les pensées insouciantes

Of note:

Boehner: We need to stop writing bills in the speaker’s office and let members of Congress be legislators again. Too often in the House right now we don’t have legislators; we just have voters.  Under Speaker [Nancy] Pelosi, 430 out of the 435 members are just here to vote and raise money. That’s it. That’s not right.  We were each elected to uphold the Constitution and represent 600,000-odd people in our districts.  We need to open this place up, let some air in.  We have nothing to fear from letting the House work its will–nothing to fear from the battle of ideas. That starts with the committees. The result will be more scrutiny and better legislation.

The House is the body closest to people. That’s by design. We’re the … the crucible, the testing ground for new ideas and new policies. And the institutions of the House that have grown up over 200 years of trial and error are the best way to test those ideas and policies. We don’t need five members sitting behind a closed door writing a bill, like they did with the “stimulus” or “Obamacare.”

And:

NJ: If you are speaker, will you ever bring a bill to the floor that hasn’t been true to the three-day rule?

Boehner: No.

In response to the question on how and where to cut spending, I’ve highlighted the following. 

Boehner: I also said in my speech in September at AEI that I think we need to look at breaking up all these massive spending bills –- break them into smaller bills that are more conducive to scrutiny and debate. We said in the pledge that we need to set up a process that makes it easier to cut spending.  In my mind that means, among other things, if a member has an amendment that would cut spending, it should get a vote. Period. 

Think: all-encompassing immigration overhaul vs. sealing the border, path to citizenship, crackdown on employers, etc. as separate efforts. The constituency agrees on large portions of some of these massive proposals, so why not address directly those areas where there is agreement? Progress is made at the margins.

Boehner: I think the current majority has reinforced what I already knew: You can’t run this place, at least not well, by shutting out the American people, shutting out the other party, and even shutting out your own members. You can twist arms and crack heads and cut deals for a while, but it just won’t work in the long term. Let me add, though, that while we obviously have much different views of the world, I have no ill will toward the speaker. She and her staff have been gracious and professional when it comes to our direct dealings. Our differences are significant, but they’re philosophical and operational differences, not personal. 

We’ll see how things shake out next Tuesday.

Republicans should realize that if they don’t hold to their principles this time, they will be cast out by the electorate just as quickly as this current Democratic majority, and potentially for a long while going forward. (Note: That ship may have sailed, too, for the more Leftist wing that has co-opted the leadership of the modern day Democratic Party. They’ve proven they can’t be trusted either).

Of note:

Strike Two: ObamaCare creates strong incentives for employers — even while holding workers financially harmless — to drop employer-sponsored health insurance for as many as 35 million Americans. This is sure to lead to widespread turmoil in labor compensation, employee insurance coverage and labor relations. 

…

Health insurance is generally only one piece of an overall compensation package that employees receive as a result of competitive pressures. Evidence suggests that if the health insurance portion of that package is reduced or eliminated, the wage aspect will ultimately be increased as a competitive necessity to retain and attract valuable labor.

So the key question is whether the employer can keep the employee “happy” — appropriately compensated and insured — and save money. 

The answer is frequently “yes” — thanks to the generosity of federal subsidies. In a study available at the American Action Forum website, we find that for a worker with an income of $59,250 — 250 percent of the federal poverty level — the employer could drop $12,000 in insurance, pay the $2,000 penalty ObamaCare imposes on doing so, give the worker a raise of $8,391 and pocket a tidy $1,550. 

More important, the worker could use her raise and the $7,530 subsidy to purchase insurance as good as what she gave up. 

What’s not to like — as long as the other 138 million taxpayers are financing the deal? 

The potential affect is large. There are now 123 million Americans at or below this income cutoff. Roughly 60 percent of Americans work; about 60 percent of those receive employer-sponsored insurance. This suggests that there are about 43 million workers for whom it may make financial sense to drop insurance. 

In the interest of being conservative, let’s say it is 35-40 million. 

CBO estimated that only 19 million would receive subsidies, at a cost of about $450 billion over the first 10 years. This analysis suggests that the number could easily be triple that — or 19 million plus an additional 38 million in 2014. Meaning the price tag would be $1.4 trillion. 

On top of that, there would be a disruptive and vast reworking of compensation packages, insurance coverage and labor market relations.

Read the full piece here. [via Politico]

Just the bad news:

Some bad news: The cost curve is still bending in the wrong direction.

The study says: “Overall national health expenditures under this bill would increase by an estimated total of $222 billion (0.6 percent) during calendar years 2010-2019.”

The estimated effects of the bill on overall national health expenditures is that the share of GDP is projected to be 20.9 percent in 2019 compared to 20.8 under current law — “primarily as a net result of the substantial expansions in coverage.”

Also: the expansion of Medicaid to an additional 18 million people might be tough to achieve; “it is reasonable to expect that a significant portion of the increased demand for Medicaid would be difficult to meet, particularly over the first few years.”

And, “the additional demand for health services could be difficult to meet initially with existing health provider resources and could lead to price increases, cost-shifting, and/or changes in providers’ willingness to treat patients with low-reimbursement health coverage.”

Additionally, as was CBO, CMS is skeptical that there would be savings from Medicare.

To wit: “Reductions in payment updates to health care providers, based on economy-wide productivity gains, are unlikely to be sustainable on a permanent basis. If these reductions were to prove unworkable within the 10-year period 2010-2019 (as appears probable for significant numbers of hospitals, skilled nursing facilities, and home health agencies), then the actual Medicare savings from these provisions would be less than shown in then memorandum. Similarly, the further reductions in Medicare growth rates mandated for 2015 through 2019 through the Independent Payment Advisory Board may be difficult to achieve in practice.”

The “providers for whom Medicare constitutes a substantive portion of their business could find it difficult to remain profitable and, absent legislative intervention, might end their participation in the program (possibly jeopardizing access to care for beneficiaries).”

Should the bill(s) pass in its current form, I’m going to bookmark this article and add an entry to my calendar 5 and 10 years from today to see if we’re at all on track.

Click through for the rest of the article.

Nearly HALF of 18-to-34-year-olds said “they didn’t understand or understood only somewhat what was being debated.”

No comment.