Insurance hikes coming, fixes not

By Steve Brawner
© 2016 by Steve Brawner Communications, Inc.

It’s hard to feel sympathy for a giant health insurance company, but Blue Cross and others will try next year to generate at least some understanding from state legislators, and they’ll probably succeed.

They’ll be doing this after the Arkansas Insurance Department last month required them to lower the rate increases they had requested. Those rates are for private individuals who buy their own insurance or have it bought for them through the state’s private option.

Arkansas Blue Cross Blue Shield asked for a 14.7 percent increase for its 213,955 individual consumers. The state told it to drop the request to 9.7 percent, which it did under protest. In a letter to Insurance Commissioner Allen Kerr, Blue Cross Senior Vice President Lee Douglass noted that the Insurance Department’s own private consulting firm had said the company’s request “appears actuarially reasonable” based on the increasing costs of health care. The company’s reserves have been decreasing for the past three years to $1,265 per insured member by the end of 2015 – not enough to pay for a day of inpatient hospital care.

Douglass added this: “We also believe it is important to increase our efforts and resources so all members of the General Assembly are informed of the costs and issues associated with our state’s health care needs as well as any deficiencies in the filing process.”

Which means Blue Cross will be actively working the halls of the State Capitol looking for allies. It no doubt will be joined by the state’s other health insurers, who also were told to lower their rate requests. Qualchoice had asked for increases of about 24 percent and was told to lop off 10 points. Ambetter asked for 8.1 percent and was approved for 4 percent.

This is the part where you’re going to want me to blame someone, and this being Arkansas, that someone probably is President Obama. The reality is more complicated than that.

Without a doubt, the Affordable Care Act, otherwise known as Obamacare, is part of the reason for the increasing rates. The law required insurance companies to stop turning away sick people, and that’s who in large part is signing up for insurance. Sick people cost a lot to insure, especially when their ailments have been building up for a while, and many of the young, healthy people needed to offset that cost have opted to pay the fine rather than pay more for health insurance.

Furthermore, the Affordable Care Act does not allow for the creation of bare bones health insurance plans that cover only the major illnesses, and it doesn’t give states enough flexibility to experiment with ideas that could lower costs.

On the other hand, other factors are at play – particularly the rising prices of specialty drugs that are wonderful and life-saving and very, very expensive. Long-term trends such as the nation’s aging, overweight population are major contributors to rising costs as well.

The truth is that America’s health care system was unsustainable before Obamacare, and it’s unsustainable now. Obamacare made some things better and some things worse, but it did not create the cost problem, nor solve it. The law’s opponents never solved that problem when they were in power, either.

We can’t just “repeal Obamacare” because it’s now the health care system we live under, and just getting rid of it would be too disruptive for everyone. Besides, who would want to go back to the days when insurance companies turned away patients because of pre-existing conditions or dropped coverage when their illnesses became too expensive?

What should happen now is that policymakers should try to fix the system, calling it whatever they must. They should do next year what they should have done in 2009 – engage in a multi-year, bipartisan process that addresses access and cost. A solution should be created that includes ideas and buy-in from Democrats, Republicans, the medical community, insurers like Blue Cross, and average Americans. And then we should try to make it work rather than half of us trying to make it fail.

Unfortunately, America’s political system is too unhealthy to engage in that kind of productive advancement. So next year, at the state level, the insurance companies will ask for higher rates that probably are justified, and they probably will succeed because that’s the kind of “fix” the political system can handle.

And bigger, bipartisan solutions? Those will probably have to wait until the system is healthier – someday.

Polls a snapshot; big trends favor Clinton

Elections aheadBy Steve Brawner
© 2016 by Steve Brawner Communications, Inc.

Get ready to see a lot of polls in the coming months. One of the latest by Fox News has the presidential race the closest it’s been in a while: Hillary Clinton leads Donald Trump, 48-42 percent and by only two points, 41-39, when the Libertarian and Green Party candidates are included. Another poll by Suffolk University and USA Today has Clinton up by seven points in both a two-person and four-person race.

Even the best of polls is a snapshot of a given moment. Public opinion can shift a few points in either direction based on the latest news or maybe whatever phase the moon is in. But certain realities – particularly the Electoral College and the Democrats’ demographic advantages – won’t change, and those are better predictors of what will happen in November.

The constitutional realty is that presidents are not elected through a national election but through 51 separate elections in the states and Washington, D.C., with the winner chosen by the Electoral College. There, the numbers currently work in the Democrats’ favor, as noted by national political analyst Charlie Cook in a speech to economic developers in Little Rock Monday. Eighteen states with 242 Electoral College votes have voted for the Democrat in each of the last last six elections. If Clinton holds those blue states, she only needs 28 votes elsewhere.

In contrast, only 13 states with 103 votes have been so solidly Republican, though others are leaning that direction. Arkansas, for example, has voted Republican in the last four elections after choosing favorite son Bill Clinton in 1992 and 1996, but it’s not likely to treat Hillary Clinton as a favorite daughter. Still, the Electoral College math means Republicans must win almost every swing state.

Meanwhile, Republicans face the reality that the nation’s demographics are changing. As Cook noted, the electorate that was 87 percent white in 1992 will be about 70 percent white this year, which means Republicans do best among the part of the population that is shrinking as a percentage. In 2012, 93 percent of African-Americans and 71 percent of Hispanics voted for President Obama, according to an analysis by the Washington Post. Those numbers are not likely to improve for Republicans this year – not with Trump at the top of the ticket.

Meanwhile, Democrats are leading among the demographic group that will compose future electorates: young people. In a recent Pew Research Center survey, Clinton led among voters ages 18-29 with 47 percent of the vote. Trump had only 21 percent of that group’s vote – less even than the Libertarian candidate, former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson, who had 22 percent support.

Republicans are counting on the fact that those young voters will become more conservative as they grow older and start paying property taxes on their Buicks, and no doubt some will change their views. But 47-21 percent is a big lead.

So Clinton has an advantage in areas that won’t change in the next two months: the Electoral College and the nation’s demographic realities.

But elections are just a poll taken in November, which means they can be determined by temporary things. As Cook noted, both Clinton and Trump have such high negative ratings that neither will ever gain a huge advantage. (“If Republicans had nominated a potted plant, they’d have had a pretty good chance to win,” he said.) A terrorist attack, an economic dip or a Clinton scandal could turn the election.

Also, Clinton, who has been playing the game better than Trump, could start playing it worse. She could lose the debates. While he was meeting with the president of Mexico, she has been hiding out, avoiding the press and raising money from rich donors – in other words, as others have pointed out, playing the “prevent defense” that never seems to work in football. Finally, let’s not overlook the importance of third party candidates, who can really mess with the numbers.

Democrats have won four of the last six elections and the popular vote in five of them. Cook expects Clinton to continue that trend, winning comfortably but not overwhelmingly by 3-5 points. He thinks Republicans won’t solve their big problems yet, but Democrats will overreach and the pendulum will swing back.

Parties are made of people, after all, and people make mistakes, sometimes learn from them, and then make new ones. Poll results may change, but human nature doesn’t.

Clintons’ post-presidency changes the deal

By Steve Brawner
© 2016 by Steve Brawner Communications, Inc.

One of the problems with the Clintons’ post-presidential activities is that they mess with the deal the United States makes with its presidents.

That deal has always been this: You will perform the world’s most stressful job for four to eight years. You’ll be called upon to make life-and-death decisions that can affect millions of people around the world. The system limits your power, but many Americans will blame you for everything that goes wrong. The job will turn your hair gray. But when it’s over, you can cash in, get rich, and perform good works for the rest of your life.

Oh, and one more thing: You don’t get to come back. In fact, the 22nd Amendment, ratified in 1951, expressly forbids a president from serving in the White House past two terms.

It’s not a perfect deal because conflicts of interest still are possible. This time next year, President Obama, like other ex-presidents and other high-ranking government officials, likely will be charging hundreds of thousands of dollars per speech. Those future huge paydays could affect the decisions he makes while still in office.

But Americans tolerate that possibility because we try not to stand in the way of anybody getting rich, and because ex-presidents are really nice things to have. President Carter has built houses around the world with Habitat for Humanity and has led the fight to nearly eradicate Guinea worm disease. President George W. Bush’s work in Africa is an extension of his good work with that continent while in office. President Clinton has helped lower the cost of HIV/AIDS medication for millions of people worldwide.

And for Arkansas, it’s been an especially good deal. The Clinton Library has been a catalyst for developing a part of Little Rock that once was a sea of decaying warehouses. The Clinton School of Public Service offers the nation’s first master of public service degree and has brought to Little Rock hundreds of eager young future leaders, as well as many high-profile speakers. A few weeks ago, Presidents Clinton and Bush and former British Prime Minister Tony Blair appeared together at Little Rock’s Central High.

But remember the part about presidents not being allowed to come back? It’s unclear how it applies to the first spouse.

When Bill Clinton left office 16 years ago, Hillary Clinton was 53 years old and being elected to a seat in the United States Senate. It was no secret then that she wanted to be president, which she indeed tried to become in 2008. She then became secretary of state.

While all of this was happening, her husband was leading the Clinton Foundation, which the Associated Press reported has raised more than $2 billion since 2001 – including between $100,001 and $250,000 from Donald Trump.

Did donors lend their support because they really supported the foundation’s work, or was part of their motivation gaining access and influence with Hillary Clinton, who was still very much in power and potentially soon would have more?

The Associated Press has reported that 85 of the 154 private citizens with whom Clinton had meetings or phone conversations during the first half of her time as secretary of state had donated to the Clinton Foundation. She also met with 16 foreign governments who gave money to the foundation.

In response, the Clinton campaign said the AP “cherry-picked” from Clinton’s schedule and that she had 1,700 other meetings. The Clintons did not draw a salary from the foundation. Would it be better if those millions of people didn’t get cheaper AIDS drugs?

At the very least, there’s clearly the potential for people to try to buy access. Aware of how this looks, the Clintons have announced they’ll step away from the foundation if she is elected president, although daughter Chelsea will stay on the board – which means the family is still very much involved.

It’s not the kind of situation anticipated by the 22nd Amendment or by the American people. Regardless of what the Clintons do, the question remains: When the first spouse is still young and has a good chance of someday becoming president, does that change the deal?

One way to vote your conscience

Hand with ballot and boxBy Steve Brawner
© 2016 by Steve Brawner Communications, Inc.

You know how you’re always told that if you vote for a third party, you’re taking a vote from the major party candidate you’d otherwise support? Sam Husseini, a D.C.-based writer and activist, has a simple solution for that conundrum, “Vote Pact,” but it’s going to require a civil conversation with someone with whom you disagree politically.

The idea, basically, is to swap votes. Say you lean Republican but don’t want to vote for Donald Trump. You’re considering voting for the Libertarian, former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson, or independent candidate Evan McMullin, but you’re afraid not voting for Trump helps Hillary Clinton. Using the Vote Pact strategy, you team up with someone who feels pressured to vote for Clinton but would rather vote for the Green Party candidate, Jill Stein. Then you can both vote your conscience. Instead of voting for someone you don’t support, your Vote Pact took a vote from someone you completely oppose.

A group supporting Johnson is making the same argument and has created a structure, Balanced Rebellion, that will pair a Republican and a Democrat who both want to vote for Johnson.

Husseini starting pushing the idea in 2000, when the race between George Bush and Al Gore also featured two well-known third party candidates, Pat Buchanan and Ralph Nader. It didn’t gain much traction then. In later elections, the major parties produced relatively acceptable candidates while third parties didn’t produce many credible alternatives.

This year, Trump and Clinton have historically high unfavorable ratings, and some Americans are looking elsewhere. In Arkansas, six other candidates are on the ballot. But Husseini said voters are trapped by their own fears into voting for the lesser of two evils.

The idea resonates more in swing states than in Arkansas, where Trump seems all but certain to win the state’s six Electoral College votes.

Still, it’s not inconceivable that the race could at least become interesting here. Clinton, Arkansas’ former first lady, is competitive in some surprising states, including Georgia and Arizona. Evan McMullin, a traditional Republican, qualified for the Arkansas ballot Aug. 24 as the Better for America candidate, and he’ll pull votes from Trump, as will Johnson, who also pulls from Clinton. Two of the other candidates, the Constitution Party’s Darrell Castle and America’s Party co-founder Tom Hoefling, are also more conservative than Trump and could attract unhappy Republicans.

Nahh, Trump will win here.

Here’s the thing about the Vote Pact strategy: It requires participants to step out of their comfort zones. You know that old saying, “Never talk about politics in polite company”? Unfortunately, these days it’s, “Never talk about politics unless you’re sure the other person agrees with you, and then talk a lot about it.”

The structures of American society are sowing a lot of division these days. We have significant ideological, political, religious and regional differences anyway. These are heightened by the fact that we tend to live near, work alongside, and socialize with people who look like us, believe like us, and make roughly the same amount of money. Regardless of our political beliefs, it’s easy to find media outlets to reinforce our persuasions and paint others as foolish and ill-intentioned. Others therefore become aliens.

When we express our political opinions, it’s often in completely safe situations, or online, where old rules about civility and respect don’t seem to apply. There, political arguments are so ugly and pointless that we end up “unfriending” those with whom we disagree.

This creates a destructive cycle that entrenches our beliefs and makes us more extreme. Within a cocoon of like-minded individuals, in one conversation President Obama can go from being too liberal to being a communist to purposely helping the terrorists to win, with no one ever backtracking to him just being too liberal. In somebody else’s cocoon, Republicans become the mortal enemy.

Vote Pact creates an opportunity for civil discourse and transforms opponents into allies. The other voter is no longer part of the Left or Right. They’re just a fellow human being trying to vote their conscience. And we’re going to help them do that, while they help us.

Vote Pact won’t change this election’s outcome. But elections aren’t just about picking the winner in a two-person beauty contest, or “less ugly” contest. They’re about letting voters express their beliefs. The two-party, winner-take-all system pressures voters to compromise. With Vote Pact, they can vote with no regrets while bridging the gap with someone with different beliefs but the same desire for their vote to count.

Isn’t that better than another pointless online argument?

Teaching students to look behind the screens

Ella Beth Wengel, Gov. Asa Hutchinson's granddaughter, right, introduces Mattie Brawner to coding at an event at the Clinton Library.

Ella Beth Wengel, Gov. Asa Hutchinson’s granddaughter, introduces Mattie Brawner to coding at an event at the Clinton Library.

By Steve Brawner
© 2016 by Steve Brawner Communications, Inc.

Gov. Asa Hutchinson stood before the assembled students at the Benton High School auditorium and asked for a show of hands: How many were interested in a career in computer coding? What he described as a “smattering” raised their hands.

So then the 65-year-old governor proceeded to tell the teenagers why computers are important. Farmers use software to determine how much to water their crops, he said. Manufacturing is now done by robots controlled by computers. When he was an undersecretary at the Department of Homeland Security, computers predicted potential terrorist attacks at ports so millions of containers didn’t have to be searched one at a time. He also showed the students a code.org video featuring a bunch of old guys, including Bill Gates, 60, and Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg, 32, talking about coding. When he asked for another show of hands at the end of his presentation, more hands were raised.

Benton High was the first stop among several where the governor is encouraging students to take the computer science classes he and legislators now require schools to offer. He said afterwards that he is trying to help students understand “the connection between their technology that they live by, and how that technology comes about.”

Arkansas is the first state to teach computer science in every public high school, leading “Wired” magazine to publish an online article headlined, “So, Arkansas is leading the learn to code movement.” The idea came when Hutchinson was running for governor in 2014 and his 11-year-old granddaughter built a smartphone application for his campaign. Hutchinson pledged to require every high school in Arkansas to teach computer science and then signed it into law in 2015 after he was elected. Students taking the course receive a core math or science credit.

During the past school year, about 4,000 students took computer coding classes, many of them through the state’s online Virtual Academy because so few teachers were trained in coding. Meanwhile, the state spent $5 million partly to train teachers to give in-person instruction. At Benton High, 28 students are taking the class this year under teacher Lauren Roseberry, compared to the 15 who took the course last year online.

Meanwhile, Arkansas is on pace to be one of three states where every public school is connected to high-speed internet by July 2017.

At one time, Arkansas’ economic development strategy might best be described as “Come to the home of everyday low wages.” The state has attracted manufacturers because it doesn’t have much of a union presence. In the past, empty spec buildings were built so companies would have a place to land. And, of course, like all states Arkansas still generously pays companies to locate here through taxpayer-financed subsidies and tax credits.

Globalization and automation make all of that much less effective. At first, there was always someone overseas willing to work cheaper. Now, the factories are starting to come back to America, but not so many of the jobs; the people have been replaced by robots.

A coding job, meanwhile, requires only a computer, a high-speed internet connection (still a problem in some places in Arkansas), and a place to sit down – be that in an office, a coffee shop or a spare bedroom. State and local governments don’t have to build roads or rail spurs or worry about permits from the Environmental Protection Agency. Many startups get off the ground without requiring taxpayer-financed incentives.

Software developers earned a median wage of $100,690 in May 2015, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. According to code.org, there are currently 526,000 computing jobs open – 1,701 in Arkansas.

That’s where the jobs are – or a lot of them, anyway – not the 1950s factory work that’s never coming back no matter which presidential candidate Americans elect to re-negotiate those “unfair trade deals.”

Arkansas is a cheap place to live, and it has some nice scenery. The jobs will come here or, better yet, be created here, as long as the talent is available. How to create that talent? Encourage students to stop merely looking at their screens, and start exploring what’s behind them.