Posted on

US Supreme Court agrees to hear new challenge to Obama health care law

imgres-10

US Supreme Court agrees to hear new challenge to Obama health care law

NOVEMBER 7, 2014, 12:58 PM    LAST UPDATED: FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 7, 2014, 11:30 PM
BY ROBERT BARNES
THE WASHINGTON POST |
WIRE SERVICE

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court announced Friday that it will hear the most serious challenge to the Affordable Care Act since the justices found it constitutional more than two years ago: a lawsuit targeting the federal subsidies that help millions of Americans buy health insurance.

More than 4 million people now receive the subsidies, and the Obama administration contends they are essential to the act by making insurance more affordable for low- and middle-income families.

But challengers say the administration is violating the plain language of the law. They are represented by the same conservative legal strategists who fell one vote short of convincing the court the law was unconstitutional the last time around.

The question in this challenge is whether the subsidies should be available to all Americans who qualify, or only to those who purchase insurance through exchanges “established by the state.”

About a third of the states have created exchanges, and the challengers say the subsidies should be available only in those places. As the law authorizes, federal authorities have stepped in to establish exchanges where the states have refused.

https://www.northjersey.com/news/us-supreme-court-agrees-to-hear-new-challenge-to-obama-health-care-law-1.1129219

Posted on

The Mandate: Republicans Were Elected to Stop Barack Obama, Not to Work with Him

images-4

The Mandate: Republicans Were Elected to Stop Barack Obama, Not to Work with Him

November 05, 2014
Windows Media

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: What I want to do here is cut to the chase. The result yesterday is exactly what I said it would be. The Republican Party now has one of the most important and unquestionable mandates a political party has ever had at its junction with American history, especially a political party which did not run on a national agenda. The Republican Party purposely stood mute nationally.

Now, if you go into the races, the House and Senate raises all over the country, you will find that many Republican candidates ran specifically against Obamacare, and that is an important note to make and an important thing for you to remember. Individual Republican candidates won, and they won big. They won in a wave landslide running against Obamacare. The national Republican brand or image didn’t say a word, which makes the mandate that they have all the more incredible.

It is rare that a political party running for office in a midterm election not standing for anything ends up with a mandate, and they have one, and it is the biggest and perhaps the most important mandate a political party has had in the recent era, and it is very simple what that mandate is. It is to stop Barack Obama. It is to stop the Democrats. There is no other reason why Republicans were elected yesterday. Republicans were not elected to govern.

How can you govern with a president that disobeys the Constitution? How can you govern with a president that is demonstrably lawless when he thinks he has to be? The Republican Party was not elected to fix a broken system or to make it work. The Republican Party was not elected to compromise. The Republican Party was not elected to sit down and work together with the Democrats. The Republican Party was not elected to slow down the speed the country is headed to the cliff and go over it slowly.

The Republican Party was elected to stop before we get to the cliff. And that’s the mandate: to stop Obamacare; to stop amnesty; to stop the open borders policy of Obama and the Democrats; to stop the Big Government assault on the free enterprise economy; to stop national security policies that have allowed terrorist networks all over the world to pop up and fill a vacuum created by the absence of the world’s lone superpower on the world stage. That must be stopped.

The Republican Party was elected to stop the run-up of a debt greater than all previous presidents combined have created. The Republican Party was elected to stop efforts by this administration to use the IRS and other agencies of government, in violation of manners and law, in attacking political opponents. The Republican Party was elected to put an end to this incessant and divisive lie that is the War on Women. Yesterday’s result cannot in any way mean that voters want Republicans to work with Democrats. And anybody who tells you that and anybody who thinks that could not be more dangerously wrong.

You do not have election results like we had yesterday with the intent being that the voters intend the winners to work with the losers. This election was about stopping the losers, in this case the Democrats. There can be no other correct analysis of what this election was about. They were not elected to “fix a broken system.”

https://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2014/11/05/the_mandate_republicans_were_elected_to_stop_barack_obama_not_to_work_with_him

Posted on

Republicans get what they want: A midterm election about Obama

1966783_10153842758835203_1417158808_n

Republicans get what they want: A midterm election about Obama
By Justin Sink – 11/03/14 06:00 AM EST

Less than 24 hours before Election Day, Republicans have what they want: a referendum on President Obama.

GOP candidates are training their closing arguments on Obama, full of confidence that voter dissatisfaction with the White House will punch their ticket to a Senate majority.

“This is not brain surgery,” said Republican strategist Ron Bonjean, who argued “it’s obvious Obama has become an anchor” for Democrats.

Aaska Republican Dan Sullivan, who hopes to unseat Sen. Mark Begich (D), in his final campaign ad is pledging to “stand up to Barack Obama and federal overreach.”

The National Republican Senatorial Committee is flooding Georgia with ads highlighting Obama’s claim that a victory by Democrat Michelle Nunn would insure Democrats keep the Senate.

In Louisiana, Rep. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) is hammering Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) over a comment that suggested race was a reason for Obama’s low approval ratings in the state.

In New Hampshire, where a victory by Republican Scott Brown likely would reflect a huge night for Republicans, Brown is mocking Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) for voting with President Obama “99 percent of the time.”

Staffers at the Republican National Committee dressed as Democrats running from the president for Halloween.

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/222494-gop-gets-what-it-wants-an-election-about-obama

Posted on

Scott Rasmussen: Why Obamacare Is the Defining Issue of 2014 Elections

picture-287-1410558600

Scott Rasmussen: Why Obamacare Is the Defining Issue of 2014 Elections

Genevieve Wood / @genevievewood / November 03, 2014

Veteran public opinion guru Scott Rasmussen says the biggest issue driving the 2014 election cycle is not just President Obama’s low approval rating but his signature policy achievement, Obamacare.

And, Rasmussen says, this is an issue that isn’t going away. Obama won’t be on the ballot in 2016, but he believes Obamacare will be.

Steve Weyrich, manager of news video for The Daily Signal, produced the video.

https://dailysignal.com/2014/11/03/scott-rasmussen-obamacare-defining-issue-2014-elections/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social

Posted on

The Numbers You Need to Know About Obamacare

imgres-10

The Numbers You Need to Know About Obamacare

Ed Feulner / @EdFeulner / November 01, 2014 / 0 comments


Edwin J. Feulner’s 36 years of leadership as president of The Heritage Foundation transformed the think tank from a small policy shop into America’s powerhouse of conservative ideas.Read his research.

“Is the Affordable Care Act Working?” reads a recent headline in The New York Times. The editors then consider a series of questions, the first of which is pretty basic: “Has the percentage of uninsured people been reduced?”

Their answer: yes. So, problem solved, right? Not quite.

The devil, as they say, is in the details. And the details show that it’s not as simple as getting more people insured. A new report from health care expert Ed Haislmaier — one based on actual enrollment data, not surveys — illustrates two facts that should give us pause.

One is that the decline in the number of people who are uninsured isn’t as high as it may seem at first glance. The other is that more than two-thirds of the gain in coverage is a result of an increase in the number of people in Medicaid, the federal government’s health care program for the vulnerable poor.

Subscribe to updates and alerts

This isn’t exactly what Americans were led to believe would happen when the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, often referred to as Obamacare, became law.

Let’s look a little closer at the first point. Why isn’t the number of newly insured people as high as it might seem?

Proponents of Obamacare, after all, can point to the 6.2 million Americans who have been enrolled in individual-market coverage since Obamacare took effect. You have to take into account, though, the 3.8 million who lost their employer-based coverage during the same period. As a result, the number of Americans who gained private health insurance increased by a bit less than 2.5 million in the first half of 2014.

In short, Mr. Haislmaier shows, decline in employment-based coverage offset 61 percent of the increase in individual-market coverage.

Why would so many people be losing employer-based coverage? Because of the negative incentives built into Obamacare. It’s cheaper for many employers (who might otherwise face steep rises in coverage costs or fines from Washington) to stop offering coverage altogether and let their employees fall into government-run programs.

Now let’s consider the second point. During this same period, enrollment in Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program increased by almost 6.1 million individuals. Of the 8.5 million total individuals who gained health insurance coverage, 71 percent of that net coverage gain was due to Obamacare’s expansion of Medicaid to able-bodied, working-age adults.

“The inescapable conclusion,” writes Mr. Haislmaier, “is that, when it comes to covering the uninsured, Obamacare so far is mainly an expansion of Medicaid.”

This is hardly what Americans were promised. Or what they expected when President Obama last year said that Obamacare is “doing what it’s designed to do — deliver more choices, better benefits, a check on rising costs.”

Today, the president touts the millions of Americans who have gained coverage. However, we don’t hear much in the way of context. Left unsaid is that a large number of the 6.2 million cited above already had individual or employer-based coverage but were forced by Obamacare to get new coverage.

Also unmentioned is the fact that the 6.1 million new Medicaid enrollees include able-bodied, working-age adults who are being given substandard government coverage in lieu of what they really need: a job.

We certainly don’t hear much to contradict the much-hyped “check on rising costs.”

“In eleven states, premiums for twenty-seven-year-olds have more than doubled since 2013; in thirteen states, premiums for fifty-year-olds have increased more than 50 percent,” writes health care expert Robert Moffit in a new report.

It doesn’t take a medical degree to see that Obamacare is ailing. The sooner it’s repealed, the better.

Originally appeared in the Washington Times.

Posted on

Obama Could Replace Aides Bruised by a Cascade of Crises

imgres-3

Obama Could Replace Aides Bruised by a Cascade of Crises

By MARK LANDLEROCT. 29, 2014

WASHINGTON — One day this month, as the nation shuddered with fears of an Ebola outbreak and American warplanes pounded Sunni militants in Syria, President Obama’s national security adviser, Susan E. Rice, invited a group of foreign policy experts to the White House to hear their views of how the administration was performing.

She was peppered with critiques of the president’s Syria and China policies, as well as the White House’s delays in releasing a national security strategy, a congressionally mandated document that sets out foreign policy goals. On that last point, Ms. Rice had a sardonic reply.

“If we had put it out in February or April or July,” she said, according to two people who were in the room, “it would have been overtaken by events two weeks later, in any one of those months.”

At a time when the Obama administration is lurching from crisis to crisis — a looming Cold War in Europe, a brutal Islamic caliphate in the Middle East and a deadly epidemic in West Africa — it is not surprising that long-term strategy would take a back seat. But it raises inevitable questions about the ability of the president and his hard-pressed national security team to manage and somehow get ahead of the daily onslaught of events.

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/30/world/middleeast/mounting-crises-raise-questions-on-capacity-of-obamas-team.html?_r=0

Posted on

Hudson County Democrat Machine looks to push Cho in Bergen County

Reorg3_theridgewoodblog.net_1

file photo Boyd Loving Hudson County Democrat Machine in Ridgewood

Hudson County Democrat Machine looks to push Cho in Bergen County 

Ridgewood Nj, In the latest attempt by the Hudson County Democratic Machine to take over Bergen County , two of Hudson County’s top Democrats are looking to move into Bergen and push Roy Cho .

These are the same forces pushing for over development , higher taxes , and more control of our schools to Washington DC.

CD5 race: Prieto, Sires: Hudson Dems ready to put ‘bodies on the ground’ for Cho

JERSEY CITY – Two of Hudson County’s most prominent Democrats looked north at fellow Democrat Roy Cho’s effort in the Fifth Congressional District race, then offered Election Day help in a traditional Hudson way. (Bonamo/PolitickerNJ)

https://politickernj.com/2014/10/cd-5-race-prieto-sires-hudson-dems-ready-to-put-bodies-on-the-ground-for-cho/

Posted on

7 things the middle class can’t afford anymore

President-Obama-golfing

7 things the middle class can’t afford anymore
Erika Rawes, The Cheat Sheet 8 a.m. EDT October 25, 2014

During debates and speeches, politicians often bring up the financial burden that’s placed on the middle class. We talk about the middle class as though they are this singular entity, who used to thrive until they underwent persecution by the evil 1%. But, realistically speaking, the middle class and the 99% are not really synonymous. So, who are the middle class?

In its discussion of historical middle class societies, The Economist reports, “Their members are neither rich nor poor but somewhere in-between. . . . ‘Middle-class’ describes an income category but also a set of attitudes . . . An essential characteristic is the possession of a reasonable amount of discretionary income. Middle-class people do not live from hand to mouth, job to job, season to season, as the poor do.”

Some argue that the most sensible income amount to attach to the middle class would be the median household income, of around $54,000. Perhaps, anyone who earns between the 25th percentile and 75th percentile is a member of the middle class.

Diana Farrell, once Deputy Director of America’s National Economic Council, told The Economist she thinks a middle class income begins at the point where a person (or family) has one-third of their income left over for discretionary purposes after they’ve provided themselves with food and shelter. In other words, someone who earns $3,000 per month would have $1,000 left after they’ve paid their mortgage or rent, utilities, and grocery bills.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/personalfinance/2014/10/25/cheat-sheet-middle-class-cant-afford/17730223/

Posted on

Companies Try to Escape Health Law’s Penalties

imgres-10

Companies Try to Escape Health Law’s Penalties

Some Employers Seek to Shift Employees to Medicaid; Others Plan to Offer ‘Skinny’ Benefit Plans

“We’ve got to be careful about not fooling ourselves into thinking everybody wins,” said Matt Salo, executive director of the National Association of Medicaid Directors. “The cost to the taxpayer does go up significantly.”

By ANNA WILDE MATHEWS And
 
JULIE JARGON
Updated Oct. 21, 2014 9:17 p.m. ET


With companies set to face fines next year for not complying with the new mandate to offer health insurance, some are pursuing strategies like enrolling employees in Medicaid to avoid penalties and hold down costs.

The health law’s penalties, which can amount to about $2,000 per employee, were supposed to start this year, but the Obama administration delayed them until 2015, when they take effect for firms that employ at least 100 people.

Now, as employers race to find ways to cover their full-time workers while holding a lid on costs, insurance brokers and benefits administrators are pitching a variety of options, sometimes exploiting wrinkles in the law.

The Medicaid option is drawing particular interest from companies with low-wage workers, brokers say. If an employee qualifies for Medicaid, which is jointly funded by the federal government and the states, the employer pays no penalty for that coverage.

“You’re taking advantage of the law as written,” said Adam Okun, a senior vice president at New York insurance broker Frenkel Benefits LLC.

Locals 8 Restaurant Group LLC, with about 1,000 workers, already offers health coverage, and next year plans to dial back some employees’ premium contributions. That is because an employer can owe penalties if its coverage doesn’t meet the law’s standard for affordability.

https://online.wsj.com/articles/companies-try-to-escape-health-laws-penalties-1413938115

Posted on

71% of Obamacare Signups Traced to Government’s Expansion of Medicaid

imgres-10

71% of Obamacare Signups Traced to Government’s Expansion of Medicaid

Melissa Quinn / @MelissaQuinn97 / October 22, 2014

The vast majority of Americans gaining health coverage under Obamacare actually qualified for Medicaid because of loosened eligibility —and that’s what boosted enrollment among those previously uninsured, a new report from The Heritage Foundation.

The Obama administration has boasted that the Affordable Care Act, popularly known as Obamacare, would allow those previously uninsured to purchase quality, affordable health care.

“The inescapable conclusion is that, when it comes to covering the uninsured, Obamacare so far is an expansion of Medicaid,” Heritage Foundation health policy experts Edmund F. Haislmaier and Drew Gonshorowski write in a research paper scheduled for release today.

Officials announced in May that more than 8 million Americans had picked a health plan on the Obamacare website, HealthCare.gov.

Subscribe to updates and alerts

Haislmaier and Gonshorowski conclude that 8.5 million Americans gained coverage through Obamacare from January to July.

Commentary: The Real Story on How Much Obamacare Increased Coverage

However, their paper says, more than 70 percent of those signups can be traced to the expansion of Medicaid eligibility in 24 states:

Of the 8.5 million total individuals who gained health insurance coverage, 71 percent of that net coverage gain was attributable to Obamacare’s expansion of Medicaid to able-bodied, working-age adults.

In the states that adopted and implemented Medicaid expansion under Obamacare, enrollment skyrocketed as an additional 5.7 million Americans signed up for coverage.

In 21 states opting out of Medicaid expansion, however, enrollment was strikingly lower. The Heritage report finds that 355,674 Americans signed up for Medicaid in those states.

In all, Medicaid enrollment increased by 6 million individuals for the first half of 2014.

The Daily Signal is the multimedia news organization of The Heritage Foundation.

The Affordable Care Act, popularly known as Obamacare, loosened eligibility requirements for Medicaid, traditionally the government’s health program for the poor. The changes made it easier for individuals with an income of up to 138 percent of the federal poverty line (roughly $16,000) to qualify for the taxpayer-funded health coverage.

As the Heritage experts note, many Medicaid-eligible Americans under the new requirements also don’t have dependent children.

States got an incentive–federal dollars–to adopt the requirements.

Twenty-seven states and the District of Columbia opted to expand Medicaid. By July, however, 24 states had implemented the program.

The Affordable Care Act went into effect in October. Its implementation included the rollout of HealthCare.gov, the online marketplace where consumers can peruse and purchase insurance plans.

HealthCare.gov’s advent was accompanied by well-publicized malfunctions, glitches and failures. White House officials scrambled to fix the website as consumers experienced long delays. As a result, the Obama administration extended the close of open enrollment from March 30 until April 15.

Despite the rocky rollout of HealthCare.gov, President Obama and then-Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius touted that enrollment in Obamacare insurance plans topped the original goal of 7 million.

According to reports from the Department of Health and Human Services, enrollment likely hovered around 7.3 million, as original estimates took into account those who selected a plan, but did not pay their first month’s premiums.

Sylvia Mathews Burwell, who in June replaced Sebelius as HHS secretary, said in a speech last month at the Brookings Institute:

Four years after President Obama signed the law, middle class families have more security, and many who already had insurance have better coverage. Fewer Americans are uninsured, and at the same time, we’re spending our health care dollars more wisely, and we’re starting to receive higher quality care.

https://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2014/10/obamacares-enrollment-increase-mainly-due-to-medicaid-expansion

Posted on

ObamaCare Shunts My Patients Into Medicaid

 imgres-10

ObamaCare Shunts My Patients Into Medicaid

Knocked out of private insurance, they are forced to settle for longer waits and worse care

Rep. Scott Garrett Take a minute to read this eyeopening article about ObamaCare written by Dr. Jeffrey Singer, a general surgeon in Phoenix, Ariz. 

His take: “Even if my patients save money by no longer paying premiums, they suffer in the long run by being trapped in a subpar health-care system [Medicaid]… ObamaCare has shifted—and will continue to shift—people into substandard and often-delayed care, all in the name of increasing health-care “coverage.” That is the saddest irony of all.”

 

By JEFFREY A. SINGER
Oct. 20, 2014 7:12 p.m. ET
90 COMMENTS

Thirty years of experience in private medical practice uncovers many ironies. For example, recently several of my patients who had been paying for their own individual health insurance informed me that they were forced off private insurance and placed into Medicaid when they signed up for health care at Healthcare.gov. This unwanted change—built into ObamaCare with the intention of helping patients—has harmed them by taking away their freedom to choose a health-care plan that works best for them.

This is not an unusual phenomenon. A recent Boston University/Harvard Medical School study suggests that up to 80% of people participating in ObamaCare’s Medicaid expansion have been shifted off their private insurance. These patients’ plans—that they liked, and were told they could keep—did not meet Affordable Care Act requirements, and were wiped out. Healthcare.gov offered them Medicaid.

But the irony doesn’t stop there. Even if my patients save money by no longer paying premiums, they suffer in the long run by being trapped in a subpar health-care system. A Medicaid card does not translate into quality medical care. In some cases, it does not translate into medical care at all.

https://online.wsj.com/articles/jeffrey-a-singer-obamacare-shunts-my-patients-into-medicaid-1413846762

Posted on

Reader says Ezekiel is referenced more in the Book of Revelation: Ezekiel J. Emanuel the final Solution for Obamacare

imgres-13-1

Reader says Ezekiel is referenced more in the Book of Revelation:  Ezekiel J. Emanuel the final Solution for Obamacare

Ezekiel is referenced more in the Book of Revelation than in any other New Testament writing.[19] To take just two well-known passages, the famousGog and Magog prophecy in Revelation 20:8 refers back to Ezekiel 38–39,[20] and in Revelation 21–22, as in the closing visions of Ezekiel, the prophet is transported to a high mountain where a heavenly messenger measures the symmetrical new Jerusalem, complete with high walls and twelve gates, the dwelling-place of God where his people will enjoy a state of perfect well-being.[21] Apart from Revelation, however, where Ezekiel is a major source, there is very little allusion to the prophet in the New Testament; the reasons for this are unclear, but it can be assumed that not every Christian orHellenistic Jewish community in the 1st century would have had a complete set of (Hebrew) scripture scrolls, and in any case Ezekiel was under suspicion of encouraging dangerous mystical speculation, as well as being sometimes obscure, incoherent, and pornographic.[22]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Ezekiel

https://theridgewoodblog.net/ezekiel-j-emanuel-the-final-solution-for-obamacare/

Microsoft Store

 

Posted on

How Much Will Obamacare Cost? Bet on ‘More Than Expected’

10689762_750505808347943_5093692570991636105_n

How Much Will Obamacare Cost? Bet on ‘More Than Expected’
Jason Keisling & Nick Gillespie | October 17, 2014

As the nation prepares for the second enrollment period under The Affordable Care Act in November, there is officially no way of figuring out what Obamacare is going to do to federal deficits compared to the estimates used to push the program through Congress.

Back in 2009, it was really important to President Obama that people understand he would not “sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits—either now or in the future. Period.” He sold the plan as costing about $938 billion in its first decade of operation (2010 through 2019) but saving about $143 billion overall because of the various taxes and other revenue it raised. A 2012 Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report figured that Obamacare would shave $109 billion off the deficit between 2013 and 2022.

This past June, however, the CBO said it will no longer try to estimate the law’s effects on the deficit. There have been too many delays, postponements, modifications, you name it, to the original bill. “Isolating the incremental effects of those provisions on previously existing programs and revenues four years after enactment of the Affordable Care Act is not possible,” the CBO concluded.

So what’s going on? The deficit for fiscal year 2014, which ended on September 30, came in at “just” $483 billion and 2.8 percent of GDP, the lowest figures in years. President Obama was quick to say it was because of his signature health-care reform plan. “Healthcare has long been the single biggest driver of America’s future deficits,” reports The Hill. “Healthcare is now the single biggest factor driving those deficits down.”

At the same time, the CBO (and everyone else) expects deficits to start growing again in fiscal 2016, so it’s a bit premature to break out the bubbly just yet. Senate Republicans have just released a report based on CBO data claiming that Obamacare will end up adding $300 billion to federal deficits between 2015 and 2024.

The Republican report is ultimately a political document, so its methods and conclusions deserve to be taken with more than a few grains of salt. But if past experience with massive government-run health care programs is any indicator, the odds are high that Obamacare will end up costing way more than it was supposed to.

https://reason.com/archives/2014/10/17/obamacare-unknowable-price-tag

Posted on

Thanks to Obamacare, Health Costs Soared This Year

1379441947-obamacare3-300x2772

Thanks to Obamacare, Health Costs Soared This Year
Robert Moffit / October 13, 2014

On November 15, open enrollment in the Obamacare exchanges begins again. Before the second act of our national healthcare drama commences, let’s review what we’ve learned in Act I.

For starters, everyone now knows that federal officials are challenged when it comes to setting up a website. But they’ve demonstrated the ability to dole out a huge amount of taxpayers’ money for millions of people signing up for Medicaid, a welfare program. And they’ve proved they can send hundreds of millions of federal taxpayers’ dollars to their bureaucratic counterparts in states, like Maryland and Oregon, that can’t manage their own exchanges. But there are many other lessons to be gleaned from Year One of Obamacare. Here are three of the most important ones.

1. Health costs jumped—big time. Huge increases in deductibles in policies sold through the exchanges were a big story in Florida, Illinois and elsewhere. While the average annual deductible for employer-based coverage was a little over $1,000, the exchange deductibles nationwide normally topped $2,000.

Notwithstanding President Obama’s specific promise to lower the typical family premium cost by $2,500 annually, premium costs actually increased. D2014 data for the “individual market” shows that the average annual premiums for single and family coverage rose in the overwhelming majority of state and federal health-insurance exchanges all around the country. In eleven states, premiums for twenty-seven-year-olds have more than doubled since 2013; in thirteen states, premiums for fifty-year-olds have increased more than 50 percent. For the “group market,” the Office of the Actuary at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) estimated on February 21, 2014, that 65 percent of small firms would experience premium-rate increases, while only 35 percent were expected to have reductions. In terms of people affected, CMS estimated 11 million Americans employed by these firms would experience premium-rate increases, while about 6 million would see reductions. So much for “bending the cost curve down.”

2. The law reduced competition in most health-insurance markets. A limited analysis by the Kaiser Family Foundation found that in 2014, large states like California and New York were more competitive, but Connecticut and Washington were less competitive. The Heritage Foundation conducted a national analysis and found that between 2013 and 2014, the number of insurers offering coverage on the individual markets in all fifty states declined nationwide by 29 percent. On a county level, 52 percent of U.S. counties had just one or two health-insurance carriers. In 2014, at least, the law did not deliver on its promise of more personal choice and broader competition.

3. We still don’t know for sure how many people are actually insured. Following the disastrous October 2013 Obamacare “roll-out,” the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that about 6 million (rather than 7 million) would enroll in the exchanges. Last April, administration officials reported that they reached and surpassed their goal, enrolling over 8 million people in the health-insurance exchanges. They then declared the health-care debate, like the Iraq War, “over.”

That declaration appears to be premature. The administration now concedes that there are 700,000 fewer persons in the exchanges. Of course, we can expect some attrition. But exchange enrollment is not the same as insurance coverage. CBO said it best: “The number of people who will have coverage through the exchanges in 2014 will not be known precisely until after the year has ended.” Exactly.

Beyond the seemingly endless surveys, estimates and guesstimates, we do have some raw data. Between October 1, 2013, and March 31, 2014, there was a net increase in individual coverage of 2,236,942, but there was a net decrease in group (employment-based) enrollment: it fell by 1,716,540. Enrollment in Medicaid and the Childrens’ Health Insurance Program (CHIP) increased by about 5 million over that same period. We’ll know more later, as CBO said, especially how many Americans are losing their employment-based coverage.

Who enrolls is also crucial. In 2013, Obama administration officials said that their goal was for young adults between the ages of eighteen and thirty-four to account for 40 percent of exchange enrollments. On April 17, 2014, the White House announced that only 28 percent of those enrolled through the federally administered exchanges were between eighteen and thirty-four years of age—the crucial age bracket for a robust and stable insurance pool—but that 35 percent of the total enrollees were under the age of thirty-five. That made it sound as though the program was fairly close to reaching its target. But thanks to excellent reporting by Politico, we learned that the bigger number included children enrolled in the exchanges. Nice try.

Maybe 2015 will bring better news for Obamacare. But don’t bet on it.

Originally appeared in the National Interest.

Posted on

Upstarts join New Jersey health insurance market dominated by big three

images-5

Upstarts join New Jersey health insurance market dominated by big three

OCTOBER 12, 2014, 11:00 PM    LAST UPDATED: SUNDAY, OCTOBER 12, 2014, 11:03 PM
BY LINDY WASHBURN
STAFF WRITER
THE RECORD

For decades, the world of health insurance in New Jersey has been dominated by huge companies with billions of dollars in assets and millions of customers. But later this year, residents who shop for their own insurance will have a choice of two new companies — one launched by young tech entrepreneurs and the other a non-profit cooperative.

The two upstarts are Oscar Insurance, the brainchild of Joshua Kushner, scion of the Kushner real estate fortune, and Health Republic Insurance of New Jersey, conceived by the Freelancers Union, an association of independent workers, and funded with loans from the federal government. If they succeed, they may just goad the traditional behemoths of insurance into a different way of doing business. And by increasing the competition for people who buy their own coverage, they may already be helping to hold down premiums.

“These innovative new entrants are shaking things up for the entire industry,” said Ceci Connolly, managing director of PriceWaterhouseCoopers’ Health Research Institute, which recently released a report asking, “Who will be the [health care] industry’s next Amazon.com?”

– See more at: https://www.northjersey.com/news/upstarts-join-new-jersey-health-insurance-market-dominated-by-big-three-1.1107824#sthash.VaD64Zjx.dpuf