Tag Archives: free market capitalism

Myths and Legends: The Medicaid Issue in Nevada

There was a Republican politician on my television screen this morning telling me, or trying to tell me, that Medicaid was “meant for mothers, children, and those who couldn’t work…” This is outdated. Then, he tried to convince me that Medicaid was being “abused” by those who work and ‘game the system,’ while spouting platitudes about the Free Market and the Joys of Competition.  Let’s start at the very beginning.

This is the explanation of Medicaid as reported by Nevada’s Division of Health Care Financing and Policy (pdf)

“Medicaid is the nation’s main public health insurance program for people with low incomes and the single largest source of health coverage in the U.S.”

The program is meant to help people with low incomes.

“The PPACA extended coverage to many of the non-elderly uninsured people nationwide. The June 2012 Supreme Court Ruling made Medicaid expansion optional for states, and Nevada elected to join the expansion and maximize federal dollars. Effective January 1, 2014, this move broadened Medicaid eligibility to nearly all adults under age 65 with income at or below 138% of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL). At the end of SFY 2014 that meant that there were an additional 125,989 new enrollees in Nevada Medicaid, and increased expenditures of $154,816,777.00. These new expenditures are 100% federally funded.” [NV med pdf]

Medicaid expansion added those working Americans who were earning 138% of the poverty line and below, (pdf) and more specifically: (1) Those between the ages of 19 and 64 who are earning less than 138% of the FPL. (2) Pregnant women in homes earning less than 165% of the FPL. (3) Children from birth to 19 years of age in homes wherein the earnings are at or below 205% of the FPL, with a small premium required in some cases. Translated into real people with real levels of low income earned, this means a family of four would be eligible for Medicaid in Nevada if the family earnings are less than $2795 per month; for pregnant women if the earnings are at or less than $3341 per month; and families are eligible for the kids’ Check Up program if family earnings are less than $4151 per month.

If we calculate annual earnings, then monthly earnings of $2795 mean an annual income  of $33,540. At $3341 annual earnings of $40,092, and at $4151 annual income of $41,630. Nevada’s median income is $52,431 (2015). To put these numbers in perspective, the average weekly wages of a person working in a private restaurant in this state are $382, or $1528 per month ($18,336 yearly). [DETR] The average rent for a 2 bedroom apartment in Las Vegas, the obvious site for most private restaurants, is $932 per month. [RJ] In short, not only are wages not all that generous in Nevada, the benefits available for Nevada families aren’t all that generous either.

Republicans, however, strenuously oppose benefits for adults capable of working. This would make infinitely more sense IF and ONLY IF they were willing to support a living wage for all employees. One really doesn’t get to have it both ways.  Either you want a reduction in benefits that most working people can afford to purchase on their own because they have the financial resources to do so, or you want lower wages which mean that individuals and families cannot afford those things, like health insurance, and the public benefits are required to make up the difference.  However, at this point we slam into another GOP myth.

Free market competition will make health insurance affordable for everyone, even those who are working in low wage jobs.  Good luck with that. Personally, I have yet to hear anyone explain with any specificity why health insurance corporations will be flocking to Clark, Washoe, or even Esmeralda counties because there is more “free market” applied to the situation. If the insurance companies weren’t wildly excited about selling individual and family health insurance before the enaction of the ACA, why would they do so now? Unless, of course…

They could sell policies that didn’t cover all that much? That cost more for those between the ages of 50 and 64?  That didn’t cover maternity expenses? That didn’t cover preventative care? That didn’t cover drug rehabilitation and mental health services in parity with physical treatments? That only covered the items required in those states with the least consumer protections? And, even then all we have to look to is the situation in Nevada when insurance corporations were free to offer what they were pleased to call comprehensive policies.  Again, if they weren’t interested in selling a plethora of individual and family policies then why believe they would be now?

And that Free Marketeering? It doesn’t work in the health care industry:

“In a free market, goods and services are allocated through transactions based on mutual consent. No one is forced to buy from a particular supplier. No one is forced to engage in any transaction at all. In a free market, no transactions occur if a price cannot be agreed.

The medical industry exists almost entirely to serve people who have been rendered incapable of representing their own interests in an adversarial transaction. When I need health services I often need them in a way that is quite different from my desire for a good quality television or a fine automobile. As I lie unconscious under a bus, I am in no position to shop for the best provider of ambulance services at the most reasonable price. All personal volition is lost. Whatever happens next, it will not be a market transaction.” [Forbes]

The only thing I can say with any certainty is that the Republicans have little idea exactly what constitutes a Free Market, and instead are waving it like a banner crovering their underlying desire to be free from the moral requirements compelling us to be our brother’s keepers.  The range of misanthropic explications are appalling, from “we need not do anything because the poor will always be with us anyway,” to “when Jesus told us to provide for one another he only meant fellow Christians.”

The Repeal and Replace campaign is as void of humanity as it is of understanding of the reality of most family economics, and of the comprehension of what the term ‘free market’ actually means.


1 Comment

Filed under Economy, Health Care, health insurance, Politics

The Crisis Factory goes Dancing With the Debt Fetish

Marathon DancersOne of the little problems with the Politics of Hyperbole is that eventually someone may notice not every minor annoyance constitutes an emergency.  Not even every major issue is an emergency.  However, nothing has prevented the radicals from manufacturing crisis after crisis in order to monopolize the conversation and distract this country from some very real issues we need to address.

The Distractions

Pillar OnePeople are in imminent danger of becoming dependent upon government.   Hogwash. Only the most extreme social libertarian would contend that having police, fire, and emergency medical personnel creates “dependency,” and how foolish does a person have to be to argue that we don’t need public health inspectors?  Further, if we allow for the old saws that two “heads are better than one,” and “many hands make light work,” then we know there are many tasks at which we do much better when we work together: Building roads, dams and bridges; Conducting relations with foreign countries; Protecting our citizens from or responding to natural and man-made disasters; Promoting our national economy.  And the list goes on.  Or, to introduce yet another well known concept:

“No man is an island,
Entire of itself,
Every man is a piece of the continent,
A part of the main.
If a clod be washed away by the sea,
Europe is the less.
As well as if a promontory were.
As well as if a manor of thy friend’s
Or of thine own were:
Any man’s death diminishes me,
Because I am involved in mankind,
And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls;
It tolls for thee.” — John Donne (1572-1631)

Pillar Two: People are burdened by an unconscionable level of federal debt.   This argument is extremely convenient for those who have another agenda — cutting spending on domestic programs with which they are in fundamental disagreement.  The proposition requires adopting a variation on the White Queen’s belief in “six impossible things before breakfast.”

The United States is the most powerful nation, with the most powerful economy in the world.  China’s GDP is $8.227 trillion; U.S. GDP is $15.68 trillion.  Therefore, it is necessary to manufacture PERIL in order to substantiate the claims that we are burdened by indebtedness such that we cannot afford to (fill in the blank with the program one wishes to dismantle).   There are some real issues, just not the ones usually cited in the conservative press.  For example:

The Trifflin Dilemma Peril:  “He pointed out that the country whose currency, being the global reserve currency, foreign nations wish to hold, must be willing to supply the world with an extra supply of its currency to fulfill world demand for these foreign exchange reserves, and thus cause a trade deficit.”  Translation – The stronger the nation the more likely other nations are to want to invest in it, and the more other nations invest in it the more vulnerable the nation becomes to foreign influences on its economy.

A variation on the Trifflin Dilemma often shows up in the conservative media in the form of a new version of the old obnoxious  Yellow Peril argument — What if China called in its investments?  They could OWN us.  Instead of rewriting the posts, this topic has been discussed at more length in “The Republican Debt Wish” (2006), “Something to Think About,” (2008) and “When Willful Ignorance Meets Economic Reality,” (2011).

One one of the consequences of paying attention to the debt, as opposed to focusing on the economic growth which facilitates the repayment of those obligations, is dangerous in itself, as explained by Nobel Prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz:

“The fundamental problem is not government debt. Over the past few years, the budget deficit has been caused by low growth. If we focus on growth, then we get growth, and our deficit will go down. If we just focus on the deficit, we’re not going to get anywhere.

This deficit fetishism is killing our economy. And you know what? This is linked to inequality. If we go into austerity, that will lead to higher unemployment and will increase inequality. Wages go down, aggregate demand goes down, wealth goes down.” [HuffPo]

Pillar Three: The free market will cure all ills.   When pressed to explain why, for example, the Affordable Care Act, is so onerous, the right is often moved to propose that the “free market” could have solved all the problems associated with health care insurance situation in the United States.

The first question we need to ask in regard to this contention is: Are we using the right tool from the box?  Consider your utensil drawer in the kitchen.  Does it contain at least one table knife, bent at the tip because it was pressed into service as a screw driver or as a lever?  Like the trusty table knife, the free market is an excellent tool for delivering the goods and services we require, but there are some tasks for which is it simply not the best implement to apply.

We could apply the free market to our transportation system by privatizing all our now public roads and charging tolls for their maintenance and use — however, we need to calculate the cost to our economy of raising costs for the factors in our transportation sector.  In this instance, the cost to the trucking industry is a negative factor in economic growth, and it is better policy to “subsidize” the industry by providing well maintained roads and functional bridges to secure the benefits of our economy.

Since we accept that corporations should operate for a profit, then in the realm of health care insurance it makes good free market sense for the company to insure only healthy persons (certainly not those with pre-existing medical conditions, or those who are elderly) and to keep those medical loss ratios at the lowest possible level.  In short, if we allow the free market to function in its purest form in the delivery of health care, then we should rationally expect that the least costly services will be provided, to those who need the least service.  Sometimes it’s really not about the money.

We can quantify the economic contribution of a father or mother in the family, but that doesn’t determine his or her value.  We don’t calculate a cost-benefit analysis in order to decide on marriage. We can quantify the economic contribution of roads, bridges, and airports, but that alone doesn’t determine their value to us.  We can quantify the benefits of education in terms of test scores, but we can’t determine how a person will synthesize information accumulated from the arts and from engineering to determine the best design for a marketable household appliance.

Focus Please

There are issues we need to address, most of which have profound implications for our economy. Among these are:

#1. Global climate change.  This isn’t “lib’rul hype;” this is about living on a planet capable of sustaining human life. Yes, if we foul our nest, the planet will probably last another 6 billion years, but WE won’t.   The 2007 University of Maryland study (pdf) projects economic impacts in terms of agriculture, energy, and transportation; in terms of our eco-system; and, in terms of water and infrastructure elements.   The fifth assessment from the IPCC released recently should convince all but the most delusional that WE are the problem.

The conservatives continue dancing with the Debt Fetish

#2. Student Loan Indebtedness.  If we’d really like to have young people start contributing to our economy, especially in regard to consumer spending, then it would be nice if they had more unencumbered income with which to do just that.  The Wall Street Journal calls the current situation the “Student Loan Straitjacket.”

The conservatives continue to dance with the Debt Fetish, but “What of the debt for our grandchildren?”  Flash Dispatch to the conservatives — These ARE our grandchildren.

#3. Infrastructure issues.  It isn’t like the American Society of Civil Engineers haven’t been trying to get our attention.  The National Report Card is not pleasant or reassuring reading — but it should be read, and we should be paying attention.

The conservatives continue to dance with the Debt Fetish.  How do we pay off any portion of the debt if our physical infrastructure is so dilapidated as to impede the progress of our distribution systems?

#4.  Employment. Of all the associated issues this is the most central.  We could be putting people in the construction sector back to work if we could enact funding for infrastructure projects.  We could be putting people to work in alternative energy projects… We could be putting people back to work in new jobs in new manufacturing sectors.  However, we are still dancing with the Debt Fetish…

…and like the marathon dancers of the Depression Era we will proceed having put a great deal of effort into endeavors promising very paltry results.


Filed under Economy, Politics

If Capitalism Works, then the Affordable Care Act Works

Demand CurveOne of the more ironic features of the Republican tantrum about the Affordable Care Act is their contention that the law is an assault on free market capitalism.  The notion of the individual mandate was adopted by the Republicans in days of yore as a free market option to single payer health care services:

“Conservatives were drawn to individual mandates for two related reasons. First, they would strengthen rather than undermine the private insurance marketplace. Second, they would provide a constructive laissez-faire alternative to the liberal single-payer approach to achieving the goal of national health insurance.” [TDB]

Let’s look at the first part of that statement.  Those health care insurance plan “one stop shopping” exchanges provide a platform for insurance corporations to offer their policies to potential customers.  This introduces competition into the market, and we do like competition don’t we?   The St. Louis Federal Reserve explains, expanding on the common “baker’s analogy:”

“In order to earn your money I must provide a high quality good or service at a reasonable price. You will notice that this assumes I have competitors. If I were the only baker in 100 miles, I might be able to charge a high price, sell inferior products, or treat my customers rudely – but even in that case, another self-interested person might see an opportunity to earn a profit and open a competing bakery in town. Thus, competition is the regulator, a check on self-interest because it restrains my ability to take advantage of my customers.”

Notice that we are speaking of strengthening the entire  health care insurance market — NOT speaking of improving the revenues of a few large insurers.   In an exchange more, perhaps lesser well known, insurance companies could put their policies before customers — and if we believe in the efficacy of competition as a check on self-interested greed and abuse of customers this would be a good thing.

Competition also affects pricing.  The usual expression of this is summarized in this concise advice for small business owners:

“Your price relationship to your competitor falls into one of four categories says Laurus Nobilis at Biz Development. These are pure parity, dynamic parity, premium pricing strategy or discount pricing strategy. In pure parity, your price always equals that of your competitor: they set the price and you match it. Dynamic parity happens when you pick a competitor and keep the gap between their price and yours the same. Premium pricing is higher than the competitors, but you gain a position of higher perceived benefits. In discount pricing, you always keep the price cheaper than that of competitors. Discount pricing is most commonly used by generic or store brands.”

The same general advice applies to large and small insurers. They might adopt “pure parity” strategies, “dynamic pricing,” “premium pricing,” or “discount pricing.”  It’s not difficult to notice that all the strategies are related to marketing.

There must be some differentiation between the policies on offer to customers which motivates their choices.   If low cost is my prime concern, then I may look for a company with a discount strategy. If high quality is my prime motivation then I may select a product priced higher — under the “you get what you pay for” rationale.

In order for me to perceive these differences someone is going to have to make me aware of them — and that’s called advertising.   If the rules of classic capitalism hold true, then an increase in competition between and among insurers should, in turn, create more demand for advertising and marketing services — especially from the smaller, less well known insurance companies.

One of the rules of the insurance business is that the larger the pool, the lower the risk (to the insurance business), and the lower the risk the lower the premiums charged to customers for their policies.  The individual mandate creates a larger pool.  Those individuals who do not have health care plans subsidized by their employers purchase insurance via an exchange.  We can’t bend the cost of health insurance toward more affordable rates unless we create a larger pool of customers.  If we mean to make health care insurance affordable, in a free market system, then it behooves the government to facilitate the flow of new customers to add to the total pool.

If the provisions of the Affordable Care Act were to be repealed, or “delayed and dismantled” as the Republicans advocate — without offering a substitute proposition — then we might reasonably expect a reversion to the status quo ante-bellum in which large insurers could (1) monopolize the health insurance markets regionally, (2) effectively prevent smaller companies from introducing more competition, and (3) engage in practices which would make the greedy baker in the classic free market analogy blush.

And, for this the GOP would shut down the federal government?

Comments Off on If Capitalism Works, then the Affordable Care Act Works

Filed under Economy, Politics