November 19-20, 2016
Nov 19 04:18 ACA's expensive policies Nov 19 10:22 Explaining MNsure's enrollment Nov 19 15:35 LFR's 12th Blogiversary Nov 20 00:14 SEIU thieves, Part I Nov 20 05:26 NY Times anti-Sessions rant Nov 20 09:06 AG Sessions frightens Democrats Nov 20 20:32 The first Trump-Schumer fight?
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
ACA's expensive policies
One of the reasons why the ACA is collapsing is because the product is exceptionally expensive. Soon-to-be-former Minnesota State Senator Roger Reinert accidentally highlighted that in this op-ed .
Early in his op-ed, Sen. Reinert wrote "A friend recently shared his story with me. He is a professional in Duluth with a young family. He is self-employed and currently gets insurance through the individual market with no subsidies. His family faces health insurance deductibles and premiums in 2017 of up to $20,000, before they'd see a single dollar of benefit from having coverage. He's considering going without and just paying the penalty."
First, Sen. Reinert's friend should consider himself fortunate. The Buck family, which I wrote about in this post , would consider that insurance policy cheap. Starting on Jan. 1, 2017, the Buck family's "monthly premiums will jump to $3,300 a month with" a $13,000 deductible. That's $40,000 in premiums that they'll pay regardless of whether they use their insurance a single time . Then they'd have to spend another $13,000 in deductibles for a grand total of $53,000. Next, it's worth noting that Minnesotans never experienced that type of sticker shock until the ACA was created.
What financially intelligent person would spend $20,000-$40,000 in insurance premiums, then have to spend another $12,000-$15,000 in deductibles when they can pay a fine of $2,000-$5,000 and the deductible? HINT: This is the structural flaw with the ACA. This can't be fixed. The only way to fix the ACA is to start from scratch. Right now, the 'tinker around the edges party' is the DFL.
Third, Sen. Reinert was one of the DFL politicians who voted for MNsure. It's disgusting that he's saying it's the Republicans' "duty to quickly find a solution" to a crisis he created. This paragraph reeks of dishonesty:
I urge current legislative leadership to call a special session in the coming weeks to craft a short-term solution. I also urge newly elected members to the Minnesota House and Senate to set aside their differences and work together to offer an ongoing solution for Minnesotans paying these high health insurance premiums.
The only person who can call a special session is the governor. Sen. Reinert knows that. It isn't a stretch to think that Sen. Reinert wrote that paragraph to put additional pressure on Republicans now that they're the majority party in the House and Senate.
Republicans don't have all of the solutions. No political party does. What Minnesota Republicans have, though, is a penchant for trying to fix things.
Posted Saturday, November 19, 2016 4:18 AM
Comment 1 by JerryE9 at 19-Nov-16 09:49 AM
What strikes me as odd in this case is that at least the first step in the "fix" is SO simple. Just get rid of MNSURE and the ACA and go back to what we had before, and that would be much better. Then you can put in place some sensible piecemeal reforms as the Republicans have proposed many times, and see costs go DOWN as promised.
Explaining MNsure's enrollment
This Strib article highlights the fast rate that people are signing up for health insurance during this year's open enrollment period. According to the Strib's article, "Shoppers have been scrambling because of enrollment caps that regulators granted most insurers as an emergency measure to help them prevent further financial losses."
This isn't a success story that the DFL should be touting. It's verification that capping the number of policies that each of the insurance carriers would be expected to sell would inevitably lead to some getting stuck with Blue Plus health insurance policies. It's widely known that Blue Plus policies are the most expensive policies with the narrowest networks. Those caps were granted because "as an emergency measure to help them prevent further financial losses."
The system is deeply flawed. The networks in outstate Minnesota are limited. Insurance options are, too. Altogether too often, people are forced out of using the hospitals, doctors and clinics in their cities while using hospitals and clinics 50+ miles away. That's immoral. It's potentially life-threatening, too.
A significant portion of the policies getting sold carry the price tag of a Cadillac plan but the high deductibles of a catastrophic policy. Put differently, people in Minnesota and across the nation are too often paying high prices for little coverage. What's worse is that the Obama administration is forcing families into this situation with the individual mandate.
The system needs to be scrapped ASAP. There are features that should be part of what replaces the ACA. It's entirely possible to phase out the onerous parts of the ACA while phasing in the patient-centric parts of whatever replaces the ACA. Here's hoping that the DFL locally and Democrats in DC don't stand in the way of getting good health care.
Posted Saturday, November 19, 2016 10:22 AM
No comments.
LFR's 12th Blogiversary
Today marks LFR's 12th blogiversary. When I started blogging, social media didn't really exist to any large extent. Twitter wars hadn't started. We certainly didn't have Twitchy chronicling the provocative things people said on Twitter. In fact, Twitter didn't take off until Nancy Pelosi shut down the House of Representatives rather than vote on the Republicans' all-of-the-above energy program. In fact, that's why I wrote this post . John Culberson, a Republican member of the House, used Twitter to get the word out about the Republicans' protest of Pelosi's strong-arm tactics. When Pelosi turned off the microphones, Rep. Culberson started texting people to tell them of Ms. Pelosi's strong-arm tactics. Then he took to Twitter.
I started blogging because the so-called MSM wasn't interested in supplying important information to the people. I hoped that bloggers would create the competition that would force the MSM to start doing their job. Obviously, that hasn't happened. If anything, it's gotten worse. The MSM quickly transformed into the Agenda Media, a phrase I coined years before Rush coined the phrase 'Drive-By Media'. I still think my phrase is a better fit.
LFR's pledge to you is that I'll continue to hold people's feet to the fire. I'll continue writing about institutional corruption, whether it's found at MnSCU headquarters or whether it's when the Dayton administration rigs union organizing elections.
I'm proud that I've helped win several elections, including two State Senate races and one congressional race this year. I'll pledge to keep pressure on the DFL until they fix Minnesota's health care crisis, too. They broke it. Unfortunately, they've refused to fix it. The good news is that Republicans are prepared to fix it. The incoming Trump administration will do its part. Greg Davids, Matt Dean and others will fix what's broken with Minnesota's problems.
During the 2017 session, I hope to expand LFR coverage of the legislative session by taking occasional trips to the Capitol, especially around the deadlines. With Gov. Dayton expecting to dig in his heels, especially on health care, this session will be one of the most eventful sessions in history.
Those trips will cost money so consider this my appeal for sponsorships. If you're interested in sponsoring these trips, contact me by leaving a comment. I will contact you via email. Consider this the official start of my quarterly bleg.
Some things have changed since I started blogging. Over the next year, LFR will be changing, too. Stay tuned for those developments. What hasn't changed is the need to hold politicians' feet to the fire. I'm hoping to do that for another dozen years or more.
Finally, thank you to all of the loyal readers of LFR. I'm proud of the fact that LFR has become one of the legislators' most read news sources.
Originally posted Saturday, November 19, 2016, revised 27-Nov 1:32 AM
No comments.
SEIU thieves, Part I
The thieves wearing SEIU union uniforms, along with their DFL political allies, have stolen money from families. This article highlights how the theft happened.
According to the article, "Recently, the union's stooges in the capital declared some 27,000 of the state's personal-care assistants (PCAs) 'public employees' - but only for purposes of collective bargaining, i.e., so they can be unionized. As a result, the SEIU is siphoning 3% of its members' very modest Medicaid supplement."
Kim Crockett's op-ed explains SEIU's racket, saying "Minnesota's Choice PCA program was created in the 1970s when the Legislature wisely decided it was more humane and more cost-effective to care for persons with disabilities in their own homes rather than in a state institution. The Legislature funds a Medicaid benefit, given to a person with a disability, to pay for PCA care at home. Most often, PCAs are family members or close friends."
First, let's hear SEIU explain how family members taking care of loved ones with disabilities are government employees. Next, let's hear SEIU explain why they deserve a penny of these families' Medicaid benefits. Third, let's hear Gov. Dayton and the DFL legislature of 2013 explain why they sided with the SEIU rather than with families caring for loved ones with disabilities.
PCAs are people who have chosen to be the primary caregiver of a disabled person; in the vast majority of cases, a family member (usually a spouse or child). Some of the disabilities are so severe that the caregiver is unable to work outside the home . And so Minnesota established a PCA program which allows them to receive some Medicaid support.
In the old days, many of the disabled would have been institutionalized in a government-run facility, a system that was costly and scary. The current PCA Medicaid program allows these people to stay at home and be cared for by someone who loves them.
The heartless SEIU thinks it deserves a portion of these families' Medicaid support. Gov. Dayton and the DFL legislators from 2013 agree with the SEIU. What isn't known is why Gov. Dayton and the DFL agree with the SEIU from a policy standpoint. It isn't difficult to figure out why Gov. Dayton and the DFL agree with the heartless bastards in the SEIU from a political standpoint.
When it comes to standing up to heartless special interests, Gov. Dayton and the DFL aren't profiles in courage.
SEIU Healthcare insists that it's helping these PCAs:
Key victories in the contract include workers receiving a paid time off benefit for the first time (five days of paid time off for full-time workers), raising the pay floor from $9 to $11 by 2016, a grievance and arbitration procedure to address wage theft, and a training fund to improve the quality of care they provide to people with disabilities and seniors.
How many parents can take time off when caring for a child with a severe disability? The 'benefit' is mostly a mirage.
Posted Sunday, November 20, 2016 12:14 AM
No comments.
NY Times anti-Sessions rant
This NY Times editorial highlights why the NY Times editorial page isn't taken seriously anymore. For instance, they wrote "Mr. Sessions has been the Senate's most ardent opponent of fixing the immigration system. In 2015 he proposed a five-year mandatory minimum sentence for anyone re-entering the country illegally after being deported. That could increase the federal prison population by as much as 30 percent. As Mr. Trump's chief law enforcer, he is likely to fully support efforts to enlist local law enforcement in a widening dragnet for people without papers. He also, during the campaign, endorsed the idea of a ban on Muslim immigrants."
The horror of that. Sen. Sessions actually thinks that laws should be enforced. What that quote shows is that the NY Times noticed that the Obama administration didn't enforce this nation's immigration laws. It's long past time to enforce the laws already on the books. Further, why wouldn't Sen. Sessions enlist the help of local law enforcement?
As for the NY Times' statement that Sen. Sessions "endorsed the idea of a ban on Muslim immigrants", the reality is that he supports stopping the refugee resettlement program. Sessions' thinking is that it isn't smart letting in people whose identity can't be verified from nations with problems with terrorism.
What's frightening is that the NY Times apparently thinks that enforcing the laws on the books and protecting this nation's citizens against potential terrorist attacks.
Count Mr. Sessions, as well, among those Trump allies calling for a special prosecutor to continue investigating Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation, a decision that, if he is attorney general, would be his to make.
Why shouldn't the Clinton Foundation's pay-for-play practices be investigated? Based on what WikiLeaks exposed, there's certainly justification for investigating the Clintons. Shouldn't the Clintons live by the same rules as everyone else?
We expect today's senators, like their predecessors in 1986, to examine Mr. Sessions' views and record with bipartisan rigor. If they do, it is hard to imagine that they will endorse a man once rejected for a low-level judgeship to safeguard justice for all Americans as attorney general.
I guess this means the NY Times isn't undecided on Sen. Sessions. While that isn't surprising, it is disappointing.
Posted Sunday, November 20, 2016 5:26 AM
Comment 1 by JerryE9 at 20-Nov-16 07:46 AM
The Obama administration did not even enforce the Obamacare laws as written. I don't think they have a moral high horse to sit on. Just some residuals after the horse has gone.
AG Sessions frightens Democrats
Byron York's article on the likely confirmation of Sen. Jeff Sessions as President Trump's Attorney General illustrates why Democrats are legitimately frightened by what Sessions could do without legislative action.
For instance, York writes that "There are laws providing for the deportation of people who entered the U.S. illegally. Laws providing for the deportation of people who entered the U.S. illegally and later committed crimes. Laws for enforcing immigration compliance at the worksite. Laws for immigrants who have illegally overstayed their visas for coming to the United States. Laws requiring local governments to comply with federal immigration law."
That's quite the bargaining chip a Trump administration could use against Democrats. If Senate Democrats filibuster a Trump immigration bill, Sessions could simply start enforcing laws already on the books. That's something Senate Democrats can't prevent. Further, as York highlights, it'd be political suicide for Democrats to fight enforcing laws already on the books.
York also wrote that a Trump administration could force "sanctuary cities to observe the law" because "Attorney General Sessions could enforce an existing law, 8 USC 1373, which prohibits local communities from banning their officials from cooperating with federal immigration authorities."
Democrats would be foolish to be obstructionists on immigration, especially sanctuary cities. Their obstructionism wouldn't help them when a Trump administration reminded people of Kate Steinle or Grant Ronnebeck getting murdered by illegal aliens who had already committed felonies. While people are sympathetic towards breaking up families of illegal aliens, they aren't sympathetic towards cities protecting violent felon aliens.
There's little doubt that Democrats will fight this nomination though there's no doubt that they'll lose this fight.
Posted Sunday, November 20, 2016 9:06 AM
No comments.
The first Trump-Schumer fight?
This morning, I wrote this post highlighting the leverage a Trump administration will have over Democrats on immigration. I quoted Byron York's column, especially citing immigration laws already on the books that can simply be enforced.
By just enforcing the laws on the books, the Trump administration can dramatically cut illegal immigration. While I was writing that post, Sen. Schumer was getting interviewed by Chris Wallace. When the subject of a border wall came up, Schumer took a hardline position , saying "this idea of a wall, we already passed -- John McCain and Chuck Schumer, bipartisan, an immigration bill that was comprehensive, that did a lot and was much tougher on the border than a wall would be."
Wallace jumped in, saying "what he's saying, Senator, is secure the border first, build the wall and then you can start worrying about immigration reform." Sen. Schumer replied "No. Put it all together."
Here's the rest of the exchange:
WALLACE: And if he says wall first?
SCHUMER: We'll say do it all. If we were to just do the wall, we'd never get the rest. It's got to be all together.
Sen. Schumer is playing a weak hand very poorly. If Sen. Schumer opposes the Trump immigration plan, Trump might start tightening the screws on border enforcement, at which point Schumer loses his leverage. That's because the majority of people who want immigration fixed first want the borders fixed.
If Sen. Schumer plays hardball on immigration, which I think special interest organizations like La Raza force him into, Democrats will be on the losing side of the immigration issue. Going into the 2018 midterms, that's a politically difficult position. Picture Democratic senators defending illegal immigration in red states. If you can picture that, then picture most of those Democratic senators losing in 2018, too, because that's what will happen.
A similar fate awaits Sen. Schumer on the ACA:
WALLACE: So, this is a kumbaya moment here we're talking about.
SCHUMER: No, because there are many issues where we'll oppose him tooth and nail. When he goes against our values, goes with special interests. Let me give you three right off the bat.
He's going to try to repeal ACA, he won't be able to do it.
WALLACE: Obamacare.
SCHUMER: Obamacare.
He won't be able to do it, because now even he, after his meeting with President Obama, said, "Oh, I want to keep the good things." Well, you can't keep the good things without keeping ACA.
If Sen. Schumer wants to stand in the way of fixing the ACA, Republicans should welcome that. The skyrocketing premiums are the biggest reason why blue collar workers ditched the Democrats. Democrats defending the ACA status quo is political suicide. If Schumer forces Democrats to filibuster the ACA, that will be the start of Republicans gaining momentum for the 2018 midterms.
Sen. Schumer isn't this stupid. I think he's just trying to sound tough before giving in.
Posted Sunday, November 20, 2016 8:32 PM
Comment 1 by 1986 mistake at 21-Nov-16 10:34 AM
Schumer is trying to fool Americans again as in the 1986 "comprehensive" immigration reform when "everything" was supposed to be done together with border security--3 million illegal aliens got amnesty, but the border was never secured. Thirty years later, illegal aliens are at 12+ million and counting, and Schumer wants to grant amnesty again???
