Archive for the ‘Obamacare’ Category
- In: Barack Obama | Health Care | Health Care Reform Summary | Internet | national deficit, taxes, national budget | Obama 2013 and beyond | Obama admistration | Obama Against America | Obama and ethics | Obama Executive Decress | Obamacare | Obamanation | Obamcare repeal and replace | Progressives Movement to Destroy America | Rep Tom Price | Thye Tea Party Patriots Movement | Tort Reform Needed | Unfunded liabilities | United States taxes | US in Revolt
- Leave a Comment
A Conservative solution to our health care problems is what is needed now I have heard people say. Well there has been this Conservative solution since before Obamacare was forced thru the Congress by the Democrats who were in control of both houses and the Presidency. These same Democrats who refused to allow any Republican input at all during the drafting of this bill. the same Democrats who refused to be bothered reading the 2000+ page bill that they passed without one Republican vote for it. If you check back on this blog site you will see the Republican plans and proposals that were submitted in both the House and the Senate that were never allowed by the Democrat leaders to see the light of day. They were trash canned. What we got stuck with is a so-called Affordable Healthcare Act (Obamacare) that we are now finding out is not at all affordable for the few people who have been able to get a look at the available plans on a web site set up to show these plans to people and allow them to enroll in and purchase insurance. There were, we are now being told, all of 6 people in the entire country who managed to enroll in Obamacare and purchase an insurance policy the first day before the site crashed and burned. The same web site that cost $6 billion and three years to get up and running but isn’t running at all. The web site that was built by a Canadian company but is now being fixed by what the President assures us are experts, or this same Canadian company. Funny I thought the “experts” on the Internet and building programs for the Internet would be the very Americans who built the Internet in the first place. Guess none of these people had a friend in the White House. Or maybe they were willing to take less time and cost less money to build a web site that probably would have worked almost as well as the Internet they built in the first place. Ya think?? But no “friend” in the WH gets no contract.
The following letter is from Jim DeMint who outlines the Republicans and Conservatives Healthcare Plan that is affordable and available and more important, Constitutional. Please check it out. BB
The Conservative Alternative to Obamacare11/01/13Dear friends,We’ve been very critical of Obamacare because it’s hurting Americans. But that has caused some to ask, “What’s your alternative?”
The truth is, we’ve always had alternatives, but our critics weren’t ready to listen. Now, the disastrous rollout of Obamacare has a lot of people asking for alternatives to government-run health care. And conservatives are ready.
With each passing day, it becomes clearer that Obamacare will not reduce premiums for average American families, bring down health care spending, or truly improve health care in this country. Instead, people are receiving notices from their insurance companies that their policies are being canceled or their premiums are skyrocketing.
At The Heritage Foundation, we are envisioning a health care system where you and your family come first.
What if you could choose and control your own health insurance? What if you could buy the insurance and health care services you want and need? What if your health insurance didn’t go away when you changed jobs?
The good news is, all of these things are possible. There can be life after Obamacare—and it doesn’t mean going back to the status quo that we had before. We can move ahead, taking the best health care system in the world and making it even better.
Our experts in the Center for Health Policy Studies have put together a new paper that explains how these conservative ideas work. It includes:
- How we will help people with pre-existing conditions
- How we will help you keep your health insurance when you change jobs
- How we can lower costs and improve health care quality—no matter what your income is
- How we can honor people’s faith and protect the right of conscience in health care
We are excited to share this set of commonsense solutions with you—not just because they are good public policy solutions, but because they bring hope. We have hope for life after Obamacare, and these policies would give you back control over your own health care.
Now that’s worth working toward. I hope you’ll join us.
- In: Barack Obama | Communism in America | Health Care | Health Care Reform Summary | Know the enemies of America | laws and regulations--stupidities | Obama 2013 and beyond | Obama admistration | Obama Against America | Obama and ethics | Obama Executive Decress | Obamacare | Obamanation | Obamcare repeal and replace | Progressives Movement to Destroy America | Radical Left at War with America | Taxes | Unfunded liabilities
- Leave a Comment
I and others have been trying to get the word out to people since the monster was passed by the Democrats that Obamacare will cost much more than the current cost of healthcare insurance but 51% of the voters didn’t listen. Now the word is finally out and Heritage got the answers for us. check out what you will pay for health care insurance by checking out the state you live in. BB
How Will You Fare in the Obamacare Exchanges?
There are literally no comparisons to current rates. That is, [the Department of Health and Human Services] has chosen to dodge the question of whose rates are going up, and how much. Instead they try to distract with a comparison to a hypothetical number that has nothing to do with the actual experience of real people.
President, American Action Forum
Enrollment in Obamacare’s health insurance exchanges has proven to be a somewhat difficult process amidst technical glitches and delays. Aside from the issues associated with actually purchasing health care, once an individual gets a quote for health insurance on an exchange, is the premium higher or lower than before?
Our research finds that for many states, the insurance on health exchanges will cost more than existing insurance. This study illustrates that the general experience for individuals shopping on the exchange is that of increasing premiums from what was available to them prior to implementation of the exchanges. Many families and individuals will face this reality as they apply for coverage, and the implications of experiencing sticker shock are important to consider if enough people choose not to sign up for coverage for various reasons.
The Heritage Health Insurance Microsimulation Model (HHIMM), in concordance with insurer data compiled by Mark Farrah and Associates, is used to create a snapshot of what it looks like to shop for insurance prior to exchange implementation. This data is used to build weighted average premiums within the rating areas, similar to the process described in the most recent release from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
First, we use expected age distribution in the individual market from the HHIMM. Next, we use census data for the county populations in order to scale up to the state level, creating something that is roughly comparable to the weighted averages presented by HHS. This comparison is different from others in that, rather than comparing specific plans, it is designed to capture the difference in premium levels between the exchange and what could be acquired in the market.
This paper is meant to provide a necessary segue to HHS’s data summary, creating an apples-to-apples comparison of exchange data to what the costs are for individuals. Effectively, we have used the same methods that were employed to provide summary data on the exchange markets to prior insurance data in order to get the closest comparison.
Some state-based exchanges have data releases that are more limited than the 36 federal exchanges. For state exchanges, some premiums must be estimated. As is the case with all studies built to address the changes in exchange premiums, it is important to note that when more data becomes available, results could vary slightly.
This study considers the data as released by HHS. States with little data released are omitted from this study.
Individuals in most states will end up spending more on the exchanges. It is true that in some states, the experience could be the opposite. This is because those states had already over-regulated insurance markets that led to sharply higher premiums through adverse selection, as is the case of New York. Many states, however, double or nearly triple premiums for young adults. Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Kansas, and Vermont see some of the largest increases in premiums.
The Obama Administration is desperate for younger people to enroll to prevent an adverse selection death spiral. As pointed out by Sam Cappellanti at the American Action Forum, “The enrollment of these low cost young adults…is essential as they are required to subsidize the costs of insuring the elderly and chronically ill.” However, young adults face a penalty for not enrolling that is projected to be far less than the insurance coverage they could receive.
Our findings confirm that younger populations see larger percentage increases in premiums. A state that exhibits this clearly is Vermont, where the increase for 27-year-olds is 144 percent and the increase for 50-year-olds is still 60 percent, but far less. All states exhibit this relationship.
Many individuals will experience sticker shock when shopping on the exchanges. It is clear that many policies and cross-subsidization within Obamacare will lead to upward shifts in premiums. These policies include the health insurance tax, essential health benefit and actuarial value regulations, less allowed age variability in premiums, community rating, and guaranteed issue. However, real uncertainty, amidst a rocky start, surrounds what enrollment will look like in the exchanges.
Obamacare will leave many people paying more for their health insurance. The healthcare.gov website is learning to crawl, with additional data trickling in. However, based on information already released by HHS, states, and insurance plans, the claims of savings on premiums for the average participant is a fantasy.
—Drew Gonshorowski is a Policy Analyst in the Center for Data Analysis at The Heritage Foundation.
————————-Quoted in Avik Roy, “Double Down: Obamacare Will Increase Avg Individual Market Insurance Premiums by 99 Percent for Men, 62 Percent for Women,” Forbes, September 25, 2013,http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/09/25/double-down-obamacare-will-increase-avg-individual-market-insurance-premiums-by-99-for-men-62-for-women/ (accessed October 11, 2013).
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, “Health Insurance Marketplace Premiums for 2014,” September 2013,http://aspe.hhs.gov/health/reports/2013/MarketplacePremiums/ib_marketplace_premiums.cfm(accessed October 10, 2013).
HHS’s main exchange dataset can be found here: https://www.healthcare.gov/health-plan-information/ (accessed October 10, 2013).
Massachusetts and Hawaii are omitted. Minnesota, Kentucky, and Maryland have issued small releases.
Virginia’s data likely has data entry errors. Omitting the entries that are likely incorrect suggests that Virginia’s likely premium increases are 115 percent for 27-year-olds, 65 percent for 50-year-olds, and 30 percent for a family of four.
Sam Cappellanti, “Premium Increases for ‘Young Invincibles’ Under the ACA and the Impending Premium Spiral,” American Action Forum, October 2, 2013,http://americanactionforum.org/research/premium-increases-for-young-invincibles-under-the-aca-and-the-impending (accessed October 10, 2013).
- In: Att. Gen. Eric Holder and Obama administration obstruct justice | Barack Obama | Communism in America | Constitution of the United States of America | Economy/Money | Health Care | Health Care Reform Summary | Ineffective Government Programs | Know the enemies of America | laws and regulations--stupidities | laws and regulations--stupidities | Obama 2013 and beyond | Obama admistration | Obama Against America | Obama and ethics | Obama Executive Decress | Obamacare | Obamanation | Obamcare repeal and replace | Progressives Movement to Destroy America | Radical Left at War with America | Redistributing wealth | Subverting America by Uri Bezmenov | Taxes | Unfunded liabilities | United States taxes | US in Revolt
- 5 Comments
I sincerely hope my readers have been watching FOXNEWS and the revelations coming out about our current government. Not that some of what is happening hasn’t been done before but this President has made making the United States a police state a major goal of his administration and I am sooo happy the stuff has finally hit the fan. I especially enjoy the outrage of my sister-in-law who voted for him because “Romney hates poor people!”. Obama so loves poor people that he wants to gather them all under his benevolent arms and tell them exactly what to wear, eat, speak and especially vote. And to ensure that they do all these things as he directs he puts his dogs on them when they refuse to listen to papa. Do read the following article to bring yourself up to date on the agency that will implement and control Obamacare and is now under the gun for doing their part to make sure that Obama was elected in 2012. BB
Chilling new details emerged yesterday about the IRS targeting scandal, as representatives from six conservative groups testified before Congress about the scrutiny and demands they faced from Obama administration bureaucrats.
Yesterday’s testimony reminded us once again why Washington bureaucrats cannot be trusted, and why Americans should be so concerned about the new powers granted to the IRS as a result of Obamacare.
These powers are so vast, in fact, they’re difficult to put into words. So instead, we decided to give you the numbers:
47—New provisions Obamacare charges the IRS with implementing, according to the Government Accountability Office.
$695—Tax for not buying “government-approved” health insurance the IRS will be charged with enforcing on all Americans.
1,954—Full-time bureaucrats the IRS wants to devote to Obamacare implementation and enforcement in the upcoming fiscal year.
60,000,000—Medical records the IRS has been charged with improperly seizing, raising concerns about whether the agency can handle the personal health insurance information all Americans will be required to submit to the IRS.
6,100,000,000—Man-hours Americans already devote to tax compliance, according to the National Taxpayer Advocate, a burden that will rise significantly thanks to Obamacare.
$1,000,000,000,000—New revenue raised by Obamacare in its first 10 years alone, according to the Congressional Budget Office, sums that will only rise in future decades.
If ever there were an argument as to why Obamacare should be repealed and defunded, these numbers—coupled with the IRS revelations of recent weeks—tell the tale.
- One of the witnesses at yesterday’s IRS hearing was Kevin Kookogey, a Heritage Action Sentinel. His organization, Linchpins of Liberty, was asked to turn over the names of students whom it trains.
- Four of the most memorable moments from the IRS hearing, courtesy of The Blaze.
- President Obama’s Christmas tree tax is back, revived by House Republicans.
- The food stamp program shouldn’t be part of the farm bill, write Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI) and Heritage Action CEO Michael Needham.
- A debate over the libertarian populist agenda.
- Individual citizens can now “cosponsor” bills, thanks to an initiative from House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA).
- Senator Pat Toomey (R-PA) wants to know why HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius won’t use her authority to save the life of a 10-year-old child dying of cystic fibrosis.
Posted July 2, 2012on:
- In: Barack Obama | Constitution of the United States of America | Economy/Money | Health Care | Health Care Reform Summary | Know the enemies of America | Obama admistration | Obama Against America | Obama and ethics | Obamacare | Obamanation | Obamcare repeal and replace | Progressives Movement to Destroy America | Project to Restore America | Supreme Court | Supreme Court rulings | The Fight Back | Unfunded liabilities | US in Revolt
- 2 Comments
If you read my previous post you se that I feel Chief Justice Roberts did the People a favor with his ruling on Obamacare. I seem to be very much in the minority in my thinking, especially up against such brilliant people as Mark Levin who is all but ready to call Roberts out as a traitor to his country. But The Project to Restore America newsletter this month seems to see things my way. Check out what they have to say: (BB)
Obamacare Survives, but Political Playing Field Has Changed
By Michael Barone
Monday, July 02, 2012
The Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision upholding the Obama administration’s health care legislation was a victory for the president, his administration and his party. Their most ambitious legislative achievement has not been nullified, and they are not left in obvious disarray.
But it is only a partial victory and in some ways not a victory at all, both in the short run electorally and in the long run in terms of the constitutional order.
Politically Obamacare, as its critics call it, remains highly unpopular. It’s possible that the court decision will boost its support, but unlikely.
Most voters want this law repealed. Mitt Romney and the Republicans want to repeal it. Barack Obama and the Democrats want to preserve it. It’s not a winning issue for the incumbent.
Constitutionally, many conservatives are unhappy that Chief Justice Roberts and the four justices generally considered liberal voted to uphold the mandate to buy health insurance as a tax, which Congress is clearly empowered to levy.But the fact remains that a majority of five justices, including Roberts, also declared that Congress’ power to regulate commerce does not authorize a mandate to buy a commercial product. This will tend to bar further expansion of the size and scope of the federal government.
Moreover, the Constitution’s limits on congressional power have now become, for the first time in seven decades, a political issue. They’re likely to remain one for years to come.
This would not have been true had not the constitutional case against the mandate been advanced by Washington lawyer David Rivkin, Georgetown law professor Randy Barnett and many others.
They did not quite prevail in the Supreme Court, but they changed not only the legal but also the political debate in a way almost no one anticipated three years ago.
Unhappy conservatives grumble that Congress can get around the declaration that a mandate is beyond Congress’s enumerated powers by labeling it a tax — or just by relying on five justices declaring it one.
But there’s usually a political price to pay for increasing taxes. That’s why Barack Obama swore up and down that the mandate was not a tax. It’s why Democratic congressional leaders did not call it one.
Roberts’ decision undercuts such arguments, now and in the future. Members of Congress supporting such legislation will be held responsible, this year and for years to come, for increasing taxes.
And the Constitution’s provision that tax bills must be originated in the House of Representatives means that the party controlling the House can effectively block such measures. That will be an argument for Republican congressional candidates for the indefinite future.
It should not be forgotten that the Supreme Court did overturn part of the Obamacare legislation, the provision allowing the federal government to cut off states from all Medicaid funding if they refuse to vastly expand Medicaid eligibility as the legislation requires.
Here, another novel legal argument, advanced by Vanderbilt law professor (and my law school classmate) James Blumstein, found favor with a majority of justices. The idea is that Congress can’t use the leverage of partial federal funding to force the states to increase the size and scope of government.
This seems like a principle that could work powerfully against big government policies. Medicaid has been vastly expanded over the years in this manner. Now the Court seems to be saying that that game is over.
The court’s decision elicited sighs of relief from the White House. The president’s entire administration is not in disarray.
But the basic assumptions that he brought to office have proven unwarranted. Obama followed the New Deal historians in portraying history as a story of progress from minimal government to big government and in arguing that economic distress would make Americans more supportive of big government policies.
The unpopularity of Obamacare and the stimulus package have proven the latter assumption wrong. Most Americans are skeptical about the supposedly guaranteed benefits of centralized big government programs.
And history does not move in one direction toward big government, even if it did from 1929 to 1945. Mercantilism was replaced by free trade in the 19th century, New Deal regulation by deregulation in the 1970s and 1980s.
The Supreme Court’s decision, while upholding Obamacare, tilts the legal and political playing field away from big government more than anyone anticipated three years ago, and probably for years to come.
Michael Barone, senior political analyst for The Washington Examiner (www.washingtonexaminer.com), is a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, a Fox News Channel contributor and a co-author of The Almanac of American Politics.
COPYRIGHT 2012 THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
Once again, thank you for sending us your e-mails. We can’t respond individually, but we read and consider all of them. Send your question, comment, or complaint email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org.
Hello! I just read the article below:
Why I Escaped From New York and Californiaby Wayne Allyn Root, Wednesday, June 27, 2012. I want to be able to post it on facebook! Please add a share button! – Marita
Bidwell comment: Marita, if you go towww.theprojecttorestoreamerica.com, this article is under the Recent Articles. When you click the link, the article fills the screen. At the top right of the page, the Facebook icon is with the other Share this site icons. I hope this helps…
Also if you liked Wayne Allyn Root’s article, you might like this one as well… http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/06/25/to-defeat-obama-in-2012-tell-story-chicago-decline/
(On Stansberry Radio,) I think that Chris Martinsen was more persuasive on peak oil because he built his argument on the fact that oil on this planet is a limited resource. We are not likely to burn up all the oil because it will eventually become cheaper to manufacture a different type of portable energy. You have a good point that enhanced recovery methods will push production out into the future, but the decline will inevitably kick in and apply pressure for innovation. The stakes are high to keep our transportation systems running, I hope innovation wins. Thanks, Mike
Heffern comment: If you enjoyed the last radio show we recommended (the overwhelming positive feedback assures me that you did) tune in to the interview with a former Managing Partner at Bain Capital, Ed Conrad. This interview is one that I’d put near the top of my list. Porter Stansberry and Aaron Brabham interviewed a close business associate and friend of Mitt Romney’s, Conard talks in great detail about the benefits of rising income inequality, true facts about the economy, and the noble profession of private equity. Conard is a great debater and an extremely smart man.
I’d recommend making this podcast part of your weekly routine. A great thing about the radio show is they have a feedback line where you can leave messages for the hosts directly… They always love to hear listener feedback on any aspect of the show or ideas on who you would want interviewed next… 1-855-SA-RADIO (1-855-727-2346) email@example.com.
- In: American Crash 2011 | Barack Obama | Constitution of the United States of America | Economy/Money | Health Care | Health Care Reform Summary | Know the enemies of America | Obama admistration | Obama Against America | Obama and ethics | Obamacare | Obamanation | Obamcare repeal and replace | Progressives Movement to Destroy America | Supreme Court | Supreme Court rulings | Taxes | Unfunded liabilities | US in Revolt
- Leave a Comment
It is my belief that Chief Justice Robert did the people of the United States a great favor. YES, he did indeed rewrite the law when he named the mandate a tax and therefore constitutional under the Congress’s right to levy taxes. But in the arguments before the court in a last ditch effort to get the law passes the White house did argue that the mandate was a tax thus bringing up the subject and giving Roberts his opening.
Some are saying it was a win for Obama. No way! It was a win for the people because Roberts gave the Conservatives a hammer to beat Obama over the head with: A huge tax on ALL people and one that will grow and grow. He told us in his closing argument that he did not and does not judge the goodness or badness of a law, but only the constitutionality. He was telling the people that he was throwing it back out there for them to decide what kind of America we want and if we want the home of the free then we will get our buns out there in November and make darn sure as many others get out to vote too. If the mandated had been shot down we still would have been stuck with the other many, many monsters in this law!! but the people would have gone their way believing the problem has been solved. We the People owe Chief Justice Roberts a great debt for his ruling and the statesmanship (or brinkmanship!) for giving us this last chance to save ourselves. BB
- In: American Crash 2011 | Barack Obama | Commentary | Constitution of the United States of America | Economy/Money | Know the enemies of America | Obama and ethics | Obamacare | Obamanation | Progressives Movement to Destroy America | Radical Left at War with America | Supreme Court | Supreme Court rulings
- Leave a Comment
The supreme Court announced at about 10 am this morning that they were taking up the question of whether or not those who brought suit against Obamacare had the right to do so. Yes, you read correctly! They have not agreed to consider whether or not Obamacare is constitutionally lawful but only if the people who dared to say it wasn’t and take the federal government to court over what they considered an illegality had the right to do so.
This seems to mean that if they rule that the people who sued had a right to sue then they would go on and rule on the legality of the personal mandate (forcing Americans to buy health insurance or any other product) in Obamacare. If the judges rule that these people had the right to sue then they may choose to go on and rule on the suits and the constitutionality of Obamacare. And because of the Democrats in Congress failed to take time to state that one portion of the bill can be ruled unconstitutional but the rest of the bill would stand then the entire bill and all of its monsterous and hateful and nation destroying mandates will fall.
If the Justices rule that the people who sued had no right to sue then the whole thing has to start over again with the “proper” people doing the suing. This means Obamacare and its cancerous growth throughout our government has that many more years to overtake and overwhelm.
Bottom line: it is time to pray people that the 4 sane Justices plus Justice Kennedy (we hope) prevail against the Obama appointees on the court. BB