Who Enrolls in Obamacare?

What’s the effect of that on costs under Obamacare?  The Blue Cross Blue Shield Association rudely conducted a study of the matter, and they found

  • New enrollees in individual health plans in 2014 and 2015 had higher rates of hypertension, diabetes, depression, coronary artery disease, HIV and Hepatitis C than those enrolled before ObamaCare.
  • New enrollees received significantly more medical care, on average, than those with individual or employer-based plans.
  • New enrollees had more inpatient admissions, outpatient visits, prescriptions filled and emergency room visits.
  • Medical costs for new members were, on average, 19% higher than for employer-based members in 2014, and 22% higher last year. Average monthly medical spending for those newly enrolled members also rose at a higher rate in that period.

And

A recent Daily Caller examination of annual reports from insurers also found storm clouds on the horizon of the exchanges.  It found that 8 of the 11 remaining exchanges may fail this year, despite assurances from the Obama administration.

All of which will lead to rising costs.  That increased use of medical care and health coverage plans, paid for with OPM, will drive health plan providers’ costs and so their premiums charged the customer (read: the government/your tax money).  The greatly reduced ObamaMarts will drive costs to the health plan provider customer, since subsidies—OPM—will be lost to them, also.

A report from Freedom Partners earlier this year showed premiums on the individual market are rising by double digits in most states.

Didn’t President Barack Obama (D) promise the contrary?  Both the current Democratic Party Presidential candidates are promising to extend this even further, too.

Elections have consequences.

American Exceptionalism

seen from the other side of the world.  Singapore Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong has a perspective.

Every one of America’s important trading partners in Asia, he points out, now has China as its “biggest trading partner.”  These nations know they will have a freer and more open trading system if America, not China, is writing the rules.

And

What makes it all so twisted [the debate over the TPP], says Mr Lee, is that no one in Asia is rooting for an American retreat.  To the contrary, Asian leaders are eager to make America great again….

And

“Your role,” says Mr Lee, “remains indispensable, whether you are prepared to step up to it or whether you decide to chuck it.”

And one last bit, which might seem self-serving but, even were it so, is no less true for that:

…you are wealthy enough and resilient enough to be able to help those who are buffeted and to take advantage of the opportunities which are out there, rather than say “I don’t want the competition….”

Climatistas, Again

From Watts Up With That we get the latest internal inconsistency of the climate panic-mongers.

Including gas, oil and coal, they [the UN’s IPCC] estimate a total fossil fuel reserve of nine hundred to two thousand gigatonnes of carbon (GtC).  I decided to apply those numbers to both the Bern Model and the simple exponential decay model.

Willis Eschenbach, the author of the linked-to article, asked:

My interest was in finding out what would happen, according to the two CO2 models, if we burned all of the fossil fuels by 2100.

That is, if we completely exhausted all of our coal, oil, and natural gas in an orgy of consumption over the next 85 years, what would we get?

Using the two models cited, the Bern model and the simple single-time-constant exponential model, two of the IPCC’s favorite models, Eschenbach got the answer [emphasis his]:

According to the IPCC, there is not enough fossil fuel carbon (oil, gas, and coal) on the planet to double the atmospheric CO2 concentration from its current value.

Doubling the amount of atmospheric CO2 is one of the big bugaboos of the climatistas, never minding that at 800 parts per million by volume of CO2 in the air (the result of that doubling) is just about the level when life on earth was especially lush during earlier geologic eras.

Hmm….

Another Bill Did Pass

I wrote earlier about the National Football League’s apparent attempt to extort Georgia into not enacting a bill that didn’t suit the NFL’s pleasure.

North Carolina did enact a bill in the same tenor, and now the National Basketball Association is threatening to pull its next year’s All-Star game from Charlotte in retaliation.

When can we expect the NBA to mandate an inclusive environment to all who attend our games and event[s] and safe spaces of equality and mutual respect in its clubs’ arena rest rooms and to ban Men’s and Women’s rest rooms as unacceptably discriminatory?

Hmm….

Now the Bill Must Pass?

The Georgia legislature has passed a bill and put it in front of the governor that would

protect pastors from performing same-sex marriages and give “faith-based” organizations permission to deny use of their business for anything they find “objectionable.” Businesses wouldn’t have to hire anyone whose religious beliefs are different from theirs[.]

The NFL doesn’t like that.

“NFL policies emphasize tolerance and inclusiveness, and prohibit discrimination based on age, gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, or any other improper standard,” league spokesman Brian McCarthy said. “Whether the laws and regulations of a state and local community are consistent with these policies would be one of many factors NFL owners may use to evaluate potential Super Bowl host sites.”

So, what else does that mean?  Would the NFL then require the Atlanta Falcons to leave Georgia, too?  Sounds like this is a dare that Georgia must accept: the governor must sign the bill.