Banner ad

Monday, November 11, 2013

Cruising the Web

Karl at Hot Air warns at what the administration and Democrats will try to push for their fix for all those people who got thrown off their individual insurance plans. As the LA Times reported this weekend, any attempt to try to extend the grandfather regulations to include these people would run into big problems and further mess up the insurance market.
If millions more people can suddenly invoke the grandfather clause, said one analyst, that would change the assumptions insurers made when they calculated the premiums they are now offering in the marketplace.

Many of those who want to keep their plans pay very low-cost premiums because they aren't sick and don't use the healthcare system much. Those are exactly the participants the insurers are counting on joining the new insurance pools to help pay the freight for everyone else.

"If those people don't come into the pool next year, then the premiums the insurers bid for the 2014 policies might be wrong," said Gary Claxton, a vice president of the Kaiser Family Foundation.

If millions of people who have coverage now can keep it as long as they wish without complying with new rules, Claxton said, the healthiest of them will probably choose to do so — until they get sick and decide to cash in on the benefits of the new marketplace.
since they can't go back and end the regulations that caused the problem to begin with, look for liberals to push to expand the number of people receiving federal subsidies to help them buy the new, more expensive plans. Since this would probably end up nearly tripling the projected cost of the subsidies from $458 billion to $1.2 trillion for just the first six years, they'll probably have to go to Congress to get the money. So look for Democrats to try to flip all the bad media they've been receiving about unfortunate people having to buy much more expensive plans due to their own freakin' bill to slams at those mean Republicans who don't want to pay out a whole lot more federal subsidies to help those unfortunate people out. As soon as they can, they'll try to switch the narrative to be one of evil Republicans who like to cut taxes against generous Democrats who just want to help people. The fact that the Democrats are to blame for the situation in the first place is beside the point. And of course, this just postpones the mess when people who get their insurance through their employment find out what happens to that when the employer mandate kicks in next year and many businesses decide it would make more sense to cancel their employees' policies than to pay the increased costs that Obamacare demands. Don't expect that to wreak any less havoc in the market than this year's mess.

Who would think that the French would take a stronger line on Iran's nukes than the United States?

The Free Beacon profiles James Capretta, as the man who called it right on Obamacare.

Get ready for all sorts of Christie-Giuliani comparisons. Conclusion: they're alike and not alike in various ways. But that won't stop the media from discussing those contrasts ad nauseum. Ross Douthat had some good advice for Chris Christie. One of the most valuable pieces of advice is "Don't be Jon Huntsman." Don't think that agreeing with the media that
your party’s full of rubes and cranks.

As a would-be nominee, you have to woo base voters, not run against them, and make them feel respected even when they disagree with you. This doesn’t mean muzzling yourself, or pandering to every right-wing interest group. But it means persuading conservatives that you like them, that you understand them and that as president you’re going to be (mostly) on their side.

Andrew McCarthy lays out how, if Obama had been in the private sector and had made the same repeated, public promises that he'd made about Obamacare, the President would have been guilty of fraud. And the Obama Justice Department has gone after private businessmen who did much less damage than the President has done.
To be more illustrative, let’s say our schemer is the president of a health-insurance company, and that it was clearly foreseeable to him that his company’s clients would lose their current insurance plans if the company adopted his proposal of a complex new health-insurance framework. In fact, let’s assume that the schemer not only had analyses showing that clients would lose their plans but that he also had a history of openly favoring a “single-payer” insurance system — i.e., an unconcealed desire to move everyone from private to government-managed insurance arrangements.

Now, suppose the schemer nevertheless vowed to the company’s clients, to whom he bore fiduciary obligations, that they needn’t fear his proposed new insurance framework; under it, he promised time after time after time, if they liked their current plans, they would be able to keep those plans. And let’s say that, on the basis of that repeated vow, the clients supported the schemer’s reappointment as president and his proposed new framework. On these facts, the clients’ subsequent loss of their current insurance plans helps prove the schemer’s fraudulent intent. The schemer has committed not just a fraud but a carefully thought-out, fully successful fraud, replete with suffering victims.
Oh, and by the way, back in 2010, Obama publicly admitted to Eric Cantor that "8 to 9 million people you refer to that might have to change their coverage." But he thought that would be just fine because they'd be getting a "better deal." Too bad that it hasn't worked out that way.

Jay Cost rightly warns Republicans that they need to figure out out how to run against second-rate Bill Clinton impersonators. They messed up against an eminently defeatable Terry McAuliffe who ran with the old worn playbook. But they better figure out how to run in 2016 against another second-rate impersonator - Hillary Clinton. And she'll go even stronger at the war-on-women theme, because, really, the only thing she has going for her is her gender. But that whole war-on-women shtick is going to be the playbook across the country in all sorts of races.

And when that doesn't work, they can go back to populist appeals to raise the minimum wage while also raising taxes. There is nothing new under their political sun.

3 comments:

Gahrie said...

The success of the "war on women" strategy, along with conervsations I have had with women I respect (who are all intelligent, professionally employed women) immediately after the re-election of President Obama have convinced me that we need to repeal the 19th Amendment.

I am dead serious about this.

mark said...

Bravo, Gahrie. Another brilliant post.
I'd like to see the Republican party officially adopt your suggestion into their platform.

Gahrie said...

Of course they won't. The Republicans are solely concerned with winning and power, just like the Democrats. I gave up my membership in the Republican Party years ago.

Personally I'd like to see the Democratic Party abandon their constant, shrill, ad hominen attacks on the Right.