The Obamacare news in California: not so great after all?

The New Neo Posted on by

A week ago pundits on the left were crowing about the news released by Peter Lee, director of the Obamacare exchange in California, that the effect of Obamacare on individual health insurance rates in the state would be far better than previously indicated. In fact, the rates would not go up, and would even go down.

Well, not exactly. According to Forbes contributor Avik Roy, Lee was comparing two different things:

“The rates submitted to Covered California for the 2014 individual market,” the state said in a press release, “ranged from two percent above to 29 percent below the 2013 average premium for small employer plans in California’s most populous regions.”

That’s the sentence that led to all of the triumphant commentary from the left. “This is a home run for consumers in every region of California,” exulted Peter Lee.

Except that Lee was making a misleading comparison. He was comparing apples””the plans that Californians buy today for themselves in a robust individual market””and oranges””the highly regulated plans that small employers purchase for their workers as a group. The difference is critical.

Anyone who knows anything about health care insurance—and I mean the most basic things about health care insurance—knows that small groups are ordinarily less expensive than individual, sometimes by a great deal. It depends, of course, on the state (and traditionally it also depended on the individual, because in many states individual policies could be underwritten, pre-Obamacare), but that’s the general trend.

Roy does some of the math and concludes that in California, 25-year-old and 40-year old male nonsmokers would see their premiums more than double under Obamacare. That makes intuitive sense, because that’s a young population that tends to be fairly healthy and would therefore have usually had lowish premiums in a traditional insurance market.

In his article, Roy doesn’t give similar statistics in the individual market for a male smoker of say, sixty. My guess is that such a person’s premiums might go down somewhat under Obamacare, if only because they would have been so high before. But it depends on so many things, too—including how highly regulated the individual market in California already is, for example.

My basic point, however, is that I tend to ignore most prognostications (pro or con) that purport to project exact figures for before and after Obamacare, because insurance is already so complex that it really depends on the state, the company, the characteristics of the insured person, the class of insurance, and the level of insurance. Not to mention the fact that the situation will probably change as time goes on and Obamacare morphs into something else (single payer?), which many people think was always part of the plan for its boosters.

What I do know is that Obamacare will reduce choice, and that matters to most people. For example, Roy’s article points out that under Obamacare only people under 30 will be allowed to buy catastrophic insurance. That’s quite a limitation, and it’s only one of many. And I also know that Obamacare will increase exponentially the involvement of the government (and the IRS!) in the delicate and should-be-private matter of health care. Not something most people would consider a plus, to say the least, especially after the news of the last few weeks.

Nancy Pelosi was right about one thing: we had to pass the bill to find out what’s in it. And the revelations have only just begun.

Douglas Shulman, former head of IRS, hearts Obama

The New Neo Posted on by

They’re got to stop meeting like this:

Publicly released records show that embattled former IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman visited the White House at least 157 times during the Obama administration, more recorded visits than even the most trusted members of the president’s Cabinet.

Shulman’s extensive access to the White House first came to light during his testimony last week before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. Shulman gave assorted answers when asked why he had visited the White House 118 times during the period that the IRS was targeting tea party and conservative nonprofits for extra scrutiny and delays on their tax-exempt applications.

By contrast, Shulman’s predecessor Mark Everson only visited the White House once during four years of service in the George W. Bush administration and compared the IRS’s remoteness from the president to “Siberia.” But the scope of Shulman’s White House visits ”” which strongly suggests coordination by White House officials in the campaign against the president’s political opponents ”” is even more striking in comparison to the publicly recorded access of Cabinet members.

So far, neither the White House nor Shulman have even tried to offer an explanation that might make sense. The one Shulman voiced earlier was merely risible:

“Um, the Easter Egg Roll with my kids,” Shulman replied. “Questions about the administrability of tax policy they were thinking of; our budget; us helping the Department of Education streamline application processes for financial aid.”

A more logical explanation would be to coordinate the IRS implementation of the Obamacare penalty, but funny thing, that’s not what Shulman said, so it makes it a bit hard to offer it as a reason now. In addition, it’s difficult if not impossible to see how that would necessitate so very many visits, and what’s more the bulk of them would have had to have occurred after Obamacare was passed rather than before (we don’t know whether that’s the case or not, but my guess is that it was not).

So, what is it? Have Shulman and Obama become drinking buddies? Was Shulman running an interior decorating business on the side, and had to visit to measure the drapes and suchlike? Inquiring minds would love to know, but somehow I don’t think we’re ever going to get the story.

You gotta feel a teeny bit sorry for Holder and Obama

The New Neo Posted on by

Yes, I’m being sarcastic.

But still—the boycott by at least half the press of Holder’s attempts at off-the-record damage control must have come as a huge shock to Holder/Obama (Holdama?), and rightly so. After all, for well over five years (if you count the 2008 campaign) the press has been not only carrying their water, it’s been allowing them to piss on everybody’s boots and helping them call it rain (to extend the water metaphor).

Why on earth would Holder/Obama not think this happy state of affairs would continue indefinitely? Even despite the fact that some members of the press were the targets in this particular “scandal”? It’s the very definition of hubris on the part of Holder and Obama, I suppose, but it’s a hubris solidly based on previous experience. The administration had every right to expect cooperation.

The real question is whether this marks some sort of turning point for the press, or whether they will limit their defiance and skepticism of the administration to this one topic. I think, unfortunately, it will be the latter. But I’m willing (nay, eager) to be proven wrong.

Brad Woodhouse, class act

The New Neo Posted on by

Brad Woodhouse is the Democratic National Committee’s communications director. As such, you’d think he’d understand communications.

And so we can assume that when he says something, he means to say it–such as, for example, this message:

POTUS asked AG to review how leak investigations are done but some in the media refuse to meet with him. Kind of forfeits your right gripe.

I think he meant “right to gripe”; tweeting can cause some of the words to fall by the wayside. But we know what he’s getting at, don’t we? Play by the Obama administration’s rules or juvenile taunts and mockery will be coming your way, and just because you’re a member of the liberal press don’t think you’re immune.

The tone is no accident. It comes directly from the boss. Obama set it way back during the 2008 campaign, with his snide remarks and gestures that signaled a sophomoric nastiness. And all these years of being in power haven’t tempered the obnoxiousness of the left; au contraire, they’re positively giddy with power.

Attendance at that meeting with Holder to which the press was invited was only allowed on the condition that what was said there would be strictly off the record. The NY Times—belatedly and momentarily locating its long-lost cojones—refused, and that’s what Woodhouse is refering to.

Read the other tweets at the link where people respond to Woodhouse—some of them are pretty clever.

Oh, and by the way, this isn’t the first time Woodhouse has exhibited such class and brilliance. In 2009, when President Obama was given a Nobel Peace Prize, RNC chairman Steele had the temerity to ask what accomplishment had occasioned the award. Woohouse’s answer:

The Republican Party has thrown in its lot with the terrorists – the Taliban and Hamas this morning – in criticizing the President for receiving the Nobel Peace prize — an award he did not seek but that is nonetheless an honor in which every American can take great pride ”” unless of course you are the Republican Party. The 2009 version of the Republican Party has no boundaries, has no shame and has proved that they will put politics above patriotism at every turn. It’s no wonder only 20 percent of Americans admit to being Republicans anymore ”“ it’s an embarrassing label to claim.

The response from the RNC:

“Like most Americans, the DNC can’t think of one achievement that the president has accomplished, so they resort to their predictable response and standard playbook of demonizing those who disagree with them. …Now, when challenged to answer the question of what the president has accomplished, Democrats are lashing out calling Republicans terrorists. That type of political rhetoric is shameful.

With that history, one can only imagine that Woodhouse’s repartee is exactly and precisely what the DNC wants in a communications director. And it’s what they got.

Mitch McConnell: milquetoast no more—at least in this ad

The New Neo Posted on by

The only part of the ad I’d quarrel with is the use of the “law is irrelevant” quote, which I think is taken out of context and was not meant in the way it sounds. It doesn’t really add all that much, either. Another thing I wonder is whether the ad is too long to grab most people’s attention.

Otherwise, very well done, particularly that last chilling quote from Obama himself.

[Hat tip: JohnE at Ace’s.]

Prostate vs. breast cancer

The New Neo Posted on by

Prostate cancer and breast cancer have a lot in common, although they’re very different as well. The first affects men only, and the second almost entirely women (although about one in a hundred breast cancer patients are men, a fact which should be much more widely publicized, IMHO). They are both influenced by hormones. And they both, in an odd sort of symmetry, cause about the same number of deaths per 100,000 per year.

But, as Leslie Eastman at Legal Insurrection and many others have pointed out, the amount spent on the diseases differ:

Dan Zenka, the Prostate Cancer Foundation’s vice president of communications, says the similarity in numbers is hard to ignore. “Prostate cancer is to men what breast cancer is to women,” he told The Daily Caller.

Breast cancer awareness advocates have done an inspired job getting out word and excitement for their cause. Despite their success, prostate cancer has been left in the dust ”” both in terms of awareness and federal funding. Case in point, prostate cancer research receives less than half of the funding breast cancer does.

In fiscal year 2009, breast cancer research received $872 million worth of federal funding, while prostate cancer received $390 million. It is estimated that fiscal year 2010 will end similarly, with breast cancer research getting $891 million and prostate cancer research receiving $399 million.

Even when it comes to private foundations, the picture is the same. For example, at the American Cancer Society, breast cancer receives about twice the number of grants as prostate cancer.

Kevin Johnson, the senior vice president of public policy for ZERO-The Project to End Prostate Cancer, chalks much of the disparity up to the differences between men and women, specifically the way each deals with their health concerns. Women, Johnson says, tend to be acutely aware and outspoken about their health concerns, while men shy away from such discussions.

Interesting points, and I have little doubt that the last paragraph expresses some sort of truth about the differing attitudes of the sexes when it comes to disease.

However—and it’s a big however—I’ve noticed a glaring omission even in rather lengthy articles such as the one quoted above, which appeared in The Daily Caller. There is actually an enormous difference in the statistics between the two diseases—one that often goes unmentioned, and which I believe has some significance in terms of how much publicity each disease gains. That difference lies in the fact that, although the numbers of deaths for each disease are very similar, the ages of the victims at death are very different indeed.

Simply put, breast cancer is a disease that is much more likely to kill people in the prime of life, whereas prostate cancer tends to strike much later. This is not to say that old people of either sex shouldn’t be treated and cured, or that their diseases are unimportant. They should be treated, and they are important. But it is natural to focus more attention on a disease that kills a greater proportion of younger people.

Take a look at the statistics and you’ll see the magnitude of the differences I’m talking about. Here are the figures for prostate cancer:

From 2006-2010, the median age at death for cancer of the prostate was 80 years of age. Approximately 0.0% died under age 20; 0.0% between 20 and 34; 0.1% between 35 and 44; 1.6% between 45 and 54; 8.3% between 55 and 64; 20.0% between 65 and 74; 37.6% between 75 and 84; and 32.5% 85+ years of age.

The age-adjusted death rate was 23.0 per 100,000 men per year.

And here are the figures for breast cancer:

From 2006-2010, the median age at death for cancer of the breast was 68 years of age. Approximately 0.0% died under age 20; 0.9% between 20 and 34; 5.3% between 35 and 44; 14.6% between 45 and 54; 21.6% between 55 and 64; 20.2% between 65 and 74; 21.5% between 75 and 84; and 15.9% 85+ years of age.

The age-adjusted death rate was 22.6 per 100,000 women per year.

Note the curious symmetry of the death rate, which is almost identical for the two diseases. But that’s where the statistical symmetry ends; breast cancer operates as a very very different disease in terms of age. Although about 1.7% of prostate cancer death occur in people under 55, a whopping 21% of breast cancer deaths occur under that age. By age 64 the death percentage totals have become 10% for prostate and about 42% for breast. By age 74 it’s 30% for prostate and about 63% for breast. By age 84 it’s 68% for prostate and 84% for breast. The remainders of the deaths occur after the age of 85: 32% for prostate and 16% for breast.

Each disease can have particularly horrific aspects in terms of sexuality and sexual functioning, and it’s really not a competition to see which is worse. They’re both plenty bad enough, although fortunately there are a lot of long-term survivors also. And they both need more research in order to make even more progress against these common killers. But it’s no real mystery as to why the loss of a relatively young person would tend to get more attention than the loss of someone closer to the natural end of life, is it?

This may not be the only difference that leads to the funding and research differential, of course. I would imagine there are others, and some may be gender-related. But I haven’t noticed that other diseases that affect men in particular have been stinted as opposed to women’s diseases. For example, heart disease, which tends to affect men at younger ages than it affects women, has certainly been no orphan when it comes to research and funding.

Bachmann’s out

The New Neo Posted on by

Michele Bachmann announces she will not be running for re-election to her House seat. She claims it’s not because she thought she’d lose, and it’s not because of investigations into her campaign financing, but that she believes representatives should move on after a while.

Color me skeptical.

Reports are that her successor, whomever it might be, probably has a better chance of keeping the seat in Republican hands than Bachmann, who may have been ripe for the picking. Relentless attacks on her (a la Palin), and her own rather idiosyncratic political ways had earned her a reputation as fearless but somewhat of a loose cannon.