iftttwall

As Jacob Sullum
points out, one of the Affordable Care Act’s great failings is
President Obama and company’s refusal to admit that health coverage
involves tradeoffs. Sure, it’s upsetting when your copay is higher
than you wish, or your policy doesn’t cover everything under the
sun, but the more you jam into a plan, the higher costs will be,
and somebody has to pay for them. So when the government waves its
hand and does away with what the president insists are “substandard”
plans by mandating a generous wish list of coverage, it makes
relatively affordable plans rather less so. The federal government
did that in spades last Friday when the Department of Health and
Human Services finalized
rules enforcing mental health parity—a very expensive
mandate—for most private health plans.

The mandate was expected, since it implements the Mental Health
Parity and Addiction Act, which has been on the books since 2008,
but which dwelt in statutory purgatory for five years because the
Obama administration
never issued guidance that would allow the law to be enforced.
Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius says her
Friday announcement is “building on these rules” when it’s actually
overcoming a half-decade of bureaucratic inertia to put the law
into effect. Because the law has been sitting there for so long,
many of its costs may already be represented in the new heath plans
available under Obamacare, though those plans might have to be
tweaked, since the final rule was issued six weeks after
individual plans went on sale on the exchanges. Not that anybody
has been able to buy them, yet.

The costs that mandates add to health coverage are no mystery.
the Council for Affordable Health Insurance estimates that, while
each individual mandate might elevate costs by only a small amount,
in aggregate “mandated benefits currently increase the cost of
basic health coverage from slightly less than 10 percent to more
than 50 percent, depending on the state, specific legislative
language, and type of health insurance policy.”

Mental health parity—which “ensures that health plans features
like co-pays, deductibles and visit limits are generally not more
restrictive for mental health/substance abuse disorders benefits
than they are for medical/surgical benefits” in HHS terms—is among
the more expensive mandates,
raising costs by five to 10 percent (PDF), all by itself.

Looking at expenditures, the Health Care Cost Institute found
that
mental health and substance abuse treatment costs jumped after
the passage of the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Act, even in
the absence of final federal rules. The study looked at the time
period after passage, rather than for a direct causative effect of
the law.

That’s not to say that people don’t need mental health treatment
or help with substance abuse problems. But there’s no such thing as
a free lunch—or free health care. Shedding a tear and promising
people that all of their needs will be covered is cheap. Following
through, not so much.

(H/T Sevo)

I
didn’t know what a libertarian was when I started reporting, writes
John Stossel. I was just another liberal. I knew the Republicans
were icky, and Democrats were more like me—except they didn’t care
about debt. I had no idea there was an actual movement of thinking
people who want to honor the principles of the Founders—liberty and
limited government. It took me a long time to wake up. Old
politicians—and old voters collecting Social Security—may never
change their minds. But libertarianism is growing fast among young
Americans.

View this article.

Yesterday Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) gave his first
major speech since the recent plagiarism scandal. Speaking at
The Citadel, Paul outlined his views on the military and foreign
policy in a speech that included 33 footnotes. Unfortunately, Paul
did not outline much new in this speech, and it is already being
criticized for its lack of accuracy.

Anyone who has been following Paul’s beliefs on foreign policy
would not have been surprised to hear him highlight his disapproval
of foreign aid to Egypt, his constitutionalism, his opposition to
intervention in Syria, as well as his anger over the
administration’s response to the attack on the American consulate
in Benghazi last year. Although Paul did not voice any new
complaints, he did say that he will soon be announcing the
formation of a task force “to bring together great minds from the
world of national defense, and put forward a plan to modernize our
military, and strengthen our defenses,” which will include an audit
of the Pentagon.

While Paul may have included 33 footnotes in his speech, The
Daily Beast’s Josh Rogin points out that although more information
was cited, the speech included factual errors relating to claims
about the situations in Egypt and Syria as well the attack on the
American consulate in Benghazi:

From
The Daily Beast:

For example, in the following two sentences about Egypt, Paul
makes at least four factual errors.

“In Egypt recently, we saw a military coup that this
Administration tells us is not a military coup. In a highly
unstable situation, our government continued to send F-16s, Abrams
tanks and American-made tear gas,” Paul said.

In fact, the State Department has repeatedly said it would not
weigh in on whether the July overthrow of Egyptian President
Mohamed Morsi was a “coup,” deciding that the administration was
not required to make a determination one way or the other.

Following the military takeover of the Egyptian government, the
administration quietly halted all shipments of heavy weapons to
Egypt, mostly adhering to a law requiring a cutoff of military aid
to any country that has experienced a coup, while maintaining a
position of ambiguity over whether a coup had taken place.

Rogin also points out that Paul’s claims relating to the
situation in Syria also contain factual errors:

“As we continue to aid and arm despotic regimes in Egypt, we are
also now sending weapons to the rebels in Syria,” Paul said.
“According to a recent poll from Pew Research, over 70 percent of
Americans are against arming the Islamic rebels in Syria, yet the
Senate continues to arm these Islamic radicals. [15] [16] This is
unacceptable!”

The Obama administration has sent little, if any, weapons to the
Syrian rebels, something that has angered several Republican
colleagues of Paul, most notably Sen. John McCain (R-AZ). The Free
Syrian Army, the armed wing of the Syrian opposition has received
only Meals Ready to Eat, first aid kits, and 10 pickup trucks. The
CIA is reported to be vetting some arms shipments to the rebels
coming from third countries such as Saudi Arabia, but the White
House has repeatedly shot downState Department proposals to arm the
Syrian rebels.

Paul also incorrectly quotes the Pew poll that he footnotes. The
Pew Research Center wrote “overall, 70% oppose the U.S. and its
allies sending arms and military supplies to anti-government groups
in Syria.” Paul instead used the phrase “Islamic rebels” to
substitute for “anti-government groups.”

Finally, Rogin points out that Paul managed to contradict
himself when he talked about Benghazi:

Perhaps the most confusing part of Paul’s speech is a passage
about Benghazi where the Kentucky senator contradicts himself in
back-to-back sentences.

“When Hillary Clinton was asked for more security, she turned
the Ambassador down. [27] Under cross-examination, she admitted
that she never read the cables asking for more security. [28],”
Paul said.

The article Paul footnotes as proof for his first sentence
explains that witnesses were “expected” to testify that Clinton was
personally involved in the refusals to place more security in
Benghazi in the attack; not that this was a fact. The second
sentence confirms that Clinton was not personally involved in the
Benghazi security request, refuting what Paul said one sentence
earlier.

James Rosen at
McClatchyDC has also written on the factual inaccuracies in
Paul’s speech at The Citadel.

Paul is widely expected to run for president. If he wants to
have a shot at securing the GOP nomination he will have to make
further steps to ensure that his public statements are not only
free of possible plagiarism, but that they are also accurate. As
Reason’s Editor-in-Chief
Matt Welch wrote earlier this month, “…these sloppy,
undergraduate-level infractions suggest strongly that Sen. Paul is
running a loose ship, one not currently ready for the prime time of
winning a national election.”

The lack of accuracy and the accusations of plagiarism are
frustrating for those, like myself, who agree with many of Paul’s
positions on foreign policy (even if I might wish he would change

some of the rhetoric and
more fully explain the policies that would be implemented in a
Paul administration). Paul is one of the United States’ most
prominent non-interventionists, and it would be a shame if his
positions foreign policy continue to be overshadowed by the sort of
errors that have been highlighted recently.

Yesterday Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) gave his first
major speech since the recent plagiarism scandal. Speaking at
The Citadel, Paul outlined his views on the military and foreign
policy in a speech that included 33 footnotes. Unfortunately, Paul
did not outline much new in this speech, and it is already being
criticized for its lack of accuracy.

Anyone who has been following Paul’s beliefs on foreign policy
would not have been surprised to hear him highlight his disapproval
of foreign aid to Egypt, his constitutionalism, his opposition to
intervention in Syria, as well as his anger over the
administration’s response to the attack on the American consulate
in Benghazi last year. Although Paul did not voice any new
complaints, he did say that he will soon be announcing the
formation of a task force “to bring together great minds from the
world of national defense, and put forward a plan to modernize our
military, and strengthen our defenses,” which will include an audit
of the Pentagon.

While Paul may have included 33 footnotes in his speech, The
Daily Beast’s Josh Rogin points out that although more information
was cited, the speech included factual errors relating to claims
about the situations in Egypt and Syria as well the attack on the
American consulate in Benghazi:

From
The Daily Beast:

For example, in the following two sentences about Egypt, Paul
makes at least four factual errors.

“In Egypt recently, we saw a military coup that this
Administration tells us is not a military coup. In a highly
unstable situation, our government continued to send F-16s, Abrams
tanks and American-made tear gas,” Paul said.

In fact, the State Department has repeatedly said it would not
weigh in on whether the July overthrow of Egyptian President
Mohamed Morsi was a “coup,” deciding that the administration was
not required to make a determination one way or the other.

Following the military takeover of the Egyptian government, the
administration quietly halted all shipments of heavy weapons to
Egypt, mostly adhering to a law requiring a cutoff of military aid
to any country that has experienced a coup, while maintaining a
position of ambiguity over whether a coup had taken place.

Rogin also points out that Paul’s claims relating to the
situation in Syria also contain factual errors:

“As we continue to aid and arm despotic regimes in Egypt, we are
also now sending weapons to the rebels in Syria,” Paul said.
“According to a recent poll from Pew Research, over 70 percent of
Americans are against arming the Islamic rebels in Syria, yet the
Senate continues to arm these Islamic radicals. [15] [16] This is
unacceptable!”

The Obama administration has sent little, if any, weapons to the
Syrian rebels, something that has angered several Republican
colleagues of Paul, most notably Sen. John McCain (R-AZ). The Free
Syrian Army, the armed wing of the Syrian opposition has received
only Meals Ready to Eat, first aid kits, and 10 pickup trucks. The
CIA is reported to be vetting some arms shipments to the rebels
coming from third countries such as Saudi Arabia, but the White
House has repeatedly shot downState Department proposals to arm the
Syrian rebels.

Paul also incorrectly quotes the Pew poll that he footnotes. The
Pew Research Center wrote “overall, 70% oppose the U.S. and its
allies sending arms and military supplies to anti-government groups
in Syria.” Paul instead used the phrase “Islamic rebels” to
substitute for “anti-government groups.”

Finally, Rogin points out that Paul managed to contradict
himself when he talked about Benghazi:

Perhaps the most confusing part of Paul’s speech is a passage
about Benghazi where the Kentucky senator contradicts himself in
back-to-back sentences.

“When Hillary Clinton was asked for more security, she turned
the Ambassador down. [27] Under cross-examination, she admitted
that she never read the cables asking for more security. [28],”
Paul said.

The article Paul footnotes as proof for his first sentence
explains that witnesses were “expected” to testify that Clinton was
personally involved in the refusals to place more security in
Benghazi in the attack; not that this was a fact. The second
sentence confirms that Clinton was not personally involved in the
Benghazi security request, refuting what Paul said one sentence
earlier.

James Rosen at
McClatchyDC has also written on the factual inaccuracies in
Paul’s speech at The Citadel.

Paul is widely expected to run for president. If he wants to
have a shot at securing the GOP nomination he will have to make
further steps to ensure that his public statements are not only
free of possible plagiarism, but that they are also accurate. As
Reason’s Editor-in-Chief
Matt Welch wrote earlier this month, “…these sloppy,
undergraduate-level infractions suggest strongly that Sen. Paul is
running a loose ship, one not currently ready for the prime time of
winning a national election.”

The lack of accuracy and the accusations of plagiarism are
frustrating for those, like myself, who agree with many of Paul’s
positions on foreign policy (even if I might wish he would change

some of the rhetoric and
more fully explain the policies that would be implemented in a
Paul administration). Paul is one of the United States’ most
prominent non-interventionists, and it would be a shame if his
positions foreign policy continue to be overshadowed by the sort of
errors that have been highlighted recently.