. As a result, the political reality of the high-benefit/high-tax model is that its public goods are, increasingly, neither public nor good. Instead, the beneficiaries are the providers of the public services, and certain favored or connected constituencies, rather than the general population.

What to expect?

The recession will eventually end, and California's finances will get better. Given its powerful systemic bias against efficient and effective public services, however, the question is whether the state will ever get well. California's public sector has pinned its hopes for avoiding fundamental reform on increased federal aid to replace dollars the state's fed-up taxpayers refuse to surrender. In other words, residents in the other 49 states -- the new 49ers? -- would enjoy the privilege of paying California's taxes. Their one consolation will be not having to endure its lousy public services.

If, on the other hand, America's taxpayers (and China's bond buyers) succumb to bailout fatigue, California may reach the point at which, after every alternative has been exhausted, it is forced to try governing itself competently.

It’s not just California, or New York City, but throughout much of America today that we’re seeing the hollowing out of the infrastructure and services and opportunities that built America’s uniqueness and success compared to the rest of the world.  And, big-government advocates are clamoring for yet higher taxes. The New York Times reports today that “Faced with anxiety in financial markets about the huge federal deficit and the potential for it to become an electoral liability for Democrats” the White House and congressional Democrats are seeking some way to reduce the huge federal deficits they have created, and that more taxes are their prescription.

Government  workers and their unions are prime beneficiaries of our heavy taxes. Most of even the made-up stats recently released about jobs saved or created by the federal appropriation of the near $1-trillion “stimulus” show relatively few and most of those among government workers.  The $1-trillion, likely to be much more, cost of the wholesale upheaval of 1/6^th of the US economy in health care – which really only serves about the 25% of those who truly need it who don’t have insurance at the expense of the 85% of Americans who do have coverage -- will fall heavily upon the working and middle class.  The $trillions of indirect and direct taxes of the “cap-and-trade” illusory environmental bill will also add $thousands each year to each American's costs of living, to the economic benefit of profiteering fat cats and their politicos who garner contributions.

At root this may be an ideological battle, as Voegeli says.  But, it is really a practical battle between those who aspire and work for a better life and those relatively few who would squander its underpinnings for their own greedy benefits.  The real populist revolt is already shaking Washington and state capitals, and much more is to come.