Posts Tagged ‘Breitbart’
Health Care Reform: Getting Our Language Right
Posted by Philip O'Connor and Judith Mintel in Politics on October 9th, 2009
The headline has changed from “health care reform” to “health insurance reform” because politicians can’t go wrong politically by firing salvos at health insurance companies. People aren’t fond of the institutions that handle the majority of the money paid for health services even if they are happy with the care itself. Unfortunately, calling the leading proposals in Congress insurance reform is false advertising. The basic flaw is that insurance for medical expenses will no longer exist.
If the Commissioner of Baseball announced “baseball reform” that included elimination of pitching, batting and fielding, we would no longer have baseball even if there was a ball and bases involved. Similarly, the leading Congressional proposals violate key principles of insurance by prohibiting underwriting, pricing, and product design based on risk assessment.
Why does this matter? Because the absence of a true insurance product and the lack of a private, competitive insurance market will mean that the program will not work as intended to provide improvements in affordability and availability of medical expense reimbursement.
The essence of insurance is the transfer of risk and individual risk assessment for losses that for any given individual are unexpected and unpredictable. As Sherlock Holmes explained to Dr. Watson in The Sign of the Four:
while the individual man is an insoluble puzzle, in the aggregate he becomes a mathematical certainty. You can, for example, never foretell what any one man will do, but you can say with precision what an average number will be up to. Individuals vary, but percentages remain constant.
Legislation that ignores the great detective’s words cannot rightly be called insurance.
A healthy person with no known medical condition is not a similarly situated individual to a person already diagnosed with diabetes. Loss data from a large group of healthy people tells us very little about losses related to a large group of diabetics. That is not a moral argument, just a statistical verity. Under various proposals, insurers would be barred from denying coverage for those with “pre-existing medical conditions” or charging any more than twice as much for one person versus another with the same coverage. So if a young healthy person with no known medical conditions actually costs $500 a year to insure and an elderly person with diabetes costs $7,000 a year, all other things being equal the first person would have to be charged $2,500 and the second would pay only $5,000. Younger, healthier individuals are going to be vastly overcharged under the proposed legislation providing a very large incentive for them not to participate or to drop out. This type of system, if it somehow works at all, necessitates large wealth transfers from young, healthy people to older, sick individuals irrespective of their financial need.
Additionally, insurance is designed to address larger unexpected or accidental types of loss, not the normal, ongoing expenses of life that are under the control of the individual. No one would think about buying insurance for a burger and fries in the event he might get hungry. Yet, we have come to expect medical insurance to pay for such totally controllable expenses as inoculations and birth control. Many proponents of “insurance reform” want to go so far as to eliminate co-pays, deductibles and other forms of cost sharing for routine medical services.
All of the foregoing negates the very notion of insurance in the realm of medical care.
The type of government program which prohibits individual risk assessment and covers expected expenses can and has worked in private employer group settings and government sponsored social programs where individuals cannot opt out. It has never worked in the type of private commercial market involving the sale of an insurance product to individuals by multiple insurers contemplated by Congress, even if all people are “legally compelled” to purchase over priced coverage and insurers are “legally compelled” to sell to all comers without regard to the risk they present.
If we get our language straight maybe our thinking will follow. If the intention is to promote a competitive insurance market, insurers must be allowed to apply their underwriting and actuarial skills to individual risks in principled ways. Then government can provide financial support to those for whom the premiums would be unaffordable. This would address the problems of pre-existing conditions and portability of coverage in both the individual and employer based segments. We must also eliminate extensive mandated coverages so that people can design benefit packages that suits them and which they can afford. Finally, medical insurance must be reoriented toward major expenses with a combination of tax credits or deductions and direct public assistance to low income people for out-of-pocket routine services.
On the other hand, if we want a medical payment regime without risk assessment and competition then we should adopt a government health reimbursement plan without semantic camouflage or disinformation.
Fool Me Hundreds of Times: Who Gets to Clean Up ACORN?
Posted by Mike Flynn in ACORN, Featured Story, Politics, Wade Rathke on October 9th, 2009
Imagine: In the days following the public revelations of the accounting scandal at Enron, then-CEO Ken Lay convened a news conference. He forcefully expressed his disgust with the actions of his subordinates and vowed to begin “cleaning house” at the company. Taking a few turns to slam the company’s critics and the reporters who had uncovered the scandal, he stressed that, this time, there would be a thorough revamp of the company. He even said that people would be fired! Reassured, reporters, lawmakers and regulators shrugged and went back to their daily lives.
ACORN CEO Bertha Lewis and Former Enron CEO Ken Lay
Substitute Bertha Lewis for Ken Lay and ACORN for Enron, in this hypothetical situation, and you’ll have a pretty good idea of what was asked of us at Lewis’ tour-de-force theatrical performance at the National Press Club earlier this week. She alternated between attacking her critics, expressing disgust with the actions of her employees caught on tape by James O’Keefe and Hannah Giles and vowing to pursue a lawsuit against the filmmakers for capturing on film her employees’ misdeeds. Oh, and by the way, she really, really—she means it this time—intends to “clean house” at ACORN.
Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank captured the surreal tableau best:
But Lewis, in playing the victim, is her own worst enemy. Forget the film of the pimp and prostitute: Watching a film of Lewis’s performance yesterday would probably be enough to cause lawmakers to cut off ACORN’s federal funding.
Which raises a question: Why does Bertha Lewis get to “clean house” at ACORN? Even today, actions have consequences. The fact that the employee behavior exposed by O’Keefe and Giles happened on her watch—and she has been less than forthcoming about it, by the way—would alone be enough to get most CEO’s booted. Worse, though, is the implication that Lewis has been complicit in ACORN’s missteps for a long time. To paraphrase Ronald Reagan, “Bertha Lewis isn’t the solution to ACORN’s problems. Bertha Lewis is the problem.”
Bertha Lewis has been a long-time leader of ACORN. She became CEO—“Chief Organizer” in the ACORN vernacular—in June, 2008. Around that time, an attorney hired by ACORN, Elizabeth Kingsley, delivered a detailed, 15-page memo to ACORN’s board, highlighting actual and potential problems with ACORN’s operations. Kingsley made a series of very specific recommendations to “clean house” within ACORN. In the 15 months since the memo was delivered, I’m not aware of any efforts ACORN has made to implement these reforms.
Also in 2008, ACORN’s board appointed a special committee to investigate a long-covered up embezzlement scandal. (Ms. Lewis was part of the cover-up.) The embezzlement had been recently revealed by the New York Times. This special committee, and other ACORN leaders, pressed for a full forensic audit of the organization. For this transgression, under the leadership of Bertha Lewis, they were booted out of ACORN. No audit of ACORN has ever been released to the public.
Last week, Wade Rathke, founder of ACORN and victim of Lewis’ 2008 palace coup, made a rare appearance in DC to promote his recent book. Big Government contributor Maura Flynn attended, filmed his talk and asked questions. The interview is interesting. Rathke said they decided to cover-up the embezzlement because ACORN leadership feared its enemies would “weaponize” the scandal against them. He also conjectured that, based on the recent scandal engulfing ACORN, that decision looks to have been the right one.
Which raises several questions for Lewis, since she was a co-conspirator in the embezzlement cover-up: Are you going to truly “clean house” in ACORN or only in those areas that have been publically revealed? Are you focused on rooting out actual corruption or only the corruption the public knows about? Do you see your employees’ transgressions as potential “weapons” your opponents will use against you or actual misdeeds that need to be expunged from ACORN? Can I remind you that several of your offices believed they were assisting an underage sex-trafficking ring? And, they were happy to do so.
Lewis makes a nod to public sentiment in acknowledging the potential criminal activity, yet continues to devote a considerable amount of her time to attacking O’Keefe and Giles and some vast conspiracy against ACORN. (The most devastating take-downs of ACORN have been produced by Jon Stewart and Jay Leno, both absent from my vast right-wing conspiracy membership database.) Worse than this, though; she hasn’t been entirely forthcoming about the videos we have all seen. She continues to claim the videos are doctored, but it has been almost a month since we released the first video. I haven’t seen any evidence from you that these were doctored. Surely, roughly thirty days is enough time to build that case. We released the full audio recordings and transcripts of the interviews.
Second, we initially released videos from Baltimore and Washington, DC. Lewis said then that the filmmakers were thrown out of ACORN offices in “San Diego, Los Angeles, Miami, New York and Philadelphia.” We have so far released videos from two of those cities. Was she lying? Or, simply misled by her staff?
The most troubling reservation, however, has to do with the “independent” panel Lewis appointed to guide ACORN through its current troubles. All are long-time ideological allies of ACORN. It asks too much of us to consider them independent. John Podesta is a long-time ally of ACORN. He was instrumental in the creation of Media Matters (for Bulgaria), who is currently exhausting any credibility it ever had spinning for ACORN. Andy Stern, as head of SEIU, has shoveled millions of dollars to ACORN over the years. His own organization has publically stated that they have “cut ties to ACORN,” yet there Stern remains deep in ACORN’s inner circle. Former Massachusetts Attorney General Scott Harshbarger, the newly appointed “ACORN Czar,” is a kindred fellow-traveler. His thirst for political power may even exceed Lewis’, as he seems to have been willing to put an innocent man behind bars for two decades to further his own political career. Much more about all of these individuals will be revealed soon. (No, we haven’t begun to release all the information we have.)
So, is Bertha serious about wanting to “clean house?” Has she had a genuine “road to Damascus” moment and is now committed to reform. Color me skeptical, but here are three quick things she could do to begin to restore the public’s trust:
Disclose all of ACORN’s affiliates. Publically reveal the names of every entity that is part of the ACORN ‘family.” I’ve heard there are 100, 200 and even 400 different organizations. Please give the public the full list.
Order full audits of every ACORN affiliate. ACORN has been entrusted with millions of dollars of local, state and federal funds. Reassure the public that these funds haven’t been misspent. If they have been misspent, admit it and discipline the offenders. Release the audits to the public, with proprietary or personal information redacted.
Appoint a real independent panel. A review panel made up of your political allies is not independent. It is akin to appointing the foxes to review the henhouse. It has become accepted in recent years that boards of directors need a lot of “outside” directors to oversee operations. No institution would benefit as much from this as ACORN.
Three simple steps, but, giant leaps to restoring any integrity ACORN may have once enjoyed. Lewis, you can pick the high road or the low road. If she continues on her current path–the low road–then she’s gotta go.
Nobel Peace Prize? Whiskey, Tango…
Sorry to interrupt the previous open thread, but, are you kidding me?
We await word from the Baseball, Basketball and Rock and Roll Halls of Fame. Have at it…and, really, really tip your waitress now.
Free-For-All Friday
We thought politicians had retired this pose:
Open thread. Play nice. Tip your waitress…
Montana: Stimulus Funds Go to Study Volcanoes in the Andes, Periodontal Disease, Shakespeare
Posted by Michael Noyes in News, Politics on October 8th, 2009
Federal stimulus spending may evoke images of hard hats and road construction, but around $14 million has been allocated for projects at Montana State University that range from researching volcanic action in the Andes mountains and treatment of periodontal disease to funding to assist with productions of Shakespeare.
A total of $14.38 million in federal stimulus funds has been allocated for about 35 different projects to date at Montana State University, according to university officials. The grants are funded by the $787 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act passed by Congress in February to spur economic growth and create jobs.
Critics of the funding say it misses the mark of the goals set by Congress and amounts to wasteful spending. Supporters say the research does have an economic impact and will produce numerous long-term positive benefits.
The spending was criticized by National Taxpayers Union Vice President for Politics and Communication Pete Sepp. He said many taxpayers think of stimulus spending as long-term job creation in the private sector and not “expeditions to the Andes or, more up close, expeditions into people’s gums.”
Around $400,000 has been allocated for a study of the “relationship between pluton growth & volcanism at two active intrusions in the central Andes,” with another $391,875 for research into “combinatorial therapy for treatment of periodontal disease.”
Todd Feeley, associate professor of geology at MSU, said the grant to study volcanic activity will provide employment for one graduate student for two years to assist him in looking at lava flows from previous volcanic activity in the Andes and related work. He said that experience should help the student gain experience and hopefully assist them in finding permanent employment after their studies.
Feeley said increased research funding also makes science a more appealing field. “More young people are going to want to go into science…if they see there’s more opportunity,” he said.
Stimulus funding listed by the university also includes $25,000 to pay partial salaries for two full-time employees for Shakespeare in the Park.
“Shakespeare in the Park brings a cultural opportunity to rural communities throughout Montana that otherwise would not have those opportunities,” said MSU News Service Director Tracy Ellig.
Sepp said families who are struggling with the cost to send their children to college may not see the benefit of spending stimulus funds on such projects, particularly when the cost may fall to future generations.
“They’re the ones who are paying for those projects, in the end,” Sepp said of college students.
Ellig said most of the projects could be characterized as basic research and could have “enormous implications for protecting America’s health.”
“The value of basic research can be difficult to quantify,” Ellig said. “However, it can have enormous, unanticipated payoffs in the future.”
As examples, Ellig pointed to a $447,000 study of viruses (Structural Studies of Crenaracheal Viruses) that he said could have application in combating airborne bio-terrorism at some future point. Ellig also said research is an important part of the work done at MSU.
In fiscal year 2009, MSU budgeted $98.4 million for research with most of the funding from federal grants, according to Ellig. That is up more than $2 million from research funding in fiscal year 2008. Ellig said it is too early to tell whether the stimulus funds will produce an overall boost to research funding in fiscal year 2010.
Sepp said the examples at MSU should be evidence enough to derail any thoughts of a second stimulus.
“(Those) who believe that ‘Stimulus Two’ is going to be any better than ‘Stimulus One’ need only take a look at examples like these,” Sepp said.