December 3, 2021

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

Governor John Kasich (R-OH) Should Stop Insisting Christians Must Support ObamaCare’s Medicaid Expansion

New Parody Exposes Kasich’s Absurdity

Christian Charity Is Voluntary; Medicaid Expansion Is Government Force

Is Kasich Aware “How Lousy Medicaid Is”?

Washington, DC – “If John Kasich actually thinks people will suffer eternal damnation for not supporting ObamaCare’s Medicaid expansion, then he’s not fit to be dog catcher, let alone Governor of Ohio,” says Dr. David Hogberg, senior fellow at the National Center for Public Policy Research.

Prompted by Governor Kasich’s recent remarks that Medicaid expansion is in keeping with the Gospel according to Matthew, Chapter 25, Dr. Hogberg has written, “Parody: Why All Good Christians Must Support ObamaCare’s Medicaid Expansion.”

“Normally I would write a straight-up research article,” Dr. Hogberg says. “But Kasich’s thinking, such as it is, was so silly that a parody was the better way to go.”

Dr. Hogberg notes that Matthew, Chapter 25, urges Christians to help the poor, hungry and sick. “It doesn’t say, use government to force people to help the poor, hungry and sick.”

Christian charity is voluntary. By contrast, the government forces people, via taxation, to support Medicaid expansion. That Governor Kasich doesn’t seem to know the difference doesn’t speak well of either his supposed conservatism or his understanding of Christianity.

In 2013, Kasich told a state legislator who opposed Medicaid expansion, “Now, when you die and get to the… meeting with St. Peter, he’s probably not gonna ask you much about what you did about keeping government small, but he’s going to ask you what you did for the poor. Better have a good answer.”

“King Solomon, in all of his wisdom, could not have been more eloquent,” laughs Dr. Hogberg. “In all seriousness, I won’t be so presumptuous as Kasich to tell people what will get them into Heaven, but I think it’s debatable as to whether forcing people to support Medicaid will score many points with St. Peter.”

“I’d also like to ask Kasich if he is aware of how lousy a program Medicaid is,” Dr. Hogberg continued. “The evidence shows that it has no noticeable effect on patient health. Furthermore, Medicaid patients have a lot of trouble getting access to a physician and often have worse health outcomes than people with private insurance. There are many ways to describe condemning poor people to such a program, but I don’t think ‘Christian’ is one of them.”

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

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

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

Want to Fight Communistic Central Control but Don’t Want to Leave the Country to Do It?

Fight the cancer of Communistic principles from the comfort of your own bunkhouse…. learn how to say No.

Joan Veon said that Public Private “Partnerships” exist to manage the assets of the government. And that would necessarily include assets that the government, usually a bureaucracy, lays claim to control.

Video of Joan Veon on public private partnerships.

All the critics are in agreement that WOTUS[Waters of the United States] is about controlling all waters, and thereby private property land use, of the US.
http://gardner.house.gov/press-release/gardner-votes-protect-colorado-wotus-rule

http://brownfieldagnews.com/2014/09/24/ncba-issue-another-warning-on-wotus-impact/

It ain’t rocket science. Central control of private property is pure Marxism. (Last part of Chapter Two of the Communist Manifesto.) Control equals wealth. Control equals ownership. Central control abolishes private property. Central, regional, national, global “planning” schemes are not legitimate options to eminent domain proceedings required by the US Constitution. Regionalism is not a safe alternative to fascist Nationalism, the evil philosophical twin to Communism that robs Americans of the sacred individual right to just compensation for takings of private property for bureaucratic purposes of controlling water quality, providing habitat for animals.

Learn how to Just Say No.

So, let’s talk about what communism is or is not. Is all central control of government assets communistic? No, don’t be silly. We are talking about the centralized control of private property and rights that are being systematically seized outside of the normal transfer of rights process and then controlled conjunctively through the administrative state and bureaucracies that are routinely being characterized as lawless by more and more legal scholars.

At some point I think people will begin to connect the take-over of private property land to other private property rights such as employment. For example, Cuba’s Slave Trade in Doctors. (May be a Paywall. Hint: You might be able to bypass the Pay Wall by placing the title in a Google search box.)

Now think about Obamacare. Does Obamacare enable public private “partnerships” to skim the difference off the labor of the enslaved, if you will, American doctors? We now find out that the Obamacare bill was intended to be obscure. And it is in many ways.

It clearly takes over a large fraction of the US economy and that is dangerous to American exceptionalism.

The reason I put the word partnership in quotes is because in a real partnership there is a sharing of profits and liabilities. But government typically dodges liability because of the doctrine of sovereign immunity. A public private partnership can include a publicly traded corporation that wealthy hedge fund speculators can invest in. The profit margin involved when enslaving doctors can amount to a lot of money for public private partnerships composed of small groups of politically well connected friends of the White House. In fact, such public private partnerships can hire top political figures (amoral opportunists) as safeguards against adverse legislation and or prosecution, and lend the whole scheme an air of legitimacy, of “giving back”.

Instead of true partnerships, the general concept of public private partnerships looks like a special delegation of governmental power to a select private company along with a smoke screen of borrowed sovereign immunity. Favoritism, corporate cronyism, oligarchy and monopoly were disfavored by our Founders who believed in equality under the law. Corporate cronyism fits the Communist form of government far better than the American example of equal treatment. Cronyism smacks of the idea that certain favorites are above the law.

So, let’s take a look at another specific instance of “assets of the government”. Texas has 1,500 years worth of groundwater, even if it does not rain again. Nearly all of it is privately owned. The Texas scare narrative is that we will never develop the technology to get it out of the ground. Surely, the advancement of engineering technology to extract water will not magically stop.

Through a heritage of ancient and relevant English, Spanish and French law, America, including Texas, developed sets of legal concepts that govern relationships between users of surface water with a governing authority managing that surface water and resolving conflicts between users with surface water rights. But in Texas (as in states east of the Mississippi), groundwater is owned outright by the individual land owner, the same as other underground minerals such oil and gas.

So when talking about surface water, the creation of a Texas Water Trust, Texas Water Bank, a Texas Water Development Board and water credits, and the like, are not all that unusual. But I am suspicious of the cover story when such banking and investment schemes are used in conjunction with privately owned groundwater. There is no legitimate way to use “regional planning” to plan our groundwater rights away. Regionalism, in the form of “regional planning” schemes, are not legitimate alternatives to eminent domain proceedings required by the US Constitution. I am not talking about the purely voluntary water market made up of purchased groundwater rights. Voluntariness makes a market legitimate. Trickery of planning private property rights away removes voluntariness. That is why, when it comes to private property groundwater, a water trust, water bank, a state level water board and water credits are highly suspect depending upon the source of the title to groundwater rights especially so when we learn that the Greenies in the UN’s Commission on Global Governance say things such as, “Regionalism (think Texas’ regional water planning groups) must precede Globalism.”

Here is something else that is curious. Ignoring for now the unconstitutional nature of the forced “saving” of 50% of private property groundwater, think about this. How can the selling of water credits of groundwater, that can no longer be produced (because the 50% level was reached and all groundwater production was stopped for the paramount benefit of the endangered downstream fish), not end up being some sort of securities fraud?

Now, put on the conspiracy hat for a moment.

What could be the motivation behind getting the private money of American super-rich hedge fund managers and others, even more wealthy, tied up in worthless groundwater assets that cannot be developed to their full potential because of a mandatory 50% preservation of groundwater in 50 years? (Never mind that the state cannot define 100% and that it is impossible to save 50% of something when you don’t know what 100% looked like or when it existed.)

And what about the climate change clap trap? Who or what has the clout (too big to jail?) to ignore all the pump and dump (in my opinion) going on with nearly worthless carbon credits and the climate change con job? Climate change – follow the money.

Conspiracy Hat Moment:
Is the purpose of the various asset grabs to drain the wealth of the US (and other select countries?) so it (or they) can’t fight back in the next world war? (That’s right Dorothy, war is something humans will never be able to end.)

Are America’s most wealthy being duped into duping the average US citizen with the Marxist, anti-economic theme that central control increases total production?

Or is the duping really aimed, not at the general public, but at the wealthy through a campaign that only appears to be aimed at an increasingly skeptical public?

We should remember that citizen wealth is sometimes resorted to, even as recently as the current Ukrainian crisis by an impoverished and unprepared nation. Oil tycoon buys batteries for military vehicles that have none.(Pay Wall)

Knowing how important batteries are to vehicles, what’s with the EPA’s draconian regulations forcing the closure of the last US lead smelter……..

It is well established that the American revolution was financed in part by the personal wealth and family treasure of early American citizens.

So what explains the stubborn global push to keep the climate change con going, the various environmental schemes going against all the available science, the same con jobs that are draining the US Treasury and the portfolios of the most wealthy among us and the pocket books of the average American through “smart” high energy and fuel prices?

So just to recap, communism is top-down, central planning and control of private rights. I think we all need to learn how to say No as more and more are doing daily.

Livy, sharing thoughts and opinion from a bunkhouse on the southern high plains of Texas.

Share

14 Ways ObamaCare Is Still a Big Mess

Press Release from National Center for Public Policy:

As ObamaCare Exchanges Are about to Open, ObamaCare Has Raised Premiums, Reduced Quality, Harmed Employment, Reduced Competition and Increased the Deficit

Liberal Websites Such as Vox Present a Misleading Picture That ObamaCare Is “Working”

Washington, DC – “With the ObamaCare Exchanges set to re-open, the political left is hailing ObamaCare as a success,” says Dr. David Hogberg, senior fellow at the National Center for Public Policy Research. “Nothing could be further from the truth.”

In a new National Policy Analysis paper entitled, “14 Ways ObamaCare Is Still a Big Mess – That You Won’t Learn from the Liberal Website Vox,” Dr. Hogberg examines both the problems that ObamaCare has already created and ones that are just over the horizon.

“Amusingly, Ezra Klein of Vox wrote not only that ObamaCare is succeeding but also that conservative websites give a misleading picture of ObamaCare, focusing largely on its failures,” Dr. Hogberg said. “Ironically, almost none of the problems appear on Vox’s site.”

Among the problems Dr. Hogberg examines:

Despite President Obama’s promise that a family of four would save $2,500 in premiums costs, since 2010 health insurance premiums for a family have risen over $3,000

Despite President Obama’s promise that if you like your health care plan you can keep it, another 350,000 policyholders on the individual market have lost their plans this year.

Millions of people on the exchanges will likely see their premiums increase this year because of the way premium subsidies are calculated. The subsidies are based on the second-lowest cost silver plan, and that plan will be cheaper in many exchanges causing subsidies to decline. An analysis by the state of Colorado found that exchange consumers could see premiums rise by an average of 77 percent next year if they keep their current plans.

The quality of insurance plans on the exchanges are worse that what existed previously in the individual market, from higher out-of-pocket costs to “skinny networks” of physicians and hospitals. Federal Reserve surveys show quality is also beginning to decline for employer-based plans, with business reducing the size of networks and range of services covered in their plans.

ObamaCare’s employer mandate is reducing the hours worked for lower-income workers as employers are faced with the prospect of either reducing employees’ hours to less than 30 per week or paying them health benefits. Federal Reserve surveys show that businesses are increasing part-time employees, reducing the total number of employees and are reducing wages in anticipation of the employer mandate taking effect in January.

The exchange risk pools have a disproportionate number of sicker people in them. A Gallup survey shows that people on the exchange self-report being less healthy on average that the entire adult population. Research from Express Scripts shows that exchange enrollees use expensive specialty drugs at a higher rate than people in other private plans. With a disproportionate number of sick enrollees, the exchanges will eventually be headed for a “death spiral.”

The Medicaid expansion has, thus far, done little to improve access to health care for the poor. Medicaid enrollees are seeking health care where they always have, the emergency room. A Colorado Hospital Association study found that ER visits increased 5.6 percent in Medicaid expansion states from the second quarter of 2013 to the second quarter of this 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 to the National Center are tax-deductible and greatly appreciated

Share

Evidently Not All Americans Are As Stupid

“A key architect of Obamacare has been caught openly boasting about taking advantage of, what he calls, “the stupidity of the American voter.”

MIT economics professor Jonathan Gruber spoke at a panel on October 17 on the political hurdles Obamacare faced in 2009-10. The video was unearthed and posted on Youtube by American Commitment.

Gruber was instrumental in crafting the legislation that was signed into law in March 2010.

In the midst of his explanation, Gruber bragged about the multiple deceptions the Obama White House perpetrated on the American people:”<<<Read More>>>

Share

New Study Confirms Health Plans on Individual Market in 2013 Were Higher Quality than Plans on Exchanges

Study Shows Single 27-Year-Olds and 57-Year-Old Couples had Access to Plans with Better Cost-Sharing and Larger Provider Networks Prior to ObamaCare Exchanges

Claims by President Obama, Ed Schultz and Others that Plans in the Individual Market Were ‘Substandard’ or ‘Crappy’ Do Not Hold Up

Today is Two Months to the Day to Start of ObamaCare’s Next Open Enrollment Period

Washington, DC – The ObamaCare exchanges have reduced the quality of insurance polices when compared to what existed in 2013 on the individual market, says a just-released study from the National Center for Public Policy Research entitled, “Despite ObamaCare Supporters’ Claims, Health Insurance Plans Prior to ObamaCare Exchanges Were Neither ‘Crappy’ Nor ‘Substandard.'”

“When millions of people were losing their health insurance plans in late 2013, ObamaCare supporters claimed those plans were of poor quality, calling them substandard and even ‘crappy’,” said study author Dr. David Hogberg, health care policy analyst at the National Center. “But they never provided any evidence to support those claims. Quite to the contrary, this study shows that in important ways, the plans on the individual market it 2013 were of better quality than those on the ObamaCare exchanges.” Speaking on the topic of insurance, consider talking to Ieuter Insurance Group if you are in need of any type of insurance. From business to automobile, they have got you covered.

Today is two months to the day before the ObamaCare open enrollment period re-opens on November 15.

The study compared the cost-sharing — i.e., the deductibles and the out-of-pocket maximums — of plans on the individual market in 2013 and on the ObamaCare exchanges in ten major metropolitan areas for a 27-year-old single person and a 57-year-old couple. It also examined the provider networks, comparing the number of health maintenance organization (HMO) plans to preferred provider organizations (PPO) plans in the individual markets and ObamaCare exchanges.

It found:

• There was an average of 33 plans in each area for a 27-year-old on the individual market that had lower premiums and lower or equal deductibles and out-of-pocket maximums than the cheapest plans on the ObamaCare exchanges. Milwaukee, Wisconsin had the most such plans with an average of 68.

• For a 57-year-old couple there was an average of 10 policies in each area that had lower premiums and lower or equal cost-sharing in the 2013 individual market than the cheapest plans on the ObamaCare exchanges. Louisville, Kentucky had the most with an average of 26.

• The ObamaCare exchanges had many more of the restrictive HMO networks in their plans relative to the individual market, an average of 16 more HMO plans for both 27-year-olds and 57-year-olds.

• The less restrictive PPOs were more common in the individual markets, with an average of 32 more plans with PPOs for 27-year-olds and 25 more for 57-year-olds.

“Overall, the ObamaCare exchanges have resulted in a decline in health-plan quality learn more about Pulse Vascular to understand from a professional point of view” said Dr. Hogberg. “Almost no one would consider it an improvement in quality to pay a higher premium and get less out-of-pocket coverage as was the case with policies on the exchange, and few would consider more restrictive networks to be better quality.”

“We can expect quality to continue to decline as long as ObamaCare is in place,” he said.

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

All Americans Will Receive A Microchip Implant In 2017 Per Obamacare

NBC has recently predicted that in 2017, all of America will be tagged with microchips. They will be implanted to help identify individuals immediately. According to the report, the technology is used to answer one question, “Am I who I say I am?”<<<Read More>>>

Share