Obamacare: Obama lied and People will Die

Posted by PITHOCRATES - December 14th, 2013

Week in Review

There are about 414 million people in the United States.  And Obamacare is supposed to insure them all.  But that’s not all.  The Affordable Care Act was going to make health insurance less costly while covering more people.  As well as providing more extensive coverage.  Obamacare promised more for less.  And if you liked your health insurance, your doctor and your medication you could keep them.  It just sounded too good to be true.  And, as it turned out, it was too good to be true (see Does the pre-existing condition program foretell broader problems for Obamacare? by PHILIP KLEIN posted 12/13/2013 on the Washington Examiner).

The program, known as the Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan, or PCIP, was a temporary measure within Obamacare meant to be a bridge to provide coverage to those with pre-existing conditions between the law’s 2010 passage and Jan. 1, 2014, when all plans will be required to offer coverage to those with pre-existing conditions…

What’s interesting about PCIP is that it ended up attracting much fewer Americans than expected while also costing more than expected. The reason was that those who did enroll ended up being those with extremely high medical costs — even by the standards of a program for those with pre-existing conditions.

By March 2013, HHS suspended enrollment in the program because it couldn’t afford to cover any new applicants.

As the New York Times reported in May, “The administration had predicted that up to 400,000 people would enroll in the program, created by the 2010 health care law. In fact, about 135,000 have enrolled, but the cost of their claims has far exceeded White House estimates, exhausting most of the $5 billion provided by Congress.”

The same story explained that HHS announced it “was cutting payments to doctors and hospitals after finding that cost overruns are threatening to use up the money available…”

But given the dismal enrollment numbers to date, it’s worth asking whether the exchanges could end up encountering similar problems to PCIP — only on a much bigger scale.

The plan that had only targeted 400,000 enrollees only got 135,000.  About two-thirds short of their target.  Why?  Insurance that covers preexisting conditions is very expensive.  Because it will pay a lot of claims.  The money people pay in as premiums pays those claims.  But the cost to cover these people is so great it took another $5 billion of taxpayer money.  And even then the program ran out of money with only 135,000 signing up for this insurance.  Showing the futility of buying insurance for a group with preexisting conditions.

Insurance by definition protects the financial assets of a policy holder from a possible loss.  This is the key that makes insurance actually insurance.  Not everyone that pays a premium for this protection will suffer a loss.  So there is a surplus of premiums to pay for the few that do.  The PCIP sells policies to a group of people who will all suffer a loss.  So people aren’t paying a premium to protect themselves from a possible loss.  They’re paying a premium to pay for a known loss.  And everyone in the pool will be paying and submitting claims.  So that the cost of insurance eventually equals the cost of health care per policy holder.  Which makes the insurance redundant.  And unnecessary.  While only serving to increase actual costs by introducing a third party into the process.

This is why the PCIP needed the $5 billion in taxpayer subsidies.  For without it people would not save any money by buying this insurance.  As many haven’t.  Even with the subsidies.  The taxpayers paid about $37,000 per person in addition to the cost of the premium pool.  Based on the number of months since the Affordable Care Act became law that’s about $842 per person per month in subsidies.  Based on the horror stories of what the young and healthy have to pay for their Obamacare health insurance the premiums for the PCIP are probably greater than the subsidies.  And it’s still not enough to cover their costs.  Which is why they’re cutting people off and cutting payments to doctors and hospitals.

Which will happen for the rest of us.  Once the enrollment numbers fall far short of their projections.  As they are.  And claims exceed premiums.  As they will.  Leaving them little choice but to cut costs.  Raise premiums.  Charge more for prescriptions.  Increase wait times.  And ration health care.  Not what President Obama promised.  Then again, he lied.  PolitiFact called it the Lie of the Year.  And because of the president’s lie people will have poorer quality health care.  Who may succumb to their health problems as they wait those longer wait times.  And can no longer afford the prescriptions that kept them healthy.  All because President Obama lied.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Insurance Pools, Premiums and Obamacare

Posted by PITHOCRATES - October 7th, 2013

Economics 101

For Health Insurance to work More People need to Pay Into the Pool than Collect from the Pool

It’s here.  Obamacare.  Which promises to give more people health insurance.  With health insurance policies paying for more than policies do now.  More tests.  More procedures.  Even birth control.  Obamacare will also provide coverage for people with preexisting conditions.  Remove caps on benefits and forbid insurance companies from cancelling insurance coverage.  Forcing insurance companies to give policy holders a lot more benefits.  All while reducing insurance premiums.  Which seems to defy common sense.  Getting more while paying less.  To better understand this let’s look at a sample insurance pool.

Obamacare Impact on Insurance Premiums - Before

Insurance pools are larger than 10 policy holders but this will suffice for this example.  In this example there are 5 individual policy holders with a monthly insurance premium averaging $118.  There are 4 family policies with a monthly insurance premium averaging $400.  And one policy holder with a chronic health condition who pays a premium that people with preexisting conditions pay.  In this example paying $1,200 a month.  It’s that high because this person requires medical care in excess of $30,000 each year.  The average of all premiums is $339.

Now, this is how insurance works.  There is a pool.  People in the pool each pay a small premium compared to the medical costs they MIGHT incur.  The word ‘MIGHT’ is key here.  For insurance to work more people need to pay into the pool than collect from the pool.  This allows the pool to pay the few who have a large unexpected medical expense.  If the insurance company’s actuaries get their premiums right the total of premiums paid into the pool approximately equals the total of expenses paid by the pool.  So premiums in basically equal payments out.  Premiums in can exceed payments out.  But payments out cannot exceed premiums in or else the insurance company will go bankrupt.

Obamacare will Increase the Price of Health Insurance for Men because Insurers can’t Charge more for Women

Obamacare’s individual mandate is an attempt to make sure premiums in exceed payments out.  By forcing more young and healthy people who will not use health insurance pay into the pool.  Young and healthy, see, is the key.  Because that’s money they can spend on other people.  So the young and healthy are the answer to the high cost of the old and sick.  So Obamacare, then, is basically a cost transfer from the old and sick to the young and healthy.  And it will work to lower the cost of health insurance.  If the young and healthy buy health insurance and never use it.

Obamacare Impact on Insurance Premiums - Adding Young and Healthy

If we add 12 young and healthy people to the pool who will not use the insurance the premiums become more affordable.  When there were only 10 people in the pool the total premiums added up to $3,390.  By adding these 12 young and healthy to the pool the total premiums paid in increases to $4,000.  An increase of 26.3%.  So if we discount all premiums by 26.9% we still get a total of $3,390 paid in.  Which is how Obamacare is supposed to lower the cost of health insurance.  By forcing people who won’t use it to buy it.  So they can pay for the people who do use it.  Thus lowering the average premium to $154.09.  And bringing down the premiums for single, family and preexisting conditions to $78.03, $294.78 and $884.35, respectively.  Lowering price across the board.  Making everyone happy.  Except, of course, those forced to buy something they won’t use.  So this part can lower insurance costs.  But it won’t.  Because Obamacare complicates things.

Obamacare Impact on Insurance Premiums - Adding Coverage Requirements

Obamacare will raise premiums because it requires insurers to cover more.  In addition to the things already noted there are some other costly requirements.  Such as the ban on price discrimination based on sex.  Meaning insurers can no longer charge women more for health insurance.  Even though women are more costly to insure.  Primarily due to their reproductive systems.  And other biological differences.  If they can’t charge more for women then they must charge women what they charge men.  And to cover the higher costs of insuring women they must charge men a higher premium.  So when they charge women that premium it will cover birth control, breast exams, pap smears, etc.   In our example we assume singles and families will pay twice as much.  While those paying preexisting conditions premiums will pay 50% more.  Bringing the average premium to $288.08.  While bringing the premiums for single, family and preexisting conditions to $156.06, $589.57 and $1,326.52, respectively.

The Key to Obamacare is to get more Young and Healthy People to buy Insurance that they will Not Use

But premiums will cost even more.  Because insurers cannot deny coverage for people with preexisting conditions.  And they can’t cancel coverage for people if they come down with a very costly chronic health problem.  Basically meaning there is no cap to what an insurer may pay on an individual.  Which makes the insurance equation more difficult to balance.  Making sure that payments out do not exceed premiums in.  Which is more difficult to do when there is no limit to what those payments out can be.  So insurers will have little choice but to charge people for the worst case scenario.  That a large percentage in the pool will have long-term chronic illnesses.  And that some people will be buying insurance for the first time after being diagnosed with a long-term chronic illness.

Obamacare Impact on Insurance Premiums - Pre-Existing Conditions

Insurers will have to make assumptions.  With no limit to their high-end exposure they will have to charge everyone more across the board.  So they will have to take their greatest risk—the exposure to preexisting conditions and long-term chronic illnesses—and factor that into all premiums.  In our example we charged singles 25% of the greatest risk.  And we charged families 50% of the greatest risk (the more people on the policy the greater the risk of long-term chronic illnesses on that policy).  Raising the average premium to $437.  And raising the premiums for single, family and preexisting conditions to $331.63, $663.26 and $1,326.52, respectively.  Or an increase of 181%, 66% and 11%, respectively from before the implementation of Obamacare.

Obamacare seems like a windfall to the insurance companies.  Which is why some of them supported Obamacare.  But the key to Obamacare was to get more young and healthy people to pay into the insurance pool while not using that insurance.  The young and the healthy.  Individuals.  Who don’t have families.  Those who will see a substantial rise in their insurance premiums.  As much as 181%?  Perhaps.  But if the increase is too great for these young and healthy individuals to afford they will not buy health insurance.  And they can’t get a subsidy.  Because it’s the young and healthy—those who are supposed to pay into the insurance pool without using their insurance—who are to provide the money for the subsidies.  So they won’t increase the amount of premiums going into the pool.  While the additional requirements of Obamacare will increase the payments going out of the pool.  Causing the insurance equation to go out of balance.  Putting the private health insurance business out of business.  The ultimate goal of Obamacare.  So the left can get what they wanted all along.  National health care.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Obamacare will Double Insurance Premiums in California

Posted by PITHOCRATES - June 2nd, 2013

Week in Review

The proponents of Obamacare say it will lower the cost of health insurance, give health insurance to the poor who can’t afford it and cover people with preexisting conditions.  That is, we’ll get more for less.  In all of recorded history there have been few examples of getting more for less.  Usually you have to go to scripture to find them.  Such as when Jesus fed about 4,000 people with 5 loaves of bread and two fish.  This is what the proponents of Obamacare believe Obamacare will do.  A miracle.  Even though a great many of them don’t even believe in Jesus Christ.  Or miracles.  And for Obamacare to do all that they say it will do will take a miracle or two (see Rate Shock: In California, Obamacare To Increase Individual Health Insurance Premiums By 64-146% by Avik Roy posted 5/30/2013 on Forbes).

Last week, the state of California claimed that its version of Obamacare’s health insurance exchange would actually reduce premiums. “These rates are way below the worst-case gloom-and-doom scenarios we have heard,” boasted Peter Lee, executive director of the California exchange. But the data that Lee released tells a different story: Obamacare, in fact, will increase individual-market premiums in California by as much as 146 percent…

That Obamacare more than doubles insurance premiums for many Californians is especially ironic, given the political posturing of the President and his administration in 2010. In February of that year, Anthem Blue Cross announced that some groups (but not the majority) would face premium increases of as much as 39 percent. The White House and its allies in the blogosphere, cynically, claimed that these increases were due to greedy profiteering by the insurers, instead of changes in the underlying costs of the insured population.

Soon after, WellPoint announced that, in fact, because of lower revenues and higher spending on patient care, the company earned 11 percent less in 2010 than it did in 2009. So much for greedy profiteering.

This is no surprise.  Because you can’t just give health insurance to those who don’t have it without someone paying for it.  And you just can’t let people who don’t have health insurance buy a policy when they come down with a costly medical condition without someone paying for it.  Before Obamacare these people didn’t have health insurance.  After Obamacare these people will.  But someone has to pay for it.  And guess who that will be?  Those who pay for health insurance.  Who will now have to pay more as more people will be consuming health care benefits without paying for it themselves.

This is no mystery.  And most people seem to understand this when it comes to income taxes.  As they will vote to raise taxes on rich people so the government can afford to give them more free stuff.  People understand this.  They say the rich should pay their fair share so those who don’t can get stuff for free.  They understand the principle that for some people to get something for free other people have to pay for it.  When it comes to taxes, at least.  But somehow they act surprised when the very same thing happens in health care.

Allowing people with a preexisting condition who didn’t bother to pay for health insurance to buy a policy at the same price as everyone else is unfair.  Because when they were healthy they did not contribute to the health care system by paying an insurance premium.  But now that they are sick they expect others to chip in and help pay their medical expenses when they refused to do it when they had a chance.  And with no annual or lifetime limit to benefits those other people will have to pay even more.  This is what Obamacare will do.  So it was never going to lower the cost of health care.  Because you can’t get more for less.  Unless you’re Jesus Christ.  So, yes, prices will soar for the responsible people who pay for health insurance.

As the Obama administration tries to change the United States into a social democracy like all those European states suffering debt crises and recessions there will be a strong incentive NOT to do well.  For those who do well and prosper get rewarded by paying the bill for those who do not.  From those according to ability to those according to need.  It sounds so utopian.  But what happens in socialist countries is that people try to show as little ability as possible while showing as much need as they can.  Because that’s how you prosper under socialism.  Have other people work hard while you enjoy the fruit of all their labors.  And never show ability.  Because if you do you will only work harder than the guy that doesn’t.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Health Insurers to lose $1 Trillion in Revenue if Supreme Court Says the People can’t become $1 Trillion Poorer

Posted by PITHOCRATES - May 19th, 2012

Week in Review

Oh no.  The health insurance companies will lose money if the Supreme Court rules that Obamacare is unconstitutional.  Those poor health insurance companies.  Here the government is trying to help the people they hate more than anyone else and the Supreme Court has to rain on their parade (see Obamacare repeal would cost insurers $1 trillion by Sarah Kliff posted 5/15/2012 on The Washington Post).

Next month, America’s health insurance plans may lose $1 trillion in revenue…

The figure comes from Bloomberg Government, where number crunchers have taken a look at what happens if the Supreme Court strikes down the Affordable Care Act and its expected expansion of health care coverage to 32 million Americans. They find that, should the Affordable Care Act be found unconstititional [sic], insurance companies will lose $1 trillion in revenue between 2013 and 2020…

The majority of that loss – $880 billion – would be from the 16 million Americans expected to purchase coverage on the individual market…

The Bloomberg Government study estimates that, of the $1 trillion in revenue, health plans would keep $174 billion.

Cost insurers are NOT going to lose $1 trillion in revenue if the Supreme Court rules Obamacare unconstitutional.  This is 2012.  The $1 trillion in revenue is projected between 2013 and 2020.  This revenue doesn’t exist.  And, therefore, can’t be lost.

This projected revenue will be from the individual mandate forcing people to buy health insurance.  So the insurance companies will be $1 trillion richer.  And the American people will be $1 trillion poorer.  This is perhaps the first time someone has felt sorry for the poor health insurance companies suffering at the hands of greedy consumers who are unwilling to buy their products.  So they applaud the poor health insurance companies projected sales as the government forces the American people to enrich the insurance companies.  And feel sad when the mean old Supreme Court says the government can’t force the American people to become poorer so the insurance companies can become richer.

Of course the insurance companies aren’t going to become richer under Obamacare.  They’ll never see that $174 billion in profits.  For insurance companies will be going out of business left and right.  Because Obamacare forces them to pay for preexisting conditions.  An ingenious plan to put the health insurance companies out of business. 

Currently the fine for not buying health insurance is pretty low.  Less than the cost of an insurance policy that covers everything but the kitchen sink.  As mandated by Obamacare.  From birth control to abortion to every kind of preventative screening there is.  Making these policies very, very expensive.  So people will choose to pay the less costly fine.  Until they get very, very sick.  Then they will buy health insurance.  And the insurer will have to pay for every bill that comes in for that preexisting condition.  Because Obamacare forces them to.  Forcing them to raise their premiums.

Of course when they do others will choose to pay the less costly fine instead of the more costly insurance policy.  They will drop their coverage.  Until they become very, very sick.  Meanwhile, the insurance companies will have to raise their premiums because fewer people are paying premiums.  And on and on this vicious cycle goes.  Until the insurance companies have only sick people with policies.  So they’ll spend more on health care bills than they will ever collect in premiums.  Until they go bankrupt.  As designed.  So they can expand Obamacare into a full-blown national health care system like they wanted all along. 

Like I said, ingenious.  As well as devious.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Obamacare – Lies and Politics to transform One-Sixth of the U.S. Economy into a Welfare Program

Posted by PITHOCRATES - March 11th, 2012

Week in Review

Here’s the skinny on Obamacare.  And it isn’t good.  For it transfers health insurance into a massive welfare program.  That ultimately will be paid for by the state.  Which means we the taxpayers will pay for it with massive new taxes.  After Obamacare shuts down the private health insurance industry.  Which it appears to be designed to do (see Obama’s health care law: A trek, not a sprint by RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR, Associated Press, posted 3/11/2012 on Yahoo! News).

The Affordable Care Act gradually reorganizes one-sixth of the U.S. economy to cover most of the nation’s 50 million uninsured, while simultaneously trying to restrain costs and prevent disruptions to the majority already with coverage.

If the government takes over one-sixth of the U.S. economy this won’t be the same USA anymore.  It won’t be free market capitalism here.  But a European social democracy.  Like the European nations suffering from the European sovereign debt crisis.  Caused by excessive government spending.  And excessive government borrowing to pay for that spending.  Which will happen under Obamacare.  Because you can’t provide more for less.  More health care will cost more.  And when the private health insurance industry fails when they can’t provide more for less that leaves government as the sole provider in the health care market.  The ultimate plan for Obamacare.  As it has to be.  Because you can’t provide more for less.

“We really haven’t seen the main game,” said Drew Altman, president of the California-based Kaiser Family Foundation, a nonprofit information clearinghouse on the health care system. “The major provisions that will affect the most people and cost the most money don’t go into effect until 2014 or later.”

The timing of Obamacare is further proof that it will be a disaster for health insurers and for those buying health insurance.  If it was good they would have implemented it before the 2012 election.  So Obama could campaign on its successes.  But knowing it was a failure they pushed back implementation until after the 2012 election.  So that failure wouldn’t dash all hopes for an Obama second term.

Millions of people are getting preventive care that now must be provided at no additional cost to patients. Birth control for women soon will be on that list. Insurance premium increases are getting more scrutiny.

You can’t provide more for less.  Forcing health insurers to provide free birth control without charging more in premiums to pay for this will put the private insurers out of business.  Unless they allow insurers to increase premiums.  Then everyone will pay more so women can use birth control without paying for it.  A product that shuts down a natural biological function of the human body.  Which isn’t insurance on more than one level.  First of all, it’s not financial protection against an unexpected catastrophic health care expense.  For there is nothing unknown about this expense.  Second, getting pregnant is the proper thing for female body to do after sex.  Stopping this process is not a health issue.  It’s a lifestyle choice.  And therefore shouldn’t be paid for by the same thing we use to pay for cancer treatments.  An unexpected catastrophic expense.

A highly promoted program that provides a lifeline to people denied coverage because they already had medical problems has probably saved lives. But enrollment in the Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan has been disappointing, with only about 50,000 people nationwide.

Glenn Nishimura, a consultant from Little Rock, Ark., checked it out and found his premiums would come to about $6,300 a year.

“It’s out of my price range,” said Nishimura. It makes more financial sense to take care of his high blood pressure and high blood sugars by paying out-of-pocket and gambling that his health will hold up, he reasons. In three years he’ll be eligible for better coverage under Medicare.

This individual mandate, the main target for the law’s critics, also takes effect in 2014. Without it, many experts fear that the new exchanges, the state-based markets for private insurance, won’t work. Healthy people would be tempted to postpone signing up until they get sick, raising costs for everybody.

You can’t provide more for less.  And there’s nothing that costs more in the health insurance industry than paying for preexisting conditions.  Because if you’re covering a preexisting condition it means that the preexisting medical condition wasn’t covered before it existed.  Meaning the person did not buy health insurance when they were younger and healthier.  And paid nothing into the health insurance pools to help offset the costs of those who fall ill with an unexpected and catastrophic illness.  Only now that they are sick and facing large medical bills do they want health insurance coverage to pay these bills.  Which isn’t insurance.  It’s welfare. 

The individual mandate addresses this.  But it’s unconstitutional.  For the government doesn’t have the right to make people buy anything.  And, no, it’s not the same as car insurance.  Because if you don’t drive a car you don’t have to buy car insurance.  And if the Supreme Court upholds this unconstitutional individual mandate it will have the same effect as a massive tax increase.  And kill economic activity.  At a time the nation is still reeling under the Great Recession.  Massive new government expenditures and a fall in economic activity, and therefore a fall in tax revenue, will put the U.S. ever closer to those European social democracies wallowing in the European sovereign debt crisis.  And in case you’re wondering what that would mean it would be a bad thing.  A very, very bad thing.  Unless you like riots in the streets.  As they had them in Greece, France, and the UK.  And elsewhere wherever they tried to cut back some great government welfare program.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Rich Liberals Champion the Poor to Maintain their Privileged Lives

Posted by PITHOCRATES - April 2nd, 2011

Per-Vote-Subsidy replaces Corporate and Union Money

Canada has a spoils system when it comes to public financing of political campaigns.  The big pile of public money ‘donated’ by the Canadian taxpayer is divided between the parties by vote.  The more votes a party gets, the more tax subsidies that party gets.  The Canadian prime minister, Stephen Harper, wants to do away with these subsidies (see Harper vows to scrap per-vote subsidies by CTV.ca News Staff posted 4/1/2011 on CTV.ca).

Currently, political parties receive a $2-per-vote subsidy, but Harper has long opposed the system, which was brought in by the Liberals when corporate and union donations were banned.

He said Friday that political parties already enjoy “enormous tax advantages” and taxpayers should not have to support parties they don’t support with their votes. Harper added that the subsidy only helps to ease the way for frequent elections.

Interesting.  Unlike the United States, Canada does not allow corporations or unions donate to political parties.  And when that ban went into place, the liberals brought in the per-vote-subsidy.  It takes money to win political contests.  And when you shut down two big sources (corporations and unions), that money has to come from somewhere else.  So the liberals decided to get that money from the taxpayer.  Fair, right?  I mean, without these subsidies, political power falls to the rich.  And that’s not fair, is it?

The Liberals are the Rich trying to Buy Political Power

When they banned corporate and union donations that left private donations.  From actual people.  So I guess we would have to see how that money flowed to see whether the per-vote-subsidy is fair and serves its purpose.  To keep the rich from wielding political power over the poor (see Analysis: Fears about scrapping per-vote subsidies wildly off target by Patrick Brethour, Vancouver, posted 4/2/2011 on The Globe and Mail).

Data compiled by the website Punditsguide.ca show that funds raised by the parties largely come from small donors, in amounts that would make few Canadian households cringe…

Take the Conservative Party in 2009, which raised… an average [per person] donation of $174.60…

The story is pretty much the same with the other parties: the NDP, with an average donation of $169.11; the Bloc Quebecois, average $102.63; Green Party, $123.21; and the Liberals, with an average of $239.23, the highest of the major federal parties.

Looking at the average per-person donation, it appears the liberal donors are richer than the conservative donors.  Kind of goes against everything the liberals tell us.  That conservatives are nothing but a bunch of rich fat-cats who want to use the poor as footstools.  Either that or conservatives are just cheap bastards.

The same picture emerges when looking at the distribution of donations by size. For the Conservatives, about 10 per cent of the funds raised came from those giving between $1,000 and the maximum of $1,100; conversely, two-thirds came from those giving $400 or less. The NDP were similar, with 7 per cent coming from the highest donated amount, and 70 per cent coming from donations $400 and under. The Liberals – who have fulminated against the perils of the rich controlling the political process – were actually the party most dependent on big donations, with 35 per cent of their cash coming from donors giving between $1,000 and $1,100, while sub-$400 donors accounted for just 38 per cent of the funds the party raised.

In fact, the Liberals outperformed among big donors, raising $3.2-million to the Conservatives’ $1.7-million. The Tories made up that ground, and more, with small donors.

And what do these numbers tell you?  Liberals rely on rich people for their political donations.  Conservatives rely on the little guy, the average working person who can barely afford to donate $200.  And the big corporations and the big unions pour money into liberal political parties.  In ‘soft ways‘ these days.  In Canada.  In the United States.  All around the world.  So much money that it was hard for the little guy to fight against it.  Leaving political power in the hands of the rich.  Much like the liberals say they want to prevent with the per-vote-subsidy.  But, in fact, that’s exactly what they want to do.  Leave political power in their rich hands.

You see, the crony capitalists and the snooty rich don’t like the little guy.  They like the good life that few can enjoy.  And sometimes they need special favors from government to continue that privileged life.  Which is why they donate to liberal parties.  But when they banned ‘hard money’ donations from corporations and unions, liberals had to scramble for other financing.  Because the majority of people don’t support their views.  So they need to ‘force’ donations through these per-vote-subsidies.  For it is the only way they can continue to rule against the will of the people.

The People who Supported Obamacare get Obamacare Waivers

It’s always about the money.  Whenever you’re confused about some political debate, just ask yourself this simple question.  Where’s the money?  Take health care, for example.  The goal of Obamacare was to provide everyone with high-quality yet affordable health care insurance.  Sort of like paying for a Big Mac and getting filet mignon.  Impossible, yes, but that’s what they told us. 

Big Business and the unions were all behind it.  Everyone (employers and unions) wants to dump their health care costs.  That’s why they were anxious for that public option.  Well, they didn’t get the public option.  Not yet.  First Obamacare has to put the private insurers out of business.  Once it does that then the government can step in as the insurer of last resort and, presto, they’ll get their national health care.  But leaves a costly problem for the here and now.

To ‘pass’ CBO, they had to include some onerous requirements.  The new law forced everyone to buy insurance.  The insurers had to cover preexisting conditions.  And they forbade insurance companies to recover their full overhead expenses.  Suddenly affordable insurance was going to become unaffordable.  Or people were simply going to lose their insurance because they couldn’t afford the premiums that were necessary to comply with the requirements of Obamacare.  So many of those who supported this legislation want no part of it.  For themselves, that is.  It’s okay for us.  But not for them.  So they’re asking that the law does not apply to them.  Only us (see List of health reform waivers keeps growing by Jason Millman posted 4/2/2011 on The Hill).

The number of waivers the Obama administration has awarded for a provision of the year-old healthcare reform law grew by 128 in March.

With the new waivers, that means 1,168 businesses, insurers, unions and other organizations have received one-year exemptions from a healthcare reform provision requiring at least $750,000 in annual benefits.

Nancy Pelosi said we needed to pass Obamacare to learn what was in it.  Apparently another 128 insurance plans learned what was in it this past March.  And they want out.  Like the majority of Americans.  Which really begs the question why Obamacare?  It isn’t popular.  They had to pass it quickly before anyone could read the bill.  None of the unions want it.  So why have it?  Because liberals want it.  And why do politicians want anything?  Follow the money.

The Free Market provides High Quality and Low Prices

Hillary Clinton tried to socialize our health care.  Now Obamacare is a short step from doing just that.  Because they said only government could step in and fix our health care system.  That the so-called free market had failed.  Really now?  Because that’s the one thing that has been missing from our health care system.  Market forces.  Doctors providing medical services for a fee that their patients actually pay for.  Not a third party insurance bureaucrat.  But the actual patient.  Until now, that is.  And that free market?  It works.  It’s providing a fully funded quality system that people of average means can afford (see High-end medical option prompts Medicare worries by Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar, Associated Press, posted 4/2/2011 on the Sun Journal).

Every year, thousands of people make a deal with their doctor: I’ll pay you a fixed annual fee, whether or not I need your services, and in return you’ll see me the day I call, remember who I am and what ails me, and give me your undivided attention.

But this arrangement potentially poses a big threat to Medicare and to the new world of medical care envisioned under President Barack Obama’s health overhaul.

The spread of “concierge medicine,” where doctors limit their practice to patients who pay a fee of about $1,500 a year, could drive a wedge among the insured. Eventually, people unable to afford the retainer might find themselves stuck on a lower tier, facing less time with doctors and longer waits.

People actually paying to see a doctor?  Imagine that?  Just like in the old days.  Before there was a health care crisis.  The patients are happy.  The doctors are happy.  And making a very nice living.  You can’t get much more of a win-win situation, can you?  Who could find fault with this?

The trend caught the eye of MedPAC, a commission created by Congress that advises lawmakers on Medicare and watches for problems with access. It hired consultants to investigate.

I guess the government could.  Big Brother is everywhere.  And he is looking at this free market solution.  And Big Brother is not amused.  People paying for their own medical care?  That’s a problem for those in government.  A big problem.

Several members said it appears to be fulfilling a central goal of Obama’s overhaul, enhancing the role of primary care and restoring the doctor-patient relationship.

Yet the approach envisioned under the law is different from the one-on-one attention in concierge medicine. It calls for a team strategy where the doctor is helped by nurses and physician assistants, who handle much of the contact with patients.

John Goodman, a conservative health policy expert, predicts the health care law will drive more patients to try concierge medicine. “Seniors who can pay for it will go outside the system,” he said.

MedPAC’s Hackbarth declined to be interviewed. But Berenson, a physician and policy expert, said “the fact that excellent doctors are doing this suggests we’ve got a problem.”

You see, one-on-one concierge medicine is bad because it lets doctors work freely with patients.  The government would prefer something along the current lines.  You treat patients.  And then we’ll think about paying you.  And how much we’ll pay you.  Like in the Medicare program now.  That way you’re our bitch.  But if you work outside the system, you and your patients will be free.  And we don’t like that.  Why?  Follow the money.

Follow the Money for the Money Never Lies

Politics is always about the money.  Always has been.  Always will be.  Because it takes money to gain and maintain political power.  Whether you’re running a political campaign.  Or supporting a campaign with your union dues in exchange for political favors (such as legislation that limits competition so unions can maintain their high wage and benefit packages).

Liberals are a minority of the population.  Wherever you are.  The majority of people don’t belong to a union or work for the government.  This majority has jobs.  They take care of their family.  And want Big Brother to leave them alone.  Union dues from a small percentage of the population can greatly influence elections, though.  They can’t donate directly.  But that money finds its way to liberals.  Liberals in the U.S. desperately need this money.  In fact, union dues have become so important to the ruling liberal elite that they created an entire new class of union-paying people.  The public sector union class.  Who has but one purpose.  To launder tax dollars from taxpayers to the Democrat Party.

The 2010 mid-term elections shook up the political establishment.  Conservative governors are fighting back against this new political class.  And the liberal left is attacking these governors.  Even President Obama sent activists to Madison, Wisconsin, to protest against Governor Walker as they voted to make their public sector workers live more like the rest of the people in Wisconsin.  This is why Obamacare is so important to the left.  Health care is 17% of GDP.  That’s a lot of money.  That’s why the public option is so important.  Why nationalized health care is so important.  Because of this money.  Liberals want this money to pass through Washington.  Where they can easily skim a little off the top for their political needs.  And to live well.  Without actually having to work.  Like that majority that pays all those taxes.

Life’s greatest question can be easiest answered by following the money.  For the money never lies.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Obamacare and H.R. 2 – The Perfect Match

Posted by PITHOCRATES - January 19th, 2011

When Healthcare Insurance becomes Welfare

Well, the Republican controlled House passed H.R. 2 (Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act).  But the Democrat controlled Senate is vowing to defy public opinion.  Harry Reid won’t even bring it up to a vote.  Probably because he’s afraid some of his Democrat colleagues worried about reelection in 2012 may vote to repeal it. 

So they’re rolling out the usual sob stories.  Repealing the bill will kill kids.  Plunge the country into a depression worse than FDR’s Great Depression.  You know, the usual stuff (see House votes on repeal of healthcare law by Michael A. Memoli, Washington Bureau, posted 1/19/2010 on the LA Times).

The move by House Republicans has spurred a vigorous defense of the law by many Democrats and the Obama administration, even as they were reluctant to do so in the fall campaign. They cited emotional stories of constituents who are benefitting from the law — particularly children who can no longer be denied insurance coverage for preexisting conditions.

Repeal, Democrats said, could cause more than 5 million Americans with preexisting conditions to be denied coverage, and add $230 billion to the deficit in the next 10 years.

Think for a minute why insurance companies exclude preexisting conditions.  Better yet, let’s say you own an insurance company.  You make money by collecting insurance premiums.  You pay claims out of those paid premiums.  Now, the key for this to work is that more people have to pay premiums than collect claims.  If not, you will run out of money and go out of business.  See?  It’s business.  Your income (paid premiums) has to be greater than your costs (claims).  Ergo the exemption of preexisting conditions.  If you didn’t exclude them, people would only buy insurance when they’re sick and need benefits.  Costs (claims) would be greater than your income (premiums).  And your insurance company would go out of business.

Allowing preexisting conditions.  It sounds nice.  In a touchy feely caring kind of a way.  But it will kill the insurance industry.  Then the government will have to step in and make healthcare insurance welfare.  Supported by an ever growing tax burden.  Like in every other nation with nationalized health care.  So they’re being a bit disingenuous by pulling on the old heartstrings.  Then they just flat out lie.

“Democrats have made a firm commitment that we would judge every proposal that comes to the floor by whether it creates jobs, strengthens the middle class, and reduces the deficit. The repeal of patients’ rights fails on all three counts,” House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) said before the vote.

The Economically Challenged:  Nancy Pelosi and her Constituents

What they call deficit reduction is a huge tax increase and a gutting of Medicare.  But raising taxes doesn’t create jobs.  If it did we would never cut them during bad economic times.  We cut them because lowering taxes creates jobs.  Even Obama admitted this in the big compromise to extend the Bush tax cuts.

When you kill jobs you crate unemployment.  With fewer people working there are fewer people paying taxes.  This is one of the reasons why we have record deficits now.  We have record unemployment rates that just go on and on and on with no end in sight.  (The other is the explosive government spending corresponding with this fall in tax revenue).  Making this problem worse will add to the deficit, not reduce it.

Higher taxes and unemployment and a reduction of Medicare benefits is not going to help anyone in the middle class.  It’s going to make their lives that much harder.  So Pelosi is wrong on all three counts.  Of course, it’s hard to blame her.  It must be the water in her district.  Makes people economically challenged.  For her constituents all think like she does.  At least the 80% or so that keeps voting for her.  No, passing H.R. 2 will be the best thing to happen to the middle class since the 2010 midterm elections.

Obamacare is so Good that it Insured the Uninsured – Even before it was Passed

And the lies keep coming.  This from Karen G. Mills, administrator of the Small Business Administration, on January 18, 2011.

Every day America’s entrepreneurs and small-business owners are finding more ways to access affordable health care insurance because of the Affordable Care Act. We have some very important data recently, which is that after years of dropping coverage, the number of small businesses offering health insurance to their workers is actually going up. This is according to the Kaiser Family Foundation: nine percent more small businesses with less than 200 employees provided coverage in 2010 compared with 2009, and for those with less than 10 employees, the expansion in coverage was even bigger. It was 13 percent.

Funny.  Because small business (and unions) have been asking for Mini-Med plan waivers.  Because the cost to comply with Obamacare would otherwise force some 1.5 million people off of their current health care plans.  So how does Ms. Mills reconcile this fact with the rosy statement above?  Why, you lie about polling results (see Small business and the health care repeal by Glenn Kessler posted 1/19/2011 on The Washington Post).

Mills, to her credit, cited her source, the Kaiser Family Foundation 2010 annual survey of Employer Health Benefits. And her statistics are correct. It’s just that they have nothing to do with the new health care law.

First, the survey was taken between January and May of last year, so much of the data was collected before the law even passed… Second, the Kaiser report specifically says the analysts were puzzled by the shift in small business figures, but were pretty sure it did not mean more firms were signing up to provide health insurance to their employees… “A possible explanation is that non-offering firms were more likely to fail during the past year, and the attrition of non-offering firms led to a higher offer rate among surviving firms.”… A third problem is that the data set for small firms is too small to be significant.

So the administrator of the Small Business Administration, Karen G. Mills, is making less than honest statements.  She’s saying that polling data shows Obamacare is already having a positive impact on small business.  With the poll numbers taken before the passage of Obamacare, this is just impossible.  It would appear that Ms. Mills, the Small Business Administration, is not a friend of small business.  Because she lied about the poll results.  Put the two together and one must conclude that Obamacare is not good for small business.  If not, why would she lie?

Yes, Nancy, Let’s Pass H.R. 2 to Find out what’s in It

Remember how they passed Obamacare.  Quickly.  With backroom deals (the Louisiana Purchase, the Corn Husker kickback, etc.).  And, of course, without reading it.  Nancy Pelosi said they’d have to pass it to learn what was in it.  Why?  Because they were afraid that if people knew what was in it the people would pressure their representatives and senators to not pass it.  What other reason could there be?

But in the new spirit of civility, let’s extend an olive branch to Nancy Pelosi.  Let’s follow her advice.  Let’s pass H.R. 2.  Then let’s see what will happen.  If the recession turns into depression, if the deficit continues to grow, then we’ll concede that she was right.  Then we can reinstate Obamacare.  Increase taxes.  Gut Medicare.  Ration health care.  And make this nation the liberal paradise they so long for.  But first let us pass H.R. 2 to see what’s in it.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Death Panels in/out of Medicare, Obamacare still Betting on Death to Cut Costs

Posted by PITHOCRATES - January 5th, 2011

Death is more Cost Efficient than Life

First they denied it.  Then they backtracked when everyone could see they were included.  Then they pulled them.  Then they tried to sneak them back (see Administration reverses on end-of-life counseling by Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar, The Associated Press, posted 1/5/2011 on The Washington Post).

Medicare coverage for voluntary end-of-life planning was part of the original House version of the overhaul legislation in 2009, but it was dropped after Sarah Palin and other Republicans raised the specter of “death panels” deciding the fate of vulnerable seniors. Those charges were later debunked by several non-partisan fact-checking groups.

I keep hearing this.  That they’re not death panels.  They’re actually good things that people want.  But I have to ask this.  Why are they constantly trying to sneak this legislation in?  I mean, Obamacare itself is controversial and unpopular.  The people already hate it.  So why are they hiding these so called death panels that aren’t death panels?

I can think of only one reason.  Cost control.  With Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid all projected to go bankrupt in the not so distant future, there’s no way that Obamacare can escape that same fate.  Unless sick people die quicker.  Before the government spends a fortune trying to extend their lives. 

Yes, it’s a grim prospect.  But that’s the only way you can save cash-strapped programs that incur costs from sick and dying people.  You stop spending money on sick and dying people.  That way you can take in more money than you pay out.  Do that and these programs (Obamacare, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid) can stay solvent.  And there is only one way to do this.  You have to ‘let’ people die.  You get them to choose death.  By persuading them that it’s for the best.  For them.  Their family.  And for the country.  In other words, death panels.  Because death is more cost efficient than life.

Obamacare Welfare:  Wealth Transfer from the Responsible to the Irresponsible

This is what they want to hide from the people.  Because it’s just too ghoulish.  It’s something the Nazis did.  Getting rid of undesirables.  Or the stuff of science fiction like Soylent Green.  Only without the cannibalism.  So far, that is. 

I joke, of course.  Then again, no one knows what’s in the Obamacare legislation.  No one read it.  At least, no one that voted for it.  After all, it was the now deposed Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, who said we’d have to pass Obamacare to learn what was in it.  So anything can be in it.  We just don’t know.  But we’re learning.

The new regulations have already exploded private health care costs.  Even though they said it wouldn’t.  In fact, everything was supposed to get cheaper.  But when you force private insurers to cover preexisting conditions, they have to act accordingly. 

With preexisting coverage, no one will buy insurance.  They’ll save their money for car payments.  New entertainment centers.  Jet skis.  You know, fun stuff.  Then, if a kid gets leukemia or some other catastrophic diagnosis, then they’ll buy insurance.  Get the picture?  The only people buying insurance will be those with catastrophic medical expenses.  People who will be consuming millions in benefits but only pay a pittance in premiums.  And that ain’t insurance.  That’s pure welfare wealth transfer.  From the responsible.  To the irresponsible.

The House Rules Enabled Corruption and Backroom Deals

And this is just asinine.  So how did they pass something this stupid into law?  Well, have you seen the House rules (see New rules in the House of Representatives by Felicia Sonmez posted 1/5/2011 on The Washington Post)?  Here’re some of the rules back then.  When Congress slipped Obamacare into law.

  1. 1.  No “Constitutional Authority Statement” was required.  A similar statement was required only for bills reported out of committee and was included in the committee report.
  2. 2.  Only bills reported out of committee were required to be “made available” three days before a vote, and they were not required to be posted online.
  3. 3.  Spending increases could be paid for by spending cuts or tax increases.
  4. 4.  Committee chairmen did not have term limits.
  5. 5.  Legislation was not required to be posted online before it was marked up.
  6. 6.  The “Gephardt Rule” allowed the House to automatically raise the debt limit when a joint budget resolution was adopted.
  7. 7.  The Constitution has never been read in full on the House floor.

This is not what the framers of the Constitution had in mind.  Not even Alexander Hamilton (the biggest of the ‘big government’ Founding Fathers).  In fact, he would be as shocked as his arch nemesis, Thomas Jefferson (who thought any central government was too much central government).  (Just to prevent any confusion, Jefferson was in France during the Constitutional Convention and did not participate.  His assault against the Constitution escalated after ratification.)

The Constitution means something.  It’s the Rule of Law for the central government.  The Constitution has to authorize everything the central government does.  Why?  Because that’s the law.  And we’re a nation of laws.  At least, we used to be.

The fact that Congress has never read the Constitution in full on the House floor is worrisome.  Why haven’t they?  Are they trying to bury the restrictions it places on Congress?  It would appear so.  And that lawmakers look at it as more of a nuisance than as the foundation of our nation.  Something that checks their power and spending sprees.  Which tax and spend Big Government types just don’t like.

The other rules just invite corruption and backroom deals.  The very thing Jefferson warned about.  And he was right.  Because that’s what it took to pass Obamacare.  They bribed Congress people to vote for it.  The Cornhusker Kickback bribed Nebraska Senator Ben Nelson.  The Louisiana Purchase bribed Louisiana Senator Mary Landrieu.  And a laundry list of bribes to other people and organizations.  Hidden in the bowels of the health care reform bill.  Which was fast-tracked into law before anyone read it.  Thanks to the rules of the House.

The New 112th Congress to Revise House Rules to Stop the Corruption and Backroom Deals

But all is not lost.  The new 112th Congress is proposing to change the rules.  They even plan to read the Constitution in full on the House floor.  It may be the first time some will learn what’s in it.  And that’s good.  Here are some of the other changes (these numbers correlate to the numbers above):

  1. 1.  All proposed bills must be accompanied by a “Constitutional Authority Statement” that notes the specific section of the Constitution that empowers Congress to enact the legislation.
  2. 2.  All bills must be posted online for three days before they are put up for a vote.
  3. 3.  Spending increases have to be offset by cuts of an equal or greater amount elsewhere and cannot be paid for by tax increases.
  4. 4.  Committee chairmen have a six-year term limit.
  5. 5.  The text of legislation must be posted online 24 hours before it is due to be marked up in committee; the House Rules Committee is exempt from this rule.
  6. 6.  A new rule eliminates automatic debt-limit increase upon passage of joint budget resolutions.
  7. 7.  A full reading of the Constitution will take place on Thursday, the second day of the 112th Congress.

It’s a start.  It might stop some of the Founding Fathers from spinning in their graves.  Probably not Jefferson, though.  It’s going to take a whole lot more to soothe his distraught spirit.

Revised House Rules a Good First Step.  Repealing Obamacare a Good Second Step.

So maybe with the new Congress and the new House rules (if adopted) will prevent another corrupt bill like Obamacare from sneaking through backrooms and into law.  Good.  But that’s just a start.  Now we have to address Obamacare itself.  We need to repeal it.  For a plethora of reasons (see New Congress Begins Fight to Repeal Obamacare and Get Health Care Reform Right by Kathryn Nix posted 1/4/2011 on Heritage’s The Foundry).  Many already know some of these reasons.  But it’s good to keep talking about them.

The negative effects of Obamacare will be felt by all Americans. The new law includes several new taxes and penalties for businesses that threaten to kill job growth and further damage the economy. Budget gimmicks and double counting of savings mean Obamacare will increase federal deficit spending significantly.

Obamacare does nothing to reform the systemic problems and unfunded liabilities represented by Medicare and Medicaid. Instead, the new law uses savings in Medicare to fund a new entitlement that experts expect to greatly exceed its projected cost. Obamacare does not fix Medicaid, which already performs poorly, but adds more to its ranks as a means to reduce the uninsured.

Obamacare increases premiums and overall health spending in the U.S. Instead of allowing insured Americans to keep their current coverage, the new law will cause millions to change or lose their health plans. Last but not least, Obamacare will increase federal control of every aspect of the health sector, increasing the role of bureaucracy in the practice of medicine and interfering in the doctor–patient relationship.

If you want more detail, you can find them in Impact of ObamaCare at The Heritage Foundation.   

If we repeal Obamacare, the death panels become a moot point.  And our deficit and debt crises become that much easier to manage.  As will the Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid crises.  So let’s do it.  Repeal Obamacare.

Give Grandma a Chance

Obamacare is bad.  We should repeal it.  Death panels and all.  Instead of putting all our eggs into the ‘death’ basket, we should give living a chance.  But we need to get away from welfare.  And move into insurance.  Pay our own way for expected, routine costs.  And buy insurance to protect our finances from unexpected, extraordinary costs.  And allow insurers to compete across state lines, tort reform, etc.  You know, the usual, sensible stuff.

Come on.  Give Grandma a chance.  Repeal Obamacare.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Obamacare: Stupid or Devious?

Posted by PITHOCRATES - October 1st, 2010

The passage of Obamacare is cutting quite the swath of destruction in its path.  Businesses had to book million dollar charges to comply with the new legislation.  The requirement to insure children with preexisting conditions has caused insurance companies to drop plans for children.  (Not because they are ogres.  But because no one will buy insurance for their kid until they’re sick or injured.  So the cost of these plans will have to equal the actual medical costs.  So what’s the point?  If you’re paying actual costs just pay them directly to the health care provider.  And cut out the middleman.)  And now McDonald’s may drop their mini-med plans.  Because these low-premium policies have the same overhead as comprehensive plans.  Which means they spend more of the premium on overhead costs (as a percentage) than the big comprehensive plans.  So they can’t meet the required medical-loss ratio (the percent of premiums they must spend on actual health care benefits).

The idea was to prevent the ‘evil’ health insurance companies from paying huge bonuses to their people to keep costs down.  But bonuses are the least of their cost worries.  The Obamacare mandate to cover an additional 32 million people is a much bigger cost worry.  Especially when there is no cap on benefits and they’re required to cover all preexisting conditions.  And you know what?  It can’t be done. 

Oh, there will be a doctor shortage, too.  Especially when we add another 36 million or so to the Medicare program.  (If you’re doing the math, that’s an additional 68 million new patients that will need doctors.  Can you say rationing and ‘death panels’?  Someone will have to decide how to use these limited resources.  Replace the hip of an 89 year old grandmother?  Or do the appendectomy on the 21 year old man?)

Obamacare is a train wreck.  You have to ask yourself how did they make such a mess of it.  Well, there are two possible answers.  Either they’re just stupid and these are all unintended consequences.  Or this was the plan all along to kill the private health insurance industry.  So the devious bastards could get their public option/national health care they’ve wanted all along.

You can read McDonald’s May Drop Health Plan by Janet Adamy on the Wall Street Journal on line for more detail.  McDonald’s has denied this, however.  You can read the AP’s Health care law may hamper limited insurance plans by Tom Murphy on Yahoo! Finance for their denial.  Whether or not McDonald’s is considering dropping their mini-med plans (unless they get their exemption) doesn’t change the fate of these mini-med plans under Obamacare.  Those mandated medical-loss ratios could push these very popular plans into extinction.

Lying or stupid.  Either way it’s bad for us.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,