Is Questioning Obamacare Now A Third-Rail Issue in Virginia?

Posted on October 23, 2019 by matt ohern
Share this article on:

Three health insurance proposals which passed the Virginia General Assembly only to be vetoed are now front and center in the November election. What were they? Were they efforts to weaken and ultimately destroy the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) or efforts to provide lower-cost choices for those unable to afford ACA policies?
At the end of the 2019 General Assembly, Governor Ralph Northam vetoed seven related bills, but they represented various versions of just three basic ideas for lower-cost insurance plans:

  • Allow member-based associations to aggregate a large group to offer lower-cost coverage to their members, who might be small businesses or even self-employed individuals facing much higher costs. There were three successful bills in this category, and they received bipartisan support before the Governor killed them. You can see the bill history on Senator Siobhan Dunnavant’s Senate Bill 1689 here.
  • Allow short-term plans to expand from 90 days of coverage to 364 days, with two possible renewals for almost three years of coverage. Even though legislation failed, federal rules now allow that, and Virginia’s regulations have been amended accordingly. There were two bills passed in this arena, both with bipartisan support and one receiving a 40-0 vote in the Senate. That was Senator Bryce Reeve’s Senate Bill 1240.
  • Allow for high-deductible catastrophic coverage plans, authorized now under the federal ACA for individuals under age 30 who qualify for a hardship or affordability exemption. There were also two bills on this topic, one of which passed the Senate 38-2. That was Senator Glen Sturtevant’s Senate Bill 1027.

None of those details, including the initial bipartisan support, come through in the heat of a campaign season. Instead the voters are told that the bills “let insurance companies deny coverage for pre-existing conditions.” That particular claim was ruled “false” by PolitiFact, which noted that short-term plans extended to 364 days administratively even though the bill was vetoed.
PoliticFact’s journalistic yellow card has done nothing to stop the election rhetoric, which is testing whether the federal ACA has now become a political third rail entitlement similar to Social Security. Republicans who voted against expanding Medicaid in Virginia, and even some who voted for it, are also charged with mortal sins against Obamacare, “denying health care to 400,000 people.”
And in a year when monopoly utility donations were expected to be radioactive, it is donations from the insurance industry and health care providers which draw attacks. Again, a basic check on the Virginia Public Access Project reveals those donors have spread about $10 million quite evenly among both parties, perhaps paying for the ads which now imply their corruption.
At a Thomas Jefferson Institute policy forum one year ago, survey results from the National Federation of Independent Business revealed health care cost as the number one concern of its members. More than half ranked it as a crucial concern, far above any other on the list. Small business advocates were at the forefront advocating for the lower cost, limited benefit alternatives.
Governor Ralph Northam’s vetoes of these and similar bills in 2018 are all based on the claim that anybody who can leave the highly mandated benefit structure of the ACA will do so. He points to those who are healthy or those who know they won’t need some of the mandated services, such as maternity care.
In his veto message on Dunnavant’s bill, typical of all of them, Governor Northam called it: “concerning for several reasons. Association health plans (AHPs) are not required to cover essential health benefits including maternity care and prescription coverage. Additionally, AHPs would be able to set different premium rates based on characteristics like age, gender, job, and preexisting conditions. This bill would undermine current efforts to stabilize the Virginia health insurance marketplace. Virginians who enroll in AHPs may be disproportionately healthy when they enroll leading to higher premiums for Virginians who do not qualify for an AHP and remain in the marketplace.”
On Sturtevant’s bill seeking to expand catastrophic coverage, the Governor wrote this: “Catastrophic plans typically have lower premiums because they require individuals to (pay) very high deductibles before the plan pays for health care costs. Many individuals enrolled in a catastrophic health plan may forego medical services because of cost.” In the real world of private employer coverage, high deductibles are also commonplace, and those customers also sometimes forego services to avoid them.
Is no insurance at all the better choice for those with no employer coverage?
The bills in question were all sponsored by Republicans, and the lack of bipartisan sponsorship made the vetoes easier, despite the bipartisan floor votes. The Senate Republican Caucus in particular highlighted these ideas, none of them unique to Virginia and several of them already in place elsewhere.
When Northam vetoed the association health plan bill, after proposing a failed amendment to reduce its scope, the Senate Republicans reacted angrily, questioning whether the Governor really is committed to finding solutions for those who can’t afford or do not want the full ACA coverages.
“Considering this administration’s previous actions on legislation that would have made healthcare more accessible and affordable for individuals, today’s decision to deny small businesses and their employees the same options is disappointing, but not surprising,” said Senate President Pro Tempore Stephen D. Newman (R-Bedford), Chairman of the Senate Education and Health Committee. “With this veto, the Administration has reaffirmed its rigid insistence on a ‘one-size-fits-all government-knows-best’ policy on healthcare coverage.”
The voters may not realize it, but they are now being asked to endorse the “one-size-fits-all government-knows-best” approach on November 5. If they do, that may end efforts to create flexible lower cost alternatives in Virginia.
Stephen Haner is Senior Fellow for State and Local Tax Policy at the Thomas Jefferson Institute for Public Policy.

E-Mail this author

Posted in Health Care | 2 Comments

Demolishing Political Rankings with Reality

Posted on October 23, 2019 by matt ohern
Share this article on:

By Chris Saxman
Some things just have to be challenged at the outset before they gain traction and become an untrue reality.
Gaining traction among too many candidates for the General Assembly is a ranking was released by a British organization, Oxfam, that graded American states and the District of Columbia on best states for workers. This is the second year of their ranking. Here’s what their release stated:
In 2018, workers are not sharing in the bounty of our thriving economy—and the federal government is not going to make changes that matter. However, some states are taking steps to keep working families out of poverty, and to give them a decent chance. How does your state rank?
According to Oxfam’s rankings, Virginia ranks LAST out of the 50 states and DC. Being ranked #51 out of 51, we believe, is worth challenging. How are these rankings compiled? And what is Oxfam anyway? (click the above link)
Oxfam predicates their ranking on how well working families do in states relative to being able to get out of poverty. This relates to their organization’s mission which states:
Oxfam is a global organization working to end the injustice of poverty. We help people build better futures for themselves, hold the powerful accountable, and save lives in disasters.
Got it? Oxfam wants “to end the injustice of poverty”; however, they didn’t rank states on their rates of actual poverty or measure how well people move out of it. Bet you want to know where Virginia ranks on poverty, don’t you? No Googling!
Oxfam ranked the states and DC based on just three areas of policy that Oxfam thinks will help working families get out of poverty. But what if families are not actually in poverty?
….shhhh…. Not yet.
Those three policies areas according the global organization that is working to end the injustice of poverty are as follows (This is copied directly from their ranking):
We evaluated states on three dimensions:
• Wage policies: Has the state raised the minimum wage to help workers earn a living wage? Do localities have capacity to raise the minimum wage to accommodate higher costs of living?
• Worker protection policies: Does the state provide protections at work for situations such as paid sick leave, pregnancy, and equal pay?
• Right to organize policies: Does the state guarantee that workers have the right to organize and sustain a trade union?
One policy + two policy + three policy divided by 3 = your state’s ranking in Oxfam’s
THE BEST AND WORST STATES TO WORK IN AMERICA.
Break down those three policies areas and what do they suggest? That if Virginia ends the Dillon Rule so localities can be pressured to implement local minimum wage increases and repeals Right to Work magically the Commonwealth would “keep working families out of poverty.”
A quick Wikipedia search found that Virginia is ranked #11 in the rate of poverty. Well, wait a second…Virginia was just ranked the worst state in America for workers. Maybe we should check other rankings that relate to workers.
How about the unemployment rate? You know – do workers have actual jobs? According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Virginia is tied for #7. Okay.
Google, how about median family income? World Population Review says Virginia is #9. Wow. So combining Median Family Income and the Unemployment Rate rankings, Virginia is #8?
Nope. With those two rankings, compared to all the other states and DC, Virginia is actually #4. But Oxfam seems to imply Virginia is the WORST STATE TO WORK IN. Something doesn’t square up.
Well, how affordable is Virginia? U.S News and World Report says Virginia is #31 in affordability. This seems like an area on which the Commonwealth should focus some attention. Housing is kind of expensive. That means demand is ahead of supply. Time to build more housing units.
Are workers getting their money’s worth in K-12 schools? Wallet Hub by way of Forbes (thanks again Google) ranked Virginia public schools #6 in the nation. (Quality – #7 and Safety – #2) Hmmm….
Higher ed? Virginia is #1. (No, that does not include recent team sport national championships – which would be great considering UVA’s two recent nattys. But we might get deductions considering Virginia Tech doesn’t have any ever.) So, let’s just keep Virginia’s higher education system at #1. Wahoowa.
Well, how safe is Virginia? According to World Atlas, which used FBI crime statistics, Virginia is #13 for safety. Other recent surveys had the Commonwealth at #4. We used #13 since it was the most recent one.
Health care? How healthy are Virginians and how good is our health care system compared to the other states? America’s Health Rankings has Virginia at #20.
Transportation? #19 overall but – yikes 43(!) – for commuting workers. (Note to lawmakers and candidates – need more work on commute times). Road quality is #9.
How green is Virginia’s environment for its workers? Forbes says #23. Not great but…not last. Fine. We’re not as bad as Oxfam tries to makes us out to be.
BUT ARE WORKERS IN VIRGINIA HAPPY?
Ask them yourself. If you want to know where Virginia ranks in the Happiest State Rankings, Wallet Hub says we are #15. (They say our Work Environment is #25 by the way)
We totaled up the TEN aforementioned rankings, did not include debunked ones like Oxfam’s, and did the math thing relative to the other states and DC.
Virginia Ranks #6 for Best State for Workers who want a job, good pay, to send kids to school, to ride good roads, to lock the doors at night, then send their kids to college, need health care, pay the tab, breathe the air, and at the end of the day ask – “Am I happy?”
Virginia is most certainly NOT the worst state for Workers.
Sorry, Oxfam. Try again. Your rankings are just not credible if you only consider three areas of public policy. And we REALLY like the Dillon Rule and Right To Work.
Gallup Poll on national popularity of Right to Work – Hint over 70%

Virginia is the #6 Best State for Workers

Thanks to Oxfam, now Virginia can focus on going for the gold. Being #6 might be good for most states, but this is the Commonwealth of Virginia and we have standards.

Being #1 is the standard.

Repealing Right to Work and ending the Dillon Rule will not help us get there anytime soon.
Chris Saxman is a former member of the Virginia House of Delegates and current Executive Director of Virginia FREE, providing objective, non-partisan political information to Virginia businesses.

Posted in Virginia Roundup | 3 Comments

Business Economists Foresee Slowdown in Growth

Posted on October 23, 2019 by matt ohern
Share this article on:

If you’ve ever spent time with a couple of economists, you may walk away thinking they never agree and enjoy criticizing each other’s models and assumptions. After spending a few days with over 300 economists at the National Association for Business Economics conference last week, I walked away with a different view.
The possibility of recession and trade wars was a hot topic. An NABE panel predicts the nation will not see a recession in 2020, but that the real gross domestic product growth rate will slow to 1.8% — the first time since 2016 it has fallen below 2% with risks on the downside.
The forecasters now expect GDP growth this year to fall to 2.3% this year from 2.9% in 2018. In June, the forecast for 2019 had been 2.6%.
Deepening trade wars with China remain one of the biggest risks to U.S. economic growth, but some analysts were quick to point out the damage should be small since we are not as dependent on trade as other nations. The global economy is slowing from 3.6% in 2018 to a current 3.2%, but the impact on our economy should be minimal in light of our relatively low exports.
One session at the conference, titled “Developments and Trends in U.S. Labor Supply,” was the most memorable. It was held in honor of Alan B. Krueger, the late Princeton University economist who served as an adviser in the administrations of Presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama and was an expert on the labor market.
On the gig economy, Krueger worked closely with the Bureau of Labor Statistics to craft new questions for the Contingent Workforce Survey to assess its size.
Based on the results of the May 2017 survey, less than 1% of the total U.S. workforce used an online platform like Uber, Lyft, TaskRabbit or others to arrange work in the month prior to the survey — much smaller than many had expected.
Jonathan Gruber, a professor at MIT and a former student and friend of Krueger, ended his speech with a comment that we should all take to heart.
“After Alan passed, I was talking with a senior colleague about how Alan was a real hero of mine — that along every dimension of career that I care about [research, policy and breadth] he had been a leader,” Gruber said. “My colleague told me that I was something like the seventh person who had said that to him. And then I realized that I had never told Alan I felt that way — and I was betting that the others had not, either. It made me realize the importance of telling those we admire of our admiration rather than just sharing criticism.”
This commentary originally appeared in the October 13, 2019 edition of  The Richmond Times-Dispatch.
chmura-100Email this author

Posted in Economy | Comments Off on Business Economists Foresee Slowdown in Growth

Carbon Taxes Move to the Gas Pump

Posted on October 8, 2019 by matt ohern
Share this article on:

Imagine this: A regime of rising carbon taxes and tightening emission allowances extending from Virginia’s Cumberland Gap to the Canadian maritime coastline. It covers coal, natural gas, gasoline, diesel fuel, fuel oil, compressed natural gas, wood and biomass fuel, in all the various ways they are now used. If energy from those sources remains cheap and plentiful, the process has failed.

The vision could be reality if Virginia goes forward with joining the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative and its related Transportation and Climate Initiative. They must be evaluated together.
Just as the RGGI seeks to impose a carbon tax and ever-reducing carbon cap on Virginia’s electricity generators, the Transportation and Climate Initiative would do the same to Virginia’s distributors of gasoline and diesel fuel. They would also need to buy carbon allowances to stay in business, costs ultimately passed to consumers.
It has barely been a year since Governor Ralph Northam’s administration announced it was adding Virginia to the TCI regional compact negotiations. RGGI is established but TCI is just getting off the ground, with the initial multi-state memorandum of understanding still being developed.
On October 1 a proposed TCI framework was released. The target date for imposing the carbon taxes on fuels is 2022, setting maximum allowance figures per state which will start to decline from there.
Careful readers will notice the TCI framework is devoid of data on what the starting allowance for Virginia emissions from transportation fuels might be, how steeply those caps would decline, and what prices might be imposed in the allowance trading scheme that will make the system work more smoothly. But on examination it is simply the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative for cars and other vehicles, with enforcement focused on fuel wholesalers rather than electricity generators.
After all, other fuel taxes are collected at the wholesale terminal, or “at the rack,” so it makes sense to collect this one from distributors, as well.
With the proposed carbon tax on fossil fuels for electricity, Virginians have received an independent consumer cost analysis from the State Corporation Commission charged with regulating that industry. Now that the proposed TCI framework is out for public comment until November 5, some impact projections may surface. But they will be guesses, because the gap between allowed supply and consumer demand will drive the allowance price, and TCI hasn’t set the allowances.
Comments on the framework are being welcomed through an on-line portal. There is enough detail in the framework and an earlier Georgetown University Climate Center report that comments should come flooding in, unless this process remains below the radar screen with affected citizens and businesses. It might not just be about gasoline, diesel and vehicles on highways.
While most of the high-level discussion focuses on the most common motor fuels, the underlying Georgetown research extended to aviation fuels, E85 blend, propane and compressed natural gas used in vehicles. It also examines heating oil, a much more common commodity in the northeastern states than in Virginia. The shrinking cap on fuel sales, reinforced with a growing allowance price, could impact the fuels for farming, landscaping and other off-the-road uses such as manufacturing. All CO2 from fuel is equal in regulators eyes.
Two things about the framework document betray that large sums of money will change hands.
First, there is a strong rhetorical emphasis across the process on equity and social justice. Just as with electricity, transportation costs take a larger share of income from lower-income families. The organizers stress the need to relieve that burden, or to use the funds collected through the allowance process to provide additional transportation options.
The second giveaway is the constant discussion of “proceeds” and how they will be used by the various states involved. This is from the framework document, with emphasis added:
“Each TCI jurisdiction has different transportation needs and unique authorities; therefore, each jurisdiction would independently decide how proceeds are invested to achieve carbon emission reductions and other policy goals—like improved air quality and more affordable access to transportation. Additionally, jurisdictions may identify shared priorities for investment of proceeds including to maximize the efficiency of the regional program and to ensure greater benefits. TCI jurisdictions are committed to equity and meaningful community engagement when making new investment decisions and conducting program review….”
The phrase “carbon tax” is carefully avoided, just as it is avoided by advocates for Virginia’s membership in the RGGI compact on electricity generation. But those concerned about CO2 and its potential impact on global climate have long advocated a carbon tax, a welcome admission that taxation does change human behavior. Higher costs for gasoline and diesel create incentives to switch to electric vehicles, or at least the most efficient combustion engines. The cap and trade process works.
The process works best when states do not try to go it alone. The other TCI participating states are Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and Vermont. With Pennsylvania’s recent announcement it will join RGGI, the alignment between the two compacts is complete – from Cumberland Gap to Canada.

E-Mail this author

Posted in Energy | 1 Comment

How One Man is Leading the Fight for School Choice in Richmond

Posted on October 8, 2019 by matt ohern
Share this article on:

By Lindsey M. Burke
Although he is facing steep opposition from the school board in the city, Green has mobilized parents around Richmond who are supportive of his fight to bring more quality education options to an area that desperately needs them.
That fight may not be easy, however. Jason Kamras, the superintendent of Richmond Public Schools, said he’s “100% committed to ensuring that [Richmond Public Schools] remains a traditional public school system.” I interviewed Green, president of the Richmond Urban Collective, to learn more about his efforts to increase the charter school supply in Virginia.
Lindsey Burke: Tell me about the education options currently available to elementary, middle, and secondary students in Richmond. Do charter school options exist?
Antione Green: Our city school system currently has what is called an “open-enrollment process,” where families can enroll in out-of-zone schools, based on seat availability at the desired schools.
On the high school level, we have an academically selective process for students to apply for our magnet schools and governor schools.
Yes, we have one independently created charter school, Patrick Henry School of Science and Arts, and a district-incubated charter to serve students with special needs.
In addition, our school system contracts with a private company to operate an alternative school for select students.
Burke: Is there a need for additional education options in Richmond? What are outcomes like for students assigned to traditional district schools in the city?
Green: We currently have no middle school performing proficiently or meeting state accreditation standards.
In addition, we have the lowest-performing high schools in the state, as well as the lowest graduation rates. As a result, many parents have chosen to disenroll their children and seek schooling elsewhere.
Consequently, it negatively impacts our tax base and our ability to preserve a middle class here in our city. Our goal is to create high-quality options for parents and help keep families here in the city.
Burke: As you’ve begun your journey to open a school of your own in Richmond, I’m sure you’ve had the chance to speak with many parents about what they’re looking for in a school. What do you hear most often from families? What is most important to them when they engage in the school selection process?
Green: Yes, we have met many parents on our campaign to win school support. Many are looking for a school that can ensure their children, post-high school, are equipped with real-world skills.
What’s most important to many of them is that their children have an opportunity to attend a school that matches their learning style with a customized instructional approach and can prepare them to be lifelong critical thinkers.
Burke: What is unique about the model of the Richmond Urban Collective?
Green: What’s unique about our model is, first, we will be the first single-gender public school in Virginia.
Secondly, we will operate on a year-round school calendar, as well as extended school days.
Thirdly, we will also employ a unique instructional approach using digital resources to enhance the academic experience.
Lastly, recognizing the importance of highly effective teachers to student performance, our teachers will have access to high-quality one-on-one coaches for the purpose of enhancing the delivery of high-quality instruction to our students.
Burke: One day, when the school is operational, what do you hope prospective students leave equipped with?
Green: To ultimately contribute to reversing the dismal performance and statistics long associated with our city high schools.
Beyond high school, I want our former students to be able to contribute to the future of our country as economically free thinkers. Period.
Lindsey Burke researches and writes on federal and state education issues as the Will Skillman fellow in education policy at The Heritage Foundation. This interview originally appeared in the October 2, 2019 edition of The Daily Signal.

Posted in Education | 1 Comment