tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-56391478008901384062024-03-13T23:26:54.359-07:00Carbert's Current EventsAnalysis and wanton speculation about world events.Carberthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00330312694599178515noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5639147800890138406.post-6722521256176455892010-12-04T09:33:00.000-08:002010-12-04T13:54:42.050-08:00A Better Republican Health Care Strategy: Play Ball<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">Left as is, the Obamacare legislation will be disastrous for our healthcare system.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But I don’t see a way that the Republicans, given only control of the house, can repeal it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Attempts to de-fund it will lead to confusion and uncertainty which is not something we need right now.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">The best chance of getting rid of it is in the courts.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I believe that it <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">is</i> unconstitutional, but if I were a republican legislator, I would have to admit that that wasn’t my call to make.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>No, ultimately we’ll need proceed to the Supreme Court, pull the lever, and wait until the spinning stops and count the number of thumbs-down.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">So, as a legislator, I would have to prepare for the contingency that the high court does not strike it down.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">What the Republicans can do is try to ensure that if the mandated purchase of health insurance survives, that it will be a workable plan.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The insurance companies are for this.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They’ll sell more insurance to more people - Especially to young healthy people who would offset the risks.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">But as it is, the new legislation will damage the industry greatly.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The $900 penalty for not having insurance does not induce one to buy coverage costing a minimum of around $3500 – especially when you can buy it after you become sick.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>So the healthy will pay the penalty and save their money and the sick will buy coverage.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>To support this, premiums will skyrocket to unsustainable levels.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Once this happens, the president will declare that private insurance companies have failed and introduce the single payer – government – plan.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">The cries of “Socialism!” may or may not be true, depending on where you’re willing to draw the line.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But it’s not a particularly successful message for those who don’t cringe at the very thought.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Discussions regarding the constitutionality are pointless.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In the end, the opinions of only nine people matter in this regard.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">Republican legislators should focus on amending the law in order to make sure that consumer choice and competition are retained.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The largest threat to those favoring government controlled healthcare would be a working private sector solution that meets all of the social goals.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">To achieve this, there will have to be some give and take.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We will have to subsidize coverage for the poor – But not in the form of so called ‘Cadillac Plans’.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The proportion of this burden shared among income class ranges will be debatable.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>There will be no opt-out for wealthy individuals who have the resources to ‘self-insure’.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We will have 100% coverage.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">We must retain high deductible health plans - which reduce premiums significantly.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The insurance plans must be just that – policies to help individuals manage their risks.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Those that can take their family out to a restaurant can pay for an office visit.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>For the poor we can debate lower deductibles, deductible susidies, or other solutions such as low, or no cost clinics.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If we are to mandate coverage, we must ensure that individuals have the widest degree of choice.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">All individuals in a geographic area could buy into any plan at the same premium level.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Some might argue that the young and healthy would be bearing an unfair portion of the premium burdens.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>However, the young and healthy have a not-so-curious habit of becoming older and increasingly infirm.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">Since employers would be buying insurance for their employees would be paying the same rates as individuals, they could just give that money directly to their employees to purchase for themselves.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The employee gains choice and the employer rids itself of a large administrative function that is not related to its mission.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">The individual state insurance commissions should be eliminated in favor of one national one to produce consistent regulations.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This part, at least, seems reasonable under the interstate commerce clause.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">This framework should be offered to the president in a sincere attempt to secure his legacy and perhaps even guarantee him a second term in office.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We would all like to look back on our first black American president as a success.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I think most everyone, from Wellpoint CEO Angela Braly, to Daily Show host Jon Stewart would approve.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">And if the Dems don't go along, the GOP would have a compelling argument. "Hey, we tried to fix it but they stopped us. Those premium increases are all on them."</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">Oh, and did I mention that with a working private industry solution that covers 100% of Americans in place, Medicare and Medicaid wouldn’t have a job to do?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We could shut them down.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">Then we could sit down and figure out the potential impact to the FairTax rate.</span></div>Carberthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00330312694599178515noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5639147800890138406.post-73345555027474404552010-12-01T09:11:00.000-08:002010-12-04T13:43:15.073-08:00Solving the WikiLeaks Problem<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">If WikiLeaks had posted a bunch of Britney Spears songs, they would have been shut down by now.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But they’re just publishing secret government documents so they’re okay.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">Huh?</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">As the world searches for scandalous tidbits among the documents and debates whether Julian Assange is a savior or anti-Christ - and whether to loose the CIA hit squads - I began to think about the larger picture.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>How this will eventually play out.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">I think that WikiLeaks, ironically, will ultimately lead to more restrictions on speech, communication and information.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">Despite Ecuador’s enthusiastic offer to harbor Mr. Assange, I sincerely doubt that the leaders of any nation are comfortable with a shadowy rogue organization eager to open their secrets up to the world.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They will come up with a way to work together to limit use of government information - Some sort of international convention.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">Failing that however, a quick fix may be available to the U.S. congress;<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Copyright.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Currently, in order to promote open government, documents of the Federal Government do not generally enjoy the protections of Copyright.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">If the congress would simply amend the copyright law to confer copyright ownership of documents classified as secret to the federal government, WikiLeaks could be dealt with in the same manner as any other infringing site – with lawyers.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This makes perfect sense to me.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Just as an author has the legal right around the world to control how his works are distributed, the same should be true of the federal government’s secret documents.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">Of course, if one were to get their hands on some secret data, one could publish it by claiming fair use.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>However, this wouldn’t fly in the case of massive document dumps of the sort WikiLeaks is engaging in.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It would have to be used in the context of a story.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And if Mr. Assange wants to work as a journalist instead of simply being a distributor of purloined material, I think the situation would be so much more manageable.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">I don’t know what effect this might have on future releases if congress were to act immediately.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And I don’t know if, internationally, the change would be automatically absorbed.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But it seems like an obvious step to take.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">UPDATE - 12/3/10 11:47AM</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">It's being <a href="http://technolog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010/12/02/5570297-amazon-booted-wikileaks-due-to-copyright-ownership-violation">reported</a> that Amazon used copyright violations as a justification for booting Wikileaks off of their servers. They aren't necessarily saying that the government owns the rights, but that Wikileaks doesn't.</span><br />
<br />
</div>Carberthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00330312694599178515noreply@blogger.com0