What will our Supreme Court Do?

Soon the court will hand down it's decision on the legality of the "Health Care" Act, Public Law 111-148, March 23, 2010. 

Remember this law was enacted before the mid-term election, when the Democratic Party controlled both Houses of Congress.  You would think that the Democratic Party would have wanted to protect the rights of the individual, and really made those big insurance companies "toe the line."

Well, here is what I found in searching the 900+ pages of the Law.  Below are two small excerpts.

Subtitle G—Miscellaneous Provisions

PUBLIC LAW 111–148—MAR. 23, 2010

SEC. 1555 FREEDOM NOT TO PARTICIPATE IN FEDERAL HEALTH INSURANCE PROGRAMS

No individual, company, business, nonprofit entity, or health insurance issuer offering group or individual health insurance coverage shall be required to participate in any Federal health insurance program created under this Act (or any amendments made by this Act), or in any Federal health insurance program expanded by this Act (or any such amendments), and there shall be no penalty or fine imposed upon any such issuer for choosing not to participate in such programs.

……………………………………………….

IN GENERAL.—Subtitle D of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new chapter:

CHAPTER 48—MAINTENANCE OF MINIMUM ESSENTIAL COVERAGE

SEC. 5000A REQUIREMENT TO MAINTAIN MINIMUM ESSENTIAL COVERAGE

 (a) REQUIREMENT TO MAINTAIN MINIMUM ESSENTIAL COVERAGE.—

An applicable individual shall for each month beginning after 2013 ensure that the individual, and any dependent of the individual who is an applicable individual, is covered under minimum essential coverage for such month.

 (b) SHARED RESPONSIBILITY PAYMENT.—

            (1) IN GENERAL.—If an applicable individual fails to meet the requirement of subsection (a) for 1 or more months during any calendar year beginning after 2013, then, except as provided in subsection (d), there is hereby imposed a penalty with respect to the individual in the amount determined under subsection (c).

  ............................

The "penalty" imposed upon individuals (taxpayers) is phased in over 3 years, and grows to $750.00, with cost-of-living increases after that.  That is $750 per person up to $2250 per family.  

 The fact that the law exempts health insurance companies, but penalizes individuals  leaves me in a quandary ( a state of uncertainty or indecision as to what to do in a difficult situation.)  No insurance company is required to participate, but every American (taxpayer) is required to have health insurance.

That's another thing about this Law, it is titled, "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act," but a lot of it is about insurance, not health care.  There are multiple references and changes to the Tax Laws.  Most of it doesn't establish programs, but requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to establish programs (with the authority of Law.)  Who knows what that will bring!

And why is so much of this Law put off until 2013 and 2014?  Could it have to do with another Presidential Election in 2012?

On a Totally Different Subject -- American Idol

OK, I might be old, but I still enjoy American Idol. 

However, it is getting difficult to watch the shenanigans occurring with it's flawed voting methods.  (Of course in their defense, they never said they were choosing the best singer.)  If you've ever voted for your favorite, you probably know you can just keep on voting.  I mean really, the estimate is that 16.3 million people were watching this week.  What did they say the vote count was, 50 million?

My guess is that teenage girls from the Southern United States are the ones picking the winner.  To support that I am including below some of the data available on recent, past winners and the current season finalists.  I include Colton Dixon as he was my pick for the second spot after Phillip Phillips.

American Idol season 7 winner, David Cook, age 25

Blue Springs, Missouri, population 52,575

Total final voting 97 million

American Idol season 8 winner, Kris Allen, age 23

Conway, Arkansas, population 58,908

Total final voting 100 million votes

American Idol season 9 winner, Lee DeWyze, age 24

Mount Prospect, Illinois, population 54,167

Total final voting 96 million votes

American Idol season 10 winner, Scotty McCreery, age 19

Garner, North Carolina, population 25,745

Total final voting 122 million votes.

Season 11 final four

Phillip Phillips, age 21

Leesburg, Georgia, population 2965

Joshua Ledet, age 19

Westlake, Louisiana, population 4668

Jessica Sanchez, age 16

San Diego, California, population 1,301,617

Hollie Cavanagh, age 18

McKinney, Texas, population 131,117

Eliminated - Colton Dixon, age 20

Murfreesboro, Tennessee, population 108,755

What do those Mid-western and Southern boys have? Jessica Sanchez would have been gone but for the judges using their one save.  She is beating the odds.  She is possibly this year's Katharine McPhee, a much better singer than the guy who beat her out in the final on season 5. And then, Holly Cavanagh could be another Kelly Clarkson, winner of season 1.  

No, I have to stick with Phillip, he hasn't been singing for 3 weeks now, and he's still there.

Attention Farmers

Here is a partial Quote from the President's FY2013 Budget Proposal to Congress

The Administration remains committed to a strong safety net for farmers, one that protects them from revenue losses that result from low yields or price declines, and strong crop insurance programs. But there are programs and places where current support is unnecessary or too generous. To reduce the deficit, the Administration proposes to eliminate or reduce those programs, while strengthening the safety net for those that need it most. The Administration is proposing to: 

• Eliminate Direct Payments to Farmers. The direct payment program provides producers fixed annual income support payments for having historically planted crops that were supported by Government programs, regardless of whether the farmer is currently producing those crops—or producing any crop, for that matter. Direct payments do not vary with prices, yields, or producers’ farm incomes. As a result, taxpayers continue to foot the bill for these payments to farmers who are experiencing record yields and prices; more than 50 percent of direct payments go to farmers with more than $100,000 in annual income. Eliminating these payments would save the Government roughly $23 billion over 10 years and build a better farm safety net. 

• Reduce Crop Insurance Subsidies. Crop insurance is a foundation of our farm safety net. Yet, the program continues to be highly subsidized and costs the Government approximately $10 billion a year to run: $3 billion per year for the private insurance companies to administer and underwrite the program and $7 billion per year in premium subsidy to the farmers. A U.S. Department of Agriculture commissioned study found that, when compared to other private companies, crop insurance companies’ rate of return on investment (ROI) should be around 12 percent, but that it is currently expected to be 14 percent. The Administration is proposing to lower the crop insurance companies’ ROI to meet the 12 percent target, saving $1.2 billion over 10 years. In addition, the current cap on administrative expenses is based on the 2010 premiums, which were among the highest ever. A more appropriate level for the cap would be based on 2006 premiums, neutralizing the spike in commodity prices over the last four years, but not harming the delivery system. The Administration, therefore, proposes setting the cap at $0.9 billion adjusted annually for inflation, which would save $2.9 billion over 10 years. Finally, the Administration proposes to price more accurately the premium for catastrophic (CAT) coverage policies, which will slightly lower the reimbursement to crop insurance companies. The premium for CAT coverage is fully subsidized for the farmer, so the farmer is not impacted by the change. This change will save $225 million over 10 years. 

In addition, the Administration is proposing to reduce producers’ premium subsidy by 2 basis points for all but catastrophic crop insurance, where the subsidy is greater than 50 percent. This will have little impact on producers. Most producers pay only 40 percent of the cost of their crop insurance premium on average, with the Government paying for the remainder. This cost share arrangement was implemented in 2000, when very few producers participated in the program and “ad-hoc” agricultural disaster assistance bills were passed regularly. The Congress increased the subsidy for buy-up coverage by over 50 percent at the time to encourage greater participation. With current participation rates, the deep premium subsidies are no longer needed. This proposal is expected to save $3.3 billion over 10 years. 

• Better Target Agricultural Conservation Assistance. The Administration has championed programs that create incentives for private lands conservation and has worked to leverage these resources with those of other Federal agencies toward greater landscape scale conservation; however, the significant increases in conservation funding (roughly 200 percent since enactment of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002) has led to redundancies among our agricultural conservation programs. At the same time, high crop prices have both strengthened market opportunities to expand agricultural production on the Nation’s farmlands and decreased producer demand for certain agricultural conservation programs. To reduce the deficit, the Administration proposes to reduce conservation funding by $1.8 billion over 10 years by better targeting conservation funding to the most cost-effective and environmentally-beneficial programs and practices. Even under this proposal, conservation assistance is projected to grow by $60 billion over the next decade (assuming continuation of the current farm bill base line,)

Do We Really Need All This?

Our government was established in 1789, 223 years ago.  We are still making new laws.  How many laws do we need?  In 223 years our government hasn't gotten it right?  That sounds like failure to me.

I was reading some federal government internet sites today.  Did you know that the government spends about $10,000,000 a year to determine federal employee salaries?  Well, it is more than that really;  that's how much they spend on the study they use to determine salary scales for federal employees in various jobs around the country.  We have the Federal Salary Council that conducts the National Compensation Survey.  Cost? About ten million dollars.

A Executive Branch bureau director starts at about $120,000 per year.  That sounds fair for a starting salary.  How many bureaus does the Executive Branch have?  Good question, glad I asked it.  It is hard to say.  The Executive Branch includes the Cabinet. Below is a list of Cabinet Departments.  Each Department has a number of divisions, say bureaus.  I have included some of these under The State Department.  Each Department has a similar division, depending upon its roll in the government. 

United States Department of Agriculture

United States Department of Commerce

United States Department of Defense

United States Department of Education

United States Department of Energy

United States Department of Health and Human Services

United States Department of Homeland Security

United States Department of Housing and Urban Development

United States Department of the Interior

United States Department of Justice

United States Department of Labor

United States Department of Transportation

United States Department of the Treasury

United States Department of Veterans Affairs

United States Department of State

Under the State Department we have

Deputy Secretary for Management and Resources

Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security

Under Secretary for Democracy and Global Affairs

Under Secretary for Economic, Energy and Agricultural Affairs

Under Secretary for Management

Under Secretary for Political Affairs

Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs

Permanent Diplomatic Missions

The Executive Branch also includes these agencies:

    Council of Economic Advisers

    Council on Environmental Quality

    Domestic Policy Council

    National Economic Council

    National Security Council

    Office of Administration

    Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships

    Office of Management and Budget

    Office of National AIDS Policy

    Office of National Drug Control Policy

    Office of Intergovermental Affairs and Public Engagment

    Office of Science and Technology Policy

    Office of the First Lady

    Office of the Vice President

    Office of the Second Lady

    President's Economic Recovery Advisory Board

    President's Intelligence Oversight Board

    President's Intelligence Advisory Board

    United States Trade Representative

    White House Office

    White House Military Office

No Americans were harmed in this report

I believe that our President will be making a great deal in this election year of the fact that he has gotten all our troops out of Iraq. Not much news since; things must be great. I have been doing some web "surfing" to see what the news is concerning Iraq since our troops left. Here are some numbers from what I read.

• The last American troops left Iraq for Kuwait December 18, 2011.
• December 22, 2011, in various attacks/bombings in Iraq 63 died, 160 were injured.
• January 5, 2012, 73 dead, 149 injured
• January 14, 2012, 53 dead, 141 injured
• January 27, 2012, 32 dead, 71 injured
• February 23, 2012, 83 dead, 250+ injured
• March 7, 2012, 14 dead, 24 injured
• March 12, 2012, 14 dead 13 injured

I make no claim that the above list is complete; it is what I found in a brief search of on line news reports since December 18, 2011. The numbers are probably on the low side, but the total from above is 332 dead, 809+ injured in bombings and other attacks in Iraq.

It appears to me that this President's goal for Iraq was to get our troops out. (Let's say we won and leave.) According to Defense Department numbers available on the internet, over 3400 Americans died in combat in Iraq since 2003. But that is history, isn't it. All is good, our troops are out, no more fighting. Happy Saint Patrick's Day to all.

A Question

This is a very political time. Every time I hear a politician drone on, I ask myself, what do I expect of government? It is a lot tougher question than it first appears to be. I do not have a complete and efficient answer, but here is a thought.

I expect a government to provide good order and safety. Government is a collective of the people to provide each with basic needs. Among these the most basic for me is the need to feel safe from harm. The government provides this, locally, with police, and nationally with a military. If we have no trust in our police or our military, then we lack our most basic need, and we must find another way to insure that we satisfy that need.

I have noted in the news lately, an increase in the purchase of guns, and an increase the number of shooting ranges. On TV there are shows like, "Top Shot" and "Sons of Guns." I have to ask myself, are we losing trust in government to provide for our most basic need. If we are, why?

The Next few Months will be .... Memorable

I don't know what has been happening in your life, but I am concerned about the direction we are headed. Personally, I have a very good medical plan. I am retired military with over 25 years of service. Between Medicare and my military supplement, I have it better than a lot of people, I know. But since the affordable health care act passed I have seen the cost of my family's plan go up. Our prescription drug co-pays have nearly doubled, and our dental plan has gone up over $70 a year for the same benefits. Walgreens no longer accepts the military retirees' prescription drug plan.

If this new law is so great why have more than half the States joined in a suit to declare it unconstitutional? Could it be that this one law could bankrupt the states when they are already in financial trouble?

Below are excerpts from an article in today's New York Times. I have highlighted some of the things I find most interesting. Remember this is our "open and transparent" White House.


White House Works to Shape Debate Over Health Law
By ROBERT PEAR
Published: March 9, 2012 New York Times

WASHINGTON —

The White House has begun an aggressive campaign to use approaching Supreme Court arguments on the new health care law as a moment to build support for the measure seen as President Obama’s signature legislative achievement, hoping to shape public opinion on an issue at the center of the battle for the White House and Congress.

On Wednesday, White House officials summoned dozens of leaders of nonprofit organizations that strongly back the health law to help them coordinate plans for a prayer vigil, press conferences and other events outside the court when justices hear arguments for three days beginning March 26.
….
White House officials denied that they were trying to gin up support by encouraging rallies outside the Supreme Court,
….
But they appear to have decided that they cannot risk allowing the court proceedings to unfold without making sure that backers of the sweeping overhaul will be prominent and outspoken.
….
At the White House meeting on Wednesday, a wide range of advocates representing consumers and people with diseases and disabilities — as well as doctors and nurses, labor unions and religious organizations — discussed plans to bolster the landmark law, which is being challenged by 26 states as unconstitutional.

Supporters of the law plan to hold events outside the court on each day of oral argument. The events include speeches by people with medical problems who have benefited or could benefit from the law. In addition, supporters will arrange for radio hosts to interview health care advocates at a “radio row,” at the United Methodist Building on Capitol Hill.

People who attended the meeting on Wednesday said the speakers included Jennifer Palmieri, deputy communications director at the White House; Jon Carson, director of the president’s Office of Public Engagement; Jeanne M. Lambrew, deputy assistant to the president for health policy; and Mark B. Childress, a deputy chief of staff at the White House.
….
A White House official who attended the session said that at least 100 people were present, but he declined to provide a list of their organizations.
….
In the week before the Supreme Court arguments, administration officials will fan out around the country and join local groups in celebrating the second anniversary of the law, signed by Mr. Obama on March 23, 2010.
….
Backers of the law said they would use data supplied by the White House to show how the law had reduced drug costs for older Americans, guaranteed free preventive care for millions of people and allowed many children to stay on their parents’ insurance policies.
….
Groups working with the White House include the Service Employees International Union; the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees; Health Care for America Now, a consumer coalition that fought for passage of the legislation; Protect Your Care, a nonprofit group created last year to defend the 2010 law; and the Center for American Progress, a research and advocacy group with close ties to the White House.
….

One last note. Most of this Act does not take effect until 2014.