It is appropriate that the Democratic leadership of the U.S. House of Representatives unveiled their latest attempt at health care reform shortly before Halloween. It has the countenance of a rather sinister looking phantom as it slowly begins to emerge from the mists of back door Congressional deals between special interests, Speaker Pelosi, and the Obama White House.
Even before the fog totally lifts to expose the full form of the legislation, it is obvious that some features that really would work to reign in costs of a new health care system are totally missing. Most obvious—and unsurprising—is the lack of any tort reform measures that would reduce the expensive practice of defensive medicine currently being practiced by medical service providers to reduce their exposure to expensive lawsuits.
The nation’s trial lawyers didn’t even have to work up a sweat to prevent any medical malpractice reform language from entering the House bill. The majority party that relies heavily on contributions from well-heeled plaintiffs attorneys successfully carried out its role as lap dog of the plaintiff’s bar and kept any vestige of tort reform out of the legislation.
Allowing health insurance to be purchased across state lines also failed to be included in the House version of the health care reform legislation. The Pelosi team has continually harped on the need to make sure that there is enough competition in the health insurance marketplace to keep the insurance companies honest.
Unfortunately, they don’t want that competition to be unleashed into the private sector. They prefer to create a public insurance option instead—one that will be directly or indirectly backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government and will have undeniable competitive advantages over the private sector.
What is very clear as the beast emerges from the mists is that Congress’s penchant for playing the taxpayers as fools is alive and well on the Potomac.
Pelosi and Company gleefully proclaimed that the cost for their legislation comes in slightly under $900 million and doesn’t add to the deficit. The validity of that claim was questioned immediately by those who pointed out that the House bill removes the $250 billion doctor and hospital “fix” that would prevent them from being exposed to the drastic Medicare cuts in reimbursement that the current law calls for.
In order to prevent an avalanche of opposition from those providers, the House leadership—in a testimony to cynicism—plans to introduce a separate bill to do the “fix.” The official scorer of the fiscal impact of legislation, the Congressional Budget Office, was not authorized to include the cost of the “fix” in the health care reform legislation since it is not in the health care reform bill. But it will happen and when it does it will result in a further expansion of the huge federal deficit.
Perhaps the most serious flaw—and there are many—in the House bill is the relatively small penalty individuals will have to pay if they do not purchase health insurance. If younger individuals only have to pay a relatively small penalty for not having health insurance, they will take the easy way out and simply pay the penalty. If they get seriously ill, they will then opt in. If the final legislation allows this option, higher premiums for the vast majority of the privately insured are inevitable.
The House bill is ill-conceived and scary. It is a witches’ brew of partisan politics and special interest favoritism. It needs to re-enter the mist and come back in a more fair and affordable form.
Showing posts with label Dan Juneau. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Dan Juneau. Show all posts
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Sunday, November 1, 2009
Lord Action Was Right
The popular 19th century English nobleman, Lord Acton, is perhaps best remembered for the statement: “Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely.” History is littered with public figures that are appropriately described by those words. Considering some of the shenanigans going on with the health care legislation in Washington, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid can certainly be added to the list.
There is no doubt that Reid is in a tough spot. President Obama has stacked up a huge pile of political poker chips, betting on a winning hand on health care reform. He will be harmed politically if he loses, and his fellow Democrats in Congress will feel the collateral damage. But it is not easy to muster the votes necessary to make significant changes to one-sixth of the U.S. economy—as Harry Reid has learned. Adding to Reid’s difficulties is the fact that he has to run for re-election next year, and polling data indicate that he is far from being a shoo-in.
The last thing Reid needs is to be a major factor in passing legislation that will push the crumbling budget of the State of Nevada further into the abyss. One of the central features of the proposed legislation could do just that. It would allow millions of individuals whose income levels currently preclude them from qualifying for Medicaid to meet eligibility requirements for the program. But there is a rub: states must put up a five percent match to help cover the additional costs.
Reid has made no bones about what he plans to do to avoid any political fallout back home. He has stated unequivocally that he will not allow a health care bill to come to the floor if it increases Medicaid costs for Nevada. He seems to be getting his way. The Senate Finance Committee bill would exempt four states—Michigan, Oregon, Rhode Island, and (yes) Nevada—from the requirement to pay the five percent funding match. The alleged justification for making the exception is that those states have been the hardest hit by the recession.
The Senate should rebel against Senator Reid feathering his own nest.
Other states shouldn’t have their budgets savaged by another huge unfunded mandate coming down from Washington while watching Reid and a handful of his cronies grin like bandits counting their loot. If states are going to have to be fiscally penalized to make the numbers work for the health care reform legislation, then all states should have to bear the burden.
The health care reform debate is starting to focus attention on what happens when arrogance meets partisanship. It is almost impossible to pass legislation that will cover all of the uninsured, reduce the overall cost of health insurance, and “not add a dime” to the deficit as President Obama promised. There are going to be winners and losers—and some very big losers—if the legislation passes. The likely losers will be young Americans and healthy policy holders who will have to pay much higher costs to insure or subsidize the elderly, the uninsured, and individuals with health problems or unhealthy life styles.
The main science driving the health care debate at this juncture is political science. After watching the political class making hash out of health care legislation, voters might want to ponder another quote from Lord Acton: “It is easier to find people fit to govern themselves than people to govern others. Every man is the best, the most fit judge of his own advantage.”
Senator Reid is living proof of the wisdom in those words.
There is no doubt that Reid is in a tough spot. President Obama has stacked up a huge pile of political poker chips, betting on a winning hand on health care reform. He will be harmed politically if he loses, and his fellow Democrats in Congress will feel the collateral damage. But it is not easy to muster the votes necessary to make significant changes to one-sixth of the U.S. economy—as Harry Reid has learned. Adding to Reid’s difficulties is the fact that he has to run for re-election next year, and polling data indicate that he is far from being a shoo-in.
The last thing Reid needs is to be a major factor in passing legislation that will push the crumbling budget of the State of Nevada further into the abyss. One of the central features of the proposed legislation could do just that. It would allow millions of individuals whose income levels currently preclude them from qualifying for Medicaid to meet eligibility requirements for the program. But there is a rub: states must put up a five percent match to help cover the additional costs.
Reid has made no bones about what he plans to do to avoid any political fallout back home. He has stated unequivocally that he will not allow a health care bill to come to the floor if it increases Medicaid costs for Nevada. He seems to be getting his way. The Senate Finance Committee bill would exempt four states—Michigan, Oregon, Rhode Island, and (yes) Nevada—from the requirement to pay the five percent funding match. The alleged justification for making the exception is that those states have been the hardest hit by the recession.
The Senate should rebel against Senator Reid feathering his own nest.
Other states shouldn’t have their budgets savaged by another huge unfunded mandate coming down from Washington while watching Reid and a handful of his cronies grin like bandits counting their loot. If states are going to have to be fiscally penalized to make the numbers work for the health care reform legislation, then all states should have to bear the burden.
The health care reform debate is starting to focus attention on what happens when arrogance meets partisanship. It is almost impossible to pass legislation that will cover all of the uninsured, reduce the overall cost of health insurance, and “not add a dime” to the deficit as President Obama promised. There are going to be winners and losers—and some very big losers—if the legislation passes. The likely losers will be young Americans and healthy policy holders who will have to pay much higher costs to insure or subsidize the elderly, the uninsured, and individuals with health problems or unhealthy life styles.
The main science driving the health care debate at this juncture is political science. After watching the political class making hash out of health care legislation, voters might want to ponder another quote from Lord Acton: “It is easier to find people fit to govern themselves than people to govern others. Every man is the best, the most fit judge of his own advantage.”
Senator Reid is living proof of the wisdom in those words.
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Workers Should Have the Right to Vote
There is a bill in the U.S. Senate that would radically alter the process for deciding whether a union will represent you at the bargaining table with your employer. That bill’s sole purpose is to provide unions greater leverage in labor/management relations.
And while the health care issue has understandably dominated the public’s attention, you should keep an eye on this issue, too.
Lately, the debate over health care has pushed virtually everything else in Congress to the back burners. Nevertheless, unions and their allies in Congress want to force a vote on their bill. Last week, Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee chairman, Sen. Tom Harkin (D – Iowa), said that he was still hoping to bring the bill up for a vote this fall. However, the unions have to clear a significant hurdle first. They must secure 60 votes from among the country’s 100 senators to avoid a guaranteed filibuster by opponents.
All 40 Republican senators are against this bill, which means that all 60 Democratic senators are needed to invoke cloture to prevent the filibuster. While most of the Democrats would vote to do this, a number of moderate Democratic senators have not signed onto this bill, including Louisiana’s Sen. Mary Landrieu.
Her reluctance is understandable–and commendable. S. 560 was named the Employee Free Choice Act by its authors, but it is more commonly referred to as “card check” because it would essentially eliminate secret ballot elections and replace them with an open card registration procedure known as card check.
Existing law allows workers to hear both sides–as they would in an election campaign–and then to privately decide in a voting booth whether they want union representation. S. 560 seeks to change the rules for union organizing campaigns so that workers only get the union’s side of the story.
Currently, unions wanting to obtain bargaining rights hire organizers to solicit workers’ signatures on cards authorizing a union certification election. If 30 percent of the workers sign the cards, the union can petition the National Labor Relations Board to conduct an election, which it supervises to assure that neither the employer nor the union intimidates the workers.
Many workers are not interested in being represented by a union, but will sign the cards so organizers will leave them alone.
When the election is held, they then vote against unionization. That is why the standard goal of organizing campaigns is to collect signatures from 75 percent of workers. Unions will always choose card check because they already collect more than a majority of signatures anyway. So, S. 560 would effectively eliminate the secret ballot election procedure.
The inability of union leaders to secure outright support for S. 560 from Sen. Landrieu and other moderate Democratic senators like her has prompted Sen. Harkin and a handful of other supportive senators to attempt to develop an alternative approach to overcome their reluctance. Yet, the only alternative that would satisfy union leaders will be one that rigs the game and keeps workers from getting the full story before deciding to allow a union in their workplace.
The existing law is fair and protects workers from being unduly pressured by their employers or union organizers. S. 560 was not brought by a host of workers begging to have the law changed, but by union leaders who see their membership sinking as workers find unions less relevant and beneficial in today’s economy. Senator Landrieu would be wise not to support cloture on this bill or on any variation of it that the union leadership would support.
Jim Patterson, LABI’s Vice President of Governmental Relations and Employee Relations Council Director, contributed to this column.
And while the health care issue has understandably dominated the public’s attention, you should keep an eye on this issue, too.
Lately, the debate over health care has pushed virtually everything else in Congress to the back burners. Nevertheless, unions and their allies in Congress want to force a vote on their bill. Last week, Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee chairman, Sen. Tom Harkin (D – Iowa), said that he was still hoping to bring the bill up for a vote this fall. However, the unions have to clear a significant hurdle first. They must secure 60 votes from among the country’s 100 senators to avoid a guaranteed filibuster by opponents.
All 40 Republican senators are against this bill, which means that all 60 Democratic senators are needed to invoke cloture to prevent the filibuster. While most of the Democrats would vote to do this, a number of moderate Democratic senators have not signed onto this bill, including Louisiana’s Sen. Mary Landrieu.
Her reluctance is understandable–and commendable. S. 560 was named the Employee Free Choice Act by its authors, but it is more commonly referred to as “card check” because it would essentially eliminate secret ballot elections and replace them with an open card registration procedure known as card check.
Existing law allows workers to hear both sides–as they would in an election campaign–and then to privately decide in a voting booth whether they want union representation. S. 560 seeks to change the rules for union organizing campaigns so that workers only get the union’s side of the story.
Currently, unions wanting to obtain bargaining rights hire organizers to solicit workers’ signatures on cards authorizing a union certification election. If 30 percent of the workers sign the cards, the union can petition the National Labor Relations Board to conduct an election, which it supervises to assure that neither the employer nor the union intimidates the workers.
Many workers are not interested in being represented by a union, but will sign the cards so organizers will leave them alone.
When the election is held, they then vote against unionization. That is why the standard goal of organizing campaigns is to collect signatures from 75 percent of workers. Unions will always choose card check because they already collect more than a majority of signatures anyway. So, S. 560 would effectively eliminate the secret ballot election procedure.
The inability of union leaders to secure outright support for S. 560 from Sen. Landrieu and other moderate Democratic senators like her has prompted Sen. Harkin and a handful of other supportive senators to attempt to develop an alternative approach to overcome their reluctance. Yet, the only alternative that would satisfy union leaders will be one that rigs the game and keeps workers from getting the full story before deciding to allow a union in their workplace.
The existing law is fair and protects workers from being unduly pressured by their employers or union organizers. S. 560 was not brought by a host of workers begging to have the law changed, but by union leaders who see their membership sinking as workers find unions less relevant and beneficial in today’s economy. Senator Landrieu would be wise not to support cloture on this bill or on any variation of it that the union leadership would support.
Jim Patterson, LABI’s Vice President of Governmental Relations and Employee Relations Council Director, contributed to this column.
Saturday, October 3, 2009
Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow from a State Budget Standpoint
The biggest issue facing Governor Jindal and the Legislature in 2010 will be the state budget. No other issue will come remotely close to capturing the same amount of attention and scrutiny in the run-up to the legislative session next March. Considering the fact that the governor must submit an executive budget outline in February, the countdown is on.
The budgeting process is going to be anything but fun in 2010. Soaring revenues fueled by incredibly high oil and gas prices and billions of dollars of hurricane recovery money are a thing of the past. Slower revenue growth is likely to meet a huge loss of federal Medicaid money in the budgeting process next year, and the result will not be pleasant.
To better understand the future direction of the state budget, a look at the two most recent budgets helps to put things in perspective.
In 2008 when the governor and the Legislature fashioned the 2008-2009 budget, state government was still rolling in high cotton. Money was pouring into the treasury so fast it was hard to spend it all—but Lord knows we tried. The total state budget increased by $1 billion and the state general fund portion of it (the part funded only by state generated revenue) went up by a whopping $1.24 billion. That budget also contained an increase of 1,000 state job positions. This significant expansion of the state budget came after a similar sizeable increase in the 2007-2008 budget fashioned in the last year of the Blanco administration. But what goes up must come down—and our governor and Legislature began to learn that lesson last spring when they wrote the 2009-2010 budget.
The budget debate last spring and early summer contained a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth. The House members wanted to bring spending back in line with existing revenues. A majority of the Senate wanted to increase taxes and lessen the amount of cuts.
Governor Jindal did not support tax increases, so the House version of the budget became the basic blueprint. The result was that the total state budget decreased by $1.5 billion from the previous year and the state general fund portion dropped by $1.21 billion.
That budget also called for a reduction of 1,200 authorized (but probably not filled) job positions in state government. In essence, the governor and the Legislature simply reverted back to 2007-2008 spending levels when they crafted the current budget. But remember, those spending levels were a huge increase in and of themselves due to higher oil and gas prices and hurricane recovery money.
Now the road gets bumpier for the governor and the Legislature. Unless the federal government changes the formula for determining the state match for Medicaid funding (or carves out a temporary exemption for Louisiana), there will be $1 billion less revenue to use to come up with the same spending levels as exists in the current budget.
Several cost savings panels are meeting to come up with recommendations for reducing expenditures and identifying efficiencies in state government operations. Unfortunately, most of the potentially low hanging fruit in the cost savings arena has already been harvested.
To come up with a billion dollars of spending reductions, some sacred cows are going to have to be sacrificed—things like the multiplicity of institutions in post-secondary education and the large amount of state funding provided for local government services and construction projects.
How the governor and Legislature handle the budget next spring will impact the fiscal future of Louisiana for years to come. Let’s hope they do better than Congress.
The budgeting process is going to be anything but fun in 2010. Soaring revenues fueled by incredibly high oil and gas prices and billions of dollars of hurricane recovery money are a thing of the past. Slower revenue growth is likely to meet a huge loss of federal Medicaid money in the budgeting process next year, and the result will not be pleasant.
To better understand the future direction of the state budget, a look at the two most recent budgets helps to put things in perspective.
In 2008 when the governor and the Legislature fashioned the 2008-2009 budget, state government was still rolling in high cotton. Money was pouring into the treasury so fast it was hard to spend it all—but Lord knows we tried. The total state budget increased by $1 billion and the state general fund portion of it (the part funded only by state generated revenue) went up by a whopping $1.24 billion. That budget also contained an increase of 1,000 state job positions. This significant expansion of the state budget came after a similar sizeable increase in the 2007-2008 budget fashioned in the last year of the Blanco administration. But what goes up must come down—and our governor and Legislature began to learn that lesson last spring when they wrote the 2009-2010 budget.
The budget debate last spring and early summer contained a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth. The House members wanted to bring spending back in line with existing revenues. A majority of the Senate wanted to increase taxes and lessen the amount of cuts.
Governor Jindal did not support tax increases, so the House version of the budget became the basic blueprint. The result was that the total state budget decreased by $1.5 billion from the previous year and the state general fund portion dropped by $1.21 billion.
That budget also called for a reduction of 1,200 authorized (but probably not filled) job positions in state government. In essence, the governor and the Legislature simply reverted back to 2007-2008 spending levels when they crafted the current budget. But remember, those spending levels were a huge increase in and of themselves due to higher oil and gas prices and hurricane recovery money.
Now the road gets bumpier for the governor and the Legislature. Unless the federal government changes the formula for determining the state match for Medicaid funding (or carves out a temporary exemption for Louisiana), there will be $1 billion less revenue to use to come up with the same spending levels as exists in the current budget.
Several cost savings panels are meeting to come up with recommendations for reducing expenditures and identifying efficiencies in state government operations. Unfortunately, most of the potentially low hanging fruit in the cost savings arena has already been harvested.
To come up with a billion dollars of spending reductions, some sacred cows are going to have to be sacrificed—things like the multiplicity of institutions in post-secondary education and the large amount of state funding provided for local government services and construction projects.
How the governor and Legislature handle the budget next spring will impact the fiscal future of Louisiana for years to come. Let’s hope they do better than Congress.
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
Keeping Manufacturing Alive
Some of the highest paying jobs in America are created by companies that make things. Manufacturing has been a mainstay in the U.S. economy since the beginning of the industrial revolution. Some say that manufacturing is passé, that technology is the future, and that it doesn’t matter if manufacturing dries up and blows away.
The flaw in those arguments (actually there are numerous flaws) is that one of the biggest users of technology today is manufacturers.
Modern manufacturing operations are the showcase for innovative technology. Gone are the days, for instance, when hundreds of laborers engaged in the back-breaking activity of wrestling with logs in a forest products plant. A typical worker in those facilities today is more of a technician than a log wrestler.
State-of-the-art machinery moves the logs, determines the best possible value that can be extracted from them, and turns them into profitable products. The same is true of many industries, such as steel, durable goods, petroleum refining, and chemical manufacturing. Technology is the driving force that has increased productivity in American manufacturing, which has kept us a global leader in manufacturing output.
As noted above, advancements in technology have led directly to a diminution of manufacturing employment in the U.S. Many Americans believe that most of the manufacturing job losses—and there have been millions in the last few decades—are due to plants closing in the U.S. and moving to less-developed countries.
Certainly there has been some of that phenomenon occurring, particularly with low-technology industries. But, until this point, the majority of manufacturing job losses has been due more to productivity advances through technology than out-sourcing manufacturing jobs to foreign countries.
That may change soon. Government policies can have a major impact on any industry, and manufacturing is no exception.
Several issues pending in Congress could accelerate the departure of manufacturing industries and jobs from the U.S. Enactment of “cap and trade” legislation tops the list.
If energy costs rise exponentially for manufacturers in the U.S., companies will undoubtedly look more favorably at countries that do not artificially raise their cost of doing business by raising their energy costs.
Another federal issue that will impact the future of American manufacturing is the “card check” legislation pending in Congress. Some manufacturers work with a union agreement. Others do not. Manufacturers are not generally concerned about the wages involved with a collective bargaining agreement. They already have some of the highest wage scales in the private sector.
What troubles them are the voluminous work rules that come with a union contract. These contract requirements inhibit the productivity advancements necessary for manufacturing to survive in the modern world.
The current health care debate also has the full attention of U.S. manufacturers. The vast majority of our domestic manufacturers provide quality health insurance coverage for their workers. Proposals in Congress would mandate that coverage and possibly tax manufacturers for providing it.
The manufacturing community is very wary of government-imposed mandates from past experience involving many issues. Limiting their ability to design quality, affordable insurance plans for their workers—and possibly making them pay taxes to provide it—will not make them more likely to keep or expand their operations in the U.S.
If America is to remain a world leader in making things, government officials should step lightly when considering policies that could make more of our best jobs leave our shores.
Improving the quality of education, encouraging more research and development, and maintaining job-friendly tax policies will help keep manufacturing jobs in America. Passing some of the proposals pending in Congress will definitely have the opposite effect.
The flaw in those arguments (actually there are numerous flaws) is that one of the biggest users of technology today is manufacturers.
Modern manufacturing operations are the showcase for innovative technology. Gone are the days, for instance, when hundreds of laborers engaged in the back-breaking activity of wrestling with logs in a forest products plant. A typical worker in those facilities today is more of a technician than a log wrestler.
State-of-the-art machinery moves the logs, determines the best possible value that can be extracted from them, and turns them into profitable products. The same is true of many industries, such as steel, durable goods, petroleum refining, and chemical manufacturing. Technology is the driving force that has increased productivity in American manufacturing, which has kept us a global leader in manufacturing output.
As noted above, advancements in technology have led directly to a diminution of manufacturing employment in the U.S. Many Americans believe that most of the manufacturing job losses—and there have been millions in the last few decades—are due to plants closing in the U.S. and moving to less-developed countries.
Certainly there has been some of that phenomenon occurring, particularly with low-technology industries. But, until this point, the majority of manufacturing job losses has been due more to productivity advances through technology than out-sourcing manufacturing jobs to foreign countries.
That may change soon. Government policies can have a major impact on any industry, and manufacturing is no exception.
Several issues pending in Congress could accelerate the departure of manufacturing industries and jobs from the U.S. Enactment of “cap and trade” legislation tops the list.
If energy costs rise exponentially for manufacturers in the U.S., companies will undoubtedly look more favorably at countries that do not artificially raise their cost of doing business by raising their energy costs.
Another federal issue that will impact the future of American manufacturing is the “card check” legislation pending in Congress. Some manufacturers work with a union agreement. Others do not. Manufacturers are not generally concerned about the wages involved with a collective bargaining agreement. They already have some of the highest wage scales in the private sector.
What troubles them are the voluminous work rules that come with a union contract. These contract requirements inhibit the productivity advancements necessary for manufacturing to survive in the modern world.
The current health care debate also has the full attention of U.S. manufacturers. The vast majority of our domestic manufacturers provide quality health insurance coverage for their workers. Proposals in Congress would mandate that coverage and possibly tax manufacturers for providing it.
The manufacturing community is very wary of government-imposed mandates from past experience involving many issues. Limiting their ability to design quality, affordable insurance plans for their workers—and possibly making them pay taxes to provide it—will not make them more likely to keep or expand their operations in the U.S.
If America is to remain a world leader in making things, government officials should step lightly when considering policies that could make more of our best jobs leave our shores.
Improving the quality of education, encouraging more research and development, and maintaining job-friendly tax policies will help keep manufacturing jobs in America. Passing some of the proposals pending in Congress will definitely have the opposite effect.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
