Tag Archives: Obamacare

Tele-Prompter Boy and Obamacare, by Eric Peters

Much of what TV newscasters read as news is actually editorializing. From Eric Peters at theburningplatform.com:

Listen to this lead-in by a CNN Tele-Prompter readerabout a federal judge in Texas ruling that the Affordable Care Act’s mandate to buy health insurance is unconstitutional:

“The law that brought health care to millions of Americans has been struck down by a federal judge.”

First words out of his mouth.

That’s what they used to call editorializing – as opposed to the statement of fact without the color of opinion you read just above it, in the lead to this story – about the same subject.

The Tele-Prompter reader leaves no doubt as to his view about both the Texas judge’s ruling and the Affordable Care Act, which is annoying right out of the gate because who cares what this Tele-Prompter reader’s opinions are about anything? It’s one thing to listen to a veteran newsman who’s earned some bona fides offer up his slant on an issue, especially if it’s something he’s been covering for decades and maybe thus the man has something to say that’s worth listening to.

But this kid?

Continue reading→

Advertisements

Progressives: The Real World vs. Neverland, by David C. Stolinsky

Faith, hope, and pixie dust is not much of a political philosophy. From David C. Stolinsky at gatestoneinstitute.org:

  • Many of these children in adult bodies were told, and actually believed, that better health care for everyone, including an unlimited number of illegal immigrants, would be attainable at a low cost, if only the government were to run it.
  • Many children in adult bodies also seem not to know that Socialism failed in the Soviet Union, Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, Romania, Albania, Bulgaria, China, North Korea, Cambodia, Laos, Vietnam, and Cuba, and is now failing in Venezuela. The irrational wish is evidently stronger than rational arithmetic.
  • These victims of arrested emotional development seem to confuse good motives with good results. They want better health care for a greater number of people at a lesser cost; so they fantasize that they can achieve it without denying care to those who are too old, too sick or too expensive to receive it. They kind-heartedly want a “more equal distribution of wealth”; so they fantasize that they can maneuver it without penalizing and discouraging the productive members of society, while rewarding and encouraging the unproductive ones.

“Not to know what happened before you were born is to remain forever a child,” Cicero astutely observed. For many self-described progressives today, however, this seems not to be a drawback. On the contrary, like adolescents — insisting that they are grown-ups when their parents get in the way of their fun, but then running home for all their basic needs and creature comforts — such people seem to give no thought to the past and equally little to the future.

Continue reading

“Shared Responsibility” Update, by Eric Peters

Eric Peters makes a stand—which will cost him actual money—against Obamacare. From Peters at theburningplatform.com:

I am now officially an Obamacare Outlaw – the deadline for sending in my “shared responsibility” penalty/tax whatever-it-is having come – and gone. Without my having sent them a burnished penny of the $695 they claim I “owe.”

Readers will recall that about three weeks ago, I received a thuggy letter from the Luca Brasi division of the government, which has become the collection agency for the health insurance mafia. The mafia succeeding in getting Obamacare passed into law – and don’t be deceived that it was Obama or the Democrats or even the Republicans who did it, though they played their necessary puppet parts. The power behind them is the insurance mafia, which saw the goldmine and determined to mine it – using the power of the government to dig out the gold at gunpoint.

Of course, the government wets its beak, too.

It gets power – over everything it hasn’t already got power over since literally everything imaginable can be claimed to “affect” health care and now that our health is no longer our business but the business of the government, everything we do (and don’t do) at least in principle now falls under the purview of the government.

Obamacare will be used to implement – just for starters – backdoor/extra-legal gun control via “health based” rulings on who may – and may not – own a gun.

For example, the recalcitrant patient – or the refusnik patient, such a myself. Declining to obtain health insurance will be punished in more than just one way. Those who do not “sign up” will likely be characterized as mentally troubled – and “we” (it is always “we” when in fact it is really they) can’t have the mentally troubled running around (or even staying home) with loaded guns on their person.

That kind of thing. Expect it, count on it.

And, don’t be tricked by the black face that has been put on Obamacare – a divide and conquer trick deliberately used to divert attention from the bipartisan decimation of our liberty to not be mugged by the insurance mafia via the joint efforts of Republicans and Democrats in the service of themselves and the mafia.

To continue reading: “Shared Responsibility” Update

“Death Spiral”: Obamacare Premiums May Soar As Much As 91% Next Year, by Tyler Durden

President Trump and the Republicans desperately want to hold on to the House and Senate come November. Why the hell should they if they couldn’t even repeal Obamacare? (If you think the numbers in this story are incorrect or exaggerated: I decided to go uninsured when insurance for my family reached $1600 a month/$19,200 a year with—if I remember correctly—a $14,000 deductible. I’d be out $33,200 before the insurance would pay for anything—that’s probably an appendectomy and a gall bladder removal—and that was for a bare bones plan. Before Obamacare we were paying $350 a month with a $5,000 deductible for a better plan. Fuck you, Barack. Fuck you Republicans.) From Tyler Durden at zerohedge.com:

Residents of Maryland and Virginia face double-digit percentage increases in premiums for individual Obamacare plans in 2019, according to rate requests made by insurers.

The largest hikes are being sought by CareFirst, which is seeking a 64% increase in Virginia, and a whopping 91% increase in Maryland for its PPO. Other insurers are following suit in the two states, with Kaiser requesting hikes of 32% and 37% respectively, followed by CareFirst’s HMO offering.

In Maryland, CareFirst wants to raise rates by 91 percent on a plan covering 15,000 people, Insurance Commissioner Al Redmer Jr. said. If approved, premiums for a 40-year-old could reach $1,334 a month. –Bloomberg

That’s over $16,000 per year for an individual plan in a state with an average personal income of $59,524.

“We have folks in Maryland that are struggling, that are trying to do the right thing, and they’re paying more for their health insurance than they are for their mortgage,” Redmer said on a call with reporters.

Maryland is seeking permission from the federal government to create a reinsurance program that would use $975 million in state and federal funds over five years to lower rates. That would help only temporarily, Redmer said. –Bloomberg

I believe we’ve been in a death spiral for a year or two,” he said, adding that a permanent solution requires Congress to fix the Affordable Care Act.

Virginia and Maryland are the first two states in which 2019 rate requests – which are subject to regulatory approval and may change – have been made public, however increases are anticipated across the country as insurers adjust to the post-ACA battle. Final premium increases will need to be approved ahead of the November 1 open-enrollment period.

To continue reading: “Death Spiral”: Obamacare Premiums May Soar As Much As 91% Next Year

 

 

Image

Obamacare Doing Wonders for the Middle Class, from The Burning Platform

Are You Infuriated Yet? by Chris Martenson

There are rants and then there are rants. This is a first-class rant from Chris Martenson, focused on pensions and medical care. from Martenson at peakprosperity.com:

More and more, I’m encountering people who are simply infuriated with how our “leaders” are running (or to put it more accurately, ruining) things right now. And I share that fury.

It’s perfectly normal human response to be infuriated when an outside agent hurts you, especially if the pain seems unnecessary, illogical or random.

Imagine if your neighbor enjoyed setting off loud explosives at all hours of the day and night. Or if he had a habit of tailgating and brake-checking you every time he saw your car on the road. You’d been well within your rights to be infuriated.

Or to use a much more common example from the real world : When your politicians repeatedly pass laws that hurt you in favor of large corporations — that, too, is infuriating. Especially if those actions run directly counter to their campaign promises.

There’s a lot of be infuriated about in the world today, so go ahead and embrace your rage. By doing so, you’ll be in a better mindset to understand things like Brexit, Catalonia, and Trump, each of which is a reflection of the fury of your fellow citizens, who are finally waking up to the fact that they’ve been victims for too long.

An easy prediction to make is that this simmering anger of the populace is going to start boiling over more violently in the coming years. Welcome to the Age of Fury.

‘Over The Top’ Dumb

Do you ever get the sense that, as a society, we’re being dangerously reckless? Perhaps so dumb that we might not recover from the repercussions of our stupidity for many generations, if ever?

There are economic and financial idiocies in motion that are, by themselves, unsolvable predicaments without a peaceful solution. But when combined with resource depletion and declining net energy, they’re positively intractable.

Take for example the hundreds of trillions of dollars-worth of underfunded entitlement and pension promises. Those promises cannot be kept and they cannot be paid. Everybody with a basic comprehension of math can conclude as such.

Yet we continue to operate as if the opposite were true. We comfort ourselves that, somehow, all the promised future payouts will be made in full — even though the funds are insolvent, their returns are much lower than the actuarial projections require, and payout demand mercilessly rises each year.

Spoiler alert: This isn’t some future disaster lying in wait. It’s unfolding right now.

To continue reading: Are You Infuriated Yet?

Trump and Obamacare, by Andrew P. Napolitano

When the Republican Congress refused to make an appropriation for Obamacare in 2013, President Obama had no constitutional authority to spend the money he deemed necessary for the program. Now President Trump has reversed that unconstitutional executive order. From Andrew P. Napolitano at lewrockwell.com:

Late last week, President Donald Trump signed an executive order directing the secretaries of the treasury and health and human services to cease making payments to health care insurance companies in behalf of the more than 6 million Americans who qualify for these payments under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, commonly known as Obamacare.

Obamacare is the signature legislation of former President Barack Obama, enacted in 2010 and upheld by the Supreme Court in 2012. Its stated goal was to use the engine of the federal government to make health insurance available and affordable to everyone in America.

It seeks to achieve that goal by regulating the delivery of health care, giving federal bureaucrats access to everyone’s medical records, compelling everyone in America to acquire health insurance and providing financial subsidies for those people whose household incomes are below certain levels and who do not otherwise qualify for Medicare or Medicaid. Under President Obama, the subsidies were regularly paid, and they had been paid under President Trump, as well, until he decided to cease paying them last week.

Here is the back story.

How is it up to the president to decide whether to spend federal dollars when the law requires him to do so? The answer to that question depends on whether Congress has authorized the specific expenditure of the tax dollars.

Under the Constitution, when Congress passes legislation that directs the president to spend federal tax dollars — or, as is likelier the case today, dollars borrowed by the federal government — Congress must appropriate funds for the expenditure. So for every federal program that spends money, Congress must first create the program — for example, building a bridge or paving an interstate highway — and then it must pass a second bill that appropriates money from the federal treasury and makes it available to the president for the purpose stated in the first law.

To continue reading: Trump and Obamacare