Obamacare : Family Health Costs Rise to $23,215
Marguerite Bowling / May 22, 2014
Health care costs have risen to $23,215 a year for the typical family of four that gets insurance through work, according to a new report from Milliman Inc., Seattle-based consultants and actuaries.
Although employers pay the largest portion of that health tab at 58 percent (or $13,520) per year, an increasing share of costs has shifted to workers and their families, the Milliman report notes. Workers pay health costs through payroll deductions ($5,908 annually) and out-of-pocket expenses ($3,787).
Health policy analyst Edmund Haislmaier says employees actually end up paying all of the costs because their health plans cut into cash wages.
“If that money wasn’t spent on the employee’s health plan, it would be available for higher wages or more retirement savings,” Haislmaier, asenior research fellow with The Heritage Foundation, told The Foundry.
Health care costs for Americans continue to rise, but the overall annual rate of increase for a family of four is at its lowest since Milliman began calculating costs in 2002. In almost every year for the past 10, the growth rate for family health spending has slowed, the report says.
“That’s because of what’s going on in the way employers and families buy health care and how health care is delivered,” Haislmaier said. “It’s not just fluctuations in the economy or new laws and regulations.”
So far, Milliman finds, “emerging reforms” required by the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, have had little direct impact on the cost of care for the typical family of four “because this family tends to be insured through large group plans.”
The report points to a combination of factors, some of which increase health spending, such as specialty drugs, while others decrease health spending, such as cost control measures taken by providers.
However, Obamacare’s upcoming tax on “Cadillac” plans (valued at $27,500 or more for a family of four) will prompt employers to scale back those large group plans to avoid penalties, the report notes.
https://dailysignal.com/2014/05/22/health-care-costs-23215-year-typical-family/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social
Tag: Obamnomics
Mandates lead to call for new school administrators in Ridgewood
Mandates lead to call for new school administrators in Ridgewood
JUNE 23, 2014 LAST UPDATED: MONDAY, JUNE 23, 2014, 1:52 PM
BY LAURA HERZOG
STAFF WRITER
The Board of Education (BOE) recently renewed discussions on whether the district should add two more administrative positions next school year.
The move is part of the superintendent’s three-year plan, which was announced last year, to ultimately replace seven administrative positions that were cut in 2010, when the district lost all its state aid and had to make big budget cuts.
The new positions would help lighten the load facing the district’s overworked administrative staff, argued Superintendent Daniel Fishbein. The schools chief first proposed the new positions, a science supervisor and a special education supervisor, at a BOE meeting in May.
But some BOE trustees, especially Jim Morgan, had doubts about the superintendent’s proposal, because it would add fixed costs of around $300,000 to the already strained, and rising, budget. Morgan also questioned the necessity of adding administrative positions, because the district is already operating effectively.
BOE Vice President Vince Loncto and trustee Christina Krauss also expressed reservations at the time. BOE trustee Michele Lenhard was absent for the discussion, and BOE President Sheila Brogan expressed support for the new positions.
In light of the opposition facing him, Fishbein came prepared at a June 2 meeting with a data-based argument in favor of the positions. He quantified the workload of administrators, and provided trustees with a list of other districts similar to Ridgewood with larger administrative staffs.
– See more at: https://www.northjersey.com/news/education/mandates-lead-to-call-for-new-school-administrators-in-ridgewood-1.1040099#sthash.1m6A3CEY.dpuf
“The dog ate Lois Lerner’s emails” geez ..
“The dog ate Lois Lerner’s emails” geez ...
Laughable.
Local Desktop computer crashes and “all email is gone”
Really? This is the excuse provided by the “tech savvy” Obama
Are these people so technically ignorant that they think email is stored locally?
Are they saying that the email servers also crashed and the daily (if not more frequent) server backups are lost?
And the offsite storage facility where long term backups are stored has been destroyed?
And the recipients of the emails (and the people that they forwarded the emails to have also had their computers crash and their emails were lost?
And nobody printed off ANY email ever? There would be paper copies as well as email logs and (possibly) email images stored by the networked printers.
AND… IF ALL OF THE ABOVE WAS TRUE (100% unlikely) – then the entire government IT organization should be fired immediately and we have a much bigger problem – that the government’s IT is incompetent and critical data is not being secured and protected – a major, major national security issue as well as a major, major scandal.
Really – this is beyond insulting and laughable.
They might as well have said that “The dog ate Lois Lerner’s emails” – that would be more believable.
You Won’t Believe Who America’s Greatest Enemy Is
You Won’t Believe Who America’s Greatest Enemy Is
James Carafano / @JJCarafano / June 07, 2014 /
President Obama’s West Point speech proved telling in ways he probably didn’t plan. The commander-in-chief tried to use the commencement address to quell concerns over a foreign policy that has produced nothing but controversy and setbacks since the debacle in Benghazi.
But the president scored more misses than hits with the audience, pundits and the press. Even The Washington Post acknowledged that the speech did little more than mow down a field of “straw men.”
As far as policy goes, the speech may have been a clarion call for little more than muddling through. But for prospectors of presidential rhetoric, it is a gold mine. And the biggest nugget is the paradox of an administration mimicking the caricature of the foreign policy it created to discredit the previous administration.
Every administration must define the enemy from which they are protecting us. During the Cold War, that was easy. But since the fall of the Berlin Wall, it’s often been less self-evident.
That can be problematic. Strategy, after all, is a competitive practice: the art of besting somebody—the Trojans, the Red Coats, the Nazis, whoever’s on the other end of the spear, the sword or the gun. “It is about getting more out of a situation than the starting balance of power would suggest,” Lawrence Freedman declares in his new book, Strategy: A History. “It is the art of creating power.”
And then, slapping the other side over the head with it.
During the Cold War, the enemy was in Moscow. The big challenge was to make neither too much, nor too little of the threat. George Kennan always argued for a tempered, measured threat assessment. On the other hand, the drafters of NSC 68, led by Paul Nitze, and Senator Arthur Vandenberg wanted to “scare the hell out of the American people.”
Getting the threat right was critical. It was the main selling point to the public about how much was enough to defend us.
But America’s long-time selling point for strategy crumbled with the Wall. No self-evident replacement arose until 9/11. From the rubble of the World Trade Center, a strategy for fighting a “global war on terrorism” (GWOT)—the “Long War”—emerged.
Then came Obama. He not only shortened the long war and banned GWOT from the rhetorical locker room, he actively participated in a campaign to delegitimize the whole endeavor. That crusade continued into the West Point speech. “[A] strategy that involves invading every country that harbors terrorist networks is naive and unsustainable,” the president told the Corps of Cadets and their assembled loved ones.
Of course, the Bush administration had made exactly the same point again and again, post 9/11. Bush, for example, passed on taking on a number of transnational terrorist groups including Hamas, Hezbollah, all sorts of Pakistani groups with lots of initials and most of the nascent groups in North Africa.
Bush invaded exactly two places—Iraq and Afghanistan. Obama invaded one—Libya, and he tried to bomb his way into another war—Syria. So, at least numerically speaking, the score on invasions is pretty even. Obama’s critique of GWOT is an embarrassment of oversimplification.
But while treating the terrorist threat dismissively, Mr. Obama went on to identify an alternative “enemy” on which to pin a grand strategy. Unfortunately, his chosen enemy is just as far removed from a pressing threat to national security as his caricature of the Bush Doctrine was divorced from the real Bush Doctrine.
The “enemy” chosen by Obama to animate America’s grand strategy is climate change. The nation’s existential goal, therefor, is “to energize the global effort to combat climate change, a creeping national security crisis that will help shape your time in uniform,” the commander-in-chief told his new troops at West Point. Apparently, the new second lieutenants will spend their careers fighting the weather.
Weather may seem an odd foe for the military. But for a progressive president, it’s the perfect choice.
Obama can’t be accused as a warmonger because he doesn’t want the military to fight anyone—he wants the military to help people.
Weather isn’t a person or a country. He risks offending almost no one.
Making climate change a national security matter also helps a president to press for other statist agenda items—from pet green energy projects to adopting the right-to-protect doctrine.
Unfortunately, as an organizing principle for national security, climate makes a terrible “enemy.” It is enormously complex and unpredictable. The unpredictability of how climate change will play out on the global stage ought to dissuade any strategist from regarding it as an organizing principle around which one can practice what Freedman calls “the art of creating power.” Basing strategy on climate would be the ultimate march of folly.
Mr. Obama may well know that. The reference to climate may be just like the rest of the address: knowingly empty rhetoric. But it does lead to a conclusion devoid of complexity and unpredictability—this speech and the vapid ideas in it will soon be forgotten.
Originally appeared in The National Interest.
James Jay Carafano, a leading expert in national security and foreign policy challenges, is The Heritage Foundation’s Vice President, Foreign and Defense Policy Studies, E. W. Richardson Fellow, and Director of the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies.
https://dailysignal.com/2014/06/07/welcome-obamas-war-weather/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social
Today is Tax Freedom Day
Today is Tax Freedom Day
Americans have earned enough to pay off the $4.5 trillion tax bill
Washington DC (Apr 21, 2014)—Tax Freedom Day is here! The date on which Americans have collectively earned enough income to pay off their total federal, state, and local tax bill arrives 3 days later than last year and 111 days into 2014, according the nonpartisan Tax Foundation’s annual report.
The study’s key findings include:
Tax Freedom Day is three days later than last year due mainly to the continuing economic recovery, which will boost federal tax revenue collected through the corporate, payroll, and individual income tax.
Americans will spend more on taxes in 2014 than they will on food, clothing, and housing combined.
Americans will pay $3 trillion in federal taxes and $1.5 trillion in state and local taxes, for a total bill of more than $4.5 trillion, or 30.2 percent of the nation’s income.
Americans will spend 42 days working to pay off income taxes, 15 days for excise taxes, and 11 days for property taxes. Click here for a full breakdown.
If you include annual federal borrowing, which represents future taxes owed, Tax Freedom Day would occur on May 6, 15 days later.
Tax Freedom Day is a significant date for taxpayers and lawmakers, because it represents how long Americans as a whole must work in order to pay the nation’s tax burden.
“Arguments can be made for why the collective tax bill is too high or too low, but in order to have an honest discussion, it’s important to understand where we stand,” said Tax Foundation Economist Kyle Pomerleau. “Tax Freedom Day gives us a vivid representation of how much we pay for the goods and services provided by governments at all levels.”
Historically, the date for Tax Freedom Day has fluctuated significantly. The earliest national Tax Freedom Day was in 1900 when Americans paid only 5.9% of their income in taxes, meaning the date came on January 22. A century later, the latest Tax Freedom Day was May 1, 2000—which means Americans paid 33.0% of their total income in taxes.
While the collective national date arrives today, each state’s total federal, state, and local tax burden varies greatly. The majority of states have already reached their Tax Freedom Days, but 15 states remain: New Jersey (May 9), Connecticut (May 9), and New York (May 4) will be the last to arrive. Louisiana, on the other hand, was the first state to arrive back on March 30.
Full report: Tax Freedom Day® 2014 is April 21, Three Days Later Than Last Year
‘Ridiculous’: Administration punts on Keystone, Obama faces Dem revolt
‘Ridiculous’: Administration punts on Keystone, Obama faces Dem revolt
The Obama administration once again has punted on a final decision for the Keystone XL pipeline, announcing ahead of the holiday weekend it is extending a key review period indefinitely — a move that could push off a determination until after the midterm elections.
Republicans, as well as red-state Democrats who want the proposed Canada-to-Texas pipeline approved, slammed the administration for the delay. Democrats even threatened to find ways to go around the president to get the project approved.
“It’s absolutely ridiculous that this well over five year long process is continuing for an undetermined amount of time,” Sen. Heidi Heitkamp, D-N.D., said in a statement.
Republican Nebraska Rep. Lee Terry called the decision “shameful,” noting that another spring construction season will come and go without the project.
The administration had been in the middle of a 90-day review period for federal agencies assessing an environmental study from the State Department.
But the State Department said Friday it is giving agencies “additional time” to weigh in, in part because of ongoing litigation before the Nebraska Supreme Court which could affect the pipeline’s route. If the route changes, officials made clear the State Department reserves the right to conduct another environmental impact study to include more public comments, which could delay the process more.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/04/18/obama-administration-extends-review-period-for-keystone-xl-oil-pipeline/
“Junk” Health Plans and Other Obamacare Insurance Myths
“Junk” Health Plans and Other Obamacare Insurance Myths
February 11, 2014
By Alyene Senger
Obamacare affects nearly all areas of health care, but the most disruptive provisions of the law affect insurance sold in the individual market. In 2013, at least 4.7 million policyholders across 31 states and the District of Columbia were notified that their current coverage was being discontinued.[1] The number is likely even higher, since data were not available for 19 states.
Obamacare’s advocates claim that the law and its plethora of new insurance regulations were necessary to better protect consumers in this market. They discount the large disruption of coverage for millions of people by claiming that the plan cancelations were for “substandard” policies and that plans were routinely canceled in this market regardless of Obamacare. Further, they assert that the law will replace these plans with “better” insurance[2]—all of which is largely untrue.
Myth: The canceled health plans were “substandard” policies.
President Obama has repeatedly referred to the 4.7 million discontinued policies as “substandard.”[3]When the President announced his administrative “fix” that attempted to allow those with canceled plans to keep their existing plans for another year, Senator Tom Harkin (D–IA) said he was still “concerned about people having policies which don’t do anything. They’re just junk policies.”[4]
Typically, “substandard” refers to plans with limited benefits, which are commonly seen as inadequate because they do not protect against catastrophic costs. These types of plans typically cover routine care, but if there were a major medical event, they might pay only up to a certain amount before leaving the enrollee to pay the rest.
Obamacare gradually phased out these types of plans from 2010 to 2013—completely outlawing them by 2014—by prohibiting both annual and lifetime limits on coverage.
Limited-benefit plans are not nearly as prevalent in the individual market as they are portrayed to be. Of the nearly 16 million enrollees in the individual market in 2012, 725,710 individuals were enrolled in plans classified as limited-benefit plans, and slightly more than a million were in student health plans, which also typically have a limited benefit package. Thus, less than 11 percent of the individual market in 2012 had a plan that could reasonably be considered “substandard.”[5]
Limited-benefit plans are mostly offered by employers in the group market. Indeed, of the temporary waivers received by over 4 million plan enrollees from the Obama Administration for Obamacare’s annual limit caps before they were completely phased out, only 3.7 percent were for individual market plans; the rest were given to enrollees in group market plans.[6]
Myth: Before Obamacare, there were routine plan cancelations in the individual market.
Many Obamacare defenders blame the discontinued policies on “bad apple insurers,”[7] claiming that it was typical in this market to have plan cancellations and that they are not a result of Obamacare.
For instance, former Obama Administration official Van Jones called the individual marketplace a “‘wild, wild west’ where people were denied coverage for pre-existing conditions and policyholders were continually dropped by insurers offering thin, sketchy coverage.”[8] In addition, President Obama said, “Before the Affordable Care Act, the worst of these plans routinely dropped thousands of Americans every single year.”[9]
But since the enactment of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA), insurers have been broadly prohibited from canceling or refusing to renew coverage.[10] One of the few exceptions to that prohibition is if an insurer discontinues a particular plan or type of coverage. In such cases, the insurer must provide the affected individuals the option to enroll in any other applicable coverage that the insurer offers.
That is largely what happened with the 4.7 million plan cancelations that were reported at the end of 2013. The insurers were discontinuing their pre-Obamacare plans and offering policyholders replacement coverage that complied with Obamacare’s wide variety of new mandates and regulations.
Myth: Pre-existing condition exclusions were rampant before Obamacare.
Individuals being denied health insurance or kicked off their plans because of pre-existing medical conditions is often cited by defenders of Obamacare as justification for the law. The President has said that “up to half of all Americans have a preexisting condition.”[11]
However, while the problem did exist, it was on a much smaller scale than depicted. The issue was in the individual market, where about 10 percent of the privately insured purchase coverage. In the group market, where about 90 percent of privately insured Americans are covered, the issue was mostly resolved by HIPAA.[12]
Beginning in 2014, Obamacare enforced a blanket prohibition of pre-existing condition exclusions in the individual market. A consequence of this policy is that it incentivizes people to wait until they are sick to purchase coverage. Thus, the law also included an individual mandate to force all Americans to purchase health insurance or pay a tax penalty.
Since the provisions did not take affect right away, the law created the pre-existing conditions insurance plan (PCIP) to operate from 2010 to 2014. It funded new high-risk pools in each state to provide temporary coverage to those with pre-existing conditions.
The PCIP experience revealed that the number of individuals facing pre-existing condition exclusions was not nearly as large as it was portrayed. The Obama Administration initially estimated that 375,000 people would enroll in the PCIP by 2010,[13] but the highest enrollment total ever to occur over the three-year period was in March 2013: almost 115,000, only about 30 percent of original projections.[14]
Reforms to protect this population from unjust exclusions were necessary, but they certainly did not require Obamacare’s individual insurance market takeover.[15]
Myth: Obamacare plans are “better” insurance.
Obamacare does indeed mandate a host of new benefits that every plan must cover and new rules that each insurer must follow, but the result is not just standardization and over-regulation of health insurance; it also increases costs, which is seen in premiums and cost-sharing levels.
For instance, the average deductible for a bronze plan in the 34 states with a federally facilitated exchange is $5,095 a year for an individual, and the average catastrophic plan carries an individual deductible of $6,346.[16] Moreover, 42 states will see significant average premium increases—in many cases, over 100 percent—for individuals purchasing from the exchanges.[17] Therefore, enrollees may not see “better” insurance for their money.
Obamacare Overkill
Obamacare cancels many insurance policies that individuals chose based on their wants, needs, or ability to afford, and it replaces those plans with what the government deems “better” insurance. But this leaves little choice for consumers and increases costs.
Though there were problems in the insurance market before Obamacare was enacted, the scale of those issues does not match the scale of regulatory authority and coercion created by Obamacare. It is Obamacare’s new health insurance regulations that threaten to destabilize the market and make the present situation much worse, particularly in terms of cost. There are more common-sense ways to address the existing problems that do not require massive disruptions of coverage for millions of others.
—Alyene Senger is a Research Associate in the Center for Health Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation.
The White House Doesn’t Like These Particular Facts
The White House Doesn’t Like These Particular Facts
Israel Ortega
February 20, 2014 at 11:09 am
The facts in this case are being pronounced by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), a nonpartisan federal agency that crunches numbers for the government, which concluded that raising the federal minimum wage would actually reduce employment.
CBO’s findings are nothing new, of course. As we know, calls to raise the minimum wage are simply fodder for the President’s liberal base. And as Heritage’s James Sherk has pointed out on numerous occasions, raising the federal minimum wage would actually hurt low-income workers by forcing businesses to cut jobs—making it more difficult for unskilled workers to gain the experience necessary to get ahead.
But what makes these latest findings interesting is that the White House has been quick to discredit the very agency it has touted in the past to enact and promote its progressive policies
CBO nearly triples estimate of working hours lost by 2021 due to Affordable Care Act
CBO nearly triples estimate of working hours lost by 2021 due to Affordable Care Act
No compelling evidence Obamacare increased part-time work: CBO
Tuesday, 4 Feb 2014 | 11:00 AM ET
A historically high number of people will be locked out of the workforce by 2021, according to a report by the Congressional Budget Office released Tuesday.
President Barack Obama’s signature health-care law will contribute to this phenomenon, the CBO said, citing new estimates that the Affordable Care Act will cause a larger-than-expected reduction in working hours—eliminating the equivalent of about 2.3 million workers in 2021.
In 2011, the CBO estimated the law would cause a reduction of about 800,000 full-time equivalent workers.
“CBO estimates that the ACA will reduce the total number of hours worked, on net, by about 1.5 to 2 percent during the period from 2017 to 2024, almost entirely because workers will choose to supply less labor—given the new taxes and other incentives they will face and the financial benefits some will receive,” said the report.
“The reduction in CBO’s projections of hours worked represents a decline in the number of full-time-equivalent workers of about 2.0 million in 2017, rising to about 2.5 million in 2024,” it added.
https://www.cnbc.com/id/101352868
Examiner Editorial: If top 5% paid 40% of taxes, what is their ‘fair’ share?
Examiner Editorial: If top 5% paid 40% of taxes, what is their ‘fair’ share?
November 22, 2012 | 8:00 pm
Riding a wave of confidence after his re-election victory, President Obama is eager to collect scalps from the class war he appears to have won. Americans, Obama said in his postelection news conference earlier this month, “want to make sure that middle-class folks aren’t bearing the entire burden and sacrifice when it comes to some of these big challenges. They expect that folks at the top are doing their fair share as well.” House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., echoed this point in a fundraising pitch sent out on Monday: “Voters sent a clear message to Republicans in the election: we must stand up for the middle class and ensure the wealthy pay their fair share.”
Although Obama and his fellow Democrats repeatedly call on wealthier Americans to pay their “fair share,” they never specify what percentage of the nation’s tax burden the wealthy would have to bear. As matters stand, the top 1 percent of American households paid 39 percent of income taxes in 2009, according to the most recent data compiled by the Congressional Budget Office, and the top 5 percent of taxpayers paid 64 percent.
But income taxes, taken in isolation, do not tell the whole story, because lower-income Americans do pay payroll taxes. But even taking into account all forms of taxation, the top 1 percent still paid 22 percent of federal taxes while earning just 13.4 percent of household income. The top 5 percent paid 40 percent of all federal taxes, despite earning only 26 percent of all income. No matter how you slice the numbers, it’s hard to understand why anyone would think the wealthy aren’t already shouldering a burden commensurate with their blessings.