Ezra Klein's Blog

Maryland’s ACA enrollment extension could be a sign of things to come

Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

Maryland residents who have battled faulty technology on the state’s Obamacare enrollment website will get some more time to sign up for coverage after this month, the state's health insurance exchange announced today.

To be clear, the state says it’s not an extension of the open enrollment period scheduled to close March 31. Only Marylanders who made an attempt to enroll by March 31 will get more time if they call a state hotline by that day. All four insurers selling on Maryland's exchange agreed to the special extension.

Dori Henry, a spokeswoman for Maryland’s health department, said the state didn’t need permission from the Obama administration for this plan because it's only for those applying by March 31. A spokeswoman for HHS didn't immediately respond to comment.

Could this be the first of similar extensions soon to come? Could be. The Wall Street Journal reported this weekend that federal officials are crafting a plan that would allow people to sign up after March 31 if they “demonstrate that they tried to enroll in a plan before the deadline, but failed because of website troubles.”

As I wrote last week, state-run exchanges in Nevada and Oregon – which, like Maryland, have had major tech problems – are also looking for more time to get people enrolled.

The Obama administration has made exceptions for previous deadlines to enroll in coverage starting the first day of the following month, so it wouldn’t be surprising if the feds adopted a similar plan for March 31.

 

The problem with Seattle’s plan to curb companies like Uber

Junko Kimura-Matsumoto/Bloomberg

Just five years ago, "ridesharing" meant something utterly benign. If you've got three people in one car, literally sharing a ride to work – that's ridesharing. One guy owns the car. He picks up the other two on his way to the office. Maybe they split gas money, or alternate driving days, or take turns bringing the coffee. Their arrangement is perhaps more flexible than the old-fashioned "carpool." But, in short, they're all heading the same way, so they might as well get there together.

Transportation planners love this kind of ridesharing because it's efficiency in motion. In the U.S., about 76 percent of commuters drive to work alone, which means that 76 percent of us pull onto the street most days with at least three perfectly good but empty seats. If more of us would simply pile into cars together – on our way to work, or school, or wherever – we could reduce congestion, emissions, even the need for parking. And what's not to like about that?

Technology has made it increasingly possible to do this with total strangers, vastly expanding the network of people with whom we might share unused car capacity. But the arrival of new technology has also meant that "ridesharing" has evolved into new forms: Sidecar and Lyft enable people to make money driving strangers to places they may never have been planning to go themselves. UberX has pushed the concept even further in the direction of a pseudo-taxi service. RelayRides, on the related "carsharing" front, lets you hand over your entire vehicle to a stranger, as if it were a rental.

Suddenly the picture has become much more complicated: How does the insurance work? Who pays taxes on ridesharing income? How do you regulate these new models that more closely resemble cab service than our company man driving his neighbors to work? All of these questions bring us to Seattle, where the city council voted on Monday night to adopt  unprecedented new rules regulating so-called "ridesharing" services like Sidecar, Lyft and UberX.

Under the new plan, each company will be required to cap the number of drivers on the road in Seattle at any given time at 150. From afar, this looks slightly bewildering: Why would any city want to limit the number of drivers who can give rides in their private cars to strangers?

Setting aside the wisdom of this policy, here's why Seattle is doing it: First off, the city is targeting a kind of "ridesharing" that strays from the original definition of the word in some crucial ways. Sidecar, Lyft and UberX arguably provide a benefit to society, creating viable alternatives to car ownership (for the riders) and new means of part-time income (for the drivers). But these services aren't as innocuous as traditional ridesharing. And unlike the guy who drives his neighbors to work, the guy who uses an app to find paying passengers across town on their way to work probably needs some regulation.

Secondly, while Sidecar, Lyft and Uber are all very unhappy today, Seattle's taxi industry is elated. Cab drivers view ridesharing apps as direct (and unfair) competition. And they have a point: Why should they have to pay for expensive cab licenses and comply with strict regulation when anyone with a car can download an app and offer an awfully similar service? The new regulation makes little sense if you're a Lyft driver in Seattle. But it makes perfect sense from the standpoint of taxi drivers who already operate in a marketplace that's limited by the city.

Outside of Seattle, the bigger question isn't why the city is doing this, but whether this approach to regulating peer-to-peer transportation services makes sense. Local governments all over the country are wrestling right now with how to handle these companies. Seattle just happens to be one of the first to dive in. Other provisions of the new regulation there – requiring companies to provide commercial insurance, for instance – are smart policy. But the driver cap seems less so. The number is arbitrary. It's not clear how Seattle will police it. And cities need to strike a number of delicate balances here: between innovation and out-dated regulation; between companies that have been playing by old rules, and startups that need new ones; between the interests of consumers and those of incumbents like taxi drivers.

The best solution will no doubt look much more nuanced than a cap on Uber drivers.

Would you sign up for Obamacare if your mom asked you through Tinder?

With less than two weeks left in Obamacare's open enrollment period, the focus is on getting young people signed up for coverage. How advocates are approaching this goal is taking different forms. Let's look at a few.

Looking for love? How about health insurance instead?

Supporters of the health care law have focused on getting mothers to encourage their young adult children to enroll in coverage. And we all know how much young people love their smartphones. So Rhode Island’s exchange thought up the “Nag Toolkit,” which instructs mothers on how they can encourage their kids to get insured through social media channels and, yes, online dating services.

The Rhode Island exchange, known as HealthSource RI, provides instructions for how mothers can reach their kids with a pro-coverage message through five different online channels: Snapchat, OK Cupid, Twitter, Vine and Tinder.

Let’s take the Tinder example. First off, Tinder is a free smartphone-based dating app that connects singles with others in their area. People sign up through their Facebook accounts, and the Tinder app shows other singles and any Facebook friends and interests you may share with potential matches.

So, how does this relate to health insurance? Imagine you’re scrolling through potential matches, and suddenly you see a picture of your mother holding a sign that reads “Get health insurance.” That’s what Rhode Island is going for:

(Source: HealthSource RI)

The risk of finding your mother on a dating site struck me as kind of creepy, a sentiment I conveyed to Rhode Island exchange director Christine Ferguson. That didn't bother her too much.

About 1,100 people have visited the "Nag Toolkit" since it launched on Thursday, Ferguson said this morning. She said she hadn't seen any examples of mothers setting up Tinder accounts, but the larger point was to spark a conversation about health insurance.

"My perspective on it is with any advertising campaign, you've going to get people who love it and people who hate it," she said. "But the key thing is whether everyone talks about it because from our perspective, what we're trying to do is raise awareness to get people to come to the website."

According to the latest Health and Human Services enrollment report, 26 percent of those signing up on Rhode Island's exchange are between 18 and 34 years old – just a tick ahead of the 25 percent rate nationally. Ferguson said the state has a "decent" age distribution, but she'd like to see it improve.

Other ways to use your smartphone

The District of Columbia’s exchange, which has the best enrollment mix of any insurance marketplace, is also using smartphones to boost enrollment. They're leaving the mothers out of this one, though.

D.C. Health Link released its own smartphone app just this month. The app doesn’t actually allow for enrollment – that’s something that exchange has planned for the 2015  enrollment period. In the meantime, though, people can use the app to calculate health care costs, contact Health Link staff and find the nearest in-person assister or insurance broker to help them sign up.

Through the end of February, about 45 percent of D.C. signups are among 18- to 34-year-olds, according to the latest HHS figures. That's a mix that any other exchange would be envious of.

The old brick-and-mortar approach

Colorado's health insurance exchange has opened a temporary storefront in a Denver mall for the last few weeks of enrollment. It has other walk-in sites planned over the next two weeks, as well.

The storefront approach was first used by Connecticut's exchange, which has already passed its enrollment goal for the year. Connecticut's exchange opened its first health insurance store in November, and it is reportedly enrolling about 300 to 400 costumers each day.

Risk of injury

The White House generated huge traffic to Healthcare.gov last week after President Barack Obama's interview with Zach Galifiankis aired. The White House is still looking for ways to bring young people to the enrollment website.

Yesterday, the White House used GIFs to illustrate reasons for young people to enroll in coverage. Today, the White House is using the risk of sports injuries to push their coverage message.

About 2 million people went to the emergency room for sports injuries in 2012, and the costs could add up if you're not insured, according to new data issued by HHS. On average, the cost of treating a broken arm could cost $7,700 without coverage. The White House also had the Miami Heat's Shane Battier help drive that message home on a conference call today.

There are less than two weeks to go. The enrollment messaging is only going to get more intense from here.

 

 

 

 

New study: Elementary students are doing more homework than they used to

Homework is a perennial topic of griping among parents and students both. Just last week, Stanford researchers released a survey of students at high-performing high schools, finding that students report an average of 3-plus hours of homework per night. The conclusion? "Too much homework can negatively affect kids, especially their lives away from school, where family, friends and activities matter."

But a recent report from the Brookings Brown Center on Education casts aspersions on these findings and others like them that regularly crop up in the media (they've even produced a video summarizing media representations of homework burdens and contrasting them with their findings). The report looks at students' self-reported homework loads over the past 30 years, as tracked by the National Assessment of Educational Progress. Their bottom line? "With one exception, the homework load has remained remarkably stable since 1984."

Let's set that exception aside for one second, and look at the data on middle and high-school students. They are doing roughly the same amount of homework they did 30 years ago. Even the share of students reporting heavy homework burdens -- 2-plus hours -- has remained constant, and in fact has decreased slightly for 13-year-olds. Also notable: 17-year-olds are the most likely to blow off their assignments altogether, with 13 percent reporting this in 2012.

But the exception mentioned above is a big one: elementary school kids are doing a lot more homework than they used to. Back in 1984, only 64 percent of 9-year-olds reported having homework the night before. In 2012, that figure had risen to 78 percent. Most of that rise is from students reporting a fairly light homework load: the share saying they spent less than an hour on homework went from 41 to 57 percent. The share of 9-year-olds reporting a heavy homework load has stayed constant at about 5 percent.

The Brown Center is probably overstating its case when it concludes that "NAEP data do not support the view that the homework burden is growing, nor do they support the belief that the proportion of students with a lot of homework has increased in recent years." This may be true for teens, but the shift in homework burden for elementary students is a significant one, and one that parents of primary school-aged children are likely to feel keenly.

Taiwan is afraid that Chinese movies are becoming too good

Zhao Tao as Xiao Yu in A Touch of Sin. Credit: Kino Lorber, Inc.

TAIPEI – On a recent Thursday evening, a movie theater in a fashionable district of this city showed a film called "A Touch of Sin," which had been hailed around the world as one of Chinese director Jia Zhangke's finest works. China's Politburo had tried to squelch it, with a directive prohibiting all news coverage and reviews, since it painted an unflattering view of the new China. But the film's producers had a devil of a time showing it in Taipei too.

Hardly anyone will see Touch of Sin here, despite its anti-China themes, but the reason has less to do with politics than economics. The quasi-national state only allows 10 films a year from China -- which are determined by drawing lots -- and Jia's film didn't make the cut. So the distributor figured out a workaround: The film could be shown in a special "festival" held by a non-profit that would allow for 63 screenings, total.

"It's kind of ridiculous," said Taiwan's minister of culture, Lung Ying-Tai. Her administration has proposed raising the limit from 10 to 15 films, but that will require approval from the legislature. And why have the limit at all? "Protectionism," she answered simply, to a group of American journalists earlier this month.

Lung's response is a little odd, given that Taiwan dropped restrictions on film imports from other countries when it joined the World Trade Organization in 2001, and foreign movies already dominate the island's box office proceeds. In reality, Taiwan's protectionism is really about one country. As mainland China's influence rises and Taiwan falls behind other Asian powers, officials here are caught between a desire to open up to the behemoth next door, while also protecting the island's economic and cultural sovereignty. And that has led them to restrict the flow of goods, services, and even award-winning films across the Taiwan Strait.

On the one hand, Taiwanese officials boast about easing tensions with the mainland, which still regards the island as a wayward piece of its empire. There are 828 direct flights to China today, up from zero in 2007. A 2010 treaty lowered tariffs on many goods and established standards for investment and trade in commodities. Tourism has increased from 2 million Taiwanese visiting the mainland in 2007 to 5.2 million in 2013. And last month, the longtime rivals pulled off the first in-person meeting of high-profile officials in 65 years (while stopping short of a presidential rapprochement).

But the warmth only goes so far.

Taiwan is keeping China at a stiff arm's length -- not just on the feature films it shows, but the ways it allows capital to cross the border. Mainlanders can only own a small piece of a bank, for example, and no part of semiconductor or technology companies. They're Taiwan's crown jewels, and can easily be devalued through intellectual property theft.

"We really care about those high-tech industries," explained Steve Lin, Taiwan's deputy minister for Mainland Affairs, in a meeting with American journalists. That's perhaps why, while he could cite 90,000 cases of Taiwanese investment in China since 2009, there are only 400 cases of investment flowing the other way.

Lin's admission speaks to a deep worry about the country's economic future. President Ma Ying-jeou's promise of greater integration with China hasn't yielded the economic gains he promised, and Taiwan's Asian tiger days are long gone -- double-digit annual growth has sunk to one or two percent, while wages have stagnated, allowing emerging economies such as South Korea to surge ahead. Also, the limited ability of businesses to move across the strait has had serious consequences.

Just talk to Godwin Wang, assistant vice president at the Farglory Free Trade Zone outside Taipei. The government has helped set up these zones around the country's ports to help companies import and export goods with lower tariffs. When Farglory opened its high-tech, high-volume complex eight years ago, it expected to reach capacity in short order. Instead, it's done only about half the business it could handle -- mostly in lighter, more valuable goods like motherboards and outdoor wear -- as more and more Taiwanese companies just decide to move abroad seeking lower costs for labor and land.

"They all feel a certain kind of pressure from mainland China," Wang says, of his cargo-shipping clients. "We are suffocating, because they are stealing our jobs."

Farglory is pinning his business on one last hope: That consumers around the world will still believe Taiwan makes better products than China. To capitalize on that perception, it's built what it calls a "value-added center," where workers might add enough of a finishing touch to something imported from China -- putting the drivetrain on a bicycle, for example -- to qualify as "made in Taiwan" by the World Trade Organization's standards.

"Of course you could do it in China. But then it's 'made in China,'" Wang says. "What it means is that the bike was 'made in Taiwan.'" So the bike can now fetch a much higher price, he says -- a widely-held impression in the region.

The value-added center supplies 30 percent of Farglory's revenues at the moment, which Wang hopes to increase to 50 percent in the coming years. It's unclear, however, that the strategy is sustainable over the long term -- especially given that Taiwan's comparative advantage in advanced manufacturing is on the decline, as other regional economies learn how to replicate it.

To make matters worse, Taiwan has also failed to join many regional trade agreements that might help the nation make up for its cautious openness. Having missed out on the first two rounds of the massive Trans Pacific Partnership trade deal, it's hoping to get on board for the next round of talks. That, however, will require an overhaul of regulations governing trade and investment, which is proving difficult as well -- and frustrating for the American businesses that want access to the Taiwanese market.

"Very often we find that Taiwan comes up with proposed regulations that are unique, that do not line up with international practices," says Amy Chang, senior director for government affairs at the American Chamber of Commerce in Taiwan. The advent of robust democracy, she notes, hasn't helped in this regard -- consumer groups often resist new products, and the issue gets demagogued by public officials, Chang says.

Of course, Lung, the minister of culture, knows that it's more than just democracy and protectionism that's keeping Taiwan from opening the economic floodgates to China.

"It was a bloody civil war and 60 years of separation," she said. "It takes a while to see what used to be your enemy the way they really are." Plus, she pointed out, everybody in East Asia is a bit edgy about the behemoth next door. "The Taiwanese are even edgier than other people, and they have a reason to be," she said, mentioning the missiles China has pointed in their direction. "So we set up a lot more barriers."

The 1% have gained back their recession losses and then some

The OECD just released the seventh edition of its Society at a Glance report, a data-driven barometer of the economic and social health of its 34 member countries, including the United States. The top-line finding for the United States is that the share of pre-tax income going to the top 1 percent of earners continues to be the highest among OECD countries, standing at 19.3 percent in 2012.

This share has more than doubled since 1980. The economic crisis of 2007-2008 took a small bite out of top income shares, but since then the 1 percent regained its losses and even increased its share of the pie relative to its prerecession high.

No matter how you slice the data, things are great at the top end of the income distribution. The top 10 percent of wage earners are closing in on 50 percent of the pie, while the top 0.1 percent are taking in nearly 10 percent of the income. For some historical context, consider that the 0.1 percent now claim a larger share of income than the 1 percent did in the early '80s, and the 1 percent are now earning nearly as much as the top 5 percent did during the same period. Bear in mind that these figures are exclusive of capital gains – if investment income were included, these shares would be even higher.

The flipside of all this, of course, is that there’s a smaller share of the pie left for everyone else. The OECD finds that relative poverty rate in the United States is 17.4 percent, the fifth-highest among member countries. And while the wealthy may have gained back their recession losses, the poorest have not: The number of Americans reporting instances of not being able to afford enough food for their families has risen by 50 percent since the start of the crisis.

These data raise the question: What share of income should the top 1 percent be taking in? Conventional economic wisdom holds that we should just leave the 1 percent be, since any form of redistribution would put a damper on economic growth. But as the IMF recently found, this isn’t the case. Redistribution can actually provide a net benefit to growth by offsetting the harmful effects of inequality.

Finally, you have to wonder: In the absence of any leadership from national politicians, just how large will the 1 percent's share of the pie grow?

The last decade was a historically awful time to enter the job market

The recession wreaked particular havoc on opposite ends of the labor market: on the young and unemployed marooned in their parents' homes for lack of work, and on the (relatively) old and experienced stuck in the workforce for lack of money to retire.

Their problems were clearly not unrelated (particularly in the case of the retirement-aged grocery clerk whose job might have been done by a 19-year-old). But between the two of them, their parallel misfortunes made for a historical anomaly in this latest recession.

You can see it in this chart from the Brookings Institution, which compares the employment rates for different age cohorts in 2000 and 2011 across America's 100 largest metros:

Brookings Institution

Over the course of the decade, the employment rate for 16-to-19-year-olds fell  from 44 to 24 percent, the lowest it's been in Current Population Survey data going all the way back to 1948.

"It is an astonishing drop," says Martha Ross, a fellow with Brookings' Metropolitan Policy Program who co-authored a recent paper on the recession's abysmal impact on employment prospects for young adults. What really stands out about that graph, though, is what happened to workers over 55. Their employment rates went up over this same time.

"We haven’t seen this before," Ross says, "this combination of employment rates dropping for the younger and prime-age workers while they’re increasing among the workers who are of or near retirement age."

Brookings is calling this a historically unprecedented "great age twist." While every other age group was less likely to be working in 2011 than in 2000 (with unusually bleak prospects for the youngest workers), older people were actually more likely to be working.

In some ways, this may reflect the particular circumstances of a recession rooted in housing collapse: Many retirement-aged workers who had their savings tied up in their homes suddenly needed to stay on the job much longer than they had planned. And the impact of that decision cascades down to younger, less experienced and less educated workers who've had to compete for jobs with the overqualified.

This picture now raises some particularly alarming questions about the workers aged 24 and younger. Studies have suggested that people who are unemployed as young adults later earn less when they are employed. Aging into a crummy economy doesn't just hurt you when you're looking for your first job from your mother's basement; the negative effects persist for years.

Early unemployment, in other words, has lasting scars. And we've just watched an entire cohort come of working age at a time when employment prospects for young workers have been at an unprecedented low.

"It’s not written in stone, and it’s not your destiny," Ross says of the long-term repercussions. "But this is a really formative period in someone’s life."

Young workers without a college degree will have a particularly hard time. But other workers who've been biding their unemployed time in school will have to add massive debt to this equation.

This suggests we should start talking more not about how the recession has hurt young workers, but what it will mean for them for years to come to have entered the job market with such historically bad timing.

Wonkbook: Russia shrugs off U.S. sanctions in Ukraine crisis

Welcome to Wonkbook, Wonkblog’s morning policy news primer by Puneet Kollipara. To subscribe by e-mail, click here. Send comments, criticism or ideas to Wonkbook at Washpost dot com. To read more by the Wonkblog team, click here.

(Photo by Maxim Shemetov/Reuters)

Wonkbook’s Number of the Day: 5 million. That's the number of people who have picked a health insurance plan through the Obamacare exchanges as the March 31 deadline nears.

Wonkbook’s Chart of the Day: Food stamp use appears to be peaking.

Wonkbook's Top 5 Stories: (1) Russia shrugs off sanctions; (2) Obamacare enrollment accelerates; (3) Yellen's biggest decision to make; (4) the Internet isn't in danger; and (5) an alarm sounded on climate.

1. Top story: As Russia shrugs off initial round of sanctions, what more can U.S. do?

Russia recognizes Crimea’s independence, defying new U.S. and E.U. sanctions. "The international crisis over Ukraine escalated sharply Monday as the United States and Europe imposed sanctions on senior Russian political and military figures, and Russian President Vladi­mir Putin signed a decree recognizing the Ukrainian region of Crimea as an independent state. Both actions were taken in response to Sunday’s referendum in Crimea, where a reported 97 percent of voters said they wanted to become part of Russia. The Obama administration said the vote was rigged and discounted it as illegal....What has become the most serious U.S.-Russia confrontation in decades showed no sign of abating Monday, and there was little indication that ongoing diplomatic efforts would succeed in finding a resolution. Beyond Crimea, Putin has defied Western demands that he stop military exercises on Ukraine’s eastern and southern borders, end what the West has called destabilizing actions by pro-Russian provocateurs in Ukrainian cities and open negotiations with Ukraine’s interim government." Karen DeYoung and Griff Witte in The Washington Post.

Here's what the sanctions would do. "EU foreign ministers agreed to freeze assets and impose visa travel bans on 21 Russians and Crimeans, while U.S. President Barack Obama’s administration put similar sanctions on seven Russian government officials and four Ukrainians including ousted President Viktor Yanukovych. Putin responded by recognizing Crimea as a sovereign state. While the sanctions are the broadest used on Russia since the 1991 fall of the Soviet Union, Western leaders left the door open to diplomacy. They kept more punitive measures in reserve to dissuade Putin from moving further into Ukraine and avoid severing trade ties between Russia and the West, even if that may offer little deterrence." James G. Neuger, Stepan Kravchenko and Indira A.R. Lakshmanan in Bloomberg.

Primary sources: President Obama's statement; Second Obama executive order; EU sanctions.

Explainers:

The failure of the U.S.-Russia reset in 9 photos. Adam Taylor in The Washington Post.

Meet the 11 Russians and Ukrainians that the U.S. is sanctioning. Linda Kinstler in The New Republic.

And in response, Russian officials scoffed. "President Obama’s decision to sanction 11 prominent Russian and Ukrainian politicians Monday was met with sarcasm and derision from Russia’s Twitter-happy deputy prime minister Dmitry Rogozin. Rogozin, who was Russia's long time representative at NATO, laughed off the Obama administration’s announcement of a new executive order implementing visa bans and asset freezes against seven Russian political figures, including close aides to Vladimir Putin, and four Ukrainians involved in the attempted secession of Crimea, including former President Viktor Yanukovich. He took to his English and Russian language Twitter accounts to point out that freezing the assets of Russian officials might not be a huge problem for those officials." Josh Rogin in The Daily Beast.

@DRogozin: Comrade @BarackObama, what should do those who have neither accounts nor property abroad? Or U didn't think about it?)http://bit.ly/1ebMXDM

Russia also to respond with countervailing sanctions of its own. "U.S. senators, congressmen and top Obama administration officials are sure to be on Vladimir Putin’s sanctions list; a response to the Obama Administration’s announcement on Monday that 7 Russian officials and 4 Ukrainian officials would be barred from holding assets or traveling to the United States….While the final list is still being crafted, it will include top Obama administration officials and high profile U.S. senators, in an effort to roughly mirror the U.S. sanctions against Russian officials and lawmakers, according to diplomatic sources. At the top of the list in Congress is Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin, who recently co-authored a resolution criticizing Russia’s invasion of Crimea." Josh Rogin in The Daily Beast.

As Obama's strategy rolls on, so does Putin's defiance. "The sanctions...are the latest phase in a process that started with warnings, continued with a cancellation of preparations for the May G-8 summit in Sochi and the creation of a legal sanctions framework, and made a few stops along the way at the White House podium and U.N. Security Council….Vice President Joe Biden is headed to Poland on Monday night in a show of solidarity with leaders there and other Eastern European NATO allies. Obama will be in Brussels next week to press the case himself. But so far, despite all the tough talk and long phone calls between Obama and Putin, the Russians have proceeded exactly as they said they would, despite multiple explicit warnings from America and its allies: Troops came to Crimea and stayed. A referendum was announced and held. Putin formally recognized Crimea as a sovereign state Monday, and seems set to go through with Tuesday plans to address the Russian Duma, where he is expected to urge them to accept widely-ridiculed results from Sunday’s vote…and possibly proceed with annexing the peninsula. Meanwhile, Russian troops aren’t going anywhere.” Edward-Isaac Dovere in Politico.

Analysis: Global crises put Obama's strategy of caution to the test. David E. Sanger in The New York Times.

Explainer: How much more can the U.S. even do? The answer: Not much. Marina Koren in National Journal.

How far can Putin go? "With Western governments demanding loudly that Russia stand down, even some of Putin’s allies say they will be watching to see whether Putin intends to lower the tension — or embark on a more defiant course. The sanctions that the White House announced Monday against seven of Putin’s top aides and political allies are going to put that question to the test." Will Englund in The Washington Post.

Lobbyists in U.S. breathe sigh of relief at modest scale of sanctions. "In Washington, the narrow scope of the sanctions drew sighs of relief from the city's lobbyists, many of whom have energy and banking clients that could stand to lose tens of millions of dollars should tensions escalate further between the U.S. and Russia. According to one lobbyist with foreign clients, the sanctions amounted to the narrowest action the United States could have taken while still appearing to 'take action.'...The sanctions 'are surgical and designed not to create future problems.' For those lobbyists who represent Russian business interests in the United States that could draw Treasury Department scrutiny under the new sanctions, the answer is just to change the payment structure, said another lobbyist on background. 'The funding mechanism is the easiest thing to get around,' said the lobbyist, referring to the new prohibition on conducting business with the sanctioned Russian officials. 'All it takes is a nonprofit group that will pay you to do the work,' thereby creating a diversionary paper trail — one that doesn't trace back to a sanctioned individual. The casual attitude of both the lobbyists and the Russians regarding the sanctions was compounded by the fact that some key players in Putin's Crimea strategy escaped any sanctions at all." Luke Johnson and Christina Wilkie in The Huffington Post.

MILBANK: With sanctions, Obama aims to hit Vladi­mir Putin where it hurts. "There were no fewer than seven mentions of cronies on the call. 'WH Word of Day: ‘Cronies’ used so much in this sanctions conference call, it feels like they poll-tested reaction to it,' NBC’s Kelly O’Donnell tweeted during the call. Poll-tested, perhaps. But did they reality test it? Crony talk may sound strong to an American audience, but there’s little in the sanctions that would actually impair Putin’s cronies, or punish Russia for its actions....From Russia and Ukraine came reports that the targeted 11 don’t have substantial holdings in the United States and are unlikely to be affected greatly. It wasn’t a prank, but neither was it much of a punishment. Clearly, the administration wanted to see whether a symbolic first gesture would be sufficient to give Putin pause.... The select few cronies who were targeted were targeted only gently. On the call, an official said they were going after the assets and wealth of “the individuals known as the cronies” and not the businesses they run. The Obama administration 'will not rule out taking additional steps in the future,' this unnamable official said. That’s a relief. Putin isn’t the type who will back down unless his cronies are really hurting." Dana Milbank in The Washington Post.

CHOTINER: Putin's aggression is not America's fault. "Putin is the leader of a foreign country. The idea that what's written in American magazines leads to American policymakers making policy that in turn enrages Putin that in turn aids and abets his thirst for aggression is, again, almost laughably solipsistic. American policy toward Russia going all the way back to the First World War has often been shortsighted or worse. But when thinking about how to respond—or not respond—to Russia's actions today, it's probably best to stop viewing those actions as the direct result of American foreign policy." Isaac Chotiner in The New Republic.

THE WASHINGTON POST: West's sanctions deliver only slap on the wrist. "The sanctions President Obama announced Monday to punish Russia and its collaborators in Ukraine are intended to inflict economic pain. So a fair measure of their adequacy was the reaction Monday of the Russian stock and currency markets: Both spiked upward in celebration. While Vladi­mir Putin matches or exceeds the most pessimistic expectations of his belligerence — over the weekend, Russian forces extended their invasion from Crimea to an adjacent area of Ukraine — the United States and its allies so far are delivering less than they threatened, or than markets expected, in retaliation. Unless the West quickly steps up measures against the oligarchs, bag men and banks that prop up the Russian regime, the result will likely be more aggression....Mr. Obama said Monday he will 'calibrate our response based on whether Russia chooses to escalate or de-escalate.' Since a de-escalation looks at this point like wishful thinking, we’ll know that the president’s calibrations are adequate when they cause Russia’s markets to plunge rather than rally." Editorial Board.

RADNITZ: Why Putin wants us to believe he's crazy. "No one knows if Putin has been stoking Western anxieties and manufacturing craziness as part of a deliberate, orchestrated campaign. He has probably been improvising for much of the last three weeks. It is also likely that he receives bad advice and his perceptions of events are extremely biased. But given all the breathless claims about what may be going on inside the president’s deranged head, it is worth considering that Putin may be fully aware of just how crazy he seems." Scott Radnitz in Slate.

GOLDBERG: Enough talk of a new cold war. "Will everyone please stop talking about a new Cold War? However badly things work out between Russia and the United States and the West, a new Cold War isn't in the cards because Russia today isn't the Soviet Union. Sure, we are in a diplomatic and geostrategic conflict with Russia, which was the heart of the old Soviet Union. Also, Russia wants much of the real estate that belonged to the Soviet Union before it collapsed. And Vladimir Putin is a former KGB colonel who now waxes nostalgic for the good old days. That's about it. That's hardly nothing, but the Cold War was far more than a conflict with Russia. Everyone should agree on that." Jonah Goldberg in the Los Angeles Times.

HIRSH: What about a 'cool war'? "The United States and Russia have both crossed a Rubicon in the Ukraine crisis, and Washington must now confront the likelihood that if the standoff continues, it will dramatically alter relations on a much larger map than Eastern Europe, inviting Russian recalcitrance in crisis zones as far afield as East Asia, Iran, Syria, and Afghanistan....The U.S.-Russia rivalry that was being vociferously debated as recently as the 2012 presidential election, when President Obama mocked GOP nominee Mitt Romney's argument that Russia had become America's 'No. 1 geopolitical foe,' is today quickly becoming conventional wisdom in Washington. A kind of 'cool war' between the two countries — one that is not quite yet 'cold' — may already be emerging. While this is clearly nothing yet like the great ideological struggle and arms race of the Cold War, U.S. officials may soon need to consider a new strategy involving the containment of Russian countermoves around the world." Michael Hirsh in National Journal.

Top opinion

THE FINANCIAL TIMES: America's cavalier stance on the IMF. "When people fret that the US is becoming a reluctant superpower, they do not normally think of the International Monetary Fund. Yet there are few better examples of America absent-mindedly undercutting itself than Capitol Hill’s refusal to wave through its new IMF quota. The case for passing a bill that would embed IMF governance reforms initiated by successive US administrations – Republican and Democratic – is open and shut. Failure to do so before next month’s annual IMF and World Bank spring meetings would almost certainly delay any prospect of it happening until 2015. That would further erode US leadership among its G20 partners. The window is very narrow. Republicans need to step off their isolationist hobby horse. And President Barack Obama’s administration must find a way of convincing them to do so." Editorial Board.

PONNURU: The Republican midterm temptation to do nothing. "Republicans think they've hit on the perfect strategy to win back the Senate in 2014: Sit back and let it happen....So a lot of the party's leaders are turning passivity into a strategy. What they're telling one another is: Don't make yourself an issue. Don't make serious legislative proposals, because they will only be targets for Democrats. If Republicans make sure not to nominate weak or extreme candidates, and simply rail against Obama's health-care law, they will win....This strategy has ease of execution going for it....The flip side of that advantage is that the passive strategy doesn't maximize opportunity....If Republicans want to govern after 2016, for that matter, they should start preparing now: coming up with an agenda, selling it to the public and refining it as they go.But those considerations involve thinking past the next elections, and that's not something that comes naturally to a lot of politicians." Ramesh Ponnuru in Bloomberg View.

McLARTY: Why Democrats should side with the president on free trade. "When it comes to international trade agreements, Democrats have been sounding a lot like the "party of no." From congressional leaders to some in the party base, pessimism about free trade has become almost a reflex. The default position portrays trade deals as a threat to American jobs and wages, exposing our economic weaknesses to the world, rather than as opportunities to grow our economy and maximize our strengths....It's time to come up with a better approach. Instead of playing defense, or pushing off debate, Democrats should lead a constructive discussion about expanding trade, one true to the party's tradition and values. Its goal should be to place global commerce squarely in the mix of solutions for creating new jobs at good wages at home, restoring the middle class, and asserting U.S. leadership." Thomas F. "Mack" McLarty in The Wall Street Journal.

SOLTAS: Is this the best the economy can do? "Economic theorists wouldn’t be surprised by the possibility that the recession sapped the American economy’s potential. In fact, many warned us about it. A much-discussed paper from J. Bradford DeLong and Lawrence Summers, for instance, argued that an economy’s potential output falls when that potential goes unused for an extended period of time. Their estimates of how quickly that process happens would imply that half the slack that appeared during the recession has since decayed. If this is really what has happened, the policy prescription is clear: less monetary easing. Trying to repair lost potential is something monetary policy simply can’t do. Yet the central challenge of the Fed’s exit strategy is that these are risks, not certainties." Evan Soltas in Bloomberg View.

THE NEW YORK TIMES: A broken military justice system. "On Monday, Brig. Gen. Jeffrey Sinclair avoided prosecution on sexual assault charges that could have brought him a life sentence. In an agreement with the prosecutor, General Sinclair pleaded guilty to lesser charges, including mistreating his accuser, an Army captain and his former mistress. The deal followed a stunning ruling by a military judge last week suggesting that by holding out for more severe punishment, and by rejecting an earlier plea deal, the senior Army officer overseeing the prosecution might have been improperly influenced by political considerations in bringing the most severe charges against the general because of a desire to show new resolve in the military against sexual misconduct. The prosecution had also been badly shaken by revelations that the general’s accuser may have lied under oath. The episode offers a textbook example of justice gone awry, providing yet another reason to overhaul the existing military justice system, which gives commanding officers with built-in conflicts of interest — rather than trained and independent military prosecutors outside the chain of command — the power to decide which sexual assault cases to try." Editorial Board.

KOHUT: Resurgent public optimism on the economy? Don’t hold your breath. "The data suggest that economic attitudes may be more complex indicators than they once were. The public’s view of the national economy is now filtered through the lens of partisanship, and moderated by a continuing perception that the economic news is mixed at best, even as some economic indicators have improved. At the personal level, one’s economic outlook is shaped more by socioeconomic class today than in recent years. Read trends in economic attitudes with care, because they are no longer simply a measure of how well most Americans judge the nation’s condition or their own. They now also reflect increased polarization and growing financial divides in the U.S. It may be some time before the public sees the national economy in a positive light. And the personal financial outlook of middle- and lower-income people may well remain gridlocked into the future." Andrew Kohut in Pew Research Center.

Waking up interlude: Rise and shine!

2. Obamacare hits 5 million signups.

Pace of health insurance enrollment picks up as Affordable Care Act deadline nears. "The Obama administration announced Monday that more than 5 million people have signed up for new insurance plans under the health-care law, suggesting new momentum for the program as the deadline to get covered this year approaches. About 800,000 people selected health plans on the state and federal insurance marketplaces in the beginning of March, officials said in a blog post — almost as many as signed up during the entire month of February. The figure brings the administration closer to Congressional Budget Office projections that 6 million people would enroll by the end of March. Officials had predicted that the pace of enrollments would pick up this month, because March 31 is the last day to sign up for a marketplace plan and avoid a fine. The health law requires most Americans to have health insurance or incur a penalty of $95 or 1 percent of their income this year, whichever is higher." Sandhya Somashekhar in The Washington Post.

But we still don't know how many of those have paid. "As expected, the pace of signups has increased in March, with the deadline to gain coverage without being penalized looming and the White House doing an all-out media blitz to convince Americans to select plans. In September, HHS projected that about 1.4 million people would sign up for coverage in March....The signup figures provided by HHS represent individuals who have selected a plan, regardless of whether or not they have paid, which is typically how enrollment is defined." Philip Klein in the Washington Examiner.

Fact-check: Boehner’s claim that Obamacare has resulted in a net loss of people with health insurance gets four Pinocchios. Glenn Kessler in The Washington Post.

Another tool in Team Obama's youth-outreach toolbox: GIFs. Rebecca Ballhaus in The Wall Street Journal.

Explainer: 7 things you need to know about the Obamacare deadline. Liz Neporent in ABC News.

Other health care reads:

Obamacare was supposed to make markets more competitive. Has it? It's been a mixed bag. Jason Millman in The Washington Post.

How to extend the Obamacare enrollment period. Clara Ritger in National Journal.

How kids are bringing medical marijuana to the states. Emma Roller in National Journal.

Animals interlude: Cats — 20 minutes of them.

3. What's the biggest decision facing Yellen this week?

This is the biggest decision Janet Yellen will have to make at her first meeting. "Is it possible to be too transparent? That’s the question the Federal Reserve will be grappling with this week when its top officials meet in Washington for their regular policy-setting meeting. Transparency has been the mantra of the central bank since former Fed Chairman Ben S. Bernanke took the helm of the historically secretive institution in 2006. He has cited changing that mindset as one of his greatest achievements. But officials may realize that less could be more when it comes to the Fed’s official guidance on when it will raise interest rates….The trouble is that investors and the public have come to expect nothing less than full disclosure. But the limit to Fed transparency may be its own uncertainty about the right path for policy. Here’s the real truth: Fed officials aren’t exactly sure when the right moment to raise rates will be. And that may be the clearest answer they can give." Ylan Mui in The Washington Post.

Fed seen swapping jobless threshold for qualitative guidance. "The Federal Reserve will probably scrap its 6.5 percent unemployment rate threshold and switch to qualitative guidance for signaling when it will consider raising the main interest rate, according to economists in a survey. The Federal Open Market Committee will say on March 19 that it will link policy to a range of economic indicators, according to 76 percent of 54 economists in a March 14-17 Bloomberg News survey. Twenty percent of the economists surveyed said the Fed will maintain the threshold it adopted in December 2012, while 6 percent said it will drop such guidance entirely….Yellen is working to refine Fed communications a year after she said the unemployment rate is limited in how much it reveals about the labor market....'A decline in the unemployment rate could, for example, primarily reflect the exit from the labor force of discouraged job seekers,' Yellen said in a March 2013 speech in Washington. 'That is an important reason why the committee will consider a broad range of labor market indicators.' " Jeff Kearns and Catarina Saraiva in Bloomberg.

Two economic reports are reinforcing the likelihood that Fed will keep tapering bond purchases. "American manufacturing output recorded its largest increase in six months in February and factory activity in New York State expanded early this month, the latest signs that the economy is gaining momentum after being dampened by severe weather. The two fairly upbeat reports on factory output appeared likely to encourage the Federal Reserve to further scale back its economic stimulus program this week, even though a separate report suggested that the housing sector would take a while to pull out of its recent soft patch....With job growth accelerating and manufacturing output rebounding, economists expect the Fed to announce another $10 billion reduction to its monthly bond purchases when the central bank’s policy makers conclude a two-day meeting on Wednesday." Reuters.

Continuing the taper was considered likely to begin with. "Yellen, who was sworn as chair on Feb. 3, has spoken of seeking continuity with Bernanke, under whom she served as vice chair. That’s partly why the Fed will likely announce this week a third reduction in its monthly bond purchases. Those purchases have been intended to keep long-term loan rates low to encourage spending and growth." The Associated Press.

Unemployment at a post-recession low in 30 states, but the news isn't all good. "Unemployment rates in 30 states are the lowest they’ve been since the recession ended, according to the Labor Department. But beneath that headline statistic, the state of the state labor markets is far from recovered....In the vast majority of states, long-term unemployment — a particularly intractable problem — is at or near record highs. In many states, the income gap between the poorest and richest has widened. And, as the Economic Policy Institute recently reported, low-wage workers in nearly every state have seen their wages drop (see chart below)." Niraj Chokshi in The Washington Post.

Other economic indicators:

Home-builders' confidence still shaky. Tim Logan in the Los Angeles Times.

Other economy reads:

Long read: Your local pharmacy is closing the wage divide between men and women. Jordan Weissmann in Slate.

Has food stamp enrollment finally peaked? Damian Paletta in The Wall Street Journal.

Here’s why the gender wage gap hasn’t budged in a decade. Ylan Mui in The Washington Post.

Earthquake interlude: Quake rattles live newscast in California.

4. Don't worry. The Internet isn't in danger.

Internet transition triggers GOP backlash. "The Obama administration’s decision to relinquish oversight over the group that manages the Internet’s architecture has raised an early red flag with Republicans, who blast the move as a threat to free speech. The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers has managed the Web’s domain-name system under contract with the U.S. government for more than a decade — but the Los Angeles-based nonprofit has worked to transform itself into a global organization free of U.S. ties. European Union officials backed the globalization effort, which intensified with Edward Snowden’s leaks about the NSA’s sprawling surveillance programs....Exactly who would regulate the Web’s back-end is unclear, but the decision already has sparked backlash among some in the GOP, who warn it could allow the United Nations or authoritarian countries to step in and seize control of the Web." Jessica Meyers and Erin Mershon in Politico.

Advocates see the opposite: "A necessary step toward a more global Internet and one less susceptible to strong-arming tactics. Critics 'are trying to politicize this,' said Cameron Kerry, the Commerce Department’s former general counsel and current visiting fellow at Brookings. 'This is about protecting the Internet from governmental interference. And the best way to do this is to get the U.S. government out of this role.'" Jessica Meyers and Erin Mershon in Politico.

Misinformation about the transfer abounds. "The blogosphere is all ablaze with chatter over the announcement that the U.S. government will relinquish its Internet administrative duties to a global coalition comprised of private companies, 'civil society, and other Internet organizations from the whole world'...The news has prompted overwrought, histrionic blogs and online comments about the end of free speech on the Internet as we know it. But that assumption is dead wrong. Furthermore, it demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of not only the functions of ICANN (the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers) but of the DNS (Domain Name System) in general. Surveillance, content control, and government censorship of the Web are controversial and unsettling, but they have zip to do with Internet DNS....These workings of DNS are so far under the hood that no one, except perhaps DNS administrators, will notice any changes with their Web access. There is no imminent danger to the content we access, and once the U.S. government relinquishes these duties, you will still be able to access the Web as you do now." Samara Lynn in PC Magazine.

What is actually being transferred? "The transition to full ICANN control of the Internet's address system won't happen until October 2015, and even then, there likely won't be any sudden changes. ICANN was already managing the system under a contract from the Commerce Department. But having the ultimate authority over the domain name system was the most important leverage the United States had in debates over the operation of the Internet. It was a trump card the U.S. could play if it wanted to veto an ICANN decision or fend off an international attack on Internet freedom. The Obama administration is keenly aware of the potential for an authoritarian regime to seize power over the Internet. ICANN will have to submit a proposal for the new management system to the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, an agency within the Commerce Department." Brendan Sasso in National Journal.

Who will be in this new multi-stakeholder group? "The US has stated that the new organization will not be composed solely of governments, but that they should be treated as equal players to the eventual organization. There is some fair question over whether or not ICANN has the expertise to fulfill its mandate outside of any kind of oversight — in the past, its reliance on top-level domains as a source of income have led to charges that it faces a fundamental conflict of interest. Presumably the organization may be able to revisit its own funding model as well." Joel Hruska in ExtremeTech.

Explainer: ICANN 101: Who will oversee the Internet? Gautham Nagesh in The Wall Street Journal.

Big bang interlude: Physicist learns his life's work is correct.

5. Yes, climate change is still happening. But the U.S. took a step backward on it.

Top scientific group sounds the alarm on climate in new report. "A committee of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the world’s largest general scientific society...will warn that the effects of human emissions of heat-trapping gases are already being felt, that the ultimate consequences could be dire, and that the window to do something about it is closing....In a sense, this is just one more report about global warming in a string going back decades. For anybody who was already paying attention, the report contains no new science. But the language in the 18-page report, called 'What We Know,' is sharper, clearer and more accessible than perhaps anything the scientific community has put out to date. And the association does not plan to stop with the report. The group, with a membership of 121,200 scientists and science supporters around the world, plans a broad outreach campaign to put forward accurate information in simple language. The scientists are essentially trying to use their powers of persuasion to cut through public confusion over this issue." Justin Gillis in The New York Times.

Congress undoes the one good thing it has done on climate change. "Congress approved changes to the federal flood insurance program in June 2012 that lawmakers said then would fix the program's problems and make it more financially stable. The bipartisan reforms phased out subsidies for high-risk coastal properties, which onlookers concerned about climate change said was key to discouraging unsustainable coastal development. It was perhaps the only good thing on climate that Congress had done in a really long time. Last week, Congress decided to undo it....Lawmakers who pushed for the reversal declare it a win for homeowners facing large rate increases. But critics say Congress is turning a blind eye to the National Flood Insurance Program's insolvency and the growing risks climate change poses to its viability....Critics on both sides of the political spectrum accuse Congress and the Obama administration of bowing to pressure." Kate Sheppard in The Huffington Post.

Poll: Most Americans believe global warming is exaggerated. Gallup.

Other environmental reads:

EPA bid for rules on coal-ash waste gains steam After N.C. accident. Valerie Bauerlein in The Wall Street Journal.

Optical illusions interlude: Whoa.

Wonkblog roundup

Obamacare was supposed to make insurance markets more competitive. Has it? Jason Millman.

The housing recovery is leaving minorities behind. Emily Badger.

Here’s why the gender wage gap hasn’t budged in a decade. Ylan Mui.

Obama administration wants fewer people to get insurance cancellation notices. Jason Millman.

This is the biggest decision Janet Yellen will have to make at her first Fed meeting. Ylan Mui.

Et Cetera

States urge retail giants with pharmacies to stop selling tobacco products. Elizabeth A. Harris in The New York Times.

Wyoming is the first state to officially reject new science standards. Valerie Strauss in The Washington Post.

In reversal since the recession, some states give more money to public television. Elizabeth Jensen in The New York Times.

Gillibrand, McCaskill rekindle debate after high-profile sexual assault case ruling. Stacy Kaper in National Journal.

Got tips, additions, or comments? E-mail us.

Wonkbook is produced with help from Michelle Williams.

Interactive: When women inherit their husbands’ Congressional seats

If Debbie Dingell succeeds her husband John in Michigan's 12th Congressional district - as seems likely - it will mark a slightly odd milestone: she'll be the first woman to take over her husband's seat while her husband is still alive.

Plenty of women have inherited their husband's seats before - 47 to be exact, 8 in the Senate and 39 in the House. But according to Debbie Walsh of the Center for American Women in Politics at Rutgers University, in all those instances the woman took over the seat after her husband had passed away. The mechanics are slightly different for the House and Senate - empty House seats are filled via a special election, while Senate seats are typically filled via appointment. "Widow's succession" or the "widow's mandate" is the technical term for when an empty seat is filled by the spouse of the deceased legislator.

"Widow's succession used to be THE way that women got into Congress, with very few exceptions," explains Walsh. The practice peaked in the mid-twentieth century. "There was a period when you could look at all the women serving in Congress, and a majority had initially gotten in that way." It's declined since, but still persists - Lois Capps (D-CA) and Doris Matsui (D-CA) are the only two women currently in Congress who initially inherited their husbands' seats.

The idea behind the practice was continuity, the notion that the women would complete the work their husbands started. "For the parties, these women were placeholders," Walsh says. "The idea was to get somebody in and then regroup, and keep intra-party fights from happening."

I was curious whether it worked out this way in practice: Did the widows govern similarly to their husbands while in office? One way to get at this question is to look at the comparative ideological leanings of both spouses while in office. For each husband-wife pair, the chart below plots ideology scores developed by political scientists Keith Poole and Howard Rosenthal - positive for conservative ideology, negative for liberal. Because these scores are derived from legislators' voting records, they serve as a useful proxy for overall governing behavior. Use the buttons to sort the chart by husband or wife's political ideology, the difference between the two, or the date the wife took office.

In most cases wives do in fact govern similarly to their husbands - on average wives' ideological scores are slightly more liberal than their spouses, but not by much. California's Mary Bono is notable among recent widows for being significantly more conservative than her husband Sonny. Interestingly, the greatest spousal ideological differences occurred in the early part of the 20th century - of the five largest ideology score differences, four were from women who took office in the 1920s and 1930s.

Moreover, in the 1920s and 1930s women tended to govern closer to the center than their husbands - Democratic women were more conservative than their husbands, while Republican women were more liberal. But this trend fades after that point. Conversely, since the 1970s most of the widows have generally governed similarly to their husbands.

Which brings us back to Deborah Dingell. If the recent trends hold true, it's safe to assume she won't make any radical departures from her husband's record. On the other hand, by taking office while her husband is still alive she's in somewhat uncharted territory.

One final thought: I asked Debbie Walsh of the Center for American Women in Politics how many instances there have been of men stepping in after their wives pass away - widowers' succession, if you will. She told me there had been exactly zero.

Obamacare was supposed to make insurance markets more competitive. Has it?

(Photo by Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg)

Obamacare is supposed to create competitive marketplaces where insurers will have to fight for people’s business. Is that actually happening?

With the law's first enrollment period set to close in two weeks, the results are a mixed bag so far, according to a new analysis from the Kaiser Family Foundation.

The idea behind the Obamacare exchanges is to level the playing field in the individual market – eliminate medical underwriting and require insurers to adhere to requirements related to benefits, care provider networks and limits on out-of-pocket spending. By operating under the same set of standards, insurers are supposed to be able to compete fairly for customers.

Before the Affordable Care Act, about 30 states had a single insurer that accounted for more than half of their participants in the individual market, according to the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The law’s effect in each state’s insurance market will vary based on history, regulation and demographics.

Kaiser compared the market share for insurers selling on seven state-run exchanges where that information has been reported. One caveat to the group's analysis: It doesn’t include health plans purchased off the exchange, so we don't have the full picture.

California and New York, which so far have the most signups of the 15 state-run exchanges, both have seen increased competition compared to their 2012 insurance markets, the Kaiser analysis found. That’s based on the market share for the state’s largest insurer, the number of insurers with more than 5 percent market share and an indicator known as the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index, which is a measure of how insurers' market share is distributed.

Connecticut and Washington State have conversely seen their insurance markets become less competitive, KFF found. Still, they rank among some of the best states for insurance signups. Competition has remained about the same in Minnesota, Nevada and Rhode Island, according to the analysis.

These seven states won’t be representative of the entire country, KFF points out. The numbers come from state-run exchanges, and officials in those states are dedicated to boosting Obamacare enrollment. There could be a far different picture in the 36 states with federal-run exchanges, where the health care law gets much less of an embrace. Still, the Kaiser report provides a gauge of how the young health care law is doing.

"The long-term success of the exchanges and other ACA provisions governing market rules will be measured in part by how well they facilitate market competition, providing consumers with a diversity of choices and hopefully lower prices for insurance than would have otherwise been the case," the Kaiser authors wrote.

It’s going to take a few years for the ACA to unfold, and one of the competitiveness indicators to watch is whether insurers join new markets. The Department of Health and Human Services has used new market entrants as an important data point in the past.

A department report released last May touted that 25 percent of insurers that applied to sell on federal-run exchanges in 36 states were new to the individual market. About 65 percent of those new entrants were in states where one insurer had dominated the market.

“Whether individuals are uninsured, or just want to explore new options, the Marketplace will provide more choice and control over health insurance options,” HHS bragged in the report.

But will the new insurers stay there, and will others join if it looks like one or two companies are still dominating a state's individual insurance market? Can the exchanges create and sustain a more competitive environment? Stay tuned.