Mr. Johnson #2 - Politics at the State Level

The next few questions had to do with Mr. Johnson's agenda specifically dealing with the implementation on the local and/or state level. In order to discuss this, Mr. Johnson first gave me a short review of the state government structure which I will now relay to you.

Every state, except Nebraska, has a mirror replica of the federal government. Nebraska, however, has adopted a unicameral Congress, since ultimately, the power to establish the state governments is Constitutionally left to the states. In most states, Congress is divided into a Lower and Upper House, rather than using the conventional terms of Senate and House. In Texas, however, we mirror the federal terminology of Congress as well. There are 31 Senators and 150 Representatives in Austin, one of the largest state government's in the entire nation.

Texas mimics the federal government in other patterns as well. The House must be the first to adopt a budget plan, and the Governor must sign the budget deal in order for it to go in effect. The budget primarily oversees all state agencies, such as the State Department of Health and Human Services, the Texas Department of Transportation, and other similar agencies, along with the public universities such as Texas A&M.

In Texas, the government is in session in Austin every other year, or every odd year to be more precise. The session is from January to May, and after 140 days, the session must end no matter at what point they are or how much they have accomplished. This structure was put in place to limit the amount of action state governments could take. The only way to extend the session, which does frequently happen, is if the governor calls a special session which can only be done for specific issues. These sessions last for 20 days extra at a time. Because of the time limits, Texas Congress is generally inefficient at acting until the last two months of session, when the political pressure truly piles on.

In the off-session period, Congressmen and women will receive assignments in a Standing Committee, AKA an Interim Charge. In these committees, a Congressperson will receive a specific issue on which they will spend their interim time studying and detailing out, so that when Congress is back in session in two years, they will be able to present on it. They are not allowed to study or draw bills external to their assigned issue. These committees occur essentially during the even years, when Congress is not in session.

Although state governments have many responsibilities at their respective level, many citizens will frequently ask about an issue that is out of their politicians reach - for example, health care, which is primarily a federal legislation, is something that states will have little control over (provided that the opt-out provision does not pass, as I explained earlier this week). Although it is still out of his jurisdiction, if Mr. Johnson is elected, he will still be responsible for properly directing individuals to the correct office for dealing with the health care issue. He cannot simply push them away, and sometimes, he may even be forced to help that individual with their form process.

Got Reid? Get Real.

In a recent news release on Capitol Hill, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D, Nevada) has opined his strong support for the public option as it makes its way back into discussions surrounding the Senate bill. His use of rhetoric is undoubtedly skillful, but there remains large skepticism about the truth behind his claims - namely, whether the public option can, in fact, force competition and accountability by the private health insurance industry. It seems fundamentally the opposite. Shouldn't government "take-overs" of any private market actually serve to undermine competition? After all, the government functions for the word of politicians, not to fill any profit margins. Shouldn't the fact that Amtrak and UPS - both government entities of a generally private sector of the economy - were, for the most part, utter failures lend credence to anyone who opposes the public option?

This isn't to say that there aren't actually valid justifications for a single-payer health care system. Yet, most of these advantages lay uncovered, and with the major non partisan governmental body (namely, the Congressional Budget Office) showing unwavering skepticism to Obama's agenda, the bar has been raised for the liberals in Congress. Mr. Hoff, of the Heritage Foundation, expresses the point with utter clarity:

Advocates of the government insurance plan assure us that it would compete with private insurers on a level playing field. In reality, the "competition" would be rigged, with the government plan enjoying a number of advantages.As a result, the government plan would likely capture a large percentage of the insurance market, marginalizing and undermining private insurance. For example, the Lewin Group estimates that the America's Affordable Health Choices Act,[2] the health reform bill currently under consideration in the House of Representatives, would reduce the number of Americans with private insurance by 83.4 million and that the new public plan would cover 103.4 million people.[3] Coupled with the federal regulatory system that the legislation would impose on the remaining private plans, this would clearly by itself constitute a government takeover of health care.Even worse, the federal takeover would accelerate. The private plans' relatively small market share would likely render them increasingly uneconomical and lead to a death spiral in which private insurance would serve an ever-decreasing share of the market.

Mr. Hoff continues:

It is unclear whether the government plan would be subject to a number of requirements that the private plans would be required to meet. It would appear to give the HHS Secretary and the Health Choices Commissioner the discretion to decide these ambiguities in favor of the government plan and to find that various requirements do not apply to the government plan because of its overriding mission to offer a low-cost plan. However, even without including these potential advantages,the government plan would clearly be free of a number of requirements and expenses that private plans face.

Doesn't it strike you as odd? How can a bureaucratic organization claim to be on an even playing field with other private insurance corporations when it has the power to regulate and define vital concepts that implicate the entire industry? What democrats fail to see is that any game where the players are the referees is doomed to an inevitable fate of corruption.

Is it worth it?

It was thought that The Congressional Budget Office drove a stake in the heart of Obama's plans for health care reform when they announced the trillion dollar price-tag to the legislation earlier in 2009. Recently, Obama has gotten back on his feet and has arrived at a major milestone by getting a version of the legislation to pass the Senate Finance Committee. However, new questions are popping up regarding Obama's signature agenda item - and by no one other than the Congressional Budget Office itself. Apparently, not only would the Senate draft cost near a trillion dollars, but it would still leave a majority of the low-income population without health insurance, according to a recent USA Today article:

The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office estimates 17 million Americans would remain uninsured under the Senate Finance Committee's 10-year, $829 billion health care bill. Health experts such as Rowland say that number would include families who earn too much to qualify for Medicaid but not enough to pay for insurance.

The expanding budget deficit does not seem to be a major issue for a president so adamantly tied to Keynesian economics. The question Americans should be asking themselves right now is, are 10 out of 27 million Americans who are uninsured worth another trillion dollars worth of treasury bonds?