Welfare Reform and Obamacare have slowly and methodically crippled America and with each passing day is chipping away at the freedoms granted to us in the Constitution of the United States.

Welfare Reform

The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA) mandated that every state must add a workforce development component to its welfare system. This mandate required that people receiving welfare benefits must obtain at least part-time employment in order to keep those benefits. This would provide workers in industry and allow those receiving welfare the opportunity to gain work experience to eventually transition off the welfare rolls. In 2012, President Obama approved a change in this reform allowing states to waive that work requirement under certain conditions.

Now Enter Obamacare . . .

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), also known as Obamacare, is designed to streamline the delivery of health care to Americans by forcing insurance companies to charge the same rate to every applicant regardless of age, gender or pre-existing conditions. This is an important factor because the Act also mandates that everyone purchase health care insurance. If all rates are the same and nobody can be denied, then it will be easier for everyone to obtain health insurance. The theory is that if everyone has health insurance, then the cost of health care will be spread out among everyone.

Sound Familiar?

Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven, two political activists in the 60s, developed a strategy to crash the welfare system and force the government to create a national solution. Welfare recipients have a structured benefit system. No matter where they live or how much they pay in rent or mortgage, they receive the same amount per person. In essence, each person is receiving the same “salary” as everyone else. Now they will receive the same health care as everyone else. While this may not have been the vision of the Cloward-Piven strategy in action, these reforms are fulfilling the ultimate goal: eliminating poverty by establishing a guaranteed annual income.

Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of . . . Power?

The First Amendment states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise of . . .” Yet, by August 1, 2013, religious organizations providing health insurance to their employees must include contraceptives under the covered prescriptions, in spite of any religious beliefs against contraception. The contraception provision was included in the Act based on a recommendation by the Institute of Medicine, which is founded under a national charter where the mission, activities and authority of the group are set by Congress. This is seen by many as the blurring the line between Church and State.

The Ninth Amendment expressly states that the rights not specifically mentioned in the Bill of Rights are “retained by the people,” not by the government. Further, the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution is quite specific:

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

These two amendments tell us:

• The federal government has no direct power to enforce laws created that by-pass state legislation. (Several states have passed legislation nullifying Obamacare.)
• The federal government has no power to enforce laws that will remove the liberty of its people to choose whether they purchase health care insurance or not.

Enactment and enforcement of these Acts is a violation of everyone’s constitutional rights. If the American people accept and allow these reforms to be fully enacted, we risk forfeiting any constitutional arguments we have to further mandates put forth by the federal government. The federal government is not supposed to rule the people; the people are supposed to rule the government.

Author: Charlotte Gilbert

• Bio
• Twitter
• Facebook
• Google+
• Latest Posts

Charlotte Gilbert

@obamacareupdate

The Truths and Myths Behind the Patient Affordability Care Act - Obamacare)

http://t.co/VZj70AY4W0 - 18 days ago

Follow @obamacareupdate

Charlotte Gilbert

+Charlotte Gilbert

Latest posts by Charlotte Gilbert (see all)

• Obamacare is Crippling America - January 1, 1970
• Socialism, Obamacare and America - January 1, 1970
• “Greys Anatomy” vs. Obamacare - January 1, 1970

The American government has been at the forefront of ensuring access to affordable health services to all United States citizens. The American  health care benefits can be seen through the provision of different health care programs such as Medicaid, Medicare and now, Obamacare. However, this strategy has faced sharp criticisms with critics arguing that the health insurance mandate propagates the socialist ideology.

Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven created the Cloward-Piven strategy in 1966.  Both Cloward and Piven lectured at the Columbia University School of Social Work. This strategy was communicated in an article titled ‘The Weight of the Poor: A Strategy to End Poverty’ posted in The Nation, a liberal magazine. Their strategy was driven by the realization that many American citizens eligible for welfare did not receive benefits and the fact that a welfare enrolment initiative would in turn, strain local budgets. As such, they called for a national solution aimed at addressing the scourge of poverty, which established a guaranteed annual income (Piven & Cloward, 1966).

Cloward and Piven argued that the ruling class used welfare to weaken the poor members of the society by providing them with a social safety net. They further argue that the poor should not be placated with government hand-outs and entitlements but call for the demise of the welfare system. This would in turn result into financial and political anarchy in which the oppressed poor would rise in revolution and demand for their rights.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act commonly referred to as Obamacare aims at increasing the proportion of health insurance coverage for American citizens and decreasing the total costs of health care. As such, Obamacare requires mandates, subsidizations and tax credits on both the employers and individual members in order to increase the coverage proportion. It forces insurance companies to insure all applicants and offer the equal rates regardless of pre-existing circumstances. The Obamacare provisions are financed by a variety of mandated taxes. These include a yearly fee charged on insurance providers, a Medicare tax charged on incomes above $200,000, and taxes charged on expensive diagnostic equipment and pharmaceuticals among other sources (HR 3200 RH, 1-20,000).

In a nutshell, the Obamacare health program strives to lessen the entire number of persons without health insurance. As such, it obliges all employers and individuals to provide or have health insurance or risk paying a fine. The government will also have more control over the health insurance providers working in a state through mandated insurance exchanges. The Obamacare health program received a lot of criticism and was even challenged in a court of law. However, the US Supreme Court upheld the program’s provisions as constitutional by a vote of 5-4 even though it requires a mandated tax on all persons if they do not acquire health insurance (Haberkorn, 2012).

Socialism is based on social (government) ownership of the means of production. Recently, the Obama administration has strived to provide health care access equally to all persons. This has resulted to an increase in the amount of taxes paid by all income levels across the United States. For instance, the Congressional Budget (CBO) office reports based on data collected from the Internal Revenue Service indicate that the top one percent rich people or income earners paid thirty nine percent of all income taxes while earning thirteen percent of income (Ferrara, 2012). The reports further indicate that the middle twenty percent of income earners paid two point seven percent of the total income despite earning fifteen percent of income. Similarly, the CBO report indicated that the bottom forty percent of income earners did not pay taxes but were instead paid by the Internal Revenue Service a cash sum amounting to ten percent of collected income taxes.

In order for the government to stay in control of the Obamacare mandate, between 15,000 and 20,000 IRS agents will be added to the bureaucracy for the purpose of enforcing Obamacare taxes and regulations, including penalizing citizens for failing to comply with the individual mandate. These agents will, of course, join public employee unions. In addition 21 million hospital and other health care workers who will become government employees (Committee on Ways and Means, 2010).  This is undoubtedly socialism.

Socialism implies that the state has some control over the means of production. In implementing the Obamacare health program, the government will control the implementation and taxation of health care. For instance, the delivery of the individual mandate directs all American citizens to have health insurance or risk paying stiff penalties for failing to insure beginning in 2014 (Joint Committee on Taxation, 2012). As such, the state will directly control the provision of health care.

The doctrines of capitalism allow for the forces of supply and demand to determine the economy. This indicates the American economic system is a free market economy. However, with the introduction and the implementation of the Obamacare health program, the freedom of choice is inhibited. Similarly, the provision of health insurance programs is dictated by the government and not by market forces. This is quite the case of a socialist state where the state exerts some control on the provision of social services.

The health insurance mandate also spreads the socialist ideology. As indicated by the Internal Revenue Service and the Congressional Budget Office reports, the successful implantation of the Obamacare health program is subject to the taxation of all American citizens. As such, the middle class and wealthy will fund the services provided to the poor. This is bound to drain or over utilize the health care program owing to the large influx of illegal immigrants or aliens who are not compelled to comply with the individual mandate or purchase health insurance cover and yet they cannot be denied emergency room health care (Edwards, 2012).

In conclusion Obamacare has been forced upon the American people.  This is indeed a pill of socialism that will be hard to swallow for many generations to come.

Written By: Charlotte Gilbert

• Bio
• Twitter
• Facebook
• Google+
• Latest Posts

Charlotte Gilbert

@obamacareupdate

The Truths and Myths Behind the Patient Affordability Care Act - Obamacare)

http://t.co/VZj70AY4W0 - 18 days ago

Follow @obamacareupdate

Charlotte Gilbert

+Charlotte Gilbert

Latest posts by Charlotte Gilbert (see all)

• Obamacare is Crippling America - January 1, 1970
• Socialism, Obamacare and America - January 1, 1970
• “Greys Anatomy” vs. Obamacare - January 1, 1970

References

Edwards, J. E. (2010, July 7). “Amnesty Will Cost Americans Billions.” Human Events n. page. Web.

Cloward, R., & Piven, F. F. (1966, May 2). The weight of the poor: A strategy to end poverty.   Nation, 202, 510-517.

Suelzer M. (2012, July 17). Health Insurance will be mandatory beginning in 2014. Accessed on   17^th April, 2013. http://www.bizfilings.com/toolkit/news/tax-info/health-insurance-   mandatory-beginning-2014.aspx

Ferrera P. (2012, December 20). Is President Obama really a socialist? Let’s analyze         Obamanomics. Accessed on 17^th April 2013.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2012/12/20/is-president-obama-really-a- socialist-lets-analyze-obamanomics/

Haberkorn, Jennifer (2012-06-28). “Health care ruling: Individual mandate upheld by Supreme      Court”. Politico. Accessed on 17^th April 2013.

United States. Joint Committee on Taxation. Congressional Budget Office. Estimates for the Insurance Coverage Provisions of the Affordable Care Act Updated for the Recent Supreme Court Decision. N.p.: n.p., n.d. Http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/43472-07-24-2012-CoverageEstimates.pdf. July 2012. Web. 17 Apr. 2013.

United States of America. Committee on Ways and Means. Subcommittee on Oversight. The Wrong Prescription: Democrats’ Health Overhaul Dangerously Expands IRS Authority. Comp. Dave Camp and Charles Boustany. Washington, DC: n.p., 2010. Web.

photo credit: genetew via photopin cc

Is Grey’s Anatomy taking on Obamacare? That seems unlikely, especially considering that the TV show’s executive producer, Shonda Rhimes, has been an active supporter of President Obama. But it’s television — where the unlikely happens all the time.

The latest story line on the ABC drama changes the name of the fictional hospital that serves as the primary location of the show from “Seattle Grace Mercy West Hospital” to “Grey Sloan Memorial Hospital.” Why the change? Several of the doctors now own the hospital and wanted to honor the memories of fellow physicians who died as a result of a plane crash. It makes for an interesting plot twist for viewers but also pits fiction against reality. In the real world, the doctors couldn’t buy the hospital — thanks to a lesser-known provision in Obamacare.

Why can’t doctors own a hospital?
Section 6001 in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act prohibits physician-owned hospitals from expanding. The wording of the provision also basically prohibits new hospitals owned by physicians.

In the past, physician ownership of hospitals was allowed by the government but restricted in several ways by legislation known as the Stark Law. For example, physicians couldn’t own a distinct division of the hospital but could own the “whole hospital.”

Why all the fuss? Some believe that physicians who own hospitals will unnecessarily refer patients to their hospital to make more money. Others maintain that physician-owned hospitals could cherry-pick patients who are healthier and eligible for higher reimbursements, leaving less-desirable patients for community hospitals to treat.

Obamacare does allow a few exceptions. Hospitals owned by physicians prior to the end of 2010 and were Medicare-certified are grandfathered in.  Physician-owned hospitals can also request exemption from the Secretary of Health and Human Services if they meet specific bed occupancy and population growth criteria or if they have high Medicaid admissions.

Impact on real world investors
Do these restrictions on physician ownership really matter to investors in the real world? To some extent.

Less competition isn’t a bad thing if you happen to own shares in a publicly traded hospital chain. That’s particularly true when the potential competitors tend to perform really well.

Obamacare established new quality programs where financial incentives are given to hospitals that achieve better scores in key metrics. According to a Kaiser study, 75% of physician-owned hospitals eligible to participate received more money. 74% of other hospitals received penalties rather than incentives. That’s a stark contrast.

Overall, publicly traded hospitals have fared well under Obamacare so far. Shares of large hospital chain Community Health Systems have nearly doubled in the past year. The same holds true for Tenet Healthcare. Health Management Associates  (NYSE: HMA  ) stock is up nearly 50% during the period. HCA Holdings hasn’t performed as well as the others, but the stock is still up around 40% in the last 12 months.

HMA lowered expectations for 2013 recently after previewing disappointing financial results for last quarter. This news dragged down its shares and also those of Community Health Systems, Tenet, and HCA.

However, many analysts think HMA’s problems aren’t applicable for the rest of the industry. The consensus opinion still appears to be that hospital stocks will flourish as Obamacare is fully implemented, because they won’t have to absorb costs from uninsured patients. And less potential competition doesn’t hurt, either.

Tune in later
Hospitals in the real world should do well under Obamacare — as long as they’re not owned by physicians. We’ll have to wait for the next episodes of Grey’s Anatomy to see how the fictional hospital fares.

It’s actually a shame that the good doctors on the TV show had to buy their hospital in the first place. Alas, the hospital was about to go under because of the financial repercussions of a lawsuit. Obamacare couldn’t help “Seattle Grace Mercy West” in that regard. While there are many provisions in the 906-page law, none of them address tort reform. Maybe that plot line will make it into next season.

Legendary investor Warren Buffett thinks another issue might be shameful. What macro trend was Mr. Buffett referring to when he said “this is the tapeworm that’s eating at American competitiveness”? Find out in our free report: What’s Really Eating At America’s Competitiveness. You’ll also discover an idea to profit as companies work to eradicate this efficiency-sucking tapeworm. Just click here for free, immediate access.

By

Keith Speights

An early ObamaCare health insurance program that has been operating for nearly three years is foreshadowing big problems to come with the larger health overhaul law.

The law allocated $5 billion for a program to help uninsured people with pre-existing conditions get insurance. It was designed to provide temporary bridge coverage until the health law takes full effect in 2014.

But this temporary Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan is running out of money, and the Obama administration has closed enrollment to any new applicants, saying it needs the money that is left to cover the medical costs of the 100,000 people already enrolled through the end of the year.

And the costs are significant: The average cost per enrollee in 2012 was $32,108 a year. But the costs varied widely by state, from a low of $4,276 per enrollee to a high of $171,909. Some patients have annual claims as high as $225,000 per person.

The Administration had already tried cost-cutting measures: It raised the maximum a patient would have to pay out of pocket from $4,000 to $6,250 a year, cut what it pays providers, and limited the number of pharmacies that can dispense specialty drugs through the program. It didn’t work.

The problems with this program are predictors of the costs that are likely to come when the full law takes effect on January 1, 2014.

Up to 20 million people are expected to enroll in the new ObamaCare Exchanges, scheduled to open this fall. But many of the triggers for exploding costs are the same:

• ObamaCare health insurance must cover many more benefits than the policies most people have been purchasing, and even Health Secretary Kathleen Sebelius has admitted that this will mean higher costs.
• Higher costs will mean that more people will decide to forgo coverage, especially the young and healthy people that the individual mandate was supposed to drive into the insurance pools. They can pay a $95 fine instead of spending several thousand dollars on health insurance.
• And people have an added incentive to forgo health insurance because the law says they can wait until they are sick to buy coverage and still pay the same rates as though they had been covered all along.

This will mean that most of the people enrolled in the ObamaCare subsidized insurance pools through the Health Insurance Exchanges will be older, sicker and more expensive – just as happened with the temporary high-risk pool program.

This is a prescription for disaster. The ObamaCare Exchanges provide huge subsidies — $1 trillion over 10 years – to help people buy the expensive health insurance the law mandates. But many healthy people will find that the premiums, co-payments, and deductibles they are facing will make this insurance very unattractive.

If the ObamaCare Exchanges experience even a fraction of the excessive costs that the high-risk pools have seen, Congress will have no choice but to cut eligibility, provider payments, or subsidies.

The best thing that Congress can do right now is to delay the start of the Exchanges as more information becomes available about the costs, complications, and the administration’s experience with the Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan.

In the meantime, House Speaker John Boehner, Majority Leader Eric Cantor, and other top House Republican leaders wrote President Obama last month, asking him to support their efforts to shore up the fund.

“Republicans have historically supported high-risk pools and reinsurance programs. In fact, the House Republican alternative to PPACA provided $25 billion to aid Americans suffering from pre-existing conditions,” they wrote. They urged the president to support their efforts to move funds from other parts of the program into the pre-existing condition fund so it can continue to accept new enrollees.

An estimated 4,000 people are enrolling in the program every month. That means that an estimated 40,000 people needing coverage will be turned away before the end of the year. “With your support, we could help these Americans get the care they need,” the leaders wrote.

House leaders have offered a solid proposal that is likely to gain bi-partisan support and protects those who most need insurance should implementation of the law be postponed because the exchanges aren’t ready. There has been no word from the White House in response to their letter.

The nation’s largest movie theater chain has cut the hours of thousands of employees, saying in a company memo that ObamaCare requirements are to blame.

Regal Entertainment Group, which operates more than 500 theaters in 38 states, last month rolled back shifts for non-salaried workers to 30 hours per week, putting them under the threshold at which employers are required to provide health insurance. The Nashville-based company said in a letter to managers that the move was a direct result of ObamaCare.

“To comply with the Affordable Care Act, Regal had to increase our health care budget to cover those newly deemed eligible based on the law’s definition of a full time employee.”

- Memo sent to managers of Regal theaters

“In addition, some managers have requested guidance on what they should tell those employees negatively impacted and, at your discretion, we suggest the following,” read the memo obtained by FoxNews.com. “To comply with the Affordable Care Act, Regal had to increase our health care budget to cover those newly deemed eligible based on the law’s definition of a full-time employee.”

“To manage this budget, all other employees will be scheduled in accord with business needs and in a manner that will not negatively impact our health care budget,” the message continues.

Regal, which had revenue of $2.8 billion in 2011, is the latest company to respond this way to the Affordable Health Care Act’s requirement that employees at companies of a certain size who work more than 30 hours per week be provided health coverage. Applebee’s and Olive Garden also scaled back the hours of workers. A handful of colleges have cut hours because of the law, including Palm Beach State College in Florida and New Jersey’s Kean University. Critics say the law is boomeranging on working folks.

“If you want to have reduced work, lower wages and economic stagnation, this is a great way to do it, said Ed Haislmaier, senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation.

One Regal theater manager told FoxNews.com the move has sparked a wave of resignations from full-time managers who have seen their hours cut by 25 percent or more.

“In the last couple weeks, managers have been quitting on a daily basis from various locations to try and find full-time work,” said the manager, who asked not to be named. “Regal up until now has never restricted anyone to anything below 40 hours.”

The manager told FoxNews.com ObamaCare has had the unintended consequence of taking food off his table.

“Mandating businesses to offer health care under threat of debilitating fines does not fix a problem, it creates one,” he said. “It fosters a new business culture where 30 hours is now considered the maximum in order to avoid paying the high costs associated with this law.

“In a time where 40 hours is just getting us by, putting these kind of financial pressures on employers is a big step in a direction far beyond the reach of feasibility for not only the businesses, but for the employees who rely on their success,” he said.

Regal, which operates cinemas under the names Regal Cinemas, Edwards Theatres and United Artists Theaters and recently purchased Oregon-based Hollywood Theaters for $191 million, did not respond to repeated requests for comment from FoxNews.com. The publicly-traded company’s stock has risen nearly 30 percent over the last year.

In addition to the movie theater chain and several restaurants, the state of Virginia also rolled back the hours of all part-time employees back to 29 per week in February, with officials from the state claiming that the new mandate would cost the state tens of millions of dollars a year.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/04/15/nation-biggest-movie-theater-chain-cuts-workweek-blaming-obamacare/#ixzz2QdOg2zdt

Complied by Americans for Tax Reform

Source: Congressman Jeff Duncan (R) S.c. 3rd District

WASHINGTON, DC – Obamacare contains 20 new or higher taxes on American families and small businesses. Arranged by their respective sizes according to CBO scores, below is the total list of all $500 billion-plus in tax hikes (over the next ten years) in Obamacare, their effective dates, and where to find them in the bill.

$123 Billion: Surtax on Investment Income (Takes effect Jan. 2013): A new, 3.8 percent surtax on investment income earned in households making at least $250,000 ($200,000 single). This would result in the following top tax rates on investment income:

*Other unearned income includes (for surtax purposes) gross income from interest, annuities, royalties, net rents, and passive income in partnerships and Subchapter-S corporations.  It does not include municipal bond interest or life insurance proceeds, since those do not add to gross income.  It does not include active trade or business income, fair market value sales of ownership in pass-through entities, or distributions from retirement plans.  The 3.8% surtax does not apply to non-resident aliens. (Bill: Reconciliation Act; Page: 87-93)

$86 Billion: Hike in Medicare Payroll Tax (Takes effect Jan. 2013): Current law and changes:

$65 Billion: Individual Mandate Excise Tax and Employer Mandate Tax (Both taxes take effect Jan. 2014):

Individual: Anyone not buying “qualifying” health insurance as defined by Obama-appointed HHS bureaucrats must pay an income surtax according to the higher of the following

Employer: If an employer does not offer health coverage, and at least one employee qualifies for a health tax credit, the employer must pay an additional non-deductible tax of $2000 for all full-time employees.

Applies to all employers with 50 or more employees. If any employee actually receives coverage through the exchange, the penalty on the employer for that employee rises to $3000. If the employer requires a waiting period to enroll in coverage of 30-60 days, there is a $400 tax per employee ($600 if the period is 60 days or longer). Bill: PPACA; Page: 345-346

(Combined score of individual and employer mandate tax penalty: $65 billion)

$60.1 Billion: Tax on Health Insurers (Takes effect Jan. 2014): Annual tax on the industry imposed relative to health insurance premiums collected that year.  Phases in gradually until 2018.  Fully-imposed on firms with $50 million in profits. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,986-1,993

$32 Billion: Excise Tax on Comprehensive Health Insurance Plans (Takes effect Jan. 2018): Starting in 2018, new 40 percent excise tax on “Cadillac” health insurance plans ($10,200 single/$27,500 family).  Higher threshold ($11,500 single/$29,450 family) for early retirees and high-risk professions.  CPI +1 percentage point indexed. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,941-1,956

$23.6 Billion: “Black liquor” tax hike (Took effect in 2010) This is a tax increase on a type of bio-fuel. Bill: Reconciliation Act; Page: 105

$22.2 Billion: Tax on Innovator Drug Companies (Took effect in 2010): $2.3 billion annual tax on the industry imposed relative to share of sales made that year. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,971-1,980

$20 Billion: Tax on Medical Device Manufacturers (Takes effect Jan. 2013): Medical device manufacturers employ 360,000 people in 6000 plants across the country. This law imposes a new 2.3% excise tax.  Exempts items retailing for <$100. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,980-1,986

$15.2 Billion: High Medical Bills Tax (Takes effect Jan 1. 2013): Currently, those facing high medical expenses are allowed a deduction for medical expenses to the extent that those expenses exceed 7.5 percent of adjusted gross income (AGI).  The new provision imposes a threshold of 10 percent of AGI. Waived for 65+ taxpayers in 2013-2016 only. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,994-1,995

$13.2 Billion: Flexible Spending Account Cap – aka “Special Needs Kids Tax” (Takes effect Jan. 2013): Imposes cap on FSAs of $2500 (now unlimited).  Indexed to inflation after 2013. There is one group of FSA owners for whom this new cap will be particularly cruel and onerous: parents of special needs children.  There are thousands of families with special needs children in the United States, and many of them use FSAs to pay for special needs education.  Tuition rates at one leading school that teaches special needs children in Washington, D.C. (National Child Research Center) can easily exceed $14,000 per year. Under tax rules, FSA dollars can be used to pay for this type of special needs education. Bill: PPACA; Page: 2,388-2,389

$5 Billion: Medicine Cabinet Tax (Took effect Jan. 2011): Americans no longer able to use health savings account (HSA), flexible spending account (FSA), or health reimbursement (HRA) pre-tax dollars to purchase non-prescription, over-the-counter medicines (except insulin). Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,957-1,959

$4.5 Billion: Elimination of tax deduction for employer-provided retirement Rx drug coverage in coordination with Medicare Part D (Takes effect Jan. 2013) Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,994

$4.5 Billion: Codification of the “economic substance doctrine” (Took effect in 2010): This provision allows the IRS to disallow completely-legal tax deductions and other legal tax-minimizing plans just because the IRS deems that the action lacks “substance” and is merely intended to reduce taxes owed. Bill: Reconciliation Act; Page: 108-113

$2.7 Billion: Tax on Indoor Tanning Services (Took effect July 1, 2010): New 10 percent excise tax on Americans using indoor tanning salons. Bill: PPACA; Page: 2,397-2,399

$1.4 Billion: HSA Withdrawal Tax Hike (Took effect Jan. 2011): Increases additional tax on non-medical early withdrawals from an HSA from 10 to 20 percent, disadvantaging them relative to IRAs and other tax-advantaged accounts, which remain at 10 percent. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,959

$0.6 Billion: $500,000 Annual Executive Compensation Limit for Health Insurance Executives (Takes effect Jan. 2013): Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,995-2,000

$0.4 Billion: Blue Cross/Blue Shield Tax Hike (Took effect in 2010): The special tax deduction in current law for Blue Cross/Blue Shield companies would only be allowed if 85 percent or more of premium revenues are spent on clinical services. Bill: PPACA; Page: 2,004

$ Negligible: Excise Tax on Charitable Hospitals (Took effect in 2010): $50,000 per hospital if they fail to meet new “community health assessment needs,” “financial assistance,” and “billing and collection” rules set by HHS. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,961-1,971

$ Negligible: Employer Reporting of Insurance on W-2 (Took effect in Jan. 2012): Preamble to taxing health benefits on individual tax returns. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,957

The best way to understand the Affordable Care Act (ACA) is to realize that it confers large benefits on some people and imposes large costs on others.

If you are one of the ones who will qualify for expanded Medicaid, you will get something for nothing. Although there are quality issues and access problems, including rationing by waiting, Medicaid will probably spend $8,000 on an average family of four over the course of a year. Enrollment is like an $8,000 gift from the government.

If your income is a tad too high for Medicaid, you will get something even better. In a newly created health insurance exchange you will be able to obtain, say, a $15,000 family plan for no more than about a $600 premium. This is almost something for nothing.
Things will be very different if you have a job, however.

Consider a typical hotel. Almost everyone you see is earning about $15 to $20 an hour — the maids, the waitresses, the waiters, the busboys, the doorman, the porters, the custodians, the groundskeepers, etc. The cost of family coverage is equal to between one-third and one-half of these workers’ annual earnings. The goal of ObamaCare is to force them to obtain this insurance with no extra help from government. And this is true even if the maids are already enrolled in Medicaid!

The economic literature on this type of mandate is clear. Although government can offer people something for nothing, the labor market does not. Employee benefits are not gifts from employers. They are substitutes for money wages and other benefits. The cost of the employer mandate will surely be borne by the employees themselves.

We can be fairly certain that low-wage workers and their employers will be searching for ways to avoid the mandate. Why? If the employees were willing to spend half their income on health insurance they would have done so already. That they have not indicates they would rather spend the money on something else.

Here are some options:

Stay Small. As long as employers restrict their workforce to no more than 49 employees the mandate doesn’t apply. We are already seeing news reports of this type of response. But here is a warning: the IRS has signaled that if an individual owns, say, three separate businesses, it will treat them as one business — not three! ObamaCare will not only discourage small businesses from growing, it will discourage entrepreneurs from acquiring other businesses.

Use Part-Time Labor. Another option is to move employees to part-time status (fewer than 30 hours a week) rather than full-time. One firm I talked with, managing about 100 fast food restaurants, had an average work week of 38 hours last year. This January they shifted to an average of 25 hours. Why in January? Because in January, 2014, the IRS will employ a 12 month look back to determine whether an employee is full-time. For those who try to use part-time labor to stay under the 50 employee mark, the IRS has an answer to that strategy as well. It will count two 20-hour-a-week employees as equivalent to one full time employee in determining how many employees the firm employs.

However, even if the mandate applies, the employer does not have to offer insurance to part-timers.

Use Non-Employee Labor. Independent contractors by definition are not employees. As long as they don’t work regular hours, workers can retain their status as contractors even if they work at the employer’s establishment. The temp business is booming in anticipation of this. Another approach is to turn employees into self-incorporated businesses. As one business owner has explained, “there is almost nothing that cannot be outsourced.”

Charge Employees the Maximum Allowable Premium. This I think will be the most attractive strategy. Under the ACA, health insurance is deemed “affordable” if the employee’s premium does not exceed 9.5% of the employee’s wages.

Take an employee earning $30,000 a year. Insurance is affordable so long as the employee pays no more than $2,850. So let’s suppose the employer’s individual coverage costs $4,500. Then the employer only has to pay $1,750. He can ask the employee to pay more than half the cost. Under the law, the employer doesn’t have to contribute anything for the employee’s dependents. Let’s say the employer offers family coverage that costs $15,000. The employer can ask the employee to pay $12,150, with the employer (again) paying only $1,750. If the employee accepts the offer, the employer is only out $1,750. [Remember: the employer fine for not offering any insurance is $2,000.] If the offer is rejected, the employer is off the hook — no health insurance costs and no government fine!

To add insult to injury, the employee’s contribution will be made with after-tax dollars. This is in contrast to the employer’s offer, which if accepted will be paid with before-tax dollars.

Now here is the cruel upshot of all this. Once the employer has offered “affordable” insurance (even though it really isn’t affordable), the employee and his family are no longer entitled to a subsidy in the exchange! If they buy insurance, they have to pay the full, unsubsidized premium. Yet it’s in the self-interest of the employer to do what I have described in order to avoid a $2,000 fine.

Pay the Fine. Employers can drop health insurance coverage altogether (or never provide it in the first place) and pay a fine equal to $2,000 per employee. That’s a stiff price to pay. But it’s less than the cost of health insurance. If the employer chooses this option, the employees will be eligible for subsidized insurance in the exchange.

One reason why many employers won’t want to get out of the health insurance business altogether is that everything said here reverses for high-income employees. Someone making, say, $90,000 will never quality for Medicaid. If he goes into the exchange, he will get no subsidy. But if he gets insurance at work, the employer’s premium payments avoid a 25% income tax, a 15% payroll tax and state and local income taxes as well. ObamaCare retained the subsidies in the current tax system, under which government effectively pays almost half the cost of insurance for higher-income employees.

How can employers avoid providing health insurance to below-average wage workers while providing insurance to those who earn above the average? That will be a challenge.

John Goodman, Contributor

Market-based solutions from the Father of Health Savings Accounts.

OBAMA-articleLarge.jpg. 2012. Photograph. Http://graphics8.nytimes.com, New York.

On taxpayer-subsidized NPR’s All Things Considered on Saturday, host Laura Sullivan did a lengthy piece about the messaging of Obamacare. Despite running for eleven minutes, no one in the piece viewed Obamacare negatively.

Sullivan started out lamenting that the public was “confused” about Obamacare: “just 37 percent of people say they like the law.” She then argued that people actually do like Obamacare, since they are in favor of certain provisions. Sullivan brought in health policy correspondent Julie Rovner to explain why the public was “confused”: because “there has been a very commanding misinformation and disinformation campaign.”

After Rovner described several of Obamacare’s provisions, Sullivan described it as “good stuff” and “great.” Rovner agreed: “absolutely.”

Rovner characterized Obamacare as something “to improve the care patients get” and “to make care more efficient.” Rovner then assured listeners that Obamacare was a “step towards solving our national health care problem.”

Sullivan declared that states opting out of creating their own health care

exchanges did so “mostly on ideological grounds.” To further tilt a one-sided piece where Sullivan and Rovner were offering positive assessments of Obamacare, Sullivan then put on Texas-based Ron Cookston, director of a “health care advocacy group” called Gateway to Care. He expressed disappointment that the state of Texas is not promoting Obamacare. Sullivan insisted that as a result of Rick Perry’s choice to not expand Medicaid, more than a million poor Texans would go without health insurance.

After offering up Texas as a poor example (“advocacy groups on shoestring budgets going church to church”), Sullivan pointed to California as an exemplary state that has fully opted in Obamacare and is using $900 million from federal taxpayers to promote Obamacare, complete with a “catchy name.” To finish the piece off with additional imbalance, Sullivan spoke to the person in charge of California’s effort to promote Obamacare, Peter Lee. Sullivan left unchallenged Lee’s ludicrous description of federal taxpayer subsidies to get California’s health care exchange off the ground–”venture capital funding.”

This was yet an additional example of NPR’s All Things Considered considering only the “correct” side.

Transcript excerpts from Saturday’s piece of advocacy journalism by NPR’s Laura Sullivan (emphasis mine):

LAURA SULLIVAN: It’s hard to imagine after three years of acrimony and debate, we could still be so confused about a law. It couldn’t come at a worse time, just as the most sweeping effects of the Affordable Care Act are about to kick in. That’s our cover story today: Where exactly are we when it comes to this law, and why do we keep getting it so wrong?

[...]

Half of people don’t know whether their states are going to be setting up one of these so-called exchanges. Half of people think the law gives undocumented immigrants health care subsidies – it doesn’t. Forty percent of people still think the government is going to set up death panels – it won’t. And this was interesting. Just 37 percent of people say they like the law.

But when Kaiser asked people about specific things within the law, like providing tax credits to small businesses, insuring the sick, the overwhelming majority – 70 percent of people – say those are great ideas. I asked NPR’s health policy correspondent Julie Rovner why we are so confused.

JULIE ROVNER: I think partly because there has been a very commanding misinformation and disinformation campaign, and it has worked better than the people who are trying to put the law into effect, who have been working to put the law into effect rather than to message about it.

SULLIVAN: So what is actually happening with Obamacare right now in year three?

ROVNER: There are really three big pieces of this law. And the first part of the law has mostly taken effect, and that is the insurance reforms. And that’s what’s known, really, as this patients’ bill of rights that they tried to pass in the late 1990s. That’s things like letting adult children to stay on their parents’ plans until they turn 26, outlying annual and lifetime limits on insurance policies, and not letting health plans cancel coverage after the fact if you get sick.

SULLIVAN: And this is the good stuff. I mean, this is the stuff that most Americans, when you ask them in polls, say we love this. This is great.

ROVNER: Absolutely.

[...]

SULLIVAN: But the law gave states a chance to opt out of creating [an exchange]. And 26 states – mostly red states and mostly on ideological grounds – have done just that. It doesn’t mean the exchanges aren’t coming or that people in those states won’t have to get insured. It just means the federal government will build the exchanges for them.

[...]

SULLIVAN: Texas Governor Rick Perry has been outspoken in his opposition to Obamacare. He says it’s bad policy. And he’s rejected expanding Medicaid, which would have given health insurance to more than a million poor Texans.

RON COOKSTON: When leadership in any state talks about things in a negative way, it becomes awfully easy for the general public to sort of dismiss it.

SULLIVAN: The federal government is going to send organizations, like Cookston’s, some money to help get the word out. But Cookston says what they’re missing is a coordinating central body.

[...]

SULLIVAN: So that’s Texas at the moment – advocacy groups on shoestring budgets going church to church. Here’s what’s happening in California.

PETER LEE: Doing consumer surveys, marketing, focus groups. So come this summer, we’re going to hit the ground in a big way with messages that we know will resonate for those that speak Spanish, speak English, speak Mandarin.

SULLIVAN: That’s Peter Lee, and he’s running California’s health care effort. And the state has opted in. California is building its own exchange, giving it a catchy new name. They’ve called it Covered California. The state’s hiring thousands of people to get it off the ground, and the federal government is giving the state $900 million to do it.

LEE: So we have what we call the ground troops. We’ve issued a community-based grants program. We’ll be funding groups in communities across the state that are based in faith-based organizations, schools, unions, because we know that delivering this message needs to come from your neighbor.

SULLIVAN: About two and a half million Californians will be eligible for subsidies through Covered California, and Lee says it’s a diverse group of people.

[...]

LEE: These are states that have said, let’s get that venture capital funding from the federal government to set up an exchange that works right for our state. [...]

By John Williams | April 04, 2013 | 22:23

WASHINGTON — One of the largest health insurance companies in the United States is advising insurance brokers on how to evade new mandates and benefits set to take effect next year under President Barack Obama’s health care reform law.

In an email sent to brokers, the insurance giant Aetna explains how they can renew customers’ current health plans before Jan. 1, a strategy the Los Angeles Times reported this week is under consideration at other big health insurance companies.

Obamacare includes a number of new rules for health insurance plans that will become law at the beginning of next year, or whenever existing policies expire. By extending customers’ plans before then, health insurance companies and their customers can lock in health plans that don’t adhere to those rules for up to one more year.

Among the new rules this approach could skirt are requirements that health insurance cover a minimum set of benefits, prohibitions on turning away people with pre-existing conditions, bans on charging higher rates to sick people or to women, limitations on how much extra older people can be asked to pay, and rules against insurance companies refusing to renew policies.

The company is calling its outreach to insurance brokers “Aetna’s Premium Savings program.”

“In 2014, changes set in motion by the Affordable Care Act (ACA) may lead to dramatic increases in premiums,” says the email from Aetna, which the company verified is authentic. “By electing a fourth quarter 2013 renewal, some of your clients can achieve significant cost savings in 2014 and take time to assess their business needs for the future, without sacrificing their current coverage today.”

Along with the rest of the health insurance industry, Aetna has been sounding the alarm that the health care law will boost premiums for some people when its market reforms go into effect. The email to brokers cites “[f]actors such as essential health benefits, maximum plan deductibles, the application of new taxes and fees and new rating rules.”

The practice of renewing current health insurance plans before Jan. 1 may not be widespread. The strategy allows companies and customers a year at the most under the old rules and poses administrative challenges to health insurers, The Huffington Post reported Wednesday.

But Aetna is embracing the approach as a choice for its policyholders.

“We are working with customers and brokers to help them navigate through their options and select a benefit plan that best fits their needs,” Aetna spokeswoman Cynthia Michener wrote in an email to HuffPost. “Some individuals and small businesses will pay more for their health coverage, and others less, depending on their unique factors. The new ACA requirements also will mean some health benefit plans that customers have selected previously will not be available to them in 2014.”

Because the health care law will require new minimum benefits and other consumer protections, it may drive up health insurance premiums for some younger, healthier people who are able to buy relatively inexpensive, and sometimes skimpy, coverage in today’s marketplace. Health insurance policies that don’t meet the law’s new standards won’t be available to new customers starting next year.

A large percentage of these younger, healthier people will be eligible for subsidies that reduce what they actually pay for health insurance, but some will wind up with bigger health insurance bills in exchange for more comprehensive coverage. Older and sicker people are expected to have easier access to health insurance that may not be available or affordable under today’s rules.

Like other health insurance companies, Aetna opposed the health care reform law during congressional consideration in 2009 and 2010. In 2011, Aetna gave millions of dollars to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Tea Party-allied American Action Network to keep up the fight against Obamacare.

Concerns about health care reform aren’t dissuading the company from seeking to make money off the law, however. Aetna plans to offer products for sale on Obamacare’s health insurance exchange marketplaces, where small employers and people who don’t get health benefits at work will be able to comparison-shop for coverage and learn whether they qualify for financial assistance.

Aetna also boosted its government business last year by acquiring Coventry Health Care, an insurance company with millions of Medicare and Medicaid customers.

Read Aetna’s email to insurance brokers below:

134093366-Aetna-Email-to-Insurance-Brokers

South Carolina is one step closer to nullifying ObamaCare within the borders of the Palmetto State.

The Constitutional Law Subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee passed H3101, the Freedom of Health Care Protection Act. Within days the bill will be heard by the full Judiciary Committee of the state House of Representatives.

In an exclusive interview with The New American, the bill’s chief sponsor, State Representative William M. “Bill” Chumley, discussed his bill and its legislative future. “We’re real happy with the vote,” Chumley said. “We are confident that the full committee will pass it.”

This is a significant victory for citizens of South Carolina specifically and for the right of states to oppose unconstitutional acts of the federal government generally.

Chumley’s bill furthers this cause in its preamble. The bill’s purpose is to:

Render Null And Void Certain Unconstitutional Laws Enacted By The Congress Of The United States Taking Control Over The Health Insurance Industry And Mandating That Individuals Purchase Health Insurance Under Threat Of

Penalty; To Prohibit Certain Individuals From Enforcing Or Attempting To Enforce Such Unconstitutional Laws; And To Establish Criminal Penalties And Civil Liability For Violating This Article.

South Carolina, a state with a long history of resisting federal despotism, joins a handful of other states currently considering bills nullifying ObamaCare. State legislators in Maine, New Jersey, and Oklahoma have also had bills introduced aimed at nullifying ObamaCare.

Simply stated, nullification is a concept of constitutional law that recognizes the right of each state to nullify, or invalidate, any federal measure that exceeds the few and defined powers allowed the federal government as enumerated in the Constitution.

Nullification is founded on the assertion that the sovereign states formed the union, and as creators of the compact, they hold ultimate authority as to the limits of the power of the central government to enact laws that are applicable to the states and the citizens thereof.

In the wake of the Supreme Court’s ObamaCare decision, it is encouraging to see state legislators boldly asserting their right to restrain the federal government through application of the very powerful and very constitutional principle of nullification.

Chumley said he believes that his colleagues in the state House of Representatives will pass the bill when it comes to the floor for consideration. After that, the bill will be sent to the Senate and then on to the governor. Chumley estimates that within three weeks the bill could be taken up by the state Senate.

Nobly, Chumley declares that South Carolina is prepared to “take the hit” financially for failing to carry out federal mandates. Obedience to the federal government’s edicts is compulsory if a state expects to receive federal funds.

Additionally, Chumley realizes that a showdown with the Obama administration could be on the horizon in the aftermath of the president’s decision to ignore state laws nullifying ObamaCare and to send federal agents from the Department of Health and Human Services to forcibly execute each and every provision of ObamaCare.

The president’s proclamation is in direct opposition to the following section of the South Carolina nullifying bill:

The General Assembly declares that the federal law known as the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act”, signed by President Barack Obama on March 23, 2010, is not authorized by the Constitution of the United States and violates its true meaning and intent as given by the Founders and Ratifiers, and is invalid in this State, is not recognized by this State, is specifically rejected by this State, and is null and void and of no effect in this State.

Chumley said he and his cosponsors are prepared to resist every overreach of the federal government and stand up for the right of states to govern.

Opponents of the state bill (and of nullification in general) point to the so-called Supremacy Clause of Article VI of the Constitution to rebut the state’s claims. They argue that state laws contrary to federal laws are invalid and that federal law trumps all state attempts to legislate in territory already claimed by Congress.

This argument is easily dismissed.

The Supremacy Clause (as some wrongly call it) of Article VI does not declare that laws passed by the federal government are the supreme law of the land, period. What it says is that the “laws of the United States made in pursuance” of the Constitution are the supreme law of the land.

In pursuance thereof, not in violation thereof. None of the provisions of ObamaCare is permissible under any enumerated power given to Congress in the Constitution; therefore, they were not made in pursuance of the Constitution, and they are not the supreme law of the land.

Chumley is in good company in his concept of the enforceability of unconstitutional federal legislation.

In Federalist No. 33, Alexander Hamilton declared that any act of the federal government exceeding the limited powers granted it by the Constitution is not a law at all:

If a number of political societies enter into a larger political society, the laws which the latter may enact, pursuant to the powers intrusted [sic] to it by its constitution, must necessarily be supreme over those societies and the individuals of whom they are composed…. But it will not follow from this doctrine that acts of the larger society which are not pursuant to its constitutional powers, but which are invasions of the residuary authorities of the smaller societies, will become the supreme law of the land. These will be merely acts of usurpation, and will deserve to be treated as such. [Emphasis in original.]

Hamilton is not alone. The undeniable truth is that not a single one of our Founding Fathers, not even the most ardent advocate of a powerful central government, would have remained even one day at the Philadelphia Convention if he had believed that the government they were creating would become the instrument of tyranny that it has become.

All state legislatures have an obligation to liberty and to their citizens to follow the example of South Carolina (and other states, notably Oklahoma) and through the exercise of the 10th Amendment and their natural right to rule as sovereign entities, stop ObamaCare at the state borders by enacting state statutes nullifying the healthcare law.

The best defense of nullification is found in Thomas Jefferson’s Kentucky Resolution of 1798. In the Kentucky Resolution, Jefferson plainly points to the constitutional source of all federal power. He wrote, “That the several states who formed that instrument, being sovereign and independent, have the unquestionable right to judge of its infraction; and that a nullification, by those sovereignties, of all unauthorized acts done under colour [sic] of that instrument, is the rightful remedy.”

Representative Bill Chumley said that he will “never give up the fight” to restore states rights and to keep the federal government from consolidating all power over all aspects of life into Washington D.C. He declared that South Carolina will enforce every provision of the Constitution, including the 10th Amendment. Every issue, every time, no exceptions.

When it comes to standing up for the Constitution, “It’s all or nothing,” he added.

Joe A. Wolverton, II, J.D. is a correspondent for The New American and travels frequently nationwide speaking on topics of nullification, the NDAA, and the surveillance state. He can be reached at jwolverton@thenewamerican.com.

Michigan Rep. John Dingell, D-Ann Arbor, continues to be an excellent barometer for Obamacare’s false truths and false promises.

To Obamacare supporters’ claims that the government takeover is really a market-oriented reform, Dingell’s VIP presence at President Obama’s 2010 signing is a bracing contradiction. A longtime advocate of single-payer, socialized health care, Dingell enthusiastically embraced Obamacare’s bureaucratic, Washington’s-way-or-the-highway approach as the next best thing.

Dingell is a reliable cheerleader for the health law’s advancement these days even as the evidence shouts that the act is an unaffordable train wreck.

“Let me just say this: You ain’t seen nothing yet,” said Dingell this week from Planet Washington, joining House Minority Leader Pelosi in celebrating the third anniversary of the law’s passage. “(The America people) are going to live longer, be healthier. . . .

(The) status quo was financially unsustainable — to families, to small businesses, to big business, [and] as it’s competitiveness issue, to our national, state and local budgets and to our economy.”

On Planet Earth, the reality is different.

Quality of care? The U.S. has been Number One with the best health care access in the world. Countries with the Obamacare’s government-run model have much higher rates of cancer mortality, for example, because patients can’t get care.

Affordability? States and businesses are madly scrambling to offload their health care obligations onto the feds for fear Obamacare’s mandates will bankrupt their bottom lines. Now comes news that health care premiums are about to explode due to Obamacare.

“Health insurers are privately warning brokers that premiums for many individuals and small businesses could increase sharply next year because of the health-care overhaul law,” reports The Wall Street Journal, “with the nation’s biggest firm projecting that rates could more than double for some consumers buying their own plans. The projected increases are at odds with what the Obama Administration says consumers should be expecting overall in terms of cost.”

Oh. Other than that, Mr. Lincoln, how was the play?

Massachusetts smugly preened as the Democrats rammed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), also known as Obamacare, through Congress. But in a column published today, March 25, some of the nasty surprises of Obamacare are coming to light, particularly for small to medium-size businesses (SMBs).

Massachusetts thought that, because Obamacare was modeled on its own health insurance mandate, nothing would change. But as the column states, “Instead, local bureaucrats are learning hard lessons about the rigidity of federal regulations, even if they’re modeled on laws already in place.”

The first unpleasant surprise for small businesses is the part of Obamacare that requires a once-a-year rate-setting for small businesses. This forces health insurers to raise rates to anticipate unforseen events.

Anti-Obamacare protesters wear masks of U.S. President Barack Obama and Grim Reaper as they demonstrate in front of the U.S. Supreme Court June 28, 2012 in Washington, DC. Anti-Obamacare protesters wear masks of U.S. President Barack Obama and Grim Reaper as they demonstrate in front of the U.S. Supreme Court June 28, 2012 in Washington, DC.

In the second nasty surprise, which hits businesses between 50 and 100 employees, these SMBs are corralled into the “merged market” category with smaller companies and even individuals. This mandate forces SMBs to consider becoming self-insured, which is risky, rather than get hit with the steep rate increases about to slam small businesses.

So, after years of pressure from Gov. Deval L. Patrick to coerce insurers and hospitals to contain rates and prices, along comes Obamacare to create brand new, arbitrary cost pressures on small business.

Yet Obamacare remains the proverbial feather in the cap of Democrats, according to the column. It’s a puzzling position, given that Democrats position themselves in favor of the little guy, the mom-and-pops, the small business owners and the middle class. Who could forget the ads for U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) ads during campaign season featuring her shaking hands with small business owners? Yet there they are, championing legislation that hurts the very people they’re trying to help.

Further, with so many medical device manufacturers now facing taxes under Obamacare, medical device entrepreneurship may be stifled as well. It takes away the incentive to find new, innovative ways to treat patients and replaces it with a penalty on entrepreneurship.

Is that any way to boost the economy and help the middle class? This doesn’t sound like an Affordable Care Act. This sounds more like a Working People Penalty Act.

photo credit: Beverly & Pack via photopin cc

Alyene Senger: Remember that repetitive presidential promise to “cut the cost of a typical family’s health insurance premium by up to $2,500 a year”? As 2014 and full implementation of Obamacare get closer, it is crystal clear that won’t be the case.

Obamacare’s most onerous health insurance insurance regulations will directly cause health insurance premiums to skyrocket, particularly in the individual and small group markets.

While there are many provisions that will increase health insurance premiums, two will have the most expensive impact:

1.  Age rating restrictions. Obamacare limits variation in premium costs to a ratio of 3 to 1 based on age. But as Heritage research shows, “The natural variation by age in medical costs is about 5 to 1—meaning that the oldest group of (non-Medicare) adults normally

consumes about five times as much medical care as the youngest group.” This means that under Obamacare, young adults will pay significantly higher premiums than they would have prior to Obamacare, and older adults will pay only slightly lower premiums.

2. New benefit mandates and cost-sharing rules. Heritage expert Ed Haislmaier explains, “The new law adds a number of health care services that insurers must cover and in some cases restricts the ability of insurers and employer self-insured health plans to impose limits on the amount of services patients can consume.

This combination will drive up health plan costs and health insurance premiums for both individual insurance and employer-group coverage.” In addition, Obamacare prohibits cost sharing on many preventative services, which will dramatically increase utilization of those services—pushing premiums even higher.

There have been many different studies done over the past few years to model what health insurance premium increases are likely to be under Obamacare’s new rules. The majority staff of the House Energy and Commerce Committee worked with two Senate committee staffs to compile over 30 of them to make a list of projected premium increases by state:

CLICK IMAGE FOR LARGER DISPLAY

Many Obamacare advocates attempt to refute these health insurance premium increases by pointing to Obamacare’s generous subsidy scheme. But as the Hoover Institution’s Daniel Kessler points out, “This argument is misleading. It fails to consider that the money for the subsidies has to come from somewhere. Although debt-financed transfer payments may make insurance look cheaper, they do not change its true social cost.”

To that end, Obamacare’s exchange subsidies are estimated by the Congressional Budget Office to cost over $1.2 trillion over 10 years. And nobody should be surprised that this is an increase over the initial (2010) projected costs for these subsidies.

With the bulk of the health care law kicking in 2014, this is likely just the beginning of Obamacare’s broken promises.

BizPac Review: Tom Tillison: We have seen the future of ObamaCare and it is, well… shall we say big? As in 36DD.

“An excruciating irony of Obamacare is that its architects modeled many of its features after the UK’s National Health Service (NHS) - a classic system of socialized medicine, and a monumental failure by any objective standard,” David Catron wrote recently in the American Spectator.

And it is in merry ol’ England, where 22-year-old Josie Cunningham recently was approved for breast enhancement surgery that cost more than $7,000, and paid for entirely by taxpayers, reports Opposing Views.

Why? Because she told her General Practitioner that being flat-chested was causing her emotional distress.

“My GP referred me for the operation because I wasn’t just flat-chested — I didn’t have any boobs whatsoever,” Cunningham said. “I could never go on holiday as I lived in terror of ever being seen in a bikini and could never set foot outside without a padded bra.”

Her doctor’s prescription to counter the “emotional distress” was to enhance her breast size from a 32A to 36DD.

And it seems to have worked!

Cunningham says her new boobs have changed her life and she “can’t wait to do topless and swimsuit photo shoots and become the new Katie Price,” notes Opposing View.

“I want the world to see the new me and I want money and fame just like Katie —and my new boobs can make it all happen,” she added.

Yes, we have seen the future of Obamacare, where physicians are bound by the limits placed upon them by government and it is their creativity, or lack thereof, that ultimately determines what is required care and what is not.

photo credit: dtarpennation via photopin cc

More than half the country agrees with my view that Obamacare should be repealed. But perhaps even the rest of the public could be persuaded that delaying full implementation for at least a year — say, till January 2015 — is a good idea. Why? There are five simple reasons.

First, it would save a boatload of money, thereby greatly improving the odds of reaching a mutually acceptable budget deal. Second, the federal government isn’t ready. Third, the states aren’t ready. Fourth, employers aren’t ready. Finally, the people aren’t ready.

1) Let’s start with the federal budget. The latest CBO figures show that the net cost of coverage expansions under Obamacare in 2014 will be $41 billion. But because projected costs mushroom after that (quadrupling between 2014 and 2023), delaying implementation for one year would reduce the net costs of expansion by 12 percent over the ten-year budget window from 2014 to 2023. Now, $41 billion may seem like small potatoes in the context of the $1.2 trillion in spending cuts that were included in the sequester. But remember that the $1.2 trillion represents savings through 2021. In 2013, the sequester requires $42 billion in spending cuts, according to the CBO. Thus, saving $41 billion next year by delaying the rollout of Obamacare until 2015 would be a very big deal. Two federal-budget experts have calculated that delaying Obamacare by two years would reduce the deficit by $200 billion. This is nothing to sneeze at.

2) Kathleen Sebelius has assured the public that her agency will be ready to run health exchanges by October 1. But the reality is that only 17 states (plus the District of Columbia) have agreed to run their own exchanges. Seven states have agreed to a partnership exchange (i.e., jointly run with the federal government), and the remaining 26 states will be entirely reliant on the federal government to set up and run their exchanges. Fully 64 percent of the U.S. population lives in states where the federal government will be partially or fully responsible for running an exchange! This is a massive undertaking. Avik Roy has demonstrated, using quotes from the federal bureaucrats responsible for getting ready, that “officials in the Obama administration are worried that the rollout of the exchanges will be chaotic, given the law’s complexity and unrealistic deadlines.”

Leaving aside whether it is humanly possible to get ready on time, there are also two important unresolved wrinkles in this rollout. First, Health and Human Services never contemplated being responsible for exchanges in so many states. The funds it has available for this task fall far short of what is needed. In FY 2013, more than $1 billion in discretionary funds (i.e., funds subject to the control of Congress) are needed for implementation of the Affordable Care Act. Since Republicans have every incentive to withhold such funding in order to gain leverage for a budget deal more to their liking, it remains to be seen whether those funds will become available. One would like to think that by this time next year, these budget shenanigans will be behind us.

Furthermore, because of an apparent mistake in bill drafting, Obamacare does not permit federal subsidies to be provided in exchanges run by the federal government, a matter that is now being litigated. These income-related subsidies are a critical ingredient of making coverage affordable, especially given that Obamacare’s mandatory insurance reforms (e.g., requiring young people to pay higher premiums so that older people pay lower premiums) and health-benefits requirements (e.g., mandatory coverage of contraceptives) will drive up premiums in the small-group and individual health-insurance markets covered by the exchanges. Legal analyst Stuart Taylor has labeled this “by far the broadest and potentially most damaging of the legal challenges” to full implementation of Obamacare. Given the stakes, any decision handed down at the federal-district-court level is going to be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. But at this late date, that cannot happen until the Court’s next term. It would be best for all concerned to have this matter resolved before exchanges become operational.