tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-81805681431169027932024-03-05T09:54:28.026-08:00The Makeshift AcademicPublic Policy, Politics, Unemployment and Adjusting to TexasAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09825177783624513614noreply@blogger.comBlogger117125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8180568143116902793.post-6758662553038693442017-11-27T21:55:00.001-08:002017-11-27T21:55:18.774-08:00New Jersey and Virginia Prepare to Join Regional Greenhouse Gas Initative to Reduce Carbon Emissions<span style="font-family: "calibri";">I’d like to break into the our regularly scheduled doom and
gloom, to note a small but important piece of good environmental policy news
that last month has poked green shoots up through the policy wasteland of the last 10 months.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "calibri";"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) is about to
get two new members. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "calibri";"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">RGGI <a href="https://www.nrdc.org/resources/regional-greenhouse-gas-initiative-model-nation" target="_blank">is a consortium of nine New England and Mid-Atlantic state</a>s</span><span style="font-family: "calibri";"> formed to reduce carbon emissions from large power plants through a
cap-and-trade system. The program, which applies to power plants with a
capacity of larger than 25 megawatts, establishes a region-wide cap on carbon
emissions.<span style="margin: 0px;"> </span>Emitters bid in a competitive
auction to purchase a permit to emit 1 ton of CO2. They trade in permits when
they pollute, or can save unused permits for future use, or sell them to other
bidders.<span style="margin: 0px;"> </span>States invest the proceeds in
energy efficiency or clean energy programs. </span><br />
<br />
<div style="margin: 0px 0px 10.66px;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">The <a href="http://www.rggi.org/design/overview/cap" target="_blank">annual cap</a>, which was set originally at 165 megatons of
CO2 equivalent in 2008, and adjusted to 91 megatons in 2014</span><span style="font-family: "calibri";">,
declines by 2.5 percent each year through 2020. The stakeholders are currently
<a href="https://www.rggi.org/docs/ProgramReview/2017/08-23-17/Announcement_Proposed_Program_Changes.pdf" target="_blank">negotiating an extension of the program</a> through 2030, which will further reduce
CO2.</span></div>
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">The first new RGGI member, New Jersey, was an original
member of the consortium, but Republican Governor Chris Christie <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/27/nyregion/christie-pulls-nj-from-greenhouse-gas-coalition.html" target="_blank">withdrew</a> in
2011</span><span style="font-family: "calibri";">,
and has vetoed several bills since that would rejoin. The incoming governor,
Democrat Phil Murphy, has <a href="https://www.murphy4nj.com/issues/protecting-the-environment/" target="_blank">pledged</a> to rejoin.</span><span style="font-family: "calibri";"><span style="margin: 0px;"> </span></span><br />
<br />
<div style="margin: 0px 0px 10.66px;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">In more exciting news, Virginia is also moving steadily
toward joining the RGGI as well.<span style="margin: 0px;"> </span>Gov.
Terry McAuliffe<a href="http://www.powermag.com/virginia-governor-orders-power-plant-carbon-regulations/" target="_blank"> issued an executive directive</a> in May</span><span style="font-family: "calibri";"> directing the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality to develop a rule to
limit carbon dioxide from existing power plants. His directive emphasized both designing
the rule in such a way to allow Virginia to join a multistate emissions trading
group – i.e. the RGGI – AND doing so in such a way that a legislative vote
isn’t required. <span style="margin: 0px;"> </span></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">The proposed rule was finished in October and <a href="https://www.greenehurlocker.com/virginia-moves-forward-with-carbon-cap-and-trade-plan/" target="_blank">received preliminary approval</a> in November from the state air pollution board. Several
hurdles remain, but it is on track for adoption by the end of 2018.</span><br />
<br />
<div style="margin: 0px 0px 10.66px;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">Bringing New Jersey back into the RGGI fold is good news and
will reinforce the program’s stability and expand its footprint to cover more
carbon emissions -- New Jersey will have the second-largest amount of emissions
of any of the current members. However, bringing Virginia into the scheme is extremely
promising for several reasons. </span></div>
<div style="margin: 0px 0px 10.66px;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";"></span></div>
<a name='more'></a><br />
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">First, Virginia’s power sector emitted about 34.5 million
tons of CO2 equivalent in 2016, which would make it the state with the highest
emissions in the RGGI. (current leader New York’s power sector emitted about 29
million tons in 2016) (see searchable EPA’s figures <a href="https://ghgdata.epa.gov/ghgp/main.do#/listFacility/?q=Find%20a%20Facility%20or%20Location&st=NY&bs=&fid=&sf=11001000&lowE=-20000&highE=23000000&g1=1&g2=1&g3=1&g4=1&g5=1&g6=0&g7=1&g8=1&g9=1&g10=1&g11=1&g12=1&s1=1&s2=0&s3=0&s4=0&s5=0&s6=0&s7=0&s8=0&s9=0&s10=1&s201=1&s202=1&s203=1&s204=1&s301=1&s302=1&s303=1&s304=1&s305=1&s306=1&s307=1&s401=1&s402=1&s403=1&s404=1&s405=1&s601=1&s602=1&s701=1&s702=1&s703=1&s704=1&s705=1&s706=1&s707=1&s708=1&s709=1&s710=1&s711=1&s801=1&s802=1&s803=1&s804=1&s805=1&s806=1&s807=0&s808=1&s809=1&s810=1&s901=1&s902=0&s903=1&s904=1&s905=0&s906=1&s907=1&s908=1&s909=1&s910=0&s911=0&si=&ss=&so=0&ds=P&yr=2016&tr=current&cyr=2016&ol=0&sl=0&rs=ALL" target="_blank">here</a> – look for point
sources, by state, and then select “Power Plants"</span><span style="font-family: "calibri";">).
<span style="margin: 0px;"> </span>It would expand the coverage of the
program’s cap by about 40 percent. </span><br />
<br />
<div style="margin: 0px 0px 10.66px;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">Second, it would be the first state with a large coal-fired
power sector to join; which might provide additional confidence for other
states with a<span style="margin: 0px;"> </span>large coal-fired power
sector<span style="margin: 0px;"> </span>to join.<span style="margin: 0px;"> </span>Pennsylvania, with more than 80 million tons
of CO2 emissions from its power plant sector, would be an obvious candidate to
join (assuming some election luck with the legislative branch) as would Illinois and
its 69 million tons (assuming we effect an upgrade on current Republican
Governor Bruce Rauner). </span></div>
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">Finally, Virginia would be the first state in the
traditional South to join, which breaches an important psychological wall.
Sure, Virginia is changing rapidly, but North Carolina and Georgia seem to be
following the same path, albeit at a somewhat slower pace. Both have some very
large coal plants that would benefit from putting a price on carbon.</span><br />
<br />
<div style="margin: 0px 0px 10.66px;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">There are two final important lessons from this hopeful
sequence playing out in the Mid-Atlantic.</span></div>
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">First, as always, elections
matter. Electing Republican Christie in 2009 led to New Jersey’s withdrawal
from the pact, while electing Democrat Murphy a month ago, removed the road
block from getting the state back in. Electing McAuliffe in 2013 imbued
Virginia with the administrative urgency to regulate carbon emissions, and
electing his fellow Democrat Ralph Northam a month ago to succeed him gave
those regulations the ability to survive. </span><br />
<br />
<div style="margin: 0px 0px 10.66px;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">Elections in Illinois and Pennsylvania and other Midwestern states may offer an
opportunity to drastically expand RGGI after 2018.</span></div>
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">Second is that given time, space and attention, smaller
policy initiatives can grow in scope and effectiveness to become much more
comprehensive. <span style="margin: 0px;"> </span>RGGI got off to something
of a rocky start in 2008, as the price for emissions stayed much lower than
projected due to that year’s economic collapse and faster-than-expected growth
from renewable energy.<span style="margin: 0px;"> </span></span><br />
<br />
<div style="margin: 0px 0px 10.66px;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">But states <a href="https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41836.pdf" target="_blank">learned from the initial growing pains</a></span><span style="font-family: "calibri";">.
During the 2012 program review, state regulators started filling in gaps: They
tightened the cap to account greater-than-expected reductions in emissions,
raised the price floor, and closed several other loopholes to lock-in achieved emission
reductions and accelerate future ones.<span style="margin: 0px;"> </span></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">Better yet, states <a href="https://www.rggi.org/docs/ProgramReview/2017/08-23-17/Announcement_Proposed_Program_Changes.pdf" target="_blank">are closing in on an agreement to strengthen the progra</a>m again for the decade between 2021 and 2030, further
speeding emission reductions.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "calibri";"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">Best of all, <a href="https://www.ajot.com/news/northeast-and-mid-atlantic-governors-lauded-for-announcement-on-transportat?mc_cid=dec9f548b5&mc_eid=43ddca35db" target="_blank">many of the RGGI states are seriously lookingto expand the program’s scop</a>e beyond power plants to transportation – the other
major sector of greenhouse gas emissions.</span><a href="file:///C:/Users/Patrick/Desktop/Blogpost.docx" name="_ftnref11" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn11;" title=""><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "calibri" , sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; line-height: 107%; margin: 0px;"><span style="color: #0563c1;"> </span></span></span></span></span></a><br />
<div style="margin: 0px 0px 10.66px;">
<span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "calibri" , sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; line-height: 107%; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;"><br /></span></span></span></span></span>
<span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "calibri" , sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; line-height: 107%; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "times new roman"; font-size: small;">So, keep an eye on them -- but have some faith in your regulators. And keep working hard to elect politicians who will empower them to design strong pollution-control programs.</span></span></span></span></span></div>
<div style="mso-element: footnote-list;">
<div id="ftn11" style="mso-element: footnote;">
</div>
</div>
<b></b><i></i><u></u><sub></sub><sup></sup><strike></strike>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09825177783624513614noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8180568143116902793.post-11785055578957786852016-07-21T06:00:00.000-07:002016-07-21T08:59:41.400-07:00Good News Everybody! (on Racial Equality in Health Care)<span style="font-family: "calibri";">During the last several weeks, it’s been rather depressing
recognizing (yet again) that racism (still) is widespread in the United States.
We’ve had yet <a href="http://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2016/07/07/485078670/two-days-two-deaths-the-police-shootings-of-alton-sterling-and-philando-castile" target="_blank">another set of killings</a> highlighting the differences
between how police treat whites and people of color. Then we had a <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/steve-king-white-people-western-civilization_us_578d5f34e4b0a0ae97c320ed" target="_blank">sitting U.S. Congressman enthusiastically endorse white supremacy</a> on national television.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">And I’m a clueless white dude– if I feel depressed about
this state of affairs, imagine how bad it </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";">really</span></i><span style="font-family: "calibri";">
must be.</span><br />
<br />
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">When it seems like the median opinion of the national debate
is somewhere between “Black Lives Don’t Matter” and “Black Lives Might Sort of
Matter Sometimes When We Feel Like It as Long as Black People Keep Quiet and
Don’t Hurt White People’s Fee Fees”, feeling the urge to slip into despair is
understandable.</span></div>
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">But over the last several years one indicator of racial
equality has quietly been rapidly improving – a lot more African Americans are
getting access to health insurance under the Affordable Care Act.</span><br />
<br />
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";"><a href="https://aspe.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/187551/ACA2010-2016.pdf" target="_blank">Quarterly analysis</a> from the office for the Assistant
Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (ASPE) at the Federal Department of
Health and Human Services (HHS) has been keeping track of changes in the
uninsured rate. APSE (and other measures have noted massive across-the-board
declines in the percentages of people without health insurance since the
Medicaid Expansion and Insurance Exchanges went into effect in 2014.</span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">What’s particularly notable, however, is how well African
Americans seem to be doing under the ACA, however. </span></div>
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">In the fourth quarter of 2013, 23.2 percent working-age
African Americans lacked health insurance coverage, as against 14.3 percent of
Whites. By 2016, the African American
uninsured rate had fallen to 10.6 percent, while the White rate had declined to
7.0 percent. In total then, the gap
between the uninsured rates between whites and blacks fell from 8.1 percentage
points to 3.6 percentage points -- a
reduction of 55.6 percent. </span><br />
<br />
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">That’s not perfect, but it’s a heck of a lot of progress.</span></div>
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">Getting several southern states with large African American
populations to expand Medicaid will likely further cut into this gap (yes, ex-Confederate States not named Arkansas or Louisiana, I’m looking at you).</span><br />
<span style="font-family: calibri;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">The other challenge is that, despite improvements, coverage
of Hispanics still lag significantly behind both Whites and Blacks.</span><br />
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">But these are struggles going forward. For now, two and a half cheers for Obamacare's contribution to racial equality.</span></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09825177783624513614noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8180568143116902793.post-78017960573042312182016-06-28T15:07:00.002-07:002016-06-28T15:31:50.983-07:00ACA exchange plans cost near-poor more than Medicaid<span style="font-family: "calibri";">The Commonwealth Fund <a href="http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/issue-briefs/2016/june/marketplace-states-not-expanding-medicaid" target="_blank">just released an interesting brief</a>
regarding the effects of failing to expand Medicaid on the health care costs of
people between 100 and 138 percent of the poverty line.</span><br />
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">Yes, that sounds about as exciting as watching paint dry,
loyal readers (both of you) but it’s important – so wake up, dammit!</span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">Here’s the score: the
Affordable Care Act expands Medicaid to cover everyone under 138 percent of the
poverty line. The problem is <a href="http://kff.org/health-reform/state-indicator/state-activity-around-expanding-medicaid-under-the-affordable-care-act/" target="_blank">that 19 states</a> – generally dominated by
Republicans – have </span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgeGkAoO7kvzosIv7ofUkHfx4MJpB5brN4WP8YPJYwRn81bqNZfOL9FxgCwRr7WcS0isEjzJFC91juOf7e5nDP9PwEeZaZdli75HXfQwZXCldrLlhJQD3zn3EQKnYZ0449SA1KcM9Ywp-zd/s1600/4155232663_ab2fd83f28.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgeGkAoO7kvzosIv7ofUkHfx4MJpB5brN4WP8YPJYwRn81bqNZfOL9FxgCwRr7WcS0isEjzJFC91juOf7e5nDP9PwEeZaZdli75HXfQwZXCldrLlhJQD3zn3EQKnYZ0449SA1KcM9Ywp-zd/s200/4155232663_ab2fd83f28.jpg" width="200" /></a></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">refused to expand their Medicaid programs. This poor public
policy has created a “<a href="http://kff.org/health-reform/issue-brief/new-estimates-of-eligibility-for-aca-coverage-among-the-uninsured/" target="_blank">Medicaid gap</a>” consisting of people who are too rich to
qualify for legacy Medicaid (in Texas, for example, parents <a href="https://www.medicaid.gov/medicaid-chip-program-information/program-information/medicaid-and-chip-eligibility-levels/medicaid-chip-eligibility-levels.html" target="_blank">earning more than 15 percent of the poverty line </a>– about $2,400 a year for a family of 2 – don’t
qualify) but too poor to qualify for subsidies on the health insurance
exchanges, which are available to households earning between 100 and 400
percent of the poverty line. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "calibri";"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">The 3.2 million people in this gap have no functional access
to insurance, since there’s no way a person making, say, $10,000 a year can
afford several hundred dollars a month in health insurance premiums. </span><br />
<br />
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">People earning between 100 and 138 percent of the poverty
level in non-expansion states are considerably better off though, because they
qualify for both premium subsidies and cost-sharing subsidies for exchange
plans. The indispensable Charles Gaba <a href="http://acasignups.net/15/07/08/psssst-hey-republicans-you-really-wanna-hurt-obamacare-expand-medicaid" target="_blank">has estimated</a> this gro<span id="goog_1177873206"></span><a href="https://www.blogger.com/"></a><span id="goog_1177873207"></span>up at roughly 1.9
million people.</span></div>
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">But do the exchange plans stack up favorably with the
generosity of Medicaid for poor people?</span><br />
<br />
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">The good scholars over at Commonwealth Fund set out to find
out. And their general answer is “no.” </span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">Follow me below for more details.</span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<a name='more'></a><span style="font-family: "calibri";">To get a thorough answer, we need to look at both premium
costs and out-of-pocket costs. For this analysis, we’ll use a single person
making $13,000 (about 109 percent of the poverty line for 2016) as an example. </span><br />
<br />
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">Under the premium subsidies for an exchange plan, individuals
get charged on a sliding scale for premiums between 100 and 150 percent of the
poverty line that ranges from 1 to 4 percent of income to buy the second-lowest
Silver plan on the exchange. So a person making $13,000 a year will owe about 2
percent of income, $260 a year, toward premiums. </span></div>
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">Traditional Medicaid rules don’t allow the state to charge
premiums to people under 150 percent of the poverty line, though some states
have negotiated waivers to this. Even the most lax waiver (employed in Montana
and Indiana) caps monthly contributions at 2 percent of monthly income – and allow
those contributions to go toward out of pocket costs either directly or in a
health savings account. What’s more these waivers usually exclude medically
frail people from paying premiums.</span><br />
<br />
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">At best then, premium costs borne by the covered person are
slightly higher than expanded Medicaid, and generally considerably worse.</span></div>
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">The cost sharing side generally magnifies the gap between
the two plans. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "calibri";"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">Medicaid plans limit out-of-pocket expenses in several ways.
Though each state Medicaid plan caps expenses in slightly different ways,
federal policy sets benchmarks. </span><br />
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">First, co-pays (flat fees) and coinsurance (an
amount owed as a percentage of the total cost of the bill) have strict limits:
federal policy caps drug payments at $4 for a generic drug, for example, and
doctor’s visits and hospitalizations are limited to 10 percent of the costs
paid by Medicaid. Total out-of-pocket costs are limited to five percent of
income. For our hypothetical person
earning $13,000 a year, that means total costs are capped at $650 a year. </span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">However, there are two additional forces that
drive practical costs down further. First, Medicaid pays considerable lower
rates than commercial insurers, which further limits the exposure of the
recipient. So, for a doctor’s
appointment Blue Cross might reimburse a provider at $195 for a appointment,
whereas Medicaid might only pay $100, with the resulting 10 percent coinsurance
checking in at $10 instead of $19.50. </span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">Second, Medicaid calculates its out-of-pocket
caps on a monthly or quarterly basis, not an annual one, which further limits
exposure. Imagine out person needs no other care except for a five-day
hospitalization. With a monthly limit, he only owes $54, while with a yearly limit
he would owe the full $650 – a difference of $596, which might be enough to
stave off eviction and/ or keep the lights on. </span></div>
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">Exchange plans don’t match this level. In general, Silver
plans generally limit out-of-pocket costs to about $6,350. Generous
cost-sharing subsidies for individuals between 100 and 150 percent of the
poverty line drop that to $2,250. However, that out of pocket maximum is still
much higher than out-of-pocket maximums for Medicaid.</span><br />
<br />
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">Because the exchange plans vary greatly both within states
and from state to state, the Commonwealth study examines the second-lowest
silver plan (the benchmark for determining subsidies) for the largest city in
each of the states that haven’t expanded Medicaid to get an idea of how.
Deductibles range from zero to $550, with a median of $175, considerably
higher than Medicaid plans. Out-of-pocket caps range from $500 to the legally
allowable $2250 (in my city of Houston, Texas, of course), with a median of
$650 (the same as the maximum Medicaid cap) See <a href="http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/issue-briefs/2016/june/marketplace-states-not-expanding-medicaid" target="_blank">exhibits 3 and 4</a> for more detail.</span></div>
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">Deductibles are considerably higher than Medicaid
deductibles. The out-of-pocket caps seem competitive with some Medicaid caps,
but are calculated on an annual basis, not a monthly or quarterly one, so will
likely cost the beneficiary more, especially if they have acute health needs. </span><br />
<br />
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">In general then, exchange plans are inferior to Medicaid for
individuals earning between 100 and 138 percent of the poverty line. Even with
premium and out-of-pocket subsidies provided to the exchange plans, they
generally charge higher premiums and have much greater exposure to out of
pocket costs. In a best-case scenario for the exchange plans, premiums would be
similar and out-pocket costs might be a few hundred dollars higher. In a
worst-case scenario (in the Houston plan), the combination of premiums and
out-of-pocket costs might eat up $2,510 for a beneficiary earning $13,000 a
year -- or about 19.3 percent of an already minimal income, and roughly
$1,800-$1,900 more than even a modified Medicaid expansion would likely cost. That
$1,800 probably puts food on the table and pays the electric bill for a year. </span></div>
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">Let’s step back one second: this doesn’t mean that exchange
plans are worthless – they have helped more than 10 million people get access
to decent insurance. And for the 1.9 million people between 100 and 138 percent
of the poverty line using them, they are a lifeline to reasonably good care at
a highly discounted price. In some isolated cases, they might offer some one
flexibility to see a needed specialist who doesn’t accept Medicaid. However,
even with generous cost-sharing and premium subsidies, they leave people just
above the poverty line in a considerably worse position than the equivalent
access to expanded Medicaid would.</span><br />
<br />
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">And that’s why people under 138 percent of the poverty line
were supposed to qualify for Medicaid under the terms of the Affordable Care
Act. </span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">And that's also why we need to elect people who will expand Medicaid like they ought to.</span></div>
</div>
</div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09825177783624513614noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8180568143116902793.post-51404814840052961102016-06-09T19:33:00.001-07:002016-06-09T19:33:01.913-07:00Transitional plans and insurance exchanges IIOne day after my last post, the New York Times <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/10/us/health-insurance-affordable-care-act.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=mini-moth&region=top-stories-below&WT.nav=top-stories-below&_r=0" target="_blank">ran an article</a> on Geisinger Health, an insurance company requesting a large rate increase on the PA exchange<span id="goog_1363534589"></span><a href="https://www.blogger.com/"></a><span id="goog_1363534590"></span>. One reason why? Because the transitional plans are keeping considerable numbers of healthy people out of the exchanges. It would have been nice if the article had mentioned it before three paragraphs from the end.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09825177783624513614noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8180568143116902793.post-54202527244437161782016-06-08T16:44:00.002-07:002016-06-08T18:33:48.104-07:00Are transitional insurance plans driving losses on state exchanges?The ACA's insurance exchanges have generally been successful in helping <a href="http://kff.org/uninsured/fact-sheet/key-facts-about-the-uninsured-population/" target="_blank">to reduce the ranks of uninsured</a> in the United States, while providing reasonable quality insurance to its policyholders.<br />
<br />
However, several challenges still remain. Most notably, a good number of insurers have had <a href="http://www.medpagetoday.com/Washington-Watch/Reform/54656" target="_blank">problems</a> <a href="https://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2015/11/19/unitedhealth-may-quit-obamacare-blow-health-law/C6DkzWviDcJAVMBzPCPPbM/story.html" target="_blank">with breaking even on the exchange products</a> (though <a href="https://www.balloon-juice.com/2016/04/26/on-exchange-profitability/" target="_blank">some are making money</a>). That stems from several problems, notably Marco Rubio <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/10/us/politics/marco-rubio-obamacare-affordable-care-act.html?_r=0" target="_blank">blowing up the risk corridor reinsurance program</a> that undermined many insurer's business plans, especially non-profit co-ops trying to break into the market. Other insurers, like United Health, have just tended to be bad at competitively designing and pricing plans. <br />
<br />
However, the risk pools for the exchanges <a href="http://www.modernhealthcare.com/article/20160514/MAGAZINE/305149980" target="_blank">have also proven to be somewhat older and sicker</a> than predicted, which has also tended to drive up prices in 2016 and will likely do so more in 2017. I haven't seen a great explanation for this other than "predicting new risk pools is hard," -- which it undoubtedly is. <br />
<br />
However, <i>the New England Journal of Medicine</i> last week featured a <a href="http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1602981" target="_blank">very interesting Perspectives piece</a> (gated unfortunately) by John Hsu that fingers grandmothered plans as the culprit. <br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<br />
So what are "grandmothered" plans and how might they be partially undermining the exchanges?<br />
<br />
Back in the brouhaha preceding the roll-out of Healthcare.gov, millions of Americans getting insurance through individual plans received scary cancellation notices informing them that their plan wasn't compliant with the ACA and would not be renewed. The insurance companies then offered to sell the a compliant plan -- for a much higher price. <br />
<br />
Of course, the plans being cancelled were so cheap (for young healthy people) because they were generally lousy insurance -- they excluded essential services, had obscenely low pay-out caps and any number of other consumer-unfriendly features that the ACA banned.<br />
<br />
And naturally, the companies didn't inform the consumers that a similar or better plan, much cheaper -- and often eligible for government subsidies would be available on the state exchange. <br />
<br />
But Obama had promised that "you could keep your plan" and a huge political firestorm ensued. So, the administration allowed states to continue (or in Charles Gaba's term "<a href="http://acasignups.net/16/04/18/updated-how-many-grandfatheredgrandmothered-plans-are-still-around-anyway" target="_blank">grandmother</a>" in non-compliant individual plans as long as they didn't change. 39 states permitted the grandfathered plans to continue, 11 and Washington DC didn't. Gaba reports now only 35 states do. <br />
<br />
Hsu split out the states into two groups based on this variable and found that states that banned grandfathered plans lost an average of 55 percent less per enrollee on the individual market ($493 to $222) than those states that permitted them in 2014.<br />
<br />
This makes sense: the transitional plans likely covered healthy people cheaply, keeping them out of the exchanges where they would cover the claims for sicker people. As a result, prices will have to increase. Government subsidies and the steady ending of the transitional plans will hopefully prevent a death spiral (knock on wood) but prices jumped in 2016 and will again in 2017 as insurers adjust.<br />
<br />
Another point in favor of Hsu's argument is that the 2016 benchmark Silver plan (on which exchange subsidies are based) increased by 12 percent in states that permitted transitional plans -- and only 5 percent in those that didn't.<br />
<br />
Hsu's piece isn't particularly methodologically rigorous: I suspect the states that have phased out grandfathered plans are blue states also have attempted to promote the exchanges much more vigorously and do other things to generally manage their insurance markets more effectively so I'd want to see at least some simple regression analysis to weed out potential confounders. <br />
<br />
Also, though he does look at per-beneficiary losses as a key variable, some of his stats, are, well, bunk (he notes that 90 percent of the losses occurred in the states that permitted grandfathering to continue, but doesn't explicitly note that roughly 80 percent of the states permitted plans, nor does he control for state population, though fortunately his per-enrollee numbers do.)<br />
<br />
Still though even if I don't think he has enough evidence to get a conviction, Hsu definitely has probable cause to get a search warrant for a more rigorous follow-up study.<br />
<br />
Incidentally, Gaba has been performing his usual yeoman work <a href="http://acasignups.net/16/06/08/update-fewer-1-million-transitional-enrollees-left" target="_blank">trying to get a handle</a> on how many of these plans are out there and how many people they cover. I and my half-dozen loyal readers (Hi Mom!) would be interested to see him extend Hsu's analysis (since he clearly has <a href="https://charlesgaba.com/" target="_blank">nothing else</a> more important to do with his time.)Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09825177783624513614noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8180568143116902793.post-49202538429773774002016-06-07T13:21:00.000-07:002016-06-07T13:21:23.392-07:00Two-tiered justiceOn the recent Stanford rape case, I think Scott Lemieux <a href="http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2016/06/20-minutes-of-action#comments" target="_blank">makes a valuable point</a> that helps clarify something I've been struggling with: does asking for a stronger sentence for a privileged person who has gotten off lightly undermine the broader push to make the U.S. criminal justice system less punitive?<br />
<br />
Lemieux argues that it doesn't. Indeed, he suggests that the two are complementary goals: If you hold privileged (read: white and rich) defendants to the same standards the you hold underprivileged ones, people with power won't be able to ignore how draconian the system is and push to change it, instead of being able to close their eyes to it because those close to them escape its clutches. Think about the differences in the ways we've treated the opioid addiction problem and cocaine (abused broadly by middle and upper-class whites) in comparison to the way we treated the meth, heroin and crack problems (used disproportionately by the poor and/or minorities).<br />
<br />
Finally, good on the survivor for <a href="https://www.buzzfeed.com/katiejmbaker/heres-the-powerful-letter-the-stanford-victim-read-to-her-ra?utm_term=.baM6gBy5Q#.plA7VezKj" target="_blank">her statement</a> to the court and defendant during the sentencing. I have much respect for her.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09825177783624513614noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8180568143116902793.post-53842415243701733662016-04-28T16:56:00.001-07:002016-04-28T17:53:18.672-07:00GOP's near-total blockade on Obama's appointments continues -- but you can help a bitWhile we were all focused on the primary elections on Tuesday, something interesting happened on the Senate floor when <a href="https://democrats.senate.gov/2016/04/26/mcconnell-cornyn-object-to-vote-on-judicial-nominations/#.VyKMP4-cFPY" target="_blank">Democrats made a conscious, polite and ultimately futile effort</a> to get a few judges confirmed. <br />
<br />
Hawaii Senator Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii) asked for unanimous consent to vote on Obama's eleven district court nominees that have been approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee -- without objection -- and have been awaiting the action of the full Senate (see the full Senate Calendar here).<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEibN0IDeD1nl3kc1nhtASaC730BxWU-tvbcQORgGnCMuabNiWzf72TfHKnUZlp8e6fTQoaw-gtkJM0FnW4KzSI6Suwzofsaihe4LC_ez75KYy4mgt7KzPmCEcvPGBdErrfM0qdj6Z0IzQ8A/s1600/gavel.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="155" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEibN0IDeD1nl3kc1nhtASaC730BxWU-tvbcQORgGnCMuabNiWzf72TfHKnUZlp8e6fTQoaw-gtkJM0FnW4KzSI6Suwzofsaihe4LC_ez75KYy4mgt7KzPmCEcvPGBdErrfM0qdj6Z0IzQ8A/s200/gavel.jpg" width="200" /></a></div>
<br />
Sen. Majority leader Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky) objected to the request.<br />
<br />
Then Chuck Schumer (D- New York) asked for unanimous consent to vote on the seven that have been approved by Judiciary -- again without opposition -- and have been waiting on the floor since November 5. <br />
<br />
McConnell again objected.<br />
<br />
Then Ben Cardin (D - Maryland) said, OK, could we vote on the four that have been waiting on the floor since October 29 -- six months ago. Those are<br />
<br />
Paula Xinis, District of Maryland,<br />
Brian R. Martinotti, District of New Jersey, <br />
Robert F. Rossiter, Jr., District of Nebraska, <br />
Edward L. Stanton III, Western District of Tennessee<br />
<br />
John Cornyn (R-Texas) objected.<br />
<br />
Finally, Cardin said, could we maybe just vote on the Xinis nomination, since she was approved by Judiciary in September, no one has raised any opposition to her and she has been awaiting floor action for seven months? <br />
<br />
Cornyn objected again. <br />
<br />
We all know about the near complete refusal of Senate Republicans to even meet with, let alone hold hearings for, vote on or even, gasp, approve President Obama's Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland. <br />
<br />
But we can't forget about the rest of these nominations either that are <a href="http://themakeshiftacademic.blogspot.com/2016/03/dont-forget-about-obamas-other-stalled.html" target="_blank">facing nearly a complete blockade by Republicans</a>. In addition to the eleven awaiting floor action, 41 nominees are <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_judges_appointed_by_Barack_Obama" target="_blank">awaiting action</a> in the Judiciary Committee. <br />
<br />
In the 2015-2016 Congress to this point, the GOP-controlled Senate has only confirmed two circuit court appointments and fifteen district court judges.<br />
<br />
For comparison, in the 2007-2008 Congress through April 30, the Democratic-controlled Senate had <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_judges_appointed_by_George_W._Bush" target="_blank">confirmed</a> seven of George W. Bush's circuit court nominees and 38 of his district court nominees.<br />
<br />
And in 2013-2014, by April 30, the Democratic controlled Senate had confirmed fifteen nominations to the circuit courts and 54 to the district courts.<br />
<br />
It's reasonable that the GOP wants to scrutinize Obama's appointments a bit more (and even reject a few), but these 11 judges have had been scrutinized. They've been waiting for confirmation between seven and 14 months. They have all cleared a GOP-controlled Judiciary committee by voice vote. There is no opposition -- reasonable or otherwise -- to giving them their commissions. This is only about delay.<br />
<br />
These are judges that are uncontroversial and needed to help the government perform their basic functions. Unlike Garland, they don't represent huge ideological stakes in themselves, so a bit of pressure might get the Republicans to let a few go. <br />
<br />
Consider calling your state's Senators, especially if they are Republicans -- and especially if you're from Texas and have Cornyn as your Senator. (Don't e-mail, that's useless). <a href="http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm?OrderBy=state&Sort=ASC" target="_blank">Here's</a> a list of numbers for their Washington offices. State your name, and give a brief, polite (don't be a jerk) message asking them to hold a vote on the 11 district court nominees that await floor action. <br />
<br />
The 11, including their numbers on the <a href="http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/executive_calendar/xcalv.pdf" target="_blank">executive calendar</a> are:<br />
<br />
#307 Paula Xinis, District of Maryland,<br />
#357 Brian R. Martinotti, District of New Jersey, <br />
#358 Robert F. Rossiter, Jr., District of Nebraska, <br />
#359 Edward L. Stanton III, Western District of Tennessee<br />
#362 Julien Xavier Neals, District of New Jersey<br />
#363 Gary Richard Brown, Eastern District of New York<br />
#364 Mark A. Young, Central District of California<br />
#459 Marilyn Jean Horan, Western District of Pennsylvania, <br />
#460 Susan Paradise Baxter, Western District of Pennsylvania, <br />
#461 Mary S. McElroy, District of Rhode Island <br />
#508 Clare E. Connors, District of HawaiiAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09825177783624513614noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8180568143116902793.post-36603621188072621102016-04-22T08:21:00.001-07:002016-04-22T08:21:28.703-07:00Boring Bureaucrats help save the world: energy editionWhen it comes to stopping global climate change, you probably don't think much about vending machines. Fortunately for all us, a lot of non-descript civil servants do. <br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi8k_WHQNO-XANufrRgmUnQ8jTsIkx-Xuakt0fgH7XCeFLp6x8KkmE_Q81gzRzZ77sfwFMBUlTw1OnW-_Rs1e9J3ISgNx9oyQnwK8C62yG2QgOrJLrW-US1AtyLUQvLtQj-dtBbtKXdq5Er/s1600/Coke+vending+machine.jpg.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi8k_WHQNO-XANufrRgmUnQ8jTsIkx-Xuakt0fgH7XCeFLp6x8KkmE_Q81gzRzZ77sfwFMBUlTw1OnW-_Rs1e9J3ISgNx9oyQnwK8C62yG2QgOrJLrW-US1AtyLUQvLtQj-dtBbtKXdq5Er/s320/Coke+vending+machine.jpg.png" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Don't worry, the government is on it. (Really.)</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Nor have you probably ever heard of the Department of Energy's <a href="http://energy.gov/eere/buildings/appliance-and-equipment-standards-program" target="_blank">Appliance and Equipment Standards Program</a> (AESP). I'm sure it's staffed by lovely, if slightly nerdy khaki-wearing personnel. <br />
<br />
But it's one of the Obama administrations most effective secret weapons in the fight against global warming. <br />
<br />
Let's start with the two million beverage vending machines in the United States. Rules issued by AESP in 2015, will lead to machines coming online in 2019 required to be 16 percent more energy efficient in 2019 than today's. Over 30 years, it will save 7 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions, an average 233,000 tons a year. That's the equivalent of <a href="https://ghgdata.epa.gov/ghgp/main.do#/listFacility/?q=Find%20a%20Facility%20or%20Location&st=OH&bs=&fid=&sf=11001000&lowE=-20000&highE=23000000&g1=1&g2=0&g3=0&g4=0&g5=0&g6=0&g7=0&g8=0&g9=0&g10=0&g11=0&g12=0&s1=1&s2=0&s3=0&s4=0&s5=0&s6=0&s7=0&s8=0&s9=0&s10=1&s201=1&s202=1&s203=1&s204=1&s301=1&s302=1&s303=1&s304=1&s305=1&s306=1&s307=1&s401=1&s402=1&s403=1&s404=1&s405=1&s601=1&s602=1&s701=1&s702=1&s703=1&s704=1&s705=1&s706=1&s707=1&s708=1&s709=1&s710=1&s711=1&s801=1&s802=1&s803=1&s804=1&s805=1&s806=1&s807=0&s808=1&s809=1&s810=1&s901=1&s902=0&s903=1&s904=1&s905=0&s906=1&s907=1&s908=1&s909=1&si=&ss=&so=0&ds=P&yr=2014&tr=current&cyr=2014&rs=ALL" target="_blank">shutting down</a> Ohio's First Energy's Lakeshore Power Plant, which is a medium-sized coal plant in Ohio.<br />
<br />
It will also save businesses at least $210 million in electrical bills over the same time. <br />
<br />
Big deal, you say. The US <a href="https://www.epa.gov/ghgreporting" target="_blank">emitted</a> 6.8 billion tons of CO2 equivalent in 2014, cutting 233,000 tons a year is a nice gesture, but hardly serious climate reduction.<br />
<br />
We're just getting started. Read on to see efficiency standards really start to add up.<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
Residential air conditioners are notoriously inefficient. In January, the AESP <a href="https://www.nrdc.org/experts/meg-waltner/consensus-reached-residential-air-conditioner-and-heat-pump-efficiency-standards" target="_blank">worked out consensus standards</a> with input from environmental activists, consumer advocates and manufacturers to increase efficiency standards for residential air conditioners. The resulting rule will save consumers $38 billion and cut carbon emissions by 175 million of CO2 over three decades. That's about 5.8 million tons a year, or the same as removing <a href="https://ghgdata.epa.gov/ghgp/main.do#/listFacility/?q=Find%20a%20Facility%20or%20Location&st=OH&bs=&fid=&sf=11001000&lowE=-20000&highE=23000000&g1=1&g2=0&g3=0&g4=0&g5=0&g6=0&g7=0&g8=0&g9=0&g10=0&g11=0&g12=0&s1=1&s2=0&s3=0&s4=0&s5=0&s6=0&s7=0&s8=0&s9=0&s10=1&s201=1&s202=1&s203=1&s204=1&s301=1&s302=1&s303=1&s304=1&s305=1&s306=1&s307=1&s401=1&s402=1&s403=1&s404=1&s405=1&s601=1&s602=1&s701=1&s702=1&s703=1&s704=1&s705=1&s706=1&s707=1&s708=1&s709=1&s710=1&s711=1&s801=1&s802=1&s803=1&s804=1&s805=1&s806=1&s807=0&s808=1&s809=1&s810=1&s901=1&s902=0&s903=1&s904=1&s905=0&s906=1&s907=1&s908=1&s909=1&si=&ss=&so=0&ds=P&yr=2014&tr=current&cyr=2014&rs=ALL" target="_blank">Kyger Creek</a>, which is the coal plant with the seventh largest emissions in Ohio.<br />
<br />
But there's more. Rooftop air conditioners cool large commercial buildings and suffer from many of the same inefficiencies as residential units. Manufacturers groups and DOE have been working together on <a href="https://www4.eere.energy.gov/alliance/activities/technology-solutions-teams/space-conditioning/rtu" target="_blank">improving</a> specifications and performance since 2011. In 2015, the AESP took the results and codified improved performance into efficiency standards that phase in starting in 2018. By 2023, new commercial air conditioners will need to be at least 25 percent more efficient than todays. The tougher standards will result in $50 billion in reduced utility bills for building owners and 885 million tons in reduced carbon emissions over 30 years. That works out to an average of 29 million tons in reduced emissions every year -- the same as <a href="https://ghgdata.epa.gov/ghgp/main.do#/listFacility/?q=Find%20a%20Facility%20or%20Location&st=OH&bs=&fid=&sf=11001000&lowE=-20000&highE=23000000&g1=1&g2=0&g3=0&g4=0&g5=0&g6=0&g7=0&g8=0&g9=0&g10=0&g11=0&g12=0&s1=1&s2=0&s3=0&s4=0&s5=0&s6=0&s7=0&s8=0&s9=0&s10=1&s201=1&s202=1&s203=1&s204=1&s301=1&s302=1&s303=1&s304=1&s305=1&s306=1&s307=1&s401=1&s402=1&s403=1&s404=1&s405=1&s601=1&s602=1&s701=1&s702=1&s703=1&s704=1&s705=1&s706=1&s707=1&s708=1&s709=1&s710=1&s711=1&s801=1&s802=1&s803=1&s804=1&s805=1&s806=1&s807=0&s808=1&s809=1&s810=1&s901=1&s902=0&s903=1&s904=1&s905=0&s906=1&s907=1&s908=1&s909=1&si=&ss=&so=0&ds=P&yr=2014&tr=current&cyr=2014&rs=ALL" target="_blank">mothballing</a> the two largest coal power plants in Ohio.<br />
<br />
And there's still more: televisions, dishwashers, ceiling fan lighting units, fluorescent lights, furnaces, industrial boilers, washing machines.... you get the idea. It starts adding up to significant savings.<br />
<br />
How much? Overall, the AESP has <a href="http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2015/12/f27/Appliance%20and%20Equipment%20Standards%20Fact%20Sheet%2012-11-15_0.pdf" target="_blank">issued</a> 34 updated equipment standards, covering 40 common appliances since 2009, which will save 3 gigatons of carbon emissions by 2030. That accumulates to 150 million tons of emissions reduction a year -- about 2 percent of 2014's emissions.<br />
<br />
In coal power plant terms, that reduction is the same as permanently shutting down every coal power plant in Ohio.... and most of the ones in Michigan too.<br />
<br />
So when we talk about the solving global warming, remember that the struggle <br />
occurs on many fronts. Putting a price on carbon matters (and no it <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-roberts/cap-and-trade-vs-carbon-t_b_200144.html" target="_blank">isn't important</a> whether it's a Cap and Trade system or carbon tax), eliminating coal production is paramount, but the Obama administration's quiet focus on improving efficiency standards for the machines we use every day leverages an extremely effective and underrated tool we need to value a lot more.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09825177783624513614noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8180568143116902793.post-91649520355671959962016-04-17T01:00:00.002-07:002016-04-17T01:32:00.874-07:00If Dems get a chance to confirm Garland in the lame duck session, they should take it<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhT4XOn2YjnVj3w8YwgJZ_RbXkd3sdSFwlPeaqRTjCQ6l3EjlypLQ69F6NENyg08H2vjOx6monKJd2X-8E45n85Hc_QFNwKjAQ4bjcUvCeVIZmu7RHTfW6ktJ1Rxjxkn-La3zueO_QcljY7/s1600/garland.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhT4XOn2YjnVj3w8YwgJZ_RbXkd3sdSFwlPeaqRTjCQ6l3EjlypLQ69F6NENyg08H2vjOx6monKJd2X-8E45n85Hc_QFNwKjAQ4bjcUvCeVIZmu7RHTfW6ktJ1Rxjxkn-La3zueO_QcljY7/s320/garland.jpg" width="227" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Merrick Garland</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div style="text-align: left;">
At last Thursday's Democratic debate, moderators asked Democratic presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders a question from NY Daily News reader Hannah Green regarding Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court vacancy left by the death of Antonin Scalia.<b></b><i></i><u></u><sub></sub><sup></sup><strike></strike></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Hannah Green (ph) wants to know your position, Secretary Clinton, regarding President Obama's nomination of Merrick Gaarland to the Supreme m Court. President Obama said earlier this week that he would not withdraw the nomination, even after the presidential election. If elected, would you ask the president to withdraw the nomination?</blockquote>
Both Clinton and Sanders said that the currently support the nomination and strongly denounced Sen. Republicans for obstructing Garland's appointment. But they differed on whether they would ask Obama to withdraw the nomination if they were elected president: <br />
<br />
Clinton indicated acceptance of Obama's pick: <br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
I am not going to contradict the president's strategy on this. And I'm not going to engage in hypotheticals. I fully support the president. </blockquote>
Sanders said he would ask Obama to withdraw the nomination:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
...obviously I will strongly support that nomination as a member of the Senate. But, if elected president, I would ask the president to withdraw that nomination because.... I think that we need a Supreme Court justice who will make it crystal clear, and this nominee has not yet done that, crystal clear that he or she will vote to overturn Citizens United and make sure that American democracy is not undermined. </blockquote>
(Debate<a href="http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/14/politics/transcript-democratic-debate-hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders/index.html" target="_blank"> transcript from CNN</a>.)<br />
I want to be careful about extrapolating inaccurate meanings from their words, but it seems that Clinton is indicating that she'd be open to having Garland confirmed to the court in a lame duck session if Democrats retain the presidency and retake the Senate. Sanders, on the other hand, would want to wait to get a better judge (meaning younger, more liberal and perhaps non-white or female.)<br />
<br />
I agree with Clinton. I think the costs of passing up a chance to get Garland on the bench are greater than the gains of holding out for some one potentially better (in the admittedly extremely low chance that Garland ever actually gets a vote). Hit the jump for my reasoning.<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
Don't get me wrong: Sanders is taking a legitimate position and I understand the appeal. A Democratic Senate might be able to get at least a younger (see Jane Kelly or Sri Srinivasan), or and/or perhaps a more liberal (<a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2013/11/12/nina_pillard_not_a_radical_feminist_obama_s_nominee_for_d_c_circuit_court.html" target="_blank">Cornelia Pillard</a>, anyone?) justice on the bench. The idea would be to lock a surefire vote for progressives on the bench for 20-25 years instead of 10-15. <br />
<br />
But there are two sets of costs to this strategy as well that I think likely outweigh the gains. <br />
<br />
(Note that this analysis assumes an incoming Democratic president and Senate, which is the only circumstance under which Republicans would even consider confirming Garland)<br />
<br />
First, a confirmed judge Garland on the bench immediately takes his commission and joins oral arguments in December or January, while a nominee in a Sanders administration would take some time to get confirmed. That's important, because there might be some important cases coming down the pike that will be heard that he can participate in. It took 87 days from her nomination to confirm Elena Kagan in 2010, and 65 days to seat Sonia Sotomayor in 2009. Considering that any incoming administration is going to be taking up precious Senate floor time getting more than a dozen cabinet officials and other personnel confirmed -- including the attorney general and deputies, which go through the judiciary committee -- a Supreme Court justice might take even longer. <br />
<br />
Second, there's an opportunity cost for Democrats to not confirming Garland if they have a chance to do so. Supreme Court justices take massive amounts of resources in both the administration and the Senate to move through the confirmation process, even assuming that no one is trying to obstruct the process.<br />
<br />
If Garland is on the bench, all of those resources can be spent on doing other productive things that need to be done....<br />
<br />
.... like potentially vetting and approving another Supreme Court justice. Ruth Bader Ginsburg will turn 85 this year, and Stephen Breyer will turn 79. It's pretty likely that one or both might choose to step down in the first year of a Clinton or Sanders presidency, especially if the Democrats take a majority of the Senate. And Anthony Kennedy will be 81 in 2017. Replacing any or all of those seats helps solidify the progressive position on the court. <br />
<br />
But Supreme Court justices aside, it'd still be great to spend time and resources pushing through other federal judges to fill <a href="http://judicialnominations.org/judicial-vacancies" target="_blank">the vast number of vacancies in the courts</a> instead of re-litigating a potential Supreme Court nomination. Remember that the vast majority of cases are settled at the district level, and most of the rest An extra 15-20 district judges in the first two years of a new Democratic administration would fill unused seats, lower case loads and speed up justice in hundreds of routine civil cases that aren't routine to the victims of discrimination and theft that file them. An extra three or four appellate judges would nudge the balance of power on important appeals courts further toward the progressive edge and lower the potential for circuit splits. A Fifth Circuit with only a 10-7 or 9-8 Republican majority would provide three-judge panels that on the balance were much less scary for progressive litigants pressing claims on every thing from reproductive and labor issues to voting rights, civil liberties, immigration and the environment than the current 10-5 split does. Ditto for the Sixth, Seventh and Eighth circuits, all of which still sport large majorities of Republican-appointed judges. <br />
<br />
And using this precious floor time wisely becomes doubly important, because the Democrats face an utterly brutal landscape in the 2018 Senate races: defending seats in dark red North Dakota, Missouri and Indiana and West Virginia, as well as in Montana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, Virginia and Wisconsin. <br />
<br />
That ain't going to be easy, folks. Best make hay while the sun shines. Sending back a good Supreme Court pick to try to get an great one isn't the best use of an incoming president's or Senate's time when we're going to have a lot of open lower court positions to fill -- if not another Supreme Court vacancy.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09825177783624513614noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8180568143116902793.post-41819170773906573462016-04-06T23:52:00.003-07:002016-04-07T00:04:52.283-07:00Cost sharing blocks access to health care<br />
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">The notion that health cost containment requires people to put “skin in the game” has a long pedigree. Requiring people to pay something through premiums or co-pays for health care, the theory goes makes them more discerning consumers about health services and eliminates unnecessary health care.</span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">The problem is that they also stop seeking care for things that require medical attention.</span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<a name='more'></a><br />
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">A recent meta study in <i>Pediatrics</i> has reviewed the existing research
on the impacts that cost-sharing through charging low-income people premiums for Medicaid and CHIP. Reviewing eight studies on the subject noted
that all of them found that low-income recipients of Medicaid were more likely
to cut out needed care than they would with no costs. Aaron Carroll of the must-read
Incidental Economist blog breaks it all down succinctly and clearly <a href="http://theincidentaleconomist.com/wordpress/healthcare-triage-news-premiums-for-chip-and-medicaid-lead-to-lower-enrollment-and-uninsured-kids/" target="_blank">here</a>. </span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">That study joins an National Bureau of Economic Research <a href="http://www.nber.org/papers/w21632?utm_campaign=ntw&utm_medium=email&utm_source=ntw" target="_blank">study</a> from 2015 that showed employees insured under plans with high cost-sharing simply stopped seeking care rather than shopping around.</span></div>
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">This outcome was actually pretty predictable. In the 1970s, the famous <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAND_Health_Insurance_Experiment" target="_blank">RAND healthcare study</a> ran across similar findings as well.
The result that always gets reported from that study is that people tend
to consume more healthcare if they don’t pay for it, without regard to quality.
Conversely cost-sharing in the form of co-pays, deductibles and coinsurance,
decreased the amount of healthcare consumed. </span><br />
<br />
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">What isn’t often reported, however, as Balloon-Juice’s
resident Health Policy Richard Mayhew <a href="https://www.balloon-juice.com/2015/10/15/rand-reconfirmed/" target="_blank">has noted</a>, is that people subjected to
cost-sharing in the RAND study (and follow-up studies) consumed less health-care regardless of quality.
That is, they didn’t become more discerning consumers that the “skin in the
game" argument suggested they would be. Instead they cut back on needed care, likely with bad results for their own health, and public health.</span></div>
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">The <i>Pediatrics</i> meta study shows that a reasonably large body of
research since then on the same subject reaches the same conclusion – charging
poor people for health care leads them to skip necessary care.</span><br />
<br />
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">But many state Medicaid programs incorporate cost-sharing
for enrollees in the higher end (above 100 percent) of the Poverty line, and
Indiana’s <a href="http://kff.org/medicaid/fact-sheet/medicaid-expansion-in-indiana/" target="_blank">expansion waiver</a> makes everyone in its “Healthy Indiana” contribute
something to a Health Savings Account on a monthly basis. To be clear here,
these are generally <a href="http://khn.org/news/in-conservative-indiana-medicaid-expansion-makes-poorest-pay/" target="_blank">low amounts</a> -- $1 for co-pays or $5 a month into an Health
Savings Account. Most people in the program pay them, but some still can’t,
which makes the program controversial and less helpful than it otherwise would
be, while contributing miniscule amounts to its bottom line.</span></div>
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">The research implies that focusing on the supply-side
(providers) is ultimately the most effective way to control costs. On some
level this is intuitive. Only non-individual payers (like the government and,
yes, even those evil insurance companies) have the expertise and financial
power to uncover and force providers to provide cost-effective care. Reforms to
payments like penalties for unnecessary hospital readmissions, cutting payments
for Medicare Advantage programs, encouraging accountable care organizations and
the still dormant Payment Advisory Board, ultimately will help providers push
their expertise toward providing better care instead of more care.</span><br />
<br />
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">So if cost-sharing doesn’t work, why does it keep finding
its way into Medicaid expansion programs?</span></div>
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">To put it bluntly: conservative ideology in the case of
Republicans controlling numerous state governments, and the need to work around
it on the part of the Obama administration and allies pushing to expand
Medicaid.</span><br />
<br />
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">The Obama administration’s basic strategy seems to use cost
sharing as a bargaining chip in Medicaid expansion negotiations with GOP-controlled
states. The administration willing to a give a bit on cost sharing in exchange
for the goal of extending basic coverage to large swaths of previously
uninsured individuals. Given the practical constraints of resistance in
GOP-controlled states, it seems like a reasonable approach. It will allow
states to expand Medicaid with a bit symbolic (though harmful) cost-sharing in
a waiver. Even though the take-up would be lower than it would be with a
no-premium no-cost-sharing structure, the compromise is worth it to get large
numbers of people into a Medicaid expansion instead of holding out for a
completely free Medicaid program while tens or hundreds of thousands of people
twist in the wind. Indiana, Michigan, Iowa and Arkansas’s original waiver
expansions fall under this rubric of expansion in return for a bit of cost
sharing – especially Indiana’s plan which mandates contributions even from
extremely poor people under 50 percent of the poverty line. </span></div>
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">However, Obama’s HHS has drawn three fairly bright lines.
First, it almost always rejects egregious cost sharing for the most vulnerable
beneficiaries: extremely poor individuals (under 50 percent of the poverty line
and medically frail recipients. Second, it rejects work requirements for
Medicaid recipients out of hand. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">Finally, Secretary Sylvia Burwell has strongly resisted
attempts to introduce or increase cost-sharing for people enrolled in an
expansion program already up and running. So <a href="http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/3/31/1508539/-John-Kasich-s-Christian-charity-in-Ohio-Medicaid-expansion-has-its-limits" target="_blank">Ohio</a>, which wants to attach
cost-sharing to its Medicaid expansion population and Kentucky Governor Matt Bevin, who wants to
<a href="http://www.wlwt.com/news/ky-gov-matt-bevin-targets-medicaid-overhaul-plan-for-2017/37195876" target="_blank">trade in</a> the successful traditional expansion of Democratic Governor Steve Beshear for an Indiana-style model, will likely face stiff resistance from HHS as long as a Democrat occupies the White House.</span><br />
<br />
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">Assuming a hypothetical Republican administration keeps the
basic structure of Obamacare intact (still an extremely large assumption,
though less big than it was in 2012), you can bet that President Cruz’s HHS
secretary would eagerly approve lots more cost-sharing for poor people in the
name of “personal responsibility,” regardless of the impact on access to care
or overall health.</span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">Yep, elections still matter.</span></div>
</div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09825177783624513614noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8180568143116902793.post-77974786272701234982016-03-17T23:45:00.003-07:002016-03-18T09:25:37.179-07:00Don't forget about Obama's other stalled federal court nomineesMuch of the coverage of the federal courts over the last several weeks has rightly focused President Obama's nomination of D.C. Circuit Judge Merrick Garland to fill the Supreme Court vacancy, and the complete refusal of Republican Senators to even pretend to consider him. <br />
<br />
But we can't forget about the other court vacancies that exist. As of<a href="http://judicialnominations.org/statistics" target="_blank"> last month</a>, there are 62 district court vacancies and nine vacancies on the Courts of Appeals.<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEindQNh4AWqpxDzzQf4x1weR6qy2M32CbqnJ-GbGXUCN9GCs7xbeSb1BxK7ZZ1xnW11DXtuo5XVc8CWypdTfRG-DdpcQVzES5S7UCGy5QcG74K5QxcFkwuh8m1HfgWKvSThtBcKRXkmTuOb/s1600/tantrum.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEindQNh4AWqpxDzzQf4x1weR6qy2M32CbqnJ-GbGXUCN9GCs7xbeSb1BxK7ZZ1xnW11DXtuo5XVc8CWypdTfRG-DdpcQVzES5S7UCGy5QcG74K5QxcFkwuh8m1HfgWKvSThtBcKRXkmTuOb/s320/tantrum.png" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><div>
Sen. Majority leader Mitch McConnell speaks about </div>
<div>
President Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland </div>
<div>
to the Supreme Court.</div>
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
Obama <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_judges_appointed_by_Barack_Obama" target="_blank">currently has nominees</a> waiting for 34 of those district court slots and seven of the Circuit Courts.<br />
<br />
But Sen. Majority leader and Mitch McConnell and his fellow Republicans will likely drag those nominees out. In 2015, the Senate confirmed one circuit judge and 10 district court judges. <br />
<br />
In 2007, under an incoming Democratic Senate, George W. Bush was able to get six circuit court justices and 34 district judges <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_judges_appointed_by_George_W._Bush" target="_blank">appointed</a>. <br />
<br />
And during 2014 the Democratic-controlled Senate confirmed 12 circuit court judges and 76 district nominees.<br />
<br />
(Gee, holding the Senate in the 2014 elections would have been nice, wouldn't it?)<br />
<br />
So far this year they have managed to <a href="http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/obama-nominations-blocked-senate-judges-217589" target="_blank">confirm</a> one circuit judge and four district judges -- all of whom were ready for votes last November.<br />
<br />
Now with the Garland nomination taking up a lot of bandwidth, it's possible the McConnell and Judiciary Chuck Grassley can use it to claim that they don't have time to process any lower-level judges.<br />
<br />
Progressive activists can't let that happen. We should highlight the near total blockade ongoing in the Senate of Obama judicial appointees alongside our demands for Garland.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_judges_appointed_by_Barack_Obama" target="_blank">Eleven district court nominees</a> have cleared the judiciary committee and await action on the Senate floor. None of them are controversial and all sailed out of committee by voice vote. <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waverly_D._Crenshaw,_Jr." target="_blank">Waverly Crenshaw</a> of Tennessee's nomination has been waiting on the Senate floor since last July. McConnell could have a vote on him and the other 10 all during the next Senate session and every one of them could be on the job next week, actually, you know, providing justice.<br />
<br />
Most of the other district (and likely most of the Circuit judges) are completely uncontroversial as well and would sail through, but Grassley is slow walking them.<br />
<br />
I'm not suggesting that we should sacrifice a Supreme Court nominee for district or even circuit judges. However, loudly and continuously reminding the GOP that we haven't forgotten about Obama's other judicial nominees alongside our complaints about the disgraceful treatment of Garland is useful. It might even provide enough political fiber to persuade McConnell to release some district judges and perhaps a few circuit court judges to appease the vulnerable members of his caucus and provide a fig-leaf to rebut charges of total obstruction. <br />
<br />
It's small ball, but every Obama appointee that goes through eases delays of justice, makes government work more effectively and likely will help protect Obama's legacy well into the future. Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09825177783624513614noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8180568143116902793.post-77399722424307006862016-03-01T22:17:00.004-08:002016-03-01T22:17:48.446-08:00There's not going to be a contested conventionSo I'm watching MSNBC and Rachel Maddow is discussing potential permutations of a contested Republican convention in which Trump doesn't win a majority of the delegates. <br />
<br />
The one problem that I see with all this talk is that Trump appears to be easily on track to get a majority of delegates, unless things change drastically in the next two weeks, which they haven't in the last two months.<br />
<br />
The "establishment" darling Marco Rubio seems to failing to hold up his end of the bargain by continuing to lose. In fact, he's failing to clear <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/18/upshot/mainstream-gop-field-of-three-faces-brutal-delegate-math.html" target="_blank">20 percent thresholds</a> necessary to gain delegates in major primaries and as a result is bleeding even more delegates Trump and Ted Cruz in places like Texas. <br />
<br />
What/where/who is this GOP "establishment" of which everyone speaks?Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09825177783624513614noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8180568143116902793.post-67254705799593223562016-02-27T09:57:00.000-08:002016-02-27T10:04:50.553-08:00Beating swords into plowshares: If you could cut the Pentagon's budget, what would you spend it on?So with the usual amount of depressing news circulating through, I set myself a happier task, which nicely dovetails with <a href="http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/2/21/1487329/-Ted-Cruz-wants-to-give-the-Pentagon-an-extra-155-billion-when-what-s-needed-are-significant-cuts" target="_blank">this piece</a> by Daily Kos' Meteor Blades on military spending: <br />
<br />
How much could I cut the U.S defense budget and what would I spend the proceeds on? <br />
<br />
The rules were designed to make this somewhat realistic. I'm not trying to eliminate the Pentagon's budget entirely, unilaterally disarm, or make the Air Force hold a bake sale to buy necessary equipment. The idea here is simply to identify some reasonable spending limits for the American military machine (kind of like the discussions we have for regulatory agencies, health care funding research and infrastructure spending), and then think about what sorts of programs (or tax cuts, or deficit reduction) we could implement with the savings.<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEix-Ph15KaFWLD9cQ9EpDJZFyxaNCP3bfjscMuW8yDvXhVWarISTnm2rxEG600_qPrdFwyJIKzKRWH4uXhgbjY7FCZCUmooLIyEZN-_0EfcALwMTi7CXTgclufgASu-nMh-GCXIaMOxNWWA/s1600/US+Defense+spending.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="360" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEix-Ph15KaFWLD9cQ9EpDJZFyxaNCP3bfjscMuW8yDvXhVWarISTnm2rxEG600_qPrdFwyJIKzKRWH4uXhgbjY7FCZCUmooLIyEZN-_0EfcALwMTi7CXTgclufgASu-nMh-GCXIaMOxNWWA/s640/US+Defense+spending.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Figure 1 shows U.S. military spending as a percentage of national GDP between 1962 and 2015, based on <a href="http://www.bea.gov/national/index.htm#gdp" target="_blank">GDP figures from the Bureau of Economic Advisors</a> and spending figures from the White House's <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals/" target="_blank">Office for Management and Budget</a>. This number represents military expenditures, but doesn't represent veteran services or health care (i.e. funding for activities under the Department for Veterans' Affairs.) Notice how the figure generally steadily declines, though it does ramp up during the Vietnam War, the 1980s Reagan build-up and the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. The 1990s peace dividend is clearly visible as well, reflecting the end of the Cold War.<br />
<br />
In 2015, according to GDP figures, from military spending represented about 3.16 percent of GDP. In a world in which we made decisions that maintained a reasonable military investment, what might defense spending look like? I came up with plausible three candidates. <br />
<br />
Scenario 1: We reduce military spending to the lowest level of spending (Fiscal Year 1999) in which we spent about 2.7 percent of GDP on military spending. This scenario would give us roughly $82 billion (all peace dividends will be rounded down) in funding to allocate elsewhere. <br />
<br />
Scenario 2: We reduce military spending to levels of the Republic of Korea (South Korea), which is about 2.6 percent of GDP, <a href="http://books.sipri.org/files/FS/SIPRIFS1504.pdf" target="_blank">according to the Stockholm Institute for Peace Research</a> in 2014. I thought this seemed reasonable, since the ROK is an advanced industrialized democracy, participates at a reasonably high level in international operations and faces a clear and presents military danger from North Korea, both of which necessitate large investments in the armed forces. Cutting to this level leaves us with a annual peace dividend of about $101 billion. <br />
<br />
Scenario 3: We could really give into the hippies and spend only the percentage of our GDP that an average country spends on the military: 2.3 percent of GDP. This would leave us with a cool $155 billion to spend.<br />
<br />
Note that all three of these scenarios would leave use spending at least double any other country in the world in absolute amounts of defense spending.<br />
<br />
Head below the fold to see what I came up with to spend my peace dividend under each scenario. Some funding proposals are fairly detailed, but most (e.g. the preschool and parental leave are rough back-of-the-envelope calculations at best) Let me know in the comments what you would do with your surplus. <br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
As I mentioned above, each of these figures are rounded down to the nearest billion. So just assume a few hundred million in deficit reduction under every scenario. (I'd also be fine if you want to toss an extra $100 million each to the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities).<br />
<br />
Scenario 1: $82 billion<br />
<br />
<b>General Government:</b> $20 billion. Let's make government work again. You know all those domestic agencies that have been under some form of spending freeze or another since roughly 1995? Let's do what the stimulus did and hire some employees so they can do their jobs effectively. This makes government run better for citizens, catches cheaters, cracks down on <br />
<br />
<i>Priority 1: Enhancing revenue collection and eliminating waste, fraud and abuse</i><br />
<br />
IRS: $3.2 billion: <br />
This would restore <a href="http://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-tax/irs-funding-cuts-continue-to-compromise-taxpayer-service-and-weaken-enforcement" target="_blank">all the cuts since 2010</a> and a bit more to improve enforcement (which not only catches rich people cheating on their taxes, but also is a windfall to the treasury), customer service and improvements to recording systems. <br />
<br />
GAO: $300 million: <br />
This is about a 60 percent increase in budget for the people in green eyeshades who ferret out waste, fraud and abuse all over government, yet <a href="http://federalnewsradio.com/congress/2012/04/shrinking-gao-budget-concerns-employees-oversight-advocates/" target="_blank">keep getting their budget cut</a>. Let's give them some more power.<br />
<br />
HHS: $2 billion. <br />
You know the Governor of Florida Rick Scott? His company had to<a href="http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2014/mar/03/florida-democratic-party/rick-scott-rick-scott-oversaw-largest-medicare-fra/" target="_blank"> pay</a> $<span id="goog_161014598"></span>1.7 billion in<span id="goog_161014601"></span> fi<span id="goog_161014595"></span><a href="https://www.blogger.com/"></a><span id="goog_161014596"></span>nes <span id="goog_161014599"></span><span id="goog_161014602"></span>for Medicare fraud. This $2 billion goes to HHS to beef up their investigative capacity. The Affordable Care Act did some of this, but this will do more. This allocation also pays off by redirecting health care dollars from hookers and blow going to the C-Suite to actual health care spent on patients. <br />
<br />
<i>Priority 2: Improving workplace safety and conditions, regulating polluters</i><br />
<br />
Department of Labor/ related: $5.5 billion<br />
<br />
We'll split this among the Wages and Hours Division, the Equal Opportunity Commission, the National Labor Relations Board and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Let's provide enough inspectors and hotline staffers to actually inspect dangerous workplaces and crack down on violators to stop things like <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/18/us/texas-explosion/index.html" target="_blank">this</a>. Ditto for Wages and Hours to protect workers from wage theft. <br />
<br />
EPA: $ 6 billion: <br />
Half of this would fund the <a href="http://www.epa.gov/superfund" target="_blank">Superfund</a> to clean up toxic waste sites. The other half would go toward staff, research and administration to work more effectively to develop and enforce regulations.<br />
<br />
<i>Priority 3: Protecting Civil Rights</i>:<br />
<br />
FBI: $1 billion <br />
One quarter to improving infrastructure (computer systems) one quarter to Civil Rights Division, one quarter to white collar crime, one quarter to domestic terrorism.<br />
<br />
DOJ grants: $500 million <br />
To clean up local police departments, get them real training, develop real community policing strategies, budget support for reasonable capital projects develop national database to conduct background checks for cops.<br />
<br />
<i>Priority 4: Improving Policy Making and Oversight Abilities</i><br />
<br />
Congressional Staff: $450 million<br />
Congress gave <a href="http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/junejulyaugust_2014/features/the_big_lobotomy050642.php?page=all" target="_blank">itself a lobotomy</a> starting with the Gingrich Revolution by cutting staff and in-house expertise and outsourcing the thinking to lobbyists. This money will raise the pay of junior staffers to keep them on board and improve their quality, allow representatives and senators the ability to hire 2-3 more staffers for dedicated policy teams and beef up the committee staff as well.<br />
<br />
CBO: $50 million. Give Congress's think tank the ability to actually be a think tank again instead of merely <a href="http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/januaryfebruary_2015/features/why_i_quit_the_congressional_r053467.php?page=all" target="_blank">answering questions about conspiracy theories</a>.<br />
<br />
<i>Priority 5: Improving Parks and Recreation and federal lands</i><br />
<br />
National Parks Service: $500 million. <br />
Clean up the damn Washington Mall already. Help improve the overworked infrastructure and better staff and manage the national parks system for visitors and protect wildlife. Purchase and/or clean up a couple dozen more historical sites that need it. <br />
<br />
Department of the Interior: $500 million <br />
Better manage and protect federal lands. <br />
<br />
<b>Infrastructure Investment:</b> $25 billion<br />
<br />
<i>Priority 6: Road repair (with complete streets): $5 billion</i><br />
<br />
Fix-it First, No adding more lanes to rural freeways. Priority goes to road reconstruction that embraces <a href="https://www.planning.org/research/streets/" target="_blank">complete streets</a> policy.<br />
<br />
<i>Priority 7: Alternative forms of transportation</i>:<br />
<br />
Mass Transit: $5 billion<br />
$5 billion will go to<a href="http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/5309_Capital_Investment_Grant_Fact_Sheet.pdf" target="_blank"> section 5309</a> programs for public transit capital projects, and <a href="http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/5339_Bus_and_Bus_Facilities_Fact_Sheet.pdf" target="_blank">programs to help bus systems</a> (section 5339). This nearly triples spending on the two programs for 2016. <br />
High Speed Rail: $5 billion<br />
It won't fully fund the <a href="http://content.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,2047110,00.html" target="_blank">president's vision</a> from 2011, but it would double the 2010 budget for high speed rail and would likely be enough to get California's basic plan in place over the next decade. It would also fund improvements on the NE Corridor to increase service and speed, and probably provide dozens of grants to expand medium range Amtrak routes in the Midwest, Northeast and Pacific Northwest from a few trains a day with a 79 mph top speed to a substantial number maxing out at 110 mph. (average speeds would likely increase from about 45 mph to 60 mph). That doesn't sound sexy, but it will make them competitive with driving and drastically increase Amtrak ridership. Maybe we could even electrify a few lines.<br />
Dedicated Bicycle and Pedestrian projects $500 million. <br />
Bikeways. Sidewalks. Pedestrian overpasses. Protected bike lanes.<br />
TIGER: $1 billion. <br />
We should triple the size of this innovative and oversubscribed <a href="https://www.transportation.gov/tiger" target="_blank">grant program</a>, that competitively funds comprehensive transportation projects that would often get neglected in traditional siloed funding. Projects that help fund things like <a href="http://createprogram.org/" target="_blank">this</a>.<br />
<br />
<i>Priority 8: Clean Water</i><br />
Water and Sewer: $4 billion <br />
Let's fix a bunch of sewer systems to reduce run-off. And maybe clean up some lead. In the first year, we can put half of this into the clean-water revolving credit fund to increase financing potential, after that, make it all grants.<br />
<br />
<i>Priority 9: Clean Energy</i><br />
Electrical Grid/ Energy Storage: $4 billion. This will drastically improve grid security and help us integrate solar and wind into the grid. <br />
<br />
<i>Priority 10: Improving connections</i><br />
$500 million for public broadband projects<br />
<br />
<b>Public Health:</b> $12 billion.<br />
<br />
Priority 11: Public Health<br />
<br />
The public health infrastructure in the United States is horrific for an industrialized democracy. Heck, let's just implement all of the<a href="file:///C:/Users/Patrick/Downloads/13268.pdf" target="_blank"> Institute of Medicine recommendations</a>, call it a day, and check back in five years to see how to build on the improvements. <br />
<br />
<b>Research:</b> $10 billion<br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>Priority 12: Basic Research improvement</i><br />
<br />
National Institutes of Health: $4.5 billion (there is going to be a lot of money coming into NIH through my public health recommendation above)<br />
National Science Foundation: $5 billion<br />
NASA: $500 million<br />
<br />
<b>Education</b>: $8 billion<br />
<br />
<i>Priority 13: Universial Pre-K</i><br />
<br />
This $8 billion will<a href="http://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/hslc/data/factsheets/docs/hs-program-fact-sheet-2014.pdf" target="_blank"> roughly double</a> the budget for Head Start and get an additional 950,000 kids in preschool. Of the roughly 9 million 3- and 4-year olds, about half are in preschool. Putting Head Start on steroids would get us more than <a href="http://www.census.gov/prod/2013pubs/p20-571.pdf" target="_blank">20 percent of the way to universal preschool</a> and give us a foundation to extend the program over time.<br />
<br />
<b>Foreign Aid</b>: $2 billion<br />
<i></i><br />
<i>Priority 14: easing problems of conflict</i><br />
<br />
Refugee relief: $300 million<br />
Post-War UxO efforts : $100 million. Help clean up all the mines and old bombs <a href="http://www.uxolao.org/" target="_blank">in Laos</a> and other places recovering from civil wars, U.S. invasions etc. <br />
<br />
<i>Priority 15: Public health in developing countries</i><br />
<br />
Clean Water: $400 million<br />
Public Health: $400 million<br />
<br />
<i>Priority 16: Fighting Climate Change Abroad</i><br />
<br />
Clean Energy $400 million<br />
Climate Change Mitigation $400 million<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Under Scenario 2: </b>$101 billion to spend<br />
<i>All of the above plus</i> <br />
<br />
$19 billion more to Head Start. This should provide total funding for approximately 2.3 million more 3 and 4-year-olds kids to get preschool and get us extremely close to universial preschool. <br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Under Scenario 3</b>: $155 billion to spend:<br />
<i>All of the above plus</i><br />
<br />
$5 billion more to Headstart. Finish the job for universial Pre-K.<br />
<br />
$40 billion to provie for eight weeks of paid leave (to be matched by at least four weeks of employer paid leave at similar terms) to every new parent. This would provides for 100 percent of salary up to $500 a week and 50 percent from $501 to $2,000. This rough guesstimate is based on 4 million babies being born in the United States every year and the most recent Bureau of Labor Statistics <a href="http://www.bls.gov/news.release/wkyeng.nr0.htm" target="_blank">earnings report</a><br />
<br />
$1 billion a year to shore up Post Office pensions over 10 years<br />
$2 billion a year to shore up the Pension Guarantee Corporation (protecting retirees whose companies have declared bankruptcy) over 10 years<br />
$1 billion for Trade Adjustment assistance<br />
$4 billion for Affordable Housing Subsidies<br />
$ 1 billion additional foreign aid, distributed in proportion to above.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09825177783624513614noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8180568143116902793.post-13417866453041547872016-02-09T13:03:00.000-08:002016-02-09T13:03:03.233-08:00A crosswalk!It's about <a href="http://swamplot.com/new-dunlavy-traffic-signal-rising-by-a-cemetery-on-allen-pkwy/2016-02-08/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+swamplot+%28Swamplot%3A+Houston%27s+Real+Estate+Landscape%29" target="_blank">darn time</a>.<br />
<br />
I love running along the bayou trail (in fact, I'm about to head that way now.) However, it's considerably less lovely playing live-action Frogger crossing 45 mph five-lane Allen Parkway at Dunlavy St. with no crosswalk, signal or median. <br />
<br />
This will increase usage of the Bayou, which is looking a lot more inviting after <a href="http://www.yourhoustonnews.com/memorial/news/buffalo-bayou-park-opens-after-four-year-renovation/article_9549acb9-c310-51f3-9e4f-cdcabc735539.html" target="_blank">$58 million in renovations</a>. <br />
<br />
Both the renovation and the stop light (and the coming speed reduction on Allen) definitely makes the half-marathon training more pleasant and safer.<br />
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09825177783624513614noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8180568143116902793.post-39389885757427105882016-02-06T19:24:00.000-08:002016-02-06T20:03:09.878-08:00West Virginia about to fall to "Right to Work"It looks like West Virginia's new Republican majority is about <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/02/04/amid-rancourous-debate-west-virginia-sets-right-to-work-bill-on-path-to-near-certain-passage/" target="_blank">ram through</a> a Right-to-Work (for less) bill. <br />
<br />
It's not a surprise, that's what GOP majorities always do with anti-labor legislation. (See <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/22/wisconsin-right-to-work_n_6731064.html" target="_blank">Wisconsin</a>, <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/11/michigan-right-to-work-bill-passes-house_n_2278021.html" target="_blank">Michigan</a>, <a href="http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-02-01/indiana-right-to-work-bill/52916356/1" target="_blank">Indiana</a>, and <a href="http://www.mlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2012/03/michigan_house_approves_bill_b.html" target="_blank">Michigan</a>, oh, and <a href="http://www.eclectablog.com/2016/02/michigan-republicans-push-laws-to-punish-detroit-teachers-who-revealed-shocking-conditions-in-their-schools.html" target="_blank">Michigan</a> again.) Once these bills surface, they rocket through the ledge to stop opposition and minimize the public discomfort their backers have to face.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjcS4rR_L1vfV_PkpyFpfrtmj4Q-HaukWWriUdF9pvMZQb73qPNi3L4nnrcmnWASRaff-K6ntNciFws-Wfd1CyI-ZD46z6flsWx8oJSK4nJGgweiZYXxJwREpbTP0cCSfX92HWkqyoDfb08/s1600/Ladies_tailors_strikers.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="207" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjcS4rR_L1vfV_PkpyFpfrtmj4Q-HaukWWriUdF9pvMZQb73qPNi3L4nnrcmnWASRaff-K6ntNciFws-Wfd1CyI-ZD46z6flsWx8oJSK4nJGgweiZYXxJwREpbTP0cCSfX92HWkqyoDfb08/s320/Ladies_tailors_strikers.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><div>
West Virginia's legislative majority could use a visit </div>
<div>
from these nice ladies.</div>
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
In West Virginia, they're drawing on Orwellian inspiration to call it the "Workplace Freedom Act" Guh. Like all (so-called) Right to Work laws, it would give employees the right to stop paying dues to the labor union that represents them, but forces those unions to continue to represent the workers. The goal is to defund the unions, leaving workers out in the cold.<br />
<br />
I've always been of the belief that if workers don't want to work in a union shop, they should quit and find an employer without a union. I mean, that's what management tells employees when they demand healthcare or higher wages or better working conditions, right?<br />
<br />
Anyhow, back to West Virginia.<br />
<br />
Proponents, backed by the usual third-rate think tanks, <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/02/04/amid-rancourous-debate-west-virginia-sets-right-to-work-bill-on-path-to-near-certain-passage/" target="_blank">push the usual bad arguments</a> about RTW improving West Virginia's economic prospects (because gutting workers' rights always improves things for residents). And anti-labor legislation debates always come with <a href="http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/2/5/1480597/-Why-Right-to-Work-is-WRONG-for-West-Virginia" target="_blank">a few gratuitous shots</a> at pro-labor protesters . <br />
<br />
It was <a href="http://themakeshiftacademic.blogspot.com/2016/01/labors-prospects-over-next-several.html" target="_blank">only a matter of time</a>. I thought the GOP would wait until they elected one of their own as governor, but the state's weak gubernatorial veto (simple majorities of the legislature can override as long as the legislature is in session) made it too tempting to not get done this year. <br />
<br />
Kentucky is likely next up, with Missouri, New Mexico, Montana and Ohio potentially on the chopping block depending on how 2016 elections go.<br />
<br />
Yes, I am depressed about this. I'm doubly so because the battles in West Virginia's coal fields rocketed the United National Mine Workers to prominence. But the group has <a href="http://www2.uvawise.edu/pww8y/Supplement/-ConceptsSup/EnvSupp/Mining/Coal/StoryCoal/06UMWADecline.html" target="_blank">lost</a> more than 90 percent of its membership in the last half century as coal-mining has died and the remaining operators rely on cheap bankruptcy tricks to undercut the few union minors left. <br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.balloon-juice.com/2016/02/04/the-wv-legislatures-motto-our-job-wont-be-done-until-were-50/" target="_blank">John Cole</a> over at Balloon Juice has more on this and the other predictable horribleness that results when you let vandals take over your state legislature (like apparently now $100 for a five-year gun permit is an unconstitutional infringement on your right to pack heat). <br />
<br />
<br />Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09825177783624513614noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8180568143116902793.post-45972719856966883072016-01-30T12:00:00.000-08:002016-01-30T14:04:28.827-08:00Exploring potential legislative ways to limit the damage of Friedrichs<div style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">Public sector labor unions across the country have been
grimily preparing for the likely negative results from the <i><a href="http://prospect.org/article/friedrichs-son-bush-v-gore" target="_blank">Friedrichs vs. California Teachers Association</a></i> case heard two weeks ago. The opinion in Friedrichs (undoubtedly
5-4, written by a super smug Samuel Alito, with a vicious dissent coming from
Elena Kagan) will likely ban union agency fees on the grounds of free speech. </span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">Previously, I have <a href="http://themakeshiftacademic.blogspot.com/2016/01/the-likely-outcome-of-fredrichs-will.html" target="_blank">outlined</a> why this opinion shouldn’t be
conflated with the end of public sector unionism. Here, I outline a legislative
step unions and workers might be able to lobby for to blunt some of the impact
of yet another depressing Alito majority opinion. </span><br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">One potential cause for hope is that there is no reason for
an opinion reached on free-speech grounds to make it binding for the union to equally
protect every member covered by the contract, which leaves some states with
room to play with. I say some states,
because a standard feature of “right-to-work” laws bans unions from collecting
agency fees in the first paragraph then makes them legally responsible for
equally representing all people in the bargaining unit for ever and ever in the
second paragraph. That of course is to encourage the freedom to freeload and
keep any of those un-American ideas of workplace solidarity firmly out of these
patriotic states. </span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">However, in states with complete Democratic control of the
government, there might be wiggle room on this. There’s not a lot: On pay and
benefits, for example, negotiating for only union members leaves a government
with incentive to underbid union workers and temporarily raise non-union
members pay to drive the union out (even if it were legal, to represent only one group of workers within a class, which, well, that's complicated). </span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">But
unions do provide other protections to workers beyond negotiating pay and
benefits. For example, blue states could pass laws holding a union harmless for
not representing a non-member in a disciplinary or grievance procedure. Under
these circumstances, a union could essentially say the following to a
non-member demanding representation in a disciplinary hearing:</span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">“Look, we negotiated better pay and working conditions for
you, and you’re welcome to those. And you’re welcome to this copy of the
contract, which spells out your rights. Good luck representing yourself in the
disciplinary proceedings against you.” </span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">These laws wouldn’t be perfect: First, they’d leave locals
with a tough choice: in some cases, it might be beneficial to represent
non-payers with the idea of making them into payers and loyal members over the
long term. Nor do they eliminate the
free-rider problem, even if it does limit it by reserving a very important set
of on-the-job rights solely for union members.</span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">Most significantly, these options are only practically
available in states with full Democratic control: (seven with a chance to make
13 depending on how elections in Minnesota, Washington, Colorado and New York
go this year and Illinois and Maine in 2018) or in states with GOP governors and
Democratic Supermajorities in state legislatures (Massachusetts and Maryland). That
would be slightly more than half the 22 states that currently allow for agency
fees in public sector bargaining.</span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">In any case, these sorts of union security laws would only
be stopgaps. The long-term solution is to organize, organize, and organize some
more. That will give workers more political power, better elected officials,
and the ability to push for better legislation and judges – and the ability to
protect them.</span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">Solidarity.</span></div>
<br /></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09825177783624513614noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8180568143116902793.post-36368742797558346392016-01-29T13:30:00.001-08:002016-01-29T13:53:02.031-08:00The likely outcome of Friedrichs will hurt labor -- but it won't destroy it<span style="font-family: "calibri";">Two weeks ago, progressives had their days ruined by oral
arguments in the Supreme Court in <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/09/us/politics/union-fees-friedrichs-v-california-teachers-association.html" target="_blank">the case</a> </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";">Friedrichs
vs. California Teachers Association</span></i><span style="font-family: "calibri";">. The case has led to numerous
<a href="http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/09/18/friedrichs-v-cta-the-supreme-court-case-that-could-destroy-labor-unions-as-we-know-them/" target="_blank">breathless headlines</a> declaring that this will be the end of public sector
unions in the United States, comparing the case to what happened to unions in
Wisconsin, where organized labor has been in a <a href="http://www.jsonline.com/watchdog/noquarter/membership-in-public-worker-unions-takes-a-hit-under-act-10-b9957856z1-216309111.html" target="_blank">depressing tailspin</a> since the
passage of Act 10 in 2011, which eliminated collective bargaining rights for
most public sector unions. </span><br />
<br />
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">Those comparisons are far overblown: <i>Freidrichs</i> will hurt
public unions, but they still will retain most of their rights. Here, I’ll
discuss what the likely decision against the unions will do to hurt worker’s
rights, but I’ll also emphasize that it’s important to remember that workers
will retain considerable rights to bargain – unlike in Wisconsin. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Calibri;"></span><a name='more'></a></div>
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">First the bad:</span><br />
<br />
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";"> It seems that a
majority of justices are willing to take the radical step of declaring that
anything public sector unions do, including the nuts and bolts of collective
bargaining, is an inherently political activity. </span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">Therefore, public sector unions assessing mandatory fees
from non-members would be unconstitutional and violate non-members first
amendment rights to free speech, despite the fact that unions have to represent
all of their employees in the bargaining unit and that all members of the
bargaining unit shares in the higher salaries, better benefits and better
working conditions achieved through collective bargaining.</span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">Never mind that unions are democratically chosen as
bargaining agents, and (usually) governed by local officials directly elected
by the membership and can be decertified by a majority vote if the bargaining
unit doesn’t like what it’s doing. (Apparently the results of democratic
elections only matter for Sam Alito when they enact discriminatory sanctions
against gay people)</span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">Never mind that for 40 years, precedent established by <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/431/209/" target="_blank"><i>Abood vs. Detroit Federation of Teachers</i></a>, which reasoned that public sector unions
(if permitted by state law) can charge agency fees to all members of the
bargaining unit to cover representation costs, so long as they didn’t charge
non-members money for specifically political activities. </span></div>
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">So things are bad. Justice Sam Alito’s almost inevitable
opinion is going to hurt the finances of a lot of public sector unions both at
the local and at the state and national level. Making membership optional will
not only lead to unions losing agency fees from workers who aren’t members, but
will likely cause some members to opt out when they realize they can get the
benefits of the union contract without having to pay the union. For some units,
this will cause financial catastrophe. Think about what would happen to U.S.
government functions if it were optional to pay taxes (Or just think about what
already happens to U.S. government finances because for some <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/14/opinion/the-great-evasion.html" target="_blank">large multinational businesses</a> and <a href="http://blogs.reuters.com/david-cay-johnston/2012/01/24/tax-advice-for-those-who-want-to-be-li" target="_blank">lucky wealthy individuals</a>, it sort of is optional
to pay taxes -- at least <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/14/opinion/the-great-evasion.html" target="_blank">in the U.S</a>.).</span><br />
<br />
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">Now the not-so-bad:</span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">But <i>Friedrichs</i> isn’t the end of public sector unionism or
unionism period. So, in the panic let’s remember the power that public sector
unions will retain in states that we can elect good governments in. </span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">A comparison to Scott Walker’s Wisconsin is useful. </span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">Public sector unions, especially those
recognized as formal bargaining agents, have collapsed in the state. However, that’s
because Act 10 essentially made it illegal to collectively bargain for all non-public safety employees. That doesn't mean merely making agency fees
illegal (what <i>Friedrichs</i> and "Right-to-Work" laws will do), but includes almost everything else a union and its employer would want to govern over as well (see the legislation summary section <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Wisconsin_Act_10" target="_blank">here</a>). </span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">Take the most
egregious example: To serve as a collective bargaining agent, unions have to
win a recertification election every year with a majority of those in the
bargaining unit, not just those voting. Essentially, not voting is the same as
voting “no.” The assumption goes from the status quo continuing to “no union as
bargaining agent unless you can win an election rigged against you every year.”
</span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">What’s worse is that units that manage to win the election
can’t really bargain anything. Contracts can only be for one year, and the only
thing that the contract can cover is the size of a raise, which can’t be more
than inflation Some categories of workers in the state university system even lost those rights. </span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">That’s right, in Wisconsin, public sector employees (aside from police and
firefighters, of course) can essentially only bargain over how much to cut
their pay every year. No rights to bargain for health benefits or insurance
premiums (which tripled for graduate employees at the University of Wisconsin
before and after the passage of Act 10). No rights to bargain for fair hiring
or firing policies. No rights to bargain for safe working conditions, or class
sizes, or patient loads, or hours, or vacation time, or sick time, or non-arbitrary
disciplinary procedures or LGBT protections, or sexual harassment reporting
standards or…. </span></div>
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">You get the picture. </span><br />
<br />
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">The good news is that an adverse ruling in <i>Friedrichs</i> won’t
do any of these things. It would take
away a critical means of funding union activities, and do so based on a dubious argument,
but in itself doesn’t take away the rights to bargain for wages, benefits, paid
time off or workplace conditions. Those are all still governed by applicable
state laws. </span></div>
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">It’s true that in some states, many of those rights are
being trimmed back, so the counsel here isn’t “don’t worry, be happy,” but
rather “don’t give up the fight in despair – we still have plenty to fight for
and many areas that we can protect or advance our interests.” Unions still have
many things to bargain over, especially in states in which we elect good public
officials. Elections still matter. And
so will collective bargaining. And so
will the labor movement. </span><br />
<br />
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">So take heart, pass the ammunition and, above all, keep
organizing!<i></i></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">Solidarity.</span></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09825177783624513614noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8180568143116902793.post-17155094138533966152016-01-21T23:44:00.002-08:002016-01-21T23:44:49.423-08:00Supreme HeadachesWhat Linda Greenhouse <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/21/opinion/scalias-putsch-at-the-supreme-court.html?rref=collection%2Fcolumn%2Flinda-greenhouse&action=click&contentCollection=opinion&region=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=collection" target="_blank">says</a>. The Friedrichs case is atrocious on so many levels. Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09825177783624513614noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8180568143116902793.post-84220914143901120062016-01-19T23:13:00.001-08:002016-01-19T23:13:51.493-08:00Today in counterproductive posturing, LA editionI fail to see how <a href="http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-richard-riordan-endorsement-20160114-story.html" target="_blank">stopping the construction of housing will make housing more affordable</a>.<br />
<br />
Granted, I do live inside the loop in Houston and I recognize from here and my experiences in Ann Arbor concerns about only building super-fancy housing for rich people. But the solution is mandating affordable housing or thinking about clever ways to subsidize housing for working class people, or better zoning rules like cutting parking minima. <br />
<br />
But simply stopping the construction large apartment projects in dense areas only drives up rents in the existing housing stock, which forces out working class and poor people. Or just as badly, it forces the development to the outer rim of the community -- which induces more sprawl, traffic, pollution, wasted time etc. Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09825177783624513614noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8180568143116902793.post-71405221112102546232016-01-14T10:48:00.003-08:002016-01-14T10:48:41.702-08:00Good news from LouisianaThis is long expected, but it is good news all the same. Louisiana's new Governor, John Bel Edwards (D) just made it official:<a href="http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/louisiana-governor-starting-medicaid-expansion-plan-36249607" target="_blank"> the state is expanding Medicaid</a>. Edwards estimates that the expansion will get 300,000 uninsured residents coverage. <br />
<br />
One of the biggest immediate bureaucratic hurdles left is the result of former governor Bobby Jindal (R) gutting staffing in the state health department, but the incoming director thinks she has found a way to hire the 200 + staffers needed to help process new Medicaid applications. <br />
<br />
There may be a <a href="http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2015/11/fiscal_office_medicaid_expansi.html" target="_blank">few other hiccups</a>, but most of the pieces are in place: this is now primarily an administrative task, not a legislative one. <br />
<br />
Let the good times roll!<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09825177783624513614noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8180568143116902793.post-25152978744737460412016-01-09T12:05:00.003-08:002016-06-07T13:35:05.320-07:00Saving the world one state or province at a time: a look at existing carbon-pricing schemes in North AmericaWith the <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/13/world/europe/climate-change-accord-paris.html?_r=0" target="_blank">Paris climate accord</a> in place, now comes the hard work of actually implementing emissions reductions goals to, well, save civilization. There are many, moving parts to making this work; one of the largest set of which involve putting a price on emitting carbon. <br />
<br />
There are two major ways to do this: cap-and-trade program, and a direct carbon tax. Cap and Trade sets a total cap on emissions for regulated sectors then lets enitities purchase emissions credits they can cash in for their emissions or sell on a secondary market if they don't exceed their cuts. Carbon taxes, in contrast, directly place a levy on carbon emissions from regulated sources. Both have their supporters and detractors, and I'm not going to wade into that debate here (personally, I'd support a well-designed plan of either).<br />
<br />
Follow me below the fold for a brief look at the carbon-pricing landscape in North America. I don't have detailed looks at the programs (though I do link to formal reports that detail each of the existing or proposed programs). What this should serve as is a basic lay of the land and give an idea of how these already successful programs lay an extremely important groundwork for the deeper emission cuts that will need to come. <br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<br />
The United States and Canada now have three major regional cap-and-trade carbon control plans operating in <a href="http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/capandtrade/capandtrade.htm" target="_blank">California</a> (online 2013), <a href="http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2015/04/13/quebecs-cap-and-trade-system.html" target="_blank">Quebec</a> (2014) and a limited one in <a href="http://www.rggi.org/" target="_blank">nine northeastern States</a> called the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative or RGGI (2009). There is one regional carbon tax plan in effect in <a href="http://www.fin.gov.bc.ca/tbs/tp/climate/carbon_tax.htm" target="_blank">British Columbia</a> (2008).<br />
<br />
Additionally, there are two more comprehensive plans slated to come online over the next 12 months in the Canadian provinces of <a href="https://www.ontario.ca/page/climate-change-strategy#section-8" target="_blank">Ontario</a> (see <a href="http://www.downloads.ene.gov.on.ca/envision/env_reg/er/documents/2015/012-5666_Options.pdf" target="_blank">here</a> as well) and <a href="http://alberta.ca/documents/climate/climate-leadership-report-to-minister.pdf" target="_blank">Alberta</a>. The former is the most populous and largest economy in Canada, and the latter province is both the largest greenhouse gas emitter in both absolute and per-capita terms.<br />
<br />
Will these existing cap-and-trade and carbon tax systems save the world in and of themselves? In a word, no. But if a journey of 500 miles begins with a single step, these six programs have got us jogging steadily down the highway to a low-emissions future by making several important contributions:<br />
<br />
1. <b>They actually do provide for real emissions cuts</b> against a "business-as-usual" scenario and in most cases actually provide cuts over today's emissions. Alberta's <a href="http://alberta.ca/documents/climate/climate-leadership-report-to-ministe" target="_blank">plan</a> on the surface simply caps its emissions, but considering the expansion of its fossil fuels industry, especially the dirty tar sands, this cap in and of itself is impressive. The other four plans do result in reductions from current levels of emissions. California's cap and trade market, for example, <a href="http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/capandtrade/guidance/cap_trade_overview.pdf" target="_blank">mandates a roughly 20 percent reduction</a> from 2012 levels of emissions (about 430 megatons), which the state is on track to meet. BC's plan <a href="http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/03/british-columbia-carbon-tax-sanity" target="_blank">has resulted in a 15 percent reduction</a> of gasoline usage in comparison to the rest of Canada (and a 16 percent absolute drop), with the attendant emission reductions. The RGGI is on track to reduce emissions from the electrical power sector from 91 megatons of CO2 equivalent to 78 megatons (a roughly 15 percent cut). Overall, each of these programs is probably slated to pull between 10-100 million tons of carbon out of the environment annually by 2020. That's a modest reduction set up against the roughly 6 billion tons the US and Canada <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions" target="_blank">currently emit</a>, but it's not nothing either.<br />
<br />
2. <b>They show emission cuts can be done for </b><a href="http://www.skepticalscience.com/BCCarbonTax.html" target="_blank"><b>reasonable costs</b></a> (see table 6). The mere fact that these programs exist, lower carbon emissions, and haven't cratered economies is very useful marker to defeat naysayers and help get cautious policymakers off the fence and on board the carbon reduction train.<br />
<br />
3. <b>They work out bugs</b>. As newer programs, each of these reduction schemes will meet some obstacles. For example, the <a href="https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41836.pdf" target="_blank">RGGI's most serious problem</a> was that it overestimated the baseline number of carbon emissions for 2009 before the economic crash. As a result, the market for credits crashed. What saved the program's marginal effectiveness was a minimum price for emissions credits, that functioned essentially like a carbon tax. The RGGI principals also learned from the problems: they lowered the baseline number of credits and jacked up the minimum price of a credit, tightening the program and engaging more stringent emissions control.<br />
<br />
4. <b>They can be ramped up</b>. As the programs come on line and start working, they can be stepped up -- indeed they already have been. BC's program started with a tax of $10 (Canadian) a ton in 2008, and worked its way up to $30 a ton in 2012. California and Quebec's Cap and Trade plans started with a floor of $10US (which is the minimum bid) at the first auction and that floor has increased to $12.10 in 2015, and will increase by incremental amounts every year. Emissions have been trading slightly above that. The floor for emissions is lower in the RGGI, but trading prices have increased steadily since 2013 as the economy has recovered, <a href="http://www.rggi.org/docs/Market/MM_2014_Annual_Report.pdf" target="_blank">reaching $5.50 a ton</a> in the last auction of 2014. They can also cover more sectors. California's plan started by merely covering major emitters in the power and industrial sector in 2013 (a bit under 40 percent of the state's emissions), but expanded to cover transportation in 2015 (covering 80 percent of emissions). <br />
<br />
5. <b>They build confidence</b>. When a program comes on and starts working, it signals a seriousness that shows other actors that the first actor is acting in good faith and can be trusted. Over time, this can create a virtuous circle of mutual-reinforcing actions that are necessary to reduce global emissions to safer levels. The Paris agreement itself is an example of this feature -- countries see that other countries are willing to make pledges and pledge something themselves. Once pledges start to get met, mutual confidence builds and countries commit to a more stringent level of cuts. Alberta's planners in particular (see <a href="http://alberta.ca/documents/climate/climate-leadership-report-to-minister.pdf" target="_blank">page 12 of this report</a>) have noted that their current plan can easily be ramped up to match greater cuts in other places. <br />
<br />
6. <b>They can be expanded across other jurisdictions</b>. We've already seen this. As California's program has come on line, Quebec has <a href="http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/industry-news/energy-and-resources/quebec-and-california-press-ahead-with-carbon-trading-plan/article16176708/" target="_blank">linked</a> its system with California's in a unified market, with the likelihood that <a href="http://www.downloads.ene.gov.on.ca/envision/env_reg/er/documents/2015/012-5666_Options.pdf" target="_blank">Ontario</a> and Manitoba might join later. Larger jurisdictions -- even across international borders -- allow for programs to maximize their reach and increase efficient allocation of carbon credits to areas that need a bit more help transitioning, or are reliant on fossil fuels in exchange for rewarding areas that are ahead of schedule with cash. This is Economics 101. <br />
<br />
7. <b>Many of these plans leverage their income to further reduce emissions</b>. The BC carbon tax is strictly revenue neutral, being used to lower personal income and business taxes (with emphasis <a href="http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/03/british-columbia-carbon-tax-sanity" target="_blank">on relief for lower and middle-income residents</a> as well as on smaller businesses). But other plans aren't. Take the RGGI for example, which distributes proceeds from emissions credit sales to its constituent states, many of whom <a href="http://www.rggi.org/docs/ProceedsReport/Investment-RGGI-Proceeds-Through-2013.pdf" target="_blank">plow that money back into energy efficiency</a>. California mandates by law that its emissions sales proceeds get invested in activities that further boost the environment. Over the last two years, these have manifested <a href="http://427mt.com/2014/01/cap-and-trade-investment-plan-proposed-budget/" target="_blank">themselves</a> in improvements in energy efficiency for government and commercial buildings, affordable housing near transit and better transportation. <br />
<br />
As Dave Roberts over at Vox points out, sometimes the best parts about these plans is that they <a href="http://www.vox.com/2015/11/25/9801614/alberta-carbon-tax-revenue-neutral" target="_blank">aren't revenue neutral</a> because they do fund many worthwhile activities that help ease the transition into the new tax regime and further improve the environment.<br />
<br />
So where does this leave us? We've still got a long way to go to decarbonize the environment. But take heart -- as these expanding carbon pricing programs show, we've got much of basic infrastructure in place and already operating to be successful.<br />
<br />Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09825177783624513614noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8180568143116902793.post-11344304201395822592016-01-05T22:48:00.002-08:002016-01-06T11:40:16.890-08:00ACA eases extreme financial stress from medical bills, but out-of-pocket costs remain a problem<a href="http://kff.org/report-section/the-burden-of-medical-debt-introduction/" target="_blank">The Kaiser Foundation</a> and the <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/06/upshot/lost-jobs-houses-savings-even-insured-often-face-crushing-medical-debt.html?_r=1" target="_blank">New York Times</a> have teamed up on an interesting study to measure the number of Americans suffering from financial hardship due to medical bills. <br />
<br />
The good news is that by expanding insurance accessibility, ACA has helped <a href="http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhis/earlyrelease/probs_paying_medical_bills_jan_20" target="_blank">steadily curtail</a> the amount of financial stress Americans experience due to health bills. Insured Americans are much less likely to suffer individual financial stress related to health bills. <br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgK4K6tYOl3sBa8-w_ShwOS-5YYJp-Ks9G8g2I5RQwU13QupJobbqsophRNteYkTDp0QM6-sgtP5EMDHYFWpp8klgCi0WRbp4Sof3bLf9xwZJIUzjExSk-TWH6RmSxhs7AXw0qErrlmXD8W/s1600/ontario-health-card.gif" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="201" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgK4K6tYOl3sBa8-w_ShwOS-5YYJp-Ks9G8g2I5RQwU13QupJobbqsophRNteYkTDp0QM6-sgtP5EMDHYFWpp8klgCi0WRbp4Sof3bLf9xwZJIUzjExSk-TWH6RmSxhs7AXw0qErrlmXD8W/s320/ontario-health-card.gif" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><div>
The ACA has helped affordability, but we're still </div>
<div>
not here yet. </div>
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
The bad news is a significant portion of Americans between the ages of 18 and 65 with insurance -- 20 percent -- still suffer significant financial hardship. (That's a heck of a lot better that the 53 percent without insurance reporting having problems, but it's a real issue).<br />
<br />
Things are getting better, but we haven't reached single-payer nirvana where you can <a href="http://themakeshiftacademic.blogspot.com/2013/10/worthwhile-canadian-initative-health.html" target="_blank">show your provincial ID card</a> and focus on getting well.<br />
<br />
The Times and Kaiser go into details in their reporting, which you should read. However, follow me below the fold for a general overview of the situation.<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<br />
<i>What the Affordable Care Act has helped with to limit individual financial stress</i>:<br />
<br />
1. <b>Subsidies to buy insurance</b>: Households with income under 400 percent of the poverty line get help paying premiums for qualified exchange health plans. The subsidies are on a sliding scale and are much more generous the farther down the income ladder you move.<br />
<br />
2. <b>Caps on out-of-pocket costs.</b> For 2016, health plans now <a href="https://www.healthcare.gov/glossary/out-of-pocket-maximum-limit/" target="_blank">must cap</a> their annual out-of-pocket costs at $6,850 for an individual and $13,700 for a family. That's a non-trivial amount, but it sure takes [most] the sting out of a $100,000 bill for a three-month course of chemotherapy.<br />
<br />
3. <b>Subsidies to out-of pocket costs:</b> For families earning under 250 percent of the poverty line, those out-of-pocket limits get reduced more -- roughly 80 percent for those earning under 150 percent of the poverty line, 60 percent for those earning between 150 and 200 percent and about 15 percent for those earning 200-250 percent. <br />
<b></b><i></i><u></u><sub></sub><sup></sup><strike></strike><br />
4. <b>End of Lifetime caps</b>: Before the ACA, many insurance policies had lifetime limits to limit the insurance company's liability . Most of these caps were $1 million to $2 million, but major chronic health problems like hemophilia or cancer can exhaust those in a hurry. Arijit Guha, the Arizona State University Student who <a href="http://theincidentaleconomist.com/wordpress/no-bad-guys-here-but-a-bad-insurance-plan/" target="_blank">became famous</a> for a Twitter exchange with the president of Aetna, was on an Aetna student plan with a $300,000 lifetime limit, which his cancer treatments quickly exhausted. Getting rid of these caps has protected numerous people with expensive, chronic health conditions.<br />
<br />
5. <b>Medicaid expansion:</b> If you are under 138 percent of the poverty line, you're on Medicaid (assuming you live in a state in which the legislature is not run by heartless vandals.), which strictly limits, or in most cases, eliminates out-of-pocket-liability.<br />
<br />
<i>What the Affordable Care Act hasn't helped with:</i><br />
<br />
1. <b>The out-of-pocket caps still leave room for sizable out-of-pocket expenses.</b> Sure, a $6,850 bill is a lot more manageable than a $168,500 bill. But that's still a huge challenge for a middle class family pulling in $55,000 a year in income, let alone a working class one pulling down $30,000. Deductibles are, co-pays are still and out-of-pocket expenses are <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/23/business/health-insurance-deductibles-outpacing-wage-increases-study-finds.html?_r=0" target="_blank">still trending up</a>, though the hard caps the ACA places on them will eventually stop the climb. As the Kaiser report <a href="http://kff.org/report-section/the-burden-of-medical-debt-section-1-who-has-medical-bill-problems-and-what-are-the-contributing-factors/" target="_blank">notes</a>, 26 percent of those with high-deductible insurance (more than $1,250) reported problems paying medical bills as opposed to only 15 percent with lower-deductible insurance. What's also notable is that the smaller bills rung up by deductibles and co-pays for routine office appointments and tests are causing problems. Three-quarters of insured people reporting problems with medical bills <a href="http://kff.org/report-section/the-burden-of-medical-debt-section-2-the-role-of-health-insurance/" target="_blank">said</a> that a major problem was cost-sharing like co-pays, co-insurance or deductibles --far more than those complaining about denied claims (26 percent) or out-of-network costs (32 percent). Notably, about 45 percent of those having problems affording bills who have insurance <a href="http://kff.org/report-section/the-burden-of-medical-debt-section-1-who-has-medical-bill-problems-and-what-are-the-contributing-factors/" target="_blank">said</a> they face total bills under $1,000, which is consistent with a number of doctor's appointments and tests adding up, rather than a major hospital stay. <br />
<br />
2. <b>The caps do not account for out-of-network care</b>. This is a another big problem, and the one that the ACA may have exacerbated. To keep overall costs down on the exchange plans, insurers like to limit the providers that insured patients can see to those that the insurer has negotiated a good rate with. Narrow networks have become a large part of the ACA exchange plans. However, with all of the overlapping doctors and changing affiliations, it's difficult for patients to know who's in and out of network --- especially when you're under general anesthesia and at the last second your hospital <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/21/us/drive-by-doctoring-surprise-medical-bills.html?_r=0" target="_blank">decides to bring in an assistant surgeon who's not in your network</a>. States policies can help with this, but a federal fix is urgently needed.<br />
<br />
3. <b>Qualified affordable health plans from employers do not necessarily cover families:</b> People are only eligible for subsidies on the health exchanges if they do not have access to an "affordable" health plan at work. The problem is that affordability is only considered for the employee, not their family. So if an employee has a plan offered to them in which the premiums do not cost more than 9.5 percent of their annual income, but the company doesn't pay anything for the family plan, then that household is out of luck. I haven't seen any work on how much this loophole is affecting affordability, but it's another problem that needs a federal fix.<br />
<br />
Overall, then the ACA has helped considerably to limit costs to consumers --if you're insured, you're not racking up astronomical bill, and many more people are insured than they were pre 2014. However, with the framework of the ACA some pretty pressing problems with out-of-pocket costs remain. Notably, many of these problems are (relatively) small enough that would also probably ease if wage growth were to increase -- if you start getting annual 5 percent raises , the math to pay off smaller-dollar balances suddenly becomes a lot easier.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09825177783624513614noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8180568143116902793.post-61425297784615985212016-01-05T14:35:00.000-08:002016-01-05T14:35:41.628-08:00Threats to Polish DemocracyAfter two decades of fairly widespread progress toward consolidated democracy, the last several years have brought some notable setbacks, linked to the election of conservative nationalist parties.<br />
<br />
First, it was Hungary. A Christian nationalist party called Fidesz won a free and fair election in 2011, which granted it a supermajority in the country's unicameral parliament. The party then used its power to rewrite the country's constitution to permanently hardwire Hungary's political system in its favor. The reforms crippled the independent media and judiciary. They also changed the electoral system and redrew districts to make it extremely difficult for opposition parties to win a majority. Finally, they required 2/3s majorities for any future government to agree on replacing electoral commissioners, judges and other important officials. Read this post by Kim Lane Scheppele for a <a href="http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/19/hungarys-constitutional-revolution/" target="_blank">concise and depressing summary</a>. <br />
<br />
Essentially, the massive electoral victory allowed Fidesz to engage in a wholesale restructuring of the Hungarian state; the party then forced through a constitutional overhaul that locks those policies in place no matter what future governing majorities might think. <br />
<br />
Now Poland is exhibiting several alarming similarities to Hungary.<br />
<br />
The newly-elected government of the Law and Justice Party (PiS) has <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/dec/23/polands-government-carries-through-on-threat-to-constitution" target="_blank">pushed through reforms</a> that limit the power of the Constitutional Court to review government policy for constitutionality and stack the court with PiS appointees. A law <a href="https://www.ifex.org/poland/2015/12/15/media_reform/" target="_blank">cracking down on the independence</a> of public media and making it more nationalist in scope appears to be next. We'll see where this goes, but the trajectory is not good.<br />
<br />
Both Fidesz and PiS are conservative, nationalist, Christian-identified parties.<br />
<br />
While both of these developments are alarming and discouraging, they do raise fundamental points in democratic theory: What issues should merely be "policy" issues that can be changed by regular order, and which ones rise to the level of needing enshrined in a national constitution and requiring supermajorities to change?Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09825177783624513614noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8180568143116902793.post-15840280099736778662016-01-04T06:00:00.000-08:002016-01-04T09:10:38.284-08:00Labor's prospects over the next several years look alarmingAs another election year dawns, I find myself contemplating the future of the labor movement. <br />
<br />
The immediate future looks grim.<br />
<br />
That isn't to say that the labor movement is going to die, or that unions won't continue to play a role or help working people. And it certainly doesn't mean that activists should stop fighting for the rights of working people everywhere.<br />
<br />
However, it's much more likely than not that the labor movement is going to suffer some serious hammer blows in 2016 and the remaining years of the decade. <br />
<br />
I'll focus narrowly in this post on the spread of (so-called) <a href="http://www.vox.com/2015/3/8/8163139/right-to-work-explained" target="_blank">Right to Work</a> (for less) laws (RTW).<br />
<br />
RTW is an insidious concept that cloaks itself in righteous language to divide workers and drastically weaken the power of their organizations. By the National Labor Relations Act and the state statutes that govern collective bargaining for state and local public employees, unions have to represent all employees in a bargaining unit. In 25 states, the union has the ability to bargain to charge fair-share fees of all member of the unit, which represent the costs of collective bargaining. Full dues, which represent political activities engaged in by the union, are only paid by individuals who want to be members who in turn have rights to vote and participate in the governance of the union.<br />
<br />
In an aside, remember that in order to represent workers, unions have to win an election to become the bargaining agent, and they are controlled by the members through democratically elected officers. Finally, they can be decertified if a majority of workers vote in an election to remove or replace the union. This is a fact glossed by anti-worker forces.<br />
<br />
What RTW laws do is allow workers to free ride of the union's efforts by banning fair share fees. The corporate-backed groups and think tanks pushing RTW argue that workers have a right to <i>not</i> join a union (though they are rather silent on a worker's right to <i>join</i> a union). Of course, though banning fair-share fees, RTW laws still compel a union to represent any one in a bargaining unit. As a result, we create a free-rider problem described by <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Logic_of_Collective_Action" target="_blank">Mancur Olson</a>: why should you pay for something you can get for free?<br />
<br />
RTW is insidious because it only appears to cripple a small part of collective bargaining rights: in itself, it doesn't touch the ability to bargain for better wages or working conditions. But by undermining the union finances, it cripples the ability of a union to organize, bargain and protect strong contracts, which can lead to fewer members, which leads to further financial erosion. At worst, a death spiral happens, leaving a bunch of isolated, cynical workers in its wake -- who then can be easily exploited by unfettered bosses.<br />
<br />
Currently 25 states have RTW laws, and 25 do not. Since 2011, when Scott Walker eviscerated public sector unions in Wisconsin, three states have jumped on the RTW bandwagon: Indiana, Wisconsin and Michigan. From a worker's perspective this should be alarming, because all three of these states are in the industrial Midwest, which traditionally has a strong union presence. Michigan was the birthplace of the United Auto Workers (UAW), whereas the Association of State, County and Municipal Employees (ASCME) originally formed in Wisconsin.<br />
<br />
As the parties have polarized and the remaining labor-friendly Republicans retire or are overwhelmed by their conservative colleagues, this momentum is likely to continue.<br />
<br />
<i>Extreme Risk:</i><br />
<br />
<b>West Virginia:</b> I suspect it's pretty much all over in West Virginia. Like many Appalachian states over the last several election cycles, the legislature has become sharply more conservative, with the GOP breaking the dam <a href="http://ballotpedia.org/West_Virginia_House_of_Delegates_elections,_2014" target="_blank">in the 2014 elections</a>. A RTW bill was shelved in 2015, but with GOP gains likely in both houses of the legislature and a Republican taking over the governor's chair very likely in 2016, in 2017, RTW's arrival will be a given. <br />
<br />
<b>Kentucky:</b> A <a href="http://ballotpedia.org/Kentucky_General_Assembly#Current_make-up_2" target="_blank">slimmer and slimmer Democratic majority</a> in the state House of Representatives is the only thing standing between RTW and Kentucky. The <a href="http://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/politics/2015/02/23/bevin-rolls-platform/23908019/" target="_blank">extreme conservative Matt Bevin's</a> win as governor jumps this state from medium risk to extreme risk, as anti-labor policies are core to Bevin's identity -- in two of his first executive orders, he discarded higher minimum wage requirements for state agencies and issued a hiring freeze in filling unstaffed positions. <br />
<br />
The Democrats may hang on to their house majority in 2016, since they were somehow able to cling to it in the low-turnout year of 2014. However, the off-year election of 2018 is another animal entirely.<br />
<br />
Several Kentucky counties have <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/19/us/politics/foes-of-unions-try-their-luck-in-county-laws.html" target="_blank">already tried to issue RTW laws on their own</a>; these efforts are currently tied up in court, but the winds are very much blowing the wrong way for labor rights in this state.<br />
<br />
<i>High Risk:</i><br />
<br />
<b>Missouri:</b> Democratic Governor Jay Nixon <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/04/missouri-right-to-work-veto_n_7512928.html" target="_blank">vetoed a RTW bill</a> in 2015 and the Democrats backed by a few nervous Republicans have managed to sustain those vetoes in the legislature, despite the GOP maintaining a supermajority in both chambers. Unlike West Virginia, the Democrats have a fighting chance in the governor's race in 2016, despite Missouri drifting further into the GOP orbit over the last decade. With a Democratic win in the governor's race, Missouri is likely safe for another four to eight years. With a GOP victory, RTW would likely be the very first thing on the government's agenda in 2017.<br />
<br />
<i>Medium Risk:</i><br />
<br />
<b>Ohio</b>: With Republicans in strong command of both houses of the state legislature and the governorship for the foreseeable future and likely maintaining the governorship, Ohio would seem to be a likely candidate for a RTW bill -- and one is currently percolating in the legislature. <br />
<br />
However, Ohio Republicans have a bitter memory of the last time they tried to push a major anti-worker bill through the legislature holding them back. In 2011, Ohio Republicans pushed a Wisconsin-style bill designed to strip most collective bargaining rights from public employees. The bill passed, but Labor and progressive groups gathered more than a million signatures to force a referendum, in which <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/issue-2-falls-ohio-collective-bargaining-law-repealed/2011/11/08/gIQAyZ0U3M_blog.html" target="_blank">62 percent of voters rejected the bill</a>. <br />
<br />
That memory may be holding the GOP in check for now, but if other states continue to push through anti-labor laws, Ohio Republicans will likely eventually press forward.<br />
<br />
Possible risk<br />
<br />
<b>Montana:</b> Montana's state legislature has been in solidly Republican hands since 2010, but Democrats have held the governor's chair. Incumbent Steve Bullock is in a reasonably strong position for the blue team, so hanging on to labor rights for at least four more years appears possible in this traditional mining state.<br />
<br />
<b>New Mexico:</b> New Mexico currently has Democrats in control of the State Senate, but lost control of the House of Representatives in 2014. Presidential year turnout will help protect the Democratic senate advantage in 2016 and perhaps help them retake the house. But if Democratic power in the legislature erodes further, anti-labor legislation will be on the agenda when a Republican is governor. <br />
<br />
<b>New Hampshire</b> and <b>Pennsylvania</b> might also be at risk. The Granite state occasionally gets massive GOP majorities in the two houses of its legislature, as it did after 2010. In that case a few moderate Republicans helped the Democrats in the house <a href="http://www.boston.com/news/local/new_hampshire/articles/2011/11/30/nh_unions_rallying_to_support_veto/" target="_blank">sustain</a> Democratic governor John Lynch's veto of a RTW bill in the 2011-12 session. As long as the Democrats hold the governor's chair, they should be OK here, but elections are close and there is an open seat in 2016. Pennsylvania is safe as long as Democrat Tom Wolf, elected in 2014 is in office, but the GOP has a built-in advantage in the state house and its majorities are becoming dominated more and more by extremely conservative ideologues. Protecting Wolf in 2018 and drawing better districts in 2020 will be key to keeping the Keystone state working people from getting their collective bargaining rights curtailed.<br />
<i></i><br />
<i>The Supreme Court</i><br />
<br />
This list doesn't count the worst probable hammer blow that's going to fall on labor this year. That would be<a href="http://www.scotusblog.com/2015/08/symposium-the-friedrichs-petition-should-be-dismissed/" target="_blank"> Friedrichs vs. The California Teacher's Association</a>, which has made its way to the Supreme Court a case set for oral arguments on January 11. The case will likely result in a 5-4 decision -- authored by Sam Alito-- overturning nearly four decades of precedent and invalidating fair share fees for all public sector unions on the specious grounds that collective bargaining with the government is a form lobbying (political speech), which cannot be compelled. Of course, the union will continue to have to represent the interests of all of its members without their financial support, but I guess speech rights for dues payers aren't as important.<br />
<br />
I so do weary of Alito's conception of Freedom of Speech in which it becomes much easier for wealthy owners to speak (see Citizens United) and much more difficult for working class people to organize so they can speak.<br />
<br />
Again, we shouldn't despair from the likely reverses that are coming. The movement goes on and labor will continue that struggle. However, we should be aware that the struggle is likely going to become more difficult, though if we can win a few important elections -- we can blunt some of the blows.<br />
<br />
And remember, that the only way to overcome RTW both legislatively and on the ground is to organize. <br />
<br />
Solidarity.<br />
<br />Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09825177783624513614noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8180568143116902793.post-10922701939897476832015-12-31T11:00:00.000-08:002015-12-31T11:00:14.409-08:00California's Aliso Canyon Disaster and Regulating Methane LeaksThe <a href="https://www.edf.org/climate/californias-massive-methane-leak" target="_blank">big news</a> from California regards a massive leak from Southern California Gas Company's Aliso Canyon storage well. The leak, which has been ongoing since October 23, is accounting for roughly a quarter of California's methane emissions.<br />
<br />
This is bad news for numerous reasons: Methane is a greenhouse gas 20 times more potent than carbon dioxide in its heat-trapping effect over a 100-year period (and 75 times as potent over 20 years). Unburned hydrocarbons are also a noxious pollutant in their own right, causing respiratory distress, headaches and other health problems. <br />
<br />
Worse yet, is that that SoCal Gas has proven unable to plug the leak and expect that it will continue until the spring of 2016. <br />
<br />
What's perhaps the most infuriating for me is that this sort of leak
<a href="http://www.eenews.net/stories/1060029879" target="_blank">doesn't appear to be covered</a> by the state's Cap-and trade apparatus designed to limit emissions, since methane leaks from wells do not need to be reported as emissions under state law. That's too bad, because as EEnews <a href="http://www.eenews.net/stories/1060029879" target="_blank">notes</a>, the leak is the equivalent to about three percent of the state's TOTAL annual greenhouse gas emissions.<br />
<br />
If the leak had been covered under the California Air Resources Board's <a href="http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/capandtrade/auction/nov-2015/summary_results_report.pdf" target="_blank">last auction</a> (which calculates methane's impact at 20 times the, SoCal Gas would have needed to purchase SoCal Gas approximately 1.67 million permits at $12.73 per ton of CO2 equivalent to cover the amount of methane leaked at the time writing this. That's $21.3 million. Of course, applicable environmental damage and public health fines, compensation for victims, as well as medium-sized terms in state minimum-security prisons for relevant SoCal Gas executives would be layered on top of that. <br />
<br />
I'm not holding my breath -- though California is much more diligent about these sorts of things than my current residence of Texas. <br />
<br />
The good news is that the state has been <a href="http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/shortlived/concept_paper.pdf" target="_blank">thinking very concretely</a> about these sorts of emissions and I would imagine they likely will be deploying regulations and countermeasures on leaks in the near future. Colorado was the first state <a href="http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/colorado-first-state-to-limit-methane-pollution-from-oil-and-gas-wells/" target="_blank">to regulate</a> well and pipeline leaks in 2014. The federal government <a href="http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/245959-epa-sends-methane-leak-rule-for-final-revie" target="_blank">is finalizing regulations</a> (though these will certainly be challenged in court) as well. However, the federal regulations apply to new pipelines and wells and not existing ones.<br />
<br />
<iframe height="515" src="https://www.edf.org/embed/methane-counters" style="border: none; height: 515px; width: 100%;" width="100%"></iframe>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09825177783624513614noreply@blogger.com0