Obamacare Cronyism: Where Does the Bureaucracy End and the Insurance Industry Begin?

When the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, was written in 2010, much of it was negotiated behind closed doors with lobbyists from across the health care industry. It's unsurprising, then, that many of those major players—especially in the insurance industry—got sweetheart deals. Requiring Americans to buy health insurance gave insurers instant access to millions of new customers. Assuming that their customer pools had enough healthy people to subsidize beneficiaries who were sicker, insurance companies could expect to make a lot of money—not only through payments from consumers, but also in direct subsidies from the federal government itself.

Well, things are not working exactly has insurers had planned. Just ask United Healthcare.

United Healthcare is the largest U.S. insurer by enrollment, and the company is warning that it may withdraw from Obamacare in 2017. The insurer has already suspended advertising for its Obamacare coverage and stopped paying commissions to insurance brokers for signing people up. It literally doesn’t want consumers to buy its products.

On a United Healthcare call Thursday with Wall Street analysts, Josh Raskin of Barclays asked, “Simply, how long are you willing to lose money in exchanges?” and then followed up, “Are you willing to lose money again in 2017, Steve?” United Healthcare CEO Stephen Hemsley replied: “No, we cannot sustain these losses. We can’t really subsidize a marketplace that doesn’t appear at the moment to be sustaining itself,” adding that “we saw no indication of anything actually improving.”

Not only are enrollees in the insurance market sicker than expected, but thanks to budgetary language passed last year, the insurance companies' shortfalls are no longer the taxpayers' problem. Obamacare's "risk corridors" were designed to transfer some money from profitable insurers to less profitable insurers as a way to shield less successful insurers from the deep losses that could force them to leave the marketplace. Under the original plan, taxpayers would pick up the remainder of the shortfall—a bailout for insurers, negotiated by insurers, and financed by taxpayers. Today, the insurers will bear that risk alone, and appropriately so.

Of course, whether these taxpayer protections will endure in the years to come may depend on the pull of insurance industry cronies— not only in the private sector, but also those cronies who are currently part of the adminstrationThe Washington Examiner's Timothy Carney vividly captures the current, and appalling, health care scene:

This is where the intimate network of the Obamacare insiders comes in. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) — which issued the pledge to fully bail out United Healthcare and its cohorts — is run by acting administrator Andy Slavitt. Slavitt is the former CEO of United Healthcare (while he held that position he contributed to Obama's 2008 election)….

Meanwhile, the insurance lobbyist leading the industry's push for more Obamacare bailout money is Marilyn Tavenner, Obama's previous chief of CMS, now head of America's Health Insurance Plans (AHIP). AHIP says risk corridors aren't the group's top focus, but Tavenner is speaking out on it.

In summary: Tavenner helped build the risk corridor program, and then went to the industry that would get the money. Slavitt left the insurer with the biggest losses, and now is the government official promising to bail out his former employer.

You can call it regulatory capture or you can call it a revolving door, but it is cronyism all the same. And it's of a kind that is especially troubling: the kind where cronies don't just try to regulate their own industry, but also try to loot the Treasury while they're in power. The question now is whether Congress will accommodate these cronies by explicitly removing last year's taxpayer protections or will stand by if Obamacare's bureaucracy tries to sidestep the law and hand out money to insurers anyway. We should find out one way or another in the next month or so; stay tuned.

University of Chicago: An Example for Mizzou on Free Speech

Over the past few weeks, the University of Missouri has been turned upside down by protests that, so far, have cost the jobs of the university system President and the school's Chancellor. The protests have also brought to light a lot of troubling behavior by university employees against university students. Between Mizzou staff assaulting students' First Amendment rights and a Mizzou professor literally calling in "muscle" to physically remove a student reporter from a public space, something is rotten in Columbia. It's one thing to have a liberal campus culture, which has long been the case in Columbia. It's another thing entirely to have a culture so liberal that it becomes illiberal.

The thin silver lining here is that Mizzou's broken campus culture—not only among students, but among faculty as well—has finally been laid bare, providing the opportunity for policymakers and administrators to fix it.

So, where does Mizzou go from here? One important step would be to reestablish the University's bona fides as an institution that believes in free speech for everyone, not just those who support the politics of the university faculty. On point, L. Gordon Crovitz wrote in the Wall Street Journal yesterday about a strong, student-supporting free speech policy that the University of Chicago adopted earlier this year. The policy has already been adopted at Purdue and Princeton, and which is now being pushed nationwide by FIRE, a student advocacy group.

You can find the University of Chicago's full report here, but I'd like to pull out two important paragraphs that could have written about Mizzou and its handling of free speech issues. (Emphases mine)

As a corollary to the University’s commitment to protect and promote free expression, members of the University community must also act in conformity with the principle of free expression. Although members of the University community are free to criticize and contest the views expressed on campus, and to criticize and contest speakers who are invited to express their views on campus, they may not obstruct or otherwise interfere with the freedom of others to express views they reject or even loathe. To this end, the University has a solemn responsibility not only to promote a lively and fearless freedom of debate and deliberation, but also to protect that freedom when others attempt to restrict it.

As Robert M. Hutchins observed, without a vibrant commitment to free and open inquiry, a university ceases to be a university. The University of Chicago’s longstanding commitment to this principle lies at the very core of our University’s greatness. That is our inheritance, and it is our promise to the future.

A lot needs to change at Mizzou in the coming months. Administrators should start by unequivocally rejecting the university’s recent Orwellian nonsense on speech matters and commit to the free speech principles on which this country was founded, and possibly by adopting the University of Chicago policy construction. As the University of Chicago statement suggests, open inquiry and speech are the inheritance of all universities. It is up to policymakers and administrators to ensure that this inheritance is not wasted at Mizzou.

Missouri Government Union Contracts Forcing Workers to Pay for Union Politics

The first amendment protects all Americans from being compelled to support political speech. This is why the U.S. Supreme Court has held that even in non–right to work states, where workers may be forced to pay for a union’s services as a condition of employment, workers must be allowed to opt out of paying the portion of their union dues that go to support political activity. In Missouri, this first-amendment right is under attack.

We’ve uncovered several union contracts, such as the contracts at the Jennings Fire Department, the Pattonville Fire District, and the Robertson Fire District, that require employees who choose not to join the union to pay a monthly fee equal to full membership dues. The fact that nonmember fees are equal to full dues means that even if you exercise your constitutionally protected right not to join the union, your monthly fees end up directly or indirectly paying for union politics.

Nonmember fees should be reduced in proportion with the amount of money the union spends on political activity. If 50% of a union’s revenues go to political activities, nonmember fees should be 50% of full member dues. In the contracts where nonmember fees are held equal to dues, a nonmember ends up subsidizing political speech unless that union engages in no politics whatsoever.

The union that holds contracts with the fire districts and departments mentioned above is the International Association of Fire Fighters. According to public filings with the Missouri Ethics Commission, this union has spent over three million dollars on political activities in Missouri over the last ten years. Nonmembers who didn’t have their fees prorated ended up paying for some of this.

Anyone subject to a union contract that doesn’t allow workers to opt out of union politics can fight back. The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld a worker’s right to pay only that portion of union dues directly related to representation. A worker who objects to union political activity that he or she pays for should demand a refund of the portion of his or her dues that went to political activity. Below are some resources that can help:

http://www.nrtw.org/a/a_1_p.htm

https://www.unionfacts.com/article/political-money/understanding-beck-rights/

http://www.unionrefund.org/index.asp

Spring 2016 Internships

The Show-Me Institute is pleased to offer internship opportunities for Spring 2016.

  • Internships are open to current undergraduate and graduate students, as well as recent graduates. 
  • Spring internships will last approximately four months. The exact starting and ending dates are flexible, but each intern is expected to work at least 10 weeks.
    No internship shall start prior to January 25. Spring internships will end on or before May 13, 2016.
  • Spring interns can work a full-time schedule (9 a.m.-5 p.m., with one hour for lunch), or arrange for a part-time schedule to accommodate class schedules. 
  • Interns will be involved in virtually all aspects of the Institute’s operations. Interns will work closely with senior staff on a wide variety of projects. They can expect greater responsibility and personal attention than they would receive at larger organizations.
  • Interns will assist staff members with a variety of tasks. These may include researching public policy topics, organizing events, and writing and editing op-eds, newsletter articles, studies, and other documents. Some administrative and clerical tasks will also be required.
  • A Show-Me Institute internship is an excellent opportunity to improve your research and writing skills. Each intern will produce regular blog posts and an op-ed on a public policy topic of interest to him or her. Each intern will receive feedback and assistance from SMI staff members throughout the process.
  • Internships are offered in both the St. Louis and Kansas City offices.
  • Interns will be paid on an hourly basis.

Those wishing to be considered for an internship should submit the enclosed application and the requested supporting materials. Applications will be accepted on a rolling basis. We will begin conducting interviews as applications are received. Applicants can expect a decision no later than Friday, January 8, 2016.

About the Show-Me Institute

Founded in 2005, the Show-Me Institute is a nonpartisan, nonprofit public policy research organization. The mission of the Institute is advancing liberty with responsibility by promoting market solutions for Missouri public policy. For more information:

Phone: (314) 454-0647

Email: [email protected]
Web: www.showmeinstitute.org

Attention Teachers: Professionals Do Not Have a Salary Schedule

When you think of “professionals,” how do you think of them being paid? Do you expect them to have a schedule that says what they will make each year, regardless of their performance? Would you expect that the only way they could earn a raise would be by getting an advanced degree or by sticking around another year? I don’t think so.

Doctors, lawyers, you name the profession—professionals are paid based on what they do. They are paid in proportion to the demand for their labor, their skill, and their hustle. Not so for teachers. Teachers are paid via a single-salary schedule that doesn’t factor in their quality or effort.

Let me be clear, I’m not saying teachers are not professionals. I’m saying they are not paid like professionals.

Elisa Crouch of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch has been following the ongoing dispute in St. Louis Public Schools regarding teacher pay. For seven years, teachers in St. Louis have been stuck at the same level on their salary schedule and have not received a raise. Recently, the unionized workforce rejected a proposed 3.5% salary increase, calling it a slap in the face.

I’m not sure how this dispute will pan out, but now is the time for school district administrators to consider alternatives to the single-salary schedule.

For starters, they should consider alternatives that allow great teachers to be rewarded. A single-salary schedule is quality blind. Now, I’m not talking about simply tying pay to test scores or some mechanistic rating system, but real management and feedback; pairing data with professional judgement.

They should they take into account not only quality, but also the broader labor market. My 2012 study, “The Salary Straitjacket,” demonstrates how math and science teachers make less than P.E. teachers, despite a shortage of math and science teachers. This isn’t a knock on P.E. teachers, but teachers with Math and Science training who don’t feel adequately compensated are likely to have more lucrative options outside of teaching than P.E. teachers. Districts have to take this into account when determining wages, or there will always be shortages.

One of the downsides to a single-salary schedule is that it dictates wages to the district. The salary schedule doesn’t factor in the financial health of the school district. It mandates that teachers earn X more next year, regardless. A much smarter approach would be for the district to determine how much they have available for salaries and then figure out how they want to distribute that money among teachers. Such an approach would facilitate better management of scarce financial resources.

Teachers certainly deserve to be treated like professionals, which is why administrators should start thinking about wholesale changes to the way they pay teachers. Professionals deserve professional pay. 

Saint Louis Transportation Planning Prioritizes Public Transportation, MetroLink

Saint Louisans depend on a functioning transportation system to do practically everything in their lives, from getting to work to enjoying a night on the town. But keeping transportation infrastructure—be it road, rails, or buses—in good shape takes regular investment. The way a city makes those investments now will affect residents’ daily lives in years to come. However, a look at the recent investment plans of the Saint Louis area reveals a growing disconnect between the systems Saint Louisans use and where the money is going.

The first thing to note about Saint Louis’s transportation system is that it is highly dependent on the highway and street system. In Saint Louis City, Saint Louis County, and Saint Charles County, about 89 percent of commuters either drove or carpooled in 2014. Only 3.4 percent used public transportation. More than half of those who did used buses, which also depend on streets and highways. In terms of the flow of goods, almost 70 percent of freight traffic moves by truck (and hence by road) in the Saint Louis area.

Regional transportation investments for the near future do not reflect these realities. Of the $1.2 billion in federally aided transportation projects slated to move forward in Saint Louis City, Saint Louis County, and Saint Charles County (including multi-state and multicounty projects, the vast majority of which tend to benefit Saint Louis City and County) from 2016 to 2019, 47 percent will be spent on public transportation improvements (see the graph above).

Breaking down the numbers further, investments by Metro (the regional transit agency) will outstrip road & bridge projects made by the Missouri Department of Transportation (which maintains state highways) by more than 30 percent:

Table: Road spending vs public transportation spending

Metro will spend about $230 million (45 percent of investments) on the MetroLink, the region’s light rail. This does not include large-scale MetroLink extension plans (aside from a new $13 million station near Grand Ave.), but instead is mostly intended for maintenance and rehabilitation. In all, somewhere between 15 and 20 percent of federally aided transportation investments benefiting Saint Louis City, Saint Louis County, and Saint Charles County will be spent maintaining light rail.

Perhaps increased spending on public transportation will cause residents to get out of their cars and onto the bus or rail. However, anything more than a modest increase in public transportation’s total travel share is unlikely, given the experiences of other cities. That being the case, systematically favoring transportation systems that few residents and no freight companies use over the one that quite literally moves the metropolitan area is asking for trouble.

Missouri Jobs Increase at Slow Pace

The Bureau of Labor Statistics recently released its current snapshot of labor markets across states. While jobs in Missouri have increased since last October, the rate of increase is quite slow.

The table below reports three pieces of information pertinent to assessing the job picture in Missouri. The first two columns of data report the unemployment rate in October of 2014 and 2015. In Missouri, the unemployment rate has fallen, dropping from 5.5 percent to 5.0 percent, the same value as the national average. How does this compare to our neighboring states?

All states in the table below (except Oklahoma) also experienced a decline in their unemployment rate over the past year. What is notable is that some states, such as Iowa, Kansas, Nebraska and Oklahoma, have achieved very low rates of unemployment. These values signal very robust labor markets in those states.

The Bureau’s recent release also provides more direct information about job growth. In the last column in the table below I report the percentage change in jobs over the past year (October 2015 data are preliminary.)

This calculation shows that job growth in Missouri has been slow over the past year, increasing at only about a 1 percent rate. Three other neighboring states—Illinois, Kansas, and Oklahoma—have experienced slower job growth, though Kansas and Oklahoma already have achieved very low unemployment rates. In the remaining states, job growth is notably faster than in Missouri.

Regional unemployment data 2014-2015

Support Us

The work of the Show-Me Institute would not be possible without the generous support of people who are inspired by the vision of liberty and free enterprise. We hope you will join our efforts and become a Show-Me Institute sponsor.

Donate
Man on Horse Charging