| ThoughtsOnline |
|
Rambling thoughts on who knows what... Because not everything is as the conventional wisdom would have it... BLOGS I SORT OF LIKE... Volokh Conspiracy ProfessorBainbridge MarginalRevolution Patterico Powerline Ace Wizbang JustOneMinute XRLQ Betsy's Page HE WHO USED TO LINK ME EVERY NOW AND THEN InstaPundit Email Steve
|
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Conservatives propose getting rid of state laws that ban out-of-state insurance companies from selling insurance... yet this proposal doesn't address the real problem... and as such, won't accomplish much of anything.
The problem isn't so much that some insurance companies aren't allowed to sell insurance to residents of, for example, New York, the real issue is that those insurance companies don't want to sell insurance in New York because they would be forced to play by the rules New York State has established for insurance companies wishing to sell insurance to New York residents... and they've decided that doing so is a good way of losing money. So allowing an out-of-state insurance company to do business in New York only changes things if you also allow the out-of-state insurance company to ignore New York's rules... and if you allow out-of-state insurance companies to ignore New York's mandates and caps on premiums, you're placing New York-based insurance companies at a huge disadvantage unless you also allow New York-based insurance companies to ignore New York's mandates and caps on premiums... ... and if you did that, you wouldn't need to open up New York to out-of-state competition, there would be plenty of competition from New York-based insurance companies. In other words, the problem lies with the mandates and the limits on premiums. Get rid of those and you accomplish pretty much everything that opening up the border would accomplish.
Again with economic forecasters being surprised by 'unexpected' events, this time a jump in unemployment claims.
But why would it be 'unexpected' that state unemployment offices finally started processing the claims that had gone unprocessed due to the offices being closed on account of bad weather? Are forecasters unaware that work piles up when nobody shows up to do the work? Wednesday, February 24, 2010
The sound of me patting myself on the back.....
I argued that while the Iraq 'surge' could cut down on the violence (as it indeed has), it would not lead to peace in Iraq... and the reduction in violence would only last as long as our troops were there keeping things quiet. This prediction was based on my (6,000 mile away) sense that the Iraqis didn't care to live happily with one another... that they weren't interested in sharing power with one another... and that they would use violence to keep from having to do so.... and they would resort to violence once our troops were out of the way. And I felt it stupid to equate a temporary reduction in violence with long term 'victory' in Iraq. It's one thing to have American troops clamp down on insurgents, and so much so that the insurgents cut back on their attacks for fear of being detected, caught and killed... but it is a whole different matter to believe that this would lead people who for thousands of years haven't liked one another to abandon their long standing complaints in order to hold hands, drink Cokes and live together in peace. Well... it seems like no less an expert than Thomas Ricks seems to agree that Iraq ain't in such great shape, that trouble lies ahead, and is calling for a slowdown in the plans to pull US troops out of Iraq. And the funny thing? The anti-war folks, Obama included, were right when they said the surge wouldn't work, that it wouldn't result in true peace. But for some reason, Obama and Biden have decided to take ownership of Iraq... just in time for it to fall apart. So now the guy who opposed the war now has to finish it... right after taking credit for the 'victory' they were stupid enough to think we had achieved.
Just as it is no surprise that consumer confidence is low, bank lending has fallen at what the Wall Street Journal refers to an 'epic pace'.
Banks lend when (1) they have customers wanting to borrow money, (2) they think they're going to be repaid and (3) the return on loans exceeds the return from using the funds elsewhere. And when consumer confidence is low, there aren't a lot of would-be borrowers who can be counted on to repay the loans. Consumers, even those with steady jobs, are understandably nervous and aren't looking to make purchases that require borrowing. Business doesn't see growth opportunities, so they're not looking to borrow money to finance that non-existent growth. There are plenty of would-be borrowers, but they're the ones who can't be counted on to repay the loans. Consumers already in over their head and businesses who are losing money all would love to get their hands on more cash, but they're not finding anybody stupid enough to loan them money. The lack of lending is not, as the clueless Obama and Congress think, a cause of our economic problems, the lack of lending is a symptom. Improve consumer and business confidence and the lending will pick up, just as spending and hiring and investment will pick up. But as long as Obama and Congress continue with their confidence sapping efforts, lending and hiring and investment and spending will continue to remain at low levels. It's pretty simple and straightforward, it is just every unfortunate that Obama either just doesn't get it or that he gets it and just doesn't care. Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Consumer confidence dropped in February - to its lowest level in over 20 years - and I can't say I'm surprised.
What happened last month that would have led consumers to think that better times were ahead? Did Congress and Obama back off their efforts to mess up health insurance? Did they indicate they were going to lower taxes? Did they indicate that they had any thought of, if not scaling back, at least not imposing any more job-sapping regulations on business? Consumer confidence is a reflection of what consumers see happening around them. When they see things that are good, they gain confidence. And when they see the likes of what Obama and the Democrats in Congress are doing, they understandably get nervous... very nervous indeed.
Anne Applebaum writes that Obama won't initiate military action against Iran for the usual reasons, "because we don't know exactly where they all are, because we don't know whether such a raid could stop the Iranian nuclear program for more than a few months, and because Iran's threatened response -- against Israelis and U.S. troops, via Iranian allies in Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine and Lebanon -- isn't one we want to cope with at this moment. Nor do we want the higher oil prices that would instantly follow. No American president doing a sober calculation would start a war of choice now, while U.S. troops are actively engaged on two other fronts, and no American president could expect public support for more than a nanosecond".
Yet every single reason Applebaum cites falls apart with just a bit of thinking... provided of course, that the thinker has his or her priorities straight. And yes, I'll explain: Going to battle is not something done lightly, it should be done only when (1) there is no other reasonable way of accomplishing one's goal and (2) the consequences of not doing so are worse than the consequences of doing so. And so far, it is pretty apparent, at least to anybody who isn't dreaming, that diplomacy and sanctions are not going to deter Iran from continuing to develop nuclear weapons... which removes the first block to military action, the ability to attain one's goals via non-military action, from the list of possible outcomes. This then leaves only the second block, the negative consequences of taking military action, as something to consider... but this too falls short as all of the negative actions Applebaum cites are far less serious than the negative consequences of not taking action against Iran. Is she really arguing that Iran stepping up its support for terrorism against the United States and Israel is more of a problem than Iran having nuclear weapons? Is she really arguing that higher oil prices are so onerous a consequence that we would be better off letting Iran have nuclear weapons? And while conflict against Iran would likely have some negative effects on our goals in Iraq and Afghanistan, who would rate a bunch of backward terrorists, who for the most part are limited to car bombs, as more of a threat than a terrorist-supporting dictatorship with nuclear weapons at its disposal? If in fact we have determined that it vital to keep Iran from developing nuclear weapons, that means there aren't too many things that are more important... and none of the reasons Applebaum cites rank high enough to justify not taking military action. Nor is the difficulty of ensuring military success a legitimate block to taking action... and for two reasons. One, we're no worse for trying and failing than by not trying in the first place. If we don't act, we're presumed to not have the capability. Trying and failing would only confirm that belief. Second, opponents of taking military action are defining the sphere too tightly, by limiting military action to air strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities. Yes, a major element of military action would be to destroy Iran's nuclear facilities and capabilities. But that is a mere element of the larger strategy: use the military to impose a high enough price on Iran that they give up what they haven't yet been willing to give up. Thus, military action shouldn't target only suspected nuclear sites, it should also target ANY facility that we feel the loss of would weaken the resolve of Iran's leadership. Our military should take out their conventional military facilities, denying Iran the ability to use their military to beat down protesters. And we shouldn't take ground forces off the table. We wouldn't look to occupy Iran, but we would use 'boots on the ground' to strike targets that can't be attacked effectively via aircraft. We isolate a target, land troops who destroy the facility and we leave. What the whole issue comes down to is a simple question: is it critical that we keep Iran from developing nuclear weapons? If so, we use every tactic at our disposal and we put up with the negative consequences flowing from such. If not, we treat the issue as a nuisance, something we don't like, but don't dislike enough to ratchet up the efforts. And the latter is how Obama (and Bush before him) are treating this whole matter: as the equivalent of a mosquito bite. Thursday, February 18, 2010
What's wrong with this: Associated Press: Record-low borrowing costs near zero are still needed to foster the recovery ???
The answer: it is wrong! Lower borrowing costs make it cheaper for businesses to take on new debt and/or service their existing debt (assuming they have variable interest loans)... but it isn't going to make much of a difference to the borrower or the economy as a whole if borrowers aren't profitable enough to service the debt (even with the new lower interest rates) and/or optimistic about the future to the point where they are willing to take on new debt to finance growth. Take, for example, a company with a $1 million outstanding loan. Each percentage point of interest amounts to $10,000 of interest expense. If 'normal' loan rates were, say, 5%, then a 'near zero' rate (which, by the way, borrowers rarely get to pay, but let's use that as an example anyway), saves the borrower $49,000 in interest... not an insignificant amount, but not likely an amount that makes the difference between a business sticking around or failing. The only businesses helped by this are those who can't meet debt service at 5% but can make the payments at close to zero... and since most businesses having trouble meeting debt service do so because they're unprofitable (rather than just not profitable enough), this ought to help very few borrowers. Or look at a company thinking of borrowing $1 million (for this or that), they would 'save' $50,000 a year in interest, again, not an insignificant amount, but they're not going to go out and borrow money unless they felt pretty comfortable they'd get a decent return on whatever it was they spent the borrowed money on. As I've said before, the key to the economy is whether consumers and businesses are optimistic or whether they're pessimistic. If they're pessimistic, they're not going to borrow money, they are not only not going to hire staff, they're likely to continue cutting staff, they aren't going to go out and buy new cars and appliances and take vacations. And keeping interest rates low isn't going to turn a pessimistic business into an optimistic business.
If Congress and Obama were serious about 'stimulating' the economy, they should agree to do nothing...
Again, if Washington were inclined to do something to 'stimulate' the economy, they would concentrate their efforts on doing things to make consumers and businesses more optimistic about the future... and not, as they seem to be doing, passing a bill that has lots of spending and tax cuts that will do little if anything to improve spirits. Getting a tax credit for hiring a currently unemployed worker? It's nice for employers who were going to hire, but I can't see a single employer hiring someone if they don't think their revenues are going to go up by more than the (net) cost of the employee. And neither do I see consumers becoming more confident because of this, this program isn't going to make people who have jobs any more comfortable about their personal finances and certainly not enough to where they're going to increase their spending. Increasing small business depreciation? Again, it is nice to have if you were already planning on buying some new equipment. But I don't see why a business that was hoarding cash because of economic uncertainty is going to dip into their reserves to buy equipment without being more confident that their future revenues will hold constant, and this isn't going to do so. Unfortunately for the economy, both Congress and Obama don't understand basic economic theory... and by that I don't mean the theory practiced by Nobel Prize winners, but rather the deliberations that every consumer and every business goes through in deciding what actions to take at a given time. Consumers who think their job prospects are solid and who aren't afraid that the value of their house and 401(k) is going to crash are consumers who are willing to spend. Businesses who aren't afraid that next quarter's revenues are going to be less than they are now are businesses who are willing to hire and buy equipment to go after new business. Thus, the best economic stimulus are those things that make people less worried about the future and more confident that the future is brighter. Unfortunately, pretty much everything Washington is doing only makes people nervous. Congress and Obama need to stop scaring people with talk about higher taxes, more regulation and more spending. As long as the public has a negative opinion of Congress and Obama, the more the public thinks that Congress and Obama just screw up whatever they touch, the more the public hears of Congress and Obama wanting to do X or Y, the more nervous the public is going to be. Given this, what Congress and Obama need to do is to do nothing. That is what the doctor ordered. And that is exactly what they won't do. Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Echoes of Reagan?
A school superintendent in Rhode Island has fired all of the teachers at a high school because they (and their union) refused to work a bit harder to try and improve the abysmal academics at that school. And in a town where the teachers made 3 times the money that an average worker does, I doubt there are going to e many tears shed for these 'poor' teachers.
I'm not questioning the accuracy of Hillary Clinton's claim that Iran is becoming a "military dictatorship".. but I do wonder who she is directing her comment at and what she hopes to gain?
Does she hope someone will notice and be impressed by her insight and support her where they previously have refused? Does she think some other government who was previously non-supportive of American policy vis-a-vis Iran is now going to support us? Does she think that the Iranian people are going to be even more upset at their rulers? It seems that her comments fall into the category of 'duh', I don't see anything changing as a result. The countries that are opposed to sanctions are still going to oppose sanctions. The countries that have grudgingly supported American policy aren't going to be any more enthusiastic than they were thinking that Iran was run by a bunch of Mad Mullahs. She may be right... but so what? Sunday, February 14, 2010
It's nice being proven right...
... that climate change wasn't all that it was cracked up to be (and to the clown who went around making bets that the world was getting warmer, how do you feel right now?). ... that Obama was not only oh-so-unprepared to be President but also on the wrong side of the issues from the American people. ... that Obama mistook his victory for a popular mandate in the same way Bush II viewed his beating John Kerry. ... that Allan Iverson was actually a net minus for the teams he played on. ... that while Bush might have been able to 'stabilize' Iraq, doing so would do absolutely nothing to improve our national security. ... that there was no way the 'international community' would do much of anything to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons. ... that Keith Olbermann was a complete - and mostly unwatched - jerk. ... that Tiger Woods is a heck of a golfer but just not a nice person. ... that Nancy Pelosi is one of the dumber people who ever became Speaker. ... that the Saints winning the Super Bowl won't do much of anything to improve the lot of people in New Orleans (okay, this one hasn't yet been proven, but it will, like the ones above, it is just a matter of time). ... that the country will be better off without the likes of Ted Kennedy, Patrick Kennedy and John Murtha in Congress. Yeah, I know, I haven't always gotten things right. I certainly didn't forecast that Obama would drive a shaky economy even further into the toilet. But it is nice to see that positions I took that were at the time counter to popular wisdom have been proven correct. Thursday, February 11, 2010
I often wonder if people are (1) ignorant that what they're claiming as fact is actually not true, or (2) aware that their claims are not true but think the public is too stupid and/or ignorant to know better... with my rule of thumb being that the more prominent position one has, the more likely it is that the latter applies.
Such is the case with E.J. Dionne's column today in which he defends Obama against claims that he is a socialist. Dionne says that can't be the case because (his claims in italics): "Obama... is the man who saved the banks and the capital markets...". But he did so by taking over control of many of those banks, and what is socialism if not state-ownership of industry? "his health-care proposals stopped far short of the single-payer system that so many liberals have long sought". But Obama has been quoted as saying he wants a single payer system. His failure to aggressively for such a plan is more a reflection of public opposition than Obama's abandonment of that socialist goal. "(Obama's) stimulus plan was, if anything, too small". Well, it certainly wasn't viewed as too small when it was proposed and rammed through Congress, it was far larger than any previous stimulus plan, and claims that it was too small only surfaced after it became clear that the plan had failed miserably. And like a good liberal/socialist, Obama's reaction was not to question the wisdom of borrowing and spending $800 billion, but to instead think that $800 billion just wasn't enough. "And Obama, although belatedly, endorsed a bipartisan commission to reach a deal on deficit reduction". And, of course, stacked it so that the only outcome would be a call to raise taxes, something that is not inconsistent with socialist dogma. Only in Dionne's world would a failure to immediately and totally move to a socialist economy be proof that someone didn't believe in socialism. The question: does Dionne really believe that? Or is he cynically using Obama's failure to achieve socialist goals to argue that Obama isn't a socialist? Given that Dionne is paid to follow politics, my strong guess is that he knows better... he just thinks his loyal readers are too stupid to know the truth... and given his readership, he's probably right. Thursday, February 04, 2010
Re: the Senate's plan to give tax breaks to employers who hire a previously unemployed worker.
The proposal calls for the employer to save the 6.2% they would otherwise pay as their share of social security taxes of the newly hired worker (interestingly, there isn't a credit for the employer's share of medicare taxes). Normally, hiring a new worker costs the employer not only the base compensation but 7.65% in payroll taxes plus whatever that employer spends on other employee benefits (some employers use a flat 20% as the add-on to an employee's salary to estimate the true cost of hiring a prospective employee). Thus, the Senate plan means that hiring a $50,000 a year worker wouldn't cost the employer as much as ordinarily would... but it is still going to cost the employer more money than if they simply held staff at the same levels (it's like, to use Obama's non tactful Las Vegas reference, getting a rebate on your casino losses... you might end up losing less money than you otherwise would have without the rebate... but you are still going to lose money, you're going to end up with less than you started). And why would an employer choose to take on the certain added cost of an additional employee? One reason: they expect and/or hope that sales volume has increased or is going to increase by an amount that justifies the cost of adding staff. No sales increase, no new staff, it's pretty cut and dried... and getting to 'lose' less money is not much of an incentive. So which employers are going to add staff and take advantage of this new tax break? One answer: optimistic employers who would have added staff anyway, without the incentive of a tax break. In other words, this is going to be a bonus for employers who were going to hire staff anyway and won't result in a single person being hired who wasn't going to be hired anyway. Well, actually, it will. Since the credit is for workers who have been unemployed, this program will result in a currently unemployed worker getting a boost over a similarly qualified worker who still has a job... but it won't result in a net reduction in the number of unemployed workers. Yes, it won't, try to work it out first before you complain.
Why should anybody have been surprised that the number of people losing their jobs last month didn't go down?
What happened last month that would have given nervous employers a reason to be optimistic that better times lie ahead? What happened that would have given employers a reason to hold off laying off workers? Did Obama give a speech last month in which he gave people confidence that he was up to the task of leading this country out of recession? Did anyone at the Treasury Department or the Federal Reserve take action that would lead employers to conclude that the government was no longer favoring Wall Street over Main Street? Did the Democrats who control both chambers of Congress give any sign that they were going to stop doing and saying things that made business nervous? Of course not! If anything, everybody mentioned in the previous paragraph continued doing and saying the very things that have made employers and consumers so very nervous over the past year. There wasn't anything that gave people a basis for abandoning their negativity and pessimism, let alone anything to make them adopt a more positive outlook. And in the absence of positive news, employers are going to continue thinking that tomorrow's revenues are going to be lower... and employers who face lower sales are going to quite logically conclude that they need to reduce staff to stay ahead of the declining revenues. Obama and the rest of the ruling Democrats just don't understand that the economy isn't going to get better until employers start hiring... and employers aren't going to start hiring until after they've stopped laying people off... and employers aren't going to stop laying people off until they have stopped worrying that tomorrow's sales and profits are going to be worse than today's... and employers aren't going to stop worrying about tomorrow until Obama stops saying and doing things that makes them worry about tomorrow.
Aside from disagreeing with his complaint about a 'high tech lynching' as being a bit overwrought, I pretty much agree with Clarence Thomas on most issues (or is it that he agrees with me?), so it isn't a surprise that we're on the same page in thinking that the key issue in the Citizens United case is that people don't lose their right to free speech because of the way in which they band together to express their views.
Despite its status as a legal entity, a corporation is nothing more than a collection of individuals... individual workers, individual managers, individual investors, all bound together by their common interest in the activities of whatever they are doing, and all of whom have rights as individuals that aren't lost because they have come together in a corporate form. That is why I get somewhat exasperated by those (primarily liberals) who rail against 'evil corporations'. A corporation can not be evil any more than it can be good. People can be good, people can be evil. So when someone criticizes a corporation as evil, they're in effect claiming that the people who work there are evil.... which is usually just plain wrong. The people at Toyota aren't evil. They may have screwed up recently, but they're not evil, they are simply people trying to do a job the best they can. Nor are health insurance companies evil, the people who process claims don't have horns sticking out of their heads, they're simply employees trying to follow the rules established by their managers who, by the way, also don't have horns sticking out of their heads. Wednesday, February 03, 2010
Washington Post liberal columnist Ruth Marcus (probably unwittingly) illustrates the liberal hypocrisy that seeks to deny to others the rights they want for themselves.
In this case, it's Marcus pushing for such 'family friendly' workplace laws that would in effect keep employers from firing employees who didn't reliably show up for work... while at the same time she's getting nice and ready to fire her own babysitter for not showing up to work reliably enough. Yes, working parents often have demands on the home front that conflict with their ability to show up at work when they're supposed to show up at work. But that doesn't mean that the employer should have to absorb the cost of accommodating the worker's conflicts. The employer and employee enter into an arrangement: show up for work as agreed, do the job as agreed and get paid as agreed. The employer shouldn't have to accept less from the worker any more than the worker should have to accept less from the employer. But that is what Marcus wants, for the employer to shoulder the burden of accommodating the worker's home life... unless of course, if the employer is Marcus and her babysitter's conflicts cause a problem for Marcus... in which case Marcus wants to be able to fire the worker and go find someone else who would be more reliable. Marcus should be able to fire the babysitter... just as every employer ought to be able to fire an employee who wasn't living up to the terms of the agreement. Yes for me, but not for thee.... the mantra of liberals everywhere. Tuesday, February 02, 2010
Re: Obama's plan to make more money available for small business loans...
(1) The problem isn't so much a lack of funds to lend as it is a shortage of creditworthy firms who want to borrow money in this sluggish economy. 'Creditworthy' firms (defined as firms profitable enough to pay back the borrowed money from existing profits) only borrow if they think they can use the money in a way that boosts profits beyond the cost of capital... and there aren't a lot of firms right now who are confident in their ability to boost profits. (2) Obama's plan is to give money and tax breaks to small banks to increase their lending to small businesses... in other words, to make loans they aren't now comfortable making. Assuming these banks have to repay the federal government (but who knows for sure?), they'll use the tax breaks to offset the losses they'll take on these loans (the banks aren't lending now because they don't think they'll get paid back)... in other words, taxpayers will subsidize giveaways to small business.
Showing that even supposedly principled conservative Republicans can be just as ridiculous as their opponents, Sarah Palin is calling for White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel to be fired for using the phrase 'f***in retarded'... and not in a nice way.
Even stipulating it was not nice thing to say, how does it rise to be a firing offense? The guy blurts out something in the heat of battle and he's supposed to lose his job because somebody somewhere took offense? What happened to conservative support of free speech? What happened to conservative mocking of political correctness? What happened to conservatives not wrapping themselves in the blanket of victimhood? What happened to conservatives not wanting the federal government to redress every wrong? Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know Palin has a kid who is never going to register on the top end of the IQ scales... but principles aren't just for when you don't have a dog in the fight, they really don't count for much if you only drag them out when it is easy to do so. If Palin wants to go after Emmanuel on substantive grounds, she should do so, but she ought to lay off the indignant demands for someone to lose their job because they dared say something that upset her delicate sensitivities. And she wanted to be in line to be President? Yeah, an easily flustered President going off on perceived slights is just what I want. Monday, February 01, 2010
To me, the issue with Obama's budget with its $1.6 TRILLION deficit isn't the deficit per se, but rather that we get so little for it.
It would be one thing to run up a deficit if it was done in order to accomplish something worthwhile... but it isn't. The $1.6 TRILLION, and for that matter, a good chunk of the over $3 TRILLION in total spending, goes to pay for things I don't consider worthwhile at all. Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq? Waste of money, it does nothing to improve our national security (the Taliban in Afghanistan isn't coming to America to blow up shopping malls). Aid to schools? Waste of money, I don't believe a single kid will be any smarter tomorrow than if that money wasn't spent. Funding of museums, national parks, aquariums and the like? A use of money that isn't available and for a purpose that ranks way way way down on the list of things I'm concerned about. Funding for NPR and the NEA and so on? A total waste of money, a huge subsidy for something that very few people care about at all and even fewer to the point where they'd willing to pay for the news and entertainment. Funding for roads and airports and mass transit? Not only it is money that isn't available but it is also something that should be directly funded by the users of the roads, airports and mass transit. Social Security? Way too expensive, it should be scaled back to provide a floor to those in need and in need not of their own making and not as a supplement to those with pensions and retirement funds and not to those who passed on the opportunity to establish and fund their own pensions and retirement funds. Medicare and Medicaid? Same thing, these programs need to be scaled back to provide a basic level of emergency medical care and not for replacement hips and electric wheelchairs and the like. Defense spending in general? Way too much for what we get, way too many chiefs, not enough competent indians, way too many facilities and way too many different and expensive weapons programs. Congressional and White House spending? My god, that needs to be cut and dramatically so, no more overseas travel, cut half the staffs and all of the entertaining budgets. Funding for the UN and international aid? Cut it out, almost all of it, if foreigners think so little of us, let them do without our money. Government workers? Way too many and way overpaid, freeze both staffing levels and pay levels, cut way way way back on their pension commitments. So when you hear somebody complain on TV about how hard it is to cut spending, just point them to this post... cutting spending ain't hard, it is just that they don't have the b***s to do it.
It would be nice if, in addition to banning the mandate that everybody buy health insurance, the states relaxed their mandates dictating the benefits health insurance plans have to offer to their customers.
If someone doesn't want their coverage to pay for acupuncture... or psychiatric treatments... or abortion... or ED drugs... or whatever, they shouldn't be required to buy a plan that covers it.
|