If you are not happy with the results below please do another search
Having lured another 117,000 people into Medicaid, the state government of Rhode Island is going to plug them into an experiment that the progressive faction can use as “ammunition” in its political fight.
[The Gaspee Business Network just issued the following statement/exhortation.]
We are incredibly sad to announce that amid the long standing depressed job market in Rhode Island as well as the worst business climate in the nation, hundreds of moms and dads, struggling young adults, and professionals were laid off today at the CVS corporate office in Woonsocket. The members of the GBN family wish to extend our deepest condolences to those who must now find some means of making ends meet right before the holidays amid one of the worst economies in the country.
The people to blame for these layoffs are the politicians that have run Rhode Island into the ground for decades.
Nothing will change until each and every career politician is removed from office on Smith Hill.
These government bureaucrats have made the cost to employ the hard working men and women in Rhode Island so expensive, companies have no choice but to outsource their labor to other countries.
We hear complaints when government is slow and inefficient, with Congress receiving the greatest volume of such complaints, but that’s a key point. When an organization is empowered to confiscate people’s property, change the rules of the economy and society, put people in jail, and even kill them, we should want it to be structured such that it is difficult to abuse and that it doesn’t make sense to use it to undertake too many activities within our society.
This morning’s post on HealthSource fits into this category, as does Iain Murray’s observations of the federal Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB):
Last week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled in the case, PHH Corp. v. CFPB, that the Bureau’s structure was unconstitutional and ordered that Cordray should report to the President. Under the Dodd-Frank Act of 2010, which created the CFPB, the President has no power to remove the CFPB Director except for malfeasance, and Congress has no power to restrict the Bureau’s operations through the appropriations process, as the Bureau draws its budget from the Federal Reserve, itself an independent agency. The Court deems the CFPB’s unaccountable structure unconstitutional, saying that it posed a “risk of arbitrary decisionmaking [sic] and abuse of power” and “a threat to individual liberty.”
Sounds momentous. But you will find no mention of the judgment on the CFPB’s website, and so far the Bureau’s only action has been to file a brief in an unrelated case saying that the ruling “has no basis in the text of the Constitution or in Supreme Court case law,” and that, “The panel decision was wrongly decided and is not likely to withstand further review.”
Read the rest if you haven’t been following the antics of the CFPB. The lawless agency has been imposing fees retroactively in what can only be described as extortion.
Next, move such boards — including all quasi-publics, government-aligned non-profits, and corporation-like entities like HealthSource — up on your list of things about which to be concerned and by which to judge the people whom you elect.
Something about news that Neighborhood Health Plan of Rhode Island’s $2 million in rebates to overcharged customers is nagging at me, but since it’s become so difficult to find contacts for data inquiries in this area, I’ll just describe the question. Here’s the basic story:
Refunds are mandated by the Affordable Care Act for policyholders whose health plans did not spend at least 80 percent of their premiums in a given calendar year on doctors, hospitals and other health care services or activities to improve healthcare quality. That leaves 20 percent for salaries, bonuses and other administrative expenses.
Because Neighborhood was essentially a Medicaid processor prior to the government’s need for easily controlled insurance providers who would make it look like customers actually had a choice through HealthSource RI, the state’s ObamaCare health benefits exchange, the organization didn’t have much experience from which to determine what to charge its new government-mandated customers. So, it overcharged for its plans, which is also why the insurer requested a premium decrease in the upcoming year.
But here’s the thing: Neighborhood is the lower-end provider covering 49% of all “paid” customer plans for an exchange on which 88% of plans are subsidized. The question is, therefore, how much of this $2 million in rebates is going to Neighborhood clients because taxpayers gave the insurer too much?
The lede of a Wall Street Journal op-ed by Daniel Henninger describes its point concisely: “Barack Obama’s presidency of moral condescension has produced an electoral backlash.” The notion of this condescension from our elite betters came immediately to mind when I opened up a Rhode Island Foundation email promoting this video, which is part of its “what’s next” initiative, and which is slap-in-your-face offensive:
The video opens with a blank screen and marching thrum before the following phrase appears: “Actual quotes, From actual Rhode Islanders.” The text doesn’t specify which Rhode Islanders, or where these phrases were found. It’s just us; things we’ve said as we’ve participated in public debate. (At least its those of us who don’t fit the obvious political profile of the people included in the RI Foundation’s “community contributions” section.)
The slap comes immediately and with deliberate offense, with video of a child being beeped for reading swear words from a notepad. Child 2 is beeped again, reading another quote from an “actual Rhode Islander.” Child 3 looks up in disbelief after reading his quote. A small girl offers the first commentary after hers: “Who says this?”
Next, our local elite betters put their own words in the kids’ mouths: “Stop! … Stop complaining. Stop blaming. Stop trolling.” We (“actual Rhode Islanders”) aren’t making things better; we’re making them worse. Not to worry, though, because these kids “are what’s next.” They’re going to solve the problems of the world when they’re adults, but in the meantime, they need us to “be nice or be quiet.”
That’s right. The message of the people promoting this slick video…
… is that we’re not being nice, that we’re being dismissive. That we should just shut our traps and not complain about the treatment to which the powerful in our state subject us or when they do things like impose new fees, take away our rights, and slush around money sucked from our economy in a corrupt whirlpool (or when they use non-profit organizations to push political agendas) or blame them when things continue to go wrong, year after year. We’re just “trolling.”
Who are the condescending people behind this message, hiding behind children?
Well, the Rhode Island Foundation we know. It’s interesting to note, though, the group behind this video, NAIL Communications, because it’s received almost $2.5 million from the state government through HealthSource RI, our ObamaCare health benefits exchange, over the past few years.
So, yes, shut up and pay your taxes, you nasty Rhode Islanders, so that people who think they’re better than us can get big paydays from government ventures that limit our freedoms as well as redistribute our money.
Back before President Obama and his fellow Democrats in the U.S. Congress and Senate decided that the nation needed more government involvement in its health care system, whether the people wanted it or not, and back before Rhode Island Governor Lincoln Chafee decided he would implement a health benefits exchange by executive order because the people’s elected legislators had declined to do so, while a small group of unelected bureaucrats decided that the state would jump into ObamaCare’s Medicaid expansion with both legs and without so much as a peep of public debate, back before these events were completed, I asked why a state like Rhode Island needed a government-run health insurance marketplace.
For most intents and purposes, the state had two health insurers, Blue Cross & Blue Shield and United. I forget the exact time line, but I’ll be generous and say that Tufts was kinda sorta on the scene, and I’ll even let government supporters claim welfare health care through Neighborhood, back then, as “insurance.” Even so, how is it conceivably worth millions of dollars in expense every year to build and maintain an exchange with so few options?
Of course, the question answers itself: The purpose of the expense must have been something other than the convenience of Rhode Islanders… something like imposing more government control of our lives and funneling more power and money for government insiders. As United exits the exchange, HealthSource RI, that interpretation is only clearer:
Rhode Island’s health insurance exchange, HealthSource RI, is among public health exchanges that UnitedHealth will withdraw from, according to a spokeswoman for the exchange, Maria Tocco.
On Monday, United notified the health insurance commissioner of its intention to leave the exchange’s individual and small-group markets, Tocco told The Providence Journal in an email. …
“… we do not see this largely impacting our customers,” she said.
HealthSource is already so non-viable as a self-standing operation that it requires both direct subsidies from taxpayers and fees imposed on all health plans, even those that have nothing to do with the exchange, in order to stay afloat. How then can its employees brush off the fact that one of the two real providers on the exchange is pulling out of it?
Let’s ask this again: What is really the purpose of HealthSource RI?
Cost overruns for the state’s Unified Health Infrastructure Project (the “dependency portal”) should bring public scrutiny to the dangerous policy that the project seeks to implement.
In my Watchdog essay, yesterday, I mentioned the support that Speaker of the House Nicholas Mattiello (D, Cranston) has expressed for moving the minor-league Pawsox baseball team to Providence as an example of attempted “quality of life” economic development. Today, I see in a Kate Nagle interview that Mattiello is confident that he’s negotiating such a great deal that the stadium, of itself, will be a profitable venture for taxpayers.
The primary question that comes to mind is: Why do the team’s owners need public backing, then? If this is such a sure thing, why aren’t investors lining up to get a piece of the action?
The next question is why this should be the government’s business even if the stadium and any spillover economic activity create a profit for the state government. This gets back to central planners’ preferred notion of economic development.
The central planners’ reasoning goes something like this: The economy and businesses require people, and people don’t work and advance the economy for the sake of money, per se. They want money in order to do things and live full lives. So, if the government can figure out how to provide those attractions, then the economy will grow, and the area will be a better place to live for everybody.
Of course, people differ greatly in their lives and in their interests, sometimes in conflicting ways. Writing about cities, Joel Kotkin suggests that hip young professionals in flashy industries need “good restaurants, shops and festivals,” not family-oriented stores and kiddie museums. They won’t, therefore, be much help pushing back against powerful interests like teachers’ unions, which can undermine the interests of not-as-hip older professionals with children. Balancing so many interests is impossibly complex.
Rhode Islanders should be very skeptical about promises that the government has found a profitable new venture — think everything from 38 Studios to HealthSource RI. More generally, we should insist that the government stop trying to be the guiding force for our state.
Senator Whitehouse’s notion of expanding the application of RICO suits might point the weapon in the wrong direction.
During the days following its release, reporters, analysts and observers worked to unpack the budget that Governor Raimondo sent to the General Assembly — and found some unpleasant items therein. Here is a bullet list of some of the bigger ones.
Proposed Statewide Property Tax
… aka, the Taylor Swift tax.
Justin got clarification from Governor Raimondo’s office that the INTENT is not to include apartment buildings as properties to be taxed. This conforms to Governor Raimondo’s attempt to sell this tax as having only a narrow list of targeted properties. (So, gosh, don’t worry about it. And, anyways, we only want to tax those icky rich people.)
Intent, however, is completely secondary. If this tax passes into law, the door will be opened wide for future – and current! – governors and General Assemblies to tax apartment buildings (of all classes and sizes); commercial buildings; second homes of less than one million dollars; PRIMARY homes of more than one million dollars; primary homes of $750,000 – $1,000,000; et empty state cetera. The critical issue is not that the initial list of targeted properties is short. It’s that the list comes to exist at all. To subject just one property classification to a new, statewide tax would set the precedent to subject virtually all real estate in Rhode Island to a statewide property tax via an easy tweak of the targeted property list.
In a perfect bit of timing, RIPEC released an analysis right before the governor released her budget of just how much Rhode Islanders are already taxed. By one measure, Rhode Island already has the fourth highest property taxes in the country. The governor is seriously proposing to raise that ranking? In fact, the one thing above all that our elected officials should not do is exacerbate this burden.
Further, there’s the matter of Rhode Island’s already undesirable reputation as a high tax state. On Twitter, Gary Sasse correctly asks,
When Tax Foundation.et. al.rank tax climate will new statewide property tax impact rankings w resulting reputation risks?
Further to “reputation risks”, WPRO’s Gene Valicenti pointed out Friday morning that the governor’s mere proposal has made the national news via the AP’s feed. This is exactly the kind of publicity that Rhode Island needs to avoid, not curry.
Governor Raimondo’s Proposed Statewide Property Tax Redefines Ownership of Real Estate as a Privilege
This one was a great catch by Justin.
1A. H5343: Sensible fiscal rules for fire-districts, including a 4% annual cap on tax-increases, limitation of debt to 5% of annual operating budgets, a ban on tax-classification plans, and a ban on assessing supplemental taxes “without conducting a properly advertised special meeting which satisfies the annual budget meetings notice and attendance provisions”. (H Finance; Wed, Mar 11)
1B. H5344: Requires “2% of of the total registered and qualified voting members of the fire district” to be present at a fire-district financial meeting to establish a quorum. Also, H5345 establishes new notice requirements for fire-district meetings, including a minimum 60-day notice period for the annual budget meeting (H Finance; Wed, Mar 11)
2. H5519: Constitutional amendment (to be ratified by the voters) giving the Governor a line-item veto power over appropriations. (H Finance; Wed, Mar 11) I understand the desire to express this as a short amendment, but given the way the RI budget process works, given the currently proposed form, what’s to stop the GA from conducting a single en masse override of everything that was vetoed?
3. H5329: Terminates the “the Rhode Island health benefits exchange, known under the name ‘HealthSourceRI’, and the unified health infrastructure project” and transfers “all management and operation of the Rhode Island health benefits exchange to the U. S. Department of Health and Human Services and the U. S. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services”. (H Finance; Tue, Mar 10)
4. H5329: Exempts “Coventry, East Greenwich and West Greenwich from all the terms and provisions” of the “written long-term economic development vision and policy for the state of Rhode Island” and the “strategic plan for implementing this policy”. (S Finance; Tue, Mar 10)
5. H5651: Imposes an additional $46 fee for a marriage license, $44 of which is to be administrated by the Rhode Island Coalition against Domestic Violence to fund domestic violence prevention programs. (H Judiciary; Wed, Mar 11) I’ll repeat what I said about a similar bill from last year: The Department of Justice reports that “intimate partner violence” rates for married women are significantly lower than are the rates for never married or divorced/widowed women, yet a group of RI legislators think it’s a good idea to make couples who are taking basic steps towards responsible commitment pay for the bad acts of everyone. This bill creates the impression that Rhode Island’s dour progressives really don’t like marriage very much.
A story from yesterday and a story from today, both in the Providence Journal, raise the question of whether the people who operate Rhode Island’s government are capable of learning the lesson of our state’s predicament. (That they apparently haven’t learned it yet comes pretty close to answering the question.)
Let’s start with Randal Edgar’s story today:
Taking stances that could complicate the challenges facing lawmakers and Governor-elect Gina Raimondo, the Department of Children, Youth and Families, the Department of Human Services and the Judiciary are among the departments and agencies that say they can’t cut their way to a balanced budget.
Instead, they are seeking more money, or suggesting that some of their costs be assigned elsewhere.
The recurring theme is that the departments say they can’t make the necessary budget reductions without cutting into their staffing or programs, to which I say, “Well, yeah.” They’re going to have to cut. Government can’t be the one sector, in Rhode Island, that’s recession proof (or even societal-decline proof). Agencies are going to have to do less with fewer people. Sorry.
HealthSource RI is an excellent example of the problem. Reading Edgar’s article, it’s clear that implementing the ObamaCare health benefits exchange and the related expansion of Medicaid were terrible decisions. Like somebody addicted to gambling or credit cards, Rhode Island government has long been counting on a recovery that’s never going to come.
The good news is that the department heads’ complaint that cuts would be draconian are blowing smoke. Look to the RI Center for Freedom & Prosperity’s Spotlight on Spending report for tips on how a few tens of millions of dollars could be found easily.
For another example of why the cuts must be made, turn to Paul Edward Parker’s article about T.F. Green Airport, yesterday. Be sure to read to the end:
At the end of the day, though, there’s only so much [Rhode Island Airport Corporation President Kelly Fredericks] can do to boost passenger levels at Green. He needs sharp marketing, and plans to extend the main runway will help. But two more significant factors will remain beyond his control:
How will Rhode Island’s economy fare?
Will airlines change strategy to put more emphasis on secondary airports?
This isn’t complicated. If more people are doing business year round in Rhode Island, airlines will have incentive to increase direct flights, including from distant locations.
Every one of these stories related to the local economy in recent years has the same moral: Government must loosen its tax and regulatory grip on the Rhode Island economy so that we, Rhode Islanders, can find the best ways to put our talents and resources to use. When we’re thriving, the government can start to think about expanding again, but until that point, it ought to be in a hurry to get out of our way.
A key question in the RhodeMap RI debate is whether The Plan is merely advisory or carries the force of law. The answer is both: It is implemented with only the civic protections necessary for “advice,” but the burden is shifted to citizens to prove that they don’t have to follow it.
Being a conservative or traditionalist in New England means being attacked for zealotry if you’re uncompromising and attacked for hypocrisy (or something) when you think strategically. Such is the case with GoLocalProv’s page-leading primary-day swipe at Rhode Island Right to Life. (If nothing else, the article illustrates why campaign finance laws should make no distinction between official media and mere pamphleteers when it comes to unconstitutional restrictions of free speech during election time.)
Critics are questioning why a Rhode Island pro-life group is endorsing candidates who a pro-choice — including Republican gubernatorial candidate Allan Fung.
Fung, who has been on the record saying he is an abortion-rights advocate, was endorsed by the group Rhode Island Right to Life, who also endorsed 13 other candidates for statewide and General Assembly seats
The evidence of Fung as an “advocate” is apparently his statement that he’s pro-choice during a recent debate. Right to Life’s explanation for its endorsement suggests the term might be a bit strong when applied to Fung:
The mailer, which calls Fung the “Pro-Life Choice,” says that Fung “opposes using your taxpayer dollars to pay for abortion-on-demand, opposes late-term abortion, and supports our efforts to make pro-life options available through HealthSource RI.”
I have no insights into the endorsement or Fung’s positions beyond what’s reported, but having gone through the exercise of endorsing candidates in the past, I know it can be a difficult call. In this case, I wouldn’t even call it difficult.
Imagine you’re involved with a single-issue group, and you’re faced with a field of six candidates. One of them supports every near-term, plausible legislative goal that you have but says that he would be on the other side if your state somehow became the unlikely battleground of a rebellion against an opposing and activist federal government. All of the other candidates would range from passive support of your opposition in every particular to active advocacy of the opposition’s most extreme positions.
Should it be a scandal if you endorse the first candidate?
Legislation to create a “health care authority,” complete with a commissioner with no other duties, is an attempt to crack the door for government-run health care.
1. H8343: Amends the budget, to create some kind of carve-out for a particular “healthcare corporation” or set of corporations in this year’s budget. (H Finance; Wed, Jun 18) Initially submitted yesterday, this is the same process that was used to renege on the original language concerning bridge tolls in last year’s budget.
2. S2565: Imposes an additional $46 fee for a marriage license, $44 of which is to be provided to the Rhode Island Coalition against Domestic Violence to fund domestic violence prevention programs. (S Judiciary; Wed, Jun 18) The Department of Justice reports that “intimate partner violence” rates for married women are significantly lower than are the rates for never married or divorced/widowed women, yet a bunch of RI legislators think it’s a good idea to make couples who are taking basic steps towards responsible commitment pay for the bad acts of everyone. This bill really creates the impression that our state’s dour progressives don’t like marriage very much.
3. S2014: Requires teachers to be notified of layoffs due to “fiscal exigency or program reorganization” by June 1. (Currently, layoff notices of any kind must be sent by March 1). (S Labor; Wed, Jun 18)
4. H7819: Creates a panel operated under the leadership of the healthcare commissioner (“referred to herein this chapter as ‘the authority’”) charged with creating a plan for making “HealthSourceRI the sole hub for securing insurance or health services coverage for all Rhode Island residents”, aggregating all medical funding for health insurance and/or health care services through HealthSourceRI, establishing “global spending targets” for the provision of healthcare, and developing a plan to pay for it all that includes a payroll tax. (H Finance; Wed, Jun 18)
Erik Brown thought he had found help with his healthcare bill. Instead, he found himself trapped in a nightmare at the exchange.
Ted Nesi tweets that state tax revenue data for March was down 26% from the expected $52.6 million, at $39 million, which Director of the Revenue Rosemarie Booth Gallogly calls “sobering.” That’s actually not the whole story.
The numbers Ted cites are actually just income tax. Looking at the monthly estimate to actual report from the office of Revenue Analysis shows that the $13,556,296 shortfall in income tax is only part of the $23,761,918 shortfall in all taxes, the $25,002,703 shortfall in total taxes and departmental receipts, and the total general revenue shortfall of $27,586,944. Almost every major tax was down, except the sales tax, by a little.
That’s more than the controversial annual cost of the HealthSource RI health benefits exchange. It’s more than twice the controversial 38 Studios bond payments. And it’s on top of projected deficits, expected loss of gambling revenue, and the budget-busting decision to lure more Rhode Islanders into Medicaid.
It’s important to note that the previous table, which shows year-to-date revenue isn’t quite as discouraging, yet. Total general revenue is only down $1.877,918 (-0.1%) for the year. Still, all of the data points accord with the shrinking workforce and an anecdotal sense that Rhode Islanders are just demoralized and giving up, as personified by a governor who seems most focused on starting his retirement speaking tour early.
I’d suggest that these holes can’t be patched, and that trying to do so will only accelerate the decline. The state needs a radical readjustment of its priorities, emphasizing the free economic activity of its residents. Rhode Islanders need a bold shot in the arm to give them a sense that things can turn around
More tightening of the leash and moving of the needle in the wrong direction can only hurt.
1A. S2511: Mandates that all Rhode Islanders “obtain and maintain creditable coverage pursuant to the provisions of the Affordable Care Act enacted by the Congress of the United States”. (S Health and Human Services; Tue, Apr 15) There doesn’t appear to be an exemption for (Federal) executive-branch waivers in this bill.
1B. S2533: Creates a panel operated under the leadership of the healthcare commissioner (“referred to herein this chapter as ‘the authority'”) charged with creating a plan for making “HealthSourceRI the sole hub for securing insurance or health services coverage for all Rhode Island residents”, aggregating all medical funding for health insurance and/or health care services through HealthSourceRI, establishing “global spending targets” for the provision of healthcare, and developing a plan to pay for it all that includes a payroll tax. (S Health and Human Services; Tue, Apr 15)
2. H7285: Repeals the section of the law allowing “deferred deposit” loans, i.e. “pay-day” loans, also repealing the provisions in the law that allow check-cashing businesses to automatically operate as pay-day lenders. (H Finance; Wed, Apr 16) According to the official description, this is a complete repeal of pay-day lending.
3. H7944: Adds fire districts to the “fiscal stabilization law”, the law that allows the state to displace the elected local governments of financially distressed communities and supersede them with budget commissions and receivers. (H Finance; Tue, Apr 15) The Senate version will be heard on the floor on the same day; it looks like a budget commission, at least, for Central Coventry is coming soon.
4. H7067: Prohibits building schools anywhere in Rhode Island on the sites of former mines, but really intended to prevent construction of the new Blackstone Prep elementary school. This bill is listed under the “scheduled for consideration” portion of the agenda, which means it is very likely to be voted on, though it’s possible that an amended version will be introduced. (H Education and Welfare; Wed, Apr 16)
5. On Tuesday, April 15 the Senate Judiciary Committee will hear this year’s raft of gun-control bills. Here’s a link to the entire agenda, plus there are two gun-related bills from an earlier hearing that day, S2719 and S2720. The two most important bills in this set are:
Monique’s post, this morning, about HealthSource RI’s advertising in Rhode Island media brings to mind Phil Marcelo’s Providence Journal article on Saturday, which ended with this:
Those interested in enrolling may visit HealthSource RI’s “Contact Center” at 70 Royal Little Drive in Providence or its temporary location at 250A Centerville Rd. in Warwick’s Summit Executive Park.
Both locations will offer extended hours on Sunday, March 30 (noon to 9 p.m.) and Monday, March 31(8 a.m. to10 p.m.).
Rhode Islanders may also enroll by phone at (855) 840-4774 or online at www.healthsourceri.com.
Now, I don’t think Marcelo was consciously catering to a big-money advertiser. (HealthSource had given the Providence Journal $85,050 in the five months ending March 14.) Inasmuch as the health benefits exchange is a government agency, publishing the information can arguably seen as a public service announcement for readers’ benefit.
Two points must be made, though. First, it is explicitly part of HealthSource’s mission to compete with private companies offering similar products. As I’ve noted, UnitedHealth is planning a small-business product similar to the one that HealthSource provides. How would it look if United were to buy $90,000 in advertising over a few-month period and Providence Journal reporters started weaving product placements into their stories?
Maybe journalists should start being wary of the blurring line between government and profitable interests.
Second, the RI Center for Freedom & Prosperity has come under attack, recently, including in the Providence Journal, based on allegations about our funding. I’ve complained that this amounts to connecting dots without any dots. We share some political philosophy with a national movement in which certain large donors play a role, and that alone is insinuated to be evidence that our work is somehow suspect.
Yet, here is a direct pair of dots, between HealthSource RI and the Providence Journal. The link in that relationship is much more specific and conspicuous than a general link between billionaire libertarians and the Center’s work on eliminating the sales tax, and yet it isn’t even disclosed in Saturday’s story.
Is that evidence that the Providence Journal “operates largely in secret,” the phrase reporter Randal Edgar’s used about the Center?
1. On Tuesday, March 11 the House Judiciary Committee will hear a series of bills related to the issue of abortion:
2. Non-expiring contracts for municipal employees. H7464 says local contracts with police officers and firefighters would not expire “until such time as a successor agreement has been reached between the parties or an interest arbitration award has been rendered”; H7465 says municipal contracts with teachers and other municipal employees would not expire “until such time as a successor agreement has been reached between the parties”. (H Labor; Tue, Mar 11)
3. H7467: Allows retired police officers and firefighters to go to arbitration, to seek enforcement of the contract that was in place at the time they retired. (H Labor; Tue, Mar 11)
4. H7345: Allows cities and towns to issue bonds for an amounts up to 5% of their budgets to obtain loans from the “municipal road and bridge revolving fund administered by the Rhode Island clean water finance agency” without obtaining the approval of their electors, amended to allow this in calendar year 2014 only. (S2399 is the unamended version, which presumably will be amended during the committee hearing). (S Finance; Tue, Mar 11)
5. On Tuesday, March 11 the Senate Finance Committee will hear the HealthSource RI budget, i.e. the budget for Rhode Island’s state-funded Obamacare exchange (see p. 65 here). Also, on Wednesday, March 12 the House Finance Committee will hold its hearing on the departmental budget of the Executive Office of Health and Human Services, which is the single largest major category in the state budget (about $2 billion, including state and Federal funds).
Saying that there’s been no “mass exodus” of wealthy Rhode Islanders makes light of the fact that they took $18 million in income tax revenue with them.
“What the hell?”
That’s what a high-paid government director said to an audience of local small businesspeople upon learning that a private business was planning to offer a service that would compete with a government program.
According to ConvergenceRI, it’s a direct quote from Christine Ferguson, director of Rhode Island’s ObamaCare health benefits exchange, HealthSourceRI. Stephen Farrell, who runs UnitedHealthcare of New England, had just announced that his company is planning to open a health insurance exchange for businesses and their employees. And that’s the response from the woman who’s been given around $100 million by the federal government in order to try her hand at a healthcare-related start-up business at taxpayer expense.
She went on to express a view of competition that must only make sense in the halls of the bureaucracy:
“On the exchange, you can choose Blue Cross, Neighborhood and United – and next year, Tufts.
“[On the UnitedHealthcare exchange], the only option is with United, the only option given to employer [and employees] is within United.” …
“Let’s be clear. It’s a strategy that makes sense for their perspective – if they want to keep market share.
“What we want to do is open up the options, and to drive, from a consumer and provider perspective, competition.”
So “competition” is when all options are offered through a government monopoly.
But yes, let’s be clear. This is a government agent making a competitive sales pitch to a group of potential clients, making derogatory statements about a private company’s offering, and it’s entirely inappropriate.
Going forward, how can United or the people of Rhode Island have any confidence in the fairness of the taxation and regulatory activities of the government? (It’s a trick question; no Rhode Islander should have such confidence, as is proven again and again.)
The enrollment picture for HealthSource RI brightened a little as the deadline for January coverage approached, but if anything, the long-term picture for the health care reform darkened.
Federal grants have already paid large subsidies for applicants using HealthSource RI, but only for a small number of them is that the full taxpayer burden.
An Anchor Rising commenter used to proclaim that collegiate right-wingers had it easy. All they had to do was mouth the right ideas, and the giant udder of the conservative cash cow would descend upon them.
The notion is laughable. Rhetoric consistent with a mainstream New England liberalism is the ticket to the front of the line around here.
Consider Felice Freyer’s column on the front page of the Sunday Rhode Island section, about an idea to pay for HealthSource RI, the state’s ObamaCare site.
Ted Almon “concedes he hasn’t done the math,” but he thinks if government claims a monopoly on medical billing, then all problems will be solved. Of course, government control would be better for this or that stakeholder, but the question is whether it’s better systemwide… for customers, taxpayers, the people who ultimately have to live with and pay for it.
You can’t ignore the cost to them. Handling some financial tasks doesn’t make it free for HealthSource to scale activities to process all healthcare transactions.
And people already have jobs in medical billing. Some work for providers; some are independent contractors. All of the medical-billing contractors I’ve met have been middle-aged women doing the work from home for supplemental income.
Are state workers likely to be more cost-effective? If the whole idea is to pay for HealthSource, they’d have to be tens of millions of dollars more cost-effective per year.
In short, the math is the idea.
But Almon is an advocate for a single-payer (i.e., totally government run) healthcare system. He says he used to prefer free-market solutions, but he “figured out that none of them would work.”
I wonder if he did the math on that. I wonder if anybody at the Providence Journal has… or even wants to find somebody who has.
This thirty-second television spot is the latest aspect of HealthSourceRI that Rhode Islanders should feel just oversteps the appropriate bounds for government:
As a functional matter, I’ll say once again: The government shouldn’t be acting like a start-up company. On the substance, Chris Caramela tweeted it well: “Love RI’s new healthcare ad, 1st to declare independence, 1st in industrial revolution.. Then they leave out… 1st to give back both!!!”
The fact is that Rhode Island was second last to ratify the Constitution. With respect to Constitutional Amendments, we specifically rejected the income tax and prohibition of alcohol and only just ratified a change in the U.S. Senate election process this year. Rhode Island’s history is one of suspicion of centralized authority, and it is an insult to the state for government operatives to claim that heritage while obliterating its principles.
The language used to explain how Rhode Island’s ObamaCare insurance rates will compare with current prices, without the law, can distort whether people see the law as fair or unfair.
Rhode Island’s ObamaCare health benefits exchange is not producing new wealth when it takes its miniscule nick out of the state’s unemployment rolls.
Blaming Fox News for making the news industry more partisan, and therefore less trustworthy, misses the point of what’s happened in the news.