Posts Tagged ‘coverage’

ObamaCare Forcing Boeing, 3M, And Other Corporations To Increase Cost For Employees

October 19, 2010

“We can insure 30 million more people.  And it won’t cost a dime.”

To put it in a single word: dumbasses.

Boeing To Raise Employee Costs Thanks To Obamacare
By Carole on Oct 18, 2010

Aircraft manufacturer Boeing Comany is the latest mega employer claiming the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (also known as Obamacare) is part of why its employees will have to pay more for their medical benefits next year. In a letter mailed to employees late last week, Boeing said deductibles and copayments are going up significantly for some 90,000 non-union workers due in part to the effects of the new law. (source)Continued…

President Obama and his fellow Democrats who pushed the unpopular legislation through Congress have stated repeatedly that the law would bring down individuals’ costs for health insurance. Meanwhile the debate over the obscenely expensive bill raged on with Republican lawmakers and the majority of the American people speaking out against the far-reaching government power grab disguised as reform. Announcements like Boeing’s are proving the opposition right.

Boeing joins other companies like 3M which earlier this month announced it will stop offering its health insurance plan to their 23,000 retirees in response to Obamacare’s passage. (source)

While Boeing cited two additional reasons for the cost shift including untamed health care inflation and lifestyle issues such as being overweight, company spokeswoman Karen Forte said the company is concerned that its relatively generous plan will get hit with a new tax under the law in 2018.

Democrats are moral idiots who think, “Someone else will be paying for it, so it must be the right thing to do.”

Well, the boomerang strikes back.

The additional cost of ObamaCare above and beyond what Democrats said it would cost, and which somehow just never got factored in, will be about $6.25 TRILLION.

For the record, $6.25 trillion amounts to a very large poison pill to have to swallow.

Businesses, and even the basically communist labor unions that worked so hard to get ObamaCare passed, are pleading to be exempted from the law by the hundreds.

Health insurers are dropping coverage for children ahead of the new rules.

Health insurers are dropping coverage for senior citizens ahead of the new rules.

There are lies.  There are damn lies.  And there is the ObamaCare sales pitch.

ObamaCare will be providing funding for 12,500 new IRS agents to serve as attack dogs for those who don’t purchase insurance under the government-imposed individual mandates.

Businesses are raising the costs employees will have to pay, or else they are simply dropping coverage altogether.  And those businesses and most every single other business are holding back on hiring because of ObamaCare, massive and unnecessary regulations, taxes, and basically Barack Obama and the Democrat Party in general.

This whole ObamaCare thing is just working out great.

Democrats are refusing to talk about the massive boondoggle they cursed America with.  Don’t you forget that curse when you vote in two weeks.

Health Care Reality In Obama’s Hype Hope And Change Era

June 19, 2010

“Yes we can!  Yes we can!” Well, unless you mean we can keep seeing our doctor, as Obama repeatedly promised.  Then it’s, “No, you can’t!  No, you can’t!”

Doctor’s Office Closes Up Shop Without Warning
By AMANDA RAUS
Updated 12:15 AM EDT, Sat, Jun 19, 2010

Laura Wojcik‘s little girl, Elizabeth, is due Saturday. So imagine her surprise when she learned she’d have to find another doctor for the delivery and find one in just one day.

“I was pretty upset because I love going here and everything. They’re good doctors, and then I had to change,” said Wojcik.
A doctor from the Norwich OB-GYN Group will be on call this weekend, but inside the office, the waiting room is empty, and there are no doctors in the exam rooms. The office stopped taking patients Thursday when it decided it could no longer meet the financial demands of running the practice.

“We’ve had a reduction in reimbursement from the state-funded insurances, because the budget situation, things had slowed down, so April, May were very slow, and June continued to be slow,” said Bernadette Grecki, the practice administrator.
Add to that the payments from the largest state-funded insurance provider wouldn’t be arriving till July, and the office says it had no choice but to close.
“It was too much for the doctor. He realized he couldn’t keep funding the practice,” said Grecki.
The group says it is working with other OB-GYN’s in the area to accommodate patients, and the files of pregnant patients who are at 32 weeks or more have already been transferred to Backus Hospital, so doctors will be prepared when the women go into labor.
“We’ll be able to provide them the care that they need, being able to take a look at their medical history, assess any special needs they may have,” said Keith Fontaine, Chief Communications Officer at Backus Hospital.
Even though the office isn’t seeing patients, it will be open for the next three months with staff available to answer any patient questions, give referrals and to make sure patients have access to their records.

I saw the words, “because the budget situation,” and I couldn’t help but think of this:

The 1974 Budget and Impoundment Act requires Congress to pass a budget resolution by May 15 of each year. Congress hasn’t done so yet in 2010. But that isn’t so unusual. Delays are common.

They are usually the result of interparty or intercameral disputes. But this year is different. Congressional Democrats aren’t simply delaying, they’re deliberately refusing to offer a budget until after the November elections. They’re simply choosing to ignore the law.

“Budget situation”?  WHAT BUDGET?!?!?!?

Democrats are running around Congress like the bandits in The Treasure of the Sierra Madre saying, “Budget?  We don’t need no stinking budget!” And of course, like bandits, not needing a budget just allows them to steal more and more of the taxpayers’ money from generations yet uncollected.

In the age of Obama, in the age of pseudo “hope and change,” budgets are irrelevant.  They are practical realities in an era in which neither “practical” nor “reality” have anything to do with anything.

We could talk about where the rubber meets the road.  Only there’s no rubber, and there’s no road.  Just a bunch of meaningless rhetoric and empty demagoguery.

It’s all pretty much just about “Just words” now.  And how dare anyone think that the facts should get in the way of all of Obama’s oratorical gibberish.

Laura Wojick’s situation of suddenly realizing she doesn’t have a doctor just when she needs one most is not a random coincidence.  It is part of a very real pattern of ObamaCare:

You’re losing your plan
ObamaCare’s true face emerges

By SCOTT GOTTLIEB
Posted: June 14, 2010

Late last week saw the first leaks of the administration’s draft regulations for implementing the ObamaCare law — and everything is playing out just as the critics warned.

The 3,000-odd pages of legislation left most of the really important (and controversial) policy decisions to the regulations that government agencies were told to issue once the bill passed. Now that those regs are starting to take shape, it’s clear that the Obama team is using its new power to exert tight control over the payment and delivery of all formerly “private” health insurance.

The ObamaCare law references the Secretary of Health and Human Services almost 2,200 times and uses the phrase “the secretary shall” more than 725. Each reference requires HHS to set new rules on medical care, giving control to an existing federal office or one of 160 new agencies that the bill created.

HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius (who was once the Kansas state-insurance commissioner) has taken to these tasks with zeal. In some circles, she’s now known as the nation’s “insurance regulator in chief.”

She’s starting off by applying new regs to health plans offered by large employers — even though these costly rules were supposedly only going to apply to plans sold in the state insurance “exchanges” that don’t get created until 2014. This twist is spelled out in an 83-page draft of a new regulation that leaked late last week.

Bottom line: Sebelius means to dictate what your insurance plan must look like almost from day one, no matter how you get your coverage.

Indeed, the draft regs envision more than half of all policies having to change within three years — an unmistakable break with President’s Obama’s oft-repeated promise, “If people like their insurance, they will be able to keep it.”

Yet that may be the least of the broken promises.

Ultimately, these rules force consumers to buy one of just four health policies — which vary mostly only by trading off higher co-payments for lower premiums, while offering essentially the same actual benefits. In arguing for passage of the law, ObamaCare’s defenders claimed the rules were aimed at health plans sold in the “exchanges.”  Oops: Now Sebelius is applying them to employer plans.  Eventually, this would force all but the very wealthiest Americans into a single government-designed insurance scheme.

This is far from the only area where Secretary Sebelius is exploiting the law’s fuzzy language to tighten her control over the private insurance market.  In recent weeks, she has said that the new law gives her authority to review and even set the rates on health policies sold in private markets, a role previously left to state insurance regulators.

The ObamaCare bills were written to paper over an intellectual divide between White House economists and HHS policy wonks. Some economists wanted genuine competition to take root in the new federally managed insurance “exchanges.” The HHS crew favored a one-sized government plan with tight federal regulation over benefits.

The law itself didn’t explicitly side with either school — but it did leave the writing of the implementing regs to those same HHS wonks. Unfortunately, those more moderate White House economists are now leaving the administration, including the rumored departure of widely admired businessman and health-care expert Robert Kocher.

Washington insiders refer to this HHS team as “true believers” — a group of earnest, left-leaning activists who’ve long favored a single nationalized health plan. They are massaging the law’s vagueness to give themselves the tight federal control over health care that will bring their vision into practice.

Critics warned that the Obama bill meant a federal takeover of health care, with Washington bureaucrats making core decisions about medical care. With ObamaCare taking shape, that’s exactly what consumers are getting.  Saying “we told you so” is no consolation to those who took the president at his word.

Scott Gottlieb, a physician and American Enterprise Institute fellow, was a senior official at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. He is partner in a firm that invests in health-care companies.

What else can I say but, “I told you so”???  Nobody would believe that the effect of the bill was inherently socialist; nobody would believe that the bill would be filled with death panels (160 death panels, in point of fact).

And that article above dovetails with another bit of info from Investor’s Business Daily:

Administration: 51% Of Companies’ Health Plans Won’t Pass Muster
By Sean Higgins and David Hogberg
Fri., June 11, 2010 5:05 PM ET

Internal White House documents reveal that 51% of employers may have to relinquish their current health care coverage by 2013 due to ObamaCare. That numbers soars to 66% for small-business employers.

The documents — product of a joint project of the Labor Department, the Health and Human Services Department and the IRS — examine the effects new regulations would have on existing, or “grandfathered,” employer-based health care plans. [...]

According to the report, by 2013 51% of all employers — 66% of small employers (3-99 employees) and 45% of large employers — would have to relinquish current coverage.  In a worst-case scenario, 69% of firms would lose their grandfathered status.

This could pose a serious threat to President Obama’s claim that if you like your coverage, you’d get to keep it.

Hint: if Obama’s lips are moving, he’s lying.  If the Obama administration says anything about anything, it’s lying.  The only time these people wouldn’t be lying is if they said, “We’re lying.”

You voted stupidly, Americans.  And now you’re going to increasingly start paying dearly for it.

Democrats Flat-Out LYING About ObamaCare

April 9, 2010

If your lies don’t work, tell bigger lies.  That seems to be the Democrats’ playbook:

Rep. Wasserman Schultz Insists Health Care Law Doesn’t Require Individuals to Buy Insurance

Wednesday, April 07, 2010
By Matt Cover, Staff Writer


Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.)

(CNSNews.com) – Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D.-Fla.) is insisting that the new health care law she voted for last month does not mandate that individuals buy health insurance, despite language in the law that plainly says otherwise.

At an April 5 town hall meeting in Fort Lauderdale (see video below), a constituent asked Wasserman Shultz where the Constitution authorized Congress to mandate that individuals buy health insurance. She responded that the new health care law did not require individuals to buy health insurance.

In a written statement to CNSNews.com on Wednesday, her press secretary, Jonathan Beeton, said it was true that the health care law did not mandate that individuals buy health insurance and that Wasserman Schultz stood by her assertion at the townhall meeting.

“We actually have not required in this law that you carry health insurance,” Wasserman Schultz said at the townhall meeting. [...]

The actual law she voted for says otherwise. It contains a requirement that each person have health insurance, and assesses a penalty if they do not.

The bill amends the Internal Revenue Code, the nation’s tax law, adding a section entitled, “Requirement to maintain minimum essential coverage,” section 5000A.

“Subtitle D of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new chapter: ‘‘CHAPTER 48—MAINTENANCE OF MINIMUM ESSENTIAL COVERAGE ‘‘Sec. 5000A. Requirement to maintain minimum essential coverage.”

Contrary to Rep. Wasserman Schultz’s claim, this section of the law requires that every individual certify to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) that they have a government-approved level of health insurance coverage.

“REQUIREMENT TO MAINTAIN MINIMUM ESSENTIAL COVERAGE.—An applicable individual shall for each month beginning after 2013 ensure that the individual, and any dependent of the individual who is an applicable individual, is covered under minimum essential coverage for such month,” the law reads.

Individuals who fail to compy with this “requirement” are assessed a “shared responsibility payment”–a fine collected by the IRS.

“SHARED RESPONSIBILITY PAYMENT.— ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—If an applicable individual fails to meet the requirement of subsection (a) for 1 or more months during any calendar year beginning after 2013…there is hereby imposed a penalty with respect to the individual in the amount determined under subsection (c).”

That penalty will be no more than $750 per person who does not have health insurance, up to a maximum of $2,250 per household or two percent of household income, whichever is greater.

The law does not create additional tax filing statuses–like the current married or single-filing status–nor does it mandate that not having insurance would place an individual in a different tax bracket, as the mortgage and child deductions can.

“INCLUSION WITH RETURN.—Any penalty imposed by this section with respect to any month shall be included with a taxpayer’s return under chapter 1 for the taxable year which includes such month,” says the new law.

This is a terrible bill.  It is quite literally evil.  And the Democrats have no other choice than to lie about it.

When people wake to their sobering senses, they will find they have been led by the nose and duped by lies.  Tragically, it will probably be too late by then to repeal this ObamaCare monstrosity.

Obama Health Care Plan Would Send Costs Soaring, Cost Jobs

September 16, 2008

John McCain’s health insurance plan would probably not significantly lower the number of uninsured in the country, and it is possible under his plan that insurers could re-locate to states with less onerous health care mandates, say experts.

But the same experts claim that Barack Obama’s plan “would require new, large, and rapidly growing federal subsidies that are unlikely to be sustainable, fiscally or politically” and that “job losses or pay cuts would result” from his plan.

I don’t know about you.  But I like option A a lot better than option Barack.

But Barack Obama supporters will probably argue that this objective comparison of health care plans fails to consider the fairy dust that Obama would sprinkle over his plan that would make all its pitfalls magically go away.

Economists take critical view of health plans

By KEVIN FREKING, Associated Press Writer Tue Sep 16, 12:12 AM ET

WASHINGTON – John McCain’s health plan won’t lower the ranks of the uninsured. Barack Obama’s fails to curb the soaring cost of health care, meaning initial gains in helping more people buy health insurance would eventually be undermined.

That’s the assessment of health care economists who critiqued the plans of the two presidential candidates.

The critiques, published in the journal Health Affairs on Tuesday, reflect fundamental disagreements over how to improve access to health coverage. They also sound warnings about what could go wrong with each candidate’s plan.

McCain would dramatically reshape the way millions of people get health insurance. The Republican would do away with income tax breaks for health insurance obtained through the work place, instead treating the payments as taxable wages.

In exchange, he would give people a $2,500 tax credit for individuals who buy health insurance and a $5,000 tax credit for families that do so.

The tax credit could help people buy insurance through their employer. Many would also use it buy coverage directly from insurers in the individual market. They could select from insurers licensed in any state. With more competition, costs would fall and quality would increase, McCain reasons.

Analysts writing in the journal warned against that approach.

They said employers would be less likely to offer coverage if they knew their workers could get it elsewhere. In all, the authors projected that 20 million people would lose their employer-sponsored insurance under McCain’s plan, while 21 million people would gain coverage through the individual market — little more than a wash.

And as monthly insurance premiums rise and the tax break stays the same, even that gain would erode.

Another concern is that insurers would gravitate to states with less onerous coverage requirements. For example, 29 states insist insurers in the individual and small group market cover cervical cancer screenings. They could locate in states without such requirements.

Obama wants the government to subsidize the cost of health coverage for millions who otherwise would have trouble affording it on their own.

The Democrat would set up a kind of government-run shopping mall that would negotiate prices and benefits with private insurers. One choice would be a government-run plan. No participating company could turn someone away because of pre-existing cancer, heart disease or diabetes. Nor would someone have to pay a higher monthly premium based on those conditions.

The government would subsidize the cost for many who buy coverage through this exchange. But analysts say using third parties to subsidize the cost of a product exacerbates health inflation. Consumers and providers act as if any service that might yield some value should be covered. After all, it’s largely somebody else who is picking up the tab.

“Any major expansion of coverage will be costly, and the Obama promise of affordability would require new, large, and rapidly growing federal subsidies that are unlikely to be sustainable, fiscally or politically,” said the authors.

Obama would also require all but small businesses to make a “meaningful” payment for health coverage of their workers or contribute a percentage of payroll toward the cost of the public plan offered through the exchange. The authors said that either way, job losses or pay cuts would result.

The journal subjected the plans to a sort of devil’s advocate analysis. Once the unsolicited review of McCain’s plan was reviewed and accepted, the journal sought out economists who would take a similarly tough look at the Obama plan. The reviewers of the Obama plan included Gail Wilensky, an unpaid adviser to the McCain campaign.

Personally, I would like to see a health care plan that provided businesses with tax incentives to provide coverage for employees and their families, and have health coverage that could not be cut off if a worker lost his job (provided he or she continued to pay the same premiums as the employer had paid).  In other words, just because you are no longer working for a particular employer does not mean you should lose your medical coverage.

In my view, the two biggest problems with health care are 1) soaring costs and 2) transferability.

Socialized medicine has failed everywhere it’s been tried, and the larger the population, the more horrendous the failure.  It invariably results in long waits and rationing of care.  But the privatized system we have now – which historically depends upon employers to pick up the tab – fails to provide suitable controls to limit the skyrocketing costs (i.e., since you are not paying for your own health care, there is no incentive to keep the costs of your health care down).

John McCain’s plan imperfectly tries to deal with these two fundamental problems with our current system by attempting to sever the unhealthy relationship between employees, employers, and health care.  But even though it is ultimately inadequate, it is a FAR cry better than the Obama plan which would send costs soaring and result in a loss of jobs as employers are forced to cut costs.

Biased Media Slants Falling Oil Prices To Suit Liberal Talking Points

August 5, 2008

It’s really quite remarkable how the elite media distorts in whatever way is necessary in order to continue to drive home its liberal agenda.

CNNMoney.com ran a story yesterday that claims that the recently falling fuel prices (which most would see as a good thing) are actually a bad thing – a harborer of looming recession:

NEW YORK (Fortune) — Oil prices are falling sharply, and that’s good news. But not nearly as good as you might think.

No doubt the drop, down to $120 by mid-day Monday, gives strapped consumers relief at the gas pump. Prices have dropped below $4 a gallon and could be headed toward $3.50, going by trading in wholesale futures markets. Any decline will be welcomed by Americans struggling under the burden of falling house prices, rising layoffs and stagnant wages.

But falling oil prices also suggest that the recession the U.S. has so far avoided is well on its way, as consumers pull back from the spending spree that drove economic growth earlier this decade. A weakening economy will mean more layoffs, further pressuring already reduced spending.

“There is no doubt that with gasoline prices dipping below $3.90 a gallon we have a bit of a reprieve on the energy front,” Merrill Lynch economist David Rosenberg wrote in a report Monday, “but the reality is that this is a chicken and egg game because the decline is reflecting the consumer recession.”

The liberal media mantra is this: the Bush economy is terrible. The implication is this: you need to vote Democrat for the sake of “change.”

There is an unrelenting presentation of negatively-viewed coverage on the economy when Republican administrations are in power – especially during election years. And the identical economic statistics – or even worse numbers – are somehow are viewed in a more positive light when Democrats are in power.

Stop and think about it:

First of all, Americans are doing all the things that liberals have been wanting them to do: they are driving significantly less, using less oil. They are trading in their big gas guzzlers for economy cars. Heck, they’re even inflating their tires! Americans are doing what liberals have been telling them to do for years. Yet somehow, this amounts to dire news for the economy.

Let me simply assure you that this media narrative would be entirely different if Barack Obama were president.

Second, why did Americans drive so much less? Because gasoline was so overpriced. Only liberals don’t get the fact that when something becomes more expensive, people will use less of it.

Because the price of oil is a function of the relationship between supply and demand, when the demand is reduced, the supply becomes greater and the price goes down. It had nearly nothing to do with “oil company price gouging” or “speculator’s manipulation.” It had almost everything to do with the fact that China’s and India’s massive increase in oil consumption accounted for the fact that the relationship between world demand and world supply was beginning to drive up the relative value of oil.

President Bush’s ending of the executive ban against drilling for offshore oil immediately resulted in the biggest decrease in oil prices in 17 years as the market reacted to the promise of increased oil supplies in the future.

Meanwhile, lying demagogue Harry Reid attempted to take credit for the price reduction, claiming that the Democrats’ legislation against speculation was what was actually reducing the oil prices. That’s been proven to be patently false, however: the speculation bill went down in defeat, the Democrats went on a five week vacation, and yet oil prices have continued to drop. Had Reid been even partly right, the speculators who got out of the market fearing the Democrats’ bill would have jumped right back in. Yet somehow that’s just not much of a story for the elite media.

The media have repeatedly told Americans that we are in a dire recession when such is not the case. We haven’t had any negative growth quarters, and the last quarter was a positive 1.9% and an increase from the previous quarter. And while our economy has clearly cooled off, it is still the best on the planet.

You can always look at the bright side, or look at the dark side on anything.  And again and again, in every way possible, the media looks to frame its coverage of the economy in order to favor Democrats and hurt Republicans.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 519 other followers