New York Time comment section shows just how uninformed the public is

If you can somehow get past Krugman and how ignorant of basic facts he is, the comment sections are somehow even worse. What you have to wonder are people just being this dishonest or are they really this clueless?

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/19/opinion/krugman-one-reform-indivisible.html?comments#permid=14:1

"VikramPhatak,Austin, TX

I am also the owner of a rapidly expanding busines. (Mine is in computer security and I have 48 employees.) Average salary is $90K+ and we already offer health benefits.

I am having the exact opposite experience. Health insurance premiums are set to go DOWN by nearly 50% in October, saving the company $35K/mo ($420K/yr). That savings will enable me to hire 4 more people, while increasing profits for investors.

Apparently my savings are due to no longer having to pay for freeloaders. As a proud Texan and entrepreneur I am happily surprised by Obamacare."

Where to start;

Rates going down in October means this is a pre-community care  rating renewal. The only ObamaCare feature that could account for any savings is MLR reform which is already in its second year so that didn't cause a 50% decrease.

Saving 35K per month means they were paying close to 70K per month for a 48 life group. All states have small group reform, the only policy I have ever seen close to $1500 per emlployee were $0 or very rich plans for very old and sick groups. Which would be helped, but not till January.

No longer having to pay for freeloaders is the give away this entire comment is BS, ObamaCare does the exact opposite. It guarantees coverage when people need it freeing then to wait till then to buy it. It also allows those with unhealthy lifestyles to stick the rest of use with a large portion of their expenses.

The last comment in the thread was a gem;

"I did have an associate atty who is not technically an employee (she is "Of Counsel") of the firm, but who has been on our health care policy for 15 years. She was unceremoniously kicked off as of Sep 1 and has been forced to find individual coverage, but she has health issues, the reason why she was kicked off in my opinion. She is not eligible for COBRA due to this stupid employment rule of the ins companies. This is a very serious matter for her, and her family. So our broker has been able to write her some kind of temporary coverage to "...get her to Jan 2014" when she cannot be denied coverage, though the matter will probably still not be a favorable as her current (former) coverage is. Talk about your "death panels."

Disgraceful. We need universal, single-payer coverage for all American citizens."

This is a law firm, complaining they can't cover a non employee on their EMPLOYEE benefit plan. Notice the call for single payer, but no offer from the law firm to you know actually hire the individual which would solve the problem right away. 

Read more »

Ja, ve haff der insurance

As we move inexorably closer to a nationalized, single-payer health care system, it may be worth noting that another such system is fading, quickly:

"The German government abolished the three-year waiting period for an individual to move from state-regulated health insurance to private health insurance. This has lead to more Germans purchasing private cover."

But why would good German citizens turn up their noses at "free" health care? Pretty simple, really: they've "started investing in private health insurance products to gain access to better medical treatment, without having to pay expensive medical costs."

Remember when we had such a system?

Good times, good times.

Read more »

Forever 21 no more

Forever 21, a store that caters to young people on a budget, is one of my daughter's favorite places to shop. And who can blame her? Great selection of fashion forward clothes and accessories at terrific prices.

But as with so many other businesses, especially those employing those same young people, the ObamaTax has bitten them on the tush, too:

"Popular clothing company Forever 21 is the first of what might be many companies to limit its non-management workers’ hours to 29.5 a week"

[ed: "first" ?! Au contraire!]

So what does this mean for those "non-management" employees? Well, the obvious affect is a smaller paycheck. But it's about to get smaller, since these innocent victims of the ObamaTax will now be forced to purchase health insurance, at an inflated cost, from the Exchanges.

Or pay a nominal fine penalty tax.

Gee, which do you suppose they'll choose?

Read more »

If you like your current plan...So sad, Too bad

Much like Health Savings Account plans will be phased out under the ObamaTax, Garden State B&E (no, not that - "Basic and Essential") plans are on the chopping block:

"The bare-bones health insurance policy that’s been the plan of choice for New Jerseyans who can’t afford something better is set to go away next year ... B&E plans were meant to help young families get coverage and stanch the drop of enrollment in the individual health market, their relatively low price ... made them the most popular option for those who don’t get insurance through an employer or a government program."

Over 100,000 Garden State residents currently on these plans will now be shunted off to more expensive Exchange-based policies. While this may not seem like a big deal (NJ is home to almost 9 million souls), it's a big deal to folks who could barely afford even the minimal premiums ("as little as a couple hundred dollars a month for some people"), let alone removing even more choice from their health care financing menu.

And speaking of the ObamaTax, our friend Avik Roy has found an unpublished memo from the Congressional Research Service which notes that Ms Shecantbeserious and her minions have missed  about half of the scheduled deadlines mandated by the train-wreck. These include a "requirement for the Secretary to “develop requirements for health plans to report on their efforts to improve health outcomes” and "rules that would safeguard the privacy of medical records."

Must have given themselves a waiver.

Read more »

Still Finding Out "what's in it" - Even More Controversy in the Abortion Controversy

Yahoo reports - and consider the source here:

"Under the health care law, insurance plans in the new markets may cover abortion unless a state passes a law prohibiting them from doing so. Plans offering coverage for abortion, however, may not use federal funds to pay for it."

By law Senators, Representatives, and their staffs must buy insurance thru an Exchange.  In Exchange plans, the government thinks it can force plan sponsors and insurers to provide abortion coverage.  But also by law, the OPM cannot use federal funds to pay for any plan that provides abortions.

So will members of Congress and their staffs have abortion coverage?  

Yes.  Unless, no.

Read more »

Still Finding Out "What's In It" - Obamacare Navigators take precedence over Disease Prevention

This helps us understand the administration's true priorities with Obamacare.

"In a sign that HHS secretary Kathleen Sebelius is worried about Obamacare, she transferred some 20 percent of the money for the “navigators” from programs earmarked for disease prevention."

Well of course The Fair Kathleen is worried.  She can hear the onrushing train whistles, too.

But . . . notice she scraped up the extra funding from money appropriated for disease prevention.

I think this is yet more evidence to support criticism that has been present from the very beginning: the top-priority goals of  Obamacare are achieving maximum possible enrollment as a means of gaining maximum possible political control over the medical care delivery and financing system.  The goals of improving public health and reducing medical cost are clearly subordinate to the top-priority goals.

And this maximum possible political control would last until the end of time, or until the federal bureaucracy decides to give back that control to the people . . . whichever comes first.

Read more »

Still finding out "what's in it" after 3 years - and counting.

Investors Business Daily posted this story online August 13 that suggests “If a charitable hospital treats a homeless person who staggers into the emergency room without insurance, it may be punished with taxes and fines."

IBD explains this is because a federal law known as EMTALA requires charitable hospitals to treat a minimum number of patients who can't pay.   If a hospital does not comply the EMTALA penalty is loss of tax-exempt status.  Yet ObamaCare requires everyone to have health coverage so in theory, after January 1, 2014 there won’t be any more patients who can’t pay.  This means charitable hospitals may have a hard time avoiding an EMTALA violation after January 1, 2014.   How will they keep their tax-exempt status?

The obvious way is for Congress to amend EMTALA.  But as a practical matter, I don’t think the federales will enforce the EMTALA penalty even if it’s not amended.

Why not?

Because if a charitable hospital treated only “a homeless person” i.e., some meaningless handful of non-paying patients, is it reasonable to believe IRS would act?  I think not.

On the other hand, I also doubt IRS would act if a charitable hospital treated a meaningful number of non-paying persons.  A public dispute over this puts IRS squarely on the side of denying treatment.  That would embarrass the IRS and the administration.  Even worse, it would reveal the continuing existence of a large number of uninsured people.  That of course would (1) discredit Obamacare, and (2) politically embarrass Obama . . . because he has promised America for years that his signature health plan will fix the uninsured problem.

So I doubt the conflict between EMTALA and Obamacare will have any material affect on any particular charitable hospital.

One other observation about the information reported by IBD:

Obamacare requires each charitable hospital to file a report to IRS once every 3 years "to prove that the charitable hospital is still needed in their geographical area."  And if IRS deems the hospital not needed?  Will it be forced to close?  As a matter of fact, no.  It will be forced to convert to a for-profit status.  That;s because it's not needed as a not-for-profit but still very much needed as a for-profit.  See?

Read more »