It's been a while since I posted anything because I haven't called any politicians lately. Today, I had some questions for Representative Joe Donnelly and some of his ads he has been running on TV. I tried to contact his office for this information several months ago, but apparently, I wasn't given the correct phone number. Today, I got the right one.
Here's a summary of the first ad. In it, they quote Jackie Warlorski stating that we should privatize social security, just like President Bush had tried to do before. The commercial then goes on to state how much money we all would lose in the stock market. So the obvious question would be, "Does privatization of social security mean that our only option is to invest in the stock market?" In other words, we would not be able to invest in bonds or any other type of financial vehicle.
The first person I spoke to, a receptionist, couldn't answer the question, so she got another guy to help me out. When I asked him the same question, he repeated the quote that Jackie had made. This much I already knew. So I rephrased the question, "If social security is privatized, can we only invest in the stock market and not in bonds or money markets or anything else?" He insisted that privatizing social security would include the stock market, but he wouldn't tell me if we would have other options. As I continued to press him on the issue, he finally told me that I would need to call Jackie's office to find out where she stands.
Okay, let's get this straight. Your ad states that Jackie wants to privatize social security, and whether or not they state it, they obviously imply the only option is for the stock market, at which point we would all retire penniless. After repeatedly asking for clarification, he did admit the ad did imply that the stock market would be our only option. Ah, my point finally made it home.
But just when I think I'm making progress, the person on the other end of the line continues to astound me. I then asked about the Pell Grants, which the Donnelly commercials clearly state that Jackie is opposed to. When I asked for a source, they told me that she has opposed healthcare reform. There were increases in that bill for Pell Grants, so since she opposed the healthcare bill, she must oppose Pell Grants. "That's how legislation works," he explained.
So the logic here is that if you vote against a bill, that means you support nothing in it. So here's the question I asked: "Let's say a bill goes to Congress that includes a 50% flat tax for all Americans. In that bill is an increase for Pell Grants. If Joe Donnelly voted against that bill, would that mean he opposes Pell Grants?" The answer was a resounding, "No!" because Joe Donnelly supports Pell Grants. Despite my best efforts to get him to answer the question because it was essentially the same scenario as the commercial, he declared that would not indicate that Joe did not support Pell Grants.
I must have hit a nerve, though, because he put me on hold and passed me along to Butch. Butch continued to dodge the question. And then I couldn't help myself. I had to ask a healthcare reform question, at which point he stated that those insurance companies "make obscene amounts of money."
I countered the statement, stating that insurers don't really make any larger profit margin that either Target or Wal-mart. Now here's reasoning at it's best: "Well, I don't have to shop at either of those stores." What in the world does that have to do with healthcare reform? What does that even mean? And what is a reasonable profit for an insurance company to make? And if insurers don't make any money, you'll have even fewer insurers to go to when choosing your insurance coverage, right?
(By the way, for all their statements, I asked for sources to back their viewpoint. I always ask for sources. And never once has anybody been able to give me a source other than "search the Internet." But that's where I find all my sources.)
So there's the real process behind the truth of a political ad. Or at least there's some insight to their logic. Well, to be honest, I'm not really sure what it is.
Monday, November 1, 2010
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
Money Mathemagics
Wednesday, September 15. I've been trying to reach Sarah Kyle (I'm not sure about the spelling) at Senator Bayh's DC office. I've spoken to her in the past, and she asked me to call back when I learned what kind of rate increases we would be seeing for health insurance. I've been trying to reach her for about a week. Today, I decided that I would speak to whomever answered the phone if she failed to answer again. She was there, but she had just stepped View Bloginto a meeting, so the lucky fellow on the other end got to talk to me. Here's what we discussed.
I've posted it before, but here's some information from the White House website regarding healthcare reform. I've copied it below, direct from the site. (Or read it here.)
Q: Will I pay more than I am paying today?
A: No.
As usual, I'm at a loss for words to describe how I felt after he answered me. I'm not sure who makes the worst arguments in DC. He explained that President Obama meant that rates would go down in 2014. Boy, thanks for clearing that up. I must be an idiot for thinking that the president's answer sounds like it would take effect immediately, particularly since neither bullet point even mentions 2014. Apparently, anyone who reads it should just know that. Who knows what other obvious mistakes I've missed since I didn't read all 2000+ pages of the legislation.
But Bayh's staffer explained it this way: "Well, it's a pretty broad statement." It's a broad statement. Now I feel so much better.
I continued to push that this was misleading information at best -- a lie at worst -- and that Senator Bayh should fix this problem. That's what I called it, a problem. And his answer to that: "It's a concern, but not a problem." I don't care what you call, it's not correct and it's confusing people. Sarah Kyle told me months ago that she would be contacting these agencies to tell them just that. Furthermore, the White House hot line even told me that couldn't be right when I questioned them about it. (By the way, I told the guy that when I hear a politician say that something is a "broad statement," it's just "a way of covering their behinds." Yes, that's the language I used, although I'll admit I wanted to use much stronger language than that.)
Somewhere during the conversation, I admitted that I worked for an insurance company, but I'm not an insurance expert. I work in IT, not in the health, sales, or actuarial departments. When I told him that, he became a little accusatory, claiming that the reason insurance rates are going up is because the insurers want to make a profit. (I guess it's wrong to try to make a profit nowadays.) Of course, I countered with the fact that the Congressional Budget Office predicted that insurance rates would be higher under Obama's plan than if nothing were done. Now I'm not so sure this guy read the report because he tried to make me believe that the CBO predicted rates would go up because insurers would try to make a profit due to the changes the government was enacting.
Let's set the record straight. I've read the report twice regarding individual health rates, and nowhere have I found that to be the case. Perhaps I missed it, but I'm pretty sure it's not there. (I did eventually point that out, and he recanted his statement.)
As for profits, insurance profits are nothing out of line. (Read the articles here and here.) Allow me to summarize. Basically, insurance companies don't really make any more than Target or Wal-mart does when you look at profit margin. But, ah, there's the catch. Any articles you read that accuse insurance companies of huge profits fail to mention profit margins. They only look at dollars and cents.
He answered those comments by stating that if you put all the bonuses that insurance companies pay back into the pot, then the profit margin is more like 30%. First, I have a hard time believing that. Second, I haven't ever read that in any article, either for or against insurance profits. (I'm not saying it isn't the case, but I haven't read about it.) Third, if you're going to use that argument, then you must take those same bonuses into account for companies like Target. Otherwise, you're not really comparing apples to apples. Fourth, I don't know that states would allow that much profit. In other words, you would have to pay all your regular wages, utilities, maintenance, taxes, and CLAIMS from the remaining 70%. Plus since insurance companies make a profit of 4% or less, that would mean that insurance companies are paying 87% of their profits (4% leftover profit divided by the 30% profit before bonuses are paid) to their employees as perks and bonuses.
I also mentioned that not all insurance companies make the profits that the large companies make. That's when I told him that I work for a small insurance company, and we don't make near those profits. I'm sure I even sounded a little bit offended. He changed his tune and pointed all further accusations toward the five biggest insurance companies because that's what he really meant. He was referring to them "in general." Is that anything like a pretty broad statement?
But where did we leave our debate? It was left open, to be finalized four years from now.
You're probably asking yourself, "What is he talking about?" Remember how he said that those rate decreases would come in 2014? I ended our discussion by asking the staffer, "So what you're saying is that in 2014, rates will be less than they are today?" He answered affirmatively. Just to be clear, I added, "If rate increases average around 10% per year, in four years, that would be over 40%, but for ease of argument, let's just say the rates will be 40% higher than they are today. [Actually, it would be 46% higher, but we'll skip that for now.] And since Obama mentions that these rate decreases are before tax credits are added in, you're actually saying that in four years, our rates will be lower than we're paying right now." And again he agreed.
Let's look at those numbers. For ease, let's assume that a current rate is $1000. According to the staffer, Obama means that rates will be 14% to 20% lower in 2014 than they are today. So that means this rate would be around $860 in 2014. However, if we've had a 40% increase over that time period, rates would be at $1400. But one magic day in the year 2014, the mathematical equations will change and there will be a decrease of $540, or a 39% drop from $1400 to $860.
I used to do simple magic tricks for kids, and I graduated with a degree in mathematics, so I do have some experience in both areas. And if this happens, our president ranks up there with Einstein.
But I'm suspecting something more like Houdini.
I've posted it before, but here's some information from the White House website regarding healthcare reform. I've copied it below, direct from the site. (Or read it here.)
Q: Will I pay more than I am paying today?
A: No.
- You will likely pay less---perhaps much less. If you buy coverage like you have today on your own, premiums are expected to drop by 14 to 20 percent. If you get coverage through your job, premiums could decline by up to 3 percent.
- In addition, many Americans buying coverage in the individual market will qualify for tax credits that reduce their premiums by an average of nearly 60 percent – and they will get better coverage than what they have today.
As usual, I'm at a loss for words to describe how I felt after he answered me. I'm not sure who makes the worst arguments in DC. He explained that President Obama meant that rates would go down in 2014. Boy, thanks for clearing that up. I must be an idiot for thinking that the president's answer sounds like it would take effect immediately, particularly since neither bullet point even mentions 2014. Apparently, anyone who reads it should just know that. Who knows what other obvious mistakes I've missed since I didn't read all 2000+ pages of the legislation.
But Bayh's staffer explained it this way: "Well, it's a pretty broad statement." It's a broad statement. Now I feel so much better.
I continued to push that this was misleading information at best -- a lie at worst -- and that Senator Bayh should fix this problem. That's what I called it, a problem. And his answer to that: "It's a concern, but not a problem." I don't care what you call, it's not correct and it's confusing people. Sarah Kyle told me months ago that she would be contacting these agencies to tell them just that. Furthermore, the White House hot line even told me that couldn't be right when I questioned them about it. (By the way, I told the guy that when I hear a politician say that something is a "broad statement," it's just "a way of covering their behinds." Yes, that's the language I used, although I'll admit I wanted to use much stronger language than that.)
Somewhere during the conversation, I admitted that I worked for an insurance company, but I'm not an insurance expert. I work in IT, not in the health, sales, or actuarial departments. When I told him that, he became a little accusatory, claiming that the reason insurance rates are going up is because the insurers want to make a profit. (I guess it's wrong to try to make a profit nowadays.) Of course, I countered with the fact that the Congressional Budget Office predicted that insurance rates would be higher under Obama's plan than if nothing were done. Now I'm not so sure this guy read the report because he tried to make me believe that the CBO predicted rates would go up because insurers would try to make a profit due to the changes the government was enacting.
Let's set the record straight. I've read the report twice regarding individual health rates, and nowhere have I found that to be the case. Perhaps I missed it, but I'm pretty sure it's not there. (I did eventually point that out, and he recanted his statement.)
As for profits, insurance profits are nothing out of line. (Read the articles here and here.) Allow me to summarize. Basically, insurance companies don't really make any more than Target or Wal-mart does when you look at profit margin. But, ah, there's the catch. Any articles you read that accuse insurance companies of huge profits fail to mention profit margins. They only look at dollars and cents.
He answered those comments by stating that if you put all the bonuses that insurance companies pay back into the pot, then the profit margin is more like 30%. First, I have a hard time believing that. Second, I haven't ever read that in any article, either for or against insurance profits. (I'm not saying it isn't the case, but I haven't read about it.) Third, if you're going to use that argument, then you must take those same bonuses into account for companies like Target. Otherwise, you're not really comparing apples to apples. Fourth, I don't know that states would allow that much profit. In other words, you would have to pay all your regular wages, utilities, maintenance, taxes, and CLAIMS from the remaining 70%. Plus since insurance companies make a profit of 4% or less, that would mean that insurance companies are paying 87% of their profits (4% leftover profit divided by the 30% profit before bonuses are paid) to their employees as perks and bonuses.
I also mentioned that not all insurance companies make the profits that the large companies make. That's when I told him that I work for a small insurance company, and we don't make near those profits. I'm sure I even sounded a little bit offended. He changed his tune and pointed all further accusations toward the five biggest insurance companies because that's what he really meant. He was referring to them "in general." Is that anything like a pretty broad statement?
But where did we leave our debate? It was left open, to be finalized four years from now.
You're probably asking yourself, "What is he talking about?" Remember how he said that those rate decreases would come in 2014? I ended our discussion by asking the staffer, "So what you're saying is that in 2014, rates will be less than they are today?" He answered affirmatively. Just to be clear, I added, "If rate increases average around 10% per year, in four years, that would be over 40%, but for ease of argument, let's just say the rates will be 40% higher than they are today. [Actually, it would be 46% higher, but we'll skip that for now.] And since Obama mentions that these rate decreases are before tax credits are added in, you're actually saying that in four years, our rates will be lower than we're paying right now." And again he agreed.
Let's look at those numbers. For ease, let's assume that a current rate is $1000. According to the staffer, Obama means that rates will be 14% to 20% lower in 2014 than they are today. So that means this rate would be around $860 in 2014. However, if we've had a 40% increase over that time period, rates would be at $1400. But one magic day in the year 2014, the mathematical equations will change and there will be a decrease of $540, or a 39% drop from $1400 to $860.
I used to do simple magic tricks for kids, and I graduated with a degree in mathematics, so I do have some experience in both areas. And if this happens, our president ranks up there with Einstein.
But I'm suspecting something more like Houdini.
Monday, September 13, 2010
Powerful Prayer
A little over a week ago, I again listened to the closing prayer at the Restoring Honor Rally in Washington, DC. Dave Roever, a Vietnam veteran, gave that closing prayer. If anyone has a "right" to be angry at God and at America, this is the man. A phosphorous grenade went off in his hand, and with its extreme heat, it severely burned his body. In fact, one night in the hospital, he was in such agony that he wanted to scream, so he buried his face in his pillow and did just that. But when he lifted himself up from the pillow, his face remained behind.
He attempted suicide because he didn't think anyone could love him, but his wife stood by him. And so did God.
On that warm afternoon in late August at the bottom of the Lincoln Memorial, he said a prayer that still moves me. Here are portions of that prayer.
"God in heaven,
"We recognize that there’s a reflecting pool down here on earth. This one is not only of water, but there’s a second one. It is a pool of people gathered in Your name, and we reflect You. We are your reflecting pool. And we may be scarred or some with limbs missing, and we recognize the pain of war, but, God, You are the healer. And our nation at war needs a healer today, from Baghdad to Kandahar, wherever our troops are in harm’s way.
"May hundreds of thousands of people at this very moment carry a big stick at the reflecting pool, and may we move the heart of God to protect our troops, who have protected us this very day to celebrate the freedom they have fought for us.
"God, bless this nation. We thank You for our president. We thank You for our Congress. We thank You for our land. But, God, we thank you that you rule in the hearts of these people, and all things work together for good to them that love God and are called according to His purpose on 8 and 28 of the book of Romans and on this glorious day."
And he closed with these words, "We love you, Jesus. You’re the best and most wonderful gift to the human race. Lord, I pray these things in the name that we love so much – the name of Jesus, Amen."
Of course, these typed words don't convey the heart and emotion of this courageous follower of God. Click here to hear it for yourself.
He attempted suicide because he didn't think anyone could love him, but his wife stood by him. And so did God.
On that warm afternoon in late August at the bottom of the Lincoln Memorial, he said a prayer that still moves me. Here are portions of that prayer.
"God in heaven,
"We recognize that there’s a reflecting pool down here on earth. This one is not only of water, but there’s a second one. It is a pool of people gathered in Your name, and we reflect You. We are your reflecting pool. And we may be scarred or some with limbs missing, and we recognize the pain of war, but, God, You are the healer. And our nation at war needs a healer today, from Baghdad to Kandahar, wherever our troops are in harm’s way.
"May hundreds of thousands of people at this very moment carry a big stick at the reflecting pool, and may we move the heart of God to protect our troops, who have protected us this very day to celebrate the freedom they have fought for us.
"God, bless this nation. We thank You for our president. We thank You for our Congress. We thank You for our land. But, God, we thank you that you rule in the hearts of these people, and all things work together for good to them that love God and are called according to His purpose on 8 and 28 of the book of Romans and on this glorious day."
And he closed with these words, "We love you, Jesus. You’re the best and most wonderful gift to the human race. Lord, I pray these things in the name that we love so much – the name of Jesus, Amen."
Of course, these typed words don't convey the heart and emotion of this courageous follower of God. Click here to hear it for yourself.
Thursday, September 2, 2010
A Call to Honor
I had the great opportunity and pleasure to attend the Restoring Honor Event in Washington, DC, this past Saturday.
Now I don’t consider myself to be a Glenn Beck fan, so those people who would claim that I am a just a blind follower of the man are just plain wrong. I’ve perhaps listened to his show 4 or 5 times. On the flip side, neither am I saying that I disagree with him all the time. I generally hear about his comments from others. As a result, I’m sure there are things we have in common and agree upon, while at the same time, we would hold differing views on other subjects.
But essentially that means I went to Saturday’s rally not really knowing what to expect. Would it be a great event to encourage our soldiers? Would it become a political arena loaded with accusations, insults, and childish name-calling? Would it be a boring waste of time? I really didn’t know.
It's hard to describe what happened there, but I truly believe it was something special. I can assuredly say that it wasn’t what I had been expecting. And perhaps that’s why so many people are angry about this event, people who don’t know what to say because there wasn’t any name-calling, there weren’t any diatribes on political figures, and there definitely wasn’t any fear mongering, hate-filled speeches, or racism.
So what was it? Well, where do you start? It was a time to honor those men and women who have served our country in the military. It was a chance to recognize people who exemplified hope, faith, and charity. It was an opportunity to choose to focus on the good in America rather than the bad. And it was a call to put God first.
But you won’t hear about that from the liberal media. You won’t hear about the three veterans honored for their bravery in battle. You won’t hear about the civilians who have shown love and support for their fellow man. You won’t hear about the speech given by Martin Luther King, Jr.’s niece. You won’t hear about the call for this nation to once again become that nation filled with love and charity, particularly by tithing to your church. You won’t hear about the people standing on the Mall and lifting their voices to sing Amazing Grace. And you certainly won’t hear about the closing prayer that thanked God for our president and our Congress and called Jesus “the best and most wonderful gift to the human race.”
Instead, you’ll hear something completely different from people like Bill Press, former chairman of the California Democratic Party, who presents arguments like this: The Lincoln Memorial is not the place to hold a religious gathering because “it is a sacred spot.” He didn’t think “it should be turned over to be a political or a religious rally.” In fact, he compared the rally to “a camp meeting, an old-fashioned, religious camp meeting,” and something of that nature is not “appropriate on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial.” (Watch it here.)
But I guess they failed to read the inscriptions on the walls inside the Lincoln Memorial, two well-known orations. On the northern wall is Lincoln’s second inaugural address, which mentions God, the Almighty, or the Lord at least eight times. Facing south, you can read his most famous speech, the Gettysburg Address, which he ended with the resolution ”that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom – and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”
That’s my prayer, too.
Now I don’t consider myself to be a Glenn Beck fan, so those people who would claim that I am a just a blind follower of the man are just plain wrong. I’ve perhaps listened to his show 4 or 5 times. On the flip side, neither am I saying that I disagree with him all the time. I generally hear about his comments from others. As a result, I’m sure there are things we have in common and agree upon, while at the same time, we would hold differing views on other subjects.
But essentially that means I went to Saturday’s rally not really knowing what to expect. Would it be a great event to encourage our soldiers? Would it become a political arena loaded with accusations, insults, and childish name-calling? Would it be a boring waste of time? I really didn’t know.
It's hard to describe what happened there, but I truly believe it was something special. I can assuredly say that it wasn’t what I had been expecting. And perhaps that’s why so many people are angry about this event, people who don’t know what to say because there wasn’t any name-calling, there weren’t any diatribes on political figures, and there definitely wasn’t any fear mongering, hate-filled speeches, or racism.
So what was it? Well, where do you start? It was a time to honor those men and women who have served our country in the military. It was a chance to recognize people who exemplified hope, faith, and charity. It was an opportunity to choose to focus on the good in America rather than the bad. And it was a call to put God first.
But you won’t hear about that from the liberal media. You won’t hear about the three veterans honored for their bravery in battle. You won’t hear about the civilians who have shown love and support for their fellow man. You won’t hear about the speech given by Martin Luther King, Jr.’s niece. You won’t hear about the call for this nation to once again become that nation filled with love and charity, particularly by tithing to your church. You won’t hear about the people standing on the Mall and lifting their voices to sing Amazing Grace. And you certainly won’t hear about the closing prayer that thanked God for our president and our Congress and called Jesus “the best and most wonderful gift to the human race.”
Instead, you’ll hear something completely different from people like Bill Press, former chairman of the California Democratic Party, who presents arguments like this: The Lincoln Memorial is not the place to hold a religious gathering because “it is a sacred spot.” He didn’t think “it should be turned over to be a political or a religious rally.” In fact, he compared the rally to “a camp meeting, an old-fashioned, religious camp meeting,” and something of that nature is not “appropriate on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial.” (Watch it here.)
But I guess they failed to read the inscriptions on the walls inside the Lincoln Memorial, two well-known orations. On the northern wall is Lincoln’s second inaugural address, which mentions God, the Almighty, or the Lord at least eight times. Facing south, you can read his most famous speech, the Gettysburg Address, which he ended with the resolution ”that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom – and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”
That’s my prayer, too.
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
Didn't You Read the Memo?
Sorry for the delay in getting this posted. I was hoping to hear back from some offices that I had called (of course, I never did hear anything), and then we were on a family vacation.
So here’s where we stand. In my last blog, I mentioned that I had contacted Senator Bayh’s office after months of trying to reach someone. In that article, I went into some details regarding the misinformation being presented to the American people by our ever-so-honest politicians in DC. So here is a list of statements and questions I asked Bayh’s office once I reached them.
I explained to the woman I spoke with that the reason I called so frequently is that based on Bayh’s press release on December 21, 2009, “we must be vigilant and keep their [politicians'] feet to the fire.” (By the way, I find it ironic that Bayh counts himself among the people who have to keep politicians’ feet to the fire.) I did offer to send her the link to this quote (here it is), but she said she didn’t need it.
The first thing I pointed out was the President Obama has promised people that their rates are going to drop under his plan, which isn’t true. Her response: “How do you know the rates are going to go up? That’s a future event.”
Let’s pause here for a moment and ponder that statement. Does it even make sense? Obviously not, or I wouldn’t have even brought it up. But just for fun, let’s take a more detailed look. First, insurance is all about predicting future events. That’s how insurance companies price their policies. Second, government offices predict future events all the time. In fact, Senator Bayh’s request from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) regarding premium costs predicted premium rates well into the future (and even predicted that they would go up). Third, how does she not know that rates are going up? The very document Senator Bayh requested predicted that rates would go up.
Now back to the conversation.
After I explained some information in the CBO report, I gathered that she was finally starting to understand. I even told her that if I had misinterpreted the data in some way, that I would stop bugging them, and to this day, nobody's called to tell me that I've done so. But here are some highlights of my conversation.
Me: “I’d like to know what Senator Bayh is going to do about this incorrect information?”
Her answer: “We have people who are being vigilant.”
My answer: ”If they’re being vigilant, why is this wrong information still out there?” (That's a direct quote, to which I don't think I got a direct answer.)
Me: “Who do you think the public is going to upset with when they find out their insurance rates are going to go up this fall, the government or the insurance companies?”
Her answer: “Insurance companies.”
My answer: Insurance companies. We finally agree upon something.
Me: “How do I know that once I hang up this phone that you’re actually going to do something? Can you send me the information you’re going to send to these government agencies?”
Her answer: “I’ll take down your email address.”
My answer: Vote all the bums out of Washington
So here’s where we stand. In my last blog, I mentioned that I had contacted Senator Bayh’s office after months of trying to reach someone. In that article, I went into some details regarding the misinformation being presented to the American people by our ever-so-honest politicians in DC. So here is a list of statements and questions I asked Bayh’s office once I reached them.
I explained to the woman I spoke with that the reason I called so frequently is that based on Bayh’s press release on December 21, 2009, “we must be vigilant and keep their [politicians'] feet to the fire.” (By the way, I find it ironic that Bayh counts himself among the people who have to keep politicians’ feet to the fire.) I did offer to send her the link to this quote (here it is), but she said she didn’t need it.
The first thing I pointed out was the President Obama has promised people that their rates are going to drop under his plan, which isn’t true. Her response: “How do you know the rates are going to go up? That’s a future event.”
Let’s pause here for a moment and ponder that statement. Does it even make sense? Obviously not, or I wouldn’t have even brought it up. But just for fun, let’s take a more detailed look. First, insurance is all about predicting future events. That’s how insurance companies price their policies. Second, government offices predict future events all the time. In fact, Senator Bayh’s request from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) regarding premium costs predicted premium rates well into the future (and even predicted that they would go up). Third, how does she not know that rates are going up? The very document Senator Bayh requested predicted that rates would go up.
Now back to the conversation.
After I explained some information in the CBO report, I gathered that she was finally starting to understand. I even told her that if I had misinterpreted the data in some way, that I would stop bugging them, and to this day, nobody's called to tell me that I've done so. But here are some highlights of my conversation.
Me: “I’d like to know what Senator Bayh is going to do about this incorrect information?”
Her answer: “We have people who are being vigilant.”
My answer: ”If they’re being vigilant, why is this wrong information still out there?” (That's a direct quote, to which I don't think I got a direct answer.)
Me: “Who do you think the public is going to upset with when they find out their insurance rates are going to go up this fall, the government or the insurance companies?”
Her answer: “Insurance companies.”
My answer: Insurance companies. We finally agree upon something.
Me: “How do I know that once I hang up this phone that you’re actually going to do something? Can you send me the information you’re going to send to these government agencies?”
Her answer: “I’ll take down your email address.”
My answer: Vote all the bums out of Washington
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
Reading Between the Lies
Before you begin reading this blog, I need to warn you about something: It’s long and may seem overwhelming, but I strongly encourage you to read it. I’ve tried to be clear and concise to the best of my abilities. Once you understand this particular point versus what we’ve been told, you’ll begin to see why we need to question the information we’ve been given. It is definitely worth finishing, and I’d be glad to answer any questions anyone has to the best of my abilities.
On Monday (July 19, 2010), I had the pleasure of speaking to a nice lady at Senator Evan Bayh’s DC office. And I do mean it; she was very kind and listened to everything I had to say. But before we get into that call, we first need to review some statements made by our government.
Before my call, I reviewed a report created by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) for none other than Senator Bayh. In summary, the report was to determine the net effects on the pricing of premiums under the new legislation. The document was sent to Senator Bayh on November 30, 2009, and the CBO has determined that although they “have not updated those estimates, the effects of the enacted legislation are expected to be quite similar.” (Read the report here.)
That document was to be my starting point to review information from a variety of government sources. My plan wasn’t to contradict anything in the report (although I question some of the data in it). In fact, my arguments assume that the data is correct, and that’s the biggest problem I have with what’s being presented by politicians. It doesn’t line up with their own data if you look at what the CBO has reported. Plus, you need to keep one thing in mind: at least twice (pages 9 and 27), the CBO refers to “the substantial degree of uncertainty” and “the considerable uncertainty” surrounding these estimates. But since the politicians are treating this report as gospel truth, so will we for the purpose of this blog.
Also, I need to make some clarifications of terminology. People enrolled in a plan before March 23, 2010 can be grandfathered in that plan. (The CBO referred to these plans as being under current law at the time the report was written.) In other words, some of the new benefit requirements do not need to be applied to them. They get a free pass on some of the legislation, sort of. If you enroll in a new plan on March 23 or later, then you’ll be required to take on the new rules, which will bring some new benefits (and other stuff) in the future. These are nongrandfathered plans, or plans under the new healthcare reform.
During my call with Senator Bayh’s office, I wanted to focus in particular on one piece of information on the White House website because obviously, I knew they wouldn’t have time to address all of my concerns in one phone call. And if this were wrong, who knows what else could be wrong? The questions I had were in regards to individual, or nongroup, health insurance. Here’s the information, direct from the site (Read it here.)
Q: Will I pay more than I am paying today?
A: No.
Let’s break these statements down into smaller chunks. We’ll start with the first bullet, which indicates insurance rates could drop by 14 to 20 percent for coverage like you have today. Remember, these are the grandfathered plans.
One could potentially make a few counterpoints to my arguments above. For example, if you can save money in the nongrandfathered plans, those savings could be passed on to people in the grandfathered plans as well, but that’s up to the insurance company’s discretion. Additionally, due to the benefit options and rates, young, healthy adults are the ones most likely to remain on grandfathered plans, if they got them before March 23. As a result, there should be fewer claims in them, which would keep down costs. Finally, one could say that the CBO was comparing plans in general under the two versions of the law, not comparing grandfathered to nongrandfathered. Is there a difference? I don’t really know, and I don’t think I’ll find anyone who does.
I warned you that there was a lot of material here, and we’ve only covered the first bullet point. Before we continue, read the second bullet point again. Does it sound like you will not only save up to 20%, but perhaps another 60% as well, for a whopping 80% discount? Sound true good to be true? Well, it is.
Again, my apologies for the long blog. Unfortunately, it’s not very exciting reading, but I believe we need to be aware of the information we’re being presented. I’ve made some generalities here for ease of arguments, just like the CBO had to make in their document. However, I’ve tried to present the information as clearly and accurately as possible. And as I mentioned earlier, if you have any questions, please let me know.
And if you’re still awake, you may be wondering what Bayh’s office had to say about all this. I guess you’ll have to read the next blog.
On Monday (July 19, 2010), I had the pleasure of speaking to a nice lady at Senator Evan Bayh’s DC office. And I do mean it; she was very kind and listened to everything I had to say. But before we get into that call, we first need to review some statements made by our government.
Before my call, I reviewed a report created by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) for none other than Senator Bayh. In summary, the report was to determine the net effects on the pricing of premiums under the new legislation. The document was sent to Senator Bayh on November 30, 2009, and the CBO has determined that although they “have not updated those estimates, the effects of the enacted legislation are expected to be quite similar.” (Read the report here.)
That document was to be my starting point to review information from a variety of government sources. My plan wasn’t to contradict anything in the report (although I question some of the data in it). In fact, my arguments assume that the data is correct, and that’s the biggest problem I have with what’s being presented by politicians. It doesn’t line up with their own data if you look at what the CBO has reported. Plus, you need to keep one thing in mind: at least twice (pages 9 and 27), the CBO refers to “the substantial degree of uncertainty” and “the considerable uncertainty” surrounding these estimates. But since the politicians are treating this report as gospel truth, so will we for the purpose of this blog.
Also, I need to make some clarifications of terminology. People enrolled in a plan before March 23, 2010 can be grandfathered in that plan. (The CBO referred to these plans as being under current law at the time the report was written.) In other words, some of the new benefit requirements do not need to be applied to them. They get a free pass on some of the legislation, sort of. If you enroll in a new plan on March 23 or later, then you’ll be required to take on the new rules, which will bring some new benefits (and other stuff) in the future. These are nongrandfathered plans, or plans under the new healthcare reform.
During my call with Senator Bayh’s office, I wanted to focus in particular on one piece of information on the White House website because obviously, I knew they wouldn’t have time to address all of my concerns in one phone call. And if this were wrong, who knows what else could be wrong? The questions I had were in regards to individual, or nongroup, health insurance. Here’s the information, direct from the site (Read it here.)
Q: Will I pay more than I am paying today?
A: No.
- You will likely pay less---perhaps much less. If you buy coverage like you have today on your own, premiums are expected to drop by 14 to 20 percent. If you get coverage through your job, premiums could decline by up to 3 percent.
- In addition, many Americans buying coverage in the individual market will qualify for tax credits that reduce their premiums by an average of nearly 60 percent – and they will get better coverage than what they have today.
Let’s break these statements down into smaller chunks. We’ll start with the first bullet, which indicates insurance rates could drop by 14 to 20 percent for coverage like you have today. Remember, these are the grandfathered plans.
- In actuality, the first problem arises with the question. Do you see that word today at the end of the question? According to the CBO, these rate decreases of 14% to 20% are predicted for the year 2016. Notice that President Obama implies that these rate decreases will be immediate. The chart is even entitled, “Effect of Senate Proposal on Average Premiums for Health Insurance in 2016.” How could he miss that one?
- There isn't any mention of inflation for the costs of medical care, which will continue to drive up rates. The CBO must have predicted them in their work, as you’ll see below. If healthcare costs continue to rise, so will premiums.
- When I called the CBO several weeks ago, they did not tell me their assumed rate of increase for premiums, so I had to guess. By 2016, the CBO predicted average rates would be $5,500 for one individual under then current law (not under reform). I guessed annual rate increases of 10%, starting in 2010. After doing some math, I calculated a starting point of about $3,100 annually in 2010. I did find a website that indicated I was close, with average rates being around $2,900 in October 2009 for one person on an individual plan. So if you get the best decrease of 20% in 2016, you’ll be paying $4,400 (80% of $5,500), which is $1,300 more than you’re paying today. As a side note, the CBO estimated the cost for one individual insurance policy to be $5,800 in 2016 under the healthcare reform. Isn’t that amount $300 more than what they predicted under the old law?
- Now let’s examine the phrase “if you buy coverage like you have today.” If you haven’t figured this out yet, I hate to break it to you, but you may not be able to buy insurance like you have today by the end of the year. In fact, if you purchased it after March 23, 2010, you’re already set to get the nongrandfathered plans. If you’ve had a plan for a long time, don’t change too much about your plan or else you may have to kiss that grandfathered version good-bye. And don’t even think about changing insurers. So in reality, you can’t “buy” coverage like you have today. The best you may be allowed to do is renew what you currently have. Pretty sneaky, huh?
- The CBO predicted rates in 2016 by examining three broad categories, two of which reduce rates, and compared the effects of changing the law to doing nothing. Essentially, the CBO compared grandfathered and nongrandfathered plans to determine cost changes. For example, let’s say a grandfathered plan has a premium of $1,000. Then a nongrandfathered plan would have a rate of $800, with the 20% decrease. You can’t turn around and decrease the grandfathered plans by 20% as well to make them $800. Otherwise, there would not be any net change. Consider it this way. Both Store A and Store B sell goods for the exact same price. Store B then makes some administration decision so they can lower their prices by 20%. Now Store B is 20% lower in cost than Store A, a valid comparison. But if Store A also reduces their prices by 20%, then you can no longer say Store B is 20% lower. True, both stores are 20% lower than their original price, but in comparison to each other, they are exactly the same. So by lowering both grandfathered and nongrandathered plans by 20% as Obama states will happen, the CBO couldn't say that one will be 20% less than the other.
- But that’s not the only deception President Obama has in those numbers. Half of that 14% to 20% discount supposedly comes from a decrease in administration costs for insurance plans due to the new rules. However, those rules may not all apply to grandfathered plans.
- The other half of that discount is from “economies of scale,” so to speak. There will be more healthy people enrolled in the plan, so that should reduce costs, right? Oh, yeah, there’s that crazy March 23 date, though. The problem here – insurers can’t add people to the grandfathered plans any more. Gotcha!
One could potentially make a few counterpoints to my arguments above. For example, if you can save money in the nongrandfathered plans, those savings could be passed on to people in the grandfathered plans as well, but that’s up to the insurance company’s discretion. Additionally, due to the benefit options and rates, young, healthy adults are the ones most likely to remain on grandfathered plans, if they got them before March 23. As a result, there should be fewer claims in them, which would keep down costs. Finally, one could say that the CBO was comparing plans in general under the two versions of the law, not comparing grandfathered to nongrandfathered. Is there a difference? I don’t really know, and I don’t think I’ll find anyone who does.
I warned you that there was a lot of material here, and we’ve only covered the first bullet point. Before we continue, read the second bullet point again. Does it sound like you will not only save up to 20%, but perhaps another 60% as well, for a whopping 80% discount? Sound true good to be true? Well, it is.
- Don’t let the phrase “in addition” fool you; the numbers can’t be added together. If your current premium is $1,000, you won’t be paying $200 after an 80 percent discount. We must take one discount at a time. First, we’d take off 20 percent, or $200, bringing the new premium amount to $800. Then we’d get an average of 60 percent from tax credits, which amounts to another $480. So after we subtract the $480 from $800, we’re left with a $320 premium, not that lovely $200 premium.
- But even $320 sounds great, right? Well, it’s not the whole story. The CBO predicted that rates under the new law would be 10% to 13% higher in 2016, not lower. In reality, your premium is going to be more than what you’re paying now. You could get some tax credits and subsidies, but technically, it’s not reducing your premiums being paid to insurers. But if you subtract those from your higher premium, you’ll get to the $320 range (assuming you get the best discounts and highest subsidies).
- Now here’s the real kicker. What I’ve just explained isn’t entirely true either. The two bullet points are mutually exclusive. You can’t get both. So at most, you'll save up to 60% in 2016. But since rates are going to be higher under the healthcare reform, all of that 60% decrease comes from tax credits and subsidies averaging about two-thirds of the total premium. As for that $1000 premium, you’ll be shelling out more than that. But you could get some back with the tax benefits, but it won’t bring you down to $320.
- Of course, tax credits and subsidies don't just appear by magic. Someone, somewhere, has to pay the price. That either has to come from increased taxes or decreased spending.
Again, my apologies for the long blog. Unfortunately, it’s not very exciting reading, but I believe we need to be aware of the information we’re being presented. I’ve made some generalities here for ease of arguments, just like the CBO had to make in their document. However, I’ve tried to present the information as clearly and accurately as possible. And as I mentioned earlier, if you have any questions, please let me know.
And if you’re still awake, you may be wondering what Bayh’s office had to say about all this. I guess you’ll have to read the next blog.
Thursday, July 15, 2010
A Lack of Census Consensus
Yesterday (Wednesday, July 14), I got a phone call from Senator Bayh's DC office, which really surprised me. Unfortunately, I was just heading into another meeting, so I couldn't ask her any questions. I did try calling back later throughout the day, but thus far, I haven't been able to reach her.
On another topic, though, I had a visitor at my house that same evening. Apparently, the Census Bureau was not satisfied by my answers on my survey. Basically, I gave them a headcount, which is what the census is for, and told them that the rest of the information wasn't any of their business. (I didn't phrase it quite that bluntly, but I did draw lots of big X's throughout the rest of the survey.)
I'm going to state what information I was provided by the census taker. I didn't research all the laws on this subject, but I have read a number of articles regarding whether or not the questions are constitutional. Unfortunately, I'm no expert here, so I'm only going to summarize what information I was given.
The man who stopped by gave me a sheet, which read, "You are required by law to provide the information requested." And here are the laws the sheet listed that apply to the survey, in brief.
But here's the problem. Based on every reason I got for giving answers to questions, they're asking the wrong questions. For example, based on our conversation, I gathered that the larger the Hispanic population, then the more money schools could receive for teaching English as a second language. However, the questions don't address how well someone knows English. Wouldn't schools be better able to give a headcount indicating how many students they have that struggle with English?
Furthermore, you can check all the boxes under the race category with which you identify yourself. So if you had a great-grandma from China, but everyone else in the family was European, you could still mark Chinese as an option. Is that misleading? Personally, in a scenario like that, I think it is. But it's OK for the census. And I know I could get flack for this, but President Obama only checked the box for "Black, African American, or Negro." He didn't check the box for "White," even though his mother is white.(Click here for article.) So what's really the point of the question? Why even ask?
Around the same time as our original census survey came to us, we had to fill out similar questions regarding race for the school system. That really infuriated me, so I decided to call the Indiana Department of Education (DOE) to state my concerns. I asked the representative there how I’m supposed to teach my children to see beyond the color of a person’s skin if we keep sticking it in front of them. I’d also heard from school workers (not our school system) that on some paperwork they fill out, they had been told by the administrators to check a minority box, even when it didn’t apply at times, so that the school would get extra money. Again, if the whole process is about money and people are lying about it, then there’s no value to asking the question. And the lady at the DOE agreed on both counts.
Then in May, an incident occurred in California, as some teenage boys were sent home for wearing American flags and colors during Cinco de Mayo celebrations. (Click here for article.)
So why is it that we can’t be Americans first? I’m proud of my heritage, but first and foremost, I’m American. However, my family comes from a German-Swiss background. But I still want to be called an American, and if people want specifics, I’m an American of German and Swiss descent.
Now back to the census taker. Of all the parts of the census, this one doesn't make any sense to me at all. This census counts everyone, US citizen or not, including someone in the US with a student visa. In fact, he told me that the only people you don't count are the foreign travelers who are here short term, which he defined as having a two-week visa. As a result, depending upon the location of illegal immigrants or long-term visitors in the US, your counts by city could be dramatically skewed, thus affecting lines drawn for voting purposes. But I doubt that anyone would use such information for personal political gain (dripping with sarcasm).
I'll give the census guy credit, though. He was considerate, despite all my questions, and even made a few statements that I could agree with wholeheartedly. Eventually, though, he conceded that he could just write down that I refused to answer certain questions.
And when I couldn't find an option in the race category for American, that's exactly what I did.
On another topic, though, I had a visitor at my house that same evening. Apparently, the Census Bureau was not satisfied by my answers on my survey. Basically, I gave them a headcount, which is what the census is for, and told them that the rest of the information wasn't any of their business. (I didn't phrase it quite that bluntly, but I did draw lots of big X's throughout the rest of the survey.)
I'm going to state what information I was provided by the census taker. I didn't research all the laws on this subject, but I have read a number of articles regarding whether or not the questions are constitutional. Unfortunately, I'm no expert here, so I'm only going to summarize what information I was given.
The man who stopped by gave me a sheet, which read, "You are required by law to provide the information requested." And here are the laws the sheet listed that apply to the survey, in brief.
- Your privacy is protected.
- The government can ask you whatever they want, except questions regarding religion (although interpretation of that law is open to debate).
- Failure to answer can result in a $100 fine. Lying can get you up to $500.
But here's the problem. Based on every reason I got for giving answers to questions, they're asking the wrong questions. For example, based on our conversation, I gathered that the larger the Hispanic population, then the more money schools could receive for teaching English as a second language. However, the questions don't address how well someone knows English. Wouldn't schools be better able to give a headcount indicating how many students they have that struggle with English?
Furthermore, you can check all the boxes under the race category with which you identify yourself. So if you had a great-grandma from China, but everyone else in the family was European, you could still mark Chinese as an option. Is that misleading? Personally, in a scenario like that, I think it is. But it's OK for the census. And I know I could get flack for this, but President Obama only checked the box for "Black, African American, or Negro." He didn't check the box for "White," even though his mother is white.(Click here for article.) So what's really the point of the question? Why even ask?
Around the same time as our original census survey came to us, we had to fill out similar questions regarding race for the school system. That really infuriated me, so I decided to call the Indiana Department of Education (DOE) to state my concerns. I asked the representative there how I’m supposed to teach my children to see beyond the color of a person’s skin if we keep sticking it in front of them. I’d also heard from school workers (not our school system) that on some paperwork they fill out, they had been told by the administrators to check a minority box, even when it didn’t apply at times, so that the school would get extra money. Again, if the whole process is about money and people are lying about it, then there’s no value to asking the question. And the lady at the DOE agreed on both counts.
Then in May, an incident occurred in California, as some teenage boys were sent home for wearing American flags and colors during Cinco de Mayo celebrations. (Click here for article.)
So why is it that we can’t be Americans first? I’m proud of my heritage, but first and foremost, I’m American. However, my family comes from a German-Swiss background. But I still want to be called an American, and if people want specifics, I’m an American of German and Swiss descent.
Now back to the census taker. Of all the parts of the census, this one doesn't make any sense to me at all. This census counts everyone, US citizen or not, including someone in the US with a student visa. In fact, he told me that the only people you don't count are the foreign travelers who are here short term, which he defined as having a two-week visa. As a result, depending upon the location of illegal immigrants or long-term visitors in the US, your counts by city could be dramatically skewed, thus affecting lines drawn for voting purposes. But I doubt that anyone would use such information for personal political gain (dripping with sarcasm).
I'll give the census guy credit, though. He was considerate, despite all my questions, and even made a few statements that I could agree with wholeheartedly. Eventually, though, he conceded that he could just write down that I refused to answer certain questions.
And when I couldn't find an option in the race category for American, that's exactly what I did.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)