Biden, Democrats aim to expand Obamacare in COVID relief package

President Biden wants to expand Obamacare with his coronavirus relief package, saying subsidies for higher earners and sweeteners for a dozen states that refused to expand Medicaid would lift people out of the pandemic doldrums. That is giving plenty of ammo to Republicans who say Democrats are using the relief package to push through a liberal policy wish list that can evade a Senate filibuster. “Things like a massive expansion of Obamacare subsidies that would disproportionately benefit wealthier people,” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said in a floor speech blasting add-ons. Budget analyses also suggest it is a pricey way to try to herd people into the exchanges, with about $35 billion needed to get 1.3 million people newly insured. The proposal is temporary, lasting two years, and is overshadowed by the $1.9 trillion price tag of the overall bill. And it is not as ambitious as Mr. Biden’s campaign push for a “public option” or a lower Medicare-eligibility age, though it’s a big overhaul that speaks to Democrats’ desire to fix glaring affordability problems in their signature health law...MORE

Nearly A Decade Later, Farmers, Ranchers, Still Reeling from Obamacare

In August 2009, Nebraska Farm Bureau then President, Keith Olsen, warned that health insurance costs could skyrocket for farmers and ranchers under the Obama administration’s proposal to mandate certain kinds of health insurance. “A large majority of food producers are self-employed, and many buy their own health insurance without the benefit of being part of a group,” said Olsen. “Requiring compulsory health insurance in the form of an individual coverage mandate or forcing insurers to cover everyone will mean higher insurance premiums.” Olsen also pointed out that farmers and ranchers would likely suffer the most with increased health insurance premiums associated with adoption of those policies given farmers and ranchers inability to pass increased costs onto customers, an option available to other businesses. His assessment of the harm that could fall on farm and ranch families wasn’t based on half-baked guesses, but a 2008 study conducted by researchers from MIT, the Brookings Institute, and Brigham Young University. The study examined the implementation of community rating and guarantee issue on health insurance premium increases in the state of New Jersey, which had adopted both community rating and guaranteed issue laws. In short, the study found that implementation of both resulted in health insurance premium increases of 108 to 227 percent for high-deductible family policies. Flash forward to today, nearly a decade after passage of the “Affordable Care Act”, and Olsen’s warnings about skyrocketing health insurance premiums in the individual market and the impact on farmers and ranchers associated with Obamacare were not only “spot on,” but prove it’s not always good to be right. Escalating health care and health insurance costs were among the top concerns registered by farmers and ranchers who attended Nebraska Farm Bureau listening sessions held across the state this summer...MORE

Uproar over ObamaCare’s menu rules

A bipartisan group of lawmakers is asking the Obama administration to scale back draft regulations under ObamaCare that would force restaurants to post nutritional information on their menus.

 The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is close to finalizing a rule requiring calorie labels on vending machines and at restaurants and “similar retail food establishments.” Proposed in 2011, the regulations stem from the Affordable Care Act and are designed to combat obesity by helping consumers make healthier choices.  But the group of 24 lawmakers said the draft regulations, which apply to restaurants with 20 or more locations, go beyond Congress’ intent and would create painful new expenses for certain businesses, including delivery joints and eateries that specialize in made-to-order dishes “Specifically, the proposed rule limits the ability of businesses to determine for themselves how best to provide nutritional information to customers,” the lawmakers wrote in a letter to FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg. “As a result, the proposal harms both those non-restaurants that were not intended to be captured by the menu labeling law as well as those restaurants that have flexibility and variability in the foods they offer.” 

 The lawmakers pressed the FDA to limit the scope of the regulations, which they say would harm small businesses that are already complying separately with the 1990 Nutrition Labeling and Education Act.

 Pizza places and grocery stores in particular have complained about the draft standards, saying they would be all but impossible to maintain. For instance, there are 34 million different combinations of pizza toppings, according to an industry trade group. It’s impractical to require that they list calorie counts for all of the options, they say.

 The lawmakers, led by Reps. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.) and Loretta Sanchez (D-Calif.), are pushing legislation that would limit the scope of the menu rule to businesses where food service is the primary source of revenue, allow delivery restaurants to post their nutritional information online and allow firms to choose between multiple approaches for labeling made-to-order items. 

The bill, which also would limit penalties for labeling mistakes, has attracted more than 50 co-sponsors, and there is companion legislation in the Senate...more 



ObamaCare: $56,819 To Sign Up Each Enrollee In Hawaii - Massachusetts, $22,124 per enrollee

How much does it cost taxpayers to sign up one ObamaCare enrollee? In President Obama's home state of Hawaii, it's $56,819. The Obama administration gave Hawaii $205 million in grants over the past three years to set up its state-run exchange. But so far, only 3,614 Hawaiians have filled out applications — just 40% of the state's enrollment goal. Even if Hawaii were to reach its 9,000 target, it would still cost nearly $23,000 for each enrollee. Hawaii's low sign-up numbers have state officials scrambling to figure out what to do next year, when its exchange is supposed to rely on excise taxes charged to insurers selling through the Hawaii Health Connector. Washington, D.C., meanwhile, received $133.6 million in federal grants to build its exchange, but so far has signed up just 5,090 — for a per-enrollee cost of $26,242. Ironically, the city where Obama signed ObamaCare into law is just 12% toward its enrollment goal, the second worst rate in the country. Next in line is Massachusetts, which actually had a functioning exchange website, built as part of its 2006 reform law that served as the model for ObamaCare. But the site had to be rebuilt to suit the health reform law. After $180 million in grants, however, Massachusetts has enrolled only 8,139 in its new exchange — or $22,124 per enrollee. It had expected 250,000 people to buy an ObamaCare plan in the first year...more

Obamacare’s Fishy Navigators (In New Mexico, 38 of them turned up in a federal crime database)

One in seven of New Mexico’s certified Obamacare navigators had a match in the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s National Crime Information Center (NCIC) database, according to public records obtained by National Review Online. In total, 38 health-care guides or certified application counselors received their certification despite a match, according to records from the New Mexico Office of the Superintendent of Insurance (OSI), which certifies navigators working with the New Mexico Health Insurance Exchange. A hit in the NCIC does not necessarily reflect a criminal conviction. The database can include, for example, arrest records and criminal cases that were dismissed or led to an acquittal, according to the FBI. The records obtained by NRO did not specify how many of the 38 navigators with NCIC hits had been convicted of a crime. Health and Human Services secretary Kathleen Sebelius told Congress late last year that it was “possible” for convicted felons to be working as navigators. When navigators sign up people for health coverage under the Affordable Care Act, they have access to private information, including Social Security numbers, financial data, and health records. Certified New Mexico navigators had been charged with crimes including: eight domestic-violence charges, including aggravated battery and aggravated assault of a household member; four drug charges; two larceny charges; one petty-theft charge; one shoplifting charge; and two child-abuse charges. There were also several driving-related charges, including DWIs, DUIs, and speeding or traffic crimes. In at least two instances, navigators had traffic charges for lacking insurance...more

Just right, thieves getting your personal data and helping enforce a mandatory insurance program when they've violated a home-grown mandatory program.  And, will they be sober enough to "navigate".

Obamacare confusion reigns as frustrated patients walk out of hospitals without treatment

Hospital staff in Northern Virginia are turning away sick people on a frigid Thursday morning because they can't determine whether their Obamacare insurance plans are in effect. Patients in a close-in DC suburb who think they've signed up for new insurance plans are struggling to show their December enrollments are in force, and health care administrators aren't taking their word for it. In place of quick service and painless billing, these Virginians are now facing the threat of sticker-shock that comes with bills they can't afford. 'They had no idea if my insurance was active or not!' a coughing Maria Galvez told MailOnline outside the Inova Healthplex facility in the town of Springfield. She was leaving the building without getting a needed chest x-ray. 'The people in there told me that since I didn't have an insurance card, I would be billed for the whole cost of the x-ray,' Galvez said, her young daughter in tow. 'It's not fair – you know, I signed up last week like I was supposed to.' The x-ray's cost, she was told, would likely be more than $500. A similar situation frustrated Mary, an African-American small businesswoman who asked MailOnline not to publish her last name. She was leaving the Inova Alexandria Hospital in Alexandria, Virginia with two family members. 'I had chest pains last night, and they took me in the emergency room,' Mary said. 'They told me they were going to admit me, but when I told them I hadn't heard from my insurance company since I signed up, they changed their tune.' She told MailOnline that a nurse advised her that her bill would go up by at least $3,000 if she were admitted for a day, and her doctor told her the decision was up to her...more

GALLUP: MOST AMERICANS HAVE OBAMACARE HORROR STORIES

Fifty-nine percent of Americans told Gallup pollsters that they have had negative experiences with the Affordable Care Act, according to the public opinion giant's latest survey.

Just 39 per cent said their experiences were positive.

7 per cent called their Obamacare journeys 'very positive,' but 29 per cent said their interaction with the new system has been 'very negative.'

Gallup interviewed 1,500 uninsured Americans in December, 450 of whom said they had visited health insurance exchange websites. As dismal as those numbers are, they represent a slight improvement: In November, Gallup found that 63 per cent of uninsured Americans had negative experiences with the president's new health care overhaul.

Small Business Group Says NOT A SINGLE MEMBER Has Seen Health-Care Costs Go Down Under Obamacare

New York’s small-business owners, seniors and doctors are among the big losers as President Obama’s prescription for health-insurance reform takes effect. The National Federation of Independent Businesses, an organization that represents nearly 11,000 entrepreneurs across the state, says it has yet to find a single member whose health-care costs are going down under the ObamaCare program, whose plans took effect New Year’s Day. Meanwhile, an “overwhelming majority” of businesses canvassed by the group has reported increases in their insurance premiums, said Mike Durant, the NFIB’s New York director. Capt. Fred Ardolino, who is the owner of the Atlantis charter yacht that cruises New York City’s waterways, said he was betrayed by Obama’s now infamous promise that “if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.” Ardolino, 69, of Gerritsen Beach, Brooklyn, said his family physician was “randomly removed” from the network of managed-Medicare doctors approved by his insurance company, Oxford Health Plans. More than 2,000 doctors are currently suing Oxford’s parent company, UnitedHealthcare, for allegedly kicking them off its Medicare Advantage network in response to ObamaCare’s regulations. The Brooklyn federal-court case also says the plaintiffs’ elderly patients will have to scramble for new doctors — or dig deep to pay for “out-of-network” treatment...more

How Obama Plans To Dictate To Doctors How They Treat Patients

by  BETSY MCCAUGHEY

...But the truth is still to come out about the biggest whopper, which, like so much else, is tucked deep inside the law.
    Section 1311(h)(1)(B) of the health law gives the secretary of Health and Human Services, a presidential appointee, blanket authority to dictate how doctors treat patients.
    Not just patients in government programs like Medicare and Medicaid, but also patients with private plans they pay for themselves.
    On Dec. 2 in the Federal Register, it was disclosed that the rules are in process of being written.
Starting in 2015, insurance companies will be barred from doing business with doctors who fail to comply. Supposedly the rules are in the name of "quality," but that could mean everything in medicine.
    "The powers given to the secretary are so broad he or she could literally dictate how all physicians nationwide practice medicine," warns Congressman Phil Gingrey, R-Ga., himself a physician.
    Gingrey is sponsoring a bill to repeal Section 1311(h)(1)(B). He explains that otherwise the HHS secretary, a Washington bureaucrat with no medical training, could bar doctors from doing routine mammogram screenings until female patients turn 50, for example.
    The government will be calling the shots on what patients get.
    The rules have not been announced, but the president's key health adviser when the Affordable Care Act was written, Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, early on discussed what government intervention was needed.
Emanuel said doctors take the Hippocratic Oath too seriously "as an imperative to do everything for the patient regardless of the cost or effects on others."
    As long as doctors are in charge, cost control would not be possible.
    "Vague promises of savings from cutting waste, enhancing prevention and wellness, installing electronic medical records and improving quality of care are merely 'lipstick' cost control, more for show and public relations than for true change," he said.
    Emanuel advocated top-down federal rules to allocate resources based on what he called "social justice."
Obama's nominee to run the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS), Dr. Donald Berwick, also insisted that the federal government must step in between doctors and their patients to curb and redistribute the use of medical resources.
    Berwick said resources should be allocated based on "important subgroups." These groups, rather than the individual patient in the doctor's office, should be the "unit of concern," he said. Obama's advisers would have these considerations override your doctor's focus on your needs.
    Right now states license and discipline doctors. And that's plenty of oversight.
    In 2006, when the U.S. attorney general tried to interfere in how Oregon doctors used controlled substances to treat patients, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the federal intrusion (Gonzales v. Oregon, 2006).
    The justices warned it would amount to a "radical shift of authority from the States to the Federal government to define general standards of medical practice in every locality."
    That is what ObamaCare does.
    It puts the federal government between you and your doctor with an eye toward limiting your care — just what the president promised would not happen.

READ ENTIRE COLUMN

More Bad News for Rural America

 by Jim Beers

With all of the winds currently buffeting rural America from government wolves and state governments becoming federal contractors for federal intrusions to federal land and water controls; a new wrinkle has been added.  When federal politicians talk about “redistributing wealth”, who knew one of the “redistribution” vehicles for rural wealth would be federal health legislation?  Not me.

Minnesota is a state that apparently seldom questions government growth of any sort, so it is not surprising that we formed one of the first state health care exchanges called MNsure as the federal Obamacare legislation rolls forward.  A recent newspaper article explains the expected differences in cost for Minnesotans divided into 9 “regions”.

Under the MNsure rules and charges, the Twin Cities to St. Cloud corridor (our most urban and most populous region) will be charged a monthly premium of $634 for a family of four. All other (rural Minnesota) regions will be charged $668, $704, $742, $816, $854, and $1,200 respectively.  These very significant differences are mysteriously credited to nonsense like “people might be sicker in some regions”, “doctors in some regions might opt for treatments that are more or less expensive” and “differences in the prices that different health care providers get paid for performing the same service”.

Dismissing all the associated smoke and mirrors; rural Minnesotans, and most likely all rural Americans as Obamacare becomes the only game in town, are embarking on a massive transfer of wealth to urban precincts in their state.  This is yet another result of this Red/Blue – Rural/Urban voting shift in our country.  Federal schemes from wolves to healthcare are at base thinly veiled political pandering for votes in concentrated urban precincts.  Giving them more and more government services and the granting of their imaginary environmental dreams in rural precincts (despite the harms to farmers, ranchers, hunters, dog owners, parents, and rural economies) are what keep federal politicians and their parties in power.

Recognizing what is happening and why it is happening is the first step.  The second step is seeing what must be done.  The third step is doing it despite the names they call you and the accusations they hurl at you.  Freedom is never cheap and rights must always be protected.  Rural Americans have been in the crosshairs long enough.  Transferring wealth for health is right up there with destroying a village to save it. 

 Jim Beers is a retired US Fish & Wildlife Service Wildlife Biologist, Special Agent, and Refuge Manager and is available to speak or for consulting jimbeers7@comcast.net

The Unintended – But Expected – Consequences of Obamacare

by Edmond S. Bradley  

    The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act – aka Obamacare – was expected by economists to cause economic changes.  (Here is the act in a handy 906-page .pdf file.)  Some predicted lower employment, either from employers’ reducing employees’ hours to keep them from being deemed full-time, or simply by firing employees whose marginal productivity isn’t more than the $300+ additional cost, per month, of complying with some of the employer mandates.
    Put simply, mandating increased per-employee costs will cause employers to react, and the employees most at risk of losing hours or jobs will be the ones with the lowest productivity:  the minimum-wagers the government says it’s trying to protect.  Any time the government takes control of (more of) an industry, the result inevitably will be unintended consequences. People seek to do what produces the best outcomes for themselves; we are not the static, obedient walking statistics government pretends we are.  We actively seek ways to avoid burdens, because we need to feed our families...
    Those of you who told Trader Joe’s you won’t shop there any longer because they’re not covering health care for their part-timers should first read Trader Joe’s explanation (Trader Joe’s will give the employees cash and let them shop for themselves; that way, the employees get a tax break, and at any rate Trader Joe’s can’t offer the giveaway deal the government is forcing on everyone); and second, should be prepared not to shop in very many places any more:  Forbes writes of Walgreen and 17 other large retailers doing the same thing. Worse, 301 employers (that we know of so far) are cutting employee hours and firing people.  The most perverse part of that:  62 of the employers are private-sector, and 239 are government employers, including school districts.  In one survey of small businesses, 41% have delayed hiring, 20% have reduced hours, and 20% have reduced payroll, all because Obamacare would be too burdensome otherwise.
    Another unintended consequence of creating government tax-and-spend “giveaways” that (as we saw above) threaten to harm the poor more than the rich:  Fraud.  Obamacare-related scams were and are being predicted—by federal officials, no less.  Thieves are expected to prey on the poor, the old, and the ignorant.  The fear is strong enough that the White House and the Justice Department have felt the need to reassure the public, with DOJ having to build a special initiative around the issue.  Here’s a list of the scams that have already been reported to law enforcement.
    Some unintended consequences were not predicted by many, if at all.  Labor unions, the darling of the political left, are stung because they somehow could not foresee that employers would cut hours; and the Obama administration remarkably has refused to add special subsidies for them...
Obamacare subsidizes the health care of people who stay below certain income maxima.  The obvious and foreseeable unintended consequence of that, of course, is that some people at the margins will face incentives to earn less.  A dollar of additional income, for some, will mean losing a $5,000 subsidy.  It would be foolish for anyone facing that choice to work an additional hour and lose almost $5,000.

READ ENTIRE COLUMN

Mort Zuckerman: Because of ObamaCare '88% of Jobs Created This Year Are Part-Time'

Media mogul Mort Zuckerman had some harsh words for the President's signature piece of legislation Friday. Appearing on PBS's McLaughlin Group, Zuckerman said, "88 percent of the jobs that have been created this year are part-time jobs. A large part of the reason for that number of part-time jobs which is unprecedented in American history is because people are apprehensive about the impact of ObamaCare on and the costs of ObamaCare on full-time jobs."...more

Here's the video of Zuckerman's comments:

How House can defund Obamacare

By: Dan Holler
9/16/2013 11:07 AM

In just two weeks, millions of Americans will become eligible to sign up for the Obamacare exchanges. It will mark the first time millions of voters will have the opportunity to opt into Obamacare, and they will do so with the expectation of receiving benefits in a few short months. Opponents of President Obama’s health care regime can argue about the quality and cost of that care, but entitlement programs are notoriously difficult to unravel once the money starts flowing.

To date, there is just one legislative strategy on the table that is geared toward stopping Obamacare before the exchanges open on October 1st — defund Obamacare on the year-end spending bill. The strategy is supported by Senators like Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Mike Lee (R-UT), Congressmen like Justin Amash (R-MI) and Mark Meadows (R-NC), and conservative voters all across the country.

First, it is important to understand what conservatives mean by “defunding Obamacare.”

Defunding Obamacare means attaching a legislative rider (think of the Hyde Amendment) to the year-end spending bill, which will be considered by September 30, the day before the Obamacare exchanges open for enrollment. The rider would prohibit any funds from being spent on any activities to implement or enforce Obamacare, rescind unspent balances that have already been appropriated and turn off the exchange subsidy and new Medicaid spending, the so-called mandatory spending. Fortunately, the language described already exists in the form of the Defund Obamacare Act of 2013 introduced by Cruz and Rep. Tom Graves (R-GA).
Second, it is important to understand defunding Obamacare is not a new idea.

In 2011, after Republicans took control of the House thanks to the tea party wave, they included a defunding provision on their  continuing resolution when it first passed the House. Obviously the provision was jettisoned in  subsequent negotiations, but they were not afraid to pursue defunding.

Third, it is important to understand what this is not.

It is not an effort, as some have suggested, to defund Obamacare by shutting down the government.  Most folks understand that shutting down the government would not defund Obamacare (though it is unclear how much slush fund money the administration has on hand). Conservatives who are pushing to defund Obamacare are the same ones pushing to fund the government.

Fourth, it is important to understand how the defund effort can succeed, even with Barack Obama occupying the Oval Office.

In 2010, no one would have predicted the Obama administration would unilaterally delay the employer mandate months before it was scheduled to go into effect. Similarly, the administration has delayed electronic notices for Medicaid, scaled back oversight of income eligibility and eliminated insurance verification. In short, Obamacare is not sacrosanct.

Given the alignment of Obamacare enrollment and the need to pass a government funding bill, it is  entirely appropriate for conservatives in Congress to wage a real fight to defund a law that is destroying jobs, increasing costs and coming between patients and their doctors. If the Republican House wages this fight — as opposed to a fight against conservatives — they can win the national argument.

READ  ENTIRE COLUMN

Congress’s Obamacare Waiver - President Obama is buying votes from members of Congress — with stolen money.

America has a two-party system. But it’s not Republicans versus Democrats. It’s the ruling class — Republicans and Democrats — against everyone else. Consider how President Obama just gave Congress its very own Obamacare waiver. Obamacare includes a provision that should cost each member of Congress and each staffer $5,000 to $11,000 per year. Needless to say, the ruling class was not pleased. Congress wasn’t about to try to exempt itself from this provision explicitly, though. If John Q. Congressman voted to give himself an Obamacare waiver that his constituents don’t get, he wouldn’t be John Q. Congressman much longer. What’s an aristocrat to do? On July 30, I predicted that, even though he had no authority to do so, President Obama would waive that provision at taxpayers’ expense. On August 1, he ignobly obliged the aristocracy by decreeing we peasants give each member and staffer $5,000 or $11,000, depending on whether they want self-only or family coverage. It’s good to be king. The president’s supporters, like courtesans of old, are trying to quell a peasant uprising by denying there were any special favors. The denials ring hollow. Obamacare imposes two costs on members of Congress and their staff. First, it kicks them out of their current health plans, leaving them to buy coverage on Obamacare’s health-insurance “exchanges.” Second, it makes no provision for the federal government to keep paying $5,000 or $11,000 toward the cost of their insurance as the Treasury does today. The second cost is by far the larger one; it amounts to a pay cut of $5,000 or $11,000. Many staffers were threatening to quit or retire early. When the president’s supporters claim that Congress isn’t being exempted, they mean that Obama didn’t exempt them from Cost No. 1. Which is true. But he did exempt them from Cost No. 2. Rescinding that pay cut may or may not have been the right thing to do. But it’s still a break that ordinary Americans like Kevin Pace don’t get. Pace is an adjunct music professor at Northern Virginia Community College. To avoid penalties under Obamacare, his employer cut his hours — sticking Pace with an $8,000 pay cut...more

Obamacare Targets Smokers With Higher Premiums

Millions of smokers could be priced out of health insurance because of tobacco penalties in President Obama’s health-care law, according to experts who are teasing out the potential impact of a little-noted provision in the massive legislation. The Affordable Care Act — or “Obamacare” — allows health insurers to charge smokers buying individual policies up to 50 percent higher premiums starting next Jan. 1. For a 55-year-old smoker, the penalty could reach nearly $4,250 a year. A 60-year-old could wind up paying nearly $5,100 on top of premiums...more