Friday, February 22, 2013

Obamacare - Does Less and Costs More



Obamacare - Nothing to Brag About.



I had breakfast a few weeks ago with friend and colleague who I must leave nameless as I do not have permission to share him as a source. He works as an executive within the national healthcare insurance industry arena and is in contact with customers and clients who are business owners and employers across our great nation. He shared with me some rather shocking news.

More than likely in the past months you have seen articles published in the media about companies like Papa John’s Pizza Restaurants; who have come out and stated that the draconian costs placed on them within the mandates of Obamacare will force them to rethink or restructure their business model with regard to staffing and employees. My healthcare insurance industry friend tells me that virtually all of his clients (employers) will be crunching numbers and business and finance models through the course 2013 as they get ready for full implementation of the healthcare reform in 2014. Virtually every one of them is leaning toward reducing hourly employees below 30 hours a week. In some cases, they would look to reduce salaried staff in order to handle some of these costs; that means lay-offs.

Those of you reading this post - how many of you have friends or family or even neighbors who work hourly wage jobs; say between 30 and 40 hours a week, and even count on some overtime? How devastating would it be to their family budgets if they are among the millions of employees who will see their work hours reduced to below 30 hours a week? Remember, a provision of the healthcare reform law states a definition of a full-time employee as any employee who works 30 hours per week or more. Full-time employees will be required to be given access to healthcare insurance from their employers according to the law; or they must pay the penalty and move these employees to the exchanges.

The more I learn of the details within Obama care, the more absolutely unsettling the picture becomes that is revealed. Pray tell me, can anyone give me an example of any programs that come from “central planners” that have actually delivered what they promised and/or operated with any decent level of efficiency?

I have said before – and I will say it again. What President Obama and so many other progressives say they will achieve with their big plans and programs – almost never comes to pass. They continue to sell the American people on the idea that they are the only ones really looking out for the little guy – but they do not deliver. The actual outcome of Obamacare will end up harming millions of American’s – most of whom will be lower income or younger workers and hourly employees. With all of that – we will still have somewhere between 25 and 30 million Americans still without health insurance (according to the latest analysis by the CBO). Not a very good trade off huh?

Regarding the Exchanges

Insurance premiums are set to explode. Already health insurers, citing the increased cost of various Obamacare provisions, are seeking and winning double-digit premium hikes. For example, California health insurers are proposing increases for some customers of 20 percent or more: 26 percent by Blue Cross, 22 percent by Aetna, and 20 percent by Blue Shield.

Young people are especially likely to face higher premiums. Obamacare’ s “community rating” provisions prohibit changing premiums based on health status and limit the degree to which insurers can charge based on age. Thus, premiums will rise more slowly for older and sicker individuals, but will shoot up for young people. According to a survey by the American Action Forum, healthy young people in the individual or small-group insurance markets can look forward to rate increases averaging 169 percent.

Further, a study in the American Academy of Actuaries’ magazine found that 80 percent of young adults aged 18–29 not eligible for Medicaid will face higher costs, and that 20- to 29-year-olds on the individual market not eligible for subsidies will see their premiums increase 42 percent.

The real theme for Obamacare: costs more, does less.

For example, the Congressional Budget Office has again lowered its estimate for the number of people who will gain insurance coverage as a result of Obamacare. Just 27 million more Americans will be covered by 2023 than would be otherwise, leaving 30 million Americans still uninsured. And roughly 12 million of the 27 million newly insured won’t actually get a real health-insurance plan but will simply be dumped into Medicaid.

At the same time, the CBO now estimates that 7 million Americans can expect to lose their current insurance because their employer will decide to pay the penalty/fine/tax rather than provide Obamacare-compliant insurance (this number is up from 4 million). Not only does that belie the president’s oft-stated promise that “if you have health insurance today, and you like it, you can keep it,” it means that as many as 11 million fewer Americans will have private unsubsidized insurance than before Obamacare, making it look more and more like a government takeover of the insurance industry.

…the exchanges need to be set up by this October if they are to be operational by January 1, 2014, as the law mandates.

Yet there is little evidence that HHS has the money, manpower, or expertise to meet this deadline. While HHS insists that everything is on schedule, they have refused to disclose their plans or release their implementation schedule. Even Democratic Senate Finance Committee chairman Max Baucus is alarmed: He recently ordered detailed accounting of the efforts to set up the federal exchanges by February 26. At the same time, industry groups and others have quietly begun to talk about the possibility that the opening of the exchanges, and therefore the commencement of other key Obamacare provisions, may have to be postponed.

No wonder the president had so little to say about Obamacare. It increasingly looks to be nothing to brag about.


Resources & Links









Wednesday, February 20, 2013

Let’s call Obama’s Bluff over Cuts



Obama has warned that the sequester — in which $1.2 trillion automatic cuts to government spending begin March 1 — could have wide-ranging, devastating effects to the nation, leading to furloughs for some government employees that could mean, among other effects, fewer meat inspections.

Anyone who really believes that the Federal Government will simply stop functioning if the automatic spending cuts kick in – is simply naïve. To be quite honest – I think the President is full of bluster.

Small history lesson - United States federal government shutdown of 1995 and 1996

The United States federal government shutdown of 1995 and 1996 was the result of conflicts between Democratic President Bill Clinton and the Congress over funding for Medicare, education, the environment, and public health in the 1996 federal budget (sound familiar). The government shut down after Clinton vetoed the spending bill the Republican Party-controlled Congress sent him. The federal government of the United States put non-essential government workers on furlough and suspended non-essential services from November 14 through November 19, 1995 and from December 16, 1995 to January 6, 1996, for a total of 28 days. The major players were President Clinton and Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives Newt Gingrich.

Clinton opposed Republicans and said their amendments to a then federal spending plan would strip the U.S. Treasury of its ability to “dip into federal trust funds” to avoid a borrowing crisis.

Does this sound familiar? Spending limits and borrowing crisis’ – some things have not changed.

Take the time to look up what the definition of Trust Funds is. By law and by definition they are not allowed to be touched. For an example of these Trust Funds that Conservative Republicans have been continually trying to protect from the spend-a-holics; please see my last post - A History Lesson on Social Security.

The shutdown of 1995 and 1996 (as with any temporary shutdown) – only furloughed non-essential employees. Essential services still continued; such as – Social Security Checks will still funded, printed and mailed – the Military around the world and here continued to function and be paid. Obama’s claim is bluster at the least and most likely fear-mongering. Grandma and Grandpa are still going to receive their Social Security Checks.

If the government shuts down for any period of time – it will force the opposing sides of this argument to find a compromise. If the President was at least one of the parties who are currently willing to compromise – he would not be saying that the spending cuts will have – “devastating effects to the nation, leading to furloughs for some government employees”.

Tuesday, February 5, 2013

What Difference Does it Make?



Hillary Clinton asked "what difference does it make?" in response to questions about the murder of a US Ambassador in Benghazi. Bill Whittle lets you know what difference it makes for our country. From Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to Secretary of State John Kerry hear what Bill Whittle thinks.






Resources & Links