November 18, 2019

Are They the King’s Moose Or Are We Now Subsidizing Maine’s Sporting Camps

According to George Smith, he reports, “DIF&W, as it has on almost all the bills this session, testified in opposition to the change.” 

The change in question here is in regards to another elitist, socialism-type, subsidized effort to give an even larger percentage of moose hunting permits to sporting camps struggling to make a go of things. If things don’t stop, all hunting permits will go to special interest groups and preferred, elitist organizations. This often means those who most are in need of meat for food, can’t afford to play or don’t stack up to some good-ole-boy’s idea of who can hunt and who can’t.

Since when is Maine now responsible for subsidizing sporting camp owners? Free Enterprise dictates that you either got a good product that is in demand or you don’t. Only socialistic/communistic societies bilk the general tax payer to subsidize a business so that government can benefit. In this case, it’s not just a subsidization, it’s a case of being able to afford the King’s ransom.

We further read, “…two national hunting trip brokers, Worldwide Trophy Adventures (A Cabela’s Partner) and Huntin’ Fool, direct clients to send a couple hundred thousand dollars to the Department, in part based on the odds of getting a tag in Maine…” And this somehow is justification for the proposed bill?

So, according to this article, the odds of winning a lottery permit to hunt a moose has dropped by 50%. Yes, the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) has seen fit, despite the hundreds, perhaps thousands, of moose suffering and dying each year due to winter ticks, to reduce the number of permits issued for hunting moose, evidently to perpetuate the winter tick problem. This reduction not only involves nonresident moose hunters. It has the same effect on Maine residents, and yet some in the legislature and those totalitarian/socialists think it’s equitable to subsidize the sporting camp owners and to hell with the rest of the hunting industry, as well as the many hundreds, or thousands, of Maine residents wishing for a chance to hunt a moose.

Maine Guides and Camp Owners already dictate to the MDIFW how to run game management and hunting seasons. Perhaps it’s time to end the good ole boy’s club of elitist participation and return to a science-based management plan and an even odds chance for every Maine hunter to obtain a permit to hunt.

Evidently, some are pushing to move hunting, and in particular moose hunting, into an elitist event of which only the wealthy can participate.

Thank you MDIFW for opposing such nonsense, and many of the other preferentially biased bill proposals aimed at benefiting special interest groups.

I have sympathy for people’s business’s that take a hit for any reason. That doesn’t make it right to force license holders and tax payers to foot the bill to keep them solvent. I doubt government would subsidize my business.

Share

Taxpayers Subsidizing Energy Companies BIG TIME

Now that we live in a post-normal era, where black is white, white is black, up is down, good is bad, etc. etc., we should, by deductive reasoning, rephrase the statement that President John F. Kennedy made at his January 20, 1961 Inaugural Address, and now coin it as: Ask not what you can do for your country, ask what your country is going to do to line the pockets of fake green energy companies.

We are being raped, robbed, insulted, lied to, murdered, tortured and basically pissed on, and nobody says a word. A smidgen of complaints here and there based mostly on just ignorant parroting of what some other idiot said, but nothing of an substance.

In the meantime, bend over because “government” (thievery of my money) subsidies is out of control and producing nothing. As Al Gore said the other day, there’s a lot of money to be made by lying about climate change and those that don’t go along should be punished.

In the meantime, go ahead and believe the lies that America isn’t interested in burning fossil fuels anymore. Go ahead.

“At the request of Congress, the Energy Information Administration (EIA), an independent agency of the U.S. Department of Energy, evaluated the amount of subsidies that the federal government provides energy producers for fiscal year 2013, updating a study that it did for fiscal year 2010.[i] Over a 3-year period, from fiscal year 2010 through fiscal year 2013, total federal electricity-related subsidies increased from $11.7 billion to $16.1 billion, an increase of 38 percent over the 3-year period. The largest increases in federal energy subsidies were in electricity-related renewable energy, which increased 54 percent over the 3-year period, from $8.6 billion to $13.2 billion.”<<<Read More>>>

Share

Ethanol takes policy blow from the Environmental Protection Agency

By Editorial Board, Published: November 17 – Washington Post

ONCE TOUTED as a climate-friendly renewable alternative to foreign oil, the corn-based liquid ethanol has been exposed as an environmental and economic mistake. Lured by federal subsidies, Midwestern farmers have devoted millions of acres to corn that might otherwise have been devoted to soil conservation or feed-grain production.

Meanwhile, a “dead zone” fed by fertilizer runoff spreads at the mouth of the Mississippi and production costs throughout the grain-dependent U.S. food industry rise. At the end of 2011, the ethanol industry lost a $6 billion per year tax-credit subsidy. And on Friday the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) delivered yet another policy defeat for ethanol – which is to say, a victory for common sense.<<<Read More>>>

Share

“Glaring Flaw” In FamiliesUSA Report Being Touted by Obama Administration’s Department of Health And Human Services

Report Assumes Everyone Below 400% of the Federal Poverty Level is Eligible for a Subsidy on the ObamaCare Exchanges

Many People With Insurance Cancellations Will Receive No Financial Help on the Exchanges Because Subsidies Often Stop Well Before 400% FPL

Doesn’t HHS Know This?

Washington, DC – The following is the statement of David Hogberg, Ph.D., senior fellow for health care policy at the National Center for Public Policy Research, on the Families USA report released today in conjunction with the Department of Health and Human Services.

HHS is using a Families USA report to claim that “less than 1 percent of nation’s non-elderly are at risk of losing their current individual market plan and paying more for insurance” on the Obamacare exchanges.

The glaring flaw in the report is that it assumes anyone making less than 400% FPL, which is $45,960 for an individual, will receive a subsidy for the purchase of insurance on the exchanges. But, given the way the subsidy is calculated, many people under 400% FPL won’t receive any financial assistance.

For example, suppose you are a single 50-year-old living in Illinois. If you earn $41,000 annually, which is 357% FPL, chances are you don’t qualify for a subsidy. In Illinois, the subsidies stop, on average, for a 50-year-old at about $40,500. Yet the 50-year-old making $41,000 is included as someone who won’t be paying more for insurance on the exchange in the FamiliesUSA report.

The fact is the report low-balls the number of people who are losing their insurance and will not be eligible for assistance on the exchanges. An accurate analysis would likely reveal it is far more than 1%.

For more on how the insurance subsidy is calculated, see Dr. Hogberg and Sean Parnell’s National Center for Public Policy Research National Policy Analysis paper, “ObamaCare Exchanges: Just Because You Are Eligible For a Subsidy Doesn’t Mean You Will Qualify for One.”

For more data on the income-levels at which subsidies stop in the states on the federal exchange, see Hogberg and Parnell’s supplement to the above report, “Income At Which Premium Subsidies Disappear on the Federal Exchanges.”

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

Over 2.1 Million Young Adults May Not Qualify for ObamaCare Exchange Subsidies

Number Includes 1.3 Million Young Adults Making 400 Percent of Federal Poverty Level or Less

Young People Less Likely to Receive a Subsidy than Older People

Newly-Released Federal Data Confirms National Center for Public Policy Research Study Showing the Subsidy Structure Will Likely Create an ObamaCare “Death Spiral”

Washington, DC – Data on premiums in the federal exchange released by the Department of Health and Human Service shows that younger, healthier people will be less likely to receive subsidies says a new article for the National Center for Public Policy Research’s blog entitled, “‘Young Invincibles’ Still Won’t Get Subsidies On ObamaCare Exchange.”

The article was written for the National Center for Public Policy Research by David Hogberg, Ph.D., senior fellow for health care policy at the National Center.

The federal data confirms finding in a recent National Center study, “ObamaCare Exchanges: Just Because You Are Eligible For a Subsidy Doesn’t Mean You Will Qualify for One.”

Officially, the ObamaCare exchanges are supposed to give a subsidy to everyone making 400 percent of the federal poverty level (FPL) or below, but that study found that in 11 of 15 exchanges, the subsidies disappeared for people age 18-34 even before 300 percent FPL or $34,470 annually.

The data released today shows that same pattern,” said Dr. Hogberg, “HHS released data on 36 federal exchanges, and in 23 of them the subsidies disappear before 300 percent FPL for the Young Invincibles. That’s going to be a problem because young people are being told they’ll be getting subsidies up to the 400 percent level. When some find out they won’t get one, they will be less likely to sign up for the exchanges.”

The study examined the premium data of the exchange of 14 states and Washington, D.C. In ten of the exchanges, subsidies disappeared for everyone age 18-34 before they reached the 300 percent federal poverty level (FPL), about $34,470 annually for a single person.

“This is critical information because it tells us that a population that is crucial to the proper functioning of the ObamaCare exchanges, those 18-34, will be paying full price for their premiums,” said Dr. Hogberg. “This will give them considerable incentive to forego insurance and just pay the individual mandate fine.”

This will likely lead to a “death spiral” on the exchange, which occurs when younger and healthier people needed to stabilize the risk pool don’t sign up for insurance. Premiums for those who do purchase insurance will climb. The higher premiums encourage even more young and healthy people to drop insurance as premiums become less affordable. This eventually leads to a rising number of uninsured while those who remain insured are only the sickest, with the highest healthcare costs.

However, just like the previous study, the federal data reveals a much better subsidy picture for older people. The study found that in 12 of the 15 exchanges, subsidies extended to 400 percent FPL for every person age 52 and older.

“The federal data shows that subsidies will reach that 400 percent level for people 52 and older in 27 exchanges,” said Hogberg. “In four other exchanges, that age is 53. In short, the subsidies will make the exchanges look much more attractive to people with higher medical claims, the older and sicker.”

Hogberg continued, “An health insurance system like the ObamaCare exchanges that discourages the younger and healthier but attracts the older and sicker is headed for disaster.”

Finally, the article extended the analysis of the 36 exchanges to the nation as a whole and found that about 1,304,817 18-34-year-olds who are single, childless and under 400 percent FPL will not qualify for an exchange subsidy. When those 18-34-year-olds whose incomes exceed 400 percent FPL are included in the analysis, about 2,132,299 will not receive subsidies.

The article is available online here.

Suggested Discussion Topics:

1. Why does it matter that exchange subsides favor the older and sicker over the younger and healthier? What effect will that have?
2. When you talk of this leading to a “death spiral,” what do you mean and what are the likely consequences?
3. How does the formula for subsidies on the exchanges work, and why does it lead to many younger people under 400 percent of the federal poverty level not receiving subsidies?
4. In your last study you noted that about 6 million of those 18-34 who are single and childless would be eligible for the ObamaCare exchanges. If at most 1.9 million opt out because they have to pay full price for insurance because they get no subsidy, doesn’t that still leave enough to make the ObamaCare exchanges work?

In Dr. Hogberg’s most recent prior study, August 2013’s “Why The ‘Young Invincibles’ Won’t Participate In The ObamaCare Exchanges and Why It Matters,” he found that, despite both the subsidies and individual mandate, about 3.7 million 18-34-year-olds would save at least $500 by forgoing insurance and paying the fine. Of that group, about 3 million would save at least $1,000.

David Hogberg, Ph.D., is a health care policy analyst for the National Center for Public Policy Research. Previously, Dr. Hogberg was a Washington Correspondent for Investor’s Business Daily, specializing in health care and Medicare. Prior to his employment at IBD, he worked as a policy analyst studying health care and other issues for various think-tanks, including the National Center for Public Policy Research, and for the office of U.S. Representative Jeff Fortenberry. Dr. Hogberg holds a Ph.D. in political science from the University of Iowa. He is currently working on a book entitled “Medicare’s Victims: How The U.S. Government’s Largest Health Care System Harms Patients And Impairs Physicians.”

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 4 percent from foundations, and less than 2 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