Three Fish Limit

A Platform for Pundits, Prognosticators, Pragmatists and Proselytizers

House’s 1,990-Page, $2.2 Million-a-Word Bill is Long on Tricks, Short on Treats

From NAHU -

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) released a revised version of health care reform legislation on Thursday. The 1,990-page measure, now known as H.R. 3962, includes a government-run public plan option to be offered through a national health insurance exchange that would negotiate rates with providers. However, the plan would initially be financed with public money and would not have to pay taxes and maintain solvency standards like private insurers. The Congressional Budget Office has provided a preliminary estimate that the bill will cost $894 billion over a 10-year period. The Joint Committee on Taxation has also prepared a fiscal analysis.

One of the few points of the bill NAHU views as positive is the retention of language that NAHU worked tirelessly with Blue Dog Democrats to advance during the committee process that specifically ensures the role of licensed health insurance agents and brokers in the national exchange. The simple language states “Nothing in this division shall be construed to affect the role of enrollment agents and brokers under state law, including with regard to the enrollment of individuals and employers in qualified health benefits plans including the public health insurance option.”

Unfortunately, the new bill also includes a provision that we are extremely concerned about, granting authority to the exchange’s commissioner, in consultation with the Small Business Administration, to include within the exchange the following services: “Educational activities to increase awareness of the Health Insurance Exchange and available small-employer health plan options; distribution of information to small employers with respect to the enrollment and selection process for health plans available under the Health Insurance Exchange, including standardized comparative information on the health plans available under the Health Insurance Exchange; distribution of information to small employers with respect to available affordability credits or other financial assistance; referrals to appropriate entities of complaints and questions relating to the Health Insurance Exchange; enrollment and plan selection assistance for employers with respect to the Health Insurance Exchange; and responses to questions relating to the Health Insurance Exchange.”

Other troubling aspects of the new bill include:

  • Market reforms that include modified community rating for all groups that do not self-fund limited to age bands of 2:1, geography and family composition. In addition, all such plans will be guaranteed issue, no preexisting condition limitations, out-of-pocket caps at $5,000/$10,000 and no lifetime or annual limits. Individuals that keep their exact same policy with no changes at all can be grandfathered indefinitely, but group coverage must convert to the new standards within five years.
  • A mandate requiring employers to pay 72.5% of the cost of acceptable coverage for individuals and 65% for family coverage, and part-time employees must be covered on a prorated basis based on average hours worked. In lieu of paying for coverage, the measure creates a “pay or play” option allowing the employer to pay eight percent of wages, but that fine goes to the federal treasury and would not benefit the non-covered employees. Small employers with annual payroll up to $500,000 will be exempt from the requirement and the fines would phase in for employers with payrolls between $500,000 and $750,000.
  • The creation of a new national purchasing pool-based exchange where people can purchase private coverage and the public option. The exchange starts by allowing small employers and individuals without employer-sponsored coverage to purchase in the pool, but eventually any size employer may be allowed to buy coverage through the exchange, meaning that the bill does not adhere to the promise that the public plan is limited to a small population.
  • The inclusion of a very rich essential benefit package with 70% the minimum actuarial value allowed for purchase.
  • An individual mandate enforced solely through an income tax penalty of the lesser of 2.5% of income or an average premium in the exchange. Individuals with incomes below the tax filing standard are exempt and may also apply for hardship waivers.
  • Sliding-scale subsidies available in the exchange for people with family incomes of up to 400% of the Federal Poverty Level (over $80K annually for a family of four) and very limited business tax credits for the smallest of companies with low-income wage earners.
  • A dramatic expansion of Medicaid to all legal residents with incomes up to 150% FPL. CHIP beneficiaries will either be folded into Medicaid or be eligible for subsidized coverage through the exchange based on family income.
  • Pay-fors that include a 5.4% income tax surcharge on Americans with adjusted gross incomes in excess of $500,000, a limitation that over-the-counter prescription drugs may not be reimbursed through FSAs, an increase on  the tax on distributions from a Health Savings Account that are not used for qualified medical expenses to 20% (from 10%), the elimination of the deduction for employer-sponsored retiree prescription drug plans, a tax on medical devices and significant cuts to the Medicare Advantage program.

Other interesting provisions include grants for the creation of cooperatives (co-ops), a temporary national high-risk pool and interstate compacts to sell coverage across state lines. Relative to medical malpractice, there is language that provides for early offers and certificate of merit demonstration projects and language to clarify that practice guidelines are not considered to be evidence of the standard of care owed by a health care provider. NAHU is still is in the process of conducting a detailed analysis, and will release more information about the measure over the next week.

It is expected that the vote on this measure on the House floor will come extremely quickly, as soon as next Thursday or Friday. The release on October 29 gives the Democratic leadership three days to post the legislation online and another three days to post a final manager’s amendment by the Democratic leadership on the Rules Committee’s website. That amendment is expected to address concerns about the bill that arise as members wade through it over the weekend. Majority Leader Steny Hoyer has stated that the manager’s amendment could be made publicly available as soon as Monday.

More resources available on the bill include the following:

Filed under: Uncategorized

Weekly Market Commentary Week of October 26, 2009

What do Caterpillar, Netflix, Apple and Microsoft have in common? They all posted quarterly earnings last week that exceeded analyst expectations—and they are not alone.

We are about one-third of the way into the quarterly earnings season and a remarkable 78% of the S&P 500 companies have delivered a positive earnings surprise, according to HSBC as reported in Financial Times. Only 12% have missed to the downside. The huge stock market surge since March has foreshadowed these strong results and companies are delivering.

Generally speaking, the better-than-expected earnings are still being driven by lower expenses rather than higher revenue. For the stock market to continue its meteoric rise, investors want to see year-over-year revenue growth—not just more cost cutting.

The next big test for the markets may be the upcoming Holiday shopping season. If consumers shake off their frugality and spend freely, that could pump up corporate earnings into next year and keep this rally roaring. So this year, your gift purchases may deliver a double benefit—a big smile to the gift recipient and a big smile to you in the form of higher stock prices.

Data as of 10/23/09
1-Week
Y-T-D
1-Year
3-Year
5-Year
10-Year
Standard & Poor’s 500 (Domestic Stocks)
-0.7%
19.5%
23.1%
-7.8%
-0.3%
-1.8%
DJ Global ex US (Foreign Stocks)
0.1
39.7
44.3
-3.5
5.9
2.1
10-year Treasury Note (Yield Only)
3.5
N/A
3.5
4.8
4.0
6.2
Gold (per ounce)
1.3
22.0
47.4
22.1
19.9
13.4
DJ-UBS Commodity Index
2.2
17.1
6.0
-6.2
-2.7
4.2
DJ Equity All REIT TR Index
0.3
16.1
15.2
-13.9
0.7
10.1

PRETEND YOU ARE ON A GAME SHOW WITH MONTY HALL and he offers you the following scenario as described in a 2003 article from the Journal of Experimental Psychology.
You face three doors and behind one door is a car, while the other two hide goats. Your goal is to pick the door that hides the car. Here are the rules. First, the car and the goats were placed randomly behind the doors. Second, after you choose a door, the door remains closed for now. Third, Monty knows what is behind each door. Fourth, he has to open one of the two remaining doors. Fifth, the door he opens must have a goat behind it. Sixth, if both remaining doors have goats behind them, he chooses one randomly.

After Monty opens a door with a goat, he will ask you to decide whether you want to stay with your first choice or switch to the last remaining door. Pretend you chose Door 1 and Monty opens Door 3 containing a goat. With only Doors 1 and 2 remaining—one of which contains a car—he asks you, “Do you want to switch to Door 2?”

From a probability standpoint, are you more likely to win the car by staying with your original choice of Door 1, switching to Door 2, or does it make any difference at all if you stay or switch? Before reading further, think of your answer then return to the next paragraph.

As you contemplated your answer, you may have reasoned that since one of the two remaining doors contains the car, you have a 50/50 chance of winning, so there is no need to switch. That may sound reasonable, but it is not correct. Presented with this three-door scenario, you should always switch, in fact, by switching, you have a 2/3 probability of picking the car.

Here’s the explanation, according to Michael Shermer writing in the February 2009 issue of Scientific American.

At the beginning of the game you have a 1/3 chance of picking the car and a 2/3 chance of picking a goat. Switching doors is bad only if you initially chose the car, which happens only 1/3 of the time. Switching doors is good if you initially chose a goat, which happens 2/3 of the time. Thus, the probability of winning by switching is 2/3, or double the odds of not switching.

Over countless studies using this “Monty Hall” problem, the vast majority of participants think that staying and switching are equally good alternatives. So, if you are in that camp, you have lots of company.

For investors, the fact that the majority of people who take the “Monty Hall Challenge” get it wrong suggests that there may be times when the majority of investors are “wrong,” too. At crucial turning points in the stock market, when there is evidence to support two opposite directions for the major averages, the majority of investors may “misread” the data (as in the Monty Hall Challenge) and draw a conclusion that subsequently turns out to be incorrect. While we will not always be “smarter” than the crowd, we do realize that, like the Monty Hall problem, the crowd is not always right. And because of our open mind, our willingness to think differently, we are constantly scanning for opportunities or turning points that may be overlooked by the crowd.

Sidebar: Are you still shaking your head about the answer to the “Monty Hall” problem? Here’s another way to look at it from mathforum.org.

What if there were 1,000 doors? You would initially have a 1/1,000 chance of picking the correct door. If Monty opens 998 doors, all of them with goats behind them, the door that you chose first will still have a 1/1,000 chance of being the one that conceals the car, but the other remaining door will have a 999/1,000 probability of being the door that is concealing the car. Here switching sounds like a pretty good idea.

Weekly Focus – Think About It

“How wonderful that we have met with a paradox. Now we have some hope of making progress.”
–Niels Bohr

Best regards,

The Advisory Team at
The Wealth Consulting Group

Filed under: Uncategorized

Evan Williams @ Web 2.0 Summit

Filed under: Uncategorized

Sir Tim @ Web 2.0 Summit

Filed under: Uncategorized

Brooke Burke @ Web 2.0 Summit

Filed under: Uncategorized

Imogene Heap @ TedTalks

Filed under: Uncategorized

Can You Time-Travel? | LiveScience.com

Filed under: Uncategorized

Why Do Some People See Ghosts While Others Don’t? – pseudo-science – io9

Filed under: Uncategorized

Sushi People Attack the LucasFilm Halloween Party

Filed under: Uncategorized

Present Like Steve Jobs

Filed under: Uncategorized

The Most Influential Business Thinkers – Forbes.com

Filed under: Uncategorized

What is That? A Sparrow!

Filed under: Uncategorized

Heather Graham – Public Option

Filed under: Uncategorized

Andrew Lloyd Webber in hospital – Variety

Filed under: Uncategorized

Go Into The Story: “13 Things Bad Screenwriters Commonly Do”

Filed under: Uncategorized

Why antidepressants don’t work for everyone | Machines Like Us

Filed under: Uncategorized

Cleanliness May Foster Morality | LiveScience

Filed under: Uncategorized

Fox Animation Studios’ president started out as an intern — latimes.com

Filed under: Uncategorized

Washington Post Crashed-and-Burned-and-Smoking Watch – J. Bradford DeLong’s Grasping Reality with All Eight Tentacles

Filed under: Uncategorized

Stop Trying To Get Rich! – Forbes.com

Filed under: Uncategorized

Live Life Large . . .or not

Inspiration without action is mere entertainment.

Eclectic Buzz @ Twitter

Blatant Capitalist Ploy For Your Business

For All Your Family Life Needs: College Planning, Group or Individual Health, Life, Disability Income, Long Term Care Insurance, as well as 401(K) plans and estate planning - Call 702.513.0440. www.teddecorte.com

College Funding Coaches

We used College Funding Coaches and now we have partnered with them. We HIGHLY recommend them! For All Your College Planning needs. Call 702.513.0440. www.teddecorte.com

A PLATFORM FOR PUNDITS, PROGNOSTICATORS, PRAGMATISTS & PROSELYTIZERS

"If You Are Not At The Table, You Are On The Menu!"

NAMASTÉ – (Na-ma-stay)

A Sanskrit word used as a salutation or blessing. Can be translated as "the divine in me honors and blesses the divine in you, in truth, we are one, the I AM

Zane Grey Cabin – No AZ

Blog Stats

  • 9,687 hits