August 23, 2017

Chemical Spraying Resumes

Over the past few days, Florida has been treated to crystal clear blue (deep blue) skies, along with very low humidity. Nothing was put into the atmosphere by man. It has been normal.

Early this morning there was a wind shift. Today the wind is out of the East and shifting around to the Southeast and eventually to the South…is the forecast. With that direction of wind, it means increasing humidity – evidently something that is not liked by the aerosol bastards dumping crap on our heads. I suppose it could also be that a certain degree of humidity, and/or dewpoint, is required in order for whatever it is they are trying to do to do it more efficiently and effectively.

By 11:00 this morning, the blue sky is gone, once again, and is replaced with multiple chemical trails now turning the sky milky white. At one point I counted no fewer than 30 distinct trails.

Going outside at daybreak you could see that spraying began well before daylight. If you step outside right now, there are always planes laying down more trails, and more trails.

All of this while brainwashed masses worry about such things as whether lead from ammunition might be making animals sick or us humans, should we eat any game killed by lead bullets.

Look up! Look up! Look up!

You might have fun with this site – http://planefinder.net/ Spot one of those planes laying down a big, white trail behind it and then get on your computer and see if you can find it.

Share

Federal Government’s Dietary Guidelines Should Not Be Distorted By Environmental Activism

Press Release from National Center for Public Policy Research:

Climate Change Activists Have Been Pushing to Influence Report Out Today

Dietary Guidelines Should Promote Health and Disease Risk Reduction, Not Focus on Promoting a Smaller Carbon Footprint in Food Production, Expert Says

New York, NY/Washington DC – The Obama Administration’s Departments of Agriculture and Health and Human Services joint Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee is releasing its report today at 1 PM ET.

National Center Senior Fellow and Risk Analysis Division Director Jeff Stier has warned about the outcome of the report, writing in the Washington Examiner last year, “At a closed-door meeting (in March), administration officials and their advisers will plot to insert the global warming agenda into dietary guidelines mandated by Congress.

Below is a statement from Jeff Stier:

The process leading to today’s report was heavily influenced by activists’ plans to change the nation’s dietary guidelines to promote foods that they believe have “a smaller carbon footprint.”

In the past, as required by Congress, the federal government’s dietary guidelines were intended exclusively to ‘promote health and reduce risk for major chronic diseases.’

This is no longer the case. For the first time in the history of the guidelines, ‘sustainability’ has been a prominent part of the agenda. Actual items on their Dietary Guidelines working group agenda included ‘immigration,’ ‘global climate change’ and ‘agriculture/aquaculture sustainability.’

What’s more, if the Obama administration allows this theme to become part of the new dietary guidelines to be released later this year, it will cost the public money and not make us any healthier.

By favoring foods which activists think have a smaller carbon footprint, the new guidelines will increase the prices you pay for your food. It will also increase the cost to all taxpayers, since the Dietary Guidelines are used to set policy for food stamps (SNAP) and military diets.
New York City-based Jeff Stier is a Senior Fellow at the National Center for Public Policy Research in Washington, D.C., and heads its Risk Analysis Division. Stier is a frequent guest on CNBC, and has addressed health policy on CNN, Fox News Channel and MSNBC, as well as network newscasts. Stier’s National Center op-eds have been published in top outlets, including the Los Angeles Times, the New York Post, Newsday, Forbes, the Washington Examiner and National Review Online. He also frequently discusses risk issues on Twitter at @JeffaStier.

The National Center for Public Policy Research, founded in 1982, is a non-partisan, free-market, independent conservative think-tank. Ninety-four percent of its support comes from individuals, three percent from foundations, and three percent from corporations. It receives over 350,000 individual contributions a year from over 96,000 active recent contributors.

Contributions are tax-deductible and greatly appreciated.

Share

BEFORE You Get a “Measles” Innoculation

“If you have any questions about the lying, cheating, thieving criminals in Washington DC, simply spend the next 8 minutes watching this “bureaucrat” squirm in his chair with guilt. Can you say crocodile tears? I knew you could. Be sure and allow the “hysteria” being whipped up over the measles to drive your car to the nearest inoculation center and have all your family injected with a serum that permanently changes your body chemistry. It seems the criminals in charge are doing what they do best; lying about a situation, blowing it out of proportion and parading an endless line of idiots across the TV screen to give “credibility” to their claims. Anyone who believes that the cocktail of vaccines, flu shots and other injectibles that are currently being passed around are healthy and good for your family–go ahead guinea pig, just leave me and my family alone and DO NOT demand that I participate in ANY program administrated by lying, cheating, stealing criminals.”<<<Read More>>>

Share

ObamaCare Customers Should Beware of Higher Prices

Some ObamaCare Premium Increases will be Over $1,000 Annually, New Study Says

Washington DC – Consumers who in 2015 kept the same plans they purchased for 2014 on the ObamaCare Exchanges could be in for a big shock, warns Dr. David Hogberg, senior fellow at the National Center for Public Policy Research.

“Because of the way the subsidy mechanism works, some consumers could see an exorbitant increase in premiums,” Hogberg said. “For example, a 27-year-old single person in Denver, Colorado making $25,000 annually who bought the cheapest bronze plan would pay $535 more this year. A 57-year-old couple in Miami, Florida earning $50,000 annually who did the same would pay $1,548 more.

The worst area was Jackson, Mississippi, where a 27-year-old earning $25,000 who kept the cheapest bronze plan would pay $1,168 more and a 57-year-old couple earning $50,000 would pay $3,282 more.

In the study, “Three Ways Consumers Could Pay Exorbitantly Higher Premiums on the ObamaCare Exchanges in 2015,” Hogberg explains how this can happen.

To see how an area in your state fared, see Tables 5 and 6 near the end of the study.

“The subsidy is based, in part, on the second lowest-cost silver plan on the exchange and when the price of that plan drops, so will the subsidy,” Hogberg says. “Consumers in those exchanges are the most at risk, but even consumers on exchanges where the second-lowest cost silver plan increases, thereby increasing the subsidy, are not necessarily safe from substantial premium increases.”

First, consumers who qualified for a subsidy in 2014 will see their subsidy decline in 2015 if they are on an exchange in which the price of the second-lowest cost silver plan declines. If they also have a policy that has increased in price, then they will pay higher premiums. That is what happened in Jackson, Mississippi where, for a 27-year-old, the subsidy dropped by $83 per month and the cheapest bronze plan rose by $14 a per month. That resulted in a monthly premium increase of $97, or about $1,168 annually.

Second, consumers on an exchange in which the price of the second-lowest cost silver plan declined could pay higher premiums if they had a policy that decreased in price but did not decrease as much as the price of the second-lowest cost silver plan. That happened in New Hampshire. For a 57-year-old couple, the subsidy declined $163 per month while the bronze plan dropped $11 per month, resulting in a premium increase of $152 per month or $1,824 annually.

Finally, it is even possible for consumers to pay higher premiums on an exchange in which the subsidies increased. Consumers on those exchanges who own a policy that increases more than the subsidy will pay higher premiums. In Miami, Florida, a 57-year-old couple with the cheapest bronze plan in 2014 saw a monthly premium increase of $129 ($1,548 annually) because the subsidy increased $18 per month but the cheapest bronze plan rose $147 per month.

“Consumers facing such increases will either have to find room in their budgets or deal with the hassle of changing insurance plans,” says Hogberg. “And, as the study also shows, switching plans is no guarantee that a consumer won’t still pay more than he or she did last year.”

The National Center for Public Policy Research, founded in 1982, is a non- partisan, free-market, independent conservative think-tank. Ninety-four percent of its support comes from individuals, less than four percent from foundations, and less than two percent from corporations. It receives over 350,000 individual contributions a year from over 96,000 active recent contributors.

Contributions are tax-deductible and greatly appreciated.

Share

It Continues: Eating Wolf Scat and Howling at the Moon

WolfScatIn 2010 it was considered by most as absolutely atrocious that wildlife officials would tell citizens that in order to contract Echinococcus granulosis, you had to eat wolf excrement. As ridiculous as that sounds, the same utter nonsense continues to be perpetuated.

“But veterinarians point out that other critters are host to the parasite, too. It’s been around for a long time. A human would essentially have to eat the poop of an infected animal to contract the parasite.”

“If you’re worried about wolf diseases, wear latex gloves while cleaning game, wash your hands – and don’t eat poop.”<<<Read More>>>

One has to wonder that had it been stated that Ebola was transmitted to humans via the wolf, if so many would be as eager to protect the wolf over the human?

It seems that in any discussion about wolves, too much emphasis is placed on either or of both extremes. A reader here at this website pointed out last evening that issues of Echinococcus granulosis isn’t about scare tactics and fear mongering. It’s about gaining the accurate knowledge in order that any person can properly use the best tactics, for their own circumstances, to reduce the risk of contracting the disease. Why is that so difficult to do and met with such resistance?

I think there are many things at play here that drives human actions, non of which are for the benefit of the human being; only the wolf.

For those of us who have spent a considerable amount of time studying this issue, what has changed doesn’t seem to be taken into consideration. It’s easy to fall back on making a statement that E.g. has been around for a long time. And it has, but what has changed is, the United States Lower 48 states now have wolves numbering in the thousands. The human population has grown. There are more domestic canine pets than ever at any time in history and testing and studies are now confirming the existence of the more virulent strains of E.g., previously only found in remote northern climates. How that strain got here is mostly immaterial, except to discover whether or not it did happen through wolf introduction using wolves from Canada, to insure it wouldn’t happen again in a similar instance. Learning of the dangers and how to avoid them is responsible.

It isn’t about scaring people. It’s about discovering truth, not denying or covering it up.

Share

8 Lies Told by ObamaCare Supporters

GrubersBeing Able to Keep Your Insurance to Fabricating Numbers of the Newly Insured

ObamaCare ‘Architect’ Jonathan Gruber Compounded Lies During Senate Testimony Tuesday

Washington, DC – “Jonathan Gruber’s attempt at contrition on Tuesday would be more credible if he hadn’t compounded his lies,” said Dr. David Hogberg, senior fellow at the National Center for Public Policy Research. “But using lies to promote ObamaCare has been part and parcel of the strategy of this Administration and its allies.”

In a new National Policy Analysis paper entitled “Eight Lies Told By ObamaCare Supporters,” Dr. Hogberg chronicles the fabrications that the Administration and its supporters have propagated to sell this law.

“There is always some shading of the truth in politics,” says Dr. Hogberg, “but this goes beyond that. Rather, these are examples of President Obama or one of his supporters knowing that the truth was ‘A’ but telling the public it was ‘B’.”

The most notorious lie is, of course, “If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan.”

Gruber, one of the architects of ObamaCare, has come under fire for saying that only people who buy insurance through state-based ObamaCare exchanges are eligible for premium subsidies and not people who buy through the federal exchanges. On Tuesday he claimed that people in state exchanges would be the only ones eligible for subsidies if the federal government didn’t establish a federal exchange: “The point I believe I was making was about the possibility that the federal government, for whatever reason, might not create a federal exchange,” Gruber said. “If that were to occur, and only in that context, then the only way that states could guarantee that their citizens would receive tax credits would be to set up their own exchanges.”

“That doesn’t even pass the laugh test,” said Dr. Hogberg. “There was never any legitimate concern that the Federal Government wouldn’t set up exchanges, so why would Gruber worry about that? He wouldn’t. If he was, he would have qualified his remarks by saying that subsidies are limited to state-based exchanges only if the federal government fail to set up exchanges. But, of course, he never did that.”

Grubers: Candy Coating Over a Really Nutty Idea”That claim was no longer plausible after an analysis by the IRS in June 2010 showed that the grandfather regulations would result in millions losing their insurance,” says Dr. Hogberg. “But President Obama repeated that claim at least six times after June 2010.”

Dr. Hogberg’s new paper exposes not only other Gruber lies, but also lies from President Obama, Kathleen Sebelius, and the Department of Health and Human Services.

In “honor” of Jonathan Gruber’s Senate testimony Tuesday, the National Center also released a lighthearted parody meme, “Grubers: Candy Coating Over a Really Nutty Idea,” to draw attention to the fundamental dishonesty with which the Obama White House and its allies sold ObamaCare to the public. As National Center President David Ridenour noted, “Jonathan Gruber put a candy coating around the nutty ObamaCare idea to trick people into accepting it.”

The National Center for Public Policy Research, founded in 1982, is a non-partisan, free-market, independent conservative think-tank. Ninety-four percent of its support comes from individuals, less than four percent from foundations, and less than two percent from corporations. It receives over 350,000 individual contributions a year from over 96,000 active recent contributors.

Contributions to the National Center are tax-deductible and greatly appreciated.

Share

Physicians Are Leaving Medicare Because of “Doc Fix” Process

Press Release from National Center for Public Policy Research:

Threat of Drastic Cuts to Medicare Physician Fees Create Immense Uncertainty for Physicians

Congress Always Suspends the Cuts and Will Do So Again this January – It’s Time to End this Fraud Permanently

Washington, DC – “It’s a sad state of affairs when doctors are forced to risk the financial health of their practices just to take on new Medicare patients,” said Dr. David Hogberg, senior fellow at the National Center for Public Policy Research. “But that’s the result of the uncertainty created by threatened cuts to Medicare physician fees.”

In an a new National Policy Analysis paper entitled “To Bring Doctors Back to Medicare, Fix The ‘Doc Fix’,” Dr. Hogberg argues that it is time to end the threat of physician cuts.

Every one to two years, Medicare threatens to drastically cut what it pays physicians. The cuts are the result of a formula known as the Sustainable Growth Rate (SGR). When Medicare physician fees exceed an expenditure target, the SGR is supposed to result in automatic, across-the-board cuts.

“But it’s a fraud,” says Dr. Hogberg. “Congress is unwilling to make the cuts, so it routinely suspends the cuts and replaces them with a one to two percent increase in fees, a process known as the ‘Doc Fix.'”

“Congress will be doing it again come January, when a 25 percent cut in Medicare physician fees is scheduled to take place,” he continued. “Congress will undoubtedly suspend it. But the problem is that this creates uncertainty among physicians. As a result, more and more physicians are limiting their exposure to Medicare. This is a big factor in helping to drive doctors away from Medicare.”

In 2001, about 10 percent of physicians were no longer seeing new Medicare patients. Now it’s 17 percent.

A 2010 American Medical Association survey found that over three-quarters of the physicians who limit the Medicare patients they see cited the “ongoing threat of future payment cut makes Medicare an unreliable payer” as a reason.

The National Policy Analysis paper points to the example of Dr. John Slatosky, a primary care physician in rural North Carolina. In 2007 he stopped seeing new Medicare patients because he worried the government might suddenly and dramatically cut the amount it paid him to treat Medicare patients. It was a decision that bothered him greatly, as now there would be Medicare patients in his area who would have to look for a doctor elsewhere.

“But, in the end, it was better to have a physician here seeing some of the Medicare patients in the area than me losing my business and having no physician here at all,” said Dr. Slatosky.

By 2030, the number of Medicare patients will increase 50 percent above present levels. “We need more physicians taking Medicare patients, not fewer,” notes Dr. Hogberg. “Ending the SGR is a good first step.”

The National Center for Public Policy Research, founded in 1982, is a non-partisan, free-market, independent conservative think-tank. Ninety-four percent of its support comes from individuals, less than four percent from foundations, and less than two percent from corporations. It receives over 350,000 individual contributions a year from over 96,000 active recent contributors.

Contributions to the National Center are tax-deductible and greatly appreciated.

Share

How to Get Doctors Back to Seeing Medicare Patients

If We Want Doctors to Return to Medicare, It Is Time to End The “Doc Fix”

Physicians Are Leaving Medicare in Part Because of the Uncertainty Created by the Regular Threat of Drastic Cuts to Medicare Physician Fees

Congress Always Suspends The Cuts and Will Do so Again This January – It’s Time to End This Fraud Permanently

Washington, DC – “Every one to two years, Medicare threatens to drastically cut what it pays physicians. This is a big factor in helping to drive doctors away from Medicare,” says Dr. David Hogberg, senior fellow at the National Center for Public Policy Research

In an op-ed for the Washington Examiner published today, “To bring doctors back to Medicare, fix the ‘Doc Fix’,” Dr. Hogberg argues that it is time to end the physician cuts.

“The cuts are the result of a formula known as the Sustainable Growth Rate. When Medicare physicians fees exceed an expenditure target, the SGR is supposed to result in automatic, across-the-board cuts,” he explains. “But it’s a fraud. Congress is unwilling to make the cuts, so it routinely suspends the cuts and replaces them with a one to two percent increase in fees, a process known as the ‘Doc Fix.’

“Congress will be doing it again come January, when a 25 percent cut in Medicare physician fees is scheduled to take place,” he continued. “Congress will undoubtedly suspend it. But the problem is that this creates uncertainty among physicians. As a result, more and more physicians are limiting their exposure to Medicare.”

A 2010 American Medical Association survey found that over three-quarters of the physicians who limit the Medicare patients they see cited the “ongoing threat of future payment cut makes Medicare an unreliable payer” as a reason.(1)

The op-ed points to the example of Dr. John Slatosky, a primary care physician in rural North Carolina. In 2007 he stopped seeing new Medicare patients because he worried the government might suddenly and dramatically cut the amount it paid him to treat Medicare patients. It was a decision that bothered him greatly, as now their would be Medicare patients in his area who would have to look for a doctor elsewhere.

“But, in the end, it was better to have a physician here seeing some of the Medicare patients in the area than me losing my business and having no physician here at all,” said Dr. Slatosky.

In 2001, about 10 percent of physicians were no longer seeing new Medicare patients. Now it’s 17 percent.(2)

By 2030, the number of Medicare patients will increase 50 percent above present levels. We need more physicians taking Medicare patients, not fewer, notes Dr. Hogberg.

“It’s a sad state of affairs when doctors are forced to risk the financial health of their practices just to take on new Medicare patients,” said Dr. Hogberg. “Congress needs to stop the Doc Fix kabuki dance and enact a permanent repeal of the SGR.”

The National Center for Public Policy Research, founded in 1982, is a non-partisan, free-market, independent conservative think-tank. Ninety-four percent of its support comes from individuals, less than four percent from foundations, and less than two percent from corporations. It receives over 350,000 individual contributions a year from over 96,000 active recent contributors.

Contributions to the National Center are tax-deductible and greatly appreciated.

Share

Turley Will Represent House in Challenging Executive Power in Obamacare

“As many on this blog are aware, I have previously testified, written, and litigated in opposition to the rise of executive power and the countervailing decline in congressional power in our tripartite system. I have also spent years encouraging Congress, under both Democratic and Republican presidents, to more actively defend its authority, including seeking judicial review in separation of powers conflicts. For that reason, it may come as little surprise this morning that I have agreed to represent the United States House of Representatives in its challenge of unilateral, unconstitutional actions taken by the Obama Administration with respect to implementation of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). It is an honor to represent the institution in this historic lawsuit and to work with the talented staff of the House General Counsel’s Office. As in the past, this posting is meant to be transparent about my representation as well as my need to be circumspect about my comments in the future on related stories.”<<<Read More>>>

Share

ObamaCare Exchanges Are Set to Create a Host of New Problems and Exacerbate Old Ones

Press Release from the National Center for Public Policy Research:

‘Glitch’ in Subsidy Mechanism Means Many Exchange Consumers Could Pay Higher Premiums

Customers Will Find Insurance with Even Skinnier Networks; Exchanges Will Move One Step Closer to Death Spiral

Dr. David Hogberg, Health Care Policy Analyst, Available to Discuss What to Expect from Exchanges’ Second Open Enrollment Season

Washington, DC – While a repeat of last year’s disaster is unlikely when ObamaCare exchanges re-open this Saturday, they will still be plagued with problems.

“Consumers who enrolled last year are likely to see the premiums spike, especially if they received a subsidy,” said Dr. David Hogberg, health care policy analyst at the National Center for Public Policy Research. “Further, if enrollment is anything like it was last year, then the exchanges are headed for big problems down the road.”

About 83 percent of exchange enrollees have received a premiums subsidy. Many of them may see their subsidy amount drop because of the way the subsidy is calculated. It is based on the second-lowest cost silver plan, and that plan will likely be cheaper on most exchanges this year. That could mean hefty premium hikes for people who don’t change their plans.

Enrollees shouldn’t expect the “skinny networks” in most exchange plans to gain any weight. Most indications are that insurers are sticking with provider networks that offer limited choice of physicians and hospitals in order to keep costs down.

Expect the risk pools on the exchanges to deteriorate. The enrollees on the exchange are already older and sicker than is optimal for an insurance risk pool. Under such conditions, a death spiral will eventually occur, causing premiums to skyrocket, prompting younger and healthier enrollees to drop out. This leaves the risk pools even sicker and older, and the process repeats. The Obama Administration was counting on the new enrollees to balance out the risk pools, but recently the Administration admitted that only 2 to 3 million new people will likely sign up, far short of the 6 million projected by the Congressional Budget Office.

Finally, as the risk pools worsen, expect the insurance company bailout–i.e., the “risk corridors”– to cost the taxpayers even more next year. If the pools are even older and sicker than they were before, the bailout will be even greater than the $1 billion that the risk corridors are expected to cost for 2014.

“Last year, the problems with the exchanges were readily apparent,” said Dr. Hogberg. “This year the problems might be less apparent, but they are just as serious.”

Facts and Figures

• An analysis by the Colorado state government found that lower-cost silver plans could reduce subsidies to the point that exchange consumers could see their premiums rise by an average of 77 percent if they keep their current plans.

• The regulations governing ObamaCare exchanges have worsened the quality of insurance plans. To cover the cost of the regulations and keep premiums even remotely reasonable, insurers had to increase out-of-pocket costs and reduce provider networks. A National Center for Public Policy Research study found there was an average of 33 policies for a 27-year-old on the individual market in 2013 that had both lower premiums and lower or equal out-of-pocket costs than the cheapest policy on the exchange. There were ten such policies for a 57-year-old couple. It also found that network quality declined. The average number of preferred provider organization plans on the exchange declined when compared to the individual market while the number of plans with more restrictive health maintenance organizations (HMO) increased considerably.

• In California, insurers on the exchange plan to keep the skinny provider networks despite substantial consumer criticism. Los Angeles Times analysis of company data shows that some networks will continue to shrink. Insurer HealthNet, the Times says, is dumping one of its Preferred Provider Network plans and “switching to a plan with 54 percent fewer doctors and no out-of-network coverage, state data show.” Adding insult to injury, the premiums are increasing nine percent. The Times reports the company said “its cutbacks were necessary to avoid even steeper rate hikes.”

• The exchanges have reduced competition. A recent Government Accountability Office (GAO) report found that consumers had access to an average of 36 insurers in their states in 2012. That dropped to an average of three on the ObamaCare exchanges. Large insurers were the most likely to participate on the exchanges, while “most smaller issuers with less than 5 percent of the 2012 market did not participate in the 2014 exchanges,” according to the GAO report. It’s not clear why the small companies didn’t participate, but Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) identified perhaps the likeliest reason when he said, “the GAO report provides evidence that the health care law’s burdensome requirements may be giving an unfair advantage to big insurers over smaller ones.”

• Only 28 percent of exchange enrollees are between the ages of 18-34, far short of the 38 to 40 percent the Obama Administration said would be needed to keep the risk pools stable.

• A good indicator of a person’s health is his or her self-reported health status. A Gallup poll found that newly-insured people who obtained policies on the exchanges self-reported being less healthy, on average. About 37 percent said they were in excellent or very good health while 22 percent said they were in fair or poor health. Among the entire adult population, the corresponding numbers are 50 percent and 18 percent, respectively.

• Research from Express Scripts shows that about 1.3 percent of prescriptions filled for exchange enrollees were specialty drugs. The comparable number in other private plans is about 0.8 percent. That may not seem like a big difference, but specialty drugs are usually quite expensive. As the Express Scripts’ study notes, “despite comprising less than 1% of all U.S. prescriptions, specialty medications now account for more than 25% of total pharmacy” spending.

• Most of the 15 health insurance companies and 23 health co-ops that cover nearly 80 percent of exchange enrollees expect to receive money from ObamaCare’s risk corridor. The total amount they will receive is estimated at $725 million. If extrapolated over all companies and co-ops on the exchange, the bailout could come to $1 billion for 2014.

What the National Center for Public Policy Research’s Dr. David Hogberg Says About the ObamaCare Exchanges:

• “Many supporters of ObamaCare insisted that the health insurance exchanges created by the law would result in consumers having a greater choice among insurance policies and lower prices. This study tests those claims by examining policies on the exchanges in metropolitan areas across 45 states for a single 27-year-old and a 57-year-old couple. It then compares those with the policies available in those same areas on eHealthInsurance.com (eHealth) and Finder.healthcare.gov (Finder) in 2013. The results show that the claims that the ObamaCare exchanges would offer greater choice and lower prices did not hold up. A 27-year-old male had, on average, ten more policies to choose from on eHealth versus the exchange and 31 more on Finder. A 27-year-old female had an average of ten more insurance options on eHealth and 38 on Finder. There were an average of nine more policies on eHealth and 19 more on Finder for a 57-year-old couple. Consumers also previously had more lower-cost options than they now have on the exchanges. A 27-year-old male had, on average, access to 32 policies on eHealth that cost less than the cheapest policy on the exchanges and 38 policies that cost less on Finder. There were an average of 18 cheaper policies on eHealth and 20 on Finder for a 27-year-old female. A 57-year-old couple had access to an average of 29 cheaper polices on eHealth compared to the lowest-cost policy on the exchange and 28 on Finder.”

• “When millions of people in the individual health insurance market lost their health plans in late 2013, ObamaCare supporters claimed those lost plans were ‘substandard’ or ‘crappy.’ However, they failed to support that contention. [The fact is] there were many policies on the individual market that had lower premiums and lower or equal deductibles and out-of-pocket maximums than the cheapest plans now available on the exchanges. It also finds that the individual market prior to the exchanges offered a greater choice of hospitals and physicians since it contained far more PPO policies than HMO policies, whereas the exchanges offer more HMO policies.”

• “If the exchanges do not attract a sufficient number of people in the 18-34 age demographic, they will eventually enter an insurance ‘death spiral.’ This occurs when the young and healthy drop out of the ‘insurance pool.’ This leads to ‘adverse selection’ in which insurance is only attractive to those who are generally older and sicker. If the insurance pool is comprised largely of people who are older and sicker, then insurance prices will rise to cover their costs. That rate increase causes even more young and healthy people to drop their insurance, leaving the pools even older and sicker than before, and so on. Eventually, all but a few insurers will be forced to discontinue their business on the exchanges because they can no longer make a profit. Fewer insurers means less competition, resulting in even higher insurance premiums.”

What Others Are Saying About the ObamaCare Exchanges:

• Michael Tanner, senior fellow at the Cato Institute: “A bigger question is how many enrollees were previously insured and were just changing plans. Overall, the best estimates suggest that roughly 8 million people gained insurance under ObamaCare, but roughly half of those were enrolled in Medicaid (outside of the exchanges), which isn’t really health-care reform so much as adding people to government welfare. And it still leaves 41 million American adults uninsured. We spent billions to move the needle a tick.” – Michael Tanner, Cato Institute

• Writing in Forbes, Manhattan Institute Senior Fellow Avik Roy said, “ObamaCare forces insurers to offer more benefits, requires them to spend more money on health expenses, and subsidizes the consumption of richer insurance packages. The laws of economics dictate that these costs will get passed down to consumers…. ObamaCare [also] forces insurers to charge their eldest beneficiaries no more than 3 times what they charge their youngest ones: a policy known as ‘community rating.’ This, despite the fact that these older beneficiaries typically have six times the health expenditures that younger people face. The net effect of this ‘community rating’ provision is the redistribution of insurance costs from the old to the young.” – Avik Roy in Forbes

• “Mark V. Pauly, a health economist with the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania, said that while the president and officials in his administration claimed they wanted more competition among insurers, ObamaCare has put in place regulations that limit it [on the exchanges]. ‘It’s part of the schizophrenia that the administration wanted lots of competition, but, on the other hand, they wanted to put a lid on profits that would attract competition,’ Pauly said. ‘You can’t have it both ways.'” – Richard Pollack, Washington Examiner.

The National Center for Public Policy Research, founded in 1982, is a non-partisan, free-market, independent conservative think-tank. Ninety-four percent of its support comes from individuals, less than four percent from foundations, and less than two percent from corporations. It receives over 350,000 individual contributions a year from over 96,000 active and recent contributors. Contributions to the National Center are tax-deductible and greatly appreciated.

Share