Dubious Rubio's Health Care Policy is Scary

Sen. Marco Rubio wants to delay the implementation of the Affordable Care Act. This is no surprise. Rubio's latest reasoning is the Hispanic Obamacare language website isn't up and running yet. The press release from Rubio's Senate office.

Washington, D.C. - U.S. Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) issued the following statement today regarding the Obama Administration’s indefinite postponement of cuidadodesalud.gov, its Spanish-language enrollment website for ObamaCare: “Hispanics have among the highest uninsured rates in the nation. Yet despite hundreds of millions of dollars devoted to a Spanish-language propaganda campaign, the Spanish-language ObamaCare website hasn’t even been launched.

“It’s not fair to punish anyone for not buying ObamaCare when the website they are supposed to buy it on doesn’t work. That is why I intend to introduce legislation to delay the individual mandate until the GAO certifies that the ObamaCare exchange website has been fixed and fully functional for at least six months.

“I still believe that Obamacare will eventually be repealed and replaced. But at the very least, all should be spared from its tax penalties and having the IRS come after them until all of ObamaCare’s enrollment options are fully functional for at least six months.”

Rubio’s legislation, which will be introduced when the U.S. Senate reconvenes next week, delays the individual mandate until six months after the Government Accountability Office (GAO) certifies the websites and all other sign-up options (phone, mail, fax) are fully functional. Thereafter, it exempts people from paying the mandate fines if they can prove that they tried to sign up but could not because of technical or customer service issues.

Rubio has been shouting from the rooftops about repealing Obamacare. Rubio has been vague about what he would replace Obamacare with. Rubio hasn't actually filed health care reform legislation and I doubt he ever will. Rubio's entire white paper on health care reform is 3 paragraphs on his Senate website. Read the magic from the mind of this policy wonk.

Floridians everywhere have expressed their concern about health care costs spiraling out-of-control. The President’s new health care law will drive costs up, bankrupt the country and create bureaucratic red tape when it comes to everyday health care decisions. Lowering health care costs is essential to growing our economy and creating jobs in our country.

We should propose common sense, free-market ideas to make health care more accessible and affordable. Senator Rubio will focus on three goals: repealing and replacing Obamacare; allowing individuals to control their own health care choices; and returning control of health policy to the states. In January 2011, Senator Rubio signed on as an original co-sponsor—his first bill as a co-sponsor—of legislation introduced by U.S. Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) to fully repeal the health care bill that President Obama signed into law on March 23, 2010. The legislation is identical to the repeal bill that passed the U.S. House of Representatives. Senator Rubio is one of 34 Republicans co-sponsoring the bill.

To start lowering health care costs and begin to reclaim our country, Senator Rubio believes we need to take simple, common sense actions, including allowing individuals to purchase health insurance across state lines, encouraging small businesses to band together to form Association Health Plans, giving individuals the same tax breaks given to businesses, incentivizing the use of electronic medical records; giving people tools to make cost-conscious decisions, increasing the number of community health centers, incentivizing state medical malpractice reform, enhancing Health Savings Accounts, pursuing medical malpractice reform and adopting a sensible program to cover those with pre-existing conditions.

The Department of Health and Human Services released a report on the Congressional Budget Office finding health insurance costs going down in 11 states that have started early implementation of the exchanges.

In the eleven states for which data are available, the lowest cost silver plan in the individual market in 2014 is, on average, 18% less expensive than ASPE’s estimate of 2014 individual market premiums derived from CBO publications.

Rubio touts tort reform. A 2009 CBO study found that tort reform would save a total of only $11 billion from national health care cost. The total savings would be $54 billion during a ten year period. That adds up to around 0.5 percent of national health care costs. I doubt Rubio has done the math. What it would do is take money from trial lawyers (big Democratic donors) and give less protection to patients from malpractice.

Rubio fails to explain how buying health insurance over state lines would work. That is interstate commerce and falls under the federal government jurisdiction. It appears Rubio wants the federal government to have no role in interstate commerce. Interstate commerce is why the executive branch has a Department of Commerce. The Supreme Court has already ruled interstate commerce falls under the federal government with Wickard v. Filburn. There is also the matter of Commerce clause of the Constitution that givers the federal government the power to regulate business across state lines.

Rubio's replacement for Obamacare is unregulated insurance policies and people not having the power to file lawsuits against malpractice. Who the hell would want to sign up for that?

Why the Boehner Debt Ceiling Plan Died

The Congressional Budget Office found that the John Boehner debt ceiling cut plan would only cut $890 billion from the budget from the budget from 2012 to 2021. The cuts aren't radical enough for Boehner to get his caucus behind it.

Relative to the adjusted March baseline, proposed budget authority would be $840 billionlower and outlays $710 billion lower over the 2012-2021 period. Relative to the January baseline, excluding funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and for similar activities, the proposed caps would lower budget authority by nearly $1.1 trillion and outlays by about $890 billion over the 2012-2021 period (see Table 1).

The one Republican that was behind it was Rep. Allen West. It had nothing to do with Milton Friedman economic theories.. House Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy showed the Republican caucus the Ben Affleck movie The Town. The scene that West made his decision on the future of America's private and public financial system was a scene of Affleck's and Jeremy Renner's characters talking about fucking up some local hoodlums.

Ben Affleck: I need your help. I can’t tell you what it is. You can never ask me about it later. And we’re going to hurt some people.

Jeremy Renner: Which car are we going to take?

Republicans aides told the Washington Post West's reaction to this inspiring message on economic policy.

After showing the clip, Rep. Allen West (R-Fla.), one of the most outspoken critics of leadership among the 87 freshmen, stood up to speak, according to GOP aides.

“I’m ready to drive the car,” West replied, surprising many Republicans by giving his full -throated support for the plan.

Words fail me.

Below is the CBO score of Boehner's plan.

House Budget Control Act

Marco Rubio Repeal Health Care Bill

Sen. Marco Rubio and Sen. Jim DeMint are co-sponsoring legislation to repeal the Affordable Health Choices Act.

“It is critical for the future prosperity and health of our country that we repeal ObamaCare and replace it with common sense reforms that will lower health care costs and get more Americans insured,” said Senator Rubio. “At a time when we need to be focused on creating a pro-jobs environment in Florida and across the country, ObamaCare has only served to foster uncertainty for job creators. We need to start over with reforms that promote competition, empower patients with more options, combat fraud and integrate the latest technologies for a system that better serves the patient.”

Rubio and other Republicans have repeatedly called President Obama's health care changes job killers. The Congressional Budget Office found repealing the health care legislation will increase the deficit by $230 billion over the decade. A repeal would result in 32 million Americans without health coverage. I have my own reservations about Obama's landmark legislation. The Republican merely want to turn federal health care into a voucher system with no cost controls. That is not reform.

Yet Another Post On Rubio's Enomomic Nonsense

Marco Rubio advocates the three solutions to spur job growth extend the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts, cut corporate taxes and repeal Obamacare. A Congressional Budget Office report splashes cold water on Rubio's economic nonsense. Here is a breakdown of what would provide the most stimulus for the economy. Zandi found the Bush tax cuts would bring back 38 cents for every federal dollar spent. Cutting corporate taxes would garner 30 cents.

$1.73 – Food stamps
$1.64 – Extending Unemployment Insurance
$1.59 – Infrastructure spending
$1.36 – Aid to states
$1.26 – Refundable tax credit
$1.03 – Temporary tax cut
$1.02 – Non-refundable tax rebate
$.48 – Extend AMT patch
$.37 – Make dividend and capital gains permanent
$.30 – Corporate tax cut
$.29 - Make Bush tax cuts permanent
$.27 – Accelerated depreciation

Economist Mark Zandi of Moody's did his own breakdown of what government actions would create the most stimulus for the economy. The Bush tax cuts ranked near the bottom.



If government is going to commit actions to spur the economy than the measures need to create the most bang for the buck. Tax cuts for the rich do not do that. What makes Rubio's horrible economic policy proposal worse is he fashions himself as a fiscal conservative. Rubio from the Weekly Republican address.

Today the American Dream is threatened by out-of-control politicians in
Washington who think that more government deficit spending is what it
takes to grow our economy. That has never worked anywhere it’s been
tried and it won’t work now.

The Center On Budget and Policy Priorities analyzed CBO findings on what would be the biggest factor in the deficit for the next decade. Extending the Bush tax cuts far outrank Obama's stimulus. View the chart below.



Rubio is one to talk about wasteful government spending. As Florida House Speaker, Rubio approved a lavish $48 million 1st District Court of Appeal courthouse that has earned the nickname the "Taj Mahal." A $35 million bond was used to help fund the courthouse project. An amendment for the courthouse project was added the last day of the legislative session without the knowledge of most Florida House members. Charlie Dean, R-Inverness said he refused to approve the project when Judge Paul Hawkes and Judge Brad Thomas lobbied him for a new courthouse.

Now, a key legislator has raised new questions about how that happened. Sen. Charlie Dean, R-Inverness, was chairman of the House committee that oversaw court expenditures. Dean says he rejected a plea from Hawkes and Thomas to fund the courthouse after Dean toured the existing courthouse. He said he rejected it because the state was slashing budgets, and he said the courts had more important needs than the construction of a new courthouse for the appellate court.

Dean said Hawkes and Thomas indicated they would go around him to get the funding they needed.

"He (Hawkes) just looked at me and grinned and said, 'I got friends,' '' Dean said.

Dean said the two judges had help from Richard Corcoran, then chief of staff for House Speaker Marco Rubio, and from Hawkes' son Jeremiah, who was general counsel for Rubio.

CFO Alex Sink has ordered an audit of the project. Charlie Dean deserves credit for raising a stick about the courthouse. Rubio has much explaining to do.

The One Size Fits All Republican Economic Policy

Republicans have only one economic policy.

Surplus: tax cut.

Deficit: tax cuts.

Recession: Tax cut.

Stimulus package: tax cut.

"You cut taxes and the tax revenues increase," President bush told the American people. The Congressional Budget Office found the President's tax cuts did not create the promise budget surplus. In 2006, Bush's Treasury Department correctly predicted that the Bush tax cuts would create less revenue growth than the 1980s and 1990s.

This lack of Republican economic ignorance makes Congressional candidate David Rivera's tweet all the more troublesome.

FL’s unemployment rate reached a record 12.3%. In Congress I'll work to pass tax cuts & incentives to spur job creation & econ growth.

This is why I tell people members of Congress should be forced to take an economics class.

Quote of the Day

"Well, you know, to me I find it interesting that you have a lot of the Republicans running around and pushing back on the stimulus money and saying this doesn't create any new jobs, and then they go out and they do the photo ops and they are posing with the big check and they say, 'Isn't this great?'"

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger

Contrary to what Mitt Romney said at CPAC, a September 2009 CBO report estimates"600,000 to 1.6 million people were employed" because of the stimulus package.

CBO Report on Senate Health Care Bill

A Congressional Budget Office and Joint Committee on Taxation study on the Senate health care bill. Younger people would see an increase in their health insurance premiums.

Many individuals and families would experience changes in premiums that differed from the changes in average premiums in their insurance market.2 As explained below, some provisions of the legislation would tend to decrease or increase the premiums paid by all insurance enrollees, while other provisions would tend to increase the premiums paid by healthier enrollees relative to those paid by less healthy enrollees or would tend to increase the premiums paid by younger enrollees relative to those paid by older enrollees. As a result, some individuals and families within each market would see changes in premiums that would be larger or smaller than, or be in the opposite direction of, the estimated average changes.

The good news is less healthy and older people would see savings in the health insurance coverage. Overall, government subsidies would lower the costs of many health insurance premiums. For nongroup primiums, people receiving would save 56 percent to 59 percent. The savings for small group primiums receiving subsidies is 8 percent to 11 percent. Savings from small group markets will be 1 percent to 4 percent.

A side effect of insurance companies no longer screening out people would be an administrative savings of 7 percent to 10 percent. Riders and medical underwriting would be elimanated from policies. Insurance companies would also be gaining new customers. Insurers would have to take all applicants and could not impose lifetime limits on what health insurance people can purchase. The study finds the government insurance exchanges would decrease costs. (The study doesn't explain how.) The exchanges would create competition between insurers. Translation: look for health insurers to spend more on marketing.

Small businesses with 50 or less employees will see no major cost changes in premiums. The study does not include numbers for tax credits for small businesses that provide health insurance.

Effects on Premiums for Employment-Based Plans Would be Much Smaller The legislation would impose the same minimum actuarial value for new policies in the small group market as in the nongroup market. That requirement would have a much smaller effect on premiums in the small group market, however, because the great majority of policies sold in that market under current law have an actuarial value of more than 60 percent. Essentially all large group plans have an actuarial value above 60 percent, so the effect on premiums in that market would be negligible. In sum, the greater actuarial value and broader scope of benefits in the legislation would increase the average premium per person in the small group market by about zero to 3 percent (with other factors held constant). Those requirements would have no significant effect on premiums in the large group market.

I like the idea of exchanges. It is time to create a free market and break up the private insurance monopoly. People can compare premiums and judge what bests suits their needs. The last thing the health insurance industry and Republicans want to do is break up the status quo.

The bad news is the Senate bill will not grant universal health coverage. The public option will only cover 3 million to 4 million Americans. Many will still lack health insurance.

A surprise is the Senate bill proposes a tax on pharmaceutical industry. The White House agreed with pharmaceutical companies to veto any bill allowing the Medicare to negotiate prices or import drugs from Canada. Look for the White House to pressure Reid to drop the drug tax.

Republican Health Care Amendment Doesn't Reduce Uninsured

The Republican amendment to the Democratic House bill is a joke that keeps providing laughs. The Affordable Health Care for America Act was nothing more then a legislative attack on the Democrats. The Congressional Budget Office informed Minority Leader John Boehner that the amendment would only insure 3 million Americans and lower the deficit by $68 billion. THe CBO is projecting these estimates for 2010 to 2019. There numbered of insured and fiscal reduction is than CBO estimates for Democratic heath care bills. The CBO states the the Repuublican amedment keep the level of uninsured relatively the same.

By 2019, CBO and JCT estimate, the number of nonelderly people without health
insurance would be reduced by about 3 million relative to current law, leaving about
52 million nonelderly residents uninsured. The share of legal nonelderly residents
with insurance coverage in 2019 would be about 83 percent, roughly in line with the
current share. CBO and JCT estimate that enacting the amendment’s insurance
coverage provisions would increase deficits by $8 billion over the 2010–2019
period.

The amendment's funding structure makes me wonder if there will be enough revenue to fund federal funding for high risk insurance pools. Costs would be $49 billion and additional tax revenue would be $27 billion. The CBO report does not say what these state high risk pools would cost. Not that it matters. Republicans never wrote this amendment with the intention of it becoming law. Boehner and company should not have bothered.

Nancy Pelosi Makes Public Option Stand

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi just ran this tweet.

Photo: Americans Support A Public Option http://twurl.nl/v85epx

The link reveals this image of polls showing support for the public option.



The House version of health care reform is what voters support. Which makes me wonder what planet Gov. Bobby Jindal is on?

JINDAL: Absolutely. Well, let`s start first of all -- Neil, across this country, I think the debate`s over. I think the American people have spoken loudly. they have said they don`t want a government- run plan that increases their taxes, that increases government spending.

Jindal willfilly deceives Fox News viewers about poll numbers and the cost of a public option insurance program. A Congressional Budget Report found the public option would save $110 billion over ten year. Jindal is not truly fiscally conservative. Jindal made an outlandish claim about tort reform savings.

Third, if we`re serious about driving down the cost of health care, let`s address the cost of defensive medicine. Frivolous lawsuits, one study says, could cost as much as $100 billion a year. I think it`s telling neither of these plans really have significant reforms.

A CBO report found tort reform would only provide 0.5 percent savings to health care. A 2004 CBO report gave a more generous 2 percent savings. The problem with Jindal's logic is there is no trigger to force insuers to lower premiums on doctors, if tort reform passes. The medical profession and insurers may get savings. That does not mean those savings will be passed on to patients.