Emails, Impeachment & Pre-Election Polls

Before the Election on November 8th, I wanted to explore three more topics that still seem to be generating some “buzz” as we approach one full day until Election Day.  Since I just posted a piece three days ago on Obamacare in relation to the Trump evisceration of it, I am doing what is unusual here just because it is so close to E- Day.  Not that my opinion will change many votes, but perhaps some thoughts will emerge here that should at least be considered.
 

Hillary’s Emails

I have written about this before, sometime ago before things had heated up (see posting for (3/8/2015 and 8/23/2015).  Here is some of what I said from that latter post:   

“While I believe that it was not a good idea for Hillary to use a private server for her State Department-related email, I also recognize… that (it was not) unusual for high-ranking officials in State and other departments to do so.  There were protocols established in the State Department (and other departments) as to what could be used or discussed while using such servers, and what could not, but those protocols were not strictly enforced nor entirely clear.  There were even disagreements as to what should and should not be 'classified.' 

The point: there is no such thing as one unqualified definition across all of government that is determinant of what is considered "secret" or "classified" because it is difficult to determine the meaning of vague terms in those definitions.  But the Republicans continue to flail away hoping you will believe this fiction.”

Wikipedia has some helpful information in summary form regarding levels of classification.
"The United States government classifies information according to the degree which the unauthorized disclosure would damage national security.”

Top Secret
"Top Secret shall be applied to information, the unauthorized disclosure of which reasonably could be expected to cause exceptionally grave damage to the national security that the original classification authority is able to identify or describe." 
Secret
This is the second-highest classification. Information is classified Secret when its unauthorized disclosure would cause "serious damage" to national security.  Most information that is classified is held at the secret sensitivity level.
Confidential
This is the lowest classification level of information obtained by the government. It is defined as information that would "damage" national security if publicly disclosed, again, without the proper authorization.

Those now 'hyping' the situation are focused on what might in retrospect be classified as 'secret' but may not have been so classified at the time the emails were written.  What is being missed in this whole issue is of major importance:

Who determines if something in Hillary's emails might have been "reasonably expected to cause serious damage to national security" at the time they were written?  Not the Congress, although they can investigate and criticize all they want.  Not the President, although his State Department can determine if any of their rules were violated.  Certainly not the Republican candidate for President.  Not even the FBI – they only get to make the decision as to whether their investigation is conclusive enough to request that charges be brought against the perpetrator.

In the final analysis, the Courts get to decide whether there was a reasonable expectation that exposure of certain information in those emails at the time could have caused 'serious damage' to national security (except in the case of impeachment which is discussed below).

It is obvious from the reporting engaged in so far, there is nothing but hype, innuendo and inference governing this situation to attract voter attention and to make this story seem like something huge in implication, but to date, nothing substantiates that judgment or claim.  Let us now view Director Comey’s first letter to Congressional leaders in the context of the definitions from Wikipedia, leaving aside the names of committees to whom it was addressed:

October 28, 2016:

 Dear Messrs. Chairmen:
In previous congressional testimony, l referred to the fact that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) had completed its investigation of former Secretary Clinton's personal email server. Due to recent developments, I am writing to supplement my previous testimony.
In connection with an unrelated case, the FBI has learned of the existence of emails that appear to be pertinent to the investigation. I am writing to inform you that the investigative team briefed me on this yesterday, and I agreed that the FBI should take appropriate investigative steps designed to allow investigators to review these emails to determine whether they contain classified information, as well as to assess their importance to our investigation.
Although the FBI cannot yet assess whether or not this material may be significant, and I cannot predict how long it will take us to complete this additional work, I believe it is important to update your Committees about our efforts in light of my previous testimony.

Sincerely yours,
James B. Comey
Director

 “The ACLU released a statement noting that “As the second-highest ranked Justice Department official under John Ashcroft, Comey approved some of the worst abuses committed by the Bush administration. Specifically, the publicly available evidence indicates Comey signed off on enhanced interrogation techniques that constitute torture, including waterboarding.  
A Republican, Comey has donated about $10,000 to Republican candidates and organizations over the years, including $2,300 to John McCain in 2008 and $5,000 to Mitt Romney's 2012 campaign.”

I will leave the full-out conspiracy theories to Dr. Paul Krugman, who has tweeted some remarkable speculations about Comey’s motives.  For me, it is enough to know that Comey is a Republican who has been involved in the G.W. Bush administration, has donated to Republican candidates, and was appointed to the FBI Directorship by President Obama who has appointed other Republicans to prestigious positions (Gates at Defense) when he believed that such a display of bi-partisanship would help to produce good outcomes for the nation.  It has not done so.

I concur with the words of Eric Holder, immediate former Attorney General, who said just days ago that this was a serious breach of principles and policies that are currently in place at the Justice Department (which oversees the FBI as its investigatory arm).  He said this, in part:
 

“I am deeply concerned about FBI Director James B. Comey’s decision to write a vague letter to Congress about emails potentially connected to a matter of public, and political, interest. That decision was incorrect. It violated long-standing Justice Department policies and tradition. And it ran counter to guidance that I put in place four years ago laying out the proper way to conduct investigations during an election season. That guidance, which reinforced established policy, is still in effect and applies to the entire Justice Department — including the FBI.

“The department has a practice of not commenting on ongoing investigations. Indeed, except in exceptional circumstances, the department will not even acknowledge the existence of an investigation. The department also has a policy of not taking unnecessary action close in time to Election Day that might influence an election’s outcome. These rules have been followed during Republican and Democratic administrations. They aren’t designed to help any particular individual or to serve any political interest. Instead, they are intended to ensure that every investigation proceeds fairly and judiciously; to maintain the public trust in the department’s ability to do its job free of political influence; and to prevent investigations from unfairly or unintentionally casting public suspicion on public officials who have done nothing wrong.  Director Comey broke with these fundamental principles.”

And recently, MSN.com reported that “A bipartisan group of nearly 100 former federal prosecutors and senior Department of Justice officials, including Attorney General Eric Holder, signed a letter expressing concerns over FBI Director James Comey’s decision to inform Congress of new emails that may or may not be relevant to Hillary Clinton’s private email server.  ‘… his unprecedented decision to publicly comment on evidence in what may be an ongoing inquiry just eleven days before a presidential election leaves us both astonished and perplexed,’ said the signatories. 
“We cannot recall a prior instance where a senior Justice Department official — Republican or Democrat — has, on the eve of a major election, issued a public statement where the mere disclosure of information may impact the election’s outcome, yet the official acknowledges the information to be examined may not be significant or new’.”
 

Here is my main point about the latest attempts by Trump and his followers to denigrate and bring down Hillary Clinton with the help of this misuse of FBI investigatory power (in much the same vein as Director J. Edgar Hoover used to do, especially regarding the Kennedys whom he despised).

There are several very important principles involved in accusing people of crimes (‘Hillary is a Crook -- ‘Throw her in Jail’, which Trump promised to do if elected!)  This whole trumped-up charge that something crooked has occurred with her Emails is entirely unsubstantiated, to the extent that the FB I and Comey refused to recommend to the Justice Department that formal charges be brought against Clinton in a Court of Law.  Why? Because they knew they would have no “standing” before the Court. 
 
In his October 28^th letter to congressional leaders, Comey admits that the “FBI cannot yet assess whether or not this material may be significant.”  If that is so, he had no justification for writing that letter because there is no substantive evidence for re-opening the investigation, only speculation, and therefore an effect on the closed investigation does not exist.  That being the case, it is no wonder that Senate Minority Leader Reid and many congressional Democrats, as well as over a hundred federal prosecutors and members of the Justice Department (including Republicans) called for full disclosure of facts, and the possibility of charges against Comey of violating the Hatch Act that prohibits Public officials from influencing elections by using the powers of their office to do so.
Here is my take on the matter in relation to “standing” in the Courts:  nothing has been found in Hillary’s Emails to prove:

• malicious intent
• that harm has come to the nation because of any of these emails
• that any of the criteria for classification of secrets has been substantially violated
• No exceptionally grave damage to the national security has been caused by any of those emails
• No serious grave damage to the national security has ever been proven to exist because of any of her emails
• No damage whatsoever, even at the lowest levels of classification, has ever been proven to have occurred.
• Finally, regarding any kind of civil suit, there has been nothing to indicate that any personal harm has ever occurred to any individual because of her emails existing on a private server.
• Add to those criteria the fact that every citizen is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law and that every person has the right to a (speedy) trial by jury, and Donald Trump is caught on his own petard.

Now, of course, we have the inevitable second Comey letter to Congress as of Sunday, Nov. 6^th (with just one full day remaining before Election Day) that indicates, after thorough examination of those Emails on Weiner’s laptop, there is no evidence which would change the stance of the FB I in July:  they will not initiate charges against Hillary Clinton obviously because nothing of substance – nothing criminal – was found in those latest emails.  "Based on our review, we have not changed our conclusions that we expressed in July with respect to Secretary Clinton," he wrote.

Clinton spokesman Brian Fallon said the campaign never doubted that the new investigation would come to the same determination as the first did. "We were always confident nothing would cause the July decision to be revisited," Fallon tweeted. "Now Director Comey has confirmed it."

Sources told ABC News tonight that the new batch of emails contained duplicates the FBI had already reviewed and therefore did not contain new information that altered their initial findings. Agents were aided by computer programs that sorted through thousands of emails found on the laptop shared by Abedin and Weiner.
 

In my opinion, we have here not only an admission that the July stance is still operative, we have the second letter, by its very existence, confirming that the first letter was truly  interference by a federal agency in a Presidential election.  Nothing of substance that needed reporting to anyone was in the first letter, and the second letter simply confirmed that fact.  Interference is thus the only viable motive for the letter. Moreover, there was no reason for the FBI to have reported to Congress on a closed investigation until the moment when they uncovered new evidence, and had determined that charges would be advanced!  The mere existence of the new emails was not in any way an expansion of Comey’s testimony.  In light of the second letter, the first letter can only be seen as interference in this election.

Unfortunately, from much of the reporting on this incident, there appears to be a faction within the FBI that supports Trump while despising Hillary Clinton.  That small cabal may have pressured Comey to act as he did; we may never know for sure, although a (hopefully) Democratic Senate might want to hold some hearings of its own on this violation of protocol and policy by the FBI Director!

It is Donald Trump who is the larger problem here, just as he was with the “birther” allegations against Barak Obama.  He is a perverse liar and a user of innuendo, gossip, made up stories, and distorted principles of business.  His absolute need to belittle and besmirch all opponents -- to best and beat those he cannot fairly confront in debate, or those with whom he cannot compete in the realms of intellectual or business acumen.  This is a dangerous man, and an even more dangerous politician, because he is not above using the law to flout the laws and standards of justice in our democracy.  He is the epitome of a destroyer of democratic principles.

Equally striking, is his ability to rail against someone else’s flaws and mistakes, and negligence or even crookedness when he is doing or has done the same exact thing.  Take the example of Emails that are destroyed after an official notice has been served to gain access to them.  Now we learn that Trump and his company have done the exact same thing when he was being investigated for alleged wrong-doing in his business.  And, it has happened more than once (revealed in a recent story in NEWSWEEK)!  Such duplicity and hypocrisy are stock-in-trade for this man.

From my humble Blog, I challenge this faker, this con man, this duplicitous hypocrite to arrange for a suit against Hillary Clinton for whatever he believes is criminal behavior; to do any less is tantamount to neglecting his civic duty and abetting criminal behavior by not acting.  In fact, if he knows of any evidence that would prove criminality, he is committing an unlawful act of withholding evidence.  He should figure some way to take her to court now and prove to the American people that he is not just a bag of wind; that he will act on his word.  Do it now, on a fast track before the election, so that the Court can tell you what I hope the intelligent voters will tell you on November 8^th: 

YOUR UNSUBSTANTIATED WORDS HAVE NO STANDING IN A COURT OF LAW and HOPEFULLY NO STANDING WITH MOST OF THE ELECTORATE AND CERTAINLY NOT WITH THE ELECTORS of the ELECTORAL COLLEGE!

IMPEACHMENT? 

Donald Trump has called for Hillary’s impeachment, and even predicted that it would happen when the Department of Justice finally indicts her for crimes involving her Emails, or Ben Ghazi, or something yet to be discovered.

First, no impeachable offense has been found that even fits the definition of “conviction of Treason, Bribery, or other high crimes and Misdemeanors.”  It might well be possible to convince a radical Right-ruled House to impeach; that is, to form a bill of charges for whatever they think President Hillary Clinton has done that is impeachable in their eyes.  But conviction on any of those listed charges in the Senate is another whole story.  Bill Clinton and Andrew Johnson were both impeached by the House, but not convicted by the Senate.  Revenge and political “gotcha” are apparently not good enough reasons for a conviction.  However, the hateful climate created by Donald Trump could well infect a Republican-retained Senate and result in a poorly conceived conviction. 

BUT wait just a minute:  isn’t there still a question to be raised about timing?  Has that issue ever been entirely settled?  Can a sitting President have charges brought against him/her because of some wrong-doing performed before they held the office of President?  I would argue in the negative: the charges would have no relation to the office of President since whatever “crime” was committed before the oath of office was taken, means that the person was not President.  Secondly, I would argue that, in such an instance, the articles of impeachment formulated by the House of Representatives would constitute a legislative act, and the Constitution specifically states: “No … ex-post facto Law shall be passed.” An ex post facto law is defined in the legal freeddictionary.com as:

“Latin, "After-the-fact" laws.] Laws that provide for the infliction of punishment upon a person for some prior act that, at the time it was committed, was not illegal.  Ex post facto laws (also) retroactively change the rules of evidence in a criminal case, retroactively alter the definition of a crime, retroactively increase the punishment for a criminal act, or punish conduct that was legal when committed. They are prohibited by Article I, Section 10, Clause 1, of the U.S. Constitution. An ex post facto law is considered a hallmark of tyranny because it deprives people of a sense of what behavior will or will not be punished and allows for random punishment at the whim of those in power.” 

Since there are several definitions that fit numerous circumstances, I would depend on the definitions that imply punishment that does not fit the crime or that brings a punishment for something that was not illegal at the time committed; in this sense – the punishment of impeachment and loss of office as well as prohibition from ever holding civil office again could be argued to be an increase of punishment for certain questionable crimes such as deleting private Emails.  Or, it could be argued that many of the Emails in question, now thought to contain “classified information” were not so designated at the time of their sending.   

At any rate, bringing an act of impeachment by the House and subsequent conviction by the Senate of crimes and misdemeanors said to be committed before Secretary Clinton took the oath of office of President is fraught with restrictions on the “whims” of those in power, and in those seeking power and revenge.

AND WHAT ABOUT THOSE POLLS? 

Let us not mince words here:  Polls are always somewhat inaccurate because no polling sample is perfectly representative of the larger constituency for whom they supposedly speak.  If they were accurate, there would be no need for an acknowledgement of “margin of error.”

Polls are always faulty in terms of how questions are asked, and because of different interpretations of those questions by those being surveyed.  That is, every person brings his or her own biases and experiences to the words and to the questions themselves.   Thus, the answers given have true meaning only to the answerer.

Polls are always inaccurate because no subject or issue, with all its facets, implications and meanings can ever be thoroughly plumbed by any poll, no matter how sophisticated its methodology.

In terms of polls that are taken to determine who leads in the race for the White House, all of them are built on a false premise:  they attempt to measure the popular vote instead of the Electoral College Vote, which is the only vote that counts under our Constitution. As far as I know, no polling methodology exists which can accurately measure the electoral college vote mainly because states have different rules for how that vote is apportioned.  In most states the winner of the popular vote wins all of the electoral votes apportioned to that state.  In Maine and Nebraska, the popular vote is apportioned by districts. 

 So, one can translate the results of the pre-election polls to this extent: one can know from the polls what state’s electoral votes may be won by each candidate if their popular vote projections are accurate.  One thing we do know -- not only from the Florida vote in 2000 where the Supreme Court decided the outcome, but from votes earlier in our 18^th century history when two undecided elections were thrown into the House of Representatives -  polls cannot be relied upon to accurately measure unforeseen circumstances.  One of those circumstances, which may occur in this election is the rare occurrence where one candidate wins the popular vote (as Al Gore did in 2000) and the other wins the electoral college vote (as George Bush did after the SCOTUS decision about Florida).  Guess who becomes President?

The only polls that matter are the ones where you cast your ballot on Election Day, and the one where the official Electors cast their votes in their own states and send certification of their vote sometime before Jan. 6th of the new year, when traditionally the Congress meets in joint session to reveal the electoral vote count, and the victorious candidates for President and Vice President.

 So, beware of putting too much trust in pre-election polls that cannot tell you with deadly accuracy who will win the Presidency.  Instead, make sure YOU VOTE, and that everyone around you does as well.  Polls are inherently inaccurate – YOUR VOTE represents the only answer that matters!

"OBAMACARE" -- October Surprise or Trump's Bamboozle?

Well, wouldn’t you know… Donald Trump is trying desperately to make “Obamacare” the “October Surprise.”  But then, along comes the real October Surprise:  FBI Director, James Comey, brings forth a letter to Congress in which he indicates that some more e-mails have been discovered while agents were investigating former Rep. Anthony Weiner.  And, on top of all that, there are on-going surprises generated by the innumerable polls out there that claim to predict the electoral preference of voters.

It might be important, and even ‘fun,’ to present some facts and inevitable opinions on each of these matters, but time is short.  As a first step toward that goal, I shall concentrate today on health care plan cost hikes, and more broadly on the ACA (Obamacare), since Donald Trump seems somewhat possessed by the subject!

The Rate Hikes:

The AP reported over a week ago:

“Premiums will go up sharply next year under President Barack Obama’s health care law, and many consumers will be down to just one insurer, the administration confirmed Monday.

Before taxpayer-provided subsidies, premiums for a midlevel benchmark plan will increase an average of 25 percent across the 39 states served by the federally run online market, according to a report from the Department of Health and Human Services. Some states will see much bigger jumps, others less.

Moreover, about 1 in 5 consumers will only have plans from a single insurer to pick from, after major national carriers such as UnitedHealth Group, Humana and Aetna scaled back their roles.

Administration officials are stressing that subsidies provided under the law, which are designed to rise along with premiums, will insulate most customers from sticker shock. They add that consumers who are willing to switch to cheaper plans will still be able to find bargains.

‘Headline rates are generally rising faster than in previous years,’ acknowledged HHS spokesman Kevin Griffis. But he added that for most consumers, ‘headline rates are not what they pay’.”

Now, let’s take a moment to consider some of the basic aspects of Obamacare that the article does not make clear and which many politicians use to distort the picture of rising rates.

1. Obamacare does not affect all health insurance rates and plans.  The ACA is, after all, limited in its applicability.  It does not affect rates charged to those not on Obamacare, which is the clear majority of insured citizens. The private insurance that you purchase directly, or the company policy that you have from work, or any policy that is not offered on the state and federal health exchanges, their rates are not directly influenced or controlled by the ACA (Obamacare).  Rising rates seen in them come not from Obamacare but from your insurance provider trying to keep up with the generally rising costs associated with healthcare, pure and simple.  Paul Krugman reminds us: “The spike in premiums…only applies to one piece of the health care system — the “exchanges,” the insurance markets Obamacare established for people who aren’t covered either by their employers or by government programs, mainly Medicare and Medicaid.”  So, the first paragraph of the AP story tends to distort the true picture, as do many Republicans, including Donald Trump, who want you to believe that Obamacare rates determine the rates of all health insurance plans. They do not.
2.  The ACA has two basic goals that are essentially being met.

Paul Krugman again:
“Health reform had two big goals: to cover the uninsured and to rein in the overall growth of health care costs — to “bend the curve,” in the jargon of health policy wonks. Sure enough, the fraction of Americans without health insurance has declined to its lowest level in history, while health cost growth has plunged: since Obamacare passed Congress, private insurance costs have risen less than half as fast as they did in the previous decade, and Medicare costs have risen less than a fifth as fast.” 

“The law has more-or-less hit its target for covering Americans. Almost 20 million people had coverage in 2015 — close to what the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office had forecast in early 2013.” (Politico)

The reining in of health care costs is much trickier than enrolling consumers.  There has been an overall success in reducing the percentage of health cost growth, but in some states, like North Carolina and Texas, insurers have had to increase premiums substantially to prevent losses of revenue.

3. The larger premium increases are not a surprise.

Despite Republican rhetoric to the contrary, there are several cogent reasons why the rise in rates is not surprising.  Why?

a.       The insurers initially guessed wrong as to how much their new customers’ health care was going to cost in the long run.  After two and one-half years of operation and data-collection, it is now quite clear that the ratio of premiums charged to costs paid out is in dire need of adjustment, especially in states where initial estimates were far off the mark, like Texas and North Carolina, and at least 10 others.  A POLITICO review of 2015 filings from nearly 100 health plans across a dozen geographically and politically diverse states found that less than a quarter of them hit the standard break-even point for insurers at which payouts are kept to about 85% of premiums taken in.  Many of those insurers lost “tens of millions of dollars on their Obamacare policies last year.”

b.       The “risk pool” is unbalanced.  As with most insurance, profit for the provider depends on having “shared risk.”  The one question influencing provider participation in Obamacare from the start has been the question of just who will sign up for Obamacare and how sick will they be?  In the language used by insurance companies, the “risk pool” of Obamacare customers has turned out to be “riskier” than they anticipated.  It is now clear that in several states, fewer people signed up than expected and many turned out to be sicker and thus more costly than anticipated. 

Before ACA, the insurers had several ways to balance their ‘risk pool.’  They used filters like ‘pre-existing conditions,’ monthly or lifetime caps,’ and “benefit reductions” to avoid covering the people who would most likely have higher medical costs and thus be a drain on their profit margin.  But Obamacare, thank goodness, made those tactics illegal. 

Other factors have played into this imbalance of the risk pool.

·         Fewer people got shut out of employer plans than anticipated and didn’t end up on Obamacare. 

·         One of the most popular provisions in the law allows young people (mostly healthy and representing small costs for health care) to remain on parent policies until age 26. Unfortunately, that one provision keeps many younger healthy potential customers for other plans out of the risk pool.

·         The decision by the administration to extend to 2017 the time when old plans that didn’t comply with the ACA would have to be cancelled may also have cut off a flow of new sign-ups of less costly consumers. 

·         Instead of sticking to one enrollment period for all, special enrollment periods have tended, in some cases, to produce sign-ons who are looking for immediate care and thus run up larger medical bills quite quickly.

·         The tax penalty for not having health insurance may be too low and thus a viable means for younger people to avoid signing up because they believe paying the penalty is cheaper than paying premiums on health care they don’t need.

·         Republican recalcitrance and attempts to restrict if not repeal ACA.  Another interesting aspect that the AP article didn’t discuss at all is a fact that POLITICO reports in its study:  those states that supported ACA and set up their own exchanges were roughly twice as high in enrollment as those states that refused to promote enrollment, and that relied on the federal exchange.

For insurance markets to be sustainable under Obamacare, “experts estimate that 35 percent of customers should be between the ages of 18 and 34.  In reality, right now, just 28% of customers fall into that group” under Obamacare. (POLITICO)

4. A big part of this story is the importance of mandated subsidies to keep costs low for those who enroll under Obamacare.

What the AP story tells you is that in most cases, where there are substantial rate hikes, there are also similar raises in the subsidies granted.  Thus, the net cost to the consumer of the rising premiums may end up being, at most, between 4- 8%, not 25%.  Subsidies are available only to those below 400 percent of the poverty level, which in 2016 was less than $97,000 for a family of four.  Subsidy amounts vary based on state, income, and number in family, of course.

According to an analysis done by the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) even if all premium rates were to rise by double digits next year, the vast majority of Americans who buy coverage through the Obamacare exchanges will still have affordable options.  If all rates increased 25 percent, nearly three-quarters of people who use the exchanges would still be able to purchase coverage for less than $75 a month. Under Obamacare, low-income consumers are shielded from the impact of rate increases by tax credits that rise along with the premiums, along with their ability to shop for the best plan.

5. Republicans in Congress must share the blame for higher rates and loss of insurers.

What the AP bulletin doesn’t tell you is that provisions in ACA known as the “three R’s” were placed in the ACA to protect insurance providers, designed to alleviate expected losses in the first two years of Obamacare operation.  Two of those provisions will expire by the end of this year, but while in existence, paid out substantial amounts to help cover the losses to initial providers.  The first “R” was a “reinsurance” provision that paid out federal funds of over $15 billion dollars in the first two years of exchange operations to insurers who attracted individual consumers who racked up particularly high medical bills.  The second “R” – “risk adjustment” – was intended to help small insurers by requiring insurers with low-cost patients to make payments to plans that insured higher cost customers. Small companies complained that bigger companies were favored in this, and that this second “R” was too unpredictable.

But it is the third provision – “Risk Corridors”-that ended up on the trash heap of a Republican Congress’s dedication to the dismemberment of Obamacare.  This action by Republican saboteur-legislators has surely contributed to the current situation of higher premiums and loss of providers in some exchanges.  They won’t admit it, and Donald Trump will never speak truth to you about it if he even knows!

“Risk Corridors” was a provision intended to subsidize health plan providers whose total medical expenses for all their ACA customers exceeded a certain set amount.  With this “insurance for insurers,” many companies were willing to risk trying low premiums at first.  Providers could then submit claims seeking federal payments for expenses that overshot the allowed target.  Insurers submitted claims for $2.9 billion under this provision of the Law, but ended up getting only 12.6 cents for each dollar they had counted on because once Congress passed a spending restriction, there was just $400 million available to make good on some of those payments.  What happened?

“in December of 2014, the Republican Congress voted to prohibit the Obama administration from spending any money on the program, decrying it as a bailout for the insurance companies.  Unlike all those symbolic ‘repeal Obamacare’ votes, Congress succeeded in blocking all those risk corridor payments.  The end result: many of the new Obamacare co-op plans that went out-of-business blamed their collapse in part on the fact that they’d been counting on the full (corridor) payments to keep them solvent.” (Politico)

This is one large causal factor for why premium rates are going up and insurers are withdrawing for 2017.  “Across 36 states analyzed by the Council for Affordable Health Coverage, the average requested increase for 2017 is 19.2 percent.  But in some states like Arizona, Oklahoma and Tennessee, proposed average rate hikes exceed 50%: Texas is asking for a 60% premium hike. 

6. Despite all the exaggerated bad news from the Trump camp and from the Congressional Republican saboteurs, there is hope for future stabilization and success.
1. One-time factors. Although somewhat turbulent, this is what new comprehensive programs must go through:  a period of fixing technical problems, ironing out initial errors and stabilization of new and worthwhile provisions. Medicare is an example. Since its inception in 1965, Congress has been amending it, and even now it undergoes needed changes, and remains one of the government programs most approved by the public.  Per the NY Times: “An optimistic view of this year’s price increases is that they represent a one-time market correction, as insurers adjust to the real costs of caring for these customers and to the changes in federal policy.”

 Cynthia Cox, an associate director at the Kaiser Family Foundation, which has analyzed similar rate filings for big cities, said that overall “the factors that are driving premiums to increase in 2017 are one-time factors.” Price trends for future years, she said, will depend on how many people sign up.” 

One of the very important points that is well-taken in the AP article is that there are several types of plans, and not all of them have rates rising at terribly steep figures or percentages.  The point is made that “headline plans and their rates will rise much faster than basic plans. That is true and most people who fall under the law will not be as much affected by rates that rise more gradually. The Affordable Care Act requires every state to offer its citizens different level plans, which also differ in cost and benefit coverage. The bronze plan is considered the lowest regular plan offered under the Affordable Care Act and will generally cover 60% of the costs associated with a claim. 

2. None of the current problems are insurmountable.

In fact, several solutions or paths to corrections have already been proposed.  Here are some we have already alluded to, and some we haven’t mentioned.

o   Obama administration has already taken steps to improve the stability of the marketplaces by tightening enrollment rules, reaching out to young people to sign-up, contacting people who paid the tax penalty rather than sign-up.  They have also raised an option from the past:

o   A government-run health plan that would compete against other insurers in the exchanges – a second look at the “public option” being proposed by both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama

o   Increase the tax penalty for non-coverage

o   Make good on the original ‘risk corridor’ payments to cover a portion of insurer losses

o   Most crucial to the health of the ACA is who is elected President.  Hillary has the experience to guide changes and amendments; in fact, she has a plan focused on affordability.

o   The new Congress must stop repeal talk, and get about executing fix-it compromises with the new administration

o   The rest of the states need to accept the Medicaid expansion under ACA and stop leaving uncovered those that are now eligible for Medicaid under the new guidelines

o   Those consumers dissatisfied with the rates of their plan can always switch to another plan.  Last year, (and probably again this year) a substantial number – around 43% - did switch plans to find greater affordability. 

o   There are still numerous states that do not utilize the federal enrollment site, thereby limiting their residents to whatever health insurance providers are on their state list.  

A clear majority of people who are enrolled in the ACA programs are very satisfied with their plans – they finally have something that gives them the possibility to have coverage of their health needs. Those like Donald Trump who seize on a few rate hikes and call Obamacare a “dead issue”, do not have any understanding of what has taken place, of just what ACA requirements consist, nor what the successes are of this program.

 The ACA – “Obamacare” – is not on its last legs by any means.  In fact, it has begun to do what it was supposed to do: cut the number of uninsured and underinsured people by a substantial number.  The total of those covered by insurance has now risen closer to 87% covered and under President Hillary Rodham Clinton’s leadership, it will cover even more people because it will be improved upon where it needs reform or change.  Hillary has more than enough experience with health care reform to get this done, and in a bi-partisan manner with those across the aisle who care more about country than Party. But Trump (and his followers) because of his ineptness and inability to deal with facts and with people’s needs, will continue to be a major problem regarding health care. 

To the 20 million people now covered by Obamacare, he offers nothing but repeal and loss of coverage  because he has no solutions for technical problems, no strategies for preservation of best practices, and no plan for future advancement and sustainability of the ACA.  Others will also suffer the consequences of Trump’s inordinate negativity and lack of solutions, because those who buy their own insurance shall once again be paying much higher premiums to make up for all those who have no coverage and must use emergency rooms, acute care centers and every means possible to find someone to attend to their critical needs.  As usual, “TRUMP” spells disaster.

An "Unprincipled Man"

There is so much that came out of the Oct. 19^th debate that I hesitate to comment, but that never stopped me before, nor does it now!

Laying aside for the moment all the charges and counter-charges that have surfaced in past debates as well as in this one, I want to draw your attention to what I believe is one of the most dangerous traits displayed by the Republican candidate for President.  It is this:  Donald Trump is essentially an unprincipled man. 

In order to be principled, he would have to demonstrate by word and conduct that he adheres to certain fundamental principles forming a kind of core that enervates, inspires, motivates and governs his life.  A principled person is imbued with a set of tenets or beliefs by which his or her life is lived.  Some might call it a “code of ethics,” and they would not be amiss in doing so, so long as “ethics” is not restricted to what one “should NOT do.”  A principled person is motivated more by what one should do (and say) in trying to follow a path on the side of what is right.  Being principled has to do with having a guiding sense of the obligations and responsibilities of right conduct. It is less a set of rules than a fundamental truth (or set of truths) that is used in making decisions and choices, and that guides one’s overall conduct.

What principles does Donald Trump say are at the core of his being; what set of principles guide his conduct?  It’s hard to say, because the evidence is spotty, sometimes unclear and often contradictory.  However --

He claims to be an Evangelical Christian.  That would mean he would lay claim to certain principles of that particular denomination and of Protestant Christian belief more generally.  Perhaps it would mean that he even embraces the principles of the New Testament and of Jesus the Christ (the Messiah).  All of which is very complicated because there are strains of belief and of truth within that larger context that can confuse the issue. Nonetheless, let us quote some of the principles espoused by Evangelicals.  According to the National Association of Evangelicals, they include:

1. We believe the Bible to be the inspired, the only infallible, authoritative Word of God.  If the Donald believes in this primary principle, then one must question his treatment of women, his bigoted dog whistles about Blacks and Hispanics, his denigration of Mexican nationals, and certainly his isolationist rants over Syrian Muslims, and other ethnic groups.  The Summary of the Law and the parable of the Good Samaritan come to mind as having meanings and lessons quite opposite from Trump words and deeds.

2. We believe that there is one God, eternally existent in three persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Presumably Trump has no problem with this tenet of the Faith.

3. We believe in the deity of our Lord Jesus Christ, in His virgin birth, in His sinless life, in His miracles, in His vicarious and atoning death through His shed blood, in His bodily resurrection, in His ascension to the right hand of the Father, and in His personal return in power and glory. 

One can only hope that Mr. Trump takes these seriously as tenets of his faith, rather than casually. Each item of this litany of tenets of the Faith has lessons and meaning for leading a principled life.  They are not simply incidents or events; in addition to the Bible, they are the revelatory vessels of God’s Truth about humanity and its immediate and future destiny. If a Christian wants to live a principled life, he or she cannot ignore the power and strength of sacrifice for others (the crucifixion), or the healing nature of taking upon oneself at least some of the pain and suffering of the brokenness suffered by others due to whatever causes – sins, mistakes, drug use, crime, despair, poverty, loss of loved ones.  Sharing the depths and hurt of other’s burdens (and corruptions) in order to offer a healing grace (blessing) to another human being or despised group, is the essence of atonement upon that cross.  And what about resurrection?  Is it not the cornerstone of a Christian Faith that one must live as though one has been given a new life to live in thanksgiving for the Lord’s Resurrection.  Is it not the penultimate symbol of the power of new beginnings, new life, new creation and the promise of life after death?  The principle of Resurrection to new life can be applied to others who have either lost their way or had it taken from them.  A principled life of a Christian must always involve the giving of opportunity, of hope, of an unexpected newness that can transform the deadness and despair in another’s life.

If I have this about right, (I don’t claim to be an expert in explaining the Christian Gospel), and this is essentially what these events reveal about God and His attitudes toward humanity, then how can any Christian – including Evangelical Christians – support segregation in any form, scapegoating of certain groups, the destruction of programs that alleviate the ravages of poverty.  (Poverty, by the way, is not the fault or sin of those who are poor; it is rather (per those ‘infallible’ scriptures) the responsibility of the rich, the well-to-do, of those who choose to “pass on by” and the ultimate responsibility of the nation’s leaders.  It’s all there in that Bible – you can’t escape the message if you read it thoroughly (check my Blog posting of 4/10/2011 where I quote some of those messages).

       
4. We believe that for the salvation of lost and sinful people, regeneration by the Holy Spirit is absolutely essential. 
5. We believe in the present ministry of the Holy Spirit by whose indwelling the Christian is enabled to live a godly life.

Principles four and five seem to go right along with what I have already said.  There’s just one caveat: the emphasis of evangelical (and probably most) Christians is on the individual and his or her regeneration, or his or her “godly life’ lived almost in isolation from the exigencies and challenges of the world.  The principled Christian or human being does not live in isolation, but acts as part of a community.  And here’s the rub of those scriptures again.  At the final judgment with God on his throne and Jesus seated next to Him, there is a separation of sheep from goats – the good from the bad.  But the basis of that final judgment is not that of just an individual morally righteous life, lived mainly according to rules that restrict one’s conduct.  NO.  The basis for the judgment is what the community has done for individuals and what individuals have done for the people who make up the community and the nation. 

    
6. We believe in the resurrection of both the saved and the lost; they that are saved unto the resurrection of life and they that are lost unto the resurrection of damnation. 

The concept of individual salvation devoid of human service and sacrifice for the community is appalling, and demeaning of the real Gospel of Christ.  It is in fact what Jesus himself reviled and abhorred.  His whole ministry and life were dedicated not to niceties and restrictions of the law, but to the principles of service, sacrifice, human charity, and the love of one’s neighbor.  It was his reviling of lawyers, Pharisees and scribes – the leaders of his day – for leading unprincipled, narrow lives that ignored the poor and the destitute -- that put him on the cross. 

  
7. We believe in the spiritual unity of believers in our Lord Jesus Christ.  But this again misses the point of those authoritarian, infallible scriptures.  The principle that believers are spiritually united in Christ is too inwardly-directed.  Christ taught that all humanity was united under God.  He always points beyond himself and beyond individuals to the people, the community, the foreigners, the poor, the downtrodden, the widows, the orphans, the broad-based human community with all its difficulties and its demons.  He carefully chooses a despised Samaritan to be the hero, so to speak, of one of his most important parables.  

The Donald does not say much about his Christian principles.  Thus far, my impression of his adherence to Evangelical principles is that he sees them more as a tool than as an obligation or responsibility.  That would align with so much of what he says and does.  He uses so many tools to get what he wants that the list is almost endless.  Trump uses women as tools to get what he wants; he uses the Courts as tools to force people and groups into giving him what he wants; he uses the laws of the United States to give him what he wants (to pay no income taxes).  In other words, Trump uses almost everything that others regard as inviolable or almost sacred, as tools to obtain status, riches, power and position for himself.  His principles are those of the cut-throat businessman who has no regard whatsoever for what others think, feel, believe, need or cherish except insofar as they can be used by him as tools or mechanisms to advance himself.

Thus, it may be quite fair to say about Donald that he is an unprincipled man in terms of his religion for the very reason that he is willing to use that affiliation as a tool to advance himself.  The very scriptures that are so integral to all that Evangelicals believe (in its position as ‘infallible’ and ‘authoritative’ Word of God) contain some very fundamental principles that mitigate against using any of God’s creation to advance oneself at the expense of others.  The Summary of the Law for instance spells out a duty or obligation to one’s God as first and foremost in life, inextricably woven together with caring about other people to the same degree that we tend to watch out for ourselves.  Donald Trump seems to have it all mixed up.  He places himself in the primary position of concern and then uses his neighbors, colleagues, friends, enemies, clients, workers, wives, contractors, and now the mechanisms of government itself as tools to maintain and enhance his position (and his power).

If the Donald was a principled man, he would have to take the scriptural principles to heart, as we say; that is, he would have to make them an integral part of his core and act upon them to worship and venerate his God.  And the primary way to do that for a rich man is to use his riches as tools to better the lives of those less fortunate.  Believe it or not, the written Word of God makes that a guiding principle throughout the Old and New Testaments. (For a more detailed treatment of that subject, refer to my post of 4/10/2011).  Did the Evangelical Association and the Donald miss that biblical principle perhaps?

There is another Summary of Principles that the early Hebrews accepted as their code of conduct/ethics/law called the Ten Commandments.  It is divided between commandments that address the veneration of Yahweh (the name of the God of Israel) and those that address interactions as a community or nation.  If nothing else, this set of commandments is accepted by conservative Christians as given by God.  And, many believe it is a code of conduct so basic within our history and culture that it should appear on our Court buildings carved in stone. 

The question is, how committed to these principles is Donald Trump?  Are they another set of tools to be used for self-aggrandizement, or are they a core set of values that guide his conduct?  We cannot know for sure, but some of his alleged conduct is questionable in relation to them:

Thou shalt not commit adultery:

--questionable conduct in relation to his marriage vows: Marla Maples and others come to mind from recent revelations by several women

Thou shalt not bear false witness:

--Donald has taken bearing false witness in terms of lying, innuendo, denigration and false stories to such an extreme that now his Party is being torn apart by his unprincipled approach to everything

            Thou shalt not steal:

--taking money under false pretenses like using the Trump Foundation monies to pay for use of his company facilities, for a portrait of himself, to pay lobbyists, and his own businesses for campaign expenses, etc.

Thou shalt not covet:

--one definition includes an inordinate desire for something without due regard for the rights of others – would that speak to some of the many court cases against Donald Trump for taking services from contractors and then not paying them; withholding payments to workers, or offering promises of a complete education at Trump University but not providing all the necessary elements of that pledge?

Do the principles of Trump’s chosen religion come through as an integral part of his conduct at any point? Hillary Clinton may have gotten it about right.  Perhaps they shine through his children.  Certainly, Ivanka has demonstrated some integrity in disagreeing with some of her father’s rhetoric, as has his wife.  But a clear answer is not yet developed – we need time to evaluate his legacy through his children.

Perhaps they show forth in some old Protestant ethics (or myths perhaps) that hard work is godly, or that success means one is blessed by God, or that the measure of a man is in his wealth and his property.   

In conclusion, I think we all must ask what set of principles guide this man from within?  A difficult question that has already been commented upon by economists, politicians, lawyers, employees, contractors, and followers, to mention a few.  I find Trump to be at least "wrongly principled," and at most unprincipled, because I find in his utterances and actions so many things that are contrary to the fundamental principles of his Christian faith. 

On the other hand, there are principles that he presumably borrows from his business life, and by which he patterns his words and his conduct.  Unfortunately, many of them are also contrary to the bases upon which our way of life and governing is built.   For him, it seems --

• Authoritarianism trumps democracy;
• Strongman tactics are idolized whereas service of others is the principle found in the scriptures;
• Coveting of profits and of riches is glorified, but helping the less fortunate predominates in the good Book. His giving to charities is questionable and limited (does he tithe, as encouraged by the Good Book?).  Without his tax returns being released, we shall never know for sure.
• The manipulation of people by use of many tools is the norm in business, it appears (at least in his enterprises), yet the standard of Christianity is the loving care of neighbor woven inextricably with the love of God. 
• And I guess, finally, that there is an air of privilege and superiority that hangs over all of Trump’s dealings, words and conduct.  He emphasizes over and over that he alone is the answer for all of America’s difficulties and problems.  He knows more than the Generals about ISIS.  He alone can undo and rewrite complicated treaties and trade agreements.  And he alone can fix our inner cities with something called Law & Order.  He is all-knowing, all-seeing.  He alone stands between Chaos and a Greater America.  (But somebody else beat him to the line: “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life”).

I submit to you that this is a “wrongly-principled” man, guided by beliefs, myths and illusions that are not always on the side of doing right on behalf of others.  The principles of his faith, the principles of our form of government, and the principles of one of the bases of our laws (the Ten Commandments) seem not to be integral to this limited reality of his.

We have seen it all before – men and women unprincipled, undisciplined, uncaring, but feeling invincible, unobligated and not responsible for the nation or the world’s problems.  They are most likely to chart a course that damages themselves, their families, their enterprises and the welfare of all those who are caught in their lack of principled stand for the rights and well-being of others. Often, such men and women lead their followers down dark lanes and back alleys into the abyss of destruction of much that undergirded and shaped their lives and their welfare. 

Are we there again?  I fear we are, and we may be stalled here for a while until we can figure out just who we are, why we’re here, and where we need to go to preserve the truths and the actions that will make us a more principled nation!  (Unfortunately, a “greater nation” tends to smell of superiority and contentiousness – exactly opposite from the truth of our own founding principles!).