Obama: the president who wasn’t there

The New Neo Posted on by

The headline reads: “President Obama Unaware of Spying”:

President Barack Obama didn’t know about the NSA spying on foreign leaders for years, and he put an end to it when the administration found out about the program, according to a new report.

The monitoring of 35 world leaders’ communications was brought to light during an internal review of NSA programs this summer, an administration official told The Wall Street Journal. Obama halted the monitoring of German Chancellor Angela Merkel and others immediately, and some remaining monitoring programs are being phased out, the official said.

I’ve lost count of the times Obama has used the “I didn’t know” defense, including its subset “I only read about it for the first time in the papers, just like you” (not being used here, but a real favorite).

Maybe it’s true that he didn’t know, maybe it’s not true. We certainly don’t know. But the pattern is one of either denial of knowledge or of actual ignorance. And the majority of Americans seem to have forgiven him enough to re-elect him; perhaps they identify.

Obama reminds me of this poem:

Yesterday, upon the stair,
I met a man who wasn’t there
He wasn’t there again today
I wish, I wish he’d go away…

And he also conjures up one of my very favorite passages from the Mikado (I’ve cued it to start at the right spot; pay special attention to Pooh-Bah at 36:52):

We used to demand competency and responsibility from our presidents. Now we demand—what? Oratory and coolness, and—stuff?

Obamacare problems: the stab in the back

The New Neo Posted on by

Jonathan Bernstein at Salon is spinning so hard I fear for his health.

After some obligatory throat-clearing about how the Obamacare rollout really wasn’t handled all the well, and how it must be fixed, he gets down to the heart of the matter:

Nevertheless, it’s worth noting that whatever their own responsibility for what’s gone wrong, the White House shares responsibility with the Republicans who have spent three years actively attempting to undermine the law. I’m not talking about repeal votes, which (while silly after a while) were totally legitimate, or about running against the program in subsequent elections, which was again entirely fair. No, I’m talking about actions designed ”” usually openly ”” not to make the law work better in their view, but to make it harder for the law to work well.

While some of these had obvious direct effects, most of them did not. And it’s hard, in most cases, to draw a direct causal line between disruptive actions and specific malfunctions in the Web site. Nevertheless, it’s hard to believe that any of these actively helped make the program run smoothly, and very easy to believe that the cumulative effect had at least some part to play in the October fiasco.

That’s just—sad.

Bernstein goes on to list eight things those Republicans did that weren’t all that helpful—perhaps—to a law that went against their philosophy of government and which they thought would be highly destructive if passed, and which didn’t even have the support of all the Democrats in Congress, much less the American people.

[NOTE: By the way, here’s the reference in the title. And no, the Democrats aren’t Nazis.]

Employment-based health insurance vs. the exchanges

The New Neo Posted on by

Here’s a post at Ace’s, written by someone named Warden, describing his experience with employment-based health insurance premiums this year. Here’s what happened to him:

My own horror show arrived in the mail today. I’ll spare you the gory details. Here’s the short version: A 25% increase in premiums for the same health coverage I carried last year. For someone on a family plan, that translates into a $1,200 yearly increase.

So congratulations. If you make somewhere around $50,000 a year, then more than your entire after tax annual raise just went to pay for Obamacare. Doesn’t that feel FANTASTIC? You’re bringing home less this year than you did last year.

And you’re one of the lucky ones. See, you have a job. And you got a raise. You’re one of life’s lottery winners. A one percenter.

He might be even more upset if he took a look at what would happen if he were to go on the exchanges. At an income of $50,000 a year and with a family of four, and if $1,200 represents a 25% increase, he appears to be about to start paying premiums of about $6K a year up from $4.8K last year (he also reports having to pay an additional $600 as a smoker’s penalty, but let’s leave that out and just figure the basics).

As a person who’s buying insurance though work, he is eligible to go on the exchanges and shop around. Using this handy calculator (which is not exactly accurate for all states but which seems to give a good idea of what to expect in many), it turns out that, if Warden and his wife are both 35 and have two minor children, a silver plan (the standard used) would cost $9748 a year, with fairly high deductibles and co-pays that would amount to the consumer having to pay about 30% of the family’s medical expenses as well.

So that’s not a good deal for him at all. There’s no reason to go to the exchanges—and even if that age estimate is too low, if his age were higher than that the cost to him would be even higher.

So forget the exchanges. Right?

But what about subsidies? A person getting employment-based insurance can use the exchanges instead and get subsidies as well if his premiums for insurance through work—if he were single—would amount to over 9.5% of his income. That’s a bit hard to understand, but it means that for Warden, whose income is $50K, although he’s actually being asked to pay a whopping 12.5% of his income for work-based premiums on a family plan, he’s not eligible for a subsidy on the exchanges because if he were single he’d probably be paying a lot less than 9.5% of his income for his work-based premiums. I don’t know the exact figure he’d be paying at his company if he were single, but unless it were above $4750 a year (highly unlikely, if a family plan is $6000), then he would not be eligible for a subsidy on the exchanges no matter how high his actual work-based premiums are.

But surely, then, he’s better off than if he were self-employed, making $50K a year, the same age with the same family, and on the exchanges? Or at least he’s not worse off?

In fact, he’s a lot worse off. Here’s the scoop (you need to go to the calculator again to get the figures). If he is 35 years old with a wife of 35 and two minor children, self-employed (or employed by a company that does not offer insurance), his insurance premiums would be $9744 a year on the exchanges for a silver plan, as previously stated. But that’s not what he would actually pay, because at $50K a year his income figures in at 212% of poverty level for a family of 4. That caps his contribution to premiums at $3360 a year.

That’s all he has to pay no matter how high his premiums actually go; the government picks up the tab for the rest. In the case of a 35-year old with a family of 4, that means that the government would pay $6384 to his $3360, about two-thirds of the cost. If he and his wife were 40 years old, his premium contribution would stay the same but the government subsidy would go up to $6672 because the premiums rise with age and the government makes up the difference. And if both he and his wife are 45 the government contribution rises to $7548 while his contribution stays put. What’s more, because his income is under 250% of poverty level, he also gets hefty breaks on deductibles and co-pays.

It used to be that employment-based insurance was less expensive than individual, in part because of employer contributions. Now it seems that in many cases the tables have been turned for middle-income people (those with incomes under 400% of the poverty level, that is, which includes a significant percentage of the US population), with government subsidies giving a huge advantage to the self-employed and those without employer-based insurance for any reason. Haves and have-nots, indeed.

[NOTE: I’m assuming that Warden is quoting his premium payment amount after the employer share of premiums has already been paid.

If I’ve made any computational errors, let me know. After all, I did this on a Saturday night, while watching the World Series, which the Red Sox seem poised to lose.

One more thing—the online calculator I used to do the computations was the best I could find, but of course it could be giving me incorrect information. Like the Obamacare website itself.]

Mandate: to delay or not to delay

The New Neo Posted on by

Here’s a comment I found at the WaPo that I thought worth highlighting [typos corrected]:

One of the strangest things about the President is his inability to back down even when he’s dead wrong. No one is getting fired and his lackeys continue to pretend all is well. It makes sense to simply put off the start of the individual mandate for a year, even six months, but allow people to enroll voluntarily for that time. But he’s so fixated on appearing infallible that he’s making the rollout of Obamacare into the train wreck some of his allies predicted. And since he fought the Republicans on this very point, he had to dig his heels in and take a massive political drubbing while the bad news continues to pile in, even being reported by his fawning press.

I’m not sure which of Obama’s allies predicted the rollout would be a train wreck; perhaps the commenter means “foes.” But still, the point is well-taken. Obama has backed himself into an odd position in which he can’t do what might be sensible and in his own interests in having Obamacare work: delay the mandate.

It is an especially ironic state of affairs, since delaying the mandate was one of the main issues in the shutdown, something the Republicans were asking for and Obama refusing. He would look ridiculous if he were to change his mind on it now, although the press would probably help defend him. But although the “fawning” press is still helping him, even they (as the commenter points out) have been forced by the awesome scope and visibility of the rollout debacle to report on it with a certain amount of candor.

By keeping more or less to the original rollout schedule, with a few minor tweaks, Obama risks compromising the exchange’s enrollment ratio of healthy to unhealthy people that is necessary for the success of Obamacare. Thus he may be precipitating the very disaster he is trying to avoid.

Hubris, nemesis.

Uniting the Republican Party: winning and losing

The New Neo Posted on by

“Uniting the Republican Party”—has that become an oxymoron? I hope not, because it’s very hard to win elections if the party is having a civil war.

Ted Cruz has this to say about it yesterday in Iowa:

And let me tell you, growth and principles are ideas that unify Republicans,” he said. “They are principles and ideals that unify the evangelical community, the liberty movement and the business community. Growth and freedom are principles that bring together Main Street and the tea party.

I suppose that’s true, as far as it goes—although I would prefer to substitute the phrase “the preservation of liberty” for the word “freedom,” and put the word “economic” before the word “growth.”

What really caught my eye, though, was this statement of Cruz’s from an interview with the Des Moines Register:

It’s not a question of purity,” Cruz told the Register. “It’s a question of standing for common-sense conservative principles that are shared throughout this country that have been part of the American fabric of every small town and every small business and in families all across this country.”

Cruz said every Republican presidential candidate who ran as a strong conservative won ”” Nixon in 1968 and 1972, Reagan in 1980 and 1984, George H.W. Bush in 1988, George W. Bush in 2000 and 2004. And those that ran as an establishment moderate lost ”” Ford in 1976, George H.W. Bush in 1992, Dole in 1996, McCain in 2008 and Romney in 2012, Cruz said.

I find this an interesting statement for two reasons. The first is the year Cruz chose to begin his look back, and the second is how he characterizes the various Republican candidates. He starts his list in 1968, but what about 1964? Ever hear of Barry Goldwater, arguably the most conservative Republican candidate since the Roosevelt years? We all know how that one turned out. And how about Nixon in 1960? Wasn’t he just as conservative then, when he lost, as he was in 1968, when he won? And was Bush I really so conservative running for his first term? I submit that although he became less conservative in 1992, and this was most definitely part of the reason for his loss, was he really a “strong conservative” in 1988, when he won? A stronger conservative, yes, but I’ve usually heard him referred to as the quintessential “establishment Republican.” What’s more, 1992 was a strong third-party year, and Ross Perot’s candidacy is regarded by many as having been instrumental in Bush’s 1992 defeat.

But do I agree with Cruz’s more general message about presidential candidates and which type of Republican has a better chance to win? Let’s put it this way: I don’t think it’s necessarily a bad thing to run a strong conservative, nor is it necessarily a good thing to run an establishment moderate, if you look at it just in terms of winning/losing. They certainly would govern differently as president, and that would matter. But what I really think is that Nixon in 1960, Ford, Bush I in 1992, Dole, and McCain lost for reasons other than their principles, conservative or moderate. Each one had a lackluster and/or off-putting personality, and each was running against a more attractive candidate in that sense (even the 1976 Carter was more charismatic than Ford, although that’s hard to believe; and of course Obama was quite charismatic in 2008). And Reagan won his two terms in part because that dynamic was reversed: he was charismatic and he ran against lackluster, unappealing guys (Carter had become unappealing, and Mondale always was bland). We don’t tend to think of Bush II as immensely personally charismatic, either—he was not—but look who he was running against: Gore and then Kerry.

Yes, principles are part of it all, too. But I don’t see them playing all that big a part in distinguishing among which Republicans have won the presidency and which have lost.

Note that I’ve left out 2012, when Obama beat Romney. That’s one’s a little bit the same as the rest and a little bit different. It was the same in that Obama is apparently a more compelling and attractive personality than Romney, although I sure don’t see it; polls indicated that Obama won because he was perceived as more “caring,” for example. But I also think the 2012 election was corrupted by several things that made it somewhat sui generis, including the viciousness of the attacks on Romney and the extraordinary partisanship of the MSM in that battle, worse than I’d ever seen it before. Many people would include election fraud in that list; I don’t see it as having been all that significant, although some may have occurred.

Of course, Cruz (whom I happen to respect) has a vested interest in saying what he did about election history and principles. After all, he’s not the most charismatic guy in the world. Then again, neither is Hillary. But is he “likeable enough” to win?

Let’s write a column about something that didn’t happen…

The New Neo Posted on by

…that we wish had happened, because then it would make Republicans look really really bad. And lets only indicate way down towards the end that it almost certainly didn’t happen.

Or something like that, if you’re Todd Purdum at Politico.

By the way (and to understand what I’m going to say next, please look at Purdum’s piece), I can’t stand to look at Obama either. So what’s the big whoop?

If it’s any consolation, back when I was a liberal Democrat, I couldn’t stand to look at Reagan. And for quite some time (especially after the Lewinsky thing), I couldn’t stand to look at Bill Clinton. I kept picturing–cigars and blue dresses…

Actually, I can stand to look at Obama, although I’m not keen on it. What I really can’t stand is to listen to him. Or read what he has to say.

I’m wondering: which presidents could I ever stand to look at or listen to? I don’t remember a bit of difficulty watching Eisenhower when I was a child, although I was a Stevenson kid in a Stevenson family. JFK was great to look at and listen to, especially the sharp but strange accent. LBJ ugh! Nixon and Carter both set my teeth on edge. Ford was so-so. Reagan’s actory quality bothered me. Bush the First was dullsville. Clinton seemed like a fake even before Lewinsky. And George Bush wasn’t so fab for viewing, either, believe me.

Now, here’s something to look at:

mcqueen

But hey, that’s just me.

If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor…

The New Neo Posted on by

…that is, if you’re willing to pay out of pocket to see him/her out of network, or buy a more inclusive plan and pay higher premiums.

I guess we just never heard the whole quote.

Many Medicare Advantage patients in New York are finding that their doctors are being bumped from networks, and that they will have to find others. These are elderly patients for whom such change can be particularly stressful. And although this is Medicare, not Obamacare, the latter was designed to affect the former by instituting cutbacks that would go to feed the new system.

These Medicare patients are in addition to a large group of non-Medicare patients in the private insurance system who are being dumped, and plans that are being canceled there. And while there’s no way to absolutely prove at this point that this is all (or primarily) the result of Obamacare, it’s highly likely, because many of these plans don’t conform with all the requirements of Obamacare, which is cited as the reason for their demise (the plans’ demise, not the patients’).

Let’s revisit Obama’s promise. Back in June of 2009 (and many other times) he stated the following:

President Barack Obama”˜s address to the annual meeting of the American Medical Association today didn’t break new ground, but attempted to assure doctors and their patients that his prescription for overhauling the health care system would be good for them.

For patients, he made a sweeping pledge that “no matter how we reform health care, we will keep this promise: If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor. Period. If you like your health care plan, you will be able to keep your health care plan. Period. No one will take it away. No matter what. My view is that health care reform should be guided by a simple principle: fix what’s broken and build on what works.”

Needless to say, that promise is ludicrous.

But it’s not only ludicrous because it didn’t pan out. It was ludicrous even at the time he said it. How could such a promise have ever been made—and, more importantly, believed?

More interesting to me than the question of why Obama said it (simple: he said it in order to sell Obamacare) is why anyone ever believed such a transparent lie. Some didn’t believe it but just pretended to, of course. But I can only assume that for many of those who did believe it, the mechanism was some combination of wishful thinking, trust, and gullibility.

The GOP should hang those words like millstones around the necks of Obama and the Democrats. I wonder if they will. Here’s one who’s giving it a try, anyway.

Thank you! Thank you!

The New Neo Posted on by

…and thank you yet again.

To everyone who donated in my latest pledge drive (and in the past, and in the future), I deeply appreciate what you’ve done to help keep me blogging (and eating, and putting gas in my car…). You really can’t imagine how grateful and touched I am by your generosity.

As an ex-dancer, the following seems like a nice way to convey my gratitude. It called a reverence, a French word (as is most of the terminology of ballet) meaning:

The last exercises of a ballet class in which the ballet dancers pay respect to and acknowledge the teacher and pianist [is the reverence]. Reverence usually includes bows, curtsies, and ports de bras, and is a way of celebrating ballet’s traditions of elegance and respect.

“Traditions of elegance and respect.” Maybe that’s what I’ve always liked about ballet—learning it, in particular. That, and the challenge, and the music…