Cut!

Raise the cost of something, and inevitably demand for that thing goes down. It’s a venerable principle in economics.

So five years ago when ObamaCare was being enacted, we and many others warned that its coverage mandates for employers would result in hours being cut back and workers being laid off. We were criticized at the time as Chicken Littles. Now comes a survey of 743 personnel executives by the Society of Human Resource Management, as reported by Robert King of the Washington Examiner, that shows businesses are doing just that. Nearly 14% of firms have cut part-time hours for workers, King wrote, and another 6% plan to do so.

Still worse, 5% of companies have already either cut or plan to cut the total number of workers they have, thanks to ObamaCare.

ObamaCare’s employer mandate requires businesses with 100 or more employees to provide health insurance to 70% of their workers who put in 30 or more hours a week. That goes up to 95% next year.

Meanwhile, small businesses with 50 to 99 workers will start feeling the pinch in 2016, when the mandate hits them, too.

So it’s only logical: Businesses are cutting hours to avoid having to pay for the mandate — a predictable response in the real world, but apparently not in the world of the economists, politicians and planners who concocted ObamaCare’s destructive rules.

As for “bending the cost-curve down,” as President Obama promised repeatedly, forget about it. The survey found that 77% of companies had higher health-care costs this year than last year, and just 6% saw their costs decrease. For those who had costs rise, 24% saw costs go up 16% or more.

If you want to know why this job recovery has been the worst since the Great Depression, you need look no further than these depressing statistics.

In September 2009, President Obama addressed Congress, vowing that his healthcare plan would “slow the growth of healthcare costs for our families, our businesses, and our government.” But costs for all three have actually grown.

During the campaign in 2008, Obama repeatedly said that his health reform plan would save the average family $2,500 a year in premiums. But this year, almost half of those surveyed by CBS and the New York Times characterized “the affordability of basic medical care as a hardship.” That’s a quarter more people than said so last year.

The Kaiser Family Foundation, the New York Times, and Avalere Health crunched government numbers and concluded that even premiums for coverage offered on the exchanges would rise between 2 and 5% during 2015.

Meanwhile, a study from the National Bureau of Economic Research determined that premiums in the non-group market in 2014 increased by 24.4% over what they would have cost without Obamacare.

Costs for small businesses have also grown. Last year, the average cost of employer-sponsored health insurance for an individual exceeded $5,700. That’s 23% more than in 2009, the year before Obamacare was signed into law.

One in 10 businesses has laid off workers to cope with growing healthcare costs. And “one-third of small firms say they are purposefully not growing as a result of the Affordable Care Act,” according to a National Small Business Association Survey.

Meanwhile, one in five companies has reduced employee hours to avoid falling afoul of Obamacare’s employer mandate, which requires companies with 100 or more employees who work more than 30 hours a week to provide health insurance this year. Next year, companies with 50 or more workers will be subject to the mandate.

Companies who fail to comply must pay fines of the lesser of $3,000 per employee who receives subsidies in Obamacare’s insurance exchanges or $2,000 for every worker after the first 30.

The cost of Obamacare has also grown dramatically for the government — and thus for taxpayers. In 2009, President Obama claimed that his plan would cost a little more than $900 billion over the next decade. But according to a recent report from the Congressional Budget Office, the law’s net price tag has ballooned to nearly $1.2 trillion.

The law’s ballooning cost is largely the result of its failure to slow overall health spending. Nationwide, health spending grew 5% in 2014, compared to a 3.6% increase the year prior, according to a new report from Altarum Institute. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services forecast spending to grow by 6% a year from 2015 through 2023 — “largely as a result of the continued implementation of the ACA coverage expansions.”

To make matters worse, the health law has also failed to deliver “the best care, not just the most expensive care,” as the President promised in 2009. Under Obamacare, Americans now have fewer healthcare options than before.

The number of insurers selling to individual consumers in the exchanges has dropped by more than 20% compared to the year before Obamacare took effect, according to the Heritage Foundation. Consumers who buy coverage on the exchanges often find that their preferred hospitals are out of network, McKinsey & Co. reports.

Meanwhile, Deloitte surveyed 20,000 doctors and discovered that many are cutting their work hours or leaving the practice of medicine altogether. USA TODAY recently reported that many doctors are limiting their intake of patients who bought coverage on the exchanges; the reimbursement rates offered by their policies are just too low.

“Physicians who are in solo practices have to be careful not to take too many patients reimbursed at lower rates or they’re not going to be in business too long,” said the President of the Medical Society of the State of New York.

For patients, this exodus of doctors translates into less access, longer waits before appointments, and less one-on-one time with the few doctors who will see them. Last year, patients had to wait an average of 18 days for appointments with specialty doctors. This waiting game is “going to get worse and not better,” according to a study from consultancy Merritt Hawkins.

But since it “felt good” and they “had the best of intentions” and it’s all the fault of evil insurance companies the Liberal won’t hold themselves responsible for making things much worse than if they hadn’t meddled in the first place.

Minimum Wage

Americans of all political stripes would like to see wage growth, especially among the lowest wage-earners. The difference of opinion, of course, is how to make that happen.

Liberals in Congress are pushing for an increase in the federally-mandated minimum wage. But increasing the minimum wage is not the solution to slow wage growth. In fact, wage regulations ultimately harm workers by reducing the number of jobs available. A better solution to our nation’s wage woes is economic growth.

Public polling suggests the majority of Americans support a minimum wage increase. That’s understandable, given our nation’s frustratingly slow “recovery” from the recession of 2007-2009, and the desire to reduce poverty.

While support for minimum wage might come from a good intention, it is misguided. If it seems too easy to reduce poverty simply by promulgating wage regulations, it probably is. Like Newton’s Third Law of Motion, actions in economic policy have reactions as well. Raising the cost of labor does not come without a tradeoff.

Raising the minimum wage will reduce the number of minimum wage (low-skill) jobs available. Basic arithmetic tells us this. If a company can afford to employ 3 workers at $7.00 per hour, the same company will be able to employ only 2 workers (technically 2.1 workers) at $10.00 per hour without increasing labor costs.

Liberal economists have attempted to blur the effect of minimum wage on employment, and sometimes minimum wage studies are flawed or inconclusive. But a comprehensive survey of minimum wage studies shows that among papers with “the most credible evidence, almost all point to negative employment effects.”

A recent projection from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) confirms this. The CBO projected that the proposed minimum wage increase up to $10.10 per hour would “reduce total employment by about 500,000 workers.”

Limiting the number of minimum-wage (that is, entry-level) jobs available is not helpful to low-skilled workers who could be priced out of the labor market with a higher price floor.

As Rachel Currie highlights in this policy brief, a minimum wage increase may not even target the working poor that we all intend to help. Economists Joseph Sabia and Richard Burkhauser found that 63 percent of workers who would experience a raise due to a minimum wage increase came from households were they were second or third earners contributing to household incomes more than double the federal poverty line.

If we can’t help the working poor through a federal mandate, then what is a better solution to slow wage growth?

The real reason wage growth has stagnated is that today’s labor market is simply an employer’s market. Where there is slow GDP growth and high unemployment, there is slow wage growth. More workers are seeking jobs than there are job openings. This means employers don’t have to compete for workers as fiercely as workers are competing for jobs, and this robs workers of their bargaining power for wages.

That’s why conservatives suggest that the real solution to slow wage growth is job creation. If the economy created more jobs, then employers would have greater demand for workers. With higher demand, prices increase. In other words, if workers had more job opportunities, employers would have to value (pay) workers more to attract and keep them.

How do we make job creation happen? A job is created when a firm recognizes that adding another worker would allow for greater profit. For example, a store might decide to hire another shift of workers to stay open longer because longer store hours allow for more sales, and the revenues from these sales are more than enough to pay for the additional labor (and other costs, like electricity to keep the lights on).

To facilitate this process, our public policies should focus on making job creation easier for firms. This means reducing tax and regulatory burdens, providing easier access to capital, and encouraging investment.

While this growth-focused approach may be less obvious to most Americans than a simple change in wage laws, it is the only approach that will result in real, sustained wage growth to the benefit of all workers, and especially those who are currently struggling. No one wants minimum wage workers to live in poverty or to face stagnant economic opportunities, but raising the mandated wage is not the solution. (IWF)

The Rise of The Left

 

Medical Costs: President Obama used to talk about “bending the cost curve” as a justification for his health overhaul. But it looks increasingly like ObamaCare is sparking a major health care inflation spiral.

This week three big insurance companies in Massachusetts announced they lost money in the first quarter, thanks to ObamaCare’s new taxes and fees.

Just wait until Burger King and other have to play $15/hr as a minimum wage, the job loss and the companies loss will mount.

But at least the Left will be happy in their “superiority” and their “vision” of a “better” America…

And it will be someone elses fault when it all comes crashing down because they had “good intentions” so it can’t possibly be their fault.

After all, these companies make millions of dollars, they can afford to make a little less to help out “the people” The Leftists would say.

The fact that they don’t fundamentally care about how business works is the scariest part.

Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts reported a $59.3 million loss after it had to pay $73 million toward financing ObamaCare. Pilgrim Health paid $22.9 million in ObamaCare taxes, leading to a loss of $17.3 million. And the Tufts Health Plan would have broken even if not for ObamaCare.

The main cost imposed on these insurers is ObamaCare’s “health insurance tax,” which is based on a company’s market share. This year, the tax will cost the industry a total of $8 billion, and the burden will go up from there.

“We think of it as a sales tax on health care,” Lora Pellegrini, president of the Massachusetts Association of Health Plans, told the Boston Globe. “This is going to be passed on in higher premiums.”

And guess what, that will raise your Auto Insurance and your Home Insurance costs too. After all, Liability BODILY INJURY and uninsured BODILY INJURY…

Got that? Higher premiums. And that’s in Massachusetts, which had already imposed ObamaCare-like changes years before and has among the highest premiums in the nation.

And is dumping that exchange because it went bust!

But suggest anything else to a Liberal and they’ll howl about how you want to push grandma over a cliff and kill children.

The fact that THEY are pushing them over doesn’t even occur to them, because they are “doing the right thing” because “they care”.

Meanwhile, a new industry survey suggests that overall employer health costs will climb by 9% this year, and other surveys find small-business premium hikes in the double if not triple digits.

Keep in mind that premium growth was decelerating before ObamaCare — they climbed less than 6% in all but one of the past eight years, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.

In addition, ObamaCare’s massive insurance subsidies are fueling demand, pushing first-quarter health spending up at a rate not seen since 1980.

The administration is aware of this problem. This week it decided to let insurance companies cap the amount they’ll pay toward expensive procedures (while requiring them to pay 100% of low-cost “preventive” treatments). It’s meant to keep premiums down, but turns the concept of insurance completely upside down.

Good luck with that Cancer treatment! But hey, you’ll get free birth control pills! 🙂

In the wake of this, Kaiser CEO Drew Altman predicted that “the conversation will soon shift back to health care costs because they are rising more sharply again.”

No kidding. Anyone with a rudimentary understanding of economics knows you can’t turbocharge demand, pile on mandates and taxes, and expect prices to go down.

EXCEPT THE LEFT.

After all, it’s the “right” thing to do. 🙂

Anything else would be “greedy”, “racist” and “discriminatory”!! 🙂

‘Twas the Night Before the Deadline

Because Santa Barack extended the Deadline.

Liberals feel free to ignore the information because it comes from a Thought Police unapproved source. 🙂

But first, a Little Night Before Christmas, Obama Style:

‘Twas the night before Christmas, and at the computer, the family still huddled; the season was neutered. The stockings were hung by the chimney, all right, but getting Obamacare would take half the night.

There is nothing Americans like better than gathering together as families, swearing at the computer, as it grinds, slower and slower. The anticipation of finally getting through to the government, to sign up to pay another tax, is so thrilling, we have looked forward to it for nearly four years. In fact, we’ve been trying, with great enthusiasm, to do this since October 1.

During his umpteenth vacation, the president, lounging in Hawaii, interjected himself again into the most blessed Christian – and most-festive secular — holiday, proclaiming as only he can that the population is blessed to have such a tuned-in guy running things. He said, on what has now become the penultimate day to sign up for the new healthcare insurance tax, that we can’t forget about him and just put things off for another day. We have until midnight Christmas Eve to pay his tithe.

Obamacare’s original supporters in the health insurance industry must also be ecstatic. They will have another few hundred thousand application to process by January 1, atop the five million or so that may already be properly signed up – and they’ll have one-seventh less time. (One fifth less, if you think they’ll get Christmas and New Year’s Eve off.)

So, thank you again, Mr. President, for putting yourself front and center, for giving us another opportunity to pay your taxes, for disrupting family and sacred traditions. Enjoy Hawaii and your own super-duper health insurance. We all love you. (WP)

Americans now have until Christmas Eve to choose a health plan under Obamacare, if they want to be covered starting Jan. 1 — thanks to a one-day extension announced Monday .

Completing the enrollment process has been complicated due to technical glitches, ever-changing enrollment options, and shifting regulations, but 34% of MarketWatch readers who participated in a poll last week said they have already picked a plan.

The survey of more than 18,000 readers conducted on our website last week also found that of those who have enrolled in insurance plans or intend to, 55% said they expect their health insurance costs to increase. About 40% expect their costs to decrease and roughly 4% expect their expenses to stay the same.

Mark Grueser, a car salesman in Hibbing, Minn., is among those consumers expecting to save on health spending by moving onto an exchange plan. Grueser picked a platinum plan for him and his wife that will charge slightly more than $800 a month in premiums after subsidies and require a $2,000 deductible. That compares to a plan Grueser had with his previous employer where he paid about the same in premiums but had a $6,000 deductible. “It wasn’t really smooth sailing but it’s done,” says Grueser, 60, adding that the state exchange website froze frequently when he first created an account in late November. “The coverage is better than the coverage i had in the past.”

For Grueser, the health reform law has helped in another way: he felt more comfortable moving to a dealership that doesn’t offer insurance to employees last month partly because he knew he and his wife would soon be able to purchase insurance on the new public marketplaces. Previously, he hesitated to change jobs and lose his workplace insurance because he feared the couple would’ve been locked out of the individual market since his wife had breast cancer 12 years ago.

The Obama administration has granted consumers more time to pick a plan, pushing the deadline back by one day to Tuesday, Dec. 24 for coverage beginning at the start of next year. Among other 11th hour changes announced in recent weeks: last Thursday, government officials said that people whose individual insurance plans were set to be canceled Jan. 1 because they did not meet the minimum coverage requirements set by the Affordable Care Act will be allowed to purchase bare bones catastrophic plans or forego buying insurance altogether. Earlier that week, insurance companies announced they would give consumers until Jan. 10 to pay premiums for coverage starting on Jan. 1.

Some consumers are struggling to keep up with the last-minute rule changes. David Mak, a 31-year-old day trader in Merced, Calif., said he selected a bronze insurance plan from Anthem that comes with a monthly premium of roughly $200 and a $5,000 deductible. Being a healthy person who doesn’t smoke, Mak says he may be a good fit for one the catastrophic plans just extended to people like himself. But those plans aren’t eligible for subsidies, and there is at least one technical issue causing him to stick with the bronze plan: as of Friday his state exchange still hadn’t registered that he was eligible to enroll in a catastrophic plan and he couldn’t get through to the exchange over the phone because of high call volume. (Marketwatch)

“Now Dashel! now, Demogogues! now, Pevish and Schultz!
On, Sebelius! On, Michelle! on, on Matthews and Biden!
To the top of the Hill! to the top of the Castle Wall!
Now dash away! Dash away! Dash away all!”

And the Cookies you leave out for Santa Obama are fattening and bad for you so we’ll have to fine you and that Milk, well, it was a from a cow that penned up in a cell you nasty little bugger… 🙂

Political Cartoons by Henry Payne

Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez

Political Cartoons by Bob Gorrell

 

 

 

The Devil’s Choice

Experts say the move by insurers to limit consumers’ choices and steer them away from hospitals that are considered too expensive, or even “inefficient”, reflects the new competitive landscape in the insurance industry since the passage of the Affordable Care Act, Barack Obama’s 2010 healthcare law.

It could become another source of political controversy for the Obama administration next year, when the plans take effect. Frustrated consumers could then begin to realise what is not always evident when buying a product as complicated as healthcare insurance: that their new plans do not cover many facilities or doctors “in network”. In other words, the facilities and doctors are not among the list of approved providers in a certain plan.

Under some US health insurance plans, consumers can elect to visit medical facilities that are “out of network”, but they would probably incur high out of pocket costs and may need referrals to prove that such care is medically necessary.

The development is worrying some hospital administrators who see the change as an unintended consequence of the ACA.

“We’re very concerned. [Insurers] know patients that are sick come to places like ours. What this is trying to do is redirect those patients elsewhere, but there is a reason why they come here. These patients need what it is that we are capable of providing,” says Thomas Priselac, president and chief executive officer of Cedars-Sinai Health System in California.

One of the biggest goals of “Obamacare” was to make subsidised healthcare plans that are being sold on the new exchanges as affordable as possible, while also mandating that certain benefits, like maternity care, were covered and that people with pre-existing medical conditions could not be denied access.

Amid these new regulatory restrictions, says Tim Jost, a health policy expert, insurance companies have had to come up with new ways to cut the cost of their products. In this new era, limiting the availability of certain facilities that are seen as too expensive – in part because they may attract the sickest patients or offer the most cutting edge medical care – is seen as the best way to control costs.

As has been pointed out numerous times, we are heading for a two tiered health care system where the rich – and friends of Barack like unions – will have access to the very best doctors and facilities while the rest of us get whatever is left over.

Winners and losers folks. And guess which one the majority of us are? (AT via FT)

“President Obama famously promised, if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. Doesn’t that turn out to be just as false, just as misleading, as his promise about if you like your plan, you can keep your plan?”

Emanuel tried heading toward after-the-fact nuances, but Wallace wouldn’t let go: “It’s a simple yes or no question. Did he say if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor?”

“Yes,” Emanuel finally admitted before quickly turning another corner. “But look, if you want to pay more for an insurance company that covers your doctor, you can do that. This is a matter of choice.”

Which Wallace jumped on, soon forcing Emanuel to admit that Americans under Obamacare “are going to have a choice as to whether they want to pay a certain amount for a selective network or pay more for a broader network.”

And that led to the key admission in the following segment of the interview:

“Which will mean your premiums will probably go up,” Wallace noted.

“They get that choice,” Emanuel said. “That’s a choice they always made.”

“Which means your premium may go up over what you were paying so that, in other words — ”

“No one guaranteed you that your premium wouldn’t increase,” Emanuel added. “Premiums have been going up.”

“The president guaranteed me I could keep my doctor,” said Wallace.

And if you want to, you can pay for it,” said Emanuel. (Blaze)

And if you can’t, oh well, you get the leftovers. Government Charity. Be happy. 🙂

But always remember, it wasn’t the Government’s fault! 🙂  Vote For me the other guy’s an asshole!

“Everyone was rich, and no one was poor. At Least no one worth talking about”-Douglas Adams.

Political Cartoons by Glenn Foden

Political Cartoons by Eric Allie

Political Cartoons by Glenn McCoy

141014 600 Obamacare Site Fixed cartoons

 

 

The Hippocrite’s Oath

Going on Vacation today.

So this blog may be offline for a bit.

Political Cartoons by Eric Allie

‘Substandard” and “cut-rate” is what President Obama calls the health plans that millions of Americans have lost, even though they wanted to keep them.

Backpedaling on his promise that “if you like your plan, you can keep your plan,” Obama is now telling Americans another whopper: The insurance they can get on ObamaCare exchanges is a better deal.

Don’t believe him.

On the exchanges, you may no longer be able to use the doctors and hospitals you prefer. Many exchange plans exclude the top-drawer academic hospitals like Cedars Sinai in Los Angeles, the Mayo Clinic in Minnesota and New York Presbyterian in New York City.

Instead, the law says exchange plans must cover care at “essential community providers … that serve predominantly low-income, medically underserved individuals.”  (Sec. 1311c(1)C)  That means clinics, public hospitals and hospitals largely serving the Medicaid community.

The law’s authors reasoned that exchange plan customers should be able to shift back and forth between their plans and Medicaid, as their earnings fluctuate, without changing doctors and hospitals.

That’s reasonable, but it’s bad news for consumers who had access to esteemed hospitals and doctors under their old plans and then got pushed into the exchanges.

Medicaid-level care is, sadly, “substandard,” to use the President’s word. A review of the experiences of nearly 900,000 patients undergoing eight different surgical procedures found that Medicaid patients were 50% more likely to die in the hospital after surgery than patients with private coverage.

This review, by researchers at the University of Virginia, is one of several studies proving that Medicaid patients get worse care than patients with private insurance.

But many of the plans being offered on the exchanges are Medicaid with a private label slapped on them. The McKinsey Center for U.S. Health System Reform reports that Medicaid insurers are playing a large role in the exchanges.

Just as many doctors refuse to accept Medicaid, they are also refusing to accept exchange insurance. In California, a Blue Cross plan on the exchange covers 47% fewer doctors than Blue Cross subscribers in California currently get. In New York, only a quarter of physicians have decided to take exchange insurance, because the payments are so low.

Why so low? Because insurers know the low-cost plan will be king in nearly every exchange. All the plans offer the “essential benefit package.” Customers currently have no other way to compare than on price.

That’s despite the law’s promise that exchanges would list each plan’s quality rating and disclose which hospitals and doctors are covered. (Sec. 1311d(4)D) and (Sec. 1311c(1)B).  Why isn’t this information provided, as the law requires?  We can only guess that it’s because ObamaCare administrators don’t want us to see the truth.

Cancer patients whose plans are canceled are getting whacked hardest. They are losing access to the specialized cancer hospitals and oncologists treating them. And they will get meager help, if any, paying for innovative cancer drugs that cost thousands of dollars.

The most troubling provision in ObamaCare’s Section 1311 gives the secretary of health and human services blanket authority to control how doctors and hospitals treat patients. All in the name of improving “quality.” That could mean everything in medicine, such as when your OB/GYN should do a Caesarean.

What that means for you is that if you enroll in an exchange plan, with or without getting a subsidy, your care will be standardized by the federal government with an eye to reducing what you consume and how much it costs.

Your doctor may have to choose between doing what’s right for you and avoiding a penalty. Exchange plans can pay only those doctors who obey whatever regulations the Secretary imposes.

Yet the President claims that people losing their health plans and having to sign up on the exchanges will be getting a better deal. Losing your doctor, shopping blind for a health plan, settling for Medicaid-level care and government controls, all for a premium 41% higher than before and with a deductible that’s doubled? Sounds substandard to me.

Right now, most people getting cancellations bought plans in the individual market. Wait until the other shoe drops in 2014, and millions of people who had on-the-job coverage lose it. The truth about ObamaCare will become so painfully obvious that even the White House lie machine can’t cover it up. (BETSY MCCAUGHEY)
But don’t worry, The Ministry of Truth is here to save you from this so don’t worry, be happy!

Michael Ramirez Cartoon

The Roots of Success Part 1

In 2008, Barack Obama promised, “We’re going to work with your employer to lower the cost of your premiums by up to $2,500 a year.”

Of course, like everything else he promises, he’s LYING. But the American people are too narcissistic and too stupid to know that. And too programmed to put two-and-two together Now.

But middle-income consumers face an estimated 30% rate increase, on average, in California due to several factors tied to the healthcare law.

Some may elect to go without coverage if they feel prices are too high. Penalties for opting out are very small initially. Defections could cause rates to skyrocket if a diverse mix of people don’t sign up for health insurance.

Pam Kehaly, president of Anthem Blue Cross in California, said she received a recent letter from a young woman complaining about a 50% rate hike related to the healthcare law.

“She said, ‘I was all for Obamacare until I found out I was paying for it,'” Kehaly said

“This is when the actual sticker shock comes into play for people,” said Gerald Kominski, director of the UCLA Center for Health Policy Research. “There are winners and losers under the Affordable Care Act.”

Fullerton resident Jennifer Harris thought she had a great deal, paying $98 a month for an individual plan through Health Net Inc. She got a rude surprise this month when the company said it would cancel her policy at the end of this year. Her current plan does not conform with the new federal rules, which require more generous levels of coverage.

Now Harris, a self-employed lawyer, must shop for replacement insurance. The cheapest plan she has found will cost her $238 a month. She and her husband don’t qualify for federal premium subsidies because they earn too much money, about $80,000 a year combined.

“It doesn’t seem right to make the middle class pay so much more in order to give health insurance to everybody else,” said Harris, who is three months pregnant. “This increase is simply not affordable.”

Blue Shield of California sent termination letters to 119,000 customers last month whose plans don’t meet the new federal requirements. About two-thirds of those people will experience a rate increase from switching to a new health plan, according to the company.

HMO giant Kaiser Permanente is canceling coverage for about half of its individual customers, or 160,000 people, and offering to automatically enroll them in the most comparable health plan available.

The 16 million Californians who get health insurance through their employers aren’t affected. Neither are individuals who have “grandfathered” policies bought before March 2010, when the healthcare law was enacted. It’s estimated that about half of policyholders in the individual market have those older plans. (LA Times)

So they won’t see the 1000 lb gorilla in the room and vote for Liberals again. Because, it’s not hurting them, after all.

And if it doesn’t hurt them personally, it’s ok.

All these cancellations were prompted by a requirement from Covered California, the state’s new insurance exchange. The state didn’t want to give insurance companies the opportunity to hold on to the healthiest patients for up to a year, keeping them out of the larger risk pool that will influence future rates.

Forcing good consumers out of their plans and their doctors to make the exchange look better.

Gee, Obama didn’t promise that either. 🙂

Here’s another one:

Forbes: A growing consensus of IT experts, outside and inside the government, have figured out a principal reason why the website for Obamacare’s federally-sponsored insurance exchange is crashing. Healthcare.gov forces you to create an account and enter detailed personal information before you can start shopping. This, in turn, creates a massive traffic bottleneck, as the government verifies your information and decides whether or not you’re eligible for subsidies. HHS bureaucrats knew this would make the website run more slowly. But they were more afraid that letting people see the underlying cost of Obamacare’s insurance plans would scare people away.

HHS didn’t want users to see Obamacare’s true costs

“Healthcare.gov was initially going to include an option to browse before registering,” report Christopher Weaver and Louise Radnofsky in the Wall Street Journal. “But that tool was delayed, people familiar with the situation said.” Why was it delayed? “An HHS spokeswoman said the agency wanted to ensure that users were aware of their eligibility for subsidies that could help pay for coverage, before they started seeing the prices of policies.” (Emphasis added.)

Misdirection? Never sen that from Obama and his Alinsky-ites before…:)

The answer is that Obamacare wasn’t designed to help healthy people with average incomes get health insurance. It was designed to force those people to pay more for coverage, in order to subsidize insurance for people with incomes near the poverty line, and those with chronic or costly medical conditions.

P.T. Barnum couldn’t have done better.

The middle class that liberals go on about endlessly will pay more for their insurance so the poor can have more.

After all, socialist societies don’t have a middle class, do they… 🙂

Wayne Root: The GOP needs to stop calling ObamaCare a “trainwreck.” That means it’s a mistake, or accident. That means it’s a gigantic flop, or failure. It’s NOT. 

Message to the GOP: This isn’t a game. This isn’t tiddly-winks. This is a serious, purposeful attempt to highjack America and destroy capitalism. 

This is a brilliant, cynical, and purposeful attempt to damage the U.S. economy, kill jobs, and bring down capitalism. 

It’s not a failure, it’s Obama’s grand success. 

It’s not a “trainwreck,” ObamaCare is a suicide attack. He wants to hurt us, to bring us to our knees, to capitulate- so we agree under duress to accept big government.

Obama’s hero and mentor was Saul Alinsky — a radical Marxist intent on destroying capitalism. Alinksky’s stated advice was to call the other guy “a terrorist” to hide your own intentions. 

To scream that the other guy is “ruining America,” while you are the one actually plotting the destruction of America. To claim again and again…in every sentence of every speech…that you are “saving the middle class,” while you are busy wiping out the middle class.

The GOP is so stupid they can’t see it. There are no mistakes here. This is a planned purposeful attack.

I said that years ago, myself.

The real sign that this is a purposeful attack upon capitalism is how many Obama administration members and Democratic Congressmen are openly calling Tea Party Republicans and anyone who wants to stop ObamaCare “terrorists.” 

There’s the clue. Even the clueless GOP should be able to see that.

But they are too busy agreeing with them.

And the people are too programmed by “Vote for me the other guy’s an asshole”

The asshole being the person who disagrees with the Alinsky Liberal!

Here’s to the successful launch of ObamaNation.

To be continued tomorrow.

Political Cartoons by Bob Gorrell

Political Cartoons by Steve Kelley