Monthly Archives: March 2013

Obamacare…Gifts

Posted on by
Reply

Welcome to ObamaWorld.  Health insurance premiums—which President Barack Obama has been promising for the last three years will be going down, courtesy of his Obamacare—are about to jump up.  High.  The AP is reporting that we can look forward to 20%-100% premium jumps beginning in just nine months—next January.  Here’s what some of those increases will look like, with my editorial comments interspersed.

  • Changes to how insurers set premiums according to age and gender could cause some premiums to rise as much as 50 percent, according to America’s Health Insurance Plans.  NOTE: this is because Obamacare drives insurers steadily away from market-oriented, risk-based premiums.  Age and gender drive differing risks for a given insured malady.  As the AP went on:
  • The law will prohibit insurers from setting different rates based on gender—something they currently do because women generally use more health care.  That means premiums for some men could rise, while they fall for women.  NOTE: this is a redistribution, and a subsidy of one group (here, women) by another.
  • Young people who currently have low-cost coverage may see some of the biggest hikes.  NOTE: or they may start out with no coverage at all, because they don’t need it.
  • In many states, insurers charge a 60-year-old customer $5 in premiums for every $1 they collect from a 24-year-old.  The logic behind that is that older people use health care more and generate more expensive claims than younger customers, so insurers need to collect more to help pay their bills.  …  But the overhaul will narrow that ratio to 3-to-1.  That alone could cause the premium for a 24-year-old who pays $1,200 annually to jump to $1,800, according to AHIP. Meanwhile, the 60-year-old who currently pays $6,000 will see a 10 percent drop in price.  NOTE: This is naked wealth redistribution and a subsidy.  Only this time, the victim has no wealth to redistribute—the 24-year-old is only just starting out.
  • Prices also may change depending on a person’s current coverage.  Many policies on the individual market (coverage not sold through employers) exclude maternity coverage, but that will be considered an essential health benefit under the overhaul.  That could mean higher prices for some.
  • Vikki Swanson, 49, of Newport Beach, CA, resents that the added benefit may lead to higher costs for her.  “I had a hysterectomy, I have no need for maternity coverage, but I have to now pay for it.  I have to pay not only my own premium but I have to subsidize everybody else[.]”  NOTE: Yeah….
  • A new tax on premiums could raise prices as much as 2.3% in 2014 and more in subsequent years, according to a study commissioned by AHIP.  Policyholders with plans that end in 2014 probably have already seen an impact from this.  NOTE: this tax on the top-line revenues of medical equipment manufacturers will suppress development and/or production of items ranging from pacemakers to suits that let paraplegics walk again.
  • Requirements that insurance plans in many cases cover more health care or pay a greater share of a patient’s bill than they do now also could add to premiums, depending on the extent of a person’s current coverage, according AHIP.  NOTE: because insurance companieswelfare agencies aren’t allowed to charge for elective items like contraceptives, they’ll have to recoup these losses from other areas.

Once again, coverage under Obamacare isn’t health insurance, it’s privately funded, Federally mandated health welfare.

Abandoning Americans

Posted on by
Reply

Jay Sekulow, Chief Counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice, tells of a shameful failure by our government—this time centered on the State Department.  Recall this case: an American citizen, Saeed Abedini, travelling in Iran, was arrested by the Revolutionary Guard, tortured for being a Christian, convicted of being a Christian, and sentenced to eight years in one of Iran’s most brutal prisons for being a Christian.

Last Monday, the UN Human Rights Council met in Geneva.  Sekulow describes the salient parts of that meeting.

The Report of the U.N. Special Rapporteur on human rights in Iran mentioned Pastor Saeed by name.

The Council permitted our ACLJ affiliate, the European Centre for Law and Justice,  to address the Council on Pastor Saeed’s behalf twice.

Australia spoke out for Pastor Saeed.

[T]he European Union—representing collectively the largest economic entity in the world—called for Pastor Saeed’s release by name[.]

Then came the US remarks:

[…]

Silence.  Not one word.

By refusing to petition for Pastor Saeed’s release before the UN Human Rights Council, our State Department acted like a lawyer who advocates for his client on the courthouse steps but won’t say anything at all to the judge.

This is just cowardice.

Another Sequester Result

Posted on by
Reply

Here’s another apocalyptic cut from the disastrous sequester:

The U.S. Department of Agriculture is considering buying 400,000 tons of sugar—enough for 142 billion Hershey’s Kisses—to stave off a wave of defaults by sugar processors that borrowed $862 million under a government price-support program.

The action aims to prop up tumbling US sugar prices, which have fallen 18% since the USDA made the nine-month operations-financing loans beginning in October.

As Defending Enterprise puts it, a bailout of a bailout.

Did I say sequester outcome?  Oh, wait….

 

h/t Spirit of Enterprise

Another Victory for the 1st Amendment

Posted on by
Reply

AP is reporting it.

US District Judge Lawrence Zatkoff granted a preliminary injunction against enforcement of the contraception provision of the law against Tom Monaghan and Domino’s Farms Corp, a management company located near Ann Arbor, MI.

HHS had argued from the outset that its contraceptive rule was not an infringement on Monaghan’s religious freedom.  HHS continued, additionally, to elide the other religious freedom clause in the 1st Amendment—that minor bit about government not being able to interfere with the free exercise of religion.  Zatkoff waved the BS flag at all of that.

Plaintiffs’ constitutional right to freely exercise religion is at issue in this case. It is in the best interest of the public that Monaghan not be compelled to act in conflict with his religious beliefs.

And

Finally, the Court must balance the harm to Plaintiffs if the injunction is denied with the harm to the Government if the injunction is granted.
…
As discussed above, denying Plaintiffs’ motion will result in a substantial burden on Monaghan’s

right to free exercise of religion, since the mandate requires him to choose whether to comply and violate his beliefs, or accept the financial consequences of not doing so.  And, as noted, such an infringement upon Plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights—even if for a short time—constitutes irreparable injury.
…
The Government will suffer some, but comparatively minimal harm if the injunction is granted.

It really is that simple.

Nevertheless, the government made its argument.  The health care law and HHS’ rule, they insisted,

are narrowly tailored to serve two compelling government interests: improving the health of women and children, and equalizing the provision of preventive care for women and men so that women who choose to can be a part of the workforce on an equal playing field with men.

The fact is, though, this cynical argument doesn’t hold water.  In the first place, contraceptives are not health care, except to the extent that some religious groups argue that contraceptives run counter to children’s health by preventing their existence in the first place.

Additionally, the availability of contraceptives at others’ expense has nothing to do with “equal playing fields.”  Further, non-market oriented coverage, barring risk-based premiums, or violating religious freedom have nothing to do with “equal playing fields” from individual Americans’ perspective.

However, any government intrusion into the religious freedoms of individual Americans has everything to do with “equal playing fields” by tilting those fields toward government-favored groups.  Any government intrusion into a free market—including into the insurance (risk transfer for a fee) industry—has everything to do with “equal playing fields” by tilting the fields toward government-favored groups.

Zatkoff’s ruling can be read here.  Easter came early last week.