Connect with us


Support Graham-Cassidy, because of the sparrows and the chickens



Sparrows and chickens

In 1958, Mao Zedong decided to free China from all disease by destroying the “four pests.” Mosquitoes, rodents, flies and the dreaded harbinger of death: the sparrow. He believed sparrows were responsible for low crop production since they could be seen eating grain seed. Over the next four years, Chinese peasants eradicated something like 600 million sparrows by banging drums all hours of the day, denying the birds a perch until they died of exhaustion. Mao didn’t realize that gain seed was only a small part of the sparrows’ diet, mostly they ate insects. Massive locust swarms plagued China for years, resulting in famine and millions starved to death.

In 1963, President Lyndon Johnson imposed a 25 percent tariff on potato starch, dextrin, brandy, and light trucks. He did this to punish France and West Germany for their protective tariffs on U.S. chicken. Over the years, everything but the light truck tariff went away, resulting in American manufacturer hegemony, high prices, and for decades nearly zero innovation among pickup trucks. Now that most quote-American-unquote brands are actually made elsewhere, Ford Motor Co. imports its Transit Connect as “passenger vehicles” from Turkey, shreds the interiors and rear seats in Baltimore, then magically turns the vehicles into light trucks.

The Cassidy-Graham plan to morph Obamacare into a state Medicaid block grant program is less terrible than Obamacare because it is not designed to be a perfectly engineered system. The law of unintended consequences will act much more quickly, and Obamacare will actually run as it was intended, and therefore fail faster, but not all at once. Therefore, we must support it, as imperfect as it is. We’ve tried all the other more well-thought-out government rollbacks, and failed politically. Therefore the sparrows must die, and the chickens must be taxed to find out what happens.

The perfect system

Obamacare was constructed to be a perfect national insurance market if all states participated in the exchanges. It guaranteed that every family would receive a minimum slate of health benefits, no matter what their position or economic situation. Everyone had to have insurance. By shifting the expense to employer-run plans to pay for the huge expansion in Medicaid, Obamacare was the precursor of single-payer, where the states were supposed to set up their own exchanges and run the program. But when October 2013 rolled around only 16 states had done so, leaving the federal exchange overwhelmed.

By 2016, 19 states had not implemented Medicaid expansions. From Slate–this is definitely the liberal spin, but it highlights the way the Obamacare system had to fail unless everyone went along perfectly, which they did not.

How states have sabotaged Obamacare – Slate. governments may have undermined their insurance markets in other, less overtly political ways. The majority have allowed their residents to hold onto so-called grandmothered or transitional plans that they purchased after the Affordable Care Act was passed but before opened for business. That means people who were healthy enough to obtain affordable insurance back when carriers could discriminate against people with pre-existing conditions have been allowed to stay off the exchanges, leaving insurers with a sicker customer base.

How big a difference did that make? The Kaiser Family Foundation recently looked at this issue by comparing risk scores, which measure how unhealthy the enrollees in health plans are, across different states. They found risk scores were 8 percent lower in states that had expanded Medicaid and banned transitional insurance plans compared with states that had done neither. In states that expanded Medicaid but didn’t ban transitional plans, scores were just 3 percent lower. Now, letting people keep their old insurance isn’t an act of political protest the same way turning down the Medicaid expansion is, since the feds have allowed it. Nonetheless, states that fully implemented Obamacare as it was imagined seem to have more balanced individual insurance markets. (One silver lining here: All Americans will have to relinquish their grandmothered plans after next year, so we can expect some additional healthy customers on the exchanges.)

To be clear, these are not the only reasons why some states are seeing higher prices and less stable markets than others. Some parts of the country, especially the Deep South and Appalachia, are simply older and sicker than others, and would likely face higher insurance costs no matter what in a system like the Affordable Care Act. Unfortunately, those same states have often fought hardest against properly implementing the law, making a troubled situation worse.

Anti-competitive Obamacare

The goal of Obamacare wasn’t for insureds to have the lowest possible premium. It was for the maximum number of people to have a certain level of coverage, the key word being coverage. Coverage doesn’t guarantee you’ll get the actual services covered. It’s like having one of those school-issued discount cards sponsored by businesses around town. You can eat at Joe’s sub shop, but Jimmy Johns isn’t on the card. And if Joe’s closes, you pay full price at Jimmy John’s. And the food at Joe’s isn’t all that good, and Joe sold the shop and the new owner decided he didn’t want to give the discount. It’s like that with Medicaid.

Unless every supplier of health care, ever practitioner, was barred from posting a sign “Medicaid not accepted here” and forced to take every form of insurance and accept whatever the carrier decided to pay, there’s absolutely no way to guarantee that people actually receive the health care they’re supposedly covered for.

What the Slate article fails to disclose is that many plan premiums went up by double-digit percentages, and many insurers withdrew from exchanges or states when they realized they had to lose money because of the risk pool and could not limit those losses. Some places in the more rural states only have one choice for insurance.

Any system designed to be anti-competitive will fail because the law of unintended consequences will force people to look for other ways to achieve their personal goals. The goals of families and individuals are low cost health care, not a card declaring “you’re covered.” If that means going to the emergency room for a fever and receiving indigent care, that’s what they’ll do. And they did.


One of the most pernicious problems with Obamacare is the growth of opioid addiction epidemics. Doctors who accepted Medicaid in states that successfully implemented the Medicaid expansion became pill mills as people lined up for their fixes, or to sell the pills on the market. This happened under the noses of regulators and drug manufacturers. Distributors gladly filled the orders. Up and down the line, people should be in jail for this failure of conscience and carpetbaggery.

The Opioid Crisis Got WORSE Thanks To Obamacare | Aaron Bandler, Daily Wire ACA states,too, the counties that decreased the percentage of uninsured the most also had the largest increases in overdose rates. 

Across age cohorts, states with full ACA implementation had a jump upward in overdoses, while holdout states stabilized. 

This isn’t simply a matter of “blue” ACA expansion states being poorer or being in worse economic shape in 2010: they weren’t. 

An exclusive review of Medicaid prescription drug data found oxycodone painkillers flooded into New York from 2012 to 2014, including 8.8 million pills in Westchester, Rockland and Putnam counties alone, enough for six pain pills for every man, woman and child in the Lower Hudson Valley.

The Daily Wire’s Frank Camp has explained how the opioid crisis is directly tied to unnecessary opioid prescriptions. The evidence does suggest that Obamacare’s intentions to get more people insured has had the unfortunate side effect of creating a pipeline for people to obtain such prescriptions that are fueling the crisis.

Burn it all down

By converting Obamacare to a state Medicaid block grant system as Cassidy-Graham will do, every state will line up to expand its Medicaid program. They’ll gladly eat at the trough of Uncle Sugar, and by getting rid of the individual mandate, many who were paying unaffordable rates or simply didn’t want insurance will drop out of the market.

The rest of the people will have to find a way to lower their health care costs, or they’ll be screwed. This is the scenario Daniel Horowitz paints so clearly.

How we can salvage free market health care out of the wreckage of Obamacare, and that is the point! If we can’t repeal Obamacare, let’s allow the malignancy of Obamacare to destroy the existing model of insurance, which was never a free market to begin with. When we allow individuals and employers to exit the system, the cartel will no longer have us by the neck. You see, the more they raise their prices, the more people will just give up on insurance. Employers will drop coverage like a hot potato as well. In fact, the coverage regulations forcing insurers to cover people after they get sick for the same price works to our advantage under this scenario, because people will readily leave the system and then stick the system with the tab when they need the coverage.

In the meantime, as we have explored in previous posts (here and here), health-sharing ministries have shown an alternative model to the existing insurance paradigm. Graham and Cassidy are wrong about prices coming down under their bill. The continued higher prices, in conjunction with allowing people to opt out, will create a market for health-sharing association plans in which groups of individuals and associations get together and pool their resources to cover catastrophic needs. The basic needs would be paid for directly by the consumer to the doctor.

This is how any market should work. This will make the consumer, not the government/insurance cartel, the actual consumer. This will spawn a revolution in price transparency and actually bring down costs by circumventing the entire insurance system.

By way of personal disclosure, I have been a member of Medi-Share (a health-sharing ministry that’s exempt from Obamacare) for two years. I pay about half what my friends pay–and their employers contribute to their plans, so I assume I’m paying about 1/3 to 1/4 of their actual premium. However, just about all of my medical expenses are out of pocket. I haven’t met my “annual household portion” (in insurance-speak, my deductible) in two years. I do, however, get the advantage of “in-network” pricing. I also get perks like TeleDoc, a free telemedicine service where a real doctor can diagnose common problems, prescribe medicine, and give advice. We’ve saved hundreds and hundreds of dollars using this service.

I agree that the current system deserves to be burned to the ground, but it won’t happen.

Cronyism wins

The main sources of unintended consequences are not consumer behavior. Consumers react to the market but they don’t make the market, unless you’re banking on pet rock fads, which are unpredictable by nature. What makes the market are the producers of a product or service. In health care, everyone is a consumer–even doctors.

To get the most consumers, and make money doing it, capitalist insurance companies will find a way to carve themselves a piece of the most lucrative markets. At first, they all supported Obamacare because they smelled money, and many make it hand over fist in the markets where they compete, since they’re allowed to pull out where they don’t make money. Watch them lobby state legislatures and Congress to tweak coverages and products to their liking, and block the growth of medical sharing associations, direct to consumer health care markets, and other innovations. You’ll hear them say it’s “against consumer interest” and slam quality standards.

They’ll paint themselves as the avatars and ombudsmen protecting the little guy from predatory doctors trying to make a buck. Why do you think alternative medicine and chiropractic have so much trouble? Don’t underestimate the power of large corporate hospital administrators, doctors who control licensing boards and wield immense political power at the state level, drug manufacturers and insurance companies who make enormous back room deals with all of them to control the market for health care.

Like Ford finding a way to call a Transit Connect a passenger vehicle, the consigliere of our health market will find a way to package Obamacare-the-state-run-version as something else.

Cronyism wins. But that’s not really a bad thing. In fact, I’m rather counting on it.

The great experiment

The biggest market limiter for health care isn’t insurance coverage, it’s scarcity.

Heath Care Reform No Cure for Scarcity | Kevin D. Williamson, National Review care is scarce: There are only so many doctors and hospital rooms; the pill factories can make only so many pills, and there are real limitations on the raw materials used to make those pills; heart stents don’t grow on trees, but, even if they did, they would be scarce, like apples and oranges and pears and avocados.

We cannot offer the same level of care to everybody with the same condition. They number in the millions, and the doctors who can perform that procedure number about three. (Or, at least they did ten years ago.) Even if they worked 16-hour shifts, seven days a week — even if we pressed them into slavery — they could see only so many patients and perform so many procedures, and those would amount to a tiny fraction of the number of people who might benefit from their attention.

Because of scarcity, medical care eventually reaches the point where one of three things happens: Somebody puts out his hand and says “Pay me,” an officer of the government or an insurance company refuses to approve some treatment, or you die.

Insurance companies say “No” all the time, and we hate them for it. That is because of another fact that we refuse to deal with like mature, responsible adults: Insurance is not a medical product — it is a financial product. Most of us do not need to spend a great deal of money on health care during any given year for most of our lives. I myself pay for most of my medical expenses out-of-pocket, and, in any given year, they rarely add up to what my health-insurance premiums cost. But I do not have health insurance, and pay premiums for that health insurance, in order to have somebody else pay for my annual check-up or routine dental work. I have insurance because I might get hit by a bus or cancer or a heart attack, and, secondarily, because one day I will be old, if I am lucky, and old people have lots of medical expenses.

Do we want the market to say “no” by pricing us out of the particular procedure we can’t afford, or do we want the government to say “no” for us? Insurance companies saying “no” isn’t a hard “no.” It simply means “we won’t pay for that.” Maybe some rich person, or foundation, or charity will decide to pay for it, but the insurance company won’t. When the government becomes the “single-payer” insurance company, generally that turns into a hard “no” because by necessity the government negotiates with all providers to make the health care market (which by nature suffers scarcity).

Hence, you have England, where depending on where you live, the wait for a knee replacement might be a year, or five years. Meanwhile, you suffer. Yes, you can fly to the United States and get it done, if you have the money. But you can’t pay any amount to a U.K. NHS doctor to do it for you at home. A “no” means “no.”

The biggest reason to support Cassidy-Graham is that states act like a great experiment. California doesn’t handle things like Florida. Demographics differ, world views differ, economic status differs and physical climate differs. The greatest opportunity to see how unintended consequences work their way through the system, which states fail and which succeed (or which fail last, depending on your outlook), is to move the money and therefore the cronyism, to the state level.

Compare it to speed limits. In New Jersey, the speed limit on highways is 65. In Hawaii, it’s 60 (why Hawaii has an interstate highway is incomprehensible to me). In South Dakota, Montana and Nevada, it’s 80, and in parts of Texas (God bless’em!) it’s 85. The federal government pays DOT money to all the states, but they all have different laws, fines, and enforcement. This is what Cassidy-Graham will become, albeit a thousand times more complex.

Again, I agree that the current system of health care in America is like buying a car without knowing the sticker price, the features, or the loan value; and in fact the guy buying the exact same car might pay half of what you are about to pay, but you’re not allowed to know it. There’s no transparency, consistency, or even a semblance of consumer-friendliness to it. It was that way before Obamacare sucked the entire diseased mass into Washington, D.C. It cannot get better under political control of the federal government.

Like Mao, we’re just blindly killing sparrows, and that’s going to lead us nowhere good. We need to pass Cassidy-Graham and begin to break the federal stranglehold.

One more reason: Rand Paul

Sen. Rand Paul has offered an amendment that, if adopted, he might swing over to the “Yea” column for Cassidy-Graham. It repeals some of the most egregious trouncing of the Constitution and our personal rights inherent in Obamacare (besides the individual mandate that is).

Rand Paul could restore 257,000 veterans their stolen gun rights amendment would keep the ATF from banning guns for veterans with a PTSD diagnosis. It would also bar insurance companies from inquiring about gun ownership, or using that information to determine coverage eligibility. Finally, Paul’s amendment would roll back the truly Orwellian ACA requirement for doctors to ask patients about gun ownership so that information could be recorded in a federal database. My doctor would get a self-diagnosis of “nunya syndrome.”


The perfect is the enemy of the good. So far, Congress has failed to repeal Obamacare. President Trump has failed to provide vision as to the kind of health care system he really wants–other than it’s not named Obamacare. If we don’t repeal Obamacare with Cassidy-Graham, look for the Democrats to go with single-payer, and Trump very well might support some form of that.

This is really coming down to a binary choice, like the Flight 93 election was in September 2016. Either we break the federal stranglehold on a dying health insurance system that in turn is choking health care providers, shutting down markets, increasing costs across the board, and incentivizing pill mills to spread addiction; or we embrace a national health care system that will bankrupt the treasury and result in stratospheric tax increases along with rationed care. It’s going to be one or the other.

If this year ends with Obamacare intact, we know what will happen, and every Republican in office knows it too.

Cassidy-Graham is the last, best hope for a first step away from the cliff. We need to take it.


Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Brett Kavanaugh punts on Planned Parenthood cases, leaving conservatives baffled



Brett Kavanaugh punts on Planned Parenthood cases leaving conservatives baffled

Conservatives were cheering when Justice Brett Kavanaugh was finally confirmed after a tumultuous process that polarized the nation. Leftists argued that Kavanaugh’s confirmation would be the end for women’s rights to make choices about abortions, among other things, even before the confirmation turned into a high school sexual assault circus.

Instead of hearing arguments in his first major abortion-related case since taking the bench, Kavanaugh sided with Chief Justice John Roberts and the four left-leaning Supreme Court Justices to decline to review it. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch all wanted to hear the case, but it takes four.

According to Thomas, the move was political.

Kavanaugh, Roberts, side with liberal judges on Planned Parenthood case February, the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower court ruling that Kansas was wrong to to end Planned Parenthood’s Medicaid funding, writing that states can’t cut off funding for reasons “unrelated to the provider’s competence and the quality of the healthcare it provides.” Four other appeals courts have ruled that Medicaid patients have the right to access the provider of their choice.

But the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has held that states do have the right to terminate a provider’s Medicaid contract and that residents cannot challenge that decision.

The Supreme Court’s action Monday allows the split decisions to stand in different federal circuits. Thomas, in his dissent, wrote that the Supreme Court should have taken the cases to resolve conflicting findings from lower courts.

“Because of this Court’s inaction, patients in different States — even patients with the same providers — have different rights to challenge their State’s provider decisions,” Thomas wrote.

My Take

Thomas is right. This is the type of case that is ideal for the Supreme Court to resolve the rights of individuals, who are currently bound by different laws in different states. The majority of the time, this isn’t a bad thing. States can and should act differently from one another. However, when it comes to a person’s right to challenge a federal funding, which Medicaid is in part, there needs to be clear direction from the Supreme Court.

As Thomas noted, the reasons for punting on this issue were clear.

“So what explains the court’s refusal to do its job here? I suspect it has something to do with the fact that some respondents in these cases are named ‘Planned Parenthood.’ That makes the Court’s decision particularly troubling, as the question presented has nothing to do with abortion,” Thomas wrote.

This case had nothing to do with abortion, at least not directly. It was about the rights of the people to challenge how their tax dollars were spent, a fundamental right that drills down to the core of our republic. The mere mention of Planned Parenthood, even outside of the abortion issue, was enough to spook Justice Kavanaugh. He joins Chief Justice Roberts and Republicans on Capitol Hill who are so terrified of Planned Parenthood, they refuse to address the issue even at its most basic level.

Continue Reading


Medicare-for-All would cost more than every penny we’ve spent on defense in the country’s history



Medicare-for-All would cost more than every penny weve spent on defense in the countrys history

Math is hard for many Americans. It isn’t just the sad state of our public school system that keeps the people down. It’s politicians like Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez who push lies and pipe dreams that keep many Americans thinking the government has unlimited money and there’s no real difference between millions, billions, and trillions.

There’s a big difference, of course, but leftists will never let the number of zeroes get in the way of promoting their ideological goals. As I posted earlier, even left-leaning news outlets like the Washington Post are calling out Ocasio-Cortez for her false statements about Medicare-for-All.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez earns 4 Pinocchios over bungled defense budget interpretation must have realized when she Tweeted the article that there’s no way “66% of Medicare for All could have been funded already by the Pentagon.” She was certainly playing down to her base in hopes they’d ignore reality and embrace her false notions just because she said it. The Tweet was either a bald-faced lie or she’s an absolute moron. Or both.

Washington Post, which normally supports socialist initiatives recommended by their Democratic puppetmasters, had to call this particular claim out. They gave the claim “4 Pinocchios,” a designation they save for some of the most egregious lies in politics.

It isn’t just about being completely wrong on the Pentagon’s accounting errors. This goes deeper. While fact-checking her claims, PolitiFact decided to do some math of their own. They gathered defense spending data as far back as they could – 1940 – and tallied the totals. Those who understand the difference between millions, billions, and trillions probably won’t be surprised to learn the total spent in that time is under $18 trillion, well short of the $21 trillion Ocasio-Cortez claimed she could have used to pay 2/3 of Medicare-for-All.

The also stipulated that since defense spending was much lower in the past, it’s very likely the total spent since the nation’s inception still couldn’t hit Ocasio-Cortez’ number.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez wrong on scale of Pentagon accounting errors tip-off is the amount of Ocasio-Cortez’s “accounting errors” is far bigger than the actual Pentagon spending from 1998 to 2015, which was $8.5 trillion. In fact, it’s also far bigger than the amount the government has spent on national security since 1940 and, in all likelihood, in the nation’s history.

Here’s a chart we assembled showing national-security spending by the federal government from 1940 to today. Ocasio-Cortez’s $21 trillion estimate exceeds the entirety of national-security spending since 1940, which checks in around $17.8 trillion. And while full data back to 1776 doesn’t exist, prorating backwards for another 164 years would almost certainly not add enough to make the total $21 trillion.

Medicare-for-All is projected to cost $32 trillion over its first 10 years alone.

Bernie Sanders, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and all their mathematically challenged supporters need to hear this information now. If you could somehow take back every dollar spent on defense from the time the nation was formed until today, it still wouldn’t be enough to pay for Medicare-for-All. This isn’t a right-wing conspiracy. This is left-leaning Politifact crunching the numbers.

Continue Reading


Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez earns 4 Pinocchios over bungled defense budget interpretation



Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez earns 4 Pinocchios over bungled defense budget interpretation

Either Congresswoman-elect Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is willfully trying to mislead the people through blatantly false statements or she’s a complete idiot. There’s really no room for anything in between, though both options may exist simultaneously.

Even leftist news outlets are walking away from one of her latest claims about how to pay for Medicare-for-All.

Here’s the Tweet that sparked disapproval from both sides of the political aisle:

As many have pointed out, the $21 trillion in accounting discrepancies at the Pentagon does not represent money that was just sitting there getting wasted while Medicare-for-All languished in mathematical oblivion. The figure referenced represents accounting discrepancies in both directions – money in and money out – as well as transfers between departments within the Pentagon.

Ocasio-Cortez must have realized when she Tweeted the article that there’s no way “66% of Medicare for All could have been funded already by the Pentagon.” She was certainly playing down to her base in hopes they’d ignore reality and embrace her false notions just because she said it. The Tweet was either a bald-faced lie or she’s an absolute moron. Or both.

Washington Post, which normally supports socialist initiatives recommended by their Democratic puppetmasters, had to call this particular claim out. They gave the claim “4 Pinocchios,” a designation they save for some of the most egregious lies in politics.

We can hope and pray an incoming member of the House of Representatives is simply lying to promote her agenda. If she’s not lying, then she’s an idiot, and that might be worse when we consider how many Democrats adore her right now.

Continue Reading
Advertisement Donate to NOQ Report




Copyright © 2018 NOQ Report