Category: Economics

Sometimes a reality check is required

Republicans, if you are going to encourage unicorn ranching, then you owe it to the public to explain that ranchers need to find a breeding pair before they start their ranch.

While money is non affectionately said to be the mother’s milk of politics and it is, denial is a very close runner up!  So there is never a statement made by the left that is ever denied by a Republican, lest the opponent be skewered, first by the left and its media allies, then later and even more effectively by ” moderate Republicans” (moderate is a synonym for those, who go along to maintain their seat at the table)  Every Republican leaning voter knows, who they are.  If you don’t, watch CNN and if the guest is labeled as a Republican albeit strategist, officeholder or campaign surrogate and he is not immediately berated after he speaks, then chances are  he or she is a “Moderate Republican”.

Generally Republicans never challenge what is said unless the thought has been in held in ill repute by the public for a good number of years.  e.g. socialism has been generally held in low regard since at least the 1950’s, so any Republican and even a few brave “Blue Dog Democrats” are inclined to speak out against it.  It should be noted, however that while speaking out against the idea of socialism any Republican officeholder will always acknowledge that the proponent of socialism or any new government solution raises a true issue that they will attempt to help resolve.

What is problematic about this?  It is simply this.  No one dares say how wide spread the problem is, versus how drastically the solution will change the status quo for the many.  While it is a cliche’, I am required to repeat it here.  When you promise to everything for everyone, you will do little or nothing for anyone!

Why is this so.  The answer is simple.  It’s because People are and should be free!  Free to choose their own courses of action.   Sometimes the course chosen appears ill advised to us and sometimes it may even appear contrary to the individual’s expressed interest , but it is their choice to make.  What those in opposition to choices or proposed fixes, can do is at least say they find the choice/fix unwise.

Instead they fall upon the sword of political correctness and as they gurgle and seem to lose control of their consciousness.  The opponents lie impaled upon that imaginary sword of political correctness, then the opposition fails to deny the underlying premise of the proposed government solution.   They do so in a vain attempt to demonstrate their continued relevance or the importance of their government position.  Hence,the first paragraph of this Post

Republicans, if you are going to encourage unicorn ranching, then you owe it to the public to explain that ranchers need to find a breeding pair before they start their ranch.

I posit here that we no longer have a two party system.   When every  utterance by those, who only propose government solutions, is met with acceptance of the underlying premise. e.g (Obamacare preexisting condition coverage crisis. This great existential healthcare crisis effected roughly 8% of the population. It predominantly effected those purchasing coverage in the individual healthcare marketplace.  Groups have been governed by HIPPA of 1997, which required coverage of these conditions after a maximum of 18 months delay and even that could be mitigated, if the individual was continuously insured prior to the group coverage change.  Click on the word change link for a more in depth explanation at How Stuff Works.com.).

Amazingly preexisting conditions were seldom discussed in depth with respect to Obamacare law, yet most under 65 get their coverage through employment groups.)  No Republican thought this was important enough to discuss and if they did it was seen as too in the weeds to share!  No Republican discussed how Obamacare inconvenienced the remaining 80+% and changed the coverages available for all.  It also mandated coverages in the belief not certainty that the changes would result in future healthcare savings.

So now we enter the 2020 campaign  and  major Democratic candidates are now discussing free education for all through college.  What that will do, is devalue many advanced educational degrees for those, who have them because when everyone has a degree  available without the need for sacrifice to achieve it,then advanced education will no longer be a sign that an individual possesses the persistence to achieve a difficult goal.  Additionally, since there is no cost.  Educational resources will be misallocated even further.  We will have more degrees that do not match needed skills.  The result will be more unemployment, while jobs go begging because the educational system is turning out the wrong skill sets.  We already have enough educational dysfunction with the grade inflation situation and the plethora of majors, which offer no professional path forward.

We are also told by some Democratic candidates that many services provided by people are now human rights.  This is a talking point  with only emotional appeal.  It is proposed that these services should be offered by the government to all with no mention of payment.  I guess we truly have not learned the lessons of history.  We outlawed one form of slavery and now introduce a new form.  Servitude to the State for the Public good.  Yet all Republicans only talk about socialism like a caveman.  “They utter Socialism bad, Capitalism good!”

I am sorry, but life is both a journey and is still a struggle.  No candidate’s wishes can change that fact. In a world of 1 million or 7 billion scarcity still exists. Resources must be allocated according to needs to insure the availability of goods to feed the masses and create sufficient wealth.

Individuals must work to create wealth and nations and society advance as a result of their efforts.  Capitalism is a self regulation mechanism for the elements that create wealth.  Capitalism allows the individual the freedom to choose, which occupation they pursue and rations scarce resources by offering rewards for skills in short supply and disincentives for oversupplied skills. No government or politician has a handle on the multiple data points needed to properly allocate resources. Capital might be in the form of human,monetary or even a commodity.

Individuals choose a course and are rewarded based upon the value of their contribution.  No one has the right to the services of another.  Those services can be paid for or they maybe volunteered at no cost.(charity)  Yes, there is a place for altruism in modern society!  Altruism however is not government mandated.  Mandated unagreed upon labor is still slavery!

Bottom line:

Demand all proposals identify the problem and the extent of that problem.

Ask, Ask, Ask how the solution fits in with the existing system.  Do this whether you like the existing system or despise it.  (Different is not always better and can be much worse!)

What is the role of rationality, when all media and politicians use the emotional hook to push issues?

I have been arguing for a long time that far too much of our political discussions are emotionally based.  Harold Laswell said “politics is about who gets what, when, how.”  This was the standard definition of politics, which I learned forty five years ago as a Political Science major.  This means politics is involved with every aspect of our everyday lives.  We are far too quick to limit the meaning or understand the consequences of politics.

The United States has a Constitutionally limited federal government which results in a free market capitalist system of economics, however the limited nature of our federal government has been steadily eroded.  This has been accomplished by both our legislators, who are unwilling to make the difficult budgetary decisions their offices demand of them and the Courts, who insist on legislating from the bench and increasing the scope and size of government in a vain attempt to avert every citizen’s problem.

What has the use of the emotional hook meant to the everyday life of the US citizen.?   It has meant that decisions are more and more made at the whim of a group of elite politicians whipped into a frenzy by an over dramatized media.  The ultimate result is that personal decisions concerning allocation of your income and resources have been removed from your control and are now less based on rational personal benefit and an individual’s return on investment and more based upon a legislator of judge’s feelings about an issue.

Federal legislators decide issues based upon a snapshot of public opinion.   Federal Judges seem to believe they must act as super legislators and right all the wrongs of the country rather than apply existing law and so  they create new law.  What this means is there will continue to be more government involvement in your everyday life and ultimately this  “feeling centered decision making” may lead to the end to even of the semblance of free speech.

Dissent will be drowned out by the din created in a 24 hour media cycle. Rational individuals may well be dissuaded from voicing their views because they fear immediate economic or reputational damage should they voice disagreement with the current emotionalism of the moment.

Proponents of feeling based decision making believe it will create a more nurturing democratic government and will lead to a more humane society.   Democratic party politicians believe this nurturing view of government is popular among young unmarried bicoastal female voters, a group they consider to be in their tribe.   I contend this type of decision making is bad for all voters and will result in misallocation of both human and financial capital and ultimately a lowered standard of living for all in this country and throughout the world as well as a society where individuals  are afraid to express their opinions.

I have been reading a series of books about rational decision making.  Most recently I have been reading the book, “Factfulness” by Hans Rosling .   There is value in the authors data driven analysis and the rationale approach he uses to generate his world survey questions and answers.   I worry that this author’s analysis is far too dependent on UN sources of data, because these data sources readily  available and he states are the  most comprehensive in scope. I do not share his confidence about how this data is collected and compiled.  Finally, I find some of the author’s concerns  to be as equally unsupported by causal data as he claims many current popular public opinions to be,eg. ( views on global warming and universal healthcare) (He readily admits that weather is subject to a great may variables and can’t be forecasted accurately, yet is ever so concerned about climate change.)I find many of his concerns to be personally intrusive,repugnant and left leaning.

The fact that I  favor a more  free and individually driven , yet rational allocation of economic resources doesn’t however mean I am a heartless and I am certainly not a populist.    I am a Constitutionalist.   Constitutionalist are frequently accused of lacking compassion for the downtrodden in our society or being bigoted because we don’t favor big government welfare programs and unlimited immigration.  I favor, as does our federal constitution a system, where individuals make their own decisions and believe that there are certain God given rights that belong solely to them.  The federal government should interfere in its citizens lives only in very limited and strictly defined areas enumerated by the Constitution. Other areas are reserved to the citizens until more authority is granted by the super majority required to adopt a constitutional amendment and even that authority should be restricted.  Some rights really are truly inalienable and non delegatable.

Factual information must be available to the public in order to allow each individual and organization to make rational personal economic and value choices.  I agree that decisions must be fact based, but values must also be incorporated into any decision making process.  This is the province of the individual.  It is the small decisions made by the many in their individual daily interests, that should shape our public policy.  Our Constitution allows for a limited federal government and leaves most authority with the States.  This allows for a variety of best practices and failures without universal consequences.

What seems like economic chaos or the lack of a comprehensive economic or governmental plan is actually a constantly adjusting web of individual decision making. This guarantees maximum benefit and freedom for all citizens. It is truly economic organization from what seems like unplanned chaos.  Unfettered emotionalism can cause rash decisions to be made by elitist representatives based upon the latest media whipped over dramatization.  The decisions feel good at the time, but lack checks and balances provided by the free market.  This type of decision making leads to unintended consequences, which could be avoided by utilizing a more limited and best practices and evaluation model.

 

Killing the Golden Goose: An economic primer in free market capitalism for Elizabeth Warren wing of the Democratic Party

When I was in college, back when Religion and family was still a mainstay of traditional society, I had professors singing the praises of Marxism and decrying the excesses of capitalism. They appealed to the softer side of human nature. They were appalled by the rise of the “corporate culture”. Every corporation was a predator, which disregarded the human being in a never ending quest for profit. Corporations you understand measure their success by profitability. It is their metric to measure their success. They saw the government as the only savior from this corporate plague. The force of government could intervene and by placing its finger on the economic scale insure the net worth of the individual was respected. All praise be to populism as long as it was the bicoastal populism at that time headquartered in the northeastern part of our country. The bi-coastal elite prioritized government entitlement programs over economic productivity.

News flash, Liberals! People in government cannot and will not agree on creation of an entitlement utopia. Government is flawed. It is extremely divided and will be for the foreseeable future.

We live in a country where, the citizens have a diverse system of values and by a slim majority still believe in economic freedom, although thanks to educational brainwashing, they are frequently unable to articulate this precise principle.

The principle of economic democracy, which is the cry of the social justice crowd, is simply a disguise for populist economic tyranny. (Exercise of governmental authority to limit economic freedom. Yes, government by necessity is an exercise of power over the populace,) they advance uniform business practices, which encourage an uninformed consumer, and which are in line with a liberal social agenda. Businesses can either adopt the desired policies and practices or face a prohibition of their business model. There is no room for initiative and product improvement or expansion through increased efficiencies. i.e. Let’s use 1938 wage and hour practices in today’s economy because a portion of the populace choose a union to represent them, so there can be no economic advance beyond this model. The primary method of advancing their economic engineering agenda is the corporate and individual income tax code. Doubt me? How many economic decisions are made solely based upon the tax code. When you start a new employment, think about the number of documents you sign because of the federal tax code.

The federal income tax code is based upon a flawed model. It punishes the very vehicles, which create wealth. Why don’t we tax only individuals (flesh and blood people), when funds are disbursed to them as income (money for their personal use). If income is used in a business for a business purposes, (a means to produce a product or service) it is moving and should be encouraged and not taxed. When it moves to an individual for their personal use, it should be taxable. The rich would pay more because of the progressive tax system. We could retain the capital gains provisions to encourage investment. We would encourage dividends. They are a good income source especially for those, who are too old to actively be employed as well as for those seeking to save for their daily lives. We would no longer view the corporation as a wealth store, which can be raided by liberal lawmakers to advance their entitlement agenda. This removes the hidden tax that plagues consumers of US businesses

Their promotion of their form of economic democracy is killing capitalism. It is akin to death by one thousand cuts. Their policies limit economic expansion and kill wealth creation and ultimately jobs. They assume a one size fits all approach serves the diverse US population. They espouse biblical principles to guilt the populace into complying with their collectivist ideas. Their mantra: corporations are evil and government is the answer to the corporate greed problem.

How do they guilt the populace? They point out that we are the wealthiest country in the world and never acknowledge that our wealth has established a standard of living, which is the envy of much of the world. They point to biblical teachings and claim that government should provide for all. They obviously forget that biblical teachings are directed toward the individual and not the government. Doubt me, see Mathew 22:21. Give to Caesar. Additionally, the free market offers opportunity for the individual through their effort (service) to give to others. We don’t need the government telling us how to best help our fellow man. Our creator gave us free will. If the right of free will is acceptable to him, it is also acceptable to me. There is room for charity. Charity is a voluntary giving versus government, which is enforced and imposed taking for a majority agreed upon endeavor. (Usually a moral compromise) Government was to be used as a last resort and for limited purpose) See the US Constitution enumerated powers provisions.

It is also popular they say something is a right. I.e. healthcare. Natural rights are not dependent on the services of others to accomplish. Who will you coerce to render care for those who cannot pay? Is it okay to require involuntary servitude to enforce this right? If the populace doesn’t produce enough to cover shortfalls, how is the shortage rationed in the population? The free market allow for rationing through price. It also affords opportunity to increase the country’s wealth thereby raising all. It is pointed out that some will get great amounts more. This is greed! Each person has the responsibility not the requirement to give back. This is free will. It works in this country. Witness our standard of living versus the collective society such as the former USSR.

What about European socialism? Our country has many diverse cultures. Many of the “success stories” surround cultures with a less diverse culture. Perhaps one size fits all is acceptable to their populace, but it cannot be imposed here! We as a people do not subscribe to a single set of values and this country permits one to give back as he or she sees fit and still we have a very high standard of living for all.

What about a minimum wage? Why should we prohibit someone from contributing because they seek less compensation? Is it better to have someone not contribute or to contribute and receive less compensation? Don’t different levels of compensation encourage increase in skill levels in order to increase compensation, if that is what is sought? No say the liberals you should be able to support yourself on a federal minimum wage! Maybe even a family of four without regard to your productivity and without regard to whom you exclude from the workforce by your imposition. “From each according to their ability and from each according to their need.” This is the cry of the Marxist populace clamoring to increase their rightful share of the pie. But who decides need and who decides the ability? This is Marxist utopian idealism, which doesn’t take into consideration differences in religious values, cultural norms or family values and even some might argue differences in work ethics. I refer the reader to the fiction “Atlas Shrugged” by Ayn Rand specifically the chapter about the socialist auto company experiment. Click the link to read a short excerpt. This excerpt is a thought provoking exercise about what happens, when needs exceed ability in a socialistic situation.

h2>Conclusion

Government involves use of force by a political majority over an entire populace. The US federal Constitution promotes a minimal use of this force for limited purposes.

The US population is diverse with different religious and moral values, which are not suited for one size fits all solutions.

Christianity does not demand government intervention. It requires individual action. If you believe in Christianity, then you believe in free will. Exercise of free will requires individuals to do unto others… If our creator saw fit to allow us to choose for ourselves how to live, why should we not respect the individual’s right to choose?

Minimum wage is a flawed one size fits all solution, which sounds good, but fails to account for differences in individual circumstances and discourages growth and economic inclusion by effectively barring some classes of workers from the workforce under the auspices of assisting the poor.

Corporations and businesses are vehicles to creating wealth. They are neither good nor bad; their practices are determined by their ownership. They can be great wealth creating vehicles or hoarders of wealth. Their judgment is left to the populace, who decide by their purchases. Their individual choices aggregate and determine business success. These choices taken together are vastly superior to any political choice made by government officials (Remember, politics is defined as who gets what, when, where and how.)

Healthcare Reform: More than simply redistribution of insurance cost!

1) Accept that life is not fair and government can not make it fair.

2) Accept that markets are efficient allocators of resources, which will reallocate human and capital resources to meet needs and allows for individual freedom and is not dependent on political power to meet those needs.

3) Accept that human systems are not perfect. There is a place for charity. Charity fills in the gaps or fills in during intervals between resource reallocations. Charity maybe individual,familial,or institutional. It is different from governmental programs because it is based upon a voluntary exercise of personal choice and not an exercise of majority power,

4) Accept that insurance companies are not the sole driver of cost. Health insurance is not and should not be equated to healthcare. Access to insurance does not equal good healthcare. Insurance companies are not inherently good nor are they inherently bad. Health insurance itself is not the sole answer to provision of adequate healthcare and it should not be treated as such.

5) Big government solutions are exercises of power and societal promises that even when outdated they are not rolled back and seldom evaluated in light of a changing environment.

How long will we persist in our belief that government can care for individuals from cradle to grave?  We continue to prop up  every failed government progam and deceive the public as to their long term sustainability.

Now we are on the verge of ushering into permanency unsustainable government health insurance for some unknown number of additional insured’s at the expense of all.  The true costs of this program cannot be determined.  (Congressional Budget Office (CBO)projections have proven themselves inaccurate.  See initial Medicare cost estimates as one example and Obamacare projections as a second example of inaccuracies) Democrats argue that the system would be sustainable with just a little more income redistribution and single payor solution just like the unsustainable medicare program.   (Perhaps the Democrats should campaign on a new more robust second coming of the VA Health system.)  The solvency of the Medicare trust fund is only guaranteed at 100% to 2024.

It is argued that this is the best system available because it removes the profit motive of the private sector. Please consider this.  There are already non profit options available in the insurance universe and when a government solution is adopted, it is seldom evaluated to determine its cost effectiveness or its sustainability.  Only a crisis precipitates second look at a program, then the program is reinvigorated with additional taxpayer funds, but never seriously scrutinized for efficiency and effectiveness.

Never is there consideration given to the lost opportunity cost, when adopting such  programs.  What do I mean by this?  Programs are adopted institutionalizing payment structures and distribution techniques available at the time of adoption,   This means a fee for service structure will be perpetualized in any health insurance solution.  Innovative cost and life saving measures will not be pursued, as long as a government subsidized consumer base is guaranteed to insurers and health care providers.

Insurance principles are supposedly built into the healthcare system except in instances, where the outcome is disliked by the citizenry or seen as “unfair”  e.g. Insurance is about many paying a small amount (premium) for protection against unlikely risk.  If the cost (risk)is guaranteed, it is no longer insurance.  It is redistribution.

Life is not fair and we can not wish and make it so, nor can we design a human insurance system to handle all circumstances without creating staggering insurance premium increases.  We refuse to allow those with chronic preexisting conditions to pay more in premium as required in the private insurance market,(even if the chronically ill potential insured’s have the ability to pay more) so we mandate acceptance at prescribed rate despite the built in additional cost of insuring these individuals.  This guarantee increases premium for all and prices many out of the market or provides coverage with obscene deductibles.

We demonstrate our distaste for the economic facts by characterizing any, who oppose this type of (health insurance) socialism as discriminators or haters, who wish others to go away and die.  Be honest!  This is a small group of individuals.  Most will be absorbed into a group plan through employment.  Some have the ability to pay increased premium or will be self paying.   Some will be treated in poverty programs and some may need charitable assistance.  Finally as a last resort, some may need assistance from a non insurance health assistance fund.  Why demand change to the entire health insurance industry to cover these relative few.  Please be honest and admit some of these individuals simply are not insurable for the same rate as the general population.  We may not like it, but it is not discrimination and it is an economic fact

We ignore the insurance principle of adverse selection, which states those most in need of benefits will flock to secure them especially, when available at an artificially low cost, while the young and healthy will simply assume the risk and move forward without coverage.   We attempt to overcome this hurdle by an employer mandate and an individual non insurance penalty.  The mandate so repulsive to many, so we push back compliance dates and minimize repugnant penalties in a dishonest effort to avoid electoral consequences. The penalty is so minor that many simply opt to pay it.  Meanwhile many potential insureds wait and upon receiving a diagnosis of cancer, diabetes (insert your chronic ailment here), then secure coverage post diagnosis and guaranteed future costs are spread over a small individual state market unfit to absorb the these extensive costs.  There is no urgency to sign up prior to need, when acceptance post diagnosis is guaranteed at the same cost.  Cost is distributed to the individual state market place raising the cost for everyone in that subgroup of insureds.

Remember politics is who gets what, when and how.  The market is the result of billions maybe trillions of choices made by individual consumers and families.  Each consumer or group of consumers acting in what they believe to be their best interest.  If a need arises, it is in the interest of someone or group to fill the need or the need maybe altruistically filled by voluntary giving.  (that’s right voluntary as opposed to entitled receipt.  Witness such charitable organizations as St. Jude’s Hospital, American Cancer Society and numerous other charitable non profit and individual healthcare benefactors.)  The private company or group in the private market is  rewarded for their risk taking by reaping a profit.  (not evil in fact frequently is distributed to shareholders including workers, who invest their savings in companies and insurance products.) Government planning and action can not better decide allocation of resources.  I would argue it never will be able to accumulate and weigh the number of variables necessary to replace the market.

Government muddles through! Merriam Webster’s Dictionary defines muddling through as to achieve a degree of success without much planning or effort.  (Doubt me?  Consider many in government service positions are career employees (carryover employees, not true believers), which means during any administration they may not agree with the agency activities or even the  stated goals of any department or agency.  How much effort and planning should you expect from this group.  Then consider Congress, which seldom agrees on the means to accomplish any single objective and may not even agree as to the goal itself)  The result of all this cognitive dissidence is government muddles through its tasks and inefficiently utilizes resources and seldom, if ever accomplishes its stated purpose.  This is hardly an acceptable replacement model for any market, let alone something as important as the health insurance market.

So what is the answer?

1) Accept that life is not fair and government can not make it fair.

2) Accept that markets are efficient allocators of resources, which will reallocate human and capital resources to meet needs and allows for individual freedom and is not dependent on political power to meet those needs.

3) Accept that human systems are not perfect. There is a place for charity. Charity fills in the gaps or fills in during intervals between resource reallocations.  Charity maybe individual,familial,or institutional. It is different from governmental programs because it is based upon a voluntary exercise of personal choice and not an exercise of majority power,

4) Accept that insurance companies are not the sole driver of cost. Health insurance is not and should not be equated to healthcare.  Access to insurance does not equal good healthcare.  Insurance companies are not inherently good nor are they inherently bad. Health insurance itself is not the sole answer to provision of adequate healthcare and it should not be treated as such.

5) Big government solutions are exercises of power and societal promises that even when outdated they are not rolled back and seldom evaluated in light of a changing environment.

Conclusion

Repeal of Obamacare is a necessary first step. We can always tinker at the edges of the system and provide means for those, who fall through the cracks in the system. (While writing this blog entry, I was watching a news reporter state that preexisting conditions handled in high risk pools totaled 115,000 policies. This is not an unmanageable number and gives credance to the idea that many with chronic health conditions are covered under the existing group plans or covered under existing poverty programs or medicare for seniors. If there is a requirement to immediately address an unfulfilled need i.e. preexisting conditions. There is more likely to be a better solution, if it is addressed as an individual issue. You can more easily identify the scope of the problem and limit the solution. The issue is not better addressed in all encompassing comprehensive legislation. (What about a deal?) Some Democrats maybe moved to lend support to gain this coverage, since the signature Obamacare legislation would be lost to them.

If there is no essential benefits package, perhaps there will be no need to keep children on their parents plan well into adulthood and if there is such a need perhaps a small adjustment in premium could produce the same result without a permanent unpaid governmental mandate. Some individuals could secure catastrophic coverage and choose to self insure by savings for some smaller medical expenses rather then pay into a massive one size fits all government mandate.

 
Educate the public that the majority of Obamacare’s insurance increase stems from the welfare healthcare expansion. That is medicaid. Is this how we want to cover these folks long term?  Remember this expansion was accomplished by a massive federal assumption of the expansion cost. This can not be permanent. Medicaid expansion merely kicks the can down the road with no road map to permanently assist this group to get permanent healthcare. The need for help for this group should be realistically assessed. Perhaps funding could be sunsetted as innovative healthcare delivery models are advanced to provide more affordable care.

Demand your state governments remove impediments to healthcare delivery. Examine professional licensing requirements. Examine state medical curriculum. Make certain they address healthcare needs and are not merely justification for professional fee increases!  Modify your tort laws to decrease malpractice insurance expenses.

Think strategically Republicans. Time to man up

Republicans need to Man Up and learn to govern like winners rather than pandering to voters.

I have heard many commentators state that Republicans don’t know how to win. This is not true.  They simply retain the challenger’s mindset. They don’t act like victors.   Never has this been more evident than with the proposed healthcare legislation.

Republicans leaders have been in the minority so long that they have forgotten what you do, after you win elections.  This leadership group spent years passing bills to repeal “Obamacare”.  They placed a defund and partial repeal on President Obama’s desk in 2015, which was vetoed.

Now they have electoral majorities in both chambers of Congress and a Republican in the Oval Office and they have lost sight of their goal to shrink government involvement in the lives of the populus.  They worry about how Democrats will portray their legislation. They worry rather than message and educate.

Really, what about adopting a winning strategy!

Use the reconciliation process and defund Obamacare now!  It will only take 51 votes and it is ground, which was already plowed in 2015.  After defunding Obamacare,Democrats will have lost their signature law and you can realistically say you have reset the healthcare system.

Once you have defunded and reset healthcare.  You will be in a position with a good incremental healthcare change bill to pull some Democratic House and Senate votes by compromising on the timing of the phase out of some benefits in exchange for substantive market reforms.  This will lead the Democrats to compromises, which will enable Republicans to pass such important initiatives as universal interstate insurance sales as well as changes that will permit trade and other groups of consumers to purchase healthcare as part of an expanded group insurance market.(See Senator Rand Paul’s replacement plan https://www.paul.senate.gov/news/press/dr-rand-paul-unveils-obamacare-replacement-act)
An immediate repeal will encourage Republicans to take their time and avoid “the rush to do something” and “Comprehensive Legislation”, both of which have become the hallmarks of big government and known breeders of unintended consequences.

Take your time. Confront issues as they present themselves. Utilize feedback loops as you make small changes. There was never a great healthcare crisis and simply throwing public money at a problem does not solve it!

Don’t forget Obamacare was supposed to promote universal healthcare. How did that work out? If higher premiums declining insurance choice and increased dependence on the poverty healthcare program, medicaid, is your definition of promoting universal access, then Obamacare was a success. If not, then why adopt the same legislative formula,”comprehensive legislation”.

Simply redistributing wealth and giving the redistributed funds away for health insurance purchases does not lower healthcare costs. It does not increase the number of healthcare providers nor does it lower the costs of drugs or treatment. Republicans would do well to reset to the pre Obamacare situation, then implement small insurance changes. Look at methods to assist the states in their efforts to increase private healthcare providers and increase the availability of drugs for treatment. Trust the private market for once to meet demand. Remove federal regulatory impediments to provider service expansion. (Please see my previous post about the FDA)

I mentioned increasing providers. This is a task, which must be accomplished primarily by the states. Medical licensure is a state function. The federal government can provide much needed information about costs and education. The Feds can inform states of best practices to assist them in their efforts to increase the number of providers

The main point of this post is the Republicans don’t govern because they retain a “loser’s mindset”. Their actions remind me of one of the verses of the old anti war ballad, ” Where have all the flowers gone” Particularly the verse,”…when will they ever learn”

Yes, Republicans promise small government and free market solutions, but when the time comes to govern, they act like Bicoastal Democrats. Lite Democrats, but they act like Democrats just the same. They increase spending and government reach and have never seen a program they can’t sign on to, perhaps just at a lower level than your common “Bicoastalcrat”.

Republicans lack a winner’s strategy.  They learn from defeat only that some of their numbers can remain in power even after it.  Victory for them is a time for caution.  It is a time to preserve your gains.  Priciples take a back seat to voter pandering,

Now is the time to reset the healthcare marketplace and shrink government!

Don’t make the time-honored error of using comprehensive legislation to replace Obamacare. Act decisively! Defund, reset then bargain with the Democrats and only act incrementally. Use feedback to honestly judge whether your program is successful. The country deserves a free market healthcare alternative.

Please put the country and the economy ahead of your personal reelection ambitions!  Man up! Act on the principles that got you elected!