Laying Down The Law

claims

Insurance companies will have to pay out an average of 32 percent more for medical claims on individual health policies under President Barack Obama’s overhaul, the nation’s leading group of financial risk analysts has estimated.

That’s likely to increase premiums for at least some Americans buying individual plans.

The report by the Society of Actuaries could turn into a big headache for the Obama administration at a time when many parts of the country remain skeptical about the Affordable Care Act.

While some states will see medical claims costs per person decline, the report concluded the overwhelming majority will see double-digit increases in their individual health insurance markets, where people purchase coverage directly from insurers.

The disparities are striking. By 2017, the estimated increase would be 62 percent for California, about 80 percent for Ohio, more than 20 percent for Florida and 67 percent for Maryland. Much of the reason for the higher claims costs is that sicker people are expected to join the pool, the report said.

The report did not make similar estimates for employer plans, the mainstay for workers and their families. That’s because the primary impact of Obama’s law is on people who don’t have coverage through their jobs.

Like many poor people and the unemployed. The targets of ObamaCare. 🙂

And if you think, well I’m not one of those people so it won’t effect me…

WRONG!!

Insurance is a shared pool of risk. Everyone is in the pool and if Barack and Nancy are peeing in the pool you’ll get splashed with it.

Insurance companies uses the “Law of Large Numbers” and probability to determine the chance of an event occurring.  If the chance of someone having a car accident is one in one hundred, then insurance companies collect premiums from 100 people to pay the claim that one driver will incur. This is called “spreading the risk”. It is important for insurance companies to adequately gauge the hazards (items that increase the chance of loss) of a risk before insuring it.  If they don’t research and know a business or the habits of an individual and they guess wrong in predicting the chance of something happen the insurance company could lose money.  If they do this often enough then the company suffers.

Of course it is still up to chance but past experience is a good indicator of the future.

http://www.learninsurance.org/Content/LEARNING-INSURANCE/What-is-Insurance/Law-of-Large-Numbers.aspx

What you don’t understand will hurt you.

The purpose of insurance is to protect against loss. If there is no potential for a loss to occur or if there is potential for the person to profit or gain, insurance usually cannot be purchased.

It is not your personal bank and it is not a stock market and definitely NOT FREE MONEY!!! with no consequences.

While loss of property is certainly serious, an even greater potential for loss
exists when a person or family becomes legally obligated to someone else. The main difference between liability and property loss exposures, is that while the amount of a potential loss to property can rather easily be estimated prior to the loss, the amount of a claim for liability is not determined until after something has happened. Even then, it is difficult to predict what a judge or jury might determine a person must pay to another as compensation for damage or injuries.

Many people fail to recognize one of the most significant loss exposures they face—risk of losing their health and being unable to earn income. One of the biggest assets any person has is their potential earning capacity. If that potential is interrupted by ill health, disability, or death, there is a significant loss, not only to that person, but to others who are dependent upon them.

Property, liability, and human losses can be expensive. In addition to the financial impact, or direct loss, there may also be other costs that are not as obvious.

So now do you want the government bureaucrats involved in your Insurance? 🙂

At a White House briefing on Tuesday, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said some of what passes for health insurance today is so skimpy it can’t be compared to the comprehensive coverage available under the law. “Some of these folks have very high catastrophic plans that don’t pay for anything unless you get hit by a bus,” she said. “They’re really mortgage protection, not health insurance.”

See above. Do you think they understand? Do they understand risk management??

A prominent national expert, recently retired Medicare chief actuary Rick Foster, said the report does “a credible job” of estimating potential enrollment and costs under the law, “without trying to tilt the answers in any particular direction.”

Unlike 1-directional Liberals and progressives. 🙂

Kristi Bohn, an actuary who worked on the study, acknowledged it did not attempt to estimate the effect of subsidies, insurer competition and other factors that could mitigate cost increases. She said the goal was to look at the underlying cost of medical care.

“Claims cost is the most important driver of health care premiums,” she said.

The more claims, the more risk, the higher the premium. That’s NOT rocket science.

Oh, and those “subsidies” from government are what? SPENDING. So if the subsidies have to increase to hide the cost then the SPENDING will have to increase. And where does the spending come from?

Tax Payers! 🙂

Congratulations. You get to fun yet another self-bloating bureaucratic nightmare!

Aren’t you happy!!!!

Bohn said the study overall presents a mixed picture.

Millions of now-uninsured people will be covered as the market for directly purchased insurance more than doubles with the help of government subsidies. The study found that market will grow to more than 25 million people. But costs will rise because spending on sicker people and other high-cost groups will overwhelm an influx of younger, healthier people into the program.

Especially, when you are not allowed to manage your risks by Adverse Selection.

Some of the higher-cost cases will come from existing state high-risk insurance pools. Those people will now be able to get coverage in the individual insurance market, since insurance companies will no longer be able to turn them down. Other people will end up buying their own plans because their employers cancel coverage. While some of these individuals might save money for themselves, they will end up raising costs for others. (Yahoo)

But in a Me-Centered Universe isn’t that a win? 🙂

Go Me! It’s all about ME! ME ME! 🙂

Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson

Political Cartoons by Glenn Foden

Political Cartoons by Ken Catalino
Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel

Social Security Foreclosure

Ever time you propose making changes in the “third rail” of politics, the entitlements,  that are destroying the country you get the hysterical Left going ape crazy.

Grandma will be homeless. Children will be starving in the streets… We’ll be African children with bones for bellies in seconds, ad nauseum.

We’ll get “specials” on how this person or that person will die because of heartless and cruel politicians.

The Liberal Media and the Left won’t bother to mention that THEY MADE THEM DEPENDENT in the first place.

Or that the whole thing is far beyond broken now.

REALITY CHECK (No Liberal will apply)

 

Sick and getting sicker, Social Security will run at a deficit this year and keep on running in the red until its trust funds are drained by about 2037, congressional budget experts said Wednesday in bleaker-than-previous estimates.

The baby boomers who used to pull the wagon are starting to ride it. Now the Horses want the cart to pull them!!!

The problem with kicking the can down the road is that eventually, you run out of road. Social Security’s insolvency has been staring us in the face for a long time as politicians whistled past its fiscal graveyard. Now, with baby boomers retiring in a jobless recovery, the end is not near, it’s here.

The massive retirement program has been suffering from the effects of the struggling economy for several years. It first went into deficit last year but had been projected to post surpluses for a few more years before permanently slipping into the red in 2016

This year alone, Social Security will pay out $45 billion more in retirement, disability and survivors’ benefits than it collects in payroll taxes, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said. That figure nearly triples – to $130 billion – when the new one-year cut in payroll taxes is included.

Congress has promised to replenish any lost revenue from the tax cut, but that’s hardly good news, either, adding to the federal budget deficit. In another sobering estimate, the congressional office said government red ink this year will increase to $1.5 trillion, the most in U.S. history.

More than 54 million Americans receive Social Security benefits, averaging $1,076 per month.

By 2037, if nothing is done, Social Security would collect enough in payroll taxes to pay out only about 78% of promised benefits, according to the Social Security Administration.

So you pay in a dollar and you get .78 cents back, maybe. And it will get worse from there.

After all, Medicare and ObamaCare may have swallowed us all whole by then anyhow.

The outlook for the program has grown more sour as the nation has struggled to recover from the worst economic crisis since Social Security was enacted, during the Great Depression. In the short term, Social Security is suffering from the weak economy that has payroll taxes lagging and applications for benefits rising. In the long term, Social Security will be strained by the growing number of baby boomers retiring and applying for benefits.

The projected deficits add a sense of urgency to efforts to improve Social Security’s finances. For much of the past 30 years, the program has run big surpluses, which the government has borrowed to spend on other programs. Now that Social Security is running deficits, the federal government will have to find money elsewhere to help pay for benefits.

“So long as Social Security was running surpluses, policymakers could put off the need to fix the program,” said Andrew Biggs, a former deputy commissioner at the Social Security Administration who is now a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. “Now that the system is running deficits, it simply becomes clear that we need to act on Social Security reform.”

President Barack Obama said in his State of the Union address Tuesday night that he wanted “a bipartisan solution to strengthen Social Security for future generations.”

The president however has not embraced recommendations from a debt commission he appointed last year, including one that would gradually increase the full retirement age, from 67 to 69, over the next 65 years.

But Obama did lay down some markers for making Social Security closer to solvent.

“We must do it without putting at risk current retirees, the most vulnerable, or people with disabilities, without slashing benefits for future generations and without subjecting Americans’ guaranteed retirement income to the whims of the stock market,” Obama said.

The program has been supported by a 6.2 percent payroll tax, paid by both workers and employers. In December, Congress passed a one-year tax cut for workers, to 4.2 percent. The lost revenue is to be repaid to Social Security from general revenue funds, meaning it will add to the growing national debt.

Social Security has built up a $2.5 trillion surplus since the retirement program was last overhauled in the 1980s. Benefits will be safe until that money runs out. That is projected to happen in 2037 – unless Congress acts in the meantime. At that point, Social Security would collect enough in payroll taxes to pay out about 78 percent of benefits, according to the Social Security Administration.

The $2.5 trillion surplus, however, has been borrowed over the years by the federal government and spent on other programs. In return, the Treasury Department has issued bonds to Social Security, guaranteeing repayment, with interest.

“Social Security taxes are not going to pay for the spending, so it’s got to come from somewhere else,” said Eugene Steuerle, a former Treasury official who is now a fellow at the Urban Institute. “We can go through long arguments about whether its owed money by the trust funds or not, but that doesn’t alleviate the simple fact that it’s got to come from somewhere.”

Social Security supporters are adamant that the program will be repaid, just as the U.S. government repays others who invest in U.S. Treasury bonds.

“Its’ an IOU that is backed by Treasury bonds and the faith and credit of the United States government,” said Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt. “It is the same faith and credit that enables us to borrow from rich people and from China and from other countries. As you well know, in the history of this country, the United States has never defaulted on one penny owed to a creditor.” (AP)

Sen. Sanders is an avowed Socialist by his own admission. So I take that he’s assurances with a grain of salt.

How about using that full faith and credit to support a plan to wean us off this Ponzi scheme and let younger workers invest their own money in a retirement account with their name on it and real money in it, a real asset that can be used for retirement and passed on to the next generation as an inheritance? (IBD)

But that’s too much responsibility and capitalism for the totalitarian and socialist Left.

No, they wanted to create a Guaranteed Retirement Account (aka raid all our 401ks to make yet another ponzi scheme to cover up the problems of THIS ponzi scheme).

Rep. Paul Ryan’s “roadmap” would let workers 55 and younger invest about a third of their Social Security tax into private accounts similar to the Thrift Savings Plan available to members of Congress. It would include modest adjustments in benefit growth for higher-income Americans and gradual increases in the retirement age to reflect changes in life expectancy.

The nonpartisan Office of the Chief Actuary for the Social Security Administration recently released its official score of the Social Security provisions of “A Roadmap for America’s Future.” They found Ryan’s plan would pay off the long-run actuarial deficit in Social Security while guaranteeing current and future retirees their full promised benefits.

It would also have the benefit of keeping the money in the private sector, where it couldn’t be spent on turtle tunnels but would be available for things like mortgage loans and investment capital for economic and job growth

But he’s an EVIL House Republican so he must a spawn of Satan out to drag grandma into the streets and starve your children and kick your dog all for the benefit of fat-cat millionaires!!!! Bwah ha ha ha ha ha ha!!! <<insert maniacal laughter>>

Or so the Left will cry and fiddle while Rome burns…

Political Cartoon


Lies, Damned Lies and Medicare

Michael Ramirez Cartoon

First off, the Old Gray Lady, the Propaganda Mistress of Liberals, The New York Times: Here’s the bottom line: The recently passed health care reform bill is promising to have a positive effect on Medicare, assuming Republican opponents don’t succeed in killing the reform in court or otherwise undermining its main provisions. Social Security is holding up even in the face of a weak economy.

Would it be a surprise that they are lying. 🙂

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) — It’s official: Social Security will reach its tipping point this year. For the first time in nearly 30 years, the system will pay out more benefits than it receives in payroll taxes both this year and next, the government officials who oversee Social Security said on Thursday.

This is “holding up”??

CNN: The controversial Affordable Care Act extends the life of the Medicare Trust Fund to 2029, from 2017.

The actuary of the Medicare Trustees memo attached to the report disagrees:

“(T)he financial projections shown in this report for Medicare do not represent a reasonable expectation for actual program operations in either the short range. . . or the long range. . . . I encourage readers to review the ‘illustrative alternative’ projections that are based on more sustainable assumptions for physician and other Medicare price updates.”

These remarkable words are found, in all places, in the “Statement of Actuarial Opinion” in the back of the 2010 annual Medicare Trustees’ Report.

The actuary’s alternative memo explains that “the projections in the report do not represent the ‘best estimate’ of actual future Medicare expenditures.” Worse than that, they are not even in the ballpark of reasonability. The official 2010 Trustees’ Report tells us that total Medicare expenses will be total 6.37% of GDP by 2080. The CMS actuary’s alternative memorandum explains that 10.70% of GDP is a more reasonable estimate for that year – though one that is roughly 68% higher.

If the 2010 report’s projections were arguably within the range of plausibility, perhaps the actuary could have agreed to sign off on them. But this was clearly prohibited by the magnitude of the deviations from reality. (For additional perspective, consider that the previous 2009 Trustees’ Report projected that program costs by 2080 would be 11.18% of GDP – more than 75% higher than this year’s projection.)

The actuary’s memo identifies two principal reasons why the official report’s projections are so far afield from reality.

One is that the official scoring presumes that payments to Medicare physicians will decline on December 1 by 23%, followed by a further 6.5 percent decline in January, 2011, and another 2.9 percent decrease in 2012. The Obama administration and the Congressional leadership are on record as opposing these enormous payment reductions, and no one seriously expects them to happen. The Medicare actuary’s memo refers to this physician payment formula as “clearly unworkable and almost certain to be overridden by Congress.”

The other major source of projection error is the assumption, enshrined in the recent health care law, that future program cost growth will be contained by downward adjustments in annual price updates, reflecting in turn the assumption that health service productivity growth will parallel “economy-wide productivity.” The actuary states, however, that “(t)he best available evidence is that most health care providers cannot improve their productivity to this degree – or even approach this level – as a result of the labor-intensive nature of these services.”

The actuary’s memo provides greater detail on the point. The memo notes the long-acknowledged phenomenon that productivity growth in services industries is generally not as rapid as in industries affected more by technology improvements. It is possible, for example, for productivity in personal computer manufacturing to improve several-fold in a short time. It is not similarly possible for productivity in nursing services to mushroom in the same way. The actuary’s memo rightly notes the generally slower pace of productivity growth in the health care field, which has been slowest of all in such labor-intensive venues as skilled nursing facilities and home health services.

As a result, the memo finds, it “very unlikely” that Medicare productivity growth can mirror productivity growth in the larger economy. The chief consequence of the legislated productivity adjustments, therefore, would be to render 15 percent of hospitals, skilled nursing facilities, and home health agencies unprofitable by 2019 — up to 25 percent in 2030 and 40 percent by 2050.

The actuary concludes that “neither of these update reductions is sustainable in the long range, and Congress is very likely to legislatively override or otherwise modify the reductions in the future to ensure that Medicare beneficiaries continue to have access to health care services.”

This is a key point; the glowingly optimistic projections in the official Trustees’ Report assume that we as a nation will be content to have 40% of our medical facilities go under within the next 40 years, and that we will happily accept these severe constraints upon beneficiaries’ access to health care. If that is not in fact the societal will after the enactment of health care reform, then the official cost estimates should be tossed into the nearest receptacle.

Bad though all of this is, none of it is actually the worst gimmick in the official report’s advertised improvement in Medicare solvency. That involves the double-counting of Medicare savings. Earlier this year, Congress passed a health care bill containing various new Medicare taxes and constraints on program expenditures. Such savings are assumed in the official report to extend the solvency of Medicare. But Congress chose instead to spend the savings on a new health care entitlement.

The Medicare actuary wrote a memorandum on April 22 of this year calling attention to this “double-counting.” “In practice,” he stated, “the improved Part A financing cannot simultaneously be used to finance other Federal outlays (such as the coverage expansions under the PPACA) and to extend the trust fund, despite the appearance of this result from the respective accounting conventions.”

In other words, money can only be used once. Since the Medicare savings is being spent elsewhere on expanded health care coverage, it is not really being employed to extend Medicare solvency. To claim an improvement in Medicare financing is to mislead about the effects of recent legislation.

All that can be responsibly done is for those associated with the Trustees’ Report is to note the limited utility of the “official projections” and to simultaneously provide their best projections for actual reality. The rest of us, for our part, must take appropriate note of the alternative findings of the scorekeepers. This was an ethic too-little observed during the health care debate, when health care reform’s proponents continued to cite CBO’s purported sign-off on the fiscal gains of health care reform — despite the repeated caveats issued by CBO refuting the validity of such claims.

Treasury Secretary Geithner’s statement on the occasion of the report’s release mischaracterized it as follows:

“The Affordable Care Act has dramatically improved projected Medicare finances. Medicare’s Hospital Insurance (HI) Trust Fund is now expected to remain solvent until 2029, 12 years longer than was projected last year, which is a record increase from one report to the next. In addition, the 75-year financial shortfall for HI has been reduced to 0.66 percent of taxable payroll from 3.88 percent of taxable payroll in last year’s report, and the projected costs for the Medicare Supplementary Medical Insurance (SMI) program over the next 75 years, expressed as a share of GDP, are down 23 percent relative to the projections in the 2009 report Nearly all of these improvements in projected Medicare finances are due to the Affordable Care Act President Obama signed into law in March.”

Perhaps it is too much to expect the Secretary’s statement to acknowledge the double-counting at the root of this purported solvency extension, or to delve into the full extent to which the Medicare actuary has explained the inapplicability of these particular numbers. But as the Managing Trustee of the Trust Funds, the Secretary bears a duty to represent program finances as accurately as possible, which this statement fails to do.

The implausible projections in the official Trustees’ report will need to be revised downward almost immediately, after the next extension of Medicare physician payments expected later this year. By next year’s report, this year’s official projections may well look silly. It is unfortunate that the Treasury Department statement grotesquely spins the analysis in the Trustees’ report, especially given the clarifying corrections that the CMS actuary has already publicized.

The final page of the Trustees’ report states that “The Board of Trustees will convene an independent panel of expert actuaries and economists to consider these issues further and to make recommendations to the Board regarding the most appropriate long-range growth assumptions for Medicare projections.” Clearly, to be credible, this panel should be assembled with the active guidance of the Medicare actuary’s office, to avoid any appearance that the panel has been convened to over-ride rather than support the non-partisan analytical work of the Medicare actuary. The last thing needed is for the long-respected Trustees’ process to be tainted by its own version of the Gruber episode. (It was revealed that last June the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) had awarded a no-bid contract worth nearly $300,000 to MIT professor Jonathan Gruber, the Administration’s star witness for the superior cost-containment features of health care reform.  Obama Administration officials, and most of the journalists celebrating Gruber’s findings, had neglected to mention this detail when trumpeting his supposedly independent confirmation of the Administration’s policy arguments).

There is, regrettably, a striking contrast between the Treasury Department’s statement on the Medicare Trustees’ Report, and the Medicare Actuary’s own repudiation of it. In time, the Treasury Secretary may very well come to regret his statement even as the Medicare Actuary comes to take pride in his own principled stand. (e21)

Gee, I wonder who’s telling the Truth?  The Liberals or the Actuary of Medicare?

Gee, I don’t know… 🙂

Unbending the Curve

Since the Latino Activist and The Illegals are focused on Armegeddon and the Nazi Holocaust because Illegal mean Illegal.

I want to focus on a real Armageddon coming down the pike, ObamaCare.

IBD:  An analysis from an objective source — Medicare’s actuary — says ObamaCare will increase costs and relies on projected savings that may be unrealistic. Now isn’t that a surprise?

The Obama administration has been trying hard to find good news in a new report by government experts on the outlook for the health care economy, now at 17% of GDP and continuing to climb.

To HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, the analysis confirms that “the Affordable Health Care Act will cover more Americans and strengthen Medicare by cracking down on waste, fraud and abuse.”

More neutral observers will notice that the administration no longer talks about “bending the cost curve” in health care. The analysis released last week by Medicare’s Office of the Actuary tells why. It looks ahead 10 years and reaches two conclusions about the new health care overhaul: More people will be covered, and costs will continue to soar. The cost curve is unbending still.

But since costs wasn’t why The Democrats passed ObamaCare to begin with…

Chief Actuary Richard Foster pegs ObamaCare’s added costs (that is, beyond what was projected without the overhaul in effect) at $311 billion over 10 years. That’s just under 1% of overall expected health care spending, and administration officials are calling that sum a small price to pay for adding 34 million Americans to public or private insurance rolls.

But the president had set a goal of extending coverage without adding any new cost. More to the point, the problem of runaway costs that plagued the pre-overhaul health care system has not been solved. As Foster points out, much of what ObamaCare proposes to reduce the nation’s health tab, especially in Medicare, is politically unrealistic.

The overhaul projects a net decrease in projected Medicare spending (more accurately, a reduction in future spending increases) of more than $400 billion. But Congress has talked this way before and has been notably timid about pulling the trigger.

Under a 1997 law, for instance, a 21% cut in Medicare reimbursements to physicians was supposed to go into effect on April 1. But Congress two weeks later put the cut on hold as part of a bill to extend unemployment benefits. As usual, mobilized doctors and frightened seniors got their way.

This pattern of avoiding politically difficult spending cuts has been going on pretty much since the start of Medicare. ObamaCare promises that this behavior will somehow change. That would be a miracle, and actuaries tend to stick with more mundane probabilities.
And like any good actuary would be, Foster is unimpressed with the cost-reduction side of the ObamaCare equation. He says “the long-term viability of the Medicare … reduction is doubtful.”

Nothing in Foster’s report should come as a surprise, since it was clear from an early stage in the health care debate that the Democratic Party had one overriding goal — universal coverage or something close to it — with cost-reduction secondary.

The cost-cutting promises served mainly to obscure the actual price tag of the overhaul in future taxes and deficits. They were a means to the end of extending insurance, and to that degree they worked — as politics. But as policy they are empty promises.

Foster’s study is further evidence of how badly ObamaCare missed the point. All along, high cost has been the fundamental problem with American health care; the lack of universal coverage was only one symptom. To put it another way, the problem of coverage would have been solved long ago, largely by the private sector, if the medical tab in the U.S. were more like that in other advanced nations.

At 17% of GDP and rising, the nation’s health care economy is a case study in how to structure incentives, price signals (if any) and buying power to maximize inflation. Those who receive services hardly ever pay for them directly, and prices are rarely revealed, much less advertised.

Providers long ago learned the power of lobbying to keep the money rolling in and to defeat any attempts at fiscal restraint. What was billed as “reform,” in other words, actually reformed nothing.

But gave the government the in-road to taking it over completely, which was the plan all along…

And while the full effects of ObamaCare might not be felt until Tax Day 2014, the promise of free health care to millions of Americans will begin to prove hollow long before then.

Already Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., says the public option might not be dead if insurance companies do not offer competitive rates within the exchanges. And Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, has revived a proposal that gives the secretary of health and human services the power to review premiums and block any rate increase bound to be “unreasonable.”

America’s primary care system is already under stress. Low reimbursement rates, bureaucratic paperwork and long hours are driving family physicians out of medicine and pushing new doctors into specialized practices. Half a century ago, one in two doctors practiced general medicine. Today, 7 in 10 specialize.

And the gap is growing. A mere 1 in 12 medical-school graduates now head to family medicine. In 2009, the American Academy of Family Physicians warned that we’d be short 40,000 family doctors in a decade, if present trends continued. Today, medical schools produce one primary care doctor for every two who are needed.

ObamaCare will add strain to an already burdened system. The new bill seeks to increase the load on family doctors while holding the line on costs by putting price controls on government insurance plans. In due course, price controls on private plans will be inevitable.

We saw them come into effect on April 1 in Massachusetts, when the state Division of Insurance rejected 235 of 274 premium increases proposed by insurers for individuals and small businesses. The rate increases — ranging from 8% to 32% — were deemed excessive.

The combination of increased coverage and emphasis on primary care, experts say, will increase demand for primary care docs by as much as 29%, or 44,000 doctors, over the next 15 years.

But just as demand is increasing, doctors are making plans to exit. A 2009 survey by medical recruiters Merritt Hawkins found that 10% of respondents were planning to leave medicine within three years.

Another poll of physicians conducted in 2009 by Investor’s Business Daily found that 45% of doctors would consider early retirement if ObamaCare passed.

So higher demand and lower supply equals what exactly? 🙂