Archive for October 2013
Here is his new excuse for his "you can keep your health insurance" promise being broken. It is -- wait for it, you will never guess -- insurance companies' fault.
"One of the things health reform was designed to do was to help not only the uninsured but also the under-insured," Obama said. "And there are a number of Americans, fewer than 5 percent of Americans, who've got cut-rate plans that don't offer real financial protection in the event of a serious illness or an accident.
"Remember, before the Affordable Care Act, these bad apple insurers had free rein every single year to limit the care that you received or used minor pre-existing conditions to jack up your premiums or bill you into bankruptcy."
This is absurd. Kaiser Permanente cut zillions of policies. Are they a bad apple? My policy was cut by Blue Cross / Blue Shield of Arizona. Are they some fly-by-night cut-rate insurer?
I discussed a while back by decision to try the Pimsleur course over other brands. So far I have been happy and I feel like I have retained a lot. However, it is NOT for everyone. It did not work for my wife, for example. Here are what I think are two key considerations in committing time to this course / approach:
- You have to be able to learn from hearing and speaking. There is only a little reading and no writing. This is perfect for me -- taking notes actually interrupts my memory retention process. But my wife likes to write, take notes, make lists. She is a memorizer, I am an experiencer, if that makes sense. By the time she gave up she had this huge long list of words and definitions she kept referring to. If this is your learning style, it is not going to work well for you.
- You have to be a bit of a detective. This did NOT fit my wife but did fit me (I was someone who would never memorize an equation if I knew I could derive it on the fly if I needed it). The tapes almost never, ever explain any grammar. You learn by example, and then are expected to construct the rules yourself in your head from the examples. For example, never are the rules of verb conjugations given. You just start noticing that all the first person present tense conjugations tend to end in "o". I had little trouble with verb conjugations because I learned them in Spanish in a rigorous way and they are fairly similar in Italian. But Italian article and preposition rules are unlike both Spanish and English. They have a lot of "a vs. an" type rules that can be a bit non-intuitive, and the preposition choices between "a" and "in" and "di" and "da" and "per" can drive English speakers up the wall (for example, you use a different proposition for going to a city vs. going to a country). Now, most of us learned the "a vs. an" rules just through usage long before we had a grammar class, and a lot does sink in this way just speaking and listening, but I finally had to buy an Italian grammar book to make sure I had the full set of rules.
The other thing I have trouble with is that my hearing is not great and Italian is all about running your words together. They LOVE contractions and blending ending vowels into beginning vowels of the next word. I keep a Google translate window open on my desk so I can actually see new words they are using to make sure I am learning them correctly.
Postscript: I have decided that Italian articles are Fate's revenge on me for years of fake Russian Boris Badanov accents where one makes fun of the tendency to drop articles (e.g. "Ve must get moose and squirrel"). Italians use articles in many circumstances where we typically do not in English.
Frequently, in selling Obamacare, President Obama and Administration officials said that if you like your health insurance you can keep it, period.
Suddenly, as of yesterday they are arguing that there were actually all sorts of implicit asterisks to this promise. The exact meme is still evolving retroactively, but the favored excuse is to say that of course this promise only applied to "real" insurance, "real" being defined as having the features the President thinks the policy should have (this despite the fact that the promise very clearly defines insurance suitability based on the customer's, not the President's, preferences -- he said if you like your insurance, not if I like your insurance).
But what strikes me is the word "period." This word adds no extra detail to the promise. The only point to including it is to emphasize that this is the entirety of the promise, without any additional disclaimers or elaborations necessary. By saying "period", Obama was saying that there were no asterisks, no hidden small print.
Via the Daily Caller:
The White House is pressuring insurance companies not to speak publicly about Obama administration policies that could eliminate the existing health insurance plans of millions of Americans.
The administration made “clarifications” to the 2010 Affordable Care Act after it was passed that have already wiped out hundreds of thousands of existing health plans.
“Basically, if you speak out, if you’re quoted, you’re going to get a call from the White House, pressure to be quiet,” said CNN investigative reporter Drew Griffin on Anderson Cooper 360 Wednesday night. Insurance companies executives, Griffin said, ask heads of consulting firms not to criticize the Obamacare rollout debacle publicly.
“They feel defenseless before the White House P.R. team,” Griffin said. “The sources said they fear White House retribution.”
Prior to the Obamacare rollout, insurance companies issued warnings to the White House about the possibility of mass cancellations, which the administration ignored.
As has become usual of late, Jay Carney channels Ron Ziegler with this absurd answer. Apparently, the fact that insurance companies are still engaged in routine conversations with their customers proves they have not been silenced from publicly criticizing Obamacare.
White House press secretary Jay Carney, however, waved off the allegations.
“That accusation is preposterous and inaccurate,” Carney said. “Plus, it ignores the fact that every day, insurance companies are out talking about the law, in large part because they are trying to reach new customers who will now have new, affordable insurance options available from providers through the new marketplaces.”
Obviously, the whole Obamacare implementation is in disarray. Some of this I expected -- the policy cancellations -- and some of it I did not -- the horrendous systems implementation. But I actually thought that most of this would be swept under the rug by a willing media.
What I really expected was for the true shock to come next fall. And I think it is still coming. I believe that despite rate increases, insurers are likely being overly optimistic about how much adverse selection and cost control issues they are going to have. As a result, I expected, and still expect, huge premium increases in the fall of 2014.
Why? The main benefit of Obamacare is for people who cannot afford health insurance but want it, and for people who are very sick and have lost their insurance. Obamacare is a terrible plan as implemented because it futzes with virtually everything in the health care system when a more limited plan could have achieved the same humanitarian coverage goals.
Anyway, one reason Obamacare is so comprehensive is that it is based on a goal of cost control for the whole system. Unfortunately, most all of its cost control goals are faulty. From Megan McArdle, in an amazing article covering a huge range of Obamacare issues:
But I think it’s also clearly true that the majority of the public did not understand this. In 2008, the Barack Obama campaign told them that their premiums would go down under the new health-care law. And the law’s supporters believed it.
Q. Obama says his plan will save $2,500 annually for my family. How?
A. Through a combination of developing efficiencies in the system, expanding coverage to all Americans, and picking up the cost of some high-cost cases. Specifically:
-- Health IT investment, which will reduce unnecessary and wasteful spending in the health care system. Examples include extra hospital stays because of preventable medical errors and duplicative diagnostic tests;
-- Improving prevention and management of chronic conditions;
-- Increasing insurance industry competition and reining in the abusive practices of monopoly insurance and drug companies;
-- Providing reinsurance for catastrophic cases, which will reduce insurance premiums; and
-- Ensuring every American has health coverage, which will reduce spending on the “uncompensated” care of uninsured people who end up in emergency rooms and whose care is picked up by institutions and then passed through higher charges to insured individuals.
The part about reinsurance was always nonsense; unless it’s subsidized, reinsurance doesn’t save money for the system, though it may reduce the risk that an individual company will go broke. But the rest of it all sounded entirely plausible; I heard many smart wonks make most of these arguments in 2008 and 2009. However, it’s fair to say that by the time the law passed, the debate had pretty well established that few to none of them were true. “We all knew” that preventive care doesn’t save money, electronic medical records don’t save money, reducing uncompensated care saves very little money, and “reining in the abusive practices” of insurance companies was likely to raise premiums, not lower them, because those “abuses” mostly consist of refusing to cover very sick people.
The result? Many of these things that supposedly reduced costs actually increase them. So if you think the shock is high now, wait until next fall. We will see:
- Rates going up
- Less choice, as insurers pull out of many local markets
- Narrowing of doctors networks, and reduced choice in doctors
- Companies dropping health care and dumping workers (and retirees if they can get away with it) into the exchanges and Medicare.
So I guess the Left has hit on its favored meme in response to the millions of insurance cancellations. From Obama to Valerie Jarrett to any number of bloggers, the explanation is that the cancelled policies were "sub-standard". We may have thought we liked them, but it turns out we were wrong. Deluded in fact.
These folks -- despite not knowing my income, my net worth, my health situation, my age, my family size, my number and age of kids, my risk adversity, my degree of hypochondria, my preventative care habits, my diet, my lifestyle, my personal preferences and priorities, or any details about my insurance policy that I spend many hours analyzing and cross-comparing -- have decided they know better than I what health insurance I should want.
My plan was not substandard. I graduated magna cum laude in engineering from Princeton and was first in my class at Harvard Business School. I spent hours shopping for my coverage and was fully satisfied with my resulting policy. Many of the aspects of my policy that cause Obama to call it "sub-standard" -- lack of mental health care, lack of pediatric dental care, lack of maternity care, lack of free contraception, a higher than average deductible -- were my preferences. I got what I wanted.
More expensive, more highly featured products are not necessarily "better". A Mercedes is not necessarily the best car choice for a middle class buyer just because it has more features than his Taurus. Would Obama tell that person his Taurus is "sub-standard" and force him to pay for a Mercedes? If not, why the hell is doing the exact same thing but with health insurance OK?
When Obama came to that section of his speech when the line usually falls, he went with a new spin. If you’ve lost your healthcare thanks to his law, he wants you to know that you were just “under-insured.” Because he says so.
“One of the things health reform was designed to do was to help not only the uninsured but also the under-insured,” he said.
“If you had one of these substandard plans before the Affordable Care Act became law, and our really liked that plan, you are able to keep it. That’s what I said when I was running for office.”
“But ever since the law was passed, if insurers decided to cancel or downgrade these substandard plans, what we said, under the law, is you have got to replace them with quality, comprehensive coverage,” he said, “because, that, too, was a central premise of the Affordable Care Act from the very beginning.”
Update #2: Yesterday I said the time seemed right for the Left to pick a meme to explain the insurance cancellations and then give the media its marching orders. David Firestone of the NYT has gotten the memo
The so-called cancellation letters waved around at yesterday’s hearing were simply notices that policies would have to be upgraded or changed. Some of those old policies were so full of holes that they didn’t include hospitalization, or maternity care, or coverage of other serious conditions.
Republicans were apparently furious that government would dare intrude on an insurance company’s freedom to offer a terrible product to desperate people.
“Some people like to drive a Ford, not a Ferrari,” said Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee. “And some people like to drink out of a red Solo cup, not a crystal stem. You’re taking away their choice.”
Luckily, a comprehensive and affordable insurance policy is no longer a Ferrari; it is now a basic right. In the face of absurd comments and analogies like this one, Ms. Sebelius never lost her cool in three-and-a-half hours of testimony, perhaps because she knows that once the computer problems and the bellowing die down, the country will be far better off.
So you see the talking points as the media gets their orders. 1. All policies that were cancelled were sub-standard. 2. People will be better off with more expensive policies, even if they are too dumb to konw it.
My policy was perfectly fine. I was not tricked. I am willing to bet I am at least as smart as David Firestone. I am positive I am smarter than Barrack Obama. And yet my policy was cancelled.
And folks, the opponents of my plan are trying to scare you. But if you like your health insurance the way it is, and if I like your health insurance the way it is, then you can keep it.
Seriously, this is how Jay Carney explains it
White House press secretary Jay Carney on Tuesday said President Obama's claim that all Americans could keep their health insurance plans under the new health law deserved a “fuller explanation,” acknowledging millions of consumers would not keep their current coverage.
After the passage of Obamacare, the president has repeatedly insisted that if any individual likes their health care plan, they could “keep it.”
Carney on Tuesday added a crucial caveat to that promise, saying Americans could keep their insurance if the plan is “still available.”
This is absolutely absurd. The whole meaning of the "If you like your health insurance..." promise was that the government would not ban your current policy, that the program was simply about adding options for the uninsured, not reducing options for the insured. Now Carney was saying, as if we all should have known, that what Obama meant was that you can keep your policy as long as we don't ban it.
Seriously, I don't have to change a thing! Web site here, at least until they decide to hide it.
It is an amazing spectacle to see Senators Feinstein and McCain, both A-OK with NSA spying on ordinary American citizens, draw the line at NSA spying on foreign politicians. A reasonable person would say that tapping the German leader's phone is a hell of a lot closer to the NSA's true brief than tapping mine, but our political leaders believe the opposite.
That is because they have come to believe that politicians and government officials are a special class with special rights and privileges. They don't have to follow labor law (Congress is exempt), they don't have to deal with the Obamacare exchanges (Congress is exempt), they don't even have to follow the same laws, like DWI (DC police typically help drunk Congresspersons home rather than arrest them).
Some folks on the Left are starting to question the corporate income tax, recognizing what economists have known for years, that a lot of the tax is paid by consumers, making it more regressive than just (say) punishing Exxon for being large and productive.
There are many other reasons to hate the corporate income tax
- It does not raise very much money
- Its administrative costs (think corporate tax attorneys) is very high
- It is hugely distortive. The tax preference for debt over equity helped drive the LBO boom, for example
- It is the font of much corporate welfare and cronyism. A LOT of political paybacks get made within the corporate tax system
So here is my simply two-point plan
- Eliminate the corporate income tax. Entirely
- Tax dividends and capital gains as regular income on individual tax returns
Done. All corporate profits get taxed but only when they pass through to individuals as capital gains or dividends. I think this would actually raise more money but rates could be adjusted (or better yet deductions eliminated) if needs to keep it neutral.
I believe the economic benefits of this would be immediate and substantial.
Of course, corporate tax attorneys are rich and powerful and would cut their throats to stop this. It would be enormously entertaining to see them try, and in turn see what the reaction of their clients was to this.
Apparently, the public wants to preserve the house where the Apple Computer was born. OK. So is some private non-profit gathering money to buy it and preserve it? Has the local town appropriated money to buy it and take it over?
None of the above. The town is simply designating the house as a landmark, imposing all sorts of new costs on the current owner. This is a taking, and should be treated as such
It doesn't seem like Patricia Jobs, sister of famed Apple co-founder Steve, is exactly onboard with her family home being designated a "historic resource" by the Los Altos Historical Commission. Not that it matters, anyway. According to the San Jose Mercury News, the decision to preserve the one-story home at 2066 Crist Drive where Jobs got a start building the first Apple computers was made independent of her consent. The distinction, which Patricia can still appeal, also means any renovations/repairs to the home would first have to be reviewed by the commission -- so you can understand why the honor's both a blessing and a curse.
I was in Houston the other day and they were talking about "no-refusal" weekends on the radio. I had no idea what this was so I had to look it up. Apparently, the police are setting up the usual extra-Constitutional DWI checkpoints. If at these checkpoints you refuse the breathalyzer tests, they now are set up on site with a nurse, a notary, and a fax to a judge's office to obtain a warrant right in the field to take your blood.
I found this astounding but the local media seems to treat it as unexceptional, and it was almost impossible to find any real news stories about it that were not just rah rah support your local police. The best resource seems to be attorney web sites.
This was on the White House web site at 5:30 EST today, October 29, 2013. Look at the second to last paragraph. You can click to enlarge.
In case you can't read it, here is just that paragraph full size
I am as cynical as one possibly can be about politics and this even amazes me.
I think it is now clear why the Administration could not delay the exchanges, even when Republicans essentially cast them a lifeline during the budget debate by trying to delay the mandate by a year: I think the Administration knew that a massive wave of insurance policy cancellations were already in the mail, and that the recipients of these letters would be facing huge price increases for their policies.
It is telling that the one thing you are NOT hearing from Administration officials in response to the policy cancellations is surprise. If they were surprised, they would be yelling stuff like, "what the hell are those insurance companies doing?" They knew this was coming, and you get the sense they were grimly bracing for it to be made public, hoping that perhaps their friends in the media would not make a big deal about it.
The minimum requirements on health plans that is driving these cancellations cannot at this point be cancelled. Or, put more precisely, they could be cancelled but the act would be meaningless, because insurance companies have no way to suddenly go back to the old policies and pricing. It takes too much planning to work out their product line and they can't just switch back on a dime.
So the huge wave of cancellations and price increases in the individual market was unstoppable. That being said, the Administration has to be able to offer an alternative, and the only one they have is the hope one might get his or her new policy subsidized by other taxpayers. But that is only possible through the exchanges. So that had to be allowed to go forward and made to work, somehow.
There is no fix to this mess. This is an avalanche that was loosed three years ago and cannot be stopped.
The health-care law eliminates “substandard policies that don’t provide minimum services,” said Jay Carney, a White House spokesman, in response to the cancellations. The “80-plus percent” of Americans with employer plans or covered by government programs are unaffected.
I chose my policy very carefully, and don't think it is "sub-standard" because it does not include pediatric dental care for two people in their fifties. This is the worst consumer dis-empowerment that I can remember in my lifetime.
Now an effective levy of several thousand dollars on the small fraction of middle class Americans who buy on the individual market is not history’s great injustice. But neither does it seem like the soundest or most politically stable public policy arrangement. And to dig back into the position where I do strong disagree with Cohn’s perspective, what makes this setup potentially more perverse is that it raises rates most sharply on precisely those Americans who up until now were doing roughly what we should want more health insurance purchasers to do: Economizing, comparison shopping, avoiding paying for coverage they don’t need, and buying a level of insurance that covers them in the event of a true disaster while giving them a reason not to overspend on everyday health expenses.
If we want health inflation to stay low and health care costs to be less of an anchor on advancement, we should want more Americans making $50,000 or $60,000 or $70,000 to spend less upfront on health insurance, rather than using regulatory pressure to induce them to spend more. And seen in that light, the potential problem with Obamacare’s regulation-driven “rate shock” isn’t that it doesn’t let everyone keep their pre-existing plans. It’s that it cancels plans, and raises rates, for people who were doing their part to keep all of our costs low.
With my high deductibles, I am actually out shopping every day on health care prices and I can tell you from my experience that if everyone did so, we would see a reversal of health care inflation. More here
I try to read a couple of team-politics blogs from both the red and blue side, to stay in touch with what they are saying and stay out of an echo chamber. Also, of course, libertarians make common cause with both parties on various issues. But the mindless team politics angle can really be a bore.
One of the reasons I like to read Kevin Drum on the left is that his initial reactions to things often seems pretty honest. When his side really screws up, like the IRS scandal or failing Obamacare exchanges, his initial reaction will generally be to honestly critique a bad situation. And then about 3-5 days into the scandal or crisis or discussion of an issue, he will catch on to and adopt the party line on an issue and then become incredibly tedious (for example, on the IRS scandal, he was honestly critical for a while and then adopted the silly "leftish groups were equally targeted meme" and has stuck to it by rote since). But at least there are those few days of honesty, which separates him from a lot of the left and right team politics blogs.
So the timing is just about right for the Left to pick a meme to explain away the millions of people who are getting their policies cancelled despite being told that they could keep their health insurance. Mainstream outlets like CBS and NBC are pushing the story, not just right-wing and libertarian blogs, so the Ezra Klein's of the world must be working diligently to pick a meme and then enforce it. It will be interesting to see what they choose.
FACT: Nothing in #Obamacare forces people out of their health plans. No change is required unless insurance companies change existing plans.
This is hilarious. Technically true, since my cancellation came from Blue Cross and not the government, but obviously the Blue Cross decision to cancel me was forced by the terms of the law. This is obviously absurd, but is it too absurd for the media? I don't know, and of course it gets extra lefty bonus points for blaming government-caused problems on private businesses. Next up, Exxon to blame for gasoline taxes!
Obamacare forces them to drop many of their plans that don't meet the law's 10 minimum standards, including maternity care, emergency visits, mental health treatment and even pediatric dental care.
For those of you who are on corporate health plans and do not participate in the individual market, here is something that those of us who do so participate learn early: Unless you are really, really, really adverse to the smallest unpredictability in expenses, don't buy dental coverage.
The reason is that for the vast, vast majority of people, dental costs are entirely predictable. Let's say for the average person they are X per year. For most people, the costs don't vary very far from X. While certain dental procedures can be expensive (and remember, dental plans do not cover orthodonture), they are seldom if ever catastrophically expensive. Few people have been bankrupted by an insurable dental problem. This is particularly true in kids with pediatric dental care.
So for most people, dental insurance is just pre-paid care. All it does is add cost. There is no free lunch. The insurance company knows your costs are likely to be X. So they are going to charge you X + a markup. Actually, it is worse than this. Because I pay cash, I get a lower price from the dentist. So in fact with dental insurance you are paying X + dentist insurance markup + insurance company markup. All this does is add costs. I have happily paid my kids' dental costs out of pocket their entire life and have saved a fortune over what 18 years of pediatric dental care would have cost.
But now, courtesy of Obamacare, we are forced by law to buy this unnecessarily expensive product.
We are going to cancel the health care policies of millions of middle class Americans, then raise their rates, and then give half of them taxpayer subsidies so it seems like they got a rate cut.
Industry experts like Larry Levitt, of the Kaiser Family Foundation, say the insurance companies have no choice. "What we're seeing now is reality coming into play," he said.
Obamacare forces them to drop many of their plans that don't meet the law's 10 minimum standards, including maternity care, emergency visits, mental health treatment and even pediatric dental care.
That means consumers have to sign on to new plans even if they don't want or need the more generous coverage. Industry experts say about half the people getting the letters will pay more -- and half will pay less, thanks to taxpayer subsidies. Levitt said, "The winners outnumber the losers here, but because of all the website problems, it's hard to find out who the winners are because they don't even know it themselves."
Millions of middle class people who were independent and paid for their own health insurance will soon be wards of the state.
Here is my health insurance cancellation letter, cancelling the insurance I was very happy with. Click on any of the below to enlarge
Here was roughly what I was paying for a family of four (this is from the renewal 18 months ago but it is about the same now). We had a couple of minor pre-existing conditions so this was rated up from the lowest possible price of $525.85, or about a 6.6% increase.
Here are the features of this plan. It has a high deductible, but once the deductible is met, it covers 100% in network, and the network is very good. The deductible amounts may be high to some. I asked myself, "what level of unexpected medical cost could I handle in a year." and set the limits there. It is NOT pre-paid medical care, which I do not believe in.
To the question of "was Obama lying or was he ignorant", I cannot get inside his head but I can say that many people, including me, who were not involved in the process saw this coming even in 2009 in his draft legislation. It is hard to believe that if random folks like myself understand this, that the person actually sponsoring the legislation did not.
None of this should come as a shock to the Obama administration. The law states that policies in effect as of March 23, 2010 will be “grandfathered,” meaning consumers can keep those policies even though they don’t meet requirements of the new health care law. But the Department of Health and Human Services then wrote regulations that narrowed that provision, by saying that if any part of a policy was significantly changed since that date -- the deductible, co-pay, or benefits, for example -- the policy would not be grandfathered.
Buried in Obamacare regulations from July 2010 is an estimate that because of normal turnover in the individual insurance market, “40 to 67 percent” of customers will not be able to keep their policy. And because many policies will have been changed since the key date, “the percentage of individual market policies losing grandfather status in a given year exceeds the 40 to 67 percent range.”
That means the administration knew that more than 40 to 67 percent of those in the individual market would not be able to keep their plans, even if they liked them.
Enter the lies:
Yet President Obama, who had promised in 2009, “if you like your health plan, you will be able to keep your health plan,” was still saying in 2012, “If [you] already have health insurance, you will keep your health insurance.”
“This says that when they made the promise, they knew half the people in this market outright couldn’t keep what they had and then they wrote the rules so that others couldn’t make it either,” said Robert Laszewski, of Health Policy and Strategy Associates, a consultant who works for health industry firms. Laszewski estimates that 80 percent of those in the individual market will not be able to keep their current policies and will have to buy insurance that meets requirements of the new law, which generally requires a richer package of benefits than most policies today.
Next step for me, I get to experience the exchange. I recognized a bunch of business losses last year, so my income was less than zero (I have a s-corp which passes earnings through to my individual tax statement). It will be interesting to see if I get offered a subsidy. Heck, they may offer to enroll me in Medicare.
If I had a stupid amount of money to spend on a home, I would not go in for the French Chateau style mansion. This is the house I would want. The garage has a better view than any house I expect to own.
The Two Lame Answers Obama Supporters Are Giving Those of Us Who Have Had Our Health Insurance Cancelled
1. The first Obama Administration response to people (like myself) who have had their health insurance cancelled because of Obamacare and who are facing much higher future premiums is that many of can expect a subsidy. Do you realize how awful this is? Basically they are acknowledging that millions of people who paid for their own health care in the past will now be getting taxpayer money. Essentially, a huge and unnecessary increase in government dependency.
2. The other equally awful Obama Administration answer is that our new health coverage will be more expensive because it will be "better". First, there is no evidence of this -- early returns are that people are paying more for less. Second, though, this is horribly arrogant. A $200,000 Maserati sedan is likely "better" than my car I am driving, but given its price I would consider myself worse off if forced to buy a Maserati. In the same sense, forcing me to by expensive insurance options I don't want is not "better", even if I am making choices Obama's advisers would not make for themselves. I spent a lot of time shopping for health insurance and running numbers on various cases and picking the best plan for me, and am insulted that Obama does not respect my decision.
By the way, I will remind you of what I said way back in 2007 about government health care proposals
Americans are unbelievably charitable people, to the extent that they will put up with a lot of taxation and even losses of freedoms through government coercion to help people out.
However, in nearly every other case of government-coerced charity, the main effect is "just" an increase in taxes. Lyndon Johnson wants to embark on a futile attempt to try to provide public housing to the poor? Our taxes go up, a lot of really bad housing is built, but at least my housing did not get any worse. Ditto food programs -- the poor might get some moldy cheese from a warehouse, but my food did not get worse. Ditto welfare. Ditto social security, unemployment insurance,and work programs.
But health care is different.... what is different about many of the health care proposals on the table is that everyone, not just the poor will get this same crappy level of treatment. It would be like a public housing program where everyone's house is torn down and every single person must move into public housing. That is universal state-run health care. Ten percent of America gets pulled up, 90% of America gets pulled down, possibly way down.
It is always hard to tell if the media is really offering a balanced sample of customer experiences when they pile on some company, but the Huffpo makes a pretty good case that large Wall Street home rental companies are doing a terrible job at customer service.
If so, I am unsurprised for three reasons:
- I run what is essentially a property management company. One thing I have learned is that everyone outside of the business systematically underestimates basic maintenance and operating costs, and few if any ever factor in the costs of longer-term capital maintenance. Further, and perhaps more critically, outsiders frequently underestimate the detailed, even minute focus on process and organization that is necessary to make sure everything is getting maintained satisfactorily particularly when the portfolio gets larger than the executive group can personally oversee.
- I have rented out a second home for a few years. It is difficult and expensive to stay on top of basic maintenance, and this is with one property that one is intimately familiar with. I challenge you to find many people who will say they made money renting their second homes, particularly given the high cost of property management. They may have made money on the appreciation of the real estate value, or reduced the net costs of owning a vacation home, but I seldom run into anyone making money on a annual basis (as long as the real cost of capital is being considered in the equation).
- Wall Street has a long history of treating operational assets as financial assets. There is a huge mindset difference between the two. The book Barbarians at the Gate included some early history of LBO firms like KKR, and it is interesting the culture clashes they faced as they tried to explain the need to be operationally involved in their investments to the financial guys who wanted to treat them as Deals.