Tag: Obamacare

A deal which doesn’t shock me

Given how its scumbag previous owner sold an entire city and rabid fanbase out for a proverbial thirty pieces of (taxpayer-provided) silver, it really doesn’t surprise me that the Baltimore Ravens accepted $130,000 to promote the Maryland Health Connection, our state’s version of an Obamacare exchange.

What surprises me, though, is the disappointment expressed by a number of people who should know the state has its dirty little fingers all over the Ravens’ pie.

Take our Congressman, Andy Harris, for example. On Facebook he wrote:

Today it came to light that the Baltimore Ravens have received $130,000 in taxpayer money to promote Obamacare. I love the Ravens but I think this is ridiculous. What do you think? Should the Ravens be promoting Obamacare? Should they receive taxpayer money to do it?

Honestly I don’t think so but that ship sailed a long time ago with all the professional Maryland sports teams. Even when I go to Shorebird games I’m bombarded by state-sponsored messages about smoking and seat belt use and promotions from the Maryland Lottery. It’s simply regurgitating all the taxpayer dollars they confiscate from items like the cigarette tax or lottery proceeds back to the teams to promote their message to a captive audience ranging from a few hundred to tens of thousands per night.

Nor is it just sponsorship. Since I’m discussing state influence in sports, let’s also talk about facilities.

Now I understand the government also chipped in to build Perdue Stadium in 1994, just about the time the Browns deal came down. (However, it was not a Maryland Stadium Authority project, unlike newer facilities in Aberdeen and Waldorf.) In our case, the loss of Albany, Georgia was our gain because the onetime Albany Polecats became the Shorebirds after a brief four-season run in south Georgia. On the other hand, two decades on Hagerstown didn’t get a stadium deal together for their Suns and will be losing its minor-league team after one final season next year.

One big difference between the Shorebirds move and the Browns relocation, though, is that the Georgia franchise was purchased outright from its previous owner. Oftentimes a change of scenery will follow such a transaction.

In the end, given all that government involvement, I can’t say I’m shocked the Ravens sold out – only that it was so cheaply. To me, the state health exchange is just another sponsor, and it’s fairly likely I’ll hear their claptrap sometime during Shorebird games next year as well. The shrewd marketing is about the only thing the Maryland Health Connection seems to have going for it right now.

Are Dems caving on Obamacare?

You know, after the hullabaloo we had to endure over the Obama-Reid government shutdown, one would think the Democrats would be feeling their oats and confident of 2014 success. But maybe not.

Earlier this week, New Hampshire Sen. Jeanne Shaheen called for an extension of the individual mandate and an evaluation in the penalties inherent in failing to enroll:

Given the existing problems with the website, I urge you to consider extending open enrollment beyond the current end date of March 31, 2014. Allowing extra time for consumers is critically important so they have the opportunity to become familiar with the website, survey their options and enroll.

Further, in light of the difficulties individuals may be having with enrolling through healthcare.gov, I ask that you clarify how the individual responsibility penalty will be administered and enforced. If an individual is unable to purchase health insurance due to technical problems with enrollment, they should not be penalized because of lack of coverage.

Isn’t it funny that the Democrats, who rebuffed a Republican attempt to delay the process by a year, now are having second thoughts because there’s no government shutdown to blame the GOP with?

Well, perhaps some of these Democrats are looking at the polls. In Maryland, which is still heavily Democratic for the time being, Obamacare had a 57% approval rating in the latest Maryland Poll. But Democrats in other states which are up for grabs next year may have a tougher row to hoe. Take Bill Clinton’s old stomping grounds of Arkansas, where Obama has an anemic 29% approval rating. There respondents to the Arkansas Poll, conducted by the University of Arkansas, blamed Democrats for the Obama-Reid government shutdown by a 39-27 margin over Republicans. Like Shaheen, Arkansas Sen. Mark Pryor is up for re-election next year and a 34% approval rating isn’t conducive for continued political employment.

So, if CNN’s Dana Bash is correct in stating:

then the prospect of a delay actually occurring in the Senate is greatly enhanced. Remember, those Senators up for election in 2014 last faced the voters in the Democratic wave election of 2008, so they may have much stronger headwinds for their re-election. Not all of them are in “red” states, but enough would be to swing the balance of power – if the GOP holds together. The House would certainly follow suit.

Perhaps the electorate is taking the statement that the Democrats “can’t spin this turd” of Obamacare to heart. They may have the dream of single-payer health care, but most won’t sacrifice their office to achieve it.

Ran out of time…

Well, the Republicans caved again. Afraid of what they thought would be dire consequences if they bumped against the debt ceiling, John Boehner violated the Hastert Rule and allowed the Senate deal on the Obama/Reid shutdown to be brought to the floor and passed. All the House Democrats who voted (198 of 200) favored the bill, while Republicans made up all 144 of those who voted no.

Among those voting no was our own Andy Harris, who put out a three-part Tweet explaining his reasoning.

Fairly compelling reasons. Unfortunately, the 87 Republicans who voted in the affirmative were more than enough to pass the bill, once again hanging the TEA Party out to dry and probably assuring themselves primary opponents next year. But Mitch McConnell got his earmark.

But let’s not forget that we were placed in this situation back in 2009, when Congress began what seems like a never-ending series of continuing resolutions to keep the government going, racking up enough red ink that we would eventually run into our debt limit. (Didn’t we cave on that a couple times before?) Even in that year, at a time when Democrats held both houses of government and could pass anything they wanted, including Obamacare, Congress failed to do its Constitutionally-appointed job of holding the power of the purse.

Yet one has to wonder if this was the plan all along. Does anyone really have any idea what the government spends money on? Consider how many millions it took just to get the failing health exchange websites operational – it sure doesn’t seem like we got much bang for the buck, yet someone has pocketed a crapload of federal cash.

All along, the story with this regime is that its friends made out like bandits but future generations will be left holding the IOUs. Last night’s votes just enriched the bandits a little more.

Clearing the air and getting back to basics

Over the last couple days, a segment of the Maryland Republican Party is scratching its head over the absence of gubernatorial candidate Charles Lollar from several high-profile events: last month’s Andy Harris First District Bull Roast, the Conservative Victory PAC Ken Cuccinelli fundraiser (which was sponsored by several Maryland politicians), the Prince George’s County Lincoln Day Dinner with Lt. Col. Allen West, and most recently the state party’s Oktoberfest gathering in Timonium Saturday night. The conventional wisdom argument is that these were lost opportunities to impress the party brass.

But this may also presuppose Lollar wasn’t out meeting with “regular Joe” voters, and some say a lot of these gatherings would be time better spent knocking on doors or making phone calls. So which is it? I don’t know, but my feeling is that we all need to get back to basics and begin to compare just where each of the three major declared candidates stand on important issues facing the state.

A year and a half before the 2012 Presidential election, I began a process of grading the candidates in the race at the time on a number of issues. I think it’s time to repeat the process, with some different parameters because the issues aren’t always congruent between state and national elections – for example, I don’t have to worry about trade or the Long War but I do have concerns about agricultural issues and necessary changes to the state political system, meanwhile, some issues grow or contract in importance because of recent state developments. But I like the 100-point system so I will adapt it to suit.

So the 2014 monoblogue endorsement will be based on the following formula:

  • Election/campaign finance reform (3 points)
  • Illegal immigration (5 points)
  • Dealing with Obamacare (7 points)
  • Energy policy (8 points)
  • Education (9 points)
  • Second Amendment (11 points)
  • War on Rural Maryland (12 points)
  • Role of government (13 points)
  • Job creation and transportation (14 points)
  • Fiscal conservatism/taxation (15 points)

Once I add or subtract three points for various intangibles of my choosing, I’ll come up with the candidate who I think will best serve Maryland. Granted, my endorsement will only be worth the pixels they’re darkening but at least some thought will be put into why this candidate is the best one for Maryland. (Keep in mind that any of these three would be vastly superior to Anthony Brown, Doug Gansler, Heather Mizeur, or anyone else Democrats put up.) Otherwise, I come in with no preconceived notions with the exception that the other declared GOP candidates in the race don’t have the campaign or the presence to achieve any more than a tiny percentage of the vote so they’re not included; also, this is subject to update if/when Larry Hogan enters the race.

So now that you have the basic concepts, how about some specifics of what I’m getting at for each point? These are questions I may be able to find answers for within the candidates’ own websites, but it’s more likely I need further guidance. I have had the chance to hear all three declared candidates speak on at least two occasions apiece so I might have a decent idea where they’ll go, but it never hurts to ask. With that, here goes:

  • Election/campaign finance reform: Will you aggressively pursue the redistricting revision case in court; if we succeed can we have 141 single-member districts? Where do you stand on current reporting requirements: too tight, too loose, or just right? What about getting after local boards of elections and telling them to clean up their voter rolls?
  • Illegal immigration: Will you take the 287 (g) program used in Frederick County statewide? How about rescinding recent changes to drivers’ license laws in Maryland? And what about in-state tuition – do you revisit this issue? What about withholding a portion of state funds from sanctuary cities? Cooperation with the federal E-Verify program? What about policies allowing status checks such as those in Arizona?
  • Dealing with Obamacare: Do we eliminate the state exchange? Would you pursue a waiver for the state if one becomes available? Are you in favor of defunding or letting the law go into effect and watching it collapse? What steps would you take to encourage more insurance competition in the state? What about returning Medicaid limits to minimum levels?
  • Energy policy: When can we expect fracking to begin in Western Maryland? And what will you do with the renewable portfolio standard? Will you move to re-regulate Maryland’s electrical utilities? Can Martin O’Malley’s offshore wind scheme work? What about offshore oil drilling – is that an option for you? Will you maintain Maryland’s membership in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative?
  • Education: Will Common Core be the law of the land in Maryland, or will you eschew Race to the Top funding? How about school choice, or money following the child regardless of school? How will you protect homeschooling? Instill more local control? What about promoting elected school boards in those counties still without them? Emphasis on vocational education? How do you message against the certain opposition of the teachers’ unions?
  • Second Amendment: Will you work to repeal the so-called Firearms Safety Act? What about concealed carry, and making licenses easier to get? If the federal government gets too onerous, will you fight them? What’s your interpretation of the Second Amendment?
  • War on Rural Maryland: Can we count on you to repeal the Septic Bill and tier mapping? Will nitrogen-removal systems still be required? Will the Hudson family be made whole by the state, since it was with the state’s assistance they were legally harassed? How will you assist the poultry industry in the state and keep them here? What about cleaning up behind the Conowingo Dam and fighting the mandated burden on rural counties, as well as the rain tax on urban ones?
  • Role of Government: Where do you stand on a regulation moratorium, and would you veto new mandates passed through the General Assembly? Are there any agencies you’d work to abolish? What about divestiture of surplus state land? Is a consolidation of primary state government functions in Annapolis on your agenda? Can we count on you to repeal as many laws as you create? Where do you stand on public-private partnerships? Do you support citizen-based petition to referendum for new laws (as opposed to those passed by the General Assembly)? What about the right to recall elected officials?
  • Job creation and transportation: We know you’ll lower the corporate tax rate – what about eliminating it entirely? What about reform of unemployment insurance? What other steps will you take to make it easier to do business in Maryland? As far as infrastructure goes, will you kill the Red Line and Purple Line in favor of more useful means for transporting goods, such as expanding the interstate network in Maryland and surrounding states? Will you hold the line on tolls? What about another Bay crossing – where would you put it? What non-tax code incentives would you offer for rural area job creation? What policies would you adopt from other states?
  • Fiscal conservatism/taxation: Can Marylanders expect a flatter income tax system? How about eliminating it entirely as some states have done? Or would you prefer a sales tax decrease or elimination? Would you agree to a TABOR, or at least a budget utilizing those principles? Can we get per-capita spending closer to the national norm? And how will you deal with the outcry of the press, such as the old “tax cuts for the rich” saw?
  • Intangibles: Positions on abortion, expansion of gambling and/or return to legislative control (as opposed to Constitutional amendment), protection for religious objections to gay marriage, your perception of the TEA Party and pro-liberty movement, and so forth. Mainly social issues.

Yes, that’s a hell of a lot. But somewhere, someone else is asking some of the same questions and if I’m going to make a decision I want it to be informed. And while I’d like to make these issue posts on about a weekly basis, that’s probably a quite aggressive timetable.

But I’m sure that a) people from the respective campaigns read my website, and b) they will bend over backwards for new media. (At least that’s what I’m counting on.) And it’s likely they haven’t even pondered some of these queries, so I don’t expect miracles – but I’ll take them anyhow.

Yet I’m sure that some high-dollar Beltway Republican consultant will tell their candidate that he’d be nuts to get into specifics this far out because all it would provide is fodder for the Democrats and the press (but I repeat myself) to harp upon as the campaign heats up. News flash: they will do that anyway, even if they have to make stuff up (e.g. “a fee is a tax.”) So get it out now and I’ll take those clowns on myself, even as I point out that it’s not like I don’t have a few allies in this fight.

Just let me know you have the balls to stand for something, okay?

One extra seat

I received an amusing pictorial e-mail today from the Democratic National Committee. I guess when you’re targeting low-information voters you need plenty of pictures.

But it shows just what’s at stake in 2014.

Never mind that the poll the Democrats cite (from the left-leaning Public Policy Polling) pits these Republicans against a “generic” Democrat – once an actual candidate is selected the numbers generally go down. It’s also a simple registered voter poll, and may not accurately reflect the electorate in the region. (No one’s ever oversampled Democrats to get a desired result before. </sarc>)

The PPP survey is sort of like the generic ballot polling an outfit like Rasmussen does, where they pit the broad base of Republicans vs. the broad base of Democrats. At this time the numbers are even, which suggests not much will change. (This is particularly surprising given the negative coverage House Republicans have endured throughout the Obama temper tantrum shutdown slowdown.) Bear in mind as well the PPP survey was conducted in the first few days of the Obama/Reid shutdown, before many major developments in the story.

So it’s important to cede no ground to the Democrats. And history isn’t on their side – with the exception of 1998, where Democrats picked up 5 seats, the opposition party to the President has added seats in Congress in every second-term midterm election since 1952. The range was from 5 seats in 1986 (Reagan) to 49 seats in 1958 (Eisenhower) and 1974, the post-Watergate Ford election. 1966 was another watershed year, with incumbent Democrats under Lyndon Johnson losing 47 seats. So Barack Obama would have to buck a historical trend to gain seats, let alone recapture the majority.

Nor has it been considered that the Republicans might pick up some vulnerable Democrat seats as well. Certainly the opponents of Sixth District Congressman John Delaney aren’t taking this lying down. They’re either playing up the trustworthiness angle, like Dan Bongino does in this video:

(By the way, if you look closely you’ll see my cohort Jackie Wellfonder in the video in a couple spots.)

Or they’re hammering the incumbent for turning his back on veterans, like Marine David Vogt:

A conversation about the Affordable Care Act and the harmful effects it is having on the American people is one we need to have. But we can’t have that conversation while our leaders are engaged in a partisan, political playground feud. Each side is guilty, and neither side is leading. Leadership means getting in the conference room and hammering out a solution, not holding a press conference just to call the opposition a new name and to repeat the same talking points that have obviously gotten us nowhere.

Our leaders have forgotten who they are in Washington to represent. Last week, I watched in amazement and disgust as my opponent voted to block funding for veterans’ benefits because he decided politics and standing by his party’s leadership came before service to his constituents and the American people. This is inexcusable.

Washington is supposed to work for us, not against us. These days it often seems that our elected officials do more to work against the American people than they do to help us. We don’t have time for political bickering. We have more pressing issues than each side’s attempt to save face. We need leadership, but it doesn’t appear we are going to get it anytime soon.

Obviously we won’t get new leadership until after the 2014 elections. And while I wouldn’t mind replacing John Boehner as Speaker, I’m hoping we do so with a much more conservative bulldog with TEA Party roots, not the shrill uber-liberal shill Nancy Pelosi. She had her time and set the stage for Barack Obama ruining the country, so let’s send a message to the Democrats and seize the narrative.

Coming up: activism aplenty

As a new school year begins today (for some in our area, including my fiance’s daughter) I think it’s time to ask a lot of hard questions, particularly if you’ve done the research. Not only would it benefit those who happen to attend to hear the questions, but just how they are answered by the public education monopoly at this upcoming forum. (Ours will be in Easton next Tuesday, but others are around the state.)

Obviously it can be a day full of activism for some, as the Exempt America rally is the same day in Washington.

[gview file=”http://monoblogue.us/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/EXEMPT.AMERICA.FLYER_.pdf”]

Still, those who want to participate in both should be able to make the timing work out.

I’ll admit I’m not as attuned to Common Core as I probably should be because we all can’t be experts on everything. But I know a number of people – particularly those with school-aged children – fret about what’s being imparted into those young skulls full of mush, as Rush Limbaugh likes to say. And it doesn’t matter which school your child attends, as the state says it applies to ALL schools. (We will see.)

But in the little bit of reading I’ve done on it from various stakeholders, it sounds like we’re trying to conform to a global standard in reading, English, and mathematics, “in order to be prepared for success in college and the workplace.” Presumably to me that’s in order, making the assumption that a college degree is essential for success but forgetting the market dictates the number and types of jobs needed; it’s not based on the number of people with particular in vogue and politically correct college degrees. If I need an engineer I’m not hiring someone with a Womyn’s Studies degree no matter how much academic expertise she has in that field.

Another intriguing piece of the puzzle came from the NEA, which is among the largest teacher’s unions. Of course, they are all for Common Core, saying that it “has the potential to provide teachers with far more manageable curriculum goals.” Manageable for who? The teacher? It sounds to me like they’re shooting for the minimum amount of effort here.

On the other hand, opponents also bring up some interesting facts. Did you know Common Core is licensed? It seems to me that sort of takes away the freedom of local institutions to come up with their own interpretations which work best. But the real goal, of which Common Core is a part, seems to be in a report which came out earlier this year called For Each and Every Child: A Strategy for Education Equity and Excellence, which bemoans, among other things:

Our education system is a diffuse amalgamation of 100,000 public schools of varying types operated by countless state and local school boards in 15,000 school districts and 50 states, subject to state and local political shifts and economic volatility.

Hint: that’s called “local control.” Nearly all of their so-called “solutions” involve more federal involvement in our daily lives – Common Core addresses a portion of the second bullet point regarding teachers, principals, and curricula.

Moreover, one would think that the idea would be to emulate the outcomes where we find the most success, but unfortunately those tend to be worked out at the local level in places which aren’t as politically correct or controllable, such as Christian schools or homeschooling. Talk about school choice to this group and you might bring on a collective heart attack.

So perhaps the best question to ask is how Common Core will emulate these successes we see on a daily basis outside the public school environment. I’ll bet they can’t come up with a compelling answer.

In print: Republican activities, a well-kept secret, can benefit the entire state

Today my op-ed for the Salisbury Daily Times was published as part of their “Point & Counterpoint” series, with the topic: “What’s at stake in Maryland’s 2014 midterm elections?”

This piece is the “as submitted” version, which differs slightly from the actual print run and internet edition available at the paper’s website.

**********

While we are still months away from knowing who the nominees will be for Maryland’s state and local elective offices, one thing which is becoming more and more apparent with each passing day is that the key issue on the ballot will be a stark choice.

With the exception of one term of Bob Ehrlich, the Republican governor who presided over a sound Maryland economy and was defeated for re-election despite positive approval ratings, the Democratic Party has held each of the three statewide elected offices and control of the General Assembly for decades. They’d be the first to tell you that this phenomenon is due to voter satisfaction, but we contend instead that the reason is the perception – reinforced by Democrat-friendly media outlets in the state – that the Republicans have nothing to offer and are a weak, ineffective opposition party.

So what they don’t tell you is that Republicans have, for the last several years, annually put up an alternative budget in the General Assembly – one which holds the line on excessive spending and returns money to the pockets of hard-working Marylanders regardless of their party affiliation.

It’s been a well-kept secret that instead of amassing all state power in Annapolis and making the state itself prostrate to the whims of inside-the-Beltway bureaucrats who tell the state how high to jump, Republicans fought for the interests of counties and of rural Maryland – the state’s breadbasket. But measures to repeal the state’s onerous 2012 septic bill were haughtily dismissed this spring in Democratic-controlled committees; meanwhile, our right to own a handgun was severely curtailed by tone-deaf members of the majority despite the pleas of hundreds from all parties who signed up to testify on behalf of the Second Amendment.

This cavalier Democratic attitude of know-it-all superiority even extends to the voting process, as state law dictates their candidates will be listed first on the ballot.

Just because Republicans haven’t had the opportunity to govern in this state with control of the state’s General Assembly and statewide offices doesn’t mean they won’t be able to do what’s right for the state in key areas such as job creation and education. Instead of the stagnation of the last eight years and legislative rot stretching back decades, Maryland can turn a new page and join other successful states where Republicans have control.

It only takes one vote: yours.

**********

The key difference in the print version was combining the final sentence with the preceding paragraph, which made it lose its punch somewhat. (Mark Bowen, my Democratic opponent, got his concluding sentence to stand by itself.) They also butchered the last sentence of the penultimate paragraph in that version, leaving it hanging a little bit. Hence the need to set the story straight, sort of like the “director’s cut” of a movie.

But it’s interesting how Bowen and I interpreted the question in different ways. When I received the invitation to write this piece, I was told the subject would be Maryland’s 2014 midterm elections, so I looked at it on statewide level. Obviously Bowen chose to approach this from a national perspective as he discussed Obamacare and the prospect of electing “right-wing extremists.” (I happen to think we need about 300 more of them in Congress so maybe we can get a body which will properly assist in running this nation.) He really didn’t address the state situation at all, which leads me to believe they think things are in the bag here. I’m all for shocking the world on that one.

It’s unfortunate, but I didn’t save my original draft. I had to cut it under 400 words so I had to leave a couple subjects on the cutting room floor. I would have liked to point out the 40 tax increases enacted under our current regime but decided the idea of the alternative budget was a better way of looking forward. The key element of my argument was showing how out-of-touch the current administration in Annapolis truly is, yet it only takes one vote to change it.

So what do you think? Did I mop the floor with Mark Bowen? I encourage you to leave the Facebook comments and let the online Daily Times readers know that the state is truly ready for a change.

Two for one?

It’s rare that you hear much from a lieutenant governor candidate and rarer still that the person talks about policy.

But in keeping with the theme that Jeannie Haddaway-Riccio would be ready to assume the governorship on a moment’s notice, she was entrusted with making a statement on Maryland’s health exchanges.

Under the O’Malley-Brown Administration, implementing the new health care law is more about politics, marketing and spin than improving people’s lives. The Administration wants everyone to believe that somehow Obamacare is free, as if grants magically appear that nobody has to pay for.  They even said no state funds would be used to launch the exchange, which we later learned was not true.

If the new health care exchange is so great, then it should not take $24 million in marketing and technical assistance for people to use it. And make no mistake, this so-called ‘outreach’ is targeted towards their political base.  It’s also strange that the O’Malley – Brown Administration takes credit for creating 300 marketing temp jobs funded by our own tax dollars.  Government-run health care is bringing us an 83% healthcare tax. That won’t be in the glossy brochures, because it’s a fact.

Worth noting is the state’s $24 million tab, which supposedly created 300 new jobs for the “navigators.” $80,000 per job is actually pretty cheap for the state, but don’t worry – I’m sure it will bust its budget before the fiscal year is out. (Locally, we will be “served” by the Worcester County Health Department. We only rated 17 jobs in “outreach, education, eligibility determination and enrollment services particularly to hard-to-reach populations.”)

Of course, the question is what happens next year, and the next, as the program becomes even more entrenched. Do the workers get to unionize? Will they actually receive benefits? (Many of these jobs are wage-only.) There are a lot of unanswered questions.

But the more important point to this article is the fact that the statement was put out by the lieutenant governor candidate. I don’t recall Bob Ehrlich giving Mary Kane or Kristen Cox much to say on the campaign trail; granted, he was already in office when Cox was selected and a fairly known quantity when he picked Kane.

It reminds me somewhat of the saying about Bill Clinton’s 1992 run with “the smartest woman in the world.” Forget Al Gore, the real brains behind the operation would be Hillary, said the pundits. Of course, Craig and Haddaway-Riccio are married, but not to each other. They’ll only be joined at the hip for the next 10 to 15 months on the campaign trail. (It would be interesting to see how Haddaway-Riccio and Ken Ulman would fare in a debate.)

So the selection by the other GOP candidates becomes more important, because David Craig has upped the ante a little bit with this statement. That’s not to say there aren’t other great people for the job out there, but the others should choose wisely.

Ceding the field

I can’t really say I predicted this, since I more or less just added a quick dose of my opinion to a post the other night by stating the obvious: “rates will either have to increase, or insurers will cede the field. Neither is a good choice, but that’s where we are going.”

But reports yesterday stated that Aetna, a leading Maryland health insurer, is indeed pulling out as it was denied the rate increase needed to stay profitable in Maryland given the uncertainty of the state’s insurance situation. While those who hold policies through Aetna may be able to continue on, a significant portion will have to shop in the newly-created state exchange at a time when rates are much more expensive – up to 83 percent, according to a release put out by gubernatorial hopeful David Craig:

Craig announced today that Marylanders can expect a dramatic increase in health care insurance premiums under Obamacare, calling it a “massive new tax.” Maryland’s least expensive Obamacare plan will be 83% higher than the lowest-cost plan sold in the state this year. The analysis comes from a Government Accountability Office report that compares rates this year to what the Maryland Insurance Administration announced they will be under the new state exchange scheduled to launch October 1.

The state’s insurance agency locked down rates with private carriers last month and the new exchange for individuals is marketed as the “Maryland Health Connection.”

“What we have here is Maryland’s health disconnection,” said Craig. “This entire contraption will fall apart unless untold thousands of healthy people inexplicably decide to go online and buy expensive insurance instead of making a car payment. Private insurance carriers are not participating and not enough healthy, working people will either, and this is not going to work.”

Craig also commented on the Aetna situation.

It is deeply troubling that Maryland has yet again soured relations with major employers and job creators. Another company acquires one of Maryland’s last remaining Fortune 500 companies and takes their business elsewhere because regulators tell them what to charge. This irony is lost only on the one-party political machine in Annapolis.

Fellow gubernatorial candidate Ron George also weighed in:

This insurance exchange is already resulting in expensive rate increases for cash-strapped Maryland families. Maryland currently has one of the lowest discretionary income rates in the country, and this exchange will take more money away from your family vacation, school funds and holidays.

Noting that the exchange, which is supposed to increase competition, is comprised of just seven companies owned by only four separate entities, George went on:

This is a classic example of the Democratic machine in Annapolis picking winners and losers based on political relationships instead of free market realities. Additionally, the higher costs to businesses will lead to less job creation. Also, many physicians are now considering earlier retirement.

Perhaps the biggest problem with the exchanges is the broad coverage they have to provide. Marc Kilmer of the Maryland Public Policy Institute illustrates this well in a recent Baltimore Sun op-ed, pointing out that:

To be fair, the lowest-cost plans for sale today are not the same as the lowest-cost plans that will be sold in the exchange. The exchange plans will be much more comprehensive. Many of the cheapest health insurance plans available for sale in the individual market today have high deductibles and may not cover as many situations as do the other plans. But that’s not a bad thing — it gives Marylanders choices in prices and in how much risk they’re willing to carry themselves or put on the insurer. For most Marylanders, the cheaper plans are excellent choices, but for some Marylanders they’re not.

Currently, you can also buy both the cheap plans and the comprehensive plans in the individual market. But you won’t have the choice to buy high-deductible, low-cost plans in the exchange. You have to buy a plan that is designed by bureaucrats and politicians in Washington and Annapolis.

These plans basically come as a one-size-fits-all, take it or leave it proposition with a limited variety of choices – remember, there are only seven approved players in the game, and just four if you consider just the separate entities. Vanilla, chocolate, strawberry, and butter pecan might be great for most, but if you prefer cookie dough like I do you’re out of luck.

And what happens when the exchanges only have six insurers? Or three? Unless new entries can figure out a way to make a profit, they’re not going to get into the game. Perhaps they can build wind turbines on the side to gain the state’s favor?

The point is our system was flawed, but the solution is equally (if not more) flawed because of the heavy hand of government. Why not come up with some true free-market solutions – for one, allowing insurance to be sold across state lines so we can buy a policy out of a state with fewer mandates – and let the market dictate its direction? Not in Martin O’Malley’s and Anthony Brown’s Maryland.

The top 8 list

There’s not a whole lot I can add to this except comment on the unique aspect of the presentation.

But the Club for Growth recently came up with a list of talking points advocating the defunding of Obamacare. In and of itself, that’s not unique, but the facts are presented as a cutout card suitable for inclusion in “your wallet, purse, pants pocket, etc.”

Yet in theory, this could be something passed out by like-minded groups at your typical county fair, festival, gathering, or the like. All someone has to do is make up enough copies to distribute.

Each and every one of these is pretty valid in and of itself, but taken as an octet they are quite compelling.

Meanwhile, the state of Maryland is trying to blow sunshine up the skirts of unsuspecting residents by claiming our insurance premiums under Obamacare will be lower than most states and most previously uninsured will qualify for tax credits to make up the difference. (Nice income redistribution if you can get it.)

Yet the study has some glaring weaknesses; for example, only a handful of states are included. Delaware, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia aren’t among them, so we don’t know if our closest peer states are getting a better deal. With the exception of Ohio and Virginia, the states involved are similar to Maryland in that their exchanges are state-based.

The Maryland Health Connection study – in essence, the state government studying itself – also crows about how the state’s Insurance Commissioner reduced the rate increases sought by insurers by up to 50 percent. In other words, they once again made it more difficult to do business in Maryland as insurers will soon find the state unprofitable.

Let’s face facts: the state is doing this for one reason and one reason only: to convince young and healthy individuals they need to buy insurance rather than pay the tax penalty. Good luck with that, especially at $1,368 a year.

It seems to me that rates would go down if the state would eliminate its mandates for basic coverage, but every advocacy group under the sun would bitch and complain that their pet disease is being slighted. So rates will either have to increase, or insurers will cede the field. Neither is a good choice, but that’s where we are going; meanwhile, those who qualify for the subsidies won’t see the end effects because the money won’t come from their pockets directly, or if it does they’ll just get a larger tax refund and believe they’re hosing the government when the joke is on them.

It’s a brave new world out there, and I get the feeling Obamacare will be every bit the predicted “trainwreck” and more unless it’s defunded.

It’s not hypocrisy, it’s just time for a change

Here’s the problem with running against a freshman legislator: he’s not always responsible for the messes put in place by members of his own party. Congressional candidate Dan Bongino can’t pin a vote for Obamacare on his Democratic opponent John Delaney because Delaney wasn’t there in 2010. Perhaps John was cheering them on, but there’s nothing there which says Delaney voted for it – although there is a vote he made this year against the measure’s repeal, which passed the House with a unanimous GOP and two Democrats supporting repeal. That’s actually true to Delaney’s campaign promise, although it’s unclear how he proposes to reconcile the second part:

I will fight attempts to repeal this landmark legislation, but I believe it is necessary to refine the ACA to create a framework that will lower long-term costs.

Um, Congressman, that would probably involve repeal. And by the way, health care is NOT a right.

On the other hand I’m not going to hold my breath waiting for this:


How many days will it be to the 2014 election? That will be Dan’s count.

To that end, Bongino stepped up the pressure in a release yesterday announcing Delaney’s “stunning act of political hypocrisy”:

In a stunning act of political hypocrisy, Rep. John Delaney now supports legislation that seeks to prevent political targeting from the IRS, but he remains unwilling to withdraw his support for Obamacare, which uses the IRS to target the American people through higher taxes, fines, and penalties.

Obamacare is failing because of one inescapable economic truth: cost and quality can only be effectively controlled when individuals in the marketplace control the system, not government bureaucrats.

I challenge John Delaney to immediately withdraw his support for Obamacare because it is hurting working families and small businesses in District 6. Delaney has voted with Nancy Pelosi and President Obama over 90 percent of the time. But it is time to put the people of District 6 ahead of party politics.

I will have to challenge one statistic Bongino uses, as practically any Congressman outside of a Ron Paul clone will vote with the opposition well over 50 percent of the time. A large percentage of the votes are unanimous or with token opposition, and that ratchets up the total for everyone.

On balance, though, Bongino makes a sound point. One thing he’ll have to use is whatever media he can get to counteract the full-court press by Barack Obama to get younger and healthier people to sign up for Obamacare as those kids are the largest factor in “bending the cost curve” so they’ll be enticed, whether through the schools, the libraries, or just the media cheerleaders in his corner, to sign up. (NFL cheerleaders are a different story, though, as the league rebuffed the advances of HHS head Kathleen Sebelius.) Regardless, he’s depending on the young to subsidize the old, just like many other entitlements we’re now saddled with.

Moreover, the trick for Dan will be to come up with something better that can’t be demagogued by Delaney and used to scare low-information voters into believing the end is nigh with a Bongino election. As an example, Democrats for decades used to scare seniors into thinking Republicans would take away their Social Security check, despite the lack of actual legislation to do so. While the idea of cancelling Obamacare may not be such a tough sell with voters, the system indeed needs some reforms aimed at curbing the spiraling costs. (In my view, getting  the government out of health care entirely would work well to that effect. Just like anywhere else, those in the health care provider system can’t resist a huge pot of “free” government money.)

Yet I’m not sure this will be the hot topic come the fall of 2014. To draw a parallel, in the summer of 2008 we were screaming about high energy prices but an economic calamity has a way of making people sit up and take notice. No one cared about gas prices (which, by the way, had retreated far off their summertime highs) by the time the election was held – instead, we were on the verge of “abandon(ing) free-market principles to save the free-market system.” Obamacare could be an expensive sideshow by then, considering the President is now arbitrarily pushing back the deadline for business compliance to after those midterm elections.

Long story short – sixteen months is three eternities in politics. So while this is good publicity for Dan, I’m sure he’s also working on more specific ideas for the debates with both his GOP challengers and Delaney himself, assuming John doesn’t lose to a more liberal opponent in the Democratic primary.

Fostering dependence

While many are attending a barbecue with family and friends or watching a fireworks show, there are big goings-on afoot in the world. I could have wrote on the demise of the Obama-backed Morsi government in Egypt, but that nation’s unrest isn’t a large threat to our livelihood just yet.

Instead, the news item I found interesting was the decision by Barack Obama to push the much-ballyhooed employer mandate back 12 months, from the beginning of 2014 to January, 2015. There’s all sorts of spin on this from the mainstream media (like the Washington Post, for example) but the timing of this is suspicious at best, as it occurs just six months before the original deadline. It’s intriguing how we now talk about the slowing down the rush, such as these two paragraphs from the Post piece by Dan Balz:

“This gives businesses some breathing room to figure it all out and not have to be rushed,” Democratic pollster John Anzalone said in an e-mail. He said he did not see it as a political decision, but added, “To be quite honest, whether it was implemented in 2014 or not, the Republicans are going to use the same rhetoric on Obamacare to attack Dems in congressional races [next year].”

And also…

Another administration official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to talk candidly, said the action was not a reflection of the administration’s inability to implement the law, but rather its concern about getting this right rather than getting it done quickly.

So let me see if I have this straight. In 2010, we had to rush and pass the Senate version of the bill to see what was in it in the first place, all because the fragile coalition of Democrats was broken when Scott Brown was elected. Now there’s absolutely no hurry to put this employer mandate into place, even though American companies have wasted the last three-plus years dealing with strategies on how to cope with it. I really don’t see them running out and hiring millions of people based on a one-year reprieve from the proverbial firing squad of an employer mandate.

I know the real reason it was punted, though, and it’s called the 2014 elections. Forget taking over the House – surely Democrats are more worried about losing the Senate majority because they have a lot more seats to defend than the GOP does.

If the employer mandate was set in stone, chances are unemployment would reverse course and ratchet skyward, despite the administration’s best efforts at keeping the number low by tossing out long-term unemployed. If unemployment is 10 percent in an off-year election, you wouldn’t have enough Democrats remaining in Congress to occupy a phone booth, let alone run the Senate. (I say this with a caveat, though: there’s a reason Republicans are sometimes known as the stupid party – they have time and again snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.)

But if the impact is pushed beyond 2014 and Democrats manage to take back the House to go with the Senate, Republicans may be doomed to go the way of the Whigs. You’ll see expanded amnesty, more needless climate change regulation, the undermining of the Second Amendment – oh, and a faster push toward a single-payer health care system. This scenario is far more likely with a 2015 employer mandate.

If all this happens, we may just as well all be handed “dependence” cards, since surely the government will have one with our names on it. We’ll need that in order to be “put on the list,” waiting for months to secure our “free” health care. And if someone dies while waiting, well, chances are they were a conservative old fogey anyway. But if you’re a woman who wants her abortion six months into pregnancy, there will be no line for you. Step right up and have your fetus butchered while you wait.

Unfortunately, we already have too much government control of our affairs. After all, look at all employers have invested to prepare based on a government decision at the expense of actual tasks which can build market share or improve a product or process. That’s the sort of red tape which needs to be eliminated – stat!